Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by resisting arrest, Aug 20, 2011.
Have fun in ignorance.
yes, when liberalism fails the solution is more liberalism. That's what Sanders is for. When Stalin's first 5 year plan failed the solution was a second more ambitious 5 year plan..
yes, they are really feeling very very guilty about killing Jews, and other transgressions, as they are here about killing Indians, and other transgressions. They don't want that to ever happen again or anything remotely like that so they'll take any precaution possible to guard against their evil natures. If only we were all good communists just loving and supporting one another!!
The Israel ambassador to Germany, upon seeing yet another monument to the Holocaust, even said, "is there no limit to the shame these people feel.
now that we both understand your ingenious discovery that "what the majority wants is important" why not tell us why you think that's important information in general and in relation to op topic??
AMERICANS AND THE "QUICK BUCK"
There are five reasons for the Great Depression (from here):
The reasons for the Great Recession are summed up here:
Clearly the bankster fraud of the SubPrime Mess, when loans were handed out willy-nilly in a real-estate frenzy, to individuals largely unable to support those loans long-term and were simply looking for a "quick buck", is at the core of reasons for the Great Recession.
Nothing in economic activity is as simple as we'd like to think. More often than not it is a confluence of events that sparks a major economic downturn.
We could be more careful with the Financial Sector, but since it is a major money-bag for politics, we don't. It requires far more overseeing by professionals than it is being given.
You can expect Great Recession 2 within the next decade precisely for the above reason. Americans are in love with the Quick Buck, whether that be obtained in a casino or the stock-market (which is just another variety of casino).
And yet some of us insist on blaming "the system" instead of just plain "individual greed" ...
OK, I'll take it - because it is a very typical example of international trade.
"Cost plus" of automotive parts from Mexico is one clear reason why American car-producers have been able to maintain pricing at a break-point where Americans will buy their cars. Without it, the cost of American cars would be outta-sight.
Moreover, what is keeping costs down is the increased use of lesser-cost automation procedures in American manufacturing. This is something that had-to-happen on a larger scale. The first photos of robot car-painting machines on the production line date from the early 1980s in Germany. It did not take long for American manufacturers to learn about it - since several had bought European automobile manufacturers.
Robotic manufacturing has been around for almost three decades. It is nothing new - what is new is the Great Recession and the high unemployment (10% in 2009) that "shook-up" the American public.
Could we have seen the recession coming? If we were looking for it, probably. Nobody was looking for it, because as a nation we are "Future Junkies". History is five-minutes ago and Ancient History is yesterday.
Are we ever going to "learn" as nation, Yes, but the hard way ...
Both were simply the bursting of Fed-induced bubbles.
Yes, one doesn't exist and the other does. You'll be pretending perfect competition is possible next!
It continues to be a nonsense question. Government always intervenes and therefore is always part of boom and bust (e.g. neoliberalism enabled deregulation that increased destructive rent seeking behaviour). We know, however, that capitalism is inherently unstable and will collapse without government.
Cost-plus goes beyond trade. It refers, at the very least, to all aspects of production when market power holds.
Your statement is just angry and confused.
A lie is a statement used intentionally for the purpose of deception.
What kind of deception do you think I was trying to create?
My point is that the libcommies and other "socialist" democrats are absolutely insane. I provided full proof for that. I used the word leftists to describe them instead of using "leftists" (forgot the quotes). I didn't give any importance to that - and far from me any intention to deceive. That's why I linked my previous post - to make it clear what I meant. I don't believe there is any trace amount of leftism in them, since they are anti-working class and anti-socialism.
In such conditions, that's quite exaggerate to claim that I was thinking that they are leftists simply because I omitted the quotes.
Are we going to descent into a linguistic conversation now? I proved to you that:
- capitalism doesn't depend on growth. This is an outlandish claim exactly like the claims of the "experts in economy" in the MSM who always tell to the public that "getting the money from the poor and giving it to the rich is improving the economy".
- the socialism, communism and anarchism are affected by the corruption just as much as the capitalism. The root of the problems is not in capitalism, but in corruption and the criminality of the politicians.
- the leftists can build their own leftist and egalitarian communities, like the Mennonites or Amish people are doing.
The conversation was going towards something of substance. But sure, you can waste time on punctuation and it's great impact on phraseology.
Obama, Clintons, the libcommies. Obama and Clinton suggest that they are leftists: they claim they want bigger taxes for the rich and, most importantly, they want mass immigration, and that's pleases very much the (hysterical) "leftists". Those insane "leftists" see Obama and Clinton as one of them. Or two of them in this case.
There was no deregulation. The banking and financial industry continued to be highly regulated. This regulation (deviation from laissez-faire) is what caused the financial meltdown.
Intervention is inherently unstable, since it causes market distortions that eventually lead to busts.
Of course there is deregulation. Neoliberalism supports the financial elite after all.
Intervention has always happened and will always happen. You continue to assume laissez faire is possible. It would neither be possible or desirable. Basic welfare economics informs us of that, given the first best can never be achieved and the second best comes into play.
I presented you a long list of mass murders supported or even directed by the USA. It's in this list - http://www.politicalforum.com/index...contradictions.203432/page-31#post-1068153190
Now you pretend you forgot about it. So you are here for only trolling. Next time you'll do it again I'll report you.
It certainly depends on growth of GDP (but ignores all aspects of the unaccounted production needed to ensure factors of production are reproduced, given the nature of household production and the care industry). Without growth, largely through consumption, productive efficiency merely leads to increased unemployment (and then the destruction of human capital)
didn't ask for long list, asked the liberal for his best single example but he is afraid to provide it. Do you know why you are so afraid?
That can be easily fixed by taxes and wealth re-distribution. The government can use the taxes to pay the unemployed, or better - to give them jobs. There is no country that is purely capitalist because the capitalism must be complemented with socialism in order to make the system work.
Unemployment? In the worst case, give them land and then the land will give them jobs.
If the increased automatization is sending 70% of the workers into unemployed, then the taxes must be 70%. You can call it "automatization tax". Or "robot tax", as Bill Gates called it. Or "monopoly tax", since those who are working are monopolizing the jobs. The taxes must be continuously adjusted, and to find the correct value you only have to count the number of workers (or the number of the unemployed).
There can be different taxes for different industries, as some of them evolve faster than others, sending more people into unemployment. Those unemployed who will find an activity with low productivity (e.g. painter) to make a living from, they should pay a normal tax (20% or whatever it is at this moment).
In a system with 10 people and one person can produce everything all the ten people need, then that person can pay 90% in tax and to keep the 10% they need. The 90% will be re-distributed to the other 9 people.
This idea that the capitalism depends on growth is planted into the people's minds by the super-rich. Because they want to make more and more debts in order to create artificial and useless jobs. For example the government pays billions for making a factory for a few workers. The business won't be able to sell, thanks to the trade deficit (the consumers buy stuff made in China). The business goes bankrupt, but the public debt remains well increased.
Paying an a gigantic public debt means guaranteed misery for the workers, for decades.
The "socialist" democrats / libcommies fully support such things. They want the American workers to live exactly like the poor workers in China. They are very happy with any amount of trade deficit, any tax cuts for the rich, any subventions for creating useless jobs, any super-expensive public services, any amount of speculation on the market and that means bigger and bigger public debt and (subsequently) increased misery for the workers - and for the population in general.
obviously 100% wrong, prices adjust and everyone is employed in America and China regardless of the situation as long as libgovt does not interfere with the free market
100% wrong of course, socialism interferes with the free market and makes any situation worse. Law of suuply and demand says everyone will have a job under Republican capitalism. Over your head?
obviously its not. that's why after 200 years of new tools and computers we still have 97% employment. Its inconceivable that you don't know this but then again that's why we say that liberalism is based in pure ignorance. Our country is doomed.
Very true!! Europe was supposed to the the shining example of lib commie socialist regulation and they were hit by the housing depression as bad as we were, always average 10% unemployment, and live at about 60% of our standard of living!!
Separate names with a comma.