[Veloce]

(05-20-2014 01:27 PM)Mormon Nailer Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:26 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 12:54 PM)InternationalPlayboy Wrote:  

http://www.globalrichlist.com/wealth

A million in assets alone is 0.5% top of the world. 3 million puts you in the top 0.15% of the world.

I was referring to American wealth. No point in comparing ourselves to 3rd world countries here...

Okay, he then cited that in America, someone worth a $1 million is in the top 1% in the US.

Which is false. In 2009 the average wealth of the top 1% was $14 million.

[TheFinalEpic]

(05-20-2014 01:28 PM)Mormon Nailer Wrote:  

What I learned from this thread:

Hollywood actors should be given honorary Phds in Economics.

Canada is a Communist dictatorship.

It's easy to make a million dollars working at McDdonald's.

1. I won't argue with point #1, you actually made me lol on that one.

2. No, I stated the fact that we are stimulating the economy through public work. Not once have I used the word communism, that was all you.

3. You completely disregard how these people are becoming millionaires. They aren't doing it based on their salaries, and if you think that, I cannot help you understand the fact that anyone can become a millionaire if they spend their money in productive ways: buy assets, have their money work to make them more money.

[Mormon Nailer]

(05-20-2014 01:39 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:27 PM)Mormon Nailer Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:26 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 12:54 PM)InternationalPlayboy Wrote:  

http://www.globalrichlist.com/wealth

A million in assets alone is 0.5% top of the world. 3 million puts you in the top 0.15% of the world.

I was referring to American wealth. No point in comparing ourselves to 3rd world countries here...

Okay, he then cited that in America, someone worth a $1 million is in the top 1% in the US.

Which is false. In 2009 the average wealth of the top 1% was $14 million.

So then what, they're in the top 15%? What's the number?

[TheFinalEpic]

You can extrapolate the data, but that would be about 0.4%

[Mormon Nailer]

Thank you, Sir.

[Sp5]

Common sense. If you take a married couple living anywhere there have been rising property prices, if they bought a house 20 years ago they are worth a lot of money.

Then you factor in IRAs or pensions. If you've invested steadily in the S&P 500 over the last 20 years, you've also had a good run.

A millionaire at age 50 just means a nice house in a good neighborhood and the accrued present value of a pension, IRA or social security. As I said the present value of my SS and military pension is about a million dollars. Does that make me a "millionaire?"

I guess the issue is, shouldn't every person who works hard and lives within their means be a millionaire by age 50? If not, why not?

[TheFinalEpic]

(05-20-2014 01:50 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Common sense. If you take a married couple living anywhere there have been rising property prices, if they bought a house 20 years ago they are worth a lot of money.

Then you factor in IRAs or pensions. If you've invested steadily in the S&P 500 over the last 20 years, you've also had a good run.

I guess the issue is, shouldn't every person who works hard and lives within their means be a millionaire by age 50? If not, why not?

They could be, but how many people can you think of that are 1. credit card debt free 2. Invest in the S&P or Dow Jones Industrials 3. Own a house outright with no residual mortgage payments?

Not too many is my guess.

[berserk]

(05-20-2014 01:37 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Macro 101:

An economy grows through demand. If people have no money to buy things, there is no demand. If there is demand, factories increase output, more people get hired, more stores open, more repairmen get hired, etc.

A rich guy can only eat so much and usually only has one, two or three cars. He might have three houses with the ovens, TVs, furniture, etc.

One rich guy is not going to stimulate as much demand as 1000, 100 or maybe even 10 middle class people.

That is why low private sector wages depress demand and why good government sector wages increase demand. The government itself also buys things and creates demand.

One problem with the USA right now is that the skew of GDP away from wages towards profits has depressed demand for goods and services. That means less growth.

1) Demand

Where do you think demand comes from? From sitting on your ass saying you want a television? SUPPLY creates demand. Someone goes out and does work, digs something up from the ground, makes a cabin out of three, makes a sword or an iphone. Then we have supply, which he can use to satisfy his demand by trading in the open market. Supply comes first, through WORK, then demand.

Lol, leftist economics is just like children thinking their parents make money materialize from the sky.

2) Consumption vs Investment

Investment through savings create growth, not consumption. Busines owners can't expand their business if they don't have liquidity and they get that from borrowing money from those who have saved that money - the 'rich'. Again, leftists have no clue about business. Let's say I make a nice little trinket in my basement. They become wildly popular. I have 1000000 orders, but I can't produce because I have no capital to build a factory. Consumption demand does fukk all if I can't get investment seeking capital, that comes from savings - from the 'rich'.

3) Private vs Public demand

Private demand is driven by market demand. It produces what people want. Public demand is driven by politics, it produces what voters (think) they want. It's the true Keyneian spending, lets hire one guy to dig a hole and then another to fill it up. See how we are all richer.

Economics 101.

[Samseau]

(05-20-2014 01:37 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Macro 101:

An economy grows through demand. If people have no money to buy things, there is no demand. If there is demand, factories increase output, more people get hired, more stores open, more repairmen get hired, etc.

A rich guy can only eat so much and usually only has one, two or three cars. He might have three houses with the ovens, TVs, furniture, etc.

One rich guy is not going to stimulate as much demand as 1000, 100 or maybe even 10 middle class people.

That is why low private sector wages depress demand and why good government sector wages increase demand. The government itself also buys things and creates demand.

One problem with the USA right now is that the skew of GDP away from wages towards profits has depressed demand for goods and services. That means less growth.

Your macro analysis forgets that people only sell what people can afford.

Thus it doesn't matter if people are only paid minimum wage. If this occurs then prices of goods and services must fall to price clearing levels or else inventory does not sell.

However, when you have artificially higher government salaries distorting the market, then companies can sell prices at levels they wouldn't be able to under free market conditions to the government classes and choke out the poorer classes.

Ergo, right now housing prices are reaching new highs despite the fact 85% of America cannot take out a loan to even buy one. Why?
Because the federal reserve artificially lowers interest rates and bails out big banks, allowing the mega rich to scoop up the housing and then rent it out to poorer classes.

This is a perfect example of how government policy distorts the market, kills the poor, and gives unfair advantages to the politically connected (bailouts for bankers, nothing for plebs).

So sparking demand is only half of the story. Demand must come organically and evenly across all income levels or else the poor will be priced out of the market while they starve to death.

However, the reason why you cannot merely give money to the poor and expect the economy to rebound is because of inflation; merely increasing the amount of money in circulation without a reciprocal increase in the volume of goods or services means that the added money into the market does not buy additional goods or services.

This is why Keynesianism is a failure and cannot ever work in the real world. This is also why government intervention in general always results in no increase of the standards of living.

[Mormon Nailer]

It's pretty hard saving tons of money if:

1. you don't work a cushy goverment job with tons of benefits and a pension. Or your rich daddy gets you a job: rare

2. You're being taxed in everything you use and consume:
a. Rent
b. income taxes
c. Sales taxes

3. Almost every price is inflated because of inflation/government intervention (via easy credit):
a. Home Prices
b. College Education
c. Healthcare Costs

[Sp5]

(05-20-2014 01:55 PM)berserk Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:37 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Macro 101:

An economy grows through demand. If people have no money to buy things, there is no demand. If there is demand, factories increase output, more people get hired, more stores open, more repairmen get hired, etc.

A rich guy can only eat so much and usually only has one, two or three cars. He might have three houses with the ovens, TVs, furniture, etc.

One rich guy is not going to stimulate as much demand as 1000, 100 or maybe even 10 middle class people.

That is why low private sector wages depress demand and why good government sector wages increase demand. The government itself also buys things and creates demand.

One problem with the USA right now is that the skew of GDP away from wages towards profits has depressed demand for goods and services. That means less growth.

1) Demand

Where do you think demand comes from? From sitting on your ass saying you want a television? SUPPLY creates demand. Someone goes out and does work, digs something up from the ground, makes a cabin out of three, makes a sword or an iphone. Then we have supply, which he can use to satisfy his demand by trading in the open market. Supply comes first, through WORK, then demand.

Lol, leftist economics is just like children thinking their parents make money materialize from the sky.

2) Consumption vs Investment

Investment through savings create growth, not consumption. Busines owners can't expand their business if they don't have liquidity and they get that from borrowing money from those who have saved that money - the 'rich'. Again, leftists have no clue about business. Let's say I make a nice little trinket in my basement. They become wildly popular. I have 1000000 orders, but I can't produce because I have no capital to build a factory. Consumption demand does fukk all if I can't get investment seeking capital, that comes from savings - from the 'rich'.

3) Private vs Public demand

Private demand is driven by market demand. It produces what people want. Public demand is driven by politics, it produces what voters (think) they want. It's the true Keyneian spending, lets hire one guy to dig a hole and then another to fill it up. See how we are all richer.

Economics 101.

It's not even debatable that "money can materialize from the sky." Of course it can.

What do you think the Fed and the ECB have been doing the last seven years or so?

They have been creating liquidity - the banks can get money from the Fed and ECB at about 0%. They were supposed to lend it out to businesses, as you say, but they are also bidding up asset prices.

It might have had a better effect if the money had just been "dropped from helicopters" as Ben Bernanke once mused about, to create consumer demand.

[Tuthmosis]

Don't use all caps in your titles. It's annoying to the reader.

[Samseau]

(05-20-2014 02:04 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:55 PM)berserk Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:37 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Macro 101:

An economy grows through demand. If people have no money to buy things, there is no demand. If there is demand, factories increase output, more people get hired, more stores open, more repairmen get hired, etc.

A rich guy can only eat so much and usually only has one, two or three cars. He might have three houses with the ovens, TVs, furniture, etc.

One rich guy is not going to stimulate as much demand as 1000, 100 or maybe even 10 middle class people.

That is why low private sector wages depress demand and why good government sector wages increase demand. The government itself also buys things and creates demand.

One problem with the USA right now is that the skew of GDP away from wages towards profits has depressed demand for goods and services. That means less growth.

1) Demand

Where do you think demand comes from? From sitting on your ass saying you want a television? SUPPLY creates demand. Someone goes out and does work, digs something up from the ground, makes a cabin out of three, makes a sword or an iphone. Then we have supply, which he can use to satisfy his demand by trading in the open market. Supply comes first, through WORK, then demand.

Lol, leftist economics is just like children thinking their parents make money materialize from the sky.

2) Consumption vs Investment

Investment through savings create growth, not consumption. Busines owners can't expand their business if they don't have liquidity and they get that from borrowing money from those who have saved that money - the 'rich'. Again, leftists have no clue about business. Let's say I make a nice little trinket in my basement. They become wildly popular. I have 1000000 orders, but I can't produce because I have no capital to build a factory. Consumption demand does fukk all if I can't get investment seeking capital, that comes from savings - from the 'rich'.

3) Private vs Public demand

Private demand is driven by market demand. It produces what people want. Public demand is driven by politics, it produces what voters (think) they want. It's the true Keyneian spending, lets hire one guy to dig a hole and then another to fill it up. See how we are all richer.

Economics 101.

It's not even debatable that "money can materialize from the sky." Of course it can.

What do you think the Fed and the ECB have been doing the last seven years or so?

They have been creating liquidity - the banks can get money from the Fed and ECB at about 0%. They were supposed to lend it out to businesses, as you say, but they are also bidding up asset prices.

It might have had a better effect if the money had just been "dropped from helicopters" as Ben Bernanke once mused about, to create consumer demand.

The Fed and ECB have been printing money and giving it out to select banks, since 2008. That's all. Easy to find out this info online, just look at who is buying at POMO's.

And again, the reason it was done this way was in order to avoid creating massive inflation. Inflation is

(Total Money Supply) x (Money Velocity) = (Totally Supply of Goods and Services)

So even though they are creating massive amounts of fresh new cash, the money is only given out to a select few who then get to spend it slowly or quickly as they want, which is why money velocity is at all time lows right now. This is how inflation is being contained.

99.9% of people do not realize this.

[Sp5]

(05-20-2014 01:58 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:37 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Macro 101:

An economy grows through demand. If people have no money to buy things, there is no demand. If there is demand, factories increase output, more people get hired, more stores open, more repairmen get hired, etc.

A rich guy can only eat so much and usually only has one, two or three cars. He might have three houses with the ovens, TVs, furniture, etc.

One rich guy is not going to stimulate as much demand as 1000, 100 or maybe even 10 middle class people.

That is why low private sector wages depress demand and why good government sector wages increase demand. The government itself also buys things and creates demand.

One problem with the USA right now is that the skew of GDP away from wages towards profits has depressed demand for goods and services. That means less growth.

Your macro analysis forgets that people only sell what people can afford.

Thus it doesn't matter if people are only paid minimum wage. If this occurs then prices of goods and services must fall to price clearing levels or else inventory does not sell.

However, when you have artificially higher government salaries distorting the market, then companies can sell prices at levels they wouldn't be able to under free market conditions to the government classes and choke out the poorer classes.

Ergo, right now housing prices are reaching new highs despite the fact 85% of America cannot take out a loan to even buy one. Why?
Because the federal reserve artificially lowers interest rates and bails out big banks, allowing the mega rich to scoop up the housing and then rent it out to poorer classes.

This is a perfect example of how government policy distorts the market, kills the poor, and gives unfair advantages to the politically connected (bailouts for bankers, nothing for plebs).

So sparking demand is only half of the story. Demand must come organically and evenly across all income levels or else the poor will be priced out of the market while they starve to death.

However, the reason why you cannot merely give money to the poor and expect the economy to rebound is because of inflation; merely increasing the amount of money in circulation without a reciprocal increase in the volume of goods or services means that the added money into the market does not buy additional goods or services.

This is why Keynesianism is a failure and cannot ever work in the real world. This is also why government intervention in general always results in no increase of the standards of living.

I agree with a lot of what you say. First, you identify low wages as a problem. Second, the Fed's intervention has cheapened credit, allowing asset prices to rise. No doubt that the Fed intervention benefitted rich more than middle and poor.

When you say government wages are artificially high, I don't know what you use as a yardstick for a labor market. Do you mean the globalized labor market including Bangladeshi sweatshop workers and Manila BPO workers? In that case, yes, maybe "artificially" high. But in the yardstick of the historical American economy, it's not government wages that are artificially high, it's private sector wages that are artificially low.

It would be better to have higher wages overall. The lack of protection for workers in the USA is proving to be something that is backfiring. It might be better to have a higher minimum wage, something Ron Unz has proposed.

The increasingly desperate existence of Americans will also cause social instability and disorder.

[Mormon Nailer]

(05-20-2014 02:07 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Don't use all caps in your titles. It's annoying to the reader.

Yessir. Roosh already PMed me. Will do. Or Won't Do, rather.

[berserk]

(05-20-2014 02:04 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:55 PM)berserk Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:37 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Macro 101:

An economy grows through demand. If people have no money to buy things, there is no demand. If there is demand, factories increase output, more people get hired, more stores open, more repairmen get hired, etc.

A rich guy can only eat so much and usually only has one, two or three cars. He might have three houses with the ovens, TVs, furniture, etc.

One rich guy is not going to stimulate as much demand as 1000, 100 or maybe even 10 middle class people.

That is why low private sector wages depress demand and why good government sector wages increase demand. The government itself also buys things and creates demand.

One problem with the USA right now is that the skew of GDP away from wages towards profits has depressed demand for goods and services. That means less growth.

1) Demand

Where do you think demand comes from? From sitting on your ass saying you want a television? SUPPLY creates demand. Someone goes out and does work, digs something up from the ground, makes a cabin out of three, makes a sword or an iphone. Then we have supply, which he can use to satisfy his demand by trading in the open market. Supply comes first, through WORK, then demand.

Lol, leftist economics is just like children thinking their parents make money materialize from the sky.

2) Consumption vs Investment

Investment through savings create growth, not consumption. Busines owners can't expand their business if they don't have liquidity and they get that from borrowing money from those who have saved that money - the 'rich'. Again, leftists have no clue about business. Let's say I make a nice little trinket in my basement. They become wildly popular. I have 1000000 orders, but I can't produce because I have no capital to build a factory. Consumption demand does fukk all if I can't get investment seeking capital, that comes from savings - from the 'rich'.

3) Private vs Public demand

Private demand is driven by market demand. It produces what people want. Public demand is driven by politics, it produces what voters (think) they want. It's the true Keyneian spending, lets hire one guy to dig a hole and then another to fill it up. See how we are all richer.

Economics 101.

It's not even debatable that "money can materialize from the sky." Of course it can.

What do you think the Fed and the ECB have been doing the last seven years or so?

They have been creating liquidity - the banks can get money from the Fed and ECB at about 0%. They were supposed to lend it out to businesses, as you say, but they are also bidding up asset prices.

It might have had a better effect if the money had just been "dropped from helicopters" as Ben Bernanke once mused about, to create consumer demand.

You're right because money is not value and value is not money. Again something most people fail to understand.

Yes, certainly if sheets of paper dropped from the sky everything would be great. It worked fantastic in the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe.

I need to leave this thread before I get high blood pressure. There is only so much Keynesian bs I can take.

[Samseau]

(05-20-2014 02:15 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:58 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:37 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Macro 101:

An economy grows through demand. If people have no money to buy things, there is no demand. If there is demand, factories increase output, more people get hired, more stores open, more repairmen get hired, etc.

A rich guy can only eat so much and usually only has one, two or three cars. He might have three houses with the ovens, TVs, furniture, etc.

One rich guy is not going to stimulate as much demand as 1000, 100 or maybe even 10 middle class people.

That is why low private sector wages depress demand and why good government sector wages increase demand. The government itself also buys things and creates demand.

One problem with the USA right now is that the skew of GDP away from wages towards profits has depressed demand for goods and services. That means less growth.

Your macro analysis forgets that people only sell what people can afford.

Thus it doesn't matter if people are only paid minimum wage. If this occurs then prices of goods and services must fall to price clearing levels or else inventory does not sell.

However, when you have artificially higher government salaries distorting the market, then companies can sell prices at levels they wouldn't be able to under free market conditions to the government classes and choke out the poorer classes.

Ergo, right now housing prices are reaching new highs despite the fact 85% of America cannot take out a loan to even buy one. Why?
Because the federal reserve artificially lowers interest rates and bails out big banks, allowing the mega rich to scoop up the housing and then rent it out to poorer classes.

This is a perfect example of how government policy distorts the market, kills the poor, and gives unfair advantages to the politically connected (bailouts for bankers, nothing for plebs).

So sparking demand is only half of the story. Demand must come organically and evenly across all income levels or else the poor will be priced out of the market while they starve to death.

However, the reason why you cannot merely give money to the poor and expect the economy to rebound is because of inflation; merely increasing the amount of money in circulation without a reciprocal increase in the volume of goods or services means that the added money into the market does not buy additional goods or services.

This is why Keynesianism is a failure and cannot ever work in the real world. This is also why government intervention in general always results in no increase of the standards of living.

I agree with a lot of what you say. First, you identify low wages as a problem. Second, the Fed's intervention has cheapened credit, allowing asset prices to rise. No doubt that the Fed intervention benefitted rich more than middle and poor.

When you say government wages are artificially high, I don't know what you use as a yardstick for a labor market. Do you mean the globalized labor market including Bangladeshi sweatshop workers and Manila BPO workers? In that case, yes, maybe "artificially" high. But in the yardstick of the historical American economy, it's not government wages that are artificially high, it's private sector wages that are artificially low.

It would be better to have higher wages overall. The lack of protection for workers in the USA is proving to be something that is backfiring. It might be better to have a higher minimum wage, something Ron Unz has proposed.

The increasingly desperate existence of Americans will also cause social instability and disorder.

Government wages are not affected by the price signaling mechanisms of the free market so in times of recession, when deflation would normally occur, government wages remain at old levels and thus create an elite class of higher wages relative to the rest of the economy.

The only way America can recover right now is if it goes through an intense period of deflation so prices fall to market clearing levels, and people can start to buy houses, start new businesses, and hire employees again.

Until that happens, it's going to be stagflation, misery, and welfare checks until the country goes broke.

[speakeasy]

(05-20-2014 01:16 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Get real Canadians, the only reason your socialism hasn't consumed itself yet is because you don't have as many dependents as the USA nor do you have a large expensive military to pay for.

Don't worry though, you're going down the path to insolvency like everyone else. Once America goes broke and Americans start flooding your boarders we'll see how well your socialism holds up.

Damn, you sound like a hater. Just rooting for Canada's fall so you can prove a point. Are you also rooting for the EU nations and Australia to fall as well?

[Samseau]

(05-20-2014 02:38 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:16 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Get real Canadians, the only reason your socialism hasn't consumed itself yet is because you don't have as many dependents as the USA nor do you have a large expensive military to pay for.

Don't worry though, you're going down the path to insolvency like everyone else. Once America goes broke and Americans start flooding your boarders we'll see how well your socialism holds up.

Damn, you sound like a hater. Just rooting for Canada's fall so you can prove a point. Are you also rooting for the EU nations and Australia to fall as well?

Were the critics of the USSR haters too? Socialistic systems consume more than they produce, because they distort the price mechanisms of the free market, so they always fail in the long run due to inefficiencies.

And this critique doesn't even mention the terrible cultural consequences of socialism, creating entitlement, laziness, and a decline of innovative skills.

[Mormon Nailer]

(05-20-2014 02:38 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:16 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Get real Canadians, the only reason your socialism hasn't consumed itself yet is because you don't have as many dependents as the USA nor do you have a large expensive military to pay for.

Don't worry though, you're going down the path to insolvency like everyone else. Once America goes broke and Americans start flooding your boarders we'll see how well your socialism holds up.

Damn, you sound like a hater. Just rooting for Canada's fall so you can prove a point. Are you also rooting for the EU nations and Australia to fall as well?

The EU is falling. Australia is doing much better because they're keeping third-world immigrants from leaching off their social programs. They're exiling many of them out into Papua New Guinea.

[InternationalPlayboy]

(05-20-2014 01:19 PM)TheFinalEpic Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:16 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Get real Canadians, the only reason your socialism hasn't consumed itself yet is because you don't have as many dependents as the USA nor do you have a large expensive military to pay for.

Don't worry though, you're going down the path to insolvency like everyone else. Once America goes broke and Americans start flooding your boarders we'll see how well your socialism holds up.

You guys spend more on your military than the next 25 countries combined, are you preparing for an alien invasion? Because no country or combined countries on this planet would have the balls to go against that.

Edit: Your "leftist" is more my central.

I personally think we at the minimum should cut out most of the army, having enough to defend our borders. Naval / Air Force contracts need to be done in a market efficient way, not the crappy system we have now where billions of dollars in over budgets are killing us. We don't need the most advanced fighter planes, most of the threats today come from 3rd world countries who have antiquated anti-aircraft systems.

How about having Europe contribute to their own self defense. Russia would never bother to invade the USA. Canada gets to freeload since they have alaska, the seas, and the mainland surrounding them. Add the fact that illegal immigration is almost nilch and its an easy thing not to screw up... yet look at toronto.

[speakeasy]

(05-20-2014 02:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 02:38 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:16 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Get real Canadians, the only reason your socialism hasn't consumed itself yet is because you don't have as many dependents as the USA nor do you have a large expensive military to pay for.

Don't worry though, you're going down the path to insolvency like everyone else. Once America goes broke and Americans start flooding your boarders we'll see how well your socialism holds up.

Damn, you sound like a hater. Just rooting for Canada's fall so you can prove a point. Are you also rooting for the EU nations and Australia to fall as well?

Were the critics of the USSR haters too? Socialistic systems consume more than they produce, because they distort the price mechanisms of the free market, so they always fail in the long run due to inefficiencies.

And this critique doesn't even mention the terrible cultural consequences of socialism, creating entitlement, laziness, and a decline of innovative skills.

Does China consume more than it produces? Seems like they produce a hell of a lot to me, namely practically everything we purchase. Didn't they just surpass the U.S. as the largest economy? Is Germany failing? Is Australia failing? Their economy is on fire. They are certainly more socialistic than the U.S. Is Scandinavia's economy failing? And how are these places distorting the price mechanisms of the free-market? Communist countries control the prices of goods. You are conflating communism with socialism. Socialism means a a wide safety net, things like universal health coverage and unemployment insurance and providing for disabled and elderly. It has nothing to do with setting the price of anything in the marketplace. Germany is more socialist than the USA, are they not innovative? On a per capita basis, they beat us in new patents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intel...Indicators

Believe it or not, Samseau, a decade ago I had opinions identical to yours. I would go on forums full of liberals basically arguing the same things you do point for point. And I felt like I was enlightening them. I then later came to realize that many of these "socialist" countries I was demonizing were every bit as productive as this one was, with less inequality, higher standard of living, better health care, better education and unemployment rates no worse than here. Falling back on a bunch of Bill O'Reilly style talking points was no substitute for looking at reality in other places.

[Mormon Nailer]

(05-20-2014 02:55 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 02:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 02:38 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:16 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Get real Canadians, the only reason your socialism hasn't consumed itself yet is because you don't have as many dependents as the USA nor do you have a large expensive military to pay for.

Don't worry though, you're going down the path to insolvency like everyone else. Once America goes broke and Americans start flooding your boarders we'll see how well your socialism holds up.

Damn, you sound like a hater. Just rooting for Canada's fall so you can prove a point. Are you also rooting for the EU nations and Australia to fall as well?

Were the critics of the USSR haters too? Socialistic systems consume more than they produce, because they distort the price mechanisms of the free market, so they always fail in the long run due to inefficiencies.

And this critique doesn't even mention the terrible cultural consequences of socialism, creating entitlement, laziness, and a decline of innovative skills.

Does China consume more than it produces? Seems like they produce a hell of a lot to me, namely practically everything we purchase. Didn't they just surpass the U.S. as the largest economy? Is Germany failing? Is Australia failing? Their economy is on fire. They are certainly more socialistic than the U.S. Is Scandinavia's economy failing? And how are these places distorting the price mechanisms of the free-market? Communist countries control the prices of goods. You are conflating communism with socialism. Socialism means a a wide safety net, things like universal health coverage and unemployment insurance and providing for disabled and elderly. It has nothing to do with setting the price of anything in the marketplace. Germany is more socialist than the USA, are they not innovative? On a per capita basis, they beat us in new patents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intel...Indicators

Believe it or not, Samseau, a decade ago I had opinions identical to yours. I would go on forums full of liberals basically arguing the same things you do point for point. And I felt like I was enlightening them. I then later came to realize that many of these "socialist" countries I was demonizing were every bit as productive as this one was, with less inequality, higher standard of living, better health care, better education and unemployment rates no worse than here. Falling back on a bunch of Bill O'Reilly style talking points was no substitute for looking at reality in other places.

The Chinese practice a lot of Capitalism. It's the only reason why they're still around and thriving in some ways. True Communism leads to shit. The USSR refused to do things some things capitalistically, as did many other Commie countries, and they're all mostly gone now.

[Sp5]

(05-20-2014 02:31 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Government wages are not affected by the price signaling mechanisms of the free market so in times of recession, when deflation would normally occur, government wages remain at old levels and thus create an elite class of higher wages relative to the rest of the economy.

The only way America can recover right now is if it goes through an intense period of deflation so prices fall to market clearing levels, and people can start to buy houses, start new businesses, and hire employees again.

Until that happens, it's going to be stagflation, misery, and welfare checks until the country goes broke.

"The price signalling mechanisms of the free market" include the wages of Bangladeshi coolies and Manila call center workers now. That is the problem.

Unless you are OK with US wages falling to near-Bangladeshi levels, some government intervention will be needed.

[Samseau]

(05-20-2014 03:06 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 02:31 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Government wages are not affected by the price signaling mechanisms of the free market so in times of recession, when deflation would normally occur, government wages remain at old levels and thus create an elite class of higher wages relative to the rest of the economy.

The only way America can recover right now is if it goes through an intense period of deflation so prices fall to market clearing levels, and people can start to buy houses, start new businesses, and hire employees again.

Until that happens, it's going to be stagflation, misery, and welfare checks until the country goes broke.

"The price signalling mechanisms of the free market" include the wages of Bangladeshi coolies and Manila call center workers now. That is the problem.

Unless you are OK with US wages falling to near-Bangladeshi levels, some government intervention will be needed.

Unlike most libertarians, I am A-OK with tariffs in many situations.