I don't think Conservatives or Progressives correctly understand economics

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by kazenatsu, Aug 16, 2018.

  1. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    this is measured by U6 which has come down just like U3 has. Employment numbers are very good under Trump because he is pro business and pro jobs while Obama was anti business and anti jobs.
     
  2. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sheer ideological nonsense.
    Obama wanted jobs as much as Trump does, though neither of them will ever achieve universal above poverty-level participation in the economy, which is a Right expressed in article 25 of the UN Universal Declaration of Rights.

    Article 25
    “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care…

    Obviously this implies universal access to employment with above poverty wages.

    Unfortunately, though many express support for an international rules based system (when it supports their own ideology or interests), few actually believe in it, so Rights such as this are ignored in practice, even though there are sufficient resources in the world to achieve that goal.
     
    LafayetteBis likes this.
  3. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Never say never.

    As regards national politics, the insistence upon a Basically Fair Minimum Wage will indeed assure that more of the 40 million Americans living presently below the Poverty Threshold (of $25K a year for a family of four) earned a better wage allowing a more decent standard of living.

    And research has shown amply that those who find themselves below the Poverty Threshold are without either a secondary-school diploma or a post-secondary degree. Moreover, almost two-thirds of those incarcerated in a penitentiary in the US have no high-school diploma.

    The evidence that a higher Minimum Wage will allow a better standard of living AND less crime should be obvious.

    But it isn't or we'd have voted for governments long ago that assured both a decent Minimum Wage and Free Tertiary Education for those who wanted to pursue an advanced degree ...
     
  4. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    858
    Trophy Points:
    113
    this is a total lie of course given that a family of four gets about $70,000 in govt handouts a year!
     
  5. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Totally agree; but I suspect we have a systemic problem which results in even decent people ignoring such evidence.

    For example, higher minimum wages are seen as harmful to the success of small business owners, who are a sizable proportion of voters

    And the push-back against more taxation seems to come from middle income earners who are so called 'aspirational voters', generally on the Right (as if we are not all "aspirational") who object to higher tax scales, eg, at around the $200K level, which they perceive as hindering their aspirations for 'modest' wealth accumulation.

    As for the rich: interestingly the same middle class aspirational voters noted above often simply state there are not enough rich people to raise enough funding for, eg, free tertiary education, by raising taxation on the rich (and perhaps they want to become super rich themselves one day; though we both know there is more to life than this.

    Personally I think there should be much more political transparency concerning this, to see exactly how much could be raised by taxing the rich more (say 90% beyond a certain threshold, to counter the obscenity of spiralling upward compensation in the $millions, when there is so much need in the community. At least the issue of tax havens and tax avoidance by the rich is moving into the public awareness).

    That's why I'm exploring by-passing all this political dysfunction and partisanship, by looking at an international agreement to facilitate judicious money printing by all governments, consistent with sustainable resource development.

    Then you have people like James who simply deny that poverty exists, or rather it's the fault of the poverty-stricken themselves.

    That's what Ford said of the working class, at the height of the Great Depression....
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2018
  6. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Perhaps, but that is a falsehood.

    People on a higher income have more money to spend, which translates directly into more business generally.

    The above notion is a highly singular. Yes, if I was running a business I'd like to be highly competitive with lower Labor Costs. But, that notion means quite the opposite in the aggregate.

    People on lower salaries spend less thus adding less to the economic cycle*!

    *The economic cycle is the notion of "when I earn more I spend more" - which is, in fact, what usually happens.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2018
  7. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Completely agree of course.

    Wanting to profit from lower wages and conditions for workers, in a mostly competitive economic system, is one cause of heated political partisanship and dysfunction.

    One only needs to observe the usual claims from business that lifting the minimum wage will cost jobs.....
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2018
  8. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A RIDICULOUSLY LOW MINIMUM WAGE

    [QUOTE="a better world, post: 1069775865, member: 71251"The rate is created by adding unemployed workers, who are looking for work, to the amount of workers employed part time but seeking full-time work. In July 2017, the U.S. underemployment rate was 12.5 percent".[/QUOTE]

    You've made a good point.

    Of course, Donald Dork LOVES the fact that he can take credit from supposedly "Low Unemployment" rates. But, as usual, in economics everything depends upon "How one measures an economic variable".

    And the fuller-measure that you have shown would be a far-better common measure if only the news-organizations would start using it.

    But they don't. Those who LOVE to report on economic matters typically have very little education in the subject.

    I find ...

    PS: Btw, the reason the Poverty Threshold ($25K annual income for a family of four) still holds close to 14% of the American population is because of the Underemployment Rate and the family income of those in that rate-bade. And at 14% of total population, they are some 45 million of American men, women and children ...

    Which is about the population California and Indiana combined* ...

    *And nothing will change for as long as our national Minimum Wage wallows about at the level of $7.25 an hour!
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2018
  9. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A RIDICULOUSLY LOW MINIMUM WAGE

    You've made a good point.

    Of course, Donald Dork LOVES the fact that he can take credit from supposedly "Low Unemployment" rates. But, as usual, in economics everything depends upon "How one measures an economic variable".

    And the fuller-measure that you have shown would be a far-better common measure if only the news-organizations would start using it.

    But they don't. Those who LOVE to report on economic matters typically have very little education in the subject.

    I find ...

    POVERTY THRESHOLD

    Btw, the reason the Poverty Threshold ($25K annual income for a family of four) still holds close to 14% of the American population is because of the Underemployment Rate and the family income of those in that rate-bade. And at 14% of total population, they are some 45 million of American men, women and children ...

    Which is about the population California and Indiana combined.

    And nothing will change for as long as our national Minimum Wage wallows about at the level of $7.25 an hour!

    PS: State Minimum Wages: States can pass their own minimum wage laws. These laws can be lower than, equal to or higher than the federal minimum wage, or states can have no minimum wage laws at all. If a state has no minimum wage law or its minimum wage is lower than the federal law, workers are entitled to the federal wage. South Carolina and Tennessee have no Minimum Wage.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2018
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The minimum wage actually gets support from big business. There's a positive relationship between wages and firm size after all (such that low wages are more associated with SME).

    What annoys me is how the petty left treats the minimum wage as a panacea for all woes. Now don't get me wrong. Having a minimum wage makes basic sense. Without it, we are guaranteed higher economic inefficiency. However, it's not effective at targeting working poverty. That's ignored as the petty left have no stomach for the radical changes needed to transform the economy away from low wage profiteering.
     
  11. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is that statement correct?

    I had the impression Walton's fought tooth and nail against raising the wages of their lowest paid workers; but I note you do acknowledge the situation with SME's, who are a sizable proportion of the working population and who look at their own situation 'singularly' (as noted by LafayetteBis) vis a vis wage costs.

    Totally agree. Even Bernie Sanders did not explain how he would raise sufficient funds to eliminate (working, or any kind of economic) poverty, though I would not characterise Bernie as "petty".

    To my mind radical is introducing an element of 'co-operative Marxism', in the form of global oversight of competitive neoliberal markets, which if in place might allow my judicious-money-printing-by-all-governments proposal to facilitate poverty elimination and peaceful sustainable global development.

    What do you have in mind?
     
  12. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    FACTUAL TRUTH

    Nope. The Minimum Wage is a result of a law passed by Congress. States without the MW from here:
    The MW law was passed in a "stoopid fashion". It is a National Law but the states have to make it a state-law (for which they are responsible for oversight administration).

    There are lots of "stoopid laws" of that nature. This one, however, is pointed right at the heart of poverty and is the main reason why the US has a Poverty Threshold ($24K for a family of four) that incarcerates below that income-level close to 40 million men, women and children.

    (Another reason is that $7.50 per hour is NOT ENOUGH! It should be at the very least 12/15 dollars per hour. Yes, that would reflect into the cost of products/services. But, so what if it enhances the ability of people to consume and thus enhance their lifestyle at the bottom of wage-distribution in the country. Total Demand is enhanced, and businesses reap the profits from the additional Consumer Demand!)

    Which is a factual truth I never ever tire of remaking in this forum ...

    PS: Table of US Minimum Wage by state here.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2018
  13. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Perfidious nonsense! Define "Co-operative Marxism".

    Then be prepared to defend its existence - because it has long since been gone, gone, gone.

    You should read this week's Economist. The subject is the impending colossal Greatest Depression brought about yet again by the doom-boys of untamed BigBanking ...
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2018
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep. I saw it first with Britain's introduction of its minimum wage. There was a lot of concerns, typically fed by conservatism based on erroneous application of economic modelling. However, behind the scenes big business was already giving it's support for the Low Pay Commission (and would subsequently maintain the legislation).

    Managers often get things wrong, ensuring that you get firms with poor practices and skewed attitudes. The issue is the extent that they are outliers. See, for example, the polling of firms over minimum wage hikes. There is often majority support (e.g. 61% of small businesses in 2014). It would be relatively easy to show a size effect if the sample is extensive enough. There are two reasons for that. First, there's the sneak factor. In 2017 one third of FTSE 100 companies were already paying the Living Wage. Low wages are more likely in small company. Second, they'll often have better understanding of the economics (e.g. macroeconomic spillovers).

    Given the US's conservatism, I wouldn't direct any bile at Bernie. It's more about those that overall support neoliberalism, but erroneously use tags like moderate, progressive and social democrat. They push policies such as minimum wages as, although relatively benign and still related to economic efficiency criteria, they can exaggerate equity goal. Another example of it i see are those pushing for marginal tax increases, implying that it will solve all major woes (from crime to climate change).

    It's exceedingly difficult to explain real world economic outcomes without reference to Marxism. However, I think we should be careful in getting locked into one school of thought. I refer to Marxism, but I'm certainly not a Marxist. Similarly, post-Keynesians assuredly aren't Marxist but are happy to borrow/steal from Marxist concept.

    Radical is summed up by heterodox, where conservative outcomes preferred only by the ruling elite are challenged. That can ironically include schools of thought which seem more attuned to right wing attitude. Take Austrian Economics. With no coherent understanding of either the consumer or the firm, they are typically condemned as the playground of "markets autocorrect" knuckle dragging. However, they do provide an advanced understanding of the entrepreneur. Not only is the entrepreneur the driver of technical change, there is also a change in focus (e.g. common ground with the Greens who stress that many of our problems are created through big business, and subsequent inconsistency with invisible hand rhetoric)

    Ultimately it's about changing policy from supply-side to demand-led analysis. It is true that feeble ideology such as trickle down economics has been crushed (forcing conservatives to seek further manipulation tools such as austerity). However, supply side comment still dominates the debate. We even see that here. Take LafayetteBis and their blinkered focus on education. It's no different to Blair's "education, education, education" cobblers. It ignores that the problem is demand led and a structural deficiency which favours employers offering low wage labour. Thus, "education, education, education" only delivers overeducation (as grads are forced to take non-grad jobs) and threatens social mobility.

    We need to start with all elimination of the minimum wage. The focus should start with the living wage. For example, look at how the economic debate is focused on whether the minimum wage creates unemployment. It doesn't. However, that actually shows it's failure. Wage protection should eliminate economic rent opportunity from employers offering low wages. If it doesn't then our resources are being used poorly (and we will have long term problems such as insufficient investment in upskilling).

    So far the right winger could grow that we'd only be exchanging wage poverty for jobless poverty. However, we also have to factor in the nature of industrial policy. We need a public investment bank (focused, for example, on how deindistrialisation is not necessarily a natural part of economic evolution). We also need a welfare state which provides a genuine safety net. This encourages risk taking, with more people prepared to exploit their entrepreneurial spirit). We also need a change of ownership in large firms. Employees should automatically be part of that, from a share of dividends to greater democracy in decision-making.
     
  15. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Apparently one has to be careful when invoking the word "Marxism".


    In outlining a 'radical' approach for left-wing politics, I tried to distance myself from the previous failed manifestations of Marxism, by using the phrase "an element of" and the word "co-operative" in front of the word Marxism.

    (Historical manifestations of Marxism are indeed associated with authoritarian regimes, though I think Marx himself did not see dictatorship as a prerequisite environment for his economic theories).

    Left wing politics are in retreat everywhere, because if a LW party does manage to gain power, it's normally only for a brief period, because they can only offer funding of desirable social programs through higher taxes. and in any case generally fail to protect workers from the ravages of neoliberal competitive 'free' markets (see the "rust belt" industries; Detroit is the classic historical example: that's partly why Trump was elected, even if on a false perception of what Trump could actually achieve for those workers).

    (btw I notice Reiver's comment re over-education: while education should be free, and available consistent with students' abilities, over-education is not a cure-all in a dysfunctional economy, because the high grade jobs are not there - and in any case not everyone can be a computer technician).

    You don't have to convince me that the current global neoliberal orthodoxy - and big banking that is beyond the reach of governments - is a recipe for disaster.

    So I'm looking at radical approaches.

    eg it is said the Sahara could supply the word's energy needs.

    What are the materials required for enough solar panels for that project? Silica - almost infinite supply?

    Labour? Unemployed labour in Africa (under the direction of the required expertise) could complete the job.

    How to fund it?

    By a one-off money print by the World Bank: that's one example of what I mean by "co-operative Marxism".

    Obviously no implications for inflation because the resources - labour and materials - are in excess supply; and no particular national currency is utilised for the project.

    Once the infrastructure has been built, energy could be free (with some regulation to prevent wasteful or harmful consumption), because sunshine is free.

    Reiver said:

    Amen, except "a welfare state which provides a genuine safety net" needs funding by, you guessed it, higher taxation.
    And a change of ownership in large firms" will only benefit a portion of the population (ie those working in large firms, though the concept is a good one (even if a little bit Marxist...)









     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2018
  16. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, a probably good solution for North Africa and (perhaps) the south of Europe. It will greatly affect those countries of North Africa addicted to oil to change considerably.

    But the transport of electricity elsewhere and over a considerable distance has its major problems. So, the solution is the one that is happening - photovoltaic cells and wind-farms wherever possible.

    I installed a heat-pump in my house in France. Why? Because it was actually cheaper than photovoltaic cells at the time. Today, I would most certainly install solar panels.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2018
  17. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well then, adopting what I refer to as " cooperative Marxism" (and by the way I have heard one commentator refer to Marx as one of the first to consider economic processes in a global context), Africa should be funded (as outlined in my previous post) immediately, not when they are 'rich' enough to pay for the necessary quantum of solar panels, enabling a sudden increase in wealth - via reduced energy costs (virtually free) - on the African continent. {I'm assuming the major cost of manufacturing PV cells is labour, and also that the needed materials are in abundant supply).
    And considering most continents have access to hot deserts, we could begin withdrawing from fossil fuels (and even compensate the industry), much faster than present political consideration allow.
     
  18. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    DEFECTS OF AMERICAN-STYLED "DEMOCRACY"

    Call it what you like. But in this forum (mostly of Yanks) don't expect it to go down well.

    All notions of leftish-proportions is thought - by far too many Americans - to be "socialist bunk". The key element of socialism - which also provoked its downfall - was that the government owned all the means of production. (Modern Social Democracies today do not hold with that nonsense largely having been proven dead wrong.)

    Frankly, from the mid-19th to the mid-20th centuries, the West has been going through a massive political transformation. It began with the relics of "monarchic" rule in Europe, that was finally and dreadfully relinquished in WW1 (for which the death-rate was catastrophic, see here - 37 million individuals!).

    The consequence of WW1 was to simply create in Germany an Adolph Hitler, who contributed 80 million (men, women and children) to the addition.
    For a total of around 100 million men, women and children who died ignominious deaths. Great score for humanity, isn't it?

    And for what? Death and destruction, that's all... !


    MY POINT?

    Once and for all, there is only One True Democracy. Which is that "of, by and for the people".

    Now, boyz-'n-girls, someone explain to me how the manipulation of the Popular-vote, that was instituted by, first, the 12th Amendment can be fair and honest. "Fair and honest" meaning that "as is" it requires a great deal of revision.

    Which is a worthwhile read here at WashPo: "The electoral college has serious problems. So do any alternatives"

    - excerpt:
    (I leave to the reader to consider the problematic alternatives addressed in the article, because they are indeed real and tangible.)

    The second Great Defect of the America's democracy is the manipulation of the voting districts (gerrymandering), which is actually before the Supreme Court that has refused to accept the case. Until now, of course, that there is a majority of Replicants on-board. (Wow, will Replicant wonders never cease!)

    If Americans want to live with a faulty-version of democracy, that's their business. But neither should they be flag-waving to the world shouting "How Great This Country IS!"

    Cuz it aint that Truly Fair Democracy that many Americans think it is ...
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2018
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolute bunkum, demonstrating no knowledge of political economy. Nationalisation is not a key element of socialism. Worker control of the means of production 'is'.

    And social democracy? That merely refers to institutions delivering lower poverty than liberal democratic alternatives. There's always a risk of fake application of the term. Britain's New Labour, for example, would use the term while also maintaining Thatcherite policies.
     
  20. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I quite liked this remark because it refers to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 with the assistance of Eleanor Roosevelt.

    The document linked here is a damn fine read. It cites a number of "rights" that (somehow) never made it into a Constitutional Amendment. Despite the fact that the Declaration was signed by the representative from the US. (Of course, that signature had no real political power;°

    Once again, the same complaint: Americans think that their "freedom" is a done-deal. It aint!

    The economy, the world, politics - they all change daily and they all impact our "freedom". And we must change along with them. Nothing written two centuries ago is wholly acceptable in today's very different world. So, what is good should be kept, what is better should be added - and what is not good should be dropped.

    But none of that can happen to the US Constitution without the accord of all states. Which is also why, in fact, nothing changes - except under law as passed by Congress. And not even Congress can alone change the Constitution without ratification by all the states.

    Meaning what? Meaning that since Congress is a body of representatives from states, it remains difficult for either the Senate or the HofR to be too "progressive". And, frankly, this is why the US is still anchored in the past.

    Normally, there is nothing wrong in reading history. By doing so we recognize the mistakes others have made and so we can avoid them. Which is goodness.

    But the badness of past mistakes (of which prime examples are gerrymandering and the Electoral College) can continue to have an impact upon the present. Both have helped the Right to manipulate its power over legislation on the Supreme Court.
    Both have allowed the two main parties to manipulate politics at the state level, particularly by gerrymandering the voting districts.

    And,
    nothing can or will change for as long as Americans do not understand that total majority control by one of two major-parties of all three governmental elements (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) is a catastrophe for any True Democracy ...

    Power-sharing was a key element foremost in the minds of our founders who saw how the central control of just one King was unacceptable and unfair. Power-sharing was their intuitive answer to monarchic control of government.

    Which is why they created the tripartite governance of the American nation, which they thought would preserve political interdependence. We got that bit wrong ...
     
  21. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In fact, there is a place that has a rules-based system. It is called the EU (European Union), which (like the US) is a collection of states who have a rules-based National Healthcare System.

    That system is larger than the US (total population 508M), but like the US, one can move from one "state" to another and the same rules pretty much apply. But the telling difference is a criteria called "life-expectancy". And there the EU beats the USA hands down:

    [​IMG]

    Wanna live longer? Come live in Europe!

    It is estimated that between 3 and 6 million Yanks already do so ...
     
  22. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The EU? A rules based system which is undemocratic and leaves neoliberalism unchecked. As mentioned, social democracy is often fake!
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2018
    Idahojunebug77 likes this.
  23. a better world

    a better world Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,000
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes this is the concern I have, which most LW parties are not facing up to.

    But I recall, inter alia, you noted the requirement for a genuine welfare safety net (to encourage risk taking etc).

    Now, we have seen that generally the population are not interested in voting for the taxation levels required for a genuine welfare safety net; that is why I propose doing away with welfare altogether, and instead implement the "safety net" in the form of guaranteed post-education access to above poverty-level wages.

    There is an endless amount of socially useful, local work to be done which nevertheless does not easily fit into the productive requirements of consumer, neoliberal, competitive markets. It's my view that socially useful activity, that does not create excess draw on scarce resources, ought to be funded by the state, until such time (if ever) all individuals can find above poverty employment in the private sector.

    How? By the state printing the money, overseen by a global institution to prevent corruption and devaluation of currencies, similar (I'm told) to Keynes' Bretton Woods proposals for a new global financial and trading system to be instituted after WW2.

    (And I certainly don't mind keeping company with Keynes...)

    Money itself is not a real resource with intrinsic (life giving) value; you could double, or halve, the amount of money in the world without this creating, or diminishing, the quantity of real vital resources.... the real problem is in facilitating access to and distribution of vital resources - of which there is ample supply in the world - (as opposed to consumer junk created primarily to make a profit) that doesn't rely solely on the age-old method of assigning value of goods via the process of competitive markets, and granting access to such vital resources on the basis of one's ability to compete in this market.

    In short we still have rule by competition - rather than a rules-based system.

    Result: vast disadvantage, poverty, and war... and the image of babies crying in the confusion and chaos of closed borders...

    We can do better, but it requires the Left to stop sleep walking into catastrophes like the political rout we have just witnessed in Brazil, and the soon to be instituted populist RW methods of dealing with poverty in that country.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2018
  24. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You do not seem to understand that, if in an exchange of rebuttals in a debate (which is the heart of any debate), you MUST first quote the other person.

    Otherwise, they have no way of knowing that you rebutted by posting ...
     
  25. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There are ways of bending the rules of any market-economy. In Europe, that considers the two key attributes of any truly Free Society, both Education and Healthcare are nationally funded prerogatives. Meaning what?

    They are easily accessible to those who want to avail themselves of the services provided. And who, in their right mind, would not want Healthcare when they need it and at an affordable cost?

    As for education, that is an altogether different matter. The EU is graduating about the same percentage of its population with tertiary-level degrees. Given the fact that such degrees are virtually cost-free (the tuition fee being a modest sum most often less than 1K euros per year) and the availability of the education is reduced by the number of institutions offering the course, then why should the EU be graduating comparatively so little a percentage of its population with post-secondary level degrees?

    And in this regard, I am told it is because of WW2 and the two immediate generations following that war. Europe was devastated and those who remained were hardly thinking of a tertiary level schooling. But we are now onto the third generation from that horrible war, and hopes are that more students will be going into tertiary education.

    One statistic is clear. Finally, more females are doing so - and going on to participate at a higher level (than just secretarial) of corporate careers ...
     

Share This Page