I don't think Conservatives or Progressives correctly understand economics

We are getting to the crux of the matter here.

As I see it, you are still conflating money - an agreed measure (nothing more) of the value of goods and services, and a means of facilitating the exchange of these goods and services, ie, you are still conflating the artificial construct we call 'money, with wealth itself, though obviously money, being artificial, is only obliquely related to real wealth and/or intrinsic value of the resources (some of which are infinite, eg sunshine) that are available for use of and development by the community.

In other words, expressed diagrammatically:

Wealth = resources + know-how + labour.

Money is merely the agreed catalyst to combine all the elements on the RHS of this equation. Wealth (LHS) is the result.

Well I would prefer to stick to the discussion about the 'value' of money (by now I hope you can see money itself is not a resource with intrinsic value; the example of the man in the desert choosing a glass of water over a US million dollar note proves that simple proposition).

But there is another way of looking at Zimbabwe of course. The hunter gatherers in ZImbabwe did not ask to be raped by the more technologically advanced Europeans (who called themselves Christian....) on the look out for ways to increase their own wealth, even if at the expense of and literally enslaving others , an absolutely a-moral, self-interested, rapacious enterprise (yes very human, but now outlawed under international law).

But this does lead us back to your opening statement:

Because my preferred means of compensating native populations who were enslaved for purposes of self-enrichment (- at the point of a gun; I have heard that phrase frequently in this discussion...)… I would prefer to offer all necessary support including free education to enable successful participation in the modern economy, as compensation.

But you are claiming printing money devalues all money.

Interesting.

So my task might be be to examine whether the quantum of money needed to be printed by government, to enable universal above poverty level participation in the economy) is, as I suspect, infinitesimally small in comparison to the amount of money in the world, and hence any 'devaluation' of money would be so small as to be immeasurable.

 

Yes, printing money devalues the currency.
It causes inflation.

Nothing you can say or do will change this fact.
We seem to be agreed.


Education isn't free. It has to be paid for.
So you can "offer" it for free, but I doubt you are rich enough to provide it.

Not interested in white guilt.
If you feel you have raped Africa, you are free to make your amends.
That you wish to rob people enough to pay for whatever guilt you are feeling, would unfortunately burden me with too much guilt myself.
So I won't be joining in or encouraging you. Sorry.

 

Not so fast!

I said I would examine more closely that particular proposition, ie printing money devalues all money, and in particular what the quantum of any such devaluation would mean in practice.

The benefits of poverty eradication across the globe might outweigh many times the effects (if real) of any such devaluation, and as you know I don't believe money is a resource with intrinsic value such as water or air or sunshine; in fact those first two essential resources - on which all life depends - could be destroyed by the inappropriate use of money.

[As for Zimbabwe, I'm not interested in white guilt; you brought Zimbabwe up as an example of hyperinflation caused by money printing. I maintain it's irrelevant to my proposition as outlined. Your black and white approach to the issue (excuse the pun) ie refusal to acknowledge a difference between the waste associated with involuntary underemployment in a first world economy, and the historical and subsequent economic realities on the ground in Zimbabwe, is to be expected].

 

our subject is not Trump but whether you have the ability to understand that the Chinese have been getting rich since they switched to Republican capitalism. Do you? Do you look at Cuba/Florida and say lets copy Cuba.

 

of course it has intrinsic value or people would not work to obtain it in proportion to the value of the work they do.

 

Really? Explain why there' fractional banking. Why gold standard isn't in use?

 

Venezuela just devalued and average weight loss per person is 39/LBS. China just eradicated 40% of poverty on earth by switching to Republican capitalism. Could be replicated across globe except liberals lack IQ to understand capitalism.

 

there is fractional banking because depositors want to earn interest so authorize banks to loan out a fraction. 1+1=2

Gold in not in use because it is cumbersome to store and move gold as paper money moves.

 

Goal: universal above poverty level participation in the economy.

Growth in wealth (which is more than accumulation of the artificial construct we call 'money') through neoliberal 'free' market competition alone, is incompatible with that goal; Trump proves it.

 

goofy!!
1) Trump has been in office 1.5 years so proves nothing
2) but 4.2% GDP and 97% employment is a great start after anti business libcommie Obama compiled worst economic record in American History!

 

and you know Chinese went from 60 million staving to universal above poverty almost instantly through the adoption of Republican capitalism-right?.

 

1. 10% involuntary un/underemployment, and 10% poverty rate = "neighbourhoods like war zones" (quoting Trump himself).
2. Tariff war with China.

Universal above poverty level participation in the economy?

 

1) nonsense of course, U6 is lower than at any point since 1994
2) obviously with wages going up and employment among females and blacks higher than ever in American history poverty is going down in liberal ghetto war zones

 

maybe we need more tariff war since GDP is 4.2% and employment 97%. !+1=2

 

with wages rising and 4.2 GDP poverty is being eliminated, obviously!

 

And so... exit Chinese growth.

 

with growing US debt and the Fed raising interest rates, and implications for stock prices - poverty eradication perhaps not so assured....not to mention the effect of a trade war on global growth, as noted in recent IMF forecast reductions

 

The IMF.
The IMF sells economic insurance against collapse.

In order for the IMF to be important, you must be aware of the dangers of economic meltdown.
And so they will promote this.


In order for the IMF to get your contributions, you must feel confident you are not about to go into meltdown.

So the IMF is doom and gloom about your economy until payday when it is the exact opposite.

And this neatly predicts all IMF forecasts.

 

We've known about the stupidity of trade wars since David Ricardo destroyed mercantilism. That geezer has been dead for some time now, so it's a darn shame that the economic nationalists haven't caught up yet...

 

Usually publicly owned utility companies, that's why they were privatised in the UK. Same as the Royal Mail in the UK. It had turnover of over a billion because it's basically a monopoly but only made several million and even had losses. You can't invest in it's infrastructure with that kind of profit and the taxpayers are fed up ploughing loads of money in.

 

The water sell-off demonstrated the nature of the privatisation con. £50 billion debt; £50 billion dividends; bills (up 40%) enough to pay for the investments made.

 

Pockets of socialist-type businesses may be embryonic forms of a socialist economy, but they don't make a nation socialist and they don't make the economy "socialism". I was asking about NATIONS in which worker ownership and control of production were the rule and were developed, protected, incentivized, and benefitted by law. I should have been more precise.

And the answer, of course, is that we have never seen a settled, functioning, stable socialist economy in any country at any time. So all the right wing arguments that socialism has always failed is no more than weak propaganda.

 

Nationalised or privatised, you can't win. The only difference is, you can own shares in it whilst it's privatised and receive dividends. Plenty of apps now that makes share buying easy.

It's not a con, you buy and own shares. It's only a con for those with no savvy to buy shares, simple as.

Those who say that they can't afford to buy shares are busy spending their money on iPhones, cigarettes and booze.

 

What is "it"? Shares in what exactly?

 

As the conversation is about privatised utility companies, then "it" is the privatised utility company.

So you can own shares in it.

So you can own shares in the privatised utility company.

I opted for the former as it was shorter to type. Well, initially it was.