Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Brett Nortje, Jan 21, 2018.
so you want the state to tax and spend a lot??? Isn't that what all libcommies want?
Nice suggestion, but a bit trite. Only a fool would think everybody else is one but them.
The number of variables in any given investment are multiple - some evident, some not so evident.
Recourse to somebody who is responsible for a large finance entity helps but is rarely sufficient. But, in this day and age, who can you trust for valid information? (Why is Fake News so repetitively an appellation for what we see/hear on TV?)
Which is why an old adage regarding "how to invest" comes to mind. There are numerous variations on the theme, and this one seems best to me: 10 Timeless Rules For Investors - excerpt:
Spot on. But dangerous to say to an American readership.
We think "government should be small", so we all can be Big (financially). So, "taxation must be small so we can all have more". (Or some such mind-boggling nonsense.)
In Europe, the reverse tends to be true*, which is why taxation per capita is much higher than in the US.
But, there are take-aways that need consideration. And a Free (or nearly free) National Health Care system as well as Tertiary Education are two indisputably lower-cost take-aways than in the US. I maintain that Europe has proven that point ...
*Probably due to the fact that monarchies ran countries for such a long, long time in Europe?
Yes, while we do not have accounts records from the European monarchies, we do see trickle down knock on effects in the state of their economies and currency worth's.
Unfortunately, due to world war two, there is still a relay effect from that time to today. Germany and Britain, two of the countries that should have been conversely affected, have surged to the top, of course.
That "relay effect", I suggest, is due to the fact that the EU-countries had far too much faith in the Euro. Moreover, when the Great Recession was imported from the US, with the rise in unemployment in Europe, politicos responded traditionally. That is, with more government financing of projects to keep people at work.
StimulusSpending, per se, is not a bad thing if it can get a country past a recession. But, Europe's problem was that the Euro interest-rates had skyrocketed, and the more money they borrowed (to spend on maintaining Demand) the further in debt they got.
Which means they passed decisively the Maastricht Treaty limit of "no-debt beyond 3% of GDP". And they did it willingly expecting the EU to maintain Euro Hi-debt. Which means "somebody has got to pay the interest" on Euro-notes that the Central Bank issues to countries in order to balance its books. (And the ECB loans to countries the money necessary to meet budgets.)
So, when this went on and on and on too far, the Germans simply blue the whistle. Because it was THEIR National Budget that was loaning money to the ECB (that was loaning funds to the countries).
It couldn't go on forever, and it didn't. France, a country that has a sound economy, is still having a problem finding the funding to both maintain government spending AND keep debt below the 3% of GDP limit.
As for Greece, forget it. But even if Italy has problems constraining its budget. And if Berlusconi wins the upcoming election all bets are off. That joker will break the bank with ginormous spending just to keep himself running the country. (He's whacko ...)
Europe was the old world long before the common currency. it’s economy is too socialist and suffers from what even Krugman calls Eurosclerous. Did it not rake in huge tourist revenue from being a old world theme park it’s standard of living would be even far lower than it is now. France for example has the per capita income of Arkansas about her poorest state.
I think I have a solution. If say Greece owes Italy money, and Italy owes Greece money, annihilating the debts would cancel out the debts. Unless they can use debt owed to them as surety, then debt is useless except for getting money back into the country slowly.
Everybody, you say, owes Germany? If Germany was to cancel all the debts that are owed to them, they could 'take up barter capital' in assets owned by those governments. These could be perishables like food, where, the glut of the order, for the sake of welfare in Germany, could feed the destitute before they are useless. Then, there is the money that they own, useless by many standards,so why is it worth something to Germany? If the money they owned was worth something, then it would buy Euros.
If they were to pay them back with Euros, then the Germans would see the Euro go down in value, as there would be shortage yet surplus, where the money would be annihilated and merely used to pay back loans to Germany, and, of course, this would make less Euros, making the value go up, but nobody would be using and trading Euros would they?
Borrowing money to invest is natural. It is time to make good on those investments, and, repay Germany. If they were to sell off a highway to Germany, it remains in use in Greece, collecting millions in capital for investments, and, leaving a nice investment for Germany, of course. If they were to say sell the old to Germany, the gold would shore up the Euro, and, that would mean they could all use the money, of course.
meandering rant if you know what your point is why not share it with us?
I tried to...
notice thread has no title either!!! issue in economics is capitalism versus socialism. that is issue in economics.
Well, with socialism, the focus is on fairness through sharing, while in capitalism the focus is on fairness through entitlement. This would show that the people have sought a way to economic equality through various ideals of the state economy being structured through various means, and, that they will continue to seek votes through keeping the will of the people in mind - giving them what they want.
Personally, with my 'twenty apples rule,' one apple can be sold for ten dollars, with the rest spoiling. If the apples were modified to be five dollars each, maybe six could be sold before spoiling? This would lead to a great example of food stuffs needing, amongst other perishables, to be sold quickly and fairly to all, yes?
Then, things like houses and cars... they will pay the price for the goods or go somewhere else. This is evidence of capitalism being king of high cost goods, yes?
~ Both of these examples come to be taxed, which leads to infrastructure and better service delivery, the back bone all business in any country. The question therefore should be which brings in more taxes, or, alleviates poverty the best.
So, in a poor country, socialism would be the best option. In a rich country, capitalism would rule supremely.
libcommie insanity of course!! capitalism is freedom to engage only in transactions that you think are fair. Do you understand?
liberal insanity of course. When China switched to capitalism from socialism everyone started getting rich and stopped starving to death. This has been in all the papers. Hard to imagine you didn't pay attention
It is not socialism. In Europe, which initiated the ideological movement post-WW2, Social Democracy is a system of political governance based upon a capitalistic market-economy BUT where societal-objectives have primacy in terms of preferential enabling.
I must insist upon this, particularly in a debate forum wherein a good many Yanks participate, because of past history that associates socialism with communism. Americans tend not to disassociate the two.
They are both in the same bag mentally and to be equally despised when in fact they are fundamentally different ...
I'm European and I associate it with Fascism not Communism.
I don't think they are fundamentally different in goals. Only in countries of origin.
Social Democracy = as much fascism as we can get away with in liberal dominated world.
There are education issues in Europe too!
Economics is characterised by numerous conflicting schools of thought, none of which can claim a truth. It went wrong, for the macroeconomists, when they stuck cheese in their ears and ignored that. Through mathematical orthodoxy, encouraged by false debates (monetarism versus neo-Keynesianism; New Classical versus New Keynesian), they assumed that they had worked out full understanding of the economy. Unsurprisingly, as they ignored the lessons from heterodox schools, it went pear-shaped rather quickly...
Rubbish! Ignorant rubbish!
There is no such animal as "fairness through entitlement"!
Why? what entitlement is earned by Robinson Crusoe on a deserted island? None, zilch, rien, kine, niente, tipota!
You live in a market-economy, and your "entitlement" derives from a multitude of Consumers who work to provide the goods/services they purchase. THEY ALSO HAVE PREROGATIVES - the first and foremost of which are a Decent Living Standard, Free National Healthcare and Free Tertiary Education (just to begin with) . . . !
He was entitled to every coconut he climbed up the tree for.
Every fish he caught in the sea.
He did the work and reaped the rewards of it.
He made no claims to other men's labours and recieved no charity.
Can you say the same?
Separate names with a comma.