3,386 Forum Posts by "BrianEtrius"
At 1/12/14 03:59 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Ok so let us examine how many banks finance every country in the world. The we can dial down the issue to the Banks that issue currency and people that own/manage the currencies.
In which we realize banks/governments have effectively financed everything that has every happened in the history of the world, have been managing currencies for 2000+ years, and that a complete capitalist apocolysptic worldwide meltdown has not happened ever. Fiat currency? Been there, done that.By the Chinese of all people. Go figure.
Try again, with specifics, which you seem to have trouble with. Here, I'll help: how about keeping commercial and investment banks separate? Or tighter financial regulations on investors and banks? These are problems with can be easily addressed (and even go further into specifics, especially the latter)
I may be beating a dead horse, but at least it's a horse. I have no idea what the hell you're beating.
At 1/12/14 11:38 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Don't watch it for me watch it to enlighten you brain. Basically it outlines that a change in values must be accomplished before we can move into a higher state of being and efficiency.
Here, let me summarize your arguments so far.
"Hi, I'm leanlifter1. I disagree with everything everybody has ever said about mainstream economics and political structures because I've done absolutely zero research on the matter and cannot back my points to save my life. Instead, let me brag how stupid I am and the philosophy of nature, which is stupid and pointless to debate over anyways because anybody with a pulse knows is stupid. Hey look a video!"
Right?
Not to mention the fact that monetary supply had nothing to do with the 2008 crash either as well. If anything, the expansionary monetary policy only further proved we're currently in a liquidity trap, so if anything there should be an increase in government spending, not a decrease, so we get out of that trap.
At 1/5/14 03:10 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Besides the point that creating the Fed is completely against the Constitution and the four fathers wishes and for a very good god dam reason. The Fed is unconstitutional for starters and that's ignoring what it actually does. Ben Bernanke created the financial crash of 2009 because he has full control and authority of the countries money supply.
Who's a what's it now? Hamilton certainly thought of a central bank and for a while it existed. And Bernanke doesn't have control of the money supply, for one thing, the Fed doesn't print money, it controls the liquidity market by issuing bonds independent of the government The Treasury, which is under the legislative branch, prints the money. Central bank independency is done for a variety of reasons, mainly so politicians don't mess with the short run cycle for political gain.
Central banks exist in every major country for a reason: it's essential to establishing credit on the world market and encouraging foreign trade and investment. Lack one, and your country will crumble sooner or later.
At 1/4/14 12:25 AM, AJ wrote: This all got brought up because 99% of the time, someone arguing to end the Fed is a libertarian, as they are the only ones who think it's a bad idea for the government to be able to adjust inflation rates and respond to crises instead of just letting the market take its course and seeing how things turn out. The concept of the Fed is sound, it's just been staffed by people who have business interests that are reflected in their policies. For instance, Larry Summers was one of the most vocal advocates in favor of credit swap derivatives for years. Said they stabilized the markets and were promoting economic growth, . He made millions sitting on boards for banks and giving speeches about how totally not risky derivatives were. It turned out that the derivatives actually were all trash, and that's what created the 2008 financial crisis. Summers almost got appointed as chairman of the fed this year even after all that mess. Tells you all you need to know about how strict the vetting process is for getting appointed there. They just rubber stamp whatever comes out of wall street at this point.
This is factually wrong in several regards. The Fed is not run by financial guys, the Fed is run by economists who, while being paid a good amount, don't really have much to stand to make based off their work-a requirement of the the Fed is that as a researcher you must publish a certain amount of papers within a certain time period. Second, credit derivatives were not the cause of the 2008 crash, risky investment trades and a few greedy traders did. I've written on this topic at length in this thread. And while I agree it was near ridiculous that Larry Sumners was nearly nominated, I disagree on the why-he was the the Treasury department, and like I said, those are not economists, they are financial guys. Finance and economics are two different things (finance falls under economics) and are separate in the government for very good reasons- we wouldn't want the government messing with the economy for political gain, we want an apolitical group helping the economy- which is the creation of an independent central bank.
At 12/31/13 04:57 AM, AJ wrote: This is a really suspect way to frame the concept of a "free market," given the political conflicts that have defined it. A free market as it's understood in common usage here in the states is a market with limited government interference, specifically. "Overbearing government regulations" play a tremendous role in how free a market is perceived to be in that context, so naturally, laws and legislation are a critical component of that.
I'm going to address the issue below.
At 12/31/13 01:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 12/31/13 12:45 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Furthermore, "free markets" and capitalism are not, again I repeat, not mutually exclusive terms:What? Mutually exclusive? How can two terms that have nearly identical manings be exclusive in ANY manner, let alone mutually exclusive?
The free market is an economy where the buyer and seller are able to negotiate their own price amongst eachother. Capitalism is an economy where the buyer and the seller are able to negotiate their own price amongst eachother.
Think of it this way: a free markets are units in microeconomics while capitalism is the system level on the macro scale. In a capitalist system all markets are free markets, but not all free markets have to exist in capitalism. For example, Norway, as we can all agree, is a very socialist country. Yet, the government there does not regulate, say, peanut market, so in that regard, the peanut market is a free market, but Norway is still socialist.
And you are completely wrong in the a free market has no ogvernment mental involvement. A free market is merely a sector of the economy that is more or less free to make their own decisions. It is not and never has been a requirement that there be NO government or law involved at all. That's not a requirement of a free market.
But then it's not a really a FREE market. If there is a law there is a regulation against certain type of behavior in the market that overall socially we've agreed is a bad thing. People then, as such, cannot express their full range of behaviors, so how are you now free to make your own decision? You now have someone elimiating choices for you, despite those choices probably being highly illogical.
If you truly believe in the free markets and truly honestly believe in capitalism, we should legalize murder. Why should the government take away the joy of wrongfully taking another person's life? I mean, sure, it's a huge externality, the social cost being much higher than the private cost and the public benefit being far smaller than the private benefit, but all in all why should the government regulate that behavior? Because we've deemed "more important" than other goods on the market? In a capitalist system I should be able to put a price on someone's head, as horrible as that sounds.
Take the US housing market. It's a very free market, yet it still has a lot of regulation. If I have a house I want to sell, I am free to set the price as high as I think I can get for it. My buyer is free to ask for as low as they think I'll sell it for. Just because I'm not allowed to charge black people a "colored fee" of 10% or because the buyer isn't able to buy the house and then abscond without paying does NOT men the market isn't free.
See above. Don't get me wrong, it is very very very very similar to a free market, but technically speaking, since I cannot do as much as I'd could do, it's not a free market, see? In a truly free market, I could be a jerk and try to charge those prices. Now, as I would quickly see, I couldn't do that in this free market for very long because no customer would ever come to be because I'm a racist prick and socially the market has decided that racism is a bad thing. Seeing how no customers would come I would (hopefully) adjust my prices and/or behavior as such, assuming I'm a rational and logical person. (The better question here is, how can you be racist and logical at the same time, but that's a question for philophers to work out)
Where the crux of a free market exists (i.e. the parties are free to negotiate the majority of the terms of their agreement) the market is free. Does it mean it's a pristine 100% free market? No, but very few things need to be 100% perfect to still be what they are.
Again, see above. I'm not denying that free markets have never existed (maybe in the precivilization times) and that a lot of the markets you see today are pretty damn close to as free markets as your going to see today which is awesome in some regards but you have to realize truly free markets don't exist. A truly capitalist country would be anarchy. Because what is government but just social regulation into certain bahavoirs to benefit society rather than the individual?
Now, to be clear, am I supporting a true capitalist system? Hell freaking no. Like I said, that's anarchy, and screw anarchy, nothing gets done and everybody just whines. If you really want to think about it if you support government regulation of any kind you are socialist to some degree.
At 12/31/13 04:57 AM, AJ wrote: This is a really suspect way to frame the concept of a "free market," given the political conflicts that have defined it. A free market as it's understood in common usage here in the states is a market with limited government interference, specifically. "Overbearing government regulations" play a tremendous role in how free a market is perceived to be in that context, so naturally, laws and legislation are a critical component of that.
Yeah, it's called economics and not politics for a reason: economists are more correct because they're apolitical mathematicians, not government lackeys as everybody thinks to seem they are. Free markets have NO, I repeat, no government interference- hence a "free" market- but what you don't realize is that free market forces and government interference in said free markets affects the market a certain way: it gives the supplier (or seller, if you will) a specific interval of prices he (or she) can sell at, otherwise they will lose money, social efficiency and what not. Government regulation can dictate the price, while in free markets various price levels and whatnot (I'm going to skip over the technical garble because it's long and boring, believe me) determine market price. In effect they act in a very similar way. This was the point Iwas trying to make: markets will naturally adjust over the long run. That's why we haven't seen the collapse of debt-burdened nations: people have adjusted and continues their lives.
Furthermore, "free markets" and capitalism are not, again I repeat, not mutually exclusive terms: most capitalist countries contain free markets, but not all free markets exist with capitalism (See: Norway, Sweden, pick your favorite EU country). Now comes the fun part: nobody's a complete 100% capitalist. Unless you have a libertarian wet dream, the entire world's a form of socialist capitalism, and that's worked pretty well the past 100 years or so.
At 12/31/13 01:06 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Ok so don't question authority cause we are all to stupid and weak got ya ! In that case just lay down and die bitch !
Since you are resorting to name calling at this point I am going to assume you can no longer defend your argument and your points are refuted. Furthermore, I think it is fairly obvious to assume now you have no real working knowledge of economics, capitalism, free markets, currency, and economic history, and that anybody who would believe your argument are guillible, nativie, lazy, or just plain stupid. In conclusion, I believe this debate is over, and any further response by you (unless it is one of the explanations I've specifically asked for in previous posts) only further proves the points made in this particular post.
Have a nice day! ;)
At 12/30/13 02:35 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: What's worse Ben Bernanke or Capitalism . Anyone that's supports "the Fed" is not as smart or informed as they think or they are ignorant to how it operates.
Anybody who doesn't support the fed has no idea how marcoeconomics work because central banks have been around in one way or another for 1500+ years.
And besides, what's worse about them? You bitch and moan but you never give any specifics. Until you do your argument is so full of holesi don't see how anybody can believe you.
At 12/29/13 07:02 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: It is clear you have no opinion and just want to troll.
Oh and now I'm trolling, trying to decipher what you said....
Please stop taking words and sentences out of context
I don't think so, they're your words, so I'm free to scrutinize them as I see fit. Welcome to public debates.
and consider the bigger picture.
So basically, "Hey, my argument's full of holes because I can't explain the details and finer mechanics, but believe me anyway!"
Yeah, that's going to sell well.
USA in particular went Bankrupt
When? This is news to me.
and is now tit's up and in over it's head.
How? Explain. How is it failing? What are you critizing about the system? Your words are so general and vague they have no meaning.
Perhaps have a look at USA National and combined personal Debt and then tell me your beloved system of Fractional reserve Lent BS Econ works.
Looks like a stable economy where everything's working more or less fine. Look, the entire world economy hasn't collapsed yet, and we've had these kinds of measures now for at least 50 years, so nothing so far has collapsed majorly.
Yes there have been shocks, but nothing that would cause, say, a massive world wide meltdown a la Mad Max.
So again explain your position, because it makes no sense and shows a complete lack of understanding for the subject.
At 12/29/13 05:07 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: As the world awakens to a FAILING financial system
How is it failing? In what way are you defining failure? The purpose of the financial system is to create wealth, make no doubt: like I said earlier, if you are concerned with the concentration of wealth, then blame the people within the system for taking advantage of said system (or applaud them, if you will too), but not the system itself. Furthermore, you could argue for stronger laws within said system to prevent further "destructive" or unwanted behavior. Otherwise, the world is going to keep spinning the way it is.
with growing civil unrest emerging
Where? I certainly don't see Wall Street getting massive protests again.
without the basis of sovereignty, religion or political loyalty,
Yeah, I don't think a "We are the World" thing isn't going to happen anytime soon due to multiple reasons.
a new unifying perspective is slowly taking hold which transcends the framework many of us falsely assume as empirical to our way of life.
Nice 10 cent words. Too bad they don't mean anything and sound like a pretentious English essay paper.
It's the "Free Market" isn't it ?
Nope, and there's another assumption you've gotten wrong which you would hav known had you've taken a basic economics course. Your ignorance of the subject is clearly being shown here.
Contrary to the statistically void efficiency assumptions made by most Market Economists
Where? Link to me where these assumptions are by "Market Economists" (This may be my new favorite term for the year, haha)
the "Free Market" simply means anyone can do whatever they want and maximize however they want within the confines of legal legislation
No, not at all: it means that people will play by the market's rules, not an outside intervening force. Free markets exists regardless of laws or legislation of any regard. It has nothing to do with free will or maximizing.
legal legislation's which make no mistake is also for sale in the "Free Market" as well as are political officials, regulatory institution and whatever social entity you wish to consider.
In a complete free market, maybe, but you have to consider that people take into account social costs as welds financial costs. This whole branch of economics that deals with this behavior is called externalities, and I highly recommend looking into it. Interestingly enough countries who have corrupt officials typically due worse overall as an economy than countries with more honest police: one of the reasons is for the middle class to spend (which is crucial improving overall consumption) is that they feel safe, but if the cops are corrupt the middle class won't buy anything in fear of police. This can be seen in India right now, which is why India, despite being an economic powerhouse, is still a third world country. As a result of these kinds of behaviors, it is in the people's best interests to lead political and social reforms so that the institutions that exist within these countries are more stable and promote more trade.
The "Free Market" model of Economics is a haphazard, Unscientific
Again, already proven economics=\=science. Stop trying to compare the two.
anarchy of organization
It's worked for 2000 years+, so it's not a complete train wreck.
which assumes that any person or group with enough money and hence power
You think money =power? How nativie. Power assumes there is someone who is not rational, dumb if you will, so that a person who is smarter can control them. Problem is, one of the first tenanments of economics (which is also oft criticized)
is that everybody is rational and therefore logical. If you think you can try to manipulate somebody so will everybody else. There is no "gain" on others.
will be responsible in their actions both socially and environmentally.
Not at all. Again, see externalities as why free markets fail in many regards, however, it's a much better system then anything else we have right now.
Problem is that being "Financially Responsible" actually means to be socially and environmentally exploitative,
Not at all. Where are you getting these definitions from? Being "financially responsible" means you live within your means. I don't know where you get being socially and environmentally exploitative from being financially responsible. How does making sure you don't go into debt turn you into the lowest scum of the earth? Please do explain.
manipulative and negligent for the main driver of this system is Inefficiency.
Again, fancy 10 cent words that sounds like crap. It's inefficient, okay, how? Describe it. Details.
In conclusion I must make it clear that Monetary Economics and the Banking Cartel
At this point I would love to point out not once you've talked about currency, which is what monetary economics is about, or problems with the banking system, which would the cause for concern about banks, so, I don't see how you can draw a conclusion.
are not the source of societies problems rather they are only symptoms of an Economic System which will continue to fail by the very gravity of it's outdated and false assumptions of Human conduct and environmental relationships.
Again, I don't see how this is failing, seeing how capitalism and free markets have existed in one shape or form for 2000+ years. And to the contrary, the assumptions of human conduct and environmental relationships are fairly on point, but since you haven't given which specific assumptions you disagree with, I cannot debate the point.
It's really clear you have not read any literature worth a damn about economics besides propaganda pamphlets. Please take a basic college course in it, both micro and macro.
At 12/29/13 11:34 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Do some research on how currency actually works before you start to pop off at the mouth. Cyclical consumption is bad not good because the bottom line is maximizing profit without respect to the future or the planet and Human Life for that matter. A bear tearing your head off is natural but that does not mean it's a good thing LOL.
Tee hee Jesus you are so misinformed it's now somewhat pathetic. Cyclical consumption is something so ingrained in out minds and heads it's impossible to it's not natural.
Quick! Tomorrow morning, what do you have to consume for breakfast? Cereal? Eggs? A donut? Now you don't have food in your pantry, what are you going to do? Go out and consume it anyway, because you need it. Now, for people, this doesn't have to be food: there are certain key commodities which for the sake of the overall general economy must be consumed constantly through cyclical consumption, otherwise, said economy would collapse.
And also let me ask you this: who cares about the future or other people's lives? Only people (such as yourself, myself, and most Americans and the developed world) who have accumated enough wealth that they can care about said issues. For example, if I was starving and I had a dollar would I go donate that dollar to those starving kids in Africa? Hell no! I'd go spend that puppy on like chips or something. There's no incentive to play nice to the community in most cases, and this is how trade and economics have worked for centuries of over 2000 years. You can't change human nature. You of all people should understand this.
You know what? Explain to me how currency is bad, and go a step further and explain the pitfalls of fiat currency. I expect a minimun of 4 paragraphs, seeing how my initial response to proving why your statement about fiat currency was wrong was equally the same length. Oh, yeah, and if possible, use math, because that'll make it easier. Because hey, if it's so easy and obvious to see to all but the most oblivious, you should have a fairly easy time laying out a complete and logical argument.
And hey, if a bear take your head off, that's natural and good, because it's nature' sway of yelling you you are a dumbass for getting this close to a bear. You should have known better, and now you're paying the price. Darwinism at its finest. The stupid die off and the smarter survive.
At 12/29/13 12:52 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Barter system is only effective for some transactions. For other transactions I am suggesting a Cryptocurrency like Bitcoin however the decision will be decided by way of the Scientific Method. Though four to one transactions would really boost the economy though LOL.
How would bitcoin be selected through the scientific method? Because it's the best one? Look, economics doesn't work though the scientific method. It's not science at all, as you've pointed out, it's a social science, which means there are going to be abnormal non-scientific variables at play meaning you can't apply the traditional scientific method. Now, there's a lot of statistical analysis and prediction as well as mathematical model building, and while that can look like science it isn't, it's analysis of recorded data taken from the world, not an experiment.
To look at it another way, most science starts with the models and get the data, then go back and work with the models to tinker with the data. Economics starts with the data and then builds the model. If the model doesn't fit the data, rework the model. You can't mess with the data. That's why you can't apply scientific methods to econ, it just doesn't work due the nature of the field.
Furthermore, what gives bitcoin it's value? What is it backed by? It's not gold, it's people's demand for it. So, for me to use bitcoin as a currency (it's still a currency, no matter how you try to spin it) I would have to have complete faith that everybody is going to use bitcoin at a constant rate, otherwise the value of bitcoin is going to fluctuate. Good luck trying to get everybody to have complete confidence in a currency that has nothing to back itself with.
Put it this way: if the Argentinian dollar fails, I can swap it for American dollars, because Argentina is pegged to the US dollar. If the US dollar fails, i can get bonds because that's what the Fed would do in this case. What does bitcoin have to back it up if it fails? Nothing. So why would people put all their faith into it?
You over complicating what I was/am trying to say which is that simply illegitimate debt based fiat currency is no good and I think we can all agree on that one. IMHO the scientific method could theoretically work more efficient than corrupt monetary econ that is based on cyclical consumption in order for it to survive.
This paragraph is so full of mistakes it made my head hurt. Again, how is it illegitimate debt based? Why is fiat currency bad? Why do you think "we can all agree on that one" , when I clearly don't? I've showed you why the scientific method doesn't work and that monetary econ will forever exist as long as there exists transactions. Furthermore,cyclical consumption is natural and will exist no matter what.
To respond to the topic at hand: Yes, capitalism has it's faults, but name me a system that doesn't! It's akin to Churchill and democracy, capitalism is the most barbaric economic system we have, but it's the best we've got so far that works stable in nature. Look at it this way: as long people value things differently, capitalism will always exists in the form of barter. You can think about this in a nutshell: rural agricultural community farmer's market: prices can fluctuates not because of large government policy but because of how well the crops turned out this year. So to say capitalism is evil is completely idiotic.
Now the people who live within the capitalist system, on the other hand...........
At 12/28/13 10:33 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Money simply is a currency. Problem is it's illegitimate debt based fiat currency which is unsound. You are only as free as your bank account allows you to be.
What are you smoking and where can I get some? This response economically makes no sense. Let's go through it.
Money is a currency. Well, no shit. But it's more than that. It acts as a vehicle for transactions, in some cases (such as the the US) it holds enough stability (!) that other countries pegs their currencies to it to promote trade and price stability with the home country, and a host of other topics. Furthermore, money is more than a currency: it's a way of evaluating goods and commodities. It doesn't have to be dollars, as Ranger2 said, I could measure the in the world in terms of bananas. Now, that wouldn't be a great measurement because we all can't agree on how much a banana is worth, so by having a common currency we can agree on a common value. Make sense? It should. This is elementary.
"Problem is it's illegitimate debt based fiat currency which is unsound."
Please give me a moment.
hahhahahhahahhahagahhahahahahahahaghahahahaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaWtfyousmokingkid
Thank you. Now let's go through this.
"Illegitimate debt based" - now I don't know about you, but it doesn't matter what kind of government you run, but any advanced first world government is going to be running a public debt. Why? Because to have the infrastructure (both finacially and physically) you need a large public sector to support the population, and to intitally get said public sector you're going to have to take on long term debt intitally. To imply merely that governments run debts and deficits is a fundelmental problem is capitalism is not only wrong but clearly idiotic as well. For God sakes, look at the long term debts held by Britain! They certainly haven't collapsed yet!
"Fiat currency that is unsound". First off, how is it unsound? Due to the fact that the value of our currency floats and is prone to inflation? I could take the time to explain why having a floating currency is better because it protects your country better from asymmetric shocks than a fixed exchange rate (a la gold standard), but I'm going to venture a guess you are in favor of the gold standard. Well, let me explain both the historical and practical reason why the gold standard failed.
On the gold standard does promote (as I said above) is price stability and trade between two countries of similar statue. (Think the EU, the general principle is the closer the countries as to being similar, the better off they are having a fixed exchange rate.) however, the flip side is that you can't maximize your output because the inflation rate, a tool of the central bank to control fluxations is fixed, so the central bank cannot minimize unemployment. (This is called the Phillips curve, one has to trade off higher rates of inflation for lower rates of unemployment).
So the US is on the gold standard starting around 1890 and continues for the next 20 years or so. The US undergoes one of the most rapid industrialization ever. Business begin to boom on a large scale. So what happened? There are 3 main reasons:
1) WW1
This is one of the biggest. Deficit spending goes through the roof because as we all know nothing stops a war from going on, not even the accountants. When countries began to run deficits it became near impossible to maintain the fixed exchange rate without taking huge losses to output. As a result, many countries decided to let their currencies float to avoid taking a major loss worse than you'd think.
2) Lack of gold discovery.
One of the things about the gold standard is that is assumes that there will be more gold to discover as time continues to that prices remain constant. Problem was, around the turn of the 20th century most of the world's gold had been found already. There wasn't enough gold left in the world for banks to hold as backing for currency with prices rises dramatically. This was another kick in butt for the gold standard.
3) A greater spread of democracy, specifically in women
Now bare with me for a second here: you have to realize before the 1920s, no one cared about the worker. Unemployment and workers rights weren't really thought of. When women began voting one of the issues they pushed were workers rights and ways to help the unemployed. Like I said earlier, the central bank can do this is they have a floating based currency system because they can adjust the targeted inflation rate to try to maximize market output. Gold standard can't do that, sorry.
"You are only free as your bank account allows you to be" Yeah, it's called personal fiscal responsibility, meaning you don't spend beyond your means. That sounds like a fairly reasonable philosophy to me.
So again, what the heck are you talking about?
Please please please take a course in macroeconomics, preferably math intensive. This ain't rocket science people.
At 11/26/13 07:22 PM, Korriken wrote: I was going to just ignore this inane thread, but then I read this.
You point to Sweden, so I'll point to Greece. Also, Sweden is not without its problems.
Hold on there sugar. Greece ran massive government deficits post 2004, so the EU's central bank (located in Germany) told it's Greek counterparts to get their shit together. So what did Greece do? They slashed government spending in hopes that by saving their economy would hold. Clearly, it didn't, but guess which policital party is currently advocating the same economic policy in the United States, where while our economy is steadily improving is still in a quite fragile? That's right, the conservatives.
But hey, who cares about the economy when you're rich? Oh right, it was that sort of mentality that got us in the 2008 crisis in the first place.
Gee, I wonder how GDP (Gross Domestic Product) , one of the most commonly used tools in economics, is defined......
Hm......Y=C+I+G+EX-IM where
Y is GDP
C is Private Consumption by households (aka individuals) (!)
I is investment
G is government spending
Ex is exports to foreign countries
IM is imports from foreign countries.
Just gonna throw that out there.
At 10/15/13 08:57 PM, sweet-n-saltynut wrote: so if im understanding you correctly your saying since they are poor and walmart can afford it they shouldn't be held to account? these people knew what they were doing
I'm just saying you gotta look beyond the legal aspects of this case. Would you jail Robin Hood for being a thief?
Wait wait wait
We're still in the middle of a recession,there was welfare that was put out both help lower class people get necessities and stimulate consumption, and the place they "stole" from was Walmart, which that money is literally fractions of a penny on a dollar for companies as big as Walmart?
You gotta set your priorities straight.
How does raising minimum wage lower employment? I've never bought this argument, think about the type of jobs that are most affected by the raise: part-timers, retail and fast food. In these cases, the employers can afford a raise in wages, for Christ's sake if minimum wage kept up with production and was not held in check by Congress (which means it would have been subjected to the free market(!!!)) it would be around $22, so even a $10 minimum wage is meager.
Of course, no one listens to economists........
At 9/1/13 12:40 PM, Warforger wrote: Goddamn it, this may have been some nice discussion about comparative advantage and the domination of popular culture by America,Japan and Britain, but instead it's about the Bilderberg group, a group of people who just talk about things. Because you know, if people don't want to have their conversations publicized then obviously they're trying to take over the world.
And here's the biggest joke from that: why the hell would anyone want to take over the world in the first place? It's a pretty ugly place, people are stupid, and the economy's highly unstable to the point that complete manipulation is near impossible. Look, if I were as rich as those guys, why the heck would I try to take over the world? I'm already rich! I can go disappear to an island somewhere, build my mansion, hire some strippers and get a bag of blow and you'll never have to see me again. Why would I have an incentive to take over the world? Money? Ha. Like I said: I'm rich already! Power? Market influence, which these guys have (different than manipulating markets, influence is how investors react to anything) is a huge form of power. To make the world a better place? Hell, we can toss that idea out the window. So why take over the world again? It makes no sense whatsoever.
At 9/1/13 02:08 AM, T3XT wrote: Google search: kleptocracy
That has little to do with our conversation, I address that point below.
I'm not idealistically saying that everyone will prosper equally in a free market.
So you want there to be poor people....? Cause that's what you're implying.
Every free market involves competition, and yes, some businesses will go under. But you know what? The U.S. isn't a free market, neither are most first-world countries who claim their economy is free. It's hardly even capitalist. It's organized plutocracy.
"Plutocracy" is not in an economist's dictionary. Are we still trying to make profits? Yes. We're capitalists. Is the corner store now handing out bags of chips? No, because the owner still wants to make a profit. We're capitalists. Never forget this.
Why?
Two words: bailout money.
Wrong.
In a fair market, companies that fail, fail. But that isn't so. When a big business starts going down, BING! Two billion free dollars from the government. And when they lose more money, they get bailed out again. And again.
Okay, let's talk bailouts and the recession. Here's the long version, well written, but too detailed for most people, so I'll just summarize it here:
So because of the deregulation of the financial industry in the 80s (!) commercial banks and investment banks began to merge. These banks would take their money and invest it in various assets, most notably the housing market, making a profit off the interest, as banks do. So far so good? There's no black magic yet. What banks would do is now take the risk from these assets and sell them to other investment groups, that way, if an asset went under, the banks could go to that other group and ask for the money and the banks would be insured against that risk. The bank would take that money and reinvest it. What investment groups did was sell around these risks, because obviously you don't want a risky asset, and again, reinvest this money.
At this point I'd like to point out ideally you want a diverse investment portfolio because that way, if one asset defaults, you can at least recoup your money with the other assets. Make sense, right? Well, what happened was when the housing risk got sold by AIG, instead of reinvesting the money to make a more diverse portfolio, AIG took big bonuses for themselves. Yes it's greedy, but it's nothing new. So what happened? Housing crisis! Boom, investment in mortgages drops. Banks start to lose money, (money, mind you, place in there by people like you and me) so they go to the investment group, and say, hey, where's my money? There's a a domino effect all the way up to AIG. AIG goes, uh, we don't have the money to pay you guys because we don't have a diverse of a portfolio! Now there's a domino effect all the way back down. Investment groups start to go under because they don't have the money. Banks have to raise interest rates because they need to recoup their loss. All of a sudden, there's not enough money in the system, the financial industry could go under. Now, you never want this to happen, because investment is what keeps us innovating and growing. (Take my word on this for now, I can prove it, but it takes quite a bit of math, and this is dragging on as is) Among the industries also investing in that takes a hit? America auto companies. So now, all of sudden, we have this huge financial crisis that could very well threaten the well being of the world economy, especially since we're one of the world's leading economy.
So.........do you let that fail? No, not at all. As much as the notion sounds horrible, "too big to fail" is correct: the financial sector of the United States economy plays such a crucial role that you can't let it fail, because then every will. So, what do you do? Also, since investment has dropped, we're at a zero lower bound, which means monetary policy does jacksquat. Guess who has to come to the rescue? Here's a hint: it's not consumers.
Government! Keynesian spending is highly effective during this time. What does this mean? Government spending in the form of bailouts so banks (and thus housing market, and a bunch of other markets) and Detroit don't go under and completely crash our economy, making thing worse for everyone.
Now, the question you should be asking is why the heck were these markets deregulated in the first place? Ask Reaganites about that one. Again, it goes back to the notion that "free markets" which include investment markets, are better than government regulated markets. As we can see, that's clearly not the case.
But no. Instead of losing fair and square, big businesses get a free handicap from the government, paid for by me and you. It makes them practically unbeatable. It's a wicked game where new businesses have to play against opponents who cheat.
Small business weren't hurt by the bailouts, let's get that out of the way. The financial industry, which has its fingers in a lot of pies, took the main initial blow caused by the recession, and the bailouts to a certain extent, due to the crowding out effect. (short version: because government invests, private investors won't) And guess what's a good indicator of a recession? When investment drops all of a sudden! Consumer spending follows, as does exports/imports. What gets us out of a recession? Government spending increases. Investment raises again. Consumer spending (which will affect exports/imports) then slowly comes back last, government curtails their spending, and we're back to a normal economy. Does consumers (which includes most business) take the majority blow caused by the recession! Yes, but if it wasn't for the bailouts things would have been a lot worse, because:
Oh, so it's okay for all those people in the Detroit Auto industry to lose their jobs? How about all the people now who can't pay their mortgage on their house and get evicted? That's okay too? Without the bailout money, which, in fact, most economists will argue wasn't big enough, a lot more people would have been hit a hell of a lot harder by the recession. How hard? We can't say. But it would have been a lot worse, let me repeat that.
Not to mention a great deal of the White House's higher-ups are part of the very businesses getting bailed out. Don't believe me? Search "Bilderberg Group" and count how many government officials work for that big corporation.
Please tell me you don't listen to Alex Jones, because then I'm wasting my breathe here. Yes, there may be people in the government who may be trying to use said government for personal gain. However, the Treasury department, who is made up of both some Wall Street and investment guys, definitely want to see the country prosper because then they can profit off of everybody being richer (trickle-up economics does exist) and the Fed, which is separate from the government and made up of economists, definitely want to see us out of a recession.
Please take a macroeconomics course, preferably a math intensive one. It will explain to you a lot about how the economy works and how scary it's stability is.
At 8/29/13 11:51 PM, Poniiboi wrote:At 8/29/13 11:08 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: dumb shitwhat a DORK you are!!
I gave you a softball pitch and you still struck out, to use a baseball metaphor. You can't even brag about your own accomplishments?
How low of self-esteem do you have, anyways? And dork? Really? You can surely think of a better insult, you vacuous twat.
Again, what is your point? I'm still can't figure it out, but maybe someone of your intelligence can surely explain it to me.
if you don't know what vacuous means, you have vacuous mind.
At 8/30/13 12:46 AM, T3XT wrote: I see what you're saying, but the problem is we're not doing it for each other's best interests. Companies are exploiting Mexico with sweatshops so the whole country can make those units of ice cream, or more realistically, clothes. Of course, them alone can't supply the growing demand. So they outsource to another country, and another, and another. If it was fair trade between companies I'd be all for it but the execs go long ways to make sure the third world countries get the short end of the stick.
Well, I never said how good of a system it was, I just said it was a system. Look, you agree with the principle, right? Otherwise why would any country trade with another country? It would just produce all it's own products domestically.
Yes, trade means that someone gets a short end of a stick. But that's trade, and what's amazing is how people differently value that short end of the stick. Yes, we may be "exploiting" workers according to our standards, but maybe for the poor country there are now manufacturing jobs that previously didn't exist. Are you telling me that's not a benefit? More people are being employed. There's more output. Is this a bad thing?
At 8/30/13 12:38 AM, T3XT wrote: /end rant
Too bad that rant has about little to no relevance to gobalization, because here's the joke: it's already happened, and you're benefitting from it. Like those cheap clothes? Thanks China! Playing cards? Good job Taiwan! Oil for your gas? I'll come again Middle Eastern country!
So what? Now all of a sudden we're going to try pull back all our trade with other countries and watch as the world economy collapses? Yeah right, good luck trying to convince anyone of that.
Oh yeah free markets, now there's a joke. You know who free markets benefit the most? Rich people. Why? Because they have enough money to buy what ever they want in a free market. See, free markets assume every consumer is on equal footing, and that's not true at all. Furthermore, if you look at the definition of a free market, you realize that a) the mere presence of money (or some sort of standardize currency) makes for a non-free market, and b) free markets have really never existed and that even if they were to exist they could not be substained for long periods of time. Sorry Ayn Ryan and libertarians, but it's time to wake up from your wet dream. And besides, free markets always produce some sort of externalities, which is a topic I'll probably cover in another thread at some point.
At 8/30/13 12:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote: For the better of the conomy as a whole, yes. See Brian's post (even though camparitive advantage is generally a thing of the past).
It still holds true, you just don't see it as it isn't as apparent anymore. For example, let's look at Japan and the United States. California rice is considered vastly superior to Japanese rice ironically, simply because of the growing conditions in California are better. Now, is the United States the best place to farm unagi (sea eel)? No, because it's not a good place for it. The two countries still trade these two goods and benefiting from it.
For the growth and stability of a US middle Class, then absolutely not. A middle class relies upon relatively low skill jobs that pay enough for a family to live comfortably. A race to the bottom in terms of production costs invariably sends these jobs elsewhere wheere they can be done to an acceptable quality for significantly cheaper. This puts a strong downward pressure on wages for any job that can be outsourced, with an emphasis on low skill jobs precisely because of the low skill needed to perform them.
This is true now, but in our magical Economic land this doesn't necessarily have to happen. In fact, as countries specialize correctly, there is more efficiency in the economy, which means the economy overall is functioning at a higher rates, which should mean that there's less unemployment. Of course, this is all in theory, real world is a lot more tricker because no listens to economists and there's god knows how many variables that go on.
So in the end it's a give and take situation.
Yes, in reality this is true. In theory, not so much.
Look, anyone who's studied microeconomics will tell you: yes. Why? Two words: comparative advantage.
It's in our best interests for countries to specialize in products because some countries can produce products at a cheaper cost (though not necessarily in monetary value) than other products. For example, say there are only two goods in the world, and there's only the US and Mexico. Our two goods are ice cream and cigarettes say. The United States can produce per year say either 2 units of ice cream, 8 units of cigarettes, or some combination of the two goods. Mexico, on the other hand, can either produce 1 unit of ice cream, 3 units of cigarettes or some combination of the two goods. Now, million dollar question: should we trade?
Answer: absol-bloody-lutely. Why? Because look at the ratios: for us to 1 unit of ice cream we have to give up 4 units of cigarettes (from the US perspective) opposed to Mexico, which only have to give up 3 units of cigarettes to make 1 unit of ice cream. And since markets typically maximize their benefit by consumption of both goods, it would be logical for the US to specialize in making cigarettes, Mexico specialize in making ice cream, and the two countries trading somehow.
Granted, this is a really simple example, but it gets at the notion that the more international trade the more the benefit this are to the consumers.
A.K.A Let's watch Anderson Cooper get as angry as he gets on national television.
What's sad to me is how much of an authority figure he makes himself out to be........yet clearly the old man's off his rocker. Is he like one of those really closeted conservatives who still doesn't want to admit to himself he's gay?
More so: why do people keep thinking these kinds of facts are true? It's 2013 for Christ's sake! You can use the Internet to research your claims!
Oh, and it's fun to see Anderson Cooper get mad. He needs to do it more often, it's quite entertaining.
this, of course being the 2nd most entertaining moment from the silver fox, the first is the new year eve's show with Kathy griffen
At 8/29/13 10:26 PM, Poniiboi wrote: SJD is a legend.
According to whom exactly?
And don't give me that YouTube crap, Mau5, a user who posts nothing but stupid cat videos has more viewers than yours. So according to whom again?
We are glad you speak highly of his name, or you would die.
At who's hand? Are you going to spout insults and childish words until we die of old age? And what's with the royal "we"? I thought you were independent and hated being "categorized".
Poniiboi has a right to be hateful. He is better than most everyone he comes into contact with.
According to whom again? And define "better" , because mature sure ain't part of it.
And you can't even take the time to respond to my post properly. Tell me again, what point are you trying to make here? Cause as far as I can tell, you've proven once again why pretty much everybody on this board hates you and loves to make fun of you.
cause now it's just too easy to make fun of him, it's like taking candy from a cockroach with AIDS.
no offense to people living HIV positive/AIDS, you guys deserve better
At 8/29/13 03:07 PM, Light wrote: Now they can be as miserable as everybody else.
Hurray for more tax revenue!-Said no one except for the Treasury.
