patrick.net

Strategist says

Oops. There is no hope for you, Dan. None at all. :(

This is exactly why I say you treat economics like a religion. Everything you believe about it is dogma. Empirical evidence and mathematics are irrelevant to you.

joeyjojojunior says

I don't care about moral or fair or injustice. I want a system that allows the economy to grow and function as well as possible. Pure capitalism with no regulation and checks to redistribute wealth will always lead to high inequality with an owner class and serfs. Then civil unrest. This is not ideal.

WTF? Where has "pure unregulated capitalism" ever been practiced in the world? Stop making stuff up tatupu.

Market based capitalism under sovereign citizens and governments has taken place and it was responsible for raising more people out of poverty in the history of the planet.

"Market based capitalism under sovereign citizens and governments has taken place and it was responsible for raising more people out of poverty in the history of the planet."

I agree. Capitalism with the right regulations works great.

Goran_K says

Market based capitalism under sovereign citizens and governments has taken place and it was responsible for raising more people out of poverty in the history of the planet.

Hey, it is not about poverty. In the end, it is about our country and our economy. Because our tax revenue is dwindling, the school gets the budget cuts. And they can't offer the services to the kids who need it. What happens if we don't educate kids? We get bunch of losers. What happens to the country if there is nothing but a bunch of losers? Our saving grace is the foreigners. They come here, take our jobs, and take the seat at our prestigious colleges.

This graph makes sense that 1% wants you to stay where you are at. They don't want you to flourish or get the equal chance, so they can continue to suck the life blood out of you. What good of parasite are you if you kill your host? A good parasite is that one that doesn't kill the host with poverty but one that keeps the host barely alive. After all, you don't want the host to overtake you and kill you. That is why the middle class is disappearing fast.

Nobody says

This graph makes sense that 1% wants you to stay where you are at. They don't want you to flourish or get the equal chance, so they can continue to suck the life blood out of you. What good of parasite are you if you kill your host? A good parasite is that one that doesn't kill the host with poverty but one that keeps the host barely alive. After all, you don't want the host to overtake you and kill you. That is why the middle class is disappearing fast.

I'm a multi-millionaire. How is the 1% hurting me?

joeyjojojunior says

I agree. Capitalism with the right regulations works great.

Yes. You see how poverty fell drastically while the overall tax burden in the U.S fell?

"Yes. You see how poverty fell drastically while the overall tax burden in the U.S fell?"

No I don't, because you didn't show that.

joeyjojojunior says

No I don't, because you didn't show that.

Uh we've been discussing this for like 20 post. Remember, "I want the 1950s back"?

Goran_K says

This is BS. You can bet it counts a subsistence farmer (earning $0) as absolute poverty while a worker in a Nike shoe factory earning $3 a day is not in absolute poverty.
The type of self serving BS we came to expect from the establishment economists.

Strategist says

What do you call Canada, Japan, West Germany, Australia, France, and......ROFLOL......China huh? Losers??

I call them countries that practice democracy and capitalism.

The last president of France, Francois Hollande, was a socialist. He would call himself a socialist and be called a socialist by most people in the US.

Heraclitusstudent says

This is BS. You can bet it counts a subsistence farmer (earning $0) as absolute poverty while a worker in a Nike shoe factory earning $3 a day is not in absolute poverty.

The type of self serving BS we came to expect from the establishment economists.

Heraclitusstudent says

This is BS. You can bet it counts a subsistence farmer (earning $0) as absolute poverty while a worker in a Nike shoe factory earning $3 a day is not in absolute poverty.

The type of self serving BS we came to expect from the establishment economists.

It's not BS. You should see the graphs for access to clean water (due to new clean water tech), caloric intake (due to food cost being reduced), and access to education (because of the growth of the internet). They show corresponding rises.

That's capitalism at work.

Nobody says

This graph makes sense that 1% wants you to stay where you are at. They don't want you to flourish or get the equal chance, so they can continue to suck the life blood out of you. What good of parasite are you if you kill your host?

Look at the graph again. If the 1% continue to suck the life blood out of the rest, how do you account for falling poverty rates?
The poor in the US never had it so good. They have products only the rich could afford at one time...Cars, appliances, airline travel, cell phones, etc. Even kings 200 years ago did not have these luxuries.

The graph is for the world, not the US.

joeyjojojunior says

The graph is for the world, not the US.

The "poor" in the World have never had it so good either. They have more access to daily needs, and necessities than at any point in human history.

Thank you Capitalism.

Strategist says

Look at the graph again. If the 1% continue to suck the life blood out of the rest, how do you account for falling poverty rates?

The poor in the US never had it so good. They have products only the rich could afford at one time...Cars, appliances, airline travel, cell phones, etc. Even kings 200 years ago did not have these luxuries.

Not to mention the sheer amount of diseases that have been eliminated, the increase in average caloric intake, and the increase in life expectancy. 100 years ago, the flu could kill 100,000 people, and it wouldn't make the news. Now a poor child in Sudan can contract malaria and received treatment in the same hour after symptoms start showing.

The poor are more well fed, and less sick than in the previous 200 years, since the industrial revolution.

Again, thanks Capitalism.

joeyjojojunior says

The graph is for the world, not the US.

Go ahead....pick one....
https://www.google.com/search?q=us+poverty+rate+by+year+chart&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiww4TPz8_UAhUZ3YMKHXMpDeQQsAQINA&biw=1279&bih=647#imgrc=yHey3BrOFsh3rM:

Goran_K says

The poor are more well fed, and less sick than in the previous 200 years, since the industrial revolution.

They eat "Cake" all day long. Look how fat they are?
Who ever thought the words of Mary Antoinette would actually come true. Sadly the socialists still want to guillotine the 1%.

Strategist says

The poor villagers in China make a lot more in an Apple factory, than working in their villages.

If they have negative cashflow and killing their health how is better than working a village?

Goran_K says

Redistribution in all forms is theft

I’m all for capitalism, but I suspect the current strain of it is a simple case of race to the bottom.
In the US the current expansion is powered by rapid assets inflation (housing prices) - wealth effect - coupled with a boot on the head of the poor, including the next generation (you know, the one supposed to buy houses, one day).
In China, production may be lost to automation or cheaper countries, infrastructure investment was already pushed too far, and the country may fall back before most Chinese get a taste of the consumption side of the equation (which is supposed to power end-demand).
The world economy equation is balanced based on transient factors.

The key problem remains simple: in a world where the need for labor will shrink and the population of poor people soar, how do you make money circulate without redistribution.
Hoarding = accumulation points mean THE MONEY DOESN’T CIRCULATE. The world is far poorer than it could be based on what we know we could produce.

Heraclitusstudent says

The key problem remains simple: in a world where the need for labor will shrink and the population of poor people soar, how do you make money circulate without redistribution.

Hoarding = accumulation points mean THE MONEY DOESN’T CIRCULATE.

I've heard this point before, people go on rants about money velocity, and how lower money velocity is bad for the economy (it generally is), and how taxing the wealthy will solve the problem so the money can be redistributed via Bernie Sanders unicorns.

But that is also bad because it causes capital flight, and still works to "slow" the economy.

The real solution is to stop deficit spending. Increasing debt actually has the net effect of reducing M1/M2. So guys like Bernie would actually make things much, much worse.

Let's look at government spending over the past few decades:

Now see vM1:

Now M2:

Government is horrible at everything, in general.

Goran_K says

It's more accurately a $1000 iphone (I believe the iPhone 7 retails for $899 in the highest trim level + tax).

Why cheaper functional equivalents are not considered? It's like arguing that Louis Vuitton workers are so poor they can't afford a bag, because they can't afford LV bag. If our own government allows steak/burger substitution when calculating cost of living increase, why are we specifically sticking to iPhone?

Goran_K says

The real solution is to stop deficit spending.

Which would immediately shrink the economy by like a $trillion.

Goran_K says

Government is horrible at everything, in general.

Except thing like sending a man on the moon.

Goran_K says

But that is also bad because it causes capital flight

You mentioned France that has a rate of like 70+%.
Why didn't the rich flee the US in the 50s?

Heraclitusstudent says

Except thing like sending a man on the moon.

And who the fuck needed that?

Heraclitusstudent says

You mentioned France that has a rate of like 70+%.

Why didn't the rich flee the US in the 50s?

Where to?

Straw Man says

Where to?

Exactly.

I don't think people appreciate just how badly the rest of the world suffered during WW2, and how relatively undamaged the U.S came out of it. The U.S was the only power in the West that came out with its industries completely intact, not only intact, but much more expanded than pre-war. The U.S enjoyed economic Hegemony for nearly 40 years afterwards.

Britain was mired in debt, and it cost Churchill his leadership.

Europe was in shambles.

Asia was completely war torn from from the edge of Iran to the Sea of Japan.

South America was still recovering from the effects of colonialism.

The U.S was basically the only player in town for decades afterwards.

Right, there was no Switzerland, no Monaco, no Caribbeans. You guys are a bit naive.

Straw Man says

And who the fuck needed that?

The gov did it or not? Did the gov achieved nuclear weapons? Did the gov planned and completed the invasion of Europe in WW2?
Memes like "governments can't do anything right" are too simplistic and crude to be useful.

Let's project the trend here:
Let's say there is only one company left, equipped with robots doing everything in the world cheaper and better than anyone else.
Let's say there is only one guy at the top getting 100% of the benefits.
Would you say then that redistribution is theft?

Heraclitusstudent says

Right, there was no Switzerland, no Monaco, no Caribbeans

Rich Americans would leave a stable economic hegemony for Switzerland, Monaco or the Caribbean? Why would they do that?

Heraclitusstudent says

Let's project the trend here:

Let's say there is only one company left, equipped with robots doing everything in the world cheaper and better than anyone else.

Let's say there is only one guy at the top getting 100% of the benefits.

Would you say then that redistribution is theft?

Who is programming and fixing those robots?

Why can't anyone else start a company with better robots?

If robots can do everything for humans, why would we need redistribution or wealth at all?

No hope for you Dan

Goran_K says

Rich Americans would leave a stable economic hegemony for Switzerland, Monaco or the Caribbean? Why would they do that?

To not pay exorbitant taxes?

Goran_K says

Who is programming and fixing those robots?

Why can't anyone else start a company with better robots?

If robots can do everything for humans, why would we need redistribution or wealth at all?

- other robots
- no because the things needed are provided only by this company and you would need to have money too, which you have no place to earn.
- because 1 human is getting 100% of the production.

Heraclitusstudent says

To not pay exorbitant taxes?

So they would move to one of the most prohibitively expensive areas to live in the world to "save money"?

That logic doesn't make sense to me.

Heraclitusstudent says

- other robots

- no because the things needed are provided only by this company and you would need to have money too, which you have no place to earn.

- because 1 human is getting 100% of the production.

So who would force this all powerful demi-god to redistribute his wealth? He owns 100% of all production backed by a powerful army of robots.

Even if you wanted to redistribute his wealth, you would be at his personal whim on the decision.

Heraclitusstudent says

Straw Man says

And who the fuck needed that?

The gov did it or not?

But was it a right thing to do in the grant scheme of things? Most of the things you listed as "great achievements" (heavy rockets, nukes and heroic beachhead landings) are simply mopping up of earlier government fuckups.

FortWayne says

No hope for you Dan

You don't need hope when you have knowledge and intelligence.

There's your other problems Dan. You reason from bias, not from knowledge

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

No hope for you Dan

You don't need hope when you have knowledge and intelligence.

Goran_K says

So who would force this all powerful demi-god to redistribute his wealth? He owns 100% of all production backed by a powerful army of robots.

Yeah, ask yourself do you really want that situation? This is just projecting the current trend.
We’re not down to one plutocrat, but you are already at the mercy of the existing plutocrats:
As long as they can easily convince enough gullible sheeple that redistribution’s theft.
And as long as they don’t realize that sometime you have to sow to harvest later on.

Straw Man says

But was it a right thing to do in the grant scheme of things? Most of the things you listed as "great achievements" (heavy rockets, nukes and heroic beachhead landings) are simply mopping up of earlier government fuckups.

Your point was that the gov can't do anything. Case in point, it can.
You can split hair forever on whether this was or wasn't a good idea. We could say the same about Facebook. Was a massive private surveillance/propaganda apparatus a good idea? Uh....