Dubai's free market capitalism

[Contumacious]

I think he means a mixed economy

OK, but a mixed economy is a FASCIST economy.

.

Fascism is not an economic system

Of course it is,

Economic Fascism and the Bailout Economy

 

[Contumacious]

OK, but a mixed economy is a FASCIST economy.

.

Fascism is not an economic system

Hey--while these little thumbsuckers on this board--" most of whom probably get an allowance from thier parents" & have never worked themselves a day in their life or actually recieved a "pay check" what can you expect-- They don't know the difference.

Just put them on IGNORE.

Mr Dumb Ass, Sir:

Go ahead educate us. What is the fucking difference?

.

 

[Diuretic]

Coal - I appreciate the illustration but I was wondering about how natural resources got into private hands.

Umm coal is a natural resource. Unless you're driving at something else. And I explained how it got into Johnny's hands. Maybe he simply claimed it because he was closest to it. Maybe the society he was in decided it was in everyone's best interest to allow him to supply because he was the best at it. Just a couple of examples

Cuba and the issue of standard of living - It's about how the means of production distributes what is produced. Capitalism relies on the laws of supply and demand in a market mechanism. Socialism requires a planned approach. The upshot is that capitalism produces an inequitable distribution while socialism produces not just an equitable distribution but also a rational distribution.

Another term for planned would be controlled. Typically by government. That is EXTREMELY dangerous. Say what you want about the corruption of capitalism, at least if it becomes to much so you can have government regulate the unfairness out of it. If the government is corrupt, which there is always some level in any country, who will you turn to then to protect you from those that have the means of production?

There are a couple of more fundamental issues at play here. One this idea of equitable distribution. You chastise capitalism for not doing that. Therefore I have to assume you believe all 'stuff' should be equally distributed. I know it's cliche but socialism is indeed a system that only looks good on paper. It has failed whenever used. It fails because labor becomes valueless. If at the end of the day everything is going to get divided up among everyone equally there is no incentive to have to work for anything. Maybe you can get a handful of people to agree to give 100%, but not millions. Socialism fails, or at best can only produce at level equal to its least productive worker. It is system that CAN NOT reach greatness, only mediocrity

The problem is how you view the poor. The left tends to believe they are mostly victims who simply CAN NOT compete. The right tends to believe that the majority of the poor have chosen to be that way. Naturally you know I believe it is the later that is true. You would see it's true as well if you opened your eyes because it is observable by the truck load of people every single day. I know and I'm sure deep down you would admit too that you know very, very few people that could not achieve more if they wanted to. You can't tell me that you know most of the people in your life or that you see everyday are simply 'tapped out' potentntial wise. The TRUTH is being in a bad position in life is more often than not a result of bad decisions.

But hey maybe you don't agree with that premise. Maybe you don't think people should have to work to their full potential to maintain their standard of living. Okay try setting up that society and getting anything produced. Your position would be you are entitled to a standard of living. Problem going back to socialism is if your entitled to something you don't have to work for it. How will anything get provided to anyone? You have as much right to say 'I'm entitled to that food, I'm not the one that's gonna slave over growing it', just as much as I do.

Standard of living and the issue of freedom - I want a decent standard of living for everyone, yes. Capitalism can't do that because of its inherent flaws. Socialism can do it.

Can it garuntee one to everyone? no. But you can not deny that America is proof that it provides a better standard of living than most places in the world for almost everyone. A standard of living that simply is not possible, as we saw from the soviet effort, under socialism.

Freedom. Depends on how it's defined. Capitalism, the freedom to be wealthy, the freedom to be poor. That freedom?

The freedom to pursue what you want to pursue. The freedom to not be deprived of your property to be given to someone else because you think equitable distribution of stuff is the only real definition of FAIR. You want to start getting into flimsy definitions of terms then you better start with that f word first.

Resources – I understand your point Bern, I needed to be a bit clearer I know. I was thinking of the change from feudalism to mercantilism to capitalism in Europe. Roughly (very roughly) I think that under feudalism the land (the progenitor of all wealth) was owned by the monarch and he or she dished out bits to favourites and allies. Therefore the resources that created wealth were owned by the ruling class, the aristocracy. Mercantilism changed that. I think some of the earliest mercantile bodies were given royal charters. There's actually a very interesting example of the beginnings of mercantilism coming from feudalism in an old English case, The Carrier's Case of 1473, showed how the King would instruct the courts to decide a case so as to favour international trade. So, how did the resources controlled by the monarch get into the hands of private individuals?

Planned economy – I'm not arguing that capitalism is corrupt of itself, anything can and is corrupted when humans are involved. As for “government” - in socialism the issue of “government” isn't the same as it is for a liberal democratic capitalist society. There's more likely to be some sort of centralised authority to plan the economy based on a consensus rather than an antagonistic approach.

Equitable distribution – a market economy requires competition, a socialist economy requires cooperation. In a socialist economy people must work, if they can. But in a socialist economy no-one can amass wealth as a rentier. That's not to argue that there should be no incentives or other rewards for those who deserve them, that's a bit of a fallacy. I would suggest strongly that socially valuable occupations should be rewarded. Even under the Soviet Union's iron hand of state capitalism it was possible for them to put a man into space a month before the United States. Not bad for a nation that in 1917 was labouring under a near absolute monarchy and stuck with feudalism. The idea that socialism destroys incentive and can't produce advancements in society is a fallacy.

The poor - no, the problem is not how I view the poor at all. I don't believe anyone needs to be poor.

Entitlement - That's where the misconceptions come in. If someone can work they should work. As Lenin put it, if you don't work, you don't eat.

Standard of living - This reminds me of the boast of wonderful health care in America – too bad if you can't buy it. It is true that the huge difference between the super wealthy and the poor doesn't exist in socialism. Now, is there a problem with that? Take the Soviet Union or Cuba. Look at the standard of living before socialism, then look at it afterwards. Vastly improved.

Freedom and fairness - Socialism recognises private personal property and the right to that property. Deprivation of that property occurs under capitalism and under state capitalism and no doubt under certain circumstances, under socialism as well. Socialism recognises that there should be compensation for that. State capitalism – ie China – doesn't, I believe that in most capitalist countries compensation is also available – as it should be.

 

[Bern80]

Resources – I understand your point Bern, I needed to be a bit clearer I know. I was thinking of the change from feudalism to mercantilism to capitalism in Europe. Roughly (very roughly) I think that under feudalism the land (the progenitor of all wealth) was owned by the monarch and he or she dished out bits to favourites and allies. Therefore the resources that created wealth were owned by the ruling class, the aristocracy. Mercantilism changed that. I think some of the earliest mercantile bodies were given royal charters. There's actually a very interesting example of the beginnings of mercantilism coming from feudalism in an old English case, The Carrier's Case of 1473, showed how the King would instruct the courts to decide a case so as to favour international trade. So, how did the resources controlled by the monarch get into the hands of private individuals?

I don't think it's as deep as that. It really is as simple as 'finders keepers'. From there it's simply a question of how fairly the finder chooses to distribute the resource. Will he gouge people? Will he set a fair price? Will he set up a barter system? Who knows. The point is dispelling this notion that capitilism is somehow more corrupt than any other system. The only other thing I can think you are saying is that everyone has a an inherently equal right to resources. Sounds nice. But not very practical or efficient in terms of distribution in real life.

Planned economy – I'm not arguing that capitalism is corrupt of itself, anything can and is corrupted when humans are involved. As for “government” - in socialism the issue of “government” isn't the same as it is for a liberal democratic capitalist society. There's more likely to be some sort of centralised authority to plan the economy based on a consensus rather than an antagonistic approach.

I'm sure you've heard the adage, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Control over a nationals laws and it's means of production AND planning it out. That is a lot of power. Capitalism is actually better equipped do deal with corruption than some system of government centralized planning. Who will you have to turn when your government, the planner and runner of your economy is corrupted? You have the same fundamental problem as you do with labor in either system. People look out for their own best interests first. I can do that better under capitalism and that very same concept is what makes government run economy corrupt.

Equitable distribution – a market economy requires competition, a socialist economy requires cooperation. In a socialist economy people must work, if they can. But in a socialist economy no-one can amass wealth as a rentier. That's not to argue that there should be no incentives or other rewards for those who deserve them, that's a bit of a fallacy. I would suggest strongly that socially valuable occupations should be rewarded. Even under the Soviet Union's iron hand of state capitalism it was possible for them to put a man into space a month before the United States. Not bad for a nation that in 1917 was labouring under a near absolute monarchy and stuck with feudalism. The idea that socialism destroys incentive and can't produce advancements in society is a fallacy.

Again with this socially valuable BS. What does that mean? The market naturally decides what is valuable already. It is based on supply and demand. Generally the more scarce the resource the more it is going to cost. But you would change that in your society to the things that are most socially valuable should cost the most. That would be an even harsher society then what we have now. And before you go saying that isn't what you said, I insist that it is if you think about. You said socially valuable occupation should be rewarded I would presume more so than less socially valuable. How are you going to reward them more without increasing the cost of whatever service or good they provide? Subsidize them? That never works in the long run. By extension you are saying people should pay the most for the things they need.

The poor - no, the problem is not how I view the poor at all. I don't believe anyone needs to be poor.

That one sentence proves that you do have a problem with you view them. What does need have to do with being poor. Capitalism doesn't require people to be poor. Capitalism needs people with money to buy things. It needs people with disposable income to purchase more than just necessities. Capitalism requires cooperation of a sorts as well. But here is where capitalism becomes more 'fair' then collectivism. Both systems require everyone to put forth effort to be successful. But capitalism doesn't punish the whole for the failing of the few.

Entitlement - That's where the misconceptions come in. If someone can work they should work. As Lenin put it, if you don't work, you don't eat.

You're going to have to put in a little more context than that, because by itself, that would make Lenin a capitalist.

Standard of living - This reminds me of the boast of wonderful health care in America – too bad if you can't buy it. It is true that the huge difference between the super wealthy and the poor doesn't exist in socialism. Now, is there a problem with that? Take the Soviet Union or Cuba. Look at the standard of living before socialism, then look at it afterwards. Vastly improved.

Bad analogy Di. The problems with our healthcare system have nothing to do with standard of living or failures of capitalism. The truth would be that it has a lot to do with a LACK of free market concepts. For example, insurance companies are not allowed to compete across state lines. The options for various policies are very narrow in scope because government has required that everything under the sun be covered. Where as if I got to choose to say I'll cover the occasional cold, yearly eye and teeth cleanings etc. and you (the insurance company) just cover the catastrophic things that would make my premiums cost less because there isn't a bunch of things on it that I don't need or want to pay for.

Freedom and fairness - Socialism recognises private personal property and the right to that property. Deprivation of that property occurs under capitalism and under state capitalism and no doubt under certain circumstances, under socialism as well. Socialism recognises that there should be compensation for that. State capitalism – ie China – doesn't, I believe that in most capitalist countries compensation is also available – as it should be.

How does involuntary deprivation of property occur under capitalism?

 

[Shogun]

Hey BE$N! check it out



White-collar jobless join FedEx, UPS for holidays

White-collar jobless join FedEx, UPS for holidays - Yahoo! News


Ready to start stacking some boxes, BE$N?

 

[Bern80]

Hey BE$N! check it out



White-collar jobless join FedEx, UPS for holidays

White-collar jobless join FedEx, UPS for holidays - Yahoo! News


Ready to start stacking some boxes, BE$N?

What should have happened to this guy in your perfect world?

 

[Shogun]

Hey BE$N! check it out



White-collar jobless join FedEx, UPS for holidays

White-collar jobless join FedEx, UPS for holidays - Yahoo! News


Ready to start stacking some boxes, BE$N?

What should have happened to this guy in your perfect world?

America should have made an effort to retain his domestic employment by limiting the amount of foreign competition from nations whose trade deficit is the kind of joke that gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling. I have no problem with domestic competition, but as you can see, even white collar employment - Indeed, the very indication of withered blue collar employment - suffers because of FMC and the unicorn that is some hypothetical free market.


so, again BE$N, ready to lift some boxes?

 

[Bern80]

Hey BE$N! check it out



White-collar jobless join FedEx, UPS for holidays

White-collar jobless join FedEx, UPS for holidays - Yahoo! News


Ready to start stacking some boxes, BE$N?

What should have happened to this guy in your perfect world?

America should have made an effort to retain his domestic employment by limiting the amount of foreign competition from nations whose trade deficit is the kind of joke that gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling. I have no problem with domestic competition, but as you can see, even white collar employment - Indeed, the very indication of withered blue collar employment - suffers because of FMC and the unicorn that is some hypothetical free market.


so, again BE$N, ready to lift some boxes?

All I can see is reading for comprehension will be the third area you are lacking in. One guy was an IT manager, who was laid off. That has been fairly common in this economic dowturn for middle management to get laid off as companies try to become more efficient. It happened here where I work. Generally you don't replace middle management with overseas middle management. The other guy was a freelance journalist who couldn't find any media outlet to hire him. As far as can be ascertained from the article this had nothing to do with jobs going overseas. If your gonna try to make a point at least try to post an article that backs up the point. This one goes in the epic fail column.

 

[Shogun]

What should have happened to this guy in your perfect world?

America should have made an effort to retain his domestic employment by limiting the amount of foreign competition from nations whose trade deficit is the kind of joke that gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling. I have no problem with domestic competition, but as you can see, even white collar employment - Indeed, the very indication of withered blue collar employment - suffers because of FMC and the unicorn that is some hypothetical free market.


so, again BE$N, ready to lift some boxes?

All I can see is reading for comprehension will be the third area you are lacking in. One guy was an IT manager, who was laid off. That has been fairly common in this economic dowturn for middle management to get laid off as companies try to become more efficient. It happened here where I work. Generally you don't replace middle management with overseas middle management. The other guy was a freelance journalist who couldn't find any media outlet to hire him. As far as can be ascertained from the article this had nothing to do with jobs going overseas. If your gonna try to make a point at least try to post an article that backs up the point. This one goes in the epic fail column.

white collar reduction is the telltale symptom of losing blue collar jobs, BE$N. Did you bother to ponder WHY the IT manager's job was tossed out, BE$N? Clearly, being purposefully obtuse is an area that you are NOT lacking in. After all, nothing says thriving domestic economy like... uh.. downsizing. After all, I probably CAN'T find an article depicting WHY domestic IT jobs are enjoying the same routine as auto workers.


Tech bosses defend overseas hiring
Tech bosses defend overseas hiring / Intel, HP chiefs warn that U.S. needs to improve education system

U.S. Loses 533,000 Jobs in Biggest Drop Since 1974
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/business/economy/06jobs.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2



According to a report by research firm Gartner, they predict that up to 15% percent of tech workers will leave their profession by the year 2010, mostly due to the lack of tech jobs available, there are better paying jobs available or jobs with better satisfaction.

That article says that thousands of companies here in the U.S. have opened branches or hired workers in India, China and Russia, and suggests there is little motivation to hire someone here in the U.S. when compared to offshore workers.
Programming Jobs Lose Appeal

 

[Contumacious]

socialism recognises private personal property and the right to that property. Deprivation of that property occurs under capitalism .

huh?

Hit the books and re-post.

.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

socialism recognises private personal property and the right to that property. Deprivation of that property occurs under capitalism .

huh?

Hit the books and re-post.

.

Socialism (generally, though not in all systems) recognizes personal property. Communism/Marxism does not.

 

[Bern80]

white collar reduction is the telltale symptom of losing blue collar jobs, BE$N. Did you bother to ponder WHY the IT manager's job was tossed out, BE$N? Clearly, being purposefully obtuse is an area that you are NOT lacking in. After all, nothing says thriving domestic economy like... uh.. downsizing. After all, I probably CAN'T find an article depicting WHY domestic IT jobs are enjoying the same routine as auto workers.

You really do need everything spelled out for you don't you. One of the individuals couldn't find work as a journalist. So he is completely of the table as evidence for you. The other guy was a laid off IT manager. There is NO mention in the article at all as to why he was laid off. Now they only way you would have a case here is if, even though we aren't told so, he was laid off and replaced by an IT manager overseas. That is highly unlikely. What is more likely is the company he worked for had to find ways to cut costs and become more efficient in a tough economy. The guys job went away and is not going to be replaced by anyone, domestic or foreign. It happens. Man up and admit you picked a piss poor article to make your point.

Tech bosses defend overseas hiring
Tech bosses defend overseas hiring / Intel, HP chiefs warn that U.S. needs to improve education system

This one doesn't help you either. It's actually proves my point more than yours. The complaint of the HP executives is essentially that their is a demand by consumers for something they make or do. That demand translates for them into a demand for specific skill sets. The American supply of that skill set can not meet their demand so they need to look outside America for them. The solution, as the exec. in the aritcle says, is for Americans to be educated in the skills that they demand. It isn't just that companies are using overseas labor because it's cheap. It is because for them to remain in business and keep the American jobs they dp provide, they must remain competitive and meet the demands of the market. That means the labor force must meet their demand for the skill set they need and right now American simply isn't. But no, instead we have dipshits like yourself who think it's best to make excuses for people to not rise to this challenge. Instead we should put outrageous tariffs in place or legislate that companies can only hire Americans. It is collossally short sighted approach that it is hard to fathom how one can be so stupid as to not see the problems that will cause this country. The biggest problems being against the very middle and poor classes you claim to be the great defender of. I am in that class and to Shogun I say don't do me any fucking 'favors'. I have no desire to see my pay go up or my job saved if everything I purchase is going to go up right along with it thanks to your protectionist agenda. Thanks a fucking ton for 'improving' my standard of living.

 

[antagon]

nd socialism evolved from capitalist ideas anyhow.

What schools of communism are you referring to?

i think the market is minimally regulated as it is.

How is the market minimally regulated when the Fed tells banks whom they must give loans to, what interest rates they must loans to eachother at, and how many dollars should be printed?

How can you have interventionist stimulus without expansion of the central government to 'manage' it? They're a package deal.

You're attaching the gold standard? The precious metals standard was stablefor thousands of years. It's a lot harder to inflate the amount of gold/silver (or other commodity) in your vaults than it is to print more fiat.



Not if you have a commodity-based currency. In such a system, you'rereally only practicing barter with a common commodity being traded because of its perceived value. You' don't print gold


You just proved the Austrians correct. By inflating the money supply (printing more deutchmarks), they devalued the currency, as each d-mark now represented a smaller fraction of the gold that represented their overall wealth. Printing more d-marks gives the illusion of greater wealth than there really was, and by the time the effect was felt by the common man, the d-mark was worth as much as toilet paper (possibly less).


The market does determine the value of the means of exchange when you have the gold standard. With a fiats system, it's the government which tries to assign value to the State's money. When they wish to increase wealth, they then print more d-marks or dollars, but this makes the currency less rare and therefore less valuable. This is the devaluation of currency caused by an inflated money supply- this is inflation, which the end consumer experiences as 'higher prices'. Under the gold standard, you can't inflate the money supply by simply printing more bills (it's still possible to misrepresent available wealth, but it's far more difficult); the only way to increase the means of exchange (assuming it remains unchanged) is to amass more of that which is valuable in exchange.


No coincidence that colonialism ended when the major powers destroyed eachother and begun dismantling their own economies. To imply that Keynes saved the world from colonialism is dishonest at best. You can, btw, have a silver standard, diamond standard, or any other standard, so long as you back the currency with something of value in trade (not just your alleged political might) and each unit of the means of exchange can be exchanged for that commodity at any time.

theres a degree that the US is operating on an quasi-oil standard, and that that's the motivation for our 'interest' in the ME.

You can't back you currency with something you don't have. The american dollar is backed by nothing but bombs and the Army.

ive got to say that if the austrian deal is based on the gold standard im willing to write the shit off without going to a library

The Austrian School is based in common sense. I suppose it could be summed up as:
-If you want your currency to be valuable, back it with something valuable

-If you flood the market with something, it becomes less valuable

-If you think you have more wealth than you really do, you're gonna be in trouble when the bills come in after yous pend it all

-The market is people. People cannot be predicted with mathematical formulas; to understand the market, you must understand the people in it, thier motivations, their desires, and the manner in which they act. One cannot sit in one's ivory tower with mathematics and plot out, plan, and manipulate the desires and actions of the numerous bodies which compose the open market. (Austrian Economics is sometimes referred to as a psychological school of economics; it is a descrioptive school, nota prescriptive belief)

You've already shown yourself, through your German example, how an inflated money supply leads to disaster. The reason Austrians support a commodities-based currency is because it is a protection against such inflation and it provides a meaningful measure of wealth by which to judge a nation's economic state as well as a means of enabling the currency to acquire true market value (the value of a note that can be traded for one ounce of silver is the market value of one ounce of silver).

got to b brief...

whatever the upsides of this austrian shit are, for me it is overshadowed by their advocates, who are all about a laisez-faire system, the dismatlement of the Fed and this gold-standard nonesense.

bear in mind that the g depression and the dmark inflation situation are examples of money supply issues in a gold-standard economy, not a fiat system. there's a need to grow the money supply year on year, and in a contraction in order to combat deflation and the related unemployment. the price mechanism in capitalism assumes the value of currency as a constant. <-- thats where all your freedom in the economy comes from, and the better that constant is managed, the healthier the economy, arguably. to affect this, supply and demand for currency in the economy must be regulated.

it doesnt matter whether its tethered to bricks of gold or not, the money supply must still be adjusted, or deflation/inflation will occur in a contraction/expansion. facillitating this in a gold std econ. requires digging gold out of the ground, trading something for it, or going to war with little african countries to get it.

it is simpler and more secure in a fiat economy. <--- i mean the US, not the worst such example you could find. I would suggest that resource-rich african nations use a commodity standard; there's simply no demand for their freshly-printed currency without it. in the US, that is not the case. Our economy grows faster than any other on the planet, quantitatively. as the world's favorite exchange medium, the dollar is in rediculous demand. no african miners are going to keep up with that reliably. at the current rate of dollar supply expansion, which ill say is about right (where's the dramatic inflation/deflation?), relying on international gold reserves will undoubtably result in deflation until we rescind the policy and burn the austrian scholars at the stake for treason.

anyhow, if you dont trust government with fiat monetary policy, how could you trust them with gold policy? at least the buck is traded on an open market, where its value is decided by the demand i described above.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

nd socialism evolved from capitalist ideas anyhow.

What schools of communism are you referring to?


How is the market minimally regulated when the Fed tells banks whom they must give loans to, what interest rates they must loans to eachother at, and how many dollars should be printed?

How can you have interventionist stimulus without expansion of the central government to 'manage' it? They're a package deal.

You're attaching the gold standard? The precious metals standard was stablefor thousands of years. It's a lot harder to inflate the amount of gold/silver (or other commodity) in your vaults than it is to print more fiat.



Not if you have a commodity-based currency. In such a system, you'rereally only practicing barter with a common commodity being traded because of its perceived value. You' don't print gold


You just proved the Austrians correct. By inflating the money supply (printing more deutchmarks), they devalued the currency, as each d-mark now represented a smaller fraction of the gold that represented their overall wealth. Printing more d-marks gives the illusion of greater wealth than there really was, and by the time the effect was felt by the common man, the d-mark was worth as much as toilet paper (possibly less).


The market does determine the value of the means of exchange when you have the gold standard. With a fiats system, it's the government which tries to assign value to the State's money. When they wish to increase wealth, they then print more d-marks or dollars, but this makes the currency less rare and therefore less valuable. This is the devaluation of currency caused by an inflated money supply- this is inflation, which the end consumer experiences as 'higher prices'. Under the gold standard, you can't inflate the money supply by simply printing more bills (it's still possible to misrepresent available wealth, but it's far more difficult); the only way to increase the means of exchange (assuming it remains unchanged) is to amass more of that which is valuable in exchange.


No coincidence that colonialism ended when the major powers destroyed eachother and begun dismantling their own economies. To imply that Keynes saved the world from colonialism is dishonest at best. You can, btw, have a silver standard, diamond standard, or any other standard, so long as you back the currency with something of value in trade (not just your alleged political might) and each unit of the means of exchange can be exchanged for that commodity at any time.


You can't back you currency with something you don't have. The american dollar is backed by nothing but bombs and the Army.

ive got to say that if the austrian deal is based on the gold standard im willing to write the shit off without going to a library

The Austrian School is based in common sense. I suppose it could be summed up as:
-If you want your currency to be valuable, back it with something valuable

-If you flood the market with something, it becomes less valuable

-If you think you have more wealth than you really do, you're gonna be in trouble when the bills come in after yous pend it all

-The market is people. People cannot be predicted with mathematical formulas; to understand the market, you must understand the people in it, thier motivations, their desires, and the manner in which they act. One cannot sit in one's ivory tower with mathematics and plot out, plan, and manipulate the desires and actions of the numerous bodies which compose the open market. (Austrian Economics is sometimes referred to as a psychological school of economics; it is a descrioptive school, nota prescriptive belief)

You've already shown yourself, through your German example, how an inflated money supply leads to disaster. The reason Austrians support a commodities-based currency is because it is a protection against such inflation and it provides a meaningful measure of wealth by which to judge a nation's economic state as well as a means of enabling the currency to acquire true market value (the value of a note that can be traded for one ounce of silver is the market value of one ounce of silver).

got to b brief...

whatever the upsides of this austrian shit are, for me it is overshadowed by their advocates, who are all about a laisez-faire system, the dismatlement of the Fed and this gold-standard nonesense.

bear in mind that the g depression and the dmark inflation situation are examples of money supply issues in a gold-standard economy, not a fiat system. there's a need to grow the money supply year on year, and in a contraction in order to combat deflation and the related unemployment. the price mechanism in capitalism assumes the value of currency as a constant. <-- thats where all your freedom in the economy comes from, and the better that constant is managed, the healthier the economy, arguably. to affect this, supply and demand for currency in the economy must be regulated.

it doesnt matter whether its tethered to bricks of gold or not, the money supply must still be adjusted, or deflation/inflation will occur in a contraction/expansion. facillitating this in a gold std econ. requires digging gold out of the ground, trading something for it, or going to war with little african countries to get it.

it is simpler and more secure in a fiat economy. <--- i mean the US, not the worst such example you could find. I would suggest that resource-rich african nations use a commodity standard; there's simply no demand for their freshly-printed currency without it. in the US, that is not the case. Our economy grows faster than any other on the planet, quantitatively. as the world's favorite exchange medium, the dollar is in rediculous demand. no african miners are going to keep up with that reliably. at the current rate of dollar supply expansion, which ill say is about right (where's the dramatic inflation/deflation?), relying on international gold reserves will undoubtably result in deflation until we rescind the policy and burn the austrian scholars at the stake for treason.

anyhow, if you dont trust government with fiat monetary policy, how could you trust them with gold policy? at least the buck is traded on an open market, where its value is decided by the demand i described above.

We didn't have a genuine gold standard during the Great Depression, but an inflationary gold-exchange standard.

 

[Shogun]

You really do need everything spelled out for you don't you. One of the individuals couldn't find work as a journalist. So he is completely of the table as evidence for you. The other guy was a laid off IT manager. There is NO mention in the article at all as to why he was laid off. Now they only way you would have a case here is if, even though we aren't told so, he was laid off and replaced by an IT manager overseas. That is highly unlikely. What is more likely is the company he worked for had to find ways to cut costs and become more efficient in a tough economy. The guys job went away and is not going to be replaced by anyone, domestic or foreign. It happens. Man up and admit you picked a piss poor article to make your point.


Yes, one was a journalist and I accept the freelance nature of his business. HOWEVER, the IT manager wasn't a freelancing free agent. And, I've posted article after article relaying how THAT industry has been looking over the last decade. So, drag your feet if you want to. Be purposefully obtuse if you NEED to... but these are all reasons why the rotten carrot on your dangled stick just isn't appealing to anyone outside of ignorant dipshits with more personal identity than facts to offer. Which, again, is why I asked if you are ready to stack some boxes at your new UPS part time gig. Dense much? Your assumptions are quite predictable too. Of COURSE it was just an action that happened in a vacuum which is not reflective of anything other than the specific circumstances of that one business dude! You sure as hell don't want to process those other articles depicting WHY IT JOBS ARE BEING REDUCED, do ya?




This one doesn't help you either. It's actually proves my point more than yours. The complaint of the HP executives is essentially that their is a demand by consumers for something they make or do. That demand translates for them into a demand for specific skill sets. The American supply of that skill set can not meet their demand so they need to look outside America for them. The solution, as the exec. in the aritcle says, is for Americans to be educated in the skills that they demand. It isn't just that companies are using overseas labor because it's cheap. It is because for them to remain in business and keep the American jobs they dp provide, they must remain competitive and meet the demands of the market. That means the labor force must meet their demand for the skill set they need and right now American simply isn't. But no, instead we have dipshits like yourself who think it's best to make excuses for people to not rise to this challenge. Instead we should put outrageous tariffs in place or legislate that companies can only hire Americans. It is collossally short sighted approach that it is hard to fathom how one can be so stupid as to not see the problems that will cause this country. The biggest problems being against the very middle and poor classes you claim to be the great defender of. I am in that class and to Shogun I say don't do me any fucking 'favors'. I have no desire to see my pay go up or my job saved if everything I purchase is going to go up right along with it thanks to your protectionist agenda. Thanks a fucking ton for 'improving' my standard of living.


Are you smoking fucking crack today, BE$N? "A certain skillset" is like executive speak for "won't work for pennies on the dollar". It's awfully silly of you to assume that the worlds most prominent nation, the very fucking beacon of education and collected human fucking knowledge, isn't as equipped to teach a subject as well as... uh... India. For real. You might as well have just made some lame ass excuse to circumvent taxes via offshore accounts because the weather is nicer. But hey, we've talked about your eternal bag of excuses before haven't we, mr. "it's just the market adjusting itself".





It isn't just that companies are using overseas labor because it's cheap.


do I REALLY need to quote the fucking articles, BE$N? Really?


Craig Barrett, head of Santa Clara chipmaker Intel Corp., declared that the world had arrived at a rare "strategic inflection point" where nearly half its population -- living in China, India and Russia -- had been integrated into the global market economy, many of them highly educated workers "who can do just about any job in the world."

"We're talking about 3 billion people," Barrett said, more than 10 times the U.S. population. "The U.S. has a very simple choice to make. We have to decide if we're going to be competitive with these markets."




what the fuck do you think he means when he says "BE COMPETITIVE WITH THESE MARKETS", BE$N? Here's a hint, brainiac: He's not talking about the competitive skills so much as their relative cost of labor compared to the US. I posted that one to show you that there is, in fact, a very real pattern that you would otherwise insist isn't happening. However, if you want to stand behind the words being spoken out of both sides of their mouths then feel free. I have no problem deciphering the kind of silly rhetoric that you seem to eat for breakfast.

Trust me, BE$N, no one is the least bit bamboozled by your "we must be competitive (but I don't way to outright say lower our SOL) as India." No one is missing that your kind dance around bullshit and pretend it's gold just to feel right about an economic system that continually fails all but the top 4% of practitioners. And, trust me, the more you insist that the US should wager its SOL with that of India just to be "globally competitive" with near-third world countries the EASIER it will be for my kind to achieve more votes than you have croc tears and chicken little protectionism mantras.

 

[Shogun]

Will IBM layoffs mean more jobs sent overseas?

Will IBM layoffs mean more jobs sent overseas? | ITworld


March 26, 2009, 02:32 PM &#8212; Network World &#8212;

Criticism is mounting as reports surface that IBM is cutting 5,000 North American employees even as it increases its hiring overseas.

[ Slideshow: Most notable layoffs of 2009. ]

After the Wall Street Journal reported that IBM is planning to lay off about 5,000 U.S. employees, with many of the jobs potentially being transferred to India, IBM confirmed in a statement that it would be communicating to employees that jobs are being eliminated.

"This is a North American action. We are not communicating locations or the number of jobs as a result of this action," IBM said in a statement on Thursday.

The news around IBM potentially displacing American workers and relocating positions in India will not earn Big Blue any points in the court of public opinion. But financially speaking, industry watchers say offshoring work overseas could cut costs and improve service delivery for the company's Global Services division.






clearly, 5000 former IBM employees just didn't have the right education... just ask "Step over the Beggar in Calcutta" BE$N!

 

[Diuretic]

Resources &#8211; I understand your point Bern, I needed to be a bit clearer I know. I was thinking of the change from feudalism to mercantilism to capitalism in Europe. Roughly (very roughly) I think that under feudalism the land (the progenitor of all wealth) was owned by the monarch and he or she dished out bits to favourites and allies. Therefore the resources that created wealth were owned by the ruling class, the aristocracy. Mercantilism changed that. I think some of the earliest mercantile bodies were given royal charters. There's actually a very interesting example of the beginnings of mercantilism coming from feudalism in an old English case, The Carrier's Case of 1473, showed how the King would instruct the courts to decide a case so as to favour international trade. So, how did the resources controlled by the monarch get into the hands of private individuals?

I don't think it's as deep as that. It really is as simple as 'finders keepers'. From there it's simply a question of how fairly the finder chooses to distribute the resource. Will he gouge people? Will he set a fair price? Will he set up a barter system? Who knows. The point is dispelling this notion that capitilism is somehow more corrupt than any other system. The only other thing I can think you are saying is that everyone has a an inherently equal right to resources. Sounds nice. But not very practical or efficient in terms of distribution in real life.

Planned economy &#8211; I'm not arguing that capitalism is corrupt of itself, anything can and is corrupted when humans are involved. As for &#8220;government&#8221; - in socialism the issue of &#8220;government&#8221; isn't the same as it is for a liberal democratic capitalist society. There's more likely to be some sort of centralised authority to plan the economy based on a consensus rather than an antagonistic approach.

I'm sure you've heard the adage, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Control over a nationals laws and it's means of production AND planning it out. That is a lot of power. Capitalism is actually better equipped do deal with corruption than some system of government centralized planning. Who will you have to turn when your government, the planner and runner of your economy is corrupted? You have the same fundamental problem as you do with labor in either system. People look out for their own best interests first. I can do that better under capitalism and that very same concept is what makes government run economy corrupt.



Again with this socially valuable BS. What does that mean? The market naturally decides what is valuable already. It is based on supply and demand. Generally the more scarce the resource the more it is going to cost. But you would change that in your society to the things that are most socially valuable should cost the most. That would be an even harsher society then what we have now. And before you go saying that isn't what you said, I insist that it is if you think about. You said socially valuable occupation should be rewarded I would presume more so than less socially valuable. How are you going to reward them more without increasing the cost of whatever service or good they provide? Subsidize them? That never works in the long run. By extension you are saying people should pay the most for the things they need.



That one sentence proves that you do have a problem with you view them. What does need have to do with being poor. Capitalism doesn't require people to be poor. Capitalism needs people with money to buy things. It needs people with disposable income to purchase more than just necessities. Capitalism requires cooperation of a sorts as well. But here is where capitalism becomes more 'fair' then collectivism. Both systems require everyone to put forth effort to be successful. But capitalism doesn't punish the whole for the failing of the few.



You're going to have to put in a little more context than that, because by itself, that would make Lenin a capitalist.

Standard of living - This reminds me of the boast of wonderful health care in America &#8211; too bad if you can't buy it. It is true that the huge difference between the super wealthy and the poor doesn't exist in socialism. Now, is there a problem with that? Take the Soviet Union or Cuba. Look at the standard of living before socialism, then look at it afterwards. Vastly improved.

Bad analogy Di. The problems with our healthcare system have nothing to do with standard of living or failures of capitalism. The truth would be that it has a lot to do with a LACK of free market concepts. For example, insurance companies are not allowed to compete across state lines. The options for various policies are very narrow in scope because government has required that everything under the sun be covered. Where as if I got to choose to say I'll cover the occasional cold, yearly eye and teeth cleanings etc. and you (the insurance company) just cover the catastrophic things that would make my premiums cost less because there isn't a bunch of things on it that I don't need or want to pay for.

Freedom and fairness - Socialism recognises private personal property and the right to that property. Deprivation of that property occurs under capitalism and under state capitalism and no doubt under certain circumstances, under socialism as well. Socialism recognises that there should be compensation for that. State capitalism &#8211; ie China &#8211; doesn't, I believe that in most capitalist countries compensation is also available &#8211; as it should be.

How does involuntary deprivation of property occur under capitalism?

Resources &#8211; the question of the the ownership of those resources goes to the heart of the differences between capitalism and socialism. I think we probably won't agree on that point so perhaps we declare that one as undecided?

Planned economy/power/corruption &#8211; corruption occurs where there is a chance of personal benefit. It can be dealt with in the usual manner (I'm not advocating the Chinese method).




Socially valuable. Easy, that which enhances human existence &#8211; and no I don't mean films like &#8220;Avatar&#8221;. Education and healthcare should be available at no cost to the consumer. If you want a widescreen television then you pay for it.

There's nothing &#8220;natural&#8221; about a market economy, it's a human invention just like every other aspect of economics. If it was natural there would be no need for advertising. The mechanism does have some benefits and in a socialist economy it can be used to good effect. I'm not so doctrinaire as to deny its usefulness in a limited form.

Poor. Of course capitalism requires the poor. Someone has to be on the bottom of the heap. Capitalism requires class structure, the ones at the top get most, the ones at the bottom get the least, they're called the poor. An economy doesn't &#8220;punish&#8221; anyone, it's not a moral code.

Standard of living pre and post socialism and healthcare. I know the US heatlthcare system has its problems but one characteristic of it is that it has to be paid for. It differs from socialism in that way. My reference to the Soviet Union and Cuba was to point out something much broader though. That is that socialism improved the standard of living in those societies.

Involuntary deprivation of property under capitalism happens when someone bigger than you wants what you have. Eminent domain.

 

[Diuretic]

socialism recognises private personal property and the right to that property. Deprivation of that property occurs under capitalism .

huh?

Hit the books and re-post.

.

Show me a reason to do so.

 

[Bern80]

Yes, one was a journalist and I accept the freelance nature of his business. HOWEVER, the IT manager wasn't a freelancing free agent. And, I've posted article after article relaying how THAT industry has been looking over the last decade. So, drag your feet if you want to. Be purposefully obtuse if you NEED to... but these are all reasons why the rotten carrot on your dangled stick just isn't appealing to anyone outside of ignorant dipshits with more personal identity than facts to offer. Which, again, is why I asked if you are ready to stack some boxes at your new UPS part time gig. Dense much? Your assumptions are quite predictable too. Of COURSE it was just an action that happened in a vacuum which is not reflective of anything other than the specific circumstances of that one business dude! You sure as hell don't want to process those other articles depicting WHY IT JOBS ARE BEING REDUCED, do ya?

I'm not being obtuse at all. It is YOU who is making a HUGE assumption about why the man was layed off in a really lame attempt to cover up for the fact that you cited an article that has ZERO to do with what you continue to piss and moan about. Are you so stupid that you think the only reason people get laid or lose their jobs is because the job goes overseas. Oh, I forgot. In your fucked up world people are garunteed jobs for life no matter what.

Are you smoking fucking crack today, BE$N? "A certain skillset" is like executive speak for "won't work for pennies on the dollar". It's awfully silly of you to assume that the worlds most prominent nation, the very fucking beacon of education and collected human fucking knowledge, isn't as equipped to teach a subject as well as... uh... India. For real. You might as well have just made some lame ass excuse to circumvent taxes via offshore accounts because the weather is nicer. But hey, we've talked about your eternal bag of excuses before haven't we, mr. "it's just the market adjusting itself".

Yes certain skill set, dipshit. Like the ability to repair a heart. Or program a computer. Or fix a car. It isn't a question of whether we are equipped to teach those things. Of course we do. The issue dense boy, is that we don't have the people willing to be taught. Hence a lack of supply.

what the fuck do you think he means when he says "BE COMPETITIVE WITH THESE MARKETS", BE$N? Here's a hint, brainiac: He's not talking about the competitive skills so much as their relative cost of labor compared to the US. I posted that one to show you that there is, in fact, a very real pattern that you would otherwise insist isn't happening. However, if you want to stand behind the words being spoken out of both sides of their mouths then feel free. I have no problem deciphering the kind of silly rhetoric that youseem to eat for breakfast.

Many factors contribute to a companies ability to be competitive, yes, one of them is cost of labor. I am not insisting at all that their hasn't been an increase in American firms hiring people in other countries.

Trust me, BE$N, no one is the least bit bamboozled by your "we must be competitive (but I don't way to outright say lower our SOL) as India." No one is missing that your kind dance around bullshit and pretend it's gold just to feel right about an economic system that continually fails all but the top 4% of practitioners. And, trust me, the more you insist that the US should wager its SOL with that of India just to be "globally competitive" with near-third world countries the EASIER it will be for my kind to achieve more votes than you have croc tears and chicken little protectionism mantras.

4th thing you suck at: metaphors.

 

[Diuretic]

Sorry, forgot this one:

Quote: Originally Posted by Diuretic
Entitlement - That's where the misconceptions come in. If someone can work they should work. As Lenin put it, if you don't work, you don't eat.

You're going to have to put in a little more context than that, because by itself, that would make Lenin a capitalist.

"The bourgeoisie are violating the fixed prices, they are profiteering in grain, they are making a hundred, two hundred and more rubles (sic) profit on every pood of grain; they are undermining the grain monopoly and the proper distribution of grain by resorting to bribery and corruption and by maliciously supporting everything tending to destroy the power of the workers, which is endeavouring to put into effect the prime, basic and root principle of socialism: he who toils not, neither shall he eat."

The Famine. A Letter to the Workers of Petrograd.

Lenin.