Theories on how to efficiently run an economy

[phoenyx]

In general, I would disagree. Here's an excerpt from a Salon article on the subject:
**But, of course wealth and income inequality weren’t always as bad as they are today. What happened? In a word: cheating. Although many people try to explain rising inequality away by arguing we live in a winner-take-all economy or that inequality is the result of skill-biased technological change, these arguments are bunk. Inequality has been driven by public policy choices that favored the rich, the decline of unions and the rise of finance. As the chart below shows, tax rates on both income and inheritance were high during the relatively equal ’60s, ’70s and ’80s and then fell dramatically paving the way for the inequality we see today (Chart Source).**

The best way to reduce inequality would be to tax income and wealth. While conservatives often claim that this would reduce economic growth, such claims have very little economic support. For instance, Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Stefanie Stantcheva find no correlation between economic growth and tax cuts. Because of this, they find, “the top tax rate could potentially be set as high as 83%.” (Chart Source)

All is fair in love, war, and business. These people found a way to 'cheat' the system, through the use of the government.

You seem to be suggesting that it's fine for the wealthy to steal so long as they ensure that lawmakers make it legal. Is that what you're suggesting?

Just in case you are (and it would seem that you might be), I'd like to point out that I am -not- a fan of the notion that "all is fair" in love, war or business. An injustice against a single person is an injustice to all, because it weakens the confidence people have that justice is impartial, instead of something that is bought and sold. I think Frank Herbert put it well:
"Remember that there exists a certain malevolence about the formation of any social order. It is the struggle for existence by an artificial entity. Despotism and slavery hover at the edges. Many injuries occur and, thus, the need for laws. The law develops its own power structure, creating more wounds and new injustices. Such trauma can be healed by cooperation. The summons to cooperate identifies the healer."

Source: Dune - Wikiquote

I am suggesting that, yes. It's 'okay', but they should also be prevented from buying politicians. The buying of politicians could be made illegal(As a regulation on the government and public offices, not as a regulation on business). Responding to it by stealing from those businesses would only damage the economy.

Why should stealing ever be ok from those who have truly earned their income? We agree that the buying of politicians could be made illegal. Could you explain this bit about a regulation on government and public offices?

Why do you care that they've earned it?

You consider stolen wealth to be earned?

 

[phoenyx]

What draws you to that conclusion?

We'll leave that for another time, I don't like arguing with you religious types.

That's certainly an interesting way to frame the argument. For those who are just stepping in, I had been asking Pumpkin what drew her to the conclusion that Climate Change was a myth. Anyway Pumpkin, if you're ever interested in discussing it, I'll be happy to open up a thread in the Environment sub forum here.

I don't step into that forum because it's entirely religion and not science. This particular case being one where the two are separate.

This reminds me of a line from Frank Herbert:
**Religion is the emulation of the adult by the child. Religion is the encystment of past beliefs: mythology, which is guesswork, the assumptions of trust in the universe, those pronouncements which men have made in search of personal power, all of it mingled with shreds of enlightenment. And always the ultimate unspoken commandment is "Thou shall not question!" But we question. We break that commandment as a matter of course. The work to which we have set ourselves is the liberating of the imagination, the harnessing of imagination to humankind's deepest sense of creativity.**

Source: Dune - Wikiquote

I have seen religion being defined as a set of beliefs; a belief that something called "God" exists is not required. I simply ask that you question not just the beliefs of others, but your own. How will you ever know whether Climate Change is real or not if you refuse to discuss why most scientists believe it is?

 

[phoenyx]

I agree. What do you think it is? For my part, I believe the U.S. is pretty much an oligarchy, though Bernie and others are trying to change it into a true democracy.

It never was a democracy, it was never intended to be a democracy. So long as there's representation for anyone who isn't a majority, and constitution, it will never be a Democracy. People calling for a Democracy don't know what one is, and the horrors one would come with. America is a Constitutional Republic, and it should always stay a Constitutional Republic.

Hope this helps...
**I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.” But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted...**

Read more at: Is the United States of America a republic or a democracy?

It's a Constitutional Republic.

Adding the word "Constitutional" before Republic doesn't change the fact that a Republic can be a Democracy and vice versa, as I believe the above article points out.

 

[phoenyx]

All people who acquire money are connected to someone who is viewed favourably to some extent by the banks or the government. Failing this, they would be unable to acquire money, unless through robbery. Ethics frequently has little if anything to do with it. I strongly recommend you take a look at the following documentary detailing the morally reprehensible things that many corporations have done and continue to do:

You likely view anyone with any decent amount of money morally reprehensible.

As mentioned previously, no, I don't. But I really think you should take a look at some of the nefarious things that corporations have done in the name of profit. It may make you think twice about supporting capitalism at all costs. I know your bandwidth is limited, so instead of watching the video posted above, you can take a look at the following article...
10 Evil Corporations You Buy From Everyday - Listverse

According to Socialists, Corporations are inherently evil for not just dumping all of their money into the hands of the Nation's failures.

Well then, that must mean that I'm not a socialist. Either that, or your definition of socialism is off. Or both.

Like I said, Capitalism is everyone person for themselves, get over it. There's no more efficient economic system.

Every person for themselves is the most efficient economic system? I think not. The reason civilization works to begin with is precisely because humanity works better collectively then individually.

 

[phoenyx]

Do the rich need McDonald's?

You're very good at this whole 'missing the point' thing.

I think it's the other way around. Could you please just answer my question?

If you were bad at missing the point, you'd have understood my post.

Alright, it looks like you're set on not answering my question, so I'll do it for you- no, rich people don't need Mcdonald's. Businesses come and go. They are generally tools to enrich those who create them. If they no longer fulfill this function, they are closed down. My point is that the rich don't need Mcdonald's, or any other establishment that offers relatively cheap food. It's the lower classes that can't afford to pay for high end restaurants. Businesses can and have laid off employees when people are no longer buying their products. A very valid reason for people not buying their products is a lack of currency with which to do so. This is what happened during the Great Depression. Here's the bottom line: money is used to buy resources. Not just fancy yachts and an extra swimming pool for the rich, but for things that people actually need to survive. There is only so much money to go around- the more the rich acquire, the less there is for everyone else. If those with money don't want to hire people with the money they have, those without money will face homelessness, malnutrition and outright starvation if they don't have arable land and the ability to farm it and build shelters.

If they lack the currency, they should be making their own food to start with, it's cheaper and healthier.

Actually...
Healthy Food IS More Expensive. So Now What?

 

[phoenyx]

Theories on how to efficiently run an economy? To my understanding, most economy models are balance based, which proves to be false. The newest economy theories under development are network based. I think that has a better potential. Or at least that's what my math teacher says.

I googled network economy, came up with the wikipedia entry. I like the following line in the introduction:
"It has been hypothesized that the gradual evolution of network economy would create a well interconnected economic order, which would then begin to concentrate on the passion of individuals, gradually leading to a Passion based economy"

One quick google later, and I found an article on creating a passion based economy. It certainly sounds very inspiring, but I think that before we can get very far with this, we're going to deal with the current monetary system. Put simply, I think it's enabling the banks and their cronies from sucking the working class dry.

I have never heard of a passion based economy or individual, very interesting spin. But I'm afraid it doesn't matter too much, because the mathematics of it is what rules, as usual. Mathematically, I think I am already seeing the total collapse of market models free or otherwise, and we are already in the worldwide network economy. Laws and politics always follow the movement of money and this is what they indicate at this time.

Banks are participants of the network, and they suck dry not only the workers but the non insider corporations too.

I think the most interesting danger is what slaves this new network economy creates. These slaves will be not only individuals, but also certain indentity groups, and even entire nations as well, selectively. And I think this selective differentiation is the most interesting part of it. Is your tribe selected to survive or to die?

The Hunger Games type deal. No evil empire has ever lasted too long. Eventually, people get wise to the fact that they're being played and they rebel. Central banks have been overthrown in the past. President Andrew Jackson overthrew the last U.S. central banking system, so there's certainly precedent:
Andrew Jackson shuts down Second Bank of the U.S. - Sep 10, 1833 - HISTORY.com

 

[phoenyx]

If a business's employee gets hurt, they can be sued.

Perhaps that can work if you have a lot of money. Here's the reality for most people who don't:
**AN INVESTIGATION by ProPublica and NPR earlier this month detailed how states across the nation have been dismantling their workers’ compensation systems, with disastrous consequences for many of the hundreds of thousands of people who suffer serious injuries at work each year.

In some states, the cuts have been so drastic that injured workers have plummeted into poverty, losing their cars and even their homes. In others, workers spend years battling insurance companies for the surgeries, prescriptions and basic help their doctors recommend...**

Source: The Fallout of Workers’ Comp ‘Reforms’: 5 Tales of Harm

You'd think that sort of thing would be illegal.

Perhaps some of them are, but companies are clearly getting away with it. What is happening is shameful. It fits right in with what the corporate oligarchs want, however. As mentioned in "The Story of Stuff", it's all about externalizing the costs. I know it's hard for you to see videos, so I found a pdf transcript of the documentary, which goes into detailed explanations here:
http://storyofstuff.org/wp-content/uploads/movies/scripts/Story of Stuff.pdf

Worker injured? Get rid of them, and pay them as little as possible on their way out. The article linked to above highlights 5 cases. Here's the first:
**Gary Fury was working at a Simonton Windows factory in West Virginia in July 2012 when a large two-window unit slipped to the floor. Fury bent to help a coworker slide it back onto a cart.

“When I went to pick it up,” he recalled, “I felt something pop.”

Fury, then 49, had torn his rotator cuff and ruptured his bicep. After trying less invasive treatments, his doctor recommended surgery and warned of poor results if it was delayed.

Instead of approving it, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, an insurance claims administrator hired by Fury’s employer, sent him to its own doctor for a second opinion six weeks later, according to workers’ comp court records. That doctor also said surgery should be authorized immediately and warned that delays could lead to permanent impairment.

But in West Virginia, time is on the insurer’s side. In 2003, the state passed a law capping wage benefits for temporary injuries like Fury’s to two years — even if the worker hasn’t recovered yet. Several other states, including California, Oklahoma and North Dakota, have recently capped payments at two years. Today, 22 states set arbitrary time limits on temporary wage benefits, according to data collected by the Workers Compensation Research Institute.

Despite the recommendations of two doctors, Sedgwick waited another five weeks before approving surgery — a delay that a workers’ comp judge said was “especially unwarranted” after Sedgwick’s own physician said he needed it “ASAP.” By the time Fury finally got surgery, it was January 2013.

“They just don’t know how much pain I sat for six months in waiting to get surgery,” he said.

As the doctors had warned, Fury still had pain and limited range of motion after the surgery and was unable to return to regular work. Now, his doctor has recommended additional treatment and possibly another surgery.

But since Fury’s two years of wage benefits have run out, if he gets the surgery, his employer doesn’t have to pay him while he recovers — even though a state workers’ comp judge said Sedgwick is “at least in part responsible” for his medical problems.

After his injury, Fury initially survived on two-thirds of his wages, which are provided by workers’ comp, tax-free. But when the payments stopped, Fury has at times had to rely on food stamps and Medicaid.

“It got down to the point where I had to go get help, like from what they call welfare,” Fury said. “That was so embarrassing for me. You know, you’re used to working all your life. I raised two kids and never had to be on there. Sometimes, it really degraded me to go to a grocery store and you had to pull out your card instead of pulling out your cash — all because you’re an injured worker.”

Sedgwick and Simonton declined to comment about what happened to Fury.

After hearing the details of the case, Chris Stadelman, communications director for Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin — who was state senate president when the workers’ comp reform passed — said the governor’s office was “comfortable with the changes that were made” and has not heard complaints from injured workers.

Fury is now applying for Social Security Disability Insurance and watching his life savings slowly drain away.

Meanwhile, Tomblin recently announced a boon to West Virginia employers: Workers’ comp insurance rates would be cut for the 10th year in a row.**

Read more at: The Fallout of Workers’ Comp ‘Reforms’: 5 Tales of Harm

Similar stories could be written for the environmental impact of corporate money.

Businessman presidents show how impossible it is to handle the cost of externalizations. They all fail, in every country.

If a business's employee gets hurt, they can be sued.

Perhaps that can work if you have a lot of money. Here's the reality for most people who don't:
**AN INVESTIGATION by ProPublica and NPR earlier this month detailed how states across the nation have been dismantling their workers’ compensation systems, with disastrous consequences for many of the hundreds of thousands of people who suffer serious injuries at work each year.

In some states, the cuts have been so drastic that injured workers have plummeted into poverty, losing their cars and even their homes. In others, workers spend years battling insurance companies for the surgeries, prescriptions and basic help their doctors recommend...**

Source: The Fallout of Workers’ Comp ‘Reforms’: 5 Tales of Harm

You'd think that sort of thing would be illegal.

Perhaps some of them are, but companies are clearly getting away with it. What is happening is shameful. It fits right in with what the corporate oligarchs want, however. As mentioned in "The Story of Stuff", it's all about externalizing the costs. I know it's hard for you to see videos, so I found a pdf transcript of the documentary, which goes into detailed explanations here:
http://storyofstuff.org/wp-content/uploads/movies/scripts/Story of Stuff.pdf

Worker injured? Get rid of them, and pay them as little as possible on their way out. The article linked to above highlights 5 cases. Here's the first:
**Gary Fury was working at a Simonton Windows factory in West Virginia in July 2012 when a large two-window unit slipped to the floor. Fury bent to help a coworker slide it back onto a cart.

“When I went to pick it up,” he recalled, “I felt something pop.”

Fury, then 49, had torn his rotator cuff and ruptured his bicep. After trying less invasive treatments, his doctor recommended surgery and warned of poor results if it was delayed.

Instead of approving it, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, an insurance claims administrator hired by Fury’s employer, sent him to its own doctor for a second opinion six weeks later, according to workers’ comp court records. That doctor also said surgery should be authorized immediately and warned that delays could lead to permanent impairment.

But in West Virginia, time is on the insurer’s side. In 2003, the state passed a law capping wage benefits for temporary injuries like Fury’s to two years — even if the worker hasn’t recovered yet. Several other states, including California, Oklahoma and North Dakota, have recently capped payments at two years. Today, 22 states set arbitrary time limits on temporary wage benefits, according to data collected by the Workers Compensation Research Institute.

Despite the recommendations of two doctors, Sedgwick waited another five weeks before approving surgery — a delay that a workers’ comp judge said was “especially unwarranted” after Sedgwick’s own physician said he needed it “ASAP.” By the time Fury finally got surgery, it was January 2013.

“They just don’t know how much pain I sat for six months in waiting to get surgery,” he said.

As the doctors had warned, Fury still had pain and limited range of motion after the surgery and was unable to return to regular work. Now, his doctor has recommended additional treatment and possibly another surgery.

But since Fury’s two years of wage benefits have run out, if he gets the surgery, his employer doesn’t have to pay him while he recovers — even though a state workers’ comp judge said Sedgwick is “at least in part responsible” for his medical problems.

After his injury, Fury initially survived on two-thirds of his wages, which are provided by workers’ comp, tax-free. But when the payments stopped, Fury has at times had to rely on food stamps and Medicaid.

“It got down to the point where I had to go get help, like from what they call welfare,” Fury said. “That was so embarrassing for me. You know, you’re used to working all your life. I raised two kids and never had to be on there. Sometimes, it really degraded me to go to a grocery store and you had to pull out your card instead of pulling out your cash — all because you’re an injured worker.”

Sedgwick and Simonton declined to comment about what happened to Fury.

After hearing the details of the case, Chris Stadelman, communications director for Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin — who was state senate president when the workers’ comp reform passed — said the governor’s office was “comfortable with the changes that were made” and has not heard complaints from injured workers.

Fury is now applying for Social Security Disability Insurance and watching his life savings slowly drain away.

Meanwhile, Tomblin recently announced a boon to West Virginia employers: Workers’ comp insurance rates would be cut for the 10th year in a row.**

Read more at: The Fallout of Workers’ Comp ‘Reforms’: 5 Tales of Harm

Similar stories could be written for the environmental impact of corporate money.

Businessman presidents show how impossible it is to handle the cost of externalizations. They all fail, in every country.

Good point. It's all a house of cards that is bound to fall down eventually.

 

[phoenyx]

I decided to look up the number of people making minimum wage and below myself. The number is 3.9% which would be 4% rounded off, and more than half of them were paid -below- minimum wage:
**In 2014, 77.2 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.7 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 1.3 million earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 1.7 million had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 3.0 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 3.9 percent of all hourly paid workers.**

The people earning below minimum wage are likely in positions that get tips.

Possibly. Or their employer is paying them below the legal limit. Also, the possibility of getting tips doesn't mean they're necessarily getting enough tips to get to minimum wage.

A new employee can be taught the skills of the old one. It may take a bit of time, but it's certainly doable.

It's doable, but as he explained, there's no guarantee that person will be as quick and efficient as the last. You're assuming every person is equally motivated to do their job well.

I'm not assuming that at all. I'm just saying that so long as we have an economy where the ruling class is allowed to be usurious with those they rule, society will remain rife with injustice.

Possibly, yes. An employee may manage to get $8 an hour instead of $7.50, as you say. Or perhaps they can be raised from below minimum wage to minimum wage. In the end, it's all chump change for the working poor, and the middle class continues its decline. Meanwhile, bankers and their cronies are living it up like they did just before the Great Depression, essentially stealing the wealth of everyone else by creating money at their leisure. You might want to focus a bit more on this element of the equation. I believe Napolean Bonaparte said it quite well:

“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”

Again, pretty sure those making below minimum wage are in positions that get tips. The Middle Class is declining because Federal Aid allows lower wages.

I've seen no evidence for that claim. I and others believe that Federal Aid is there because the market is failing them.

You're actually making my point for me. What people need to survive in a money driven economy is money, not employees. The corporate oligarchy cares little for those who have little to no income, and the percentage of the population that fits that criteria is growing.

Actually, I made my case, that businesses pay their employees a "living wage" so they can afford to buy their products and services.

No, you didn't. You even said it was fine for businesses to close shop if they weren't turning a profit. I'm not even against that, but you were actually proving my point- businesses are around to make money, not to hire employees. If hiring employees doesn't make them money, they'll lay them off. Businesses don't need everyone to have money, just enough people so that they can make a profit by doing business with them.

 

[phoenyx]

Before I begin, I'd like to say that while I've posted in many online forums over the years, I've never started a thread of this nature anywhere. It was something that definitely interested me, but not to the extent that I thought I should start a thread about it. That has now changed. I began to seriously get engaged in a thread discussing this subject, even though the thread itself had nothing to do with the economy. I think it's high time I transfer it over to one that does.

So now, for my politics: I am generally left wing, though I also believe in the market, so long as it is properly regulated. I think one of the biggest problem that economies today face is the double whammy of the rapacious nature of many corporations, and the way money is created. For those who are unfamiliar with how money is created, I invite you to take a look at the following 45 minute animated documentary on the subject:


I think it's fair to say that I'm a Berniecrat, despite the fact that I'm Canadian and so would never have been able to vote for him. I think he generally had the right idea on how to turn things around. What I'd like to discuss here, in a constructive way, is what people here think of Bernie's policy platform, and why. As I mentioned, I had previously been discussing the subject of how to efficiently run an economy in a thread that really had nothing to do with this, so I'll now be replying to those who I was discussing things with over there into this thread instead.

I found the video interesting to watch, but it is not completely accurate. Please take a look at the following playlist.

BANKING 101 - YouTube

You couldn't just tell me what you found to be innacurate from the video -.-? I saw the first video in your playlist, it seemed fine...

Bankers do create money with each loan ( they simply increase tha account of the debitor), but they need to keep reserves for day to day transactions ( at least in the US ).

Usually the equation loans + reserves = deposits + equity must hold true. Bankers still have to search for the reserves after they extend the loan and the cheapest way is to increase their deposits. I think the video is a bit fuzzy about this.

The banks certainly window dress it to make it look like everything is in order, but I think it's a bit like the Emperor with no clothes insisting that he is dressed. The bottom line is that dollars are backed up by nothing but more dollars. It used to be different- cash was actually backed up by silver. This is why gold, silver, and bitcoin continue to climb against the dollar- the banks and to a lesser extent, the government, keep creating more and more money backed up by nothing, so it's only natural that the dollar will continue to devalue. It's great stuff for banks who get to charge interest on what I'll call 'signature' money (money created by someone promising to repay said money, plus interest, given to the banks for free by the people wanting the loans), but it sucks for everyone else.

I agree, but when having a serious discussion with any right winger it is better to have all the t's crossed.

Lol, I guess so .

 

[Rshermr]

I found the video interesting to watch, but it is not completely accurate. Please take a look at the following playlist.

BANKING 101 - YouTube

You couldn't just tell me what you found to be innacurate from the video -.-? I saw the first video in your playlist, it seemed fine...

Bankers do create money with each loan ( they simply increase tha account of the debitor), but they need to keep reserves for day to day transactions ( at least in the US ).

Usually the equation loans + reserves = deposits + equity must hold true. Bankers still have to search for the reserves after they extend the loan and the cheapest way is to increase their deposits. I think the video is a bit fuzzy about this.

The banks certainly window dress it to make it look like everything is in order, but I think it's a bit like the Emperor with no clothes insisting that he is dressed. The bottom line is that dollars are backed up by nothing but more dollars. It used to be different- cash was actually backed up by silver. This is why gold, silver, and bitcoin continue to climb against the dollar- the banks and to a lesser extent, the government, keep creating more and more money backed up by nothing, so it's only natural that the dollar will continue to devalue. It's great stuff for banks who get to charge interest on what I'll call 'signature' money (money created by someone promising to repay said money, plus interest, given to the banks for free by the people wanting the loans), but it sucks for everyone else.

I agree, but when having a serious discussion with any right winger it is better to have all the t's crossed.

Lol, I guess so .

Let me interject, if I can, one really important fact. Capitalism, even in a mixed economy, never works as advertised if the companies involved have a good deal of monopoly power. As even the authors of capitalism knew, capitalism requires certain conditions. And one of the main conditions was an unlimited number of companies offering a product or service. Which, if you look at it:
1. Is a condition that does not exist in any economy.
2. Is a condition that pretty much every company works to eliminate.
3. Is a condition that negates the possibility of capitalism working as an economic system.

 

[phoenyx]

You couldn't just tell me what you found to be innacurate from the video -.-? I saw the first video in your playlist, it seemed fine...

Bankers do create money with each loan ( they simply increase tha account of the debitor), but they need to keep reserves for day to day transactions ( at least in the US ).

Usually the equation loans + reserves = deposits + equity must hold true. Bankers still have to search for the reserves after they extend the loan and the cheapest way is to increase their deposits. I think the video is a bit fuzzy about this.

The banks certainly window dress it to make it look like everything is in order, but I think it's a bit like the Emperor with no clothes insisting that he is dressed. The bottom line is that dollars are backed up by nothing but more dollars. It used to be different- cash was actually backed up by silver. This is why gold, silver, and bitcoin continue to climb against the dollar- the banks and to a lesser extent, the government, keep creating more and more money backed up by nothing, so it's only natural that the dollar will continue to devalue. It's great stuff for banks who get to charge interest on what I'll call 'signature' money (money created by someone promising to repay said money, plus interest, given to the banks for free by the people wanting the loans), but it sucks for everyone else.

I agree, but when having a serious discussion with any right winger it is better to have all the t's crossed.

Lol, I guess so .

Let me interject, if I can, one really important fact. Capitalism, even in a mixed economy, never works as advertised if the companies involved have a good deal of monopoly power. As even the authors of capitalism knew, capitalism requires certain conditions. And one of the main conditions was an unlimited number of companies offering a product or service. Which, if you look at it:
1. Is a condition that does not exist in any economy.
2. Is a condition that pretty much every company works to eliminate.
3. Is a condition that negates the possibility of capitalism working as an economic system.

I don't know about that. One thing though- I dislike the term capitalism. Some think it means that the 'golden rule' should apply, that being that those who have the gold should be able to make the rules; it's always been a concept that I loathe. I believe in a meritocracy. I believe capitalism was better at being a meritocracy then communism (as practiced as opposed to how it was originally defined), but it definitely needs fine tuning. Crony capitalism definitely has to go.

 

[phoenyx]

Except... I don't care about any income disparity, that's just how the world works. If you work hard, you succeed. If you don't, you don't. is that, as someone else said, you can lead someone to water, but you don't make them drink.

Nor Louis XVI , nor Nicolas II had any regard for income disparity... and the outcome... indeed ... pretty much how the world works.

As long as we have businesses, we have jobs. as long as we have jobs, people have money, except lazy people, who don't want jobs, nor work. Going out of our way to help said lazy people only damages the economy, not that we should help them out, anyway.

That's false. During depresions people are laid off regardless of whether they want to work or not.
Some are not able to work simply because they lack access to credit.
Muhammad Yunnus, founder of the Gremeen Bank, actually thinks credit should be a universal right.

I wouldn't go that far. I am a fairly big fan of the idea first put forth by Louis Blanc in 1851, ""From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", but there are some caveats. The largest has to do with capacity. Put simply, if not everyone can be properly fed, one has to make difficult decisions. For instance, in the film "In the Heart of the Sea", a crew of sailors find themselves in a boat at sea with a dwindling food supply. One member decides to kill himself in order to increase the food supply for those remaining. A difficult decision, but arguably the logical one. This isn't the situation in today's world, but there is still another issue, one that I think communist governments such as the U.S.S.R. have faced, namely that a lack of reward for excellent performance demotivates people to perform well. There is a reason that capitalism has worked better then communism, and I think that this is at the heart of it. Nevertheless, crony capitalism, while perhaps not quite as bad as no reward communism, is a close second. Ironically, the reason is pretty much the same- when people at the bottom realize that there is little opportunity for upward mobility regardless of how hard they toil, the difference between communism and crony capitalism becomes less and less noticeable for those at the ever increasing bottom of the social spectrum.

Just from that quote, I'm already of the belief that you're hopeless.

The quote has spoken ;-). Must admit I miss you already.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Before I begin, I'd like to say that while I've posted in many online forums over the years, I've never started a thread of this nature anywhere. It was something that definitely interested me, but not to the extent that I thought I should start a thread about it. That has now changed. I began to seriously get engaged in a thread discussing this subject, even though the thread itself had nothing to do with the economy. I think it's high time I transfer it over to one that does.

So now, for my politics: I am generally left wing, though I also believe in the market, so long as it is properly regulated. I think one of the biggest problem that economies today face is the double whammy of the rapacious nature of many corporations, and the way money is created. For those who are unfamiliar with how money is created, I invite you to take a look at the following 45 minute animated documentary on the subject:


I think it's fair to say that I'm a Berniecrat, despite the fact that I'm Canadian and so would never have been able to vote for him. I think he generally had the right idea on how to turn things around. What I'd like to discuss here, in a constructive way, is what people here think of Bernie's policy platform, and why. As I mentioned, I had previously been discussing the subject of how to efficiently run an economy in a thread that really had nothing to do with this, so I'll now be replying to those who I was discussing things with over there into this thread instead.

I think any successful economy needs a healthy balance between "socialism" and "capitalism."

of course that's one part lazy, one part stupid, and one part liberal. Why not say how socialism can mean success???

What's stupid about it? It doesn't have to be all one or all the other. Only narrow minded people think that is the case.

of course its stupid which is why you cant say how libsocialism could help an economy become successful even though you apparently imagine it can.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Bankers do create money with each loan ( they simply increase tha account of the debitor), but they need to keep reserves for day to day transactions ( at least in the US ).

Usually the equation loans + reserves = deposits + equity must hold true. Bankers still have to search for the reserves after they extend the loan and the cheapest way is to increase their deposits. I think the video is a bit fuzzy about this.

The banks certainly window dress it to make it look like everything is in order, but I think it's a bit like the Emperor with no clothes insisting that he is dressed. The bottom line is that dollars are backed up by nothing but more dollars. It used to be different- cash was actually backed up by silver. This is why gold, silver, and bitcoin continue to climb against the dollar- the banks and to a lesser extent, the government, keep creating more and more money backed up by nothing, so it's only natural that the dollar will continue to devalue. It's great stuff for banks who get to charge interest on what I'll call 'signature' money (money created by someone promising to repay said money, plus interest, given to the banks for free by the people wanting the loans), but it sucks for everyone else.

I agree, but when having a serious discussion with any right winger it is better to have all the t's crossed.

Lol, I guess so .

Let me interject, if I can, one really important fact. Capitalism, even in a mixed economy, never works as advertised if the companies involved have a good deal of monopoly power. As even the authors of capitalism knew, capitalism requires certain conditions. And one of the main conditions was an unlimited number of companies offering a product or service. Which, if you look at it:
1. Is a condition that does not exist in any economy.
2. Is a condition that pretty much every company works to eliminate.
3. Is a condition that negates the possibility of capitalism working as an economic system.

I don't know about that. One thing though- I dislike the term capitalism. Some think it means that the 'golden rule' should apply, that being that those who have the gold should be able to make the rules; it's always been a concept that I loathe. I believe in a meritocracy. I believe capitalism was better at being a meritocracy then communism (as practiced as opposed to how it was originally defined), but it definitely needs fine tuning. Crony capitalism definitely has to go.

capitalism is 2 free guys freely trading because it make both better off

 

[ChrisL]

Before I begin, I'd like to say that while I've posted in many online forums over the years, I've never started a thread of this nature anywhere. It was something that definitely interested me, but not to the extent that I thought I should start a thread about it. That has now changed. I began to seriously get engaged in a thread discussing this subject, even though the thread itself had nothing to do with the economy. I think it's high time I transfer it over to one that does.

So now, for my politics: I am generally left wing, though I also believe in the market, so long as it is properly regulated. I think one of the biggest problem that economies today face is the double whammy of the rapacious nature of many corporations, and the way money is created. For those who are unfamiliar with how money is created, I invite you to take a look at the following 45 minute animated documentary on the subject:


I think it's fair to say that I'm a Berniecrat, despite the fact that I'm Canadian and so would never have been able to vote for him. I think he generally had the right idea on how to turn things around. What I'd like to discuss here, in a constructive way, is what people here think of Bernie's policy platform, and why. As I mentioned, I had previously been discussing the subject of how to efficiently run an economy in a thread that really had nothing to do with this, so I'll now be replying to those who I was discussing things with over there into this thread instead.

I think any successful economy needs a healthy balance between "socialism" and "capitalism."

of course that's one part lazy, one part stupid, and one part liberal. Why not say how socialism can mean success???

What's stupid about it? It doesn't have to be all one or all the other. Only narrow minded people think that is the case.

of course its stupid which is why you cant say how libsocialism could help an economy become successful even though you apparently imagine it can.

It helps in many different ways, giving people buying power, which in turn means they are also contributing to the economy, which ultimately helps businesses too. It makes for a more robust and healthier economy when you have more people participating. If people like you had your way, America would be nothing more than a 3rd world country by now with the poor WAY outnumbering the wealthy and even middle class, and we are already headed in that direction because of super rich corporations are actually buying off our politicians.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Crony capitalism definitely has to go.

1)vwhen govt and business are separate thats called capitalism,

2) when govt and business work closely together, like in Obamacare, thats called socialism

3) crony capitalism is liberalism. Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Crony capitalism definitely has to go.

1)vwhen govt and business are separate thats called capitalism,

2) when govt and business work closely together, like in Obamacare, thats called socialism

3) crony capitalism is liberalism or libsocialism. Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It helps in many different ways, giving people buying power,.

so socialism gives people buying power? How? And how does that help an economy?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, because banks are in charge of creating most of the money in the economy.

again the conceptual ignorance is stunning. Our central bank determines how much money is allowed in the system. That is their reason for being?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Japan's private debt soared and then japan became stagnated. ?

again stunning liberal ignorance. Japan is not a capitalist country. 1+1=2. You might as well say the Boy Scouts debt soared and that is evidence that capitalism is unstable!!