Globalization by deepgirl187

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Your "One manufacturer" simplification has the problem I have pointed out to you 3 times already.

I don't want this discussion to degenerate into snark, so let me try this again because its' clear that you're not understanding my point (which has nothing to do with monopolization). IF you were to take all manufacturers and consider them as a whole (aggregate) then as a whole they have skimmed off some percentage of the available money supply as "profit". Their workers have that much less money to "buy stuff with". So now, the business is tryng to decide what to do with that profit.

What would YOU do?

BTW- Have you read Keynes? He was the one who identified this conundrum (and it IS a conundrum!) and figured out a solution.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 12:46 PM

LEADB

So, these profits Sig, are they sitting as actual Cash in mattresses, or perhaps the business has put the money in a bank, CD, stocks....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Your "One manufacturer" simplification has the problem I have pointed out to you 3 times already.
I don't want this discussion to degenerate into snark, so let me try this again. IF you were to take all manufacturers and consider them as a whole (aggregate) then as a whole they have skimmed off some percentage of the available money supply as "profit". Their workers have that much less money to "buy stuff with". So now, the business is tryng to decide what to do with that profit.

What would YOU do?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Invest that money in new product development/ buy new machines/ pay dividends/ try to undercut my competitor or buy him out/ diversify into other businesses.

That is your problem. When you aggrigate all businesses you are then considering them a single entity. As such you are discounting that a significant part of any company's activity is competition with rivals. That is what they spend money on that is the mechanism that drives capitalism. If you say that a precondition is that these things are to be considered one entity and discount any competition then you have just discribed Stalinism not capitalism. And yes it doesnt work.

Let's cut the analogy stuff completely because it simply doesnt work for you. The feeling I get is that you view company profits as some kind of economic drag. If you do that then so are workers wages. In both cases they are rewards for having done work. No profit means no investment and nobody makes anything. No wages mean no workforce and nobody makes anything.

The thing you fail to recognise is that like wages profits get spent as income, either by the company itself or by it's shareholders and that they buy stuff in the same way the worker buys stuff. If both spend $1 they would generate equal amounts of economic activity.

You are still locked into this vision that profits equals fat cats lighting cigars with $100 bills. In most cases those profits make sure you have a job next week ( don't know who you work for but unless it's a government job your company is doing it for profit and if they didnt make money doing it you would be out of a job.) Those profits grow the business, they pay pensions, they pay taxes.

Want Universal healthcare Siggy? Want a decent education standard for your kids? You better hope that folks keep making profits because at the end of the day profits from a strong economy pays for all of that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 1:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fletch2, you are (again) entirely misdunderstanding my point, which is not to paint corporateers and businessmen as fatcats lighting ciagrs with $100 bills, but simply to follow the flow of money.

Okay, I spend my profits on better machines which means that I can lay off a third of my 100 workers. So for the several months that I install and debug the machines I have an extra five guys on-board, and then after that and for the forseeable future I employ only 67 people. So now I've reduced the potential market even further.

Now what?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 1:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch2, you are (again) entirely misdunderstanding my point, which is not to paint corporateers and businessmen as fatcats lighting ciagrs with $100 bills, but simply to follow the flow of money.

Okay, I spend my profits on better machines which means that I can lay off a third of my 100 workers. So for the several months that I install and debug the machines I have an extra five guys on-board, and then after that and for the forseeable future I employ only 67 people. So now I've reduced the potential market even further.

Now what?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Now I cut price and expand my market share, or I hire 100 people to develop my new killer product, or I open a second line to make more. Or I invest in that new startup that hires 120 new people or...

Making money is not about screwing workers and cutting costs. You have to develop products to stay ahead. You have to be able to increase demand and meet it. Cost cutting comes on a downturn in an economic cycle. During an uptick you are so desperate to make money while you can that you hire people.

Laying folks off and THEN spending the "several months" to automate? This guy is making dumb decisions because he's desperate not because he's greedy. Think of all the profit he has lost? The only explanation is that he closed a line that was unprofitable anyway and was then trying to reopen it with new technology.

The funny thing. I come from a country that has a real working class, real class division and really militant trade unions and I have never heard class hatred like I hear from you. Companies exist to make profits, the fact that they employ people to do that is a side effect not their reason for existance. As a worker you find the best deal you can with the company that treats you best and you move on if you don't like them.

Profit IS the point everything else is just great and lucky. You need a European to tell you this?

BP massive profits. Love it, my pension fund is heavily invested, that's security for my dotage. All that lovely money going to the NHS thanks to corporate taxes? Means if I got sick I don't have to worry about paying for it.

Lovely jubbly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 1:30 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Now I cut price and expand my market share

So my market SHARE goes up. Good for me! But those laid-off people cannot afford my product no matter how low the price, because they're not working. So the total market has declined. I have more profits. What do I do with that?

BTW, my businessman did not lay off and "then" autmate. What I said was

Quote:
So for the several months that I install and debug the machines I have an extra five guys on-board

Which makes 105

Quote:
and then after that and for the forseeable future I employ only 67 people.

BTW- Have you EVER read Keynes? Seems not.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 1:34 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The funny thing. I come from a country that has a real working class, real class division and really militant trade unions and I have never heard class hatred like I hear from you.

Not class hatrd. Economic analysis

Quote:
Companies exist to make profits, the fact that they employ people to do that is a side effect not their reason for existance

I'm getting there, don't rush me.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 1:39 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, to continue the analysis:

So now, I'm ahead of the pack. I have a bigger market share, and more profits. Meanwhile, the competition is not sitting still. Factory B has invested in even better technology. They can operate with only 50 workers. Factory C has wrested a 55% wage and benefits concession from THEIR employees. Now, everyones' prices have gone down, but so has the consumer market.

Does this sound like a downward spiral? It should because it is. It's the genesis of a classic depression. Which is a FACT of economic life under capitalism. It's not an unresolveable conundrum, however, and Keynes had quite a clever dodge around the problem. I wonder if Fletch2 can follow his reasoning.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 1:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

BTW- Have you EVER read Keynes? Seems not.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Yes I have, and I knew you had when you thought that using "aggrigate" made you sound like a REAL grown up economist. Pity that like all economic theories his was imperfect.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 1:56 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"Imperfect". Yes, all theories are imperfect to some extent, but Keynes had considerable insight into the flow of money. And I see you haven't refuted the argument so far.

So, the dodge that Keynes came up with- and the lever that the Fed STILL uses to this day- is to increase the money supply. As money gets skimmed off into various pursuits, many of which reduce the amount of money that "folks" have to purchase "things" with, it is replaced with more money. The "dodge" is inflation. And this policy is all based on Keynes' "imperfect" theory. (Perhaps you never understood the genesis of the Fed's "monetary" policy. Now you know.)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 2:07 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FROM TODAY'S CNN MONEY

Gap between rich, poor seen growing

Quote:
Income disparity reaches highest since 1920s, paper reports

Citing Internal Revenue Service data, the Wall Street Journal reported that the wealthiest 1 percent of all Americans earned 21.2 percent of all the nation's income in 2005, up from the previous high of 20.8 percent in 2000. Conversely, the bottom half of working Americans earned just 12.8 percent of all the nation's income, down from 13.4 percent in 2004 and slightly lower than 13 percent in 2000.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/12/news/economy/income/index.htm?postvers
ion=2007101209
The point is not... OH, THE POOR!!! The point is that as MOST people get poorer, they are less and less able to "buy things". And they way capitalism works, that is they way money flows: upwards.

You might look at this and think: Don't capitalists understand that unrestrained greed kills the goose that lays the golden eggs? That economic activity depends on the movement of capital (like flowing water) and once all the water is damned up you can no longer get useful work out of it? My guess is: apparently not.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 2:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, to continue the analysis:

So now, I'm ahead of the pack. I have a bigger market share, and more profits. Meanwhile, the competition is not sitting still. Factory B has invested in even better technology. They can operate with only 50 workers. Factory C has wrested a 55% wage and benefits concession from THEIR employees. Now, everyones' prices have gone down, but so has the consumer market.

If we are going to discuss debunked economic theories can I do Merchantilism? Because at least that has gunboat diplomacy and wouldn't be so boring.

Here's the problem with your analysis. Like your entire theis to date it relies on a static state theory, that you change one thing and nothing else changes. So let's look at that.

In truth labour is cheap and equipment is expensive. I have to invest in equipment I have to put cash down in front of seeing any real profit. Even if I automate a whole line rejigging that line is expensive. In reality the only people that ever invested time in huge scale industrial automation where the Japanese and that was because the cost of workers wages made it economic.

I may not be an economist but industrial automation is one thing I'm qualified in. Back in the early 1980's it seemed that what you are saying would be true. The fact I am not in that business now tells you how well that worked out.

If you look the world is not full of robot factories in the US it's full of factories with cheap workers in the developing world. In all cases the cheaper human is the better bet.

Ironically BTW it would be better for the local economy to have your 68 folks in Anytown USA on a semiautomated line than to have 120 or 200 folks doing the same job in China.

But that's an aside. People are a limited resource. Provided they are willing to retrain and move into new areas then they can find work as long as the economy remains boyant. So if letting those guys go kept Capitalist Inc in Anytown chances are the money the company and it's workers produce will create businesses in the local economy that will hire some of the folks laid off. Profit is income, if the robot company buys stuff, hires on extra support engineers. If the suppliers have to package components differently to feed an automated line chances are there will be jobs there. Once those jobs go to China all bets are off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 2:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fletch2, if you'll notice, my example had one factory getting wage and benefit concessions. Whether you toss people out of work or pay them less, the effect is still the same: they're not going to buy as much as they used to.

Quote:
People are a limited resource

Then why is there worldwide unemployment?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 2:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"Imperfect". Yes, all theories are imperfect to some extent, but Keynes had considerable insight into the flow of money. And I see you haven't refuted the argument so far.

So, the dodge that Keynes came up with- and the lever that the Fed STILL uses to this day- is to increase the money supply. As money gets skimmed off into various pursuits, many of which reduce the amount of money that "folks" have to purchase "things" with, it is replaced with more money. The "dodge" is inflation. And this policy is all based on Keynes' "imperfect" theory. (Perhaps you never understood the genesis of the Fed's "monetary" policy. Now you know.)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Are you sure you read Keynes? The idea is to inject money into the economy in a down cycle to stimulate demand the idea being that once money starts flowing it has a knock on effect. In an economy that is functioning it shouldnt be nescessary the expension of the economy is a consequence of the improved economic activity.

Like I said Profit == Income. If "profit is bad" then "income is bad" because they are exactly the same deal. One is a reward for investment and the other from labour. Capitalist societies view capital as being the dominant partner in the relationship rather than seeing the two as equal. Your wages are a drag on the economy... you basket!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 2:19 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Are you sure you read Keynes? The idea is to inject money into the economy in a down cycle to stimulate demand the idea being that once money starts flowing it has a knock on effect. In an economy that is functioning it shouldnt be nescessary the expension of the economy is a consequence of the improved economic activity.

So why has the Fed recently lowered rates? Are you saying this economy is not functioning? In fact, why have credit at all?

And I'll reiterate my last point so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle: Whether your toss people out of work or pay them less they're not going to buy as much stuff as before.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 2:22 PM

KANEMAN

"second that and add the problems resulting from infringements on American soveriegnty (such as subverting economic interests to outside value judgements such as global warming...and the desire to place American servicemen under the jurisdiction of foriegn courts...and illegal immigration)."

Hero, you sound like a Ron Paul supporter and not a neocon ....What gives? Should have wrote.."from infringement on American sovereignty (such as subverting national sovereignty to outside economic interests such as NAU, CAFTA, NAFTA, WTO, UN} but your getting there. I will categorize you as Dangerous stupid with your foot in the door of Lazy stupid....hey, you can always brag to jongsstraw...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 2:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch2, if you'll notice, my example had one factory getting wage and benefit concessions. Whether you toss people out of work or pay them less, the effect is still the same: they're not going to buy as much as they used to.
Quote:
People are a limited resource
Then why is there worldwide unemployment?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

All your examples are static state that's why they are bogus. In Sigworld workers leave the factory and pass the ragged starving bodies of their dismissed collegues while the cruel factory owner twists his moustache and wonders which of the factory girls to ravish and which gets tied to the train tracks.

Such melodrama!

In reality people laid off find other jobs. Repeat, Profit is Income and when that extra profit is spent it too generates economic activity just as the workers spending wages does. That in turn creates demand for stuff that someone has to be employed to make.

Your models dont work, you try to simplify them to make your point and I understand that but if you remove the effect on the wider economy you distort the results.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 2:28 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Are you sure you read Keynes? The idea is to inject money into the economy in a down cycle to stimulate demand the idea being that once money starts flowing it has a knock on effect. In an economy that is functioning it shouldnt be nescessary the expension of the economy is a consequence of the improved economic activity.
So why has the Fed recently lowered rates? Are you saying this economy is not functioning? In fact, why have credit at all?

And I'll reiterate my last point so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle: Whether your toss people out of work or pay them less they're not going to buy as much stuff as before.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

The idea of "injecting" money into a system is fucking retarded. Where did the money come from? What, we praise an illegal private entity's willful inflation and debasement of our currency? Come on idiot ...THINK. How can money come out of thin air? Why is the dollar so low? How do we end this?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 2:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Are you sure you read Keynes? The idea is to inject money into the economy in a down cycle to stimulate demand the idea being that once money starts flowing it has a knock on effect. In an economy that is functioning it shouldnt be nescessary the expension of the economy is a consequence of the improved economic activity.
So why has the Fed recently lowered rates? Are you saying this economy is not functioning? In fact, why have credit at all?

.

Liquidity. You want to open a business you want to borrow money from the bank. You walk in present your plan and the bank likes it because it's good (ok not really YOU someone that understands finance.) They want to lend you money because they want to profit from your success but as I explained to Rue banks dont really keep money in shoe boxes under the desk. They don't nescesarily have the idle money you need.

But your bank, let's call it bank A, knows that it can borrow short term from bank B to get the funds it needs to finace your neato idea. In a few days when it's repossessed the orphanage and thrown the orphans into the snow (actually mad up the shortfall but I thought you might get the idea better if I translated into Melodramatic) they pay bank B back with interest.

So far so good.

So we have the sub-prime morgage fiasco. Now bank B was heavily invested in subprime as was banks C through Z. So when bank A comes knocking the other banks say no-can-do.

So here is bank A, it has your sure fire, peachy money maker just sitting there... but it's a little strapped for cash right now.

So they could tell you to go away. In which case you get no investment dont make millions hire hundreds of workers and change the world and more importantly for them bank A doesnt get to profit from it.

Enter the Fed who loans to bank A at a peach low rate just the same as it would have got from bank B. They invest in you, you make huge taxable profits, hire hundreds of taxable workers and sell oodles abroad to ease the balance of payments.

You are happy because you get your business/profit.
Bank A is happy because they profit.
Uncle sam likes it because they got their money back + all the nice taxes on your enterprise and workers. Your workers get a job/life hell maybe a dog called Spot!

Economic life goes on, fade to black.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 2:37 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Kaneman, I understand where this is leading to.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 2:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Meanwhile, Fletch2 has focused on my throwaway line (Why have credit at all?) and failed to dispute my thesis that profit undercuts consumption. He makes rather blanket statements that "profit is spent like income" but it isn't necessarily. As I said b4 there are only three things that profits can go to:

1) Consumption: It goes to the retirees who own stock and they use it to purchase goods, or to the majority shareholder who buys a mansion.

2) Speculation: People use if to buy items which have been previously produced (gold, comics, currency etc.) which does not increase employment

3) Investment: A business owner improves his product, improves his production process, relocates his business, reduces his costs thru automation, or improves his market share through acqusition.

SOME profit is spent like income. But some profit is spent in way that may as well be putting it in a mattress (speculation) and some is spent in ways that reduce labor. The wise businessman will spend the majority of his profit trying to get ahead of the competition.

BTW, "total automation" is not a likely endpoint of capitalism, but Fletch2 can't deny that it takes a lot fewer people to produce a particular item than before.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 3:07 PM

And consequently that item becomes cheaper and more people can afford it than before. So you sell more of it and create more wealth.

I really hate to say this but I'm feeling pretty lousy (my arms arch like I was carrying something and I wasn't... got me a lil worried actually.) So I'm off to bed.

Speculation is akin to gambling, to suggest it's the kind of things all business do as SOP is false. To say so is like saying all workers run pyramid schemes on the side.

Anyway, I need to lie down. Have fun in Sigville and watch for the guy with the twurly moustache and the top hat.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 3:09 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
watch for the guy with the twurly moustache and the top hat.

Since you'll be in bed I guess I won't have to watch.

Hope you feel better tomorrow.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 3:18 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

To continue: The drive to maximum profit (which is pretty much required of any publicly traded business) has only one endpoint: Money accumulates in fewer and fewer hands. That is, as I said before, the genesis of depressions and the raison d'etre of our "monetary" policy (ie a policy of manipulating the money supply).

Considering that the division between the poor and the wealthy is higher now than since the 1920s (could say the same for China and Russia as well) makes me think that we're due for a crash.

Hmmm.... good thing that my investment in far East, south Asian and Russian currencies is coming to a close. I'll have to think about who is going to weather the storm better.

Say Rue, since we bought gold at $640 and it's now $750, maybe we should sell? Gee, too bad I don't know anything about money.

Question is, what do we buy with the proceeds?

Let's talk.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 3:29 PM

LEADB

Real estate. Buy out some of those folks who got the sub-prime mortgages and didn't have clue what 'teaser rates' really meant.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 3:39 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Eh - we both have substantial real estate, acquired many years ago when it was (relatively) cheap.

Anyway, I'm going to hang onto my gold for a while. It'll go up and down with the market, but ultimately I feel it will top out over $850 US.

This requires thought - what next ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 3:49 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Sounds like things are going pretty well up there in the top 1% Signy and Rue.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 5:01 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
watch for the guy with the twurly moustache and the top hat.
Since you'll be in bed I guess I won't have to watch. Hope you feel better tomorrow.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ROFL..Wow!!!..Why is this the funniest post ever? Holy-god that was Hilarious....Oh, my...bahahahahah....that is taking something out of context...hopefully.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 12, 2007 10:51 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BDN - I'm not in the top 1%. BTW I went through college with literally the clothes on my back as the entire sum of my wealth, and worked minimum wage jobs to pay tuition, rent and food (but never did have enough money to buy books). You'd have a hard time making a case for me being privileged.

And you ? What have you done with your pathetic little life ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2007 6:55 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And you ? What have you done with your pathetic little life ?

I certainly have not railed against capitalism while enjoying it's fruits.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2007 7:53 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Is your new name 'stupid' ? I'm not a capitalist. I'm a worker and a consumer. I haven't been 'enjoying the fruits' - most of my life has been a 60-80 hour a week struggle to obtain the necessities - incuding education and health care - for me and my family.

Now go away and jerk off.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2007 9:02 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Is your new name 'stupid' ? I'm not a capitalist. I'm a worker and a consumer.

With 'substantial' land holdings and investments in precious metal. Do you derive income from your land? Will you re-invest the profits when your gold hits $850? You sound like a capitalist to me, or at the very least a believer in capitalism. I guess wealth is okay in your eyes as long as it involves you and your family.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2007 9:30 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I would give it all away tomorrow if it would guarantee a fair world.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2007 1:26 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So, let's see Nobody

You're an admitted troll, you're a failure in life, and you lick the boot that kicks you. And as usual you have zip to add to the topic. You've got quite a lot going on - don't you.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2007 1:40 PM

Yes, wealth is always okay as long as it’s yours. The problem with socialism is that it’s just a new word for the age old Aristocracy. A socialist economy is one in which a small wealthy few control the wealth of everyone else – basically the worst parts of capitalism wrapped up in a sweet smelling euphemism by people who claim they want a fair world, but aren’t willing to sacrifice their own wealth to achieve that. It’s a system that fails before it can even start, because ultimately the capitalist philosophy is only practical philosophy. And in practice a well run capitalist system, like the one in the US, has guaranteed more wealth for more people, then any socialist system before it.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2007 4:28 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Live it up while you still can. Globalization allowed America to have the biggest and longest party the world has ever seen. Nowhere to go but down now.

Why, do you suppose, we're paying $3.00/gal of gas and $3.50 per gallon of milk?

Won't be long till we all have the real ID too, likely because the UN mandates we have it. It will double as the prophesized Mark of the Beast, without which none of us will be able to work or purchase food.

America is no longer in control of America. We are owned by multi-national corporations and that 9 Trillion dollar debt you hear about all of the time, well... the 20-30% of our pay that most of us give Uncle Sam every year means that 20-30% of our work each year is slave labor which only goes to pay the interest off on that debt we all owe.

Fuck globalization.

EDITED TO ADD: To further elaborate on my "Fuck Globalization" stance, I submit the following article. We're going to let these bastards use money to dictate how we do things here. This is only the beginning.

http://www.itnews.com.au/Tools/Print.aspx?CIID=94400

US FACES $100 BILLION FINE FOR WEB GAMING BAN

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 9:19 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn

First of all, I am NOT wealthy - virtually all of my assets are in a special trust fund.
Second, I am NOT privileged - I've worked hard to have anything in this life, and continue to work hard. That makes me a worker, not a capitalist.
Third, I'm trying to provide for the needs of a disabled person after I'm dead and gone. If I lived in a fair society I wouldn't have to do that.

Hence, what I said above - I would give it ALL away tomorrow if it would guarantee a fair world. In that world, I wouldn't need to be working the hours I work, scrimping as I scrimp and investing for a future I won't be alive to see.

And, I see you too have nothing substantive to add to this thread, choosing to make it about me.

So I choose to make it about you.

You're an idiot for your assumptions. A coward for bending over for the system. And an asswipe, just for being you.

***************************************************************
Bend over little man - oh, and trust me.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 9:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sounds like things are going pretty well up there in the top 1% Signy and Rue.

Ah don't be jealous. I'm definitely NOT in the top 1% and neither is Rue. I make my money just like everybody else: by working. My investments- such as they are- are an insubstantial part of my income, such as it is. I didn't make the system, I certainly don't support it. I hope for a better system, one that realizes that civilization and society are good things, and that we don't have to be pitted against each other in a brutal and occassionally deadly competition that we didn't set up. But I have to survive it and see to my child's future.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 9:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And consequently that item becomes cheaper and more people can afford it than before. So you sell more of it and create more wealth.

What you're describing is a declining trend.

The problem with capitalism is that it's a unstable system- boom and bust. IF the consuming public has a lot of cash in-hand (as happened after WWII with the GI benefits) then purchases increase, which leads to increased production, increased hiring and investment, and more purchases. That's the upside that Fletch2 is trying to describe. BUT once the consuming public has spent their free cash (and credit) then purchases decline, people get laid off, and purchases decline even further. That's the downside. It's an oscillator.

Capitalism is pulled by consumption, not pushed by investment. If you give a businessman higher profits in a declining market, is he going to increase production and hire more people? No, more likely he's going to invest in something that reduces wages even further. If that happens across the board (by government policy) then you've set off a recession, or worse. So higher profits are not the answer to a slow economy, they cause it to unwind even faster.

It doesn't take a genius to see that the USA has "pulled" the economies of Europe, Japan, and China by being the world's most profligate consumer. But now that our Treasury is bankrupt, our production is reduced, and our interest rates are artifically low (to keep our own economy floating) the dollar inevitable had to lose value. And it will continue to lose value until we (both as individuals and as a nation) are put on sound footing: Improve the minimum wage, reduce profit margins, put $$$ back into the hands of consumers, and stop irrational government spending.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And, I see you too have nothing substantive to add to this thread, choosing to make it about me.

It’s not about you, and it never was.

However, overregulating the economy does NOT provide for a fair system. That much we know for a fact. Without income disparity, everyone is poor. Without all those rich people socialists hate so much, no one has any jobs. You throw a fit because you have to work hard for a living while others don’t, but without that disparity in the system there is no potential for wealth to flow. It’s not about you, but many people have a hard time separating themselves from the system. If they have to work hard for a living or if they have to deal with issues in their life, then the system doesn’t work. That’s the way people look at the economy – they make it about themselves. You probably make middle class income – but what about the guy who is living on $7 an hour? You compare yourself to mustache twirling types and claim the system is unfair, but my guess is that the system has probably worked much better for you then you’ll admit. I know a guy who makes better than $250 grand a year, he says the same things you do. He has to provide for his family. He has too many bills to pay. For some people that $80/month insurance payment they have to make on a $500 car is breaking them, for others its the $1000/month car payment on that Mercedes that’s breaking them. Everyone’s got money problems. When I started out in life I was a dirt poor Irish boy on the streets of Detroit. My single mother raised three kids below the poverty line – today I have a huge house on a hill overlooking a wilderness, a nice car and enough money to take regular trips to Italy. Not bad for a dirt poor Irish boy. Of course I have a family to take care of and too many bills to pay just like everyone else – it’s not that I don’t feel your pain; it’s that I have a completely different view of what unfair means.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:06 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Yes, wealth is always okay as long as it’s yours."

Pretty personal, asswipe. And I TAKE it personally.

***************************************************************
Go wipe your dick off somewhere else - it's small, pathetic, and digusting.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Yes, wealth is always okay as long as it’s yours."

Pretty personal, asswipe. And I TAKE it personally.

Take it any way you want. You’re the only one investing in personal attacks here. And you’re just pissed because you know I’m right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:20 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Without income disparity, everyone is poor. Without all those rich people socialists hate so much, no one has any jobs.

So what did people do in the millenia before capitalism?

Nothing?

Finn, you might not want to comment on something you obviously know nothing about. Do some research, give it some thought before you make sweeping - and blatantly wrong- generalizations.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"And you’re just pissed because you know I’m right."

I'm pissed b/c you're an lying sack of crap. I sacrificed MY personal benefit over the last decades for people who need the help.

As for you ...

YOU'RE A SMALL PATHETIC DICK WHO CAN'T GET ANYTHING UP EXCEPT A LIE.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 3:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Without income disparity, everyone is poor. Without all those rich people socialists hate so much, no one has any jobs.
So what did people do in the millenia before capitalism?

You’re kidding, right? You actually think that before Adam Smith there was no such thing as rich people or that those rich people didn’t control the wealth of everyone else? There is a theory concerning the decline of the WRE which has gained prominence among scholars since the 50s, which basically observes that the fall of the WRE coincided with the development of a wealthy elite class in barbarian societies preceding economic growth in what was otherwise a subsistence level economy, leading to a swelling of barbarian numbers with better armed and trained militaries. In fact, I would go as far as to say that there has never been a civilization whose economy was not completely dependent on the existence of a wealthy class, above the agrarian subsistence level. Maybe you need to take some of your own advice and do some research.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"And you’re just pissed because you know I’m right."

I'm pissed b/c you're an lying sack of crap. I sacrificed MY personal benefit over the last decades for people who need the help.

As for you ...

YOU'RE A SMALL PATHETIC DICK WHO CAN'T GET ANYTHING UP EXCEPT A LIE.

Anyone whose intellectual acumen doesn’t exist above the level of a 13 year old boy is probably not very certain of their own point of view. You’re just pissed because know I’m right.

Oh, and I’m sure your sacrifice was not unappreciated by those you helped. I’ve never doubted that you were a good person, unlike the personal insults you levy against me, but none of that changes what I’ve said.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You’re kidding, right? You actually think that before Adam Smith there was no such thing as rich people or that those rich people didn’t control the wealth of everyone else? There is a theory concerning the decline of the WRE which has gained prominence among scholars since the 50s, which basically observes that the fall of the WRE coincided with the development of a wealthy elite class in barbarian societies preceding economic growth in what was otherwise a subsistence level economy, leading to a swelling of barbarian numbers with better armed and trained militaries. In fact, I would go as far as to say that there has never been a civilization whose economy was not completely dependent on the existence of a wealthy class, above the agrarian subsistence level.

So what you're saying is that capitalism isn't necessary. Right?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:43 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

I'm pissed b/c you're an lying sack of crap. I sacrificed MY personal benefit over the last decades for people who need the help.

I don't think Finn really deserves this particular can of whoop-ass, Rue, but I can see this is a HIGHLY touchy personal issue. I think we can all appreciate your selflessness in the face of adversity here.

Just tryin' to inject a little ease into a tense bunch of posts for my fellow Browncoats...

For what it's worth Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 6:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So what you're saying is that capitalism isn't necessary. Right?
.

Money isn't nescessary if it comes to that. You could always get paid in goods you could then barter. It wouldn't be convenient but it's perfectly possible.

The "innovation" of capitalism is the idea that money is a commodity that can be "bought, sold and traded" like any other material. Before that folks still had money, still traded with one another and there were still rich and poor people. I'm not sure that those were better systems from the point of view of wealth distribution or political freedom. I think you'd be better off positing a "post" capitalist society if you hope to find a fairer system.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 6:29 AM