Check out the passwords in the paste bin. Who the hell comes up with these? Two letters, one for the first name, one for the last name and a 4 digit numeric code?
One thing I will say is that if people had more appreciation for the social equity of an advanced technological society, maybe people wouldn't be so actively trying to tear America apart from within. Some of the anti-government voices out there have no clue about the difference between the baby and the bath water.
- I am quite anti-government, I mean I am closer to an anarchist in terms of my perception of government than event to a libertarian.
But when I write what I write about US and the West and the way they should dramatically reduce the power of their governments is not because I want to see those places destroyed.
I want to see them revitalize, get out of the insane death spiral they are in right now, with their social agendas and get back into free market capitalism, so that they can improve their economies, increase the wealth of their societies and help themselves to get back into the economic game, not try and destroy themselves with the unachievable goal of socialist/communist ideology, that is driving their economies South, completely destroying the wealth of their economies by destroying the capital and production capacity.
When you say this:
I listen to economists talk about the world economy, when they comment about what makes rich countries rich, they say "social institutions".
- I am telling: you are listening to the wrong people. They are not economists, they are preaches of the powerful political elite. These are not economists.
If you care about economics, and not about 'fairness' or 'social justice' of any kind, if you care about economics, about wealth of the society, about raising the wealth and giving everybody a better standard of living, you wouldn't listen to these useless sellouts.
Maybe you should check out the video in my sig to see what a real economist sounds like.
ust think of a OPEC formed to control europe's food imports, and imagine the effect of a speculation attack on the price of food. It would be suicide.
- cartels don't work.
Cartels don't work, because it you are part of the cartel and you agree to quotas, then if you believe that everybody else will only fulfill their quota, then you may as well go above it, because it's not a big deal in terms of total output.
However if you believe that everybody else is going above their quota, then for you not to go above it is really stupid.
This means that regardless of what is agreed upon by the cartel, everybody is cheating and trying to sell more than they agreed to, so price controls don't work.
Everybody in the cartel wants to sell more, so cartels are delusions.
Any subsidy to any business, regardless of whether you perceive it to be strategic or not are mis-allocation of resources, taking resources away to activities that should not happen due to lack of market need and they push prices up for whatever the product is, thus costing more to those, who can least afford it and at the same time they cause people to have less money in the pocket for other expenses and investments.
At the same time this destroys a large portion of the market, that could be the one that produced this product at the cheapest levels.
Basically, like all other human protectionist scams, this one is just as bad for the economy, as any other.
A guy who is stuck with nothing to excavate and an excavator, is the one, who missed the boat on where the economy was moving to and got stuck in the unproductive part of the world, instead of moving the capital to where his capital is in demand. So since I understood those real world conditions, I moved my 'excavator', so to speak.
You know, this entire metric of 'debt to GDP' or the way you used it: 'nasa to GDP' should make you extremely uncomfortable, shouldn't it?
Because GDP is not something that is true measurement of the taxes, that government collects and it's certainly not the true measurement of the production capacity of the economy, especially now, that GDP numbers are highly inflated basically that the dollar valuation and bonds are inflated and the transactions dealing with these papers by all the financial institutions, who are turned into a 'market' for holding US Treasury bonds are backed by counterfeit money basically, and also that US Fed and Treasury are playing politics, trying to keep the valuations of all the bad debt, that needs to be restructured up, keeping the mortgage values up by inflating money supply and thus causing rising prices for things people actually need to buy every day - food, energy, goods, etc. This GDP number is not a useful metric, it's highly manipulated, just like core inflation or unemployment numbers are.
You know, I am tired of your BS, so here is my reply to you:
1. Nobody owes you a wage.
2. You can't reconcile your own points, on one hand you are implying it's easy to make profit, so that everybody you know does it in 2 months, on the other you want some silly wage protection, which you are free to negotiate with your employer, but you won't start your own business. Why not, it's so easy, you'll be the boss and make all that money? So why are you getting your panties in a knot about some silly wages, when you can have this great profit that quickly? You are an inventor, you invented something? Sell it, make some money, go live the high life.
3. Your ignorance is not my problem, so I am not going to explain to you anything about markets or depression or money or finance or business, you are obviously not interested and maybe you are better than me at all of that, maybe you know all of that so then why are you coming here for more in this thread? It's pointless, and I have to hit the road tomorrow, it's a long long road and thus I need my sleep.
Your Marxist views are not welcome with me, so go find somebody else to annoy.
As I am sitting here, in Baden Baden today, I am asking myself the same question. I have to deal with German 'quality' too often, it's really really really not all it is made out to be. But Baden Baden is where I go when I come here for a reason - it's really not what Germany is, in a way that for example Miami is not what USA is all about (I love Miami BTW., excellent climate).
The answer to the question is of-course that Germany does not have enormous debts that USA has, it has dual health care system, it's much more sane than what US or Canada have for example, but the truth is.
The truth is that people on average are much much more POOR in Germany than they are in USA. They truly are much more poor. They do not have the same life styles, and even though they used to have much more in terms of social obligations, all of this is shrinking.
Germany did one thing right: it opened its borders to cheap labor from all around Europe and Middle East, so instead of shifting so much labor to Asia, it sort of invited cheap labor from all across and it is busy reducing government interference. That's correct: the social obligations are being constantly lowered, the government interference is being reduced. BTW., Germany has a trade surplus with China, so when US politicians say that Chinese are not playing fair and it's impossible to play fair with China, how do they reconcile the fact that Germany has a trade surplus, not a trade deficit with China? But of-course USA has trade deficit with everybody, even Canada.
I think Euro will fail, but USD will fail first. Euro is deeply flawed, but USD is more flawed and its day of reckoning is closer now than anybody else's.
One more thing: Germany does not guarantee deposits with government insurance (FDIC,) so internally, German banks have more scrutiny from the populations. The preferred way of payment in Germany is cash, not credit.
Germans do not live on credit - this is very important. Few Germans buy consumer goods on credit, they buy with cash, so they don't buy as much, but they still produce plenty, and even with comparatively high social obligations (which are being reduced now, as they must, because they are unrealistic), they can still manage to keep capital and produce.
Of-course as the government starts bailing out various bankers in Germany and France via Greece bail outs and thus transferring the costs onto German tax payers and everybody who holds Euro via inflation, the capital will still be leaving, because one thing capital does not like is being destroyed via inflation, especially while there are places that have less inflation.
BTW., the differences between Eastern and Western Germany are stark, and they especially were pronounced at the time when the wall fell, so if somebody wants to compare what it looks like, when the same basically people live under different political and economic systems, where one is more 'communist' than the other, it's a great example.
There's an alternate view presented by some professor of foreign affairs that I have been pondering since I read it.
- I am sorry, I just read that, and that's why I am sorry. Why did you make me read that? Ok, ok, you didn't make me do anything, but I still want to hold somebody accountable. ---
Seriously though, they guy says absolutely nothing beyond: we are in trouble, but so are other guys, and we will invent something that will help us to get out of our trouble.
Well, there is a remote possibility that somebody in US will invent something, but with the destruction of capital, caused by US government do you even think that even if something was invented in US, somebody will be able to get credit to build a real product out of that? Besides, if US can build something, others can too, right, that's the premise behind that piece, that US is in trouble but so are others?
Seriously though, US won't be building anything much beyond iPods and iPads (and don't get me wrong, Jobs is great, all hail Jobs.)
But even more seriously: to compare the US problems to Chinese problems is like to compare the oceans of Titan to the fiery core of the Sun. Because China has the production capacity, it has the capital, it makes the tools, because of that it needs more and more engineers and scientists, while US doesn't need any, US only really produces weapons. Well, I guess maybe US can use the weapons to take things away from others, but others also have weapons, and fighting wars on many fronts doesn't end well, historically speaking.
US has the problem that is not just debt. US has 14T USD debt, but also all the pension funds and all the SS and Medicare liabilities, and then 1/3 of all mortgages in US are debt owned by the Treasury as well, don't forget, that's how they kept the financial industry from disappearing (which it should have done.)
Chinese will shrug off their US denominated debt even if it is reduced into absolute nothingness, but they will keep the capital that lets them build, manufacture things, products that people need. THAT is the real wealth, not fake money and not foreign debt.
I am afraid that before it gets better for the West, the West will go through a dark period of time, where it will have to learn that it must be productive again, and to be productive it must abolish its gigantic government structures and so called 'social obligations' and wars.
Mostly I was defending the ac. I agree with a lot of what you said but the problem isn't in the American workers.
- it's American voters that are the problem, whether they work or not is irrelevant.
Hell even if the money being taken was making it into their hands through 'socialist' programs the savings to the average person would trickle back up to the producers
- that's the big part of the problem, that's what I meant when I said that China has its head up its ass in terms of fiscal policy - printing Chinese fiat to buy all those US dollars in China from the banks, who hold that money for the companies that sell to US.
The problem there is that by printing the Chinese yuan to buy the US dollar, this creates the inflation, which, in a producer nation like China, is immediately reflected in rising prices - thus they have food prices go up by 15-25% a year, while they are the ones that are producing huge part of everything the world consumes, and they are the ones who cannot keep their purchasing power to be real consumers of those goods, because of their government currency policy.
The money that US consumers pay the manufacturers from China are fake, but the Chinese politicians take that fake money and launder it and cause massive price hikes for their own people, who are the ones producing the stuff! This is what Chinese should be furious about - inflation caused by their government.
I was defending the AC though who is right in that the disparity between ceo and worker has grown to obnoxious levels and the fault of that is greed not the government.
- this comes from lack of understanding of wealth creation and economics.
Do you know what drives me to build my businesses? Greed. I want to make profit, I want to be able to earn more money than I made on contracts (and I made a pretty decent living, making maybe couple of hundred thousand a year). But I want more. But I also like doing what I do. Because I want more and because I like what I do, I build my own products with my own knowledge and this became a business. It's because of greed that there are a bunch of new products in the market, that are useful to people in more ways than one, since those products allow distribution companies, manufacturers and retailers to be much more efficient. So greed creates wealth.
However if I had government protecting me, taxing my competition and subsidizing me through contracts and laws and excise taxes, I would not be competing against others, who make similar products, but I would be in a position of government protected monopoly, which I would maintain by paying off some politicians and keeping them happy would keep me happy. But if I am protected against competition that way, then I don't have to face competition, I can raise prices, while not probably even worrying about quality of my products much more. With high prices and little in terms of spending, I could become one of those big guys, with yachts and airplanes, and whatever, I could have millions upon millions in salary, being 'obnoxious'. And I would immediately do it too, if I had a way.
Do you still not see the problem? The real problem?
Is it my greed that's the problem? Or is it my greed combined with government protections that are the problem? Because after all, my greed by itself is creative and it's generating wealth for the society, but my greed combined with government power only pushes prices up, decreases competition and choices and creates real disparity, because when I have to compete, I have to spend pretty penny on building more products and providing more services.
The business owner gets into his pocket only what is left after he pays everybody who is hired, he pays the creditors, he pays the utility bills and all costs, be it of transportation or taxes or marketing or whatever. If after paying all of those costs, there is something left over, and it's not immediately needed by the b
- right back at you. The reason that Americans are unproductive is government destruction of capital. Capital is what makes somebody productive.
A guy with a shovel is more productive than a guy with a stick. A guy with an excavator is more productive than a guy with a shovel.
The difference is capital that companies can use to acquire the tools necessary to make their workforce more productive. As the mob rules and punishes the producers, the producers move their capital and the mob is left there without the capital. As long as the producers can enter a different market, they will be just fine. Who will suffer? The mob that is left behind.
The difference between Americans and Chinese is not in the wages, it is in the approach to the economy. One is mostly free market capitalist country with a rigid political structure, and the other is a centrally planned failure, which bails out banks, taxes income beyond any reason, strangles any new business by regulations, which protect the preferred monopolies and prints what is supposed to be a 'reserve' currency as though the trees are going out of style.
Chinese are failing in one respect: their fiscal policy is hurting them as they are trying to devalue their currency as fast, as the dollar is being devalued. Once they stop with that nonsense, everybody who is now producing in Asia will find all the customers they ever wanted right there, without having to go anywhere, and Americans and others from various 'socialist' Western nations will finally have to face how much their socialist lifestyles are subsidized by the so called "communist" nation.
See, the problem with all of that is that you are ignoring the facts.
- no, no, that's you projecting your own problem onto me.
You say that working for literal slavery is not a possibility in a free market
- No, I am saying that 'literal slavery' is not a possibility where you are not a literal slave. Being a slave means you have to do something because you are forced to do it by whoever sets your laws for you - so that they are in a legal position to punish you for something that you do or not do. Being a slave means you are owned and have no legal way to escape that ownership, or that you are kidnapped and even though held illegally, you can't escape the bonds.
So when you say somebody is a 'literal' slave in a free market, while actually meaning that they are not owned by anybody is quite a leap.
In reality today people are slaves, but they are slaves of their government, so that when a TSA agent puts his hands on your genitalia, you must take it and not make a fuss, much like slaves had to take being handled by their buyers, who checked their muscles and teeth and inspected their body for signs of disease, etc.
Now, you can say somebody is a slave figuratively speaking, but then you have to be able to support your argument, and you cannot.
In addition to those problems, in the past 40 years labor regulations have relaxed
- you must have never dealt with FINRA. Or the EPA. Or the department of education. Or the department of energy. You must have pretty sheltered life, the kind that just glosses by and doesn't actually try to do anything productive, where you actually stumble over all of the regulations, that are set to protect the monopolies and keep you out of becoming a competitor.
I never said anything about sharing gains. I said it is about value. If each worker has a production capacity of 150k worth of merchandise a yea
- negotiate your contract, and since you are but one competitor in the labor market, be prepared to be paid somewhere around where others are paid for similar positions.
Your 'value' to the company is actually directly correlated to the amount of capital that the company spends on your ass by getting the tools necessary to make your work more efficient, similar how a guy with a shovel is less efficient than a guy with an excavator.
But the excavator was bought by the company. The business is set up by the company. The clients are found by the company. The goods are created by the company. The services are provided by the company. Whatever you think is your value to the company - it's your absolute right to negotiate it with the company, but you won't be getting a PERCENTAGE of the value or of the company or anything like that. You will be getting your salary or your hourly wage, because that's how the employer knows what he must set aside to pay your ass by the end of the month, and as hired help you don't care if the company MAKES that money that month or if it loses it.
You get paid either way. But if you want to own PERCENTAGE of company's worth - get in line and become an investor. Or start your own company. And then you actually will find out that companies can have losses as much as they can have gains, and that the employees get paid anyhow, while the business owners may get nothing, because they have to have the business moving.
top brass of a company makes a bad decision which causes the company to take losses
- right, so you are always a valuable asset, while the top brass makes bad decisions. You want your 'value' in dollar amount, but if the 'value' is negative that month, will you write the check back to the company?
Also, right now, billionaires have a top marginal tax rate below 30%, and the less you make the smaller the tax.
I like how my comment was moderated 'troll' for some reason,/. is interesting that way.
Why would anything be made in America? WHO would be buying this 'shit' at higher prices in America?
Tell me something: if somebody decided to go all the way through with the socialist agenda, and open a restaurant that paid really good, excellent wages to all the employees, that had first class amenities and provided employees with first class benefits, that paid all the taxes without trying to avoid any, that complied with every single regulation that exists. If it bought only locally produced groceries to make the dishes, etc.etc.etc.
How fast would they go out of business? Would anybody go there, if a plate cost like 120 bucks? Who would go? Would you go?
The point is that there is no way in hell that this 'shit' can be made in America as long as there are other places that make this 'shit' much cheaper, because nobody will pay more, when they can pay less for the same thing. Instead of hoping to pay more for 'shit', people should be gratefuller somebody makes it and sells it for less, because at the end, people want goods, not silly pieces of paper.
The only way to have Americans employed, is to make them competitive, to make them cost effective and to make them efficient. But the government is very much busy doing all of the opposite things - destroying capital formation through inflation and taxes, protecting monopolies, and thus destroying opportunities for more businesses to be created by those, who want to compete, but can't due to government regulation, which acts as protection for large monopolies against any competition.
The only thing that stands between Americans and productive capacity, which they really need in order to restart wealth generation is their government, and that's the sad part, that so many Americans are totally oblivious to it and are taking the position, that government should be meddling with economy and that it is those pesky businesses, that must be punished for working, and that people must be able to get stuff for free without actually producing anything for it.
Also it's not 'consumers', that feed you - that's such a ridiculous statement, I am flabbergasted. It's producers who feed you. Those who produce feed you, not those who consume. Those who consume only can compete with you for consumption of the produced goods.
Trying to cut through the thick BS that is wrapped around people's understanding of economics since 1998.
Ha ha, I guess you don't actually need all that cash in your wallet, that you are so gracefully offering up for grabs to pay for all the overhead generated by such a regulation?
They sell ads, but the users of sites don't pay the sites directly. The sites get paid by advertisers, so advertisers are the customers and site users are the product that is sold by the site to the advertiser. Do ads work? Of-course they do somewhat, just like spam works somewhat, even if 1% of people buy something because of the ads, then I guess it's worth it, maybe?
The convincing argument for the opposite is that I don't have a user account on one of those sites, and on/. I turned the ads off and I block ads as well, so that's one argument. The other is that I actively make sure to skip all ads I see somehow, that's another. But again, if the ads generate even 1% of the overall buyers, then maybe they are worth it? I just don't think sites like that are worth anything much themselves, but that's a valuation question to those, who buy the stocks.
"Being friends" through these sites is sort of like 'having sex' with blow up dolls, but worse, because you actually own the dolls and can do whatever.
On the other hand nobody who uses these sites pays them anythings, so maybe it's not like 'having sex' with blow up dolls.
Or maybe it is, I am not sure anymore. How many libraries of congress can fit in one's 'friends list' on a site like that exactly?
Yeah, come back when you, yourself, start buying everything local, regardless of the price, (which by the way, is a wasteful thing to do as well, as if you do spend more money on consumables, you have less left for other investments, so it's a no win situation).
No, governments print fiat, that's why I don't hold fiat, because governments print them. Large corporations have no competition from the market, because governments protect large monopolists from competition so that they get their kickbacks and campaign contributions back from monopolists, since in real competitive markets there is no government interference and there is no extra money and more importantly reasons to bribe politicians.
As to 'little citizens' - so why don't you do something about it? Start your own business, work your ass off and become somebody.
Oh, the problem is in the name, but it's not the 'rare' part, it's the EARTH part, as the Japanese have clearly shown here - it's not earth, it's ocean.
Government is protecting corporations by taking away liability of the management, which creates moral hazard of people not having to care about the outcomes of their actions, it is protecting monopolies by regulations and laws, which prevent competition, and patents are a large part of that racket, but so are various laws that are on the surface aimed at 'protecting consumers', but in reality serve to protect large corporations from small startups - competitors, like in the case of FINRA, which makes it impossible for new comers into the financial market and keeps the old monopolies, that are now part of the government and thus must have their businesses protected by the government from any competition.
Patents do not increase innovation, what increases innovation is lack of red tape around your every move, what increases innovation is lack of punishment for working - income/payroll/and yes, corporate taxes. What increases innovation is people being able actually to try and do things, without having to jump through bureaucratic hoops and without being stopped by a system, that is deliberately set up to keep only the largest corporations in play, because monopolies are what governments prefer, as monopolies do not have to compete and thus they can over-charge, they are guaranteed profits from the government (even given profits, the way Fed discount window and Treasury 'market' works now), so monopolies with their guaranteed profits of-course recycle some of the money to the politicians.
Do you think politicians want a good efficient market, where prices fall due to increased efficiencies and where money is stable or even appreciates in value over time, rather than falling in value? Do you think politicians want companies that are constantly thinking about actual customers, trying to give customers more value for less money, because that's the way to survive in that game against other competitors?
Who will have the money for kickbacks? Who will do the bribing? Who will finance their campaigns? Who will hire them to be lobbyists, if government would not interfere into business and economy in the first place?
Oh, come on, there will be no meaningful patent reform, there will be no meaningful reduction in government spending, there will be no stoppage of any wars or money printing, there will be no meaningful reduction in bureaucracy and regulations and taxes, nothing that actually would help the economy will be done, because it is absolutely not profitable for politicians.
Government may be a 'non-profit' organization, but it's certainly profitable for many many people, and those who profit are the ones who make the rules, and you think they'll change the rules so that they can then get less profit and less power?
The free market can drive wages down to literally slavery
- nonsense. Nobody can force you to work for in a 'literal slavery' unless they actually own you.
Because corporations have an essential monopsony on labor markets
- this makes even less sense. An employer and an employee negotiate the terms of a contract, they agree on conditions. When WWII ended and USA federal government finally stopped money after all the bailouts and stimulus of the depression era, US labor was in very high demand, which drove purchasing power so high, that a secondary school graduate could maintain a family of a stay-at-home wife and a few kids on a single paycheck, own his house and a second property, own a couple of cars, buy health insurance/care out of pocket and do all of that without getting into any debt. Eventually the government milked that cow dry, while growing intensely, as foreign nations became productive again, US government became too expensive, too many regulations were enacted, too many labor laws and very high taxes hit the producers in USA, all coupled with huge government thirst for finances, which lead to US gov't getting off the gold standard so that it could print ever more cash and get into ever more debt while financing insane wars, monopolies, etc.
As capital was leaving in the open market to other nations, US worker became less and less productive, because productivity depends directly on capital - tools, machinery that are available to labor. As capital was leaving, efficiency was decreasing, while costs associated with expensive government laws, regulations, taxes were rising. This is what makes US worker unemployable, nothing else.
Your entire perception of what is happening in terms of 'fairness' is screwed up.
. The free market inevitably drives prices up, wages down, quality down
- nonsense, as USA 19 century showed, as China in fact is showing today. Free market causes prices to fall, as USA displayed in 19 century, while dollar was going appreciating, the prices in the very competitive market were constantly lowered.
In fact whatever the price for a good was in 1800, it was cut in half by 1913, all while more and more products and services were created by the free market (mostly free at that time, as government really only dealt with the biggest businesses, helping tycoons and robber barons of the time.) The free market in USA is responsible for every bit of wealth that was created in 19 century, which also incidentally drove the quality of life up for everybody, rich or poor, and allowed more leisure time, and allowed for rights of people to become more equal. As free market capitalism was increasing efficiencies and improving working conditions by using more and more capital, which means more and more effective tools, that are easier to use, less and less manual hard work was required, which is exceedingly clear especially in farming, as society shifted from 95% farmers to only 5%, and allowed more people to free their time from living at subsistence levels, so they could pursue other careers and they could work on changing the perception of society upon the rights of minorities - women, children, other races.
Businesses are always at war, and the best among them always wins, taking enough market share to be able to abuse their market share.
- I see a person who never built a business trying to tell me something here? First: there is no such thing as 'best' among businesses. Second: even if one business is more efficient, it does not mean another must be destroyed, it means that another must find a way to be even more efficient and/or to approach the business from a different perspective. Survival is key of-course, but that's only good for the consumers, as those who survive must provide better value, and if somebody slips and stops providing the best value possible, given the conditions of the market, then another player wi
so I'm going to assume you are some sheltered kid who has had life handed to him on a silver platter. Or at least a copper one.
---
I have dealt with people like you hundreds of times before, and you all rely on the same fallacious depictions of reality in the creepiest way possible
---
Sincerely, whenever somebody starts using arguments of the personal nature, they lose my interest.
you be a deer and do something to help society instead of your mongering to exacerbate t
- I am doing something useful. I build my own businesses and add to the wealth of the society by offering services and products that didn't exist until I built them.
So there will be no 'making wages fair' support from me - the only fair wage is a wage that is set by free market.
So if you truly care about fair wages, you'd support free market and not government destroying the free market.
Oh, and free market does work every time, as opposed to government, with millions of examples, from lasic eye surgery, to computers and cell phones, to TVs, to the first flying airplane (as opposed to a government sponsored version by Langley, that ended as an abysmal failure), to medical care and insurance and education, which worked in US very well and was very affordable, even cheap, before government got its hands all over it, to the very foundation of the economy - money, which government has destroyed.
Governments fails every time, that's why I moved my business to a place, where government does very little because people here care more about success of economy, than about some government supported idea of 'fairness', which always ends up in a disaster.
Slashdot Mirror
Check out the passwords in the paste bin. Who the hell comes up with these? Two letters, one for the first name, one for the last name and a 4 digit numeric code?
One thing I will say is that if people had more appreciation for the social equity of an advanced technological society, maybe people wouldn't be so actively trying to tear America apart from within. Some of the anti-government voices out there have no clue about the difference between the baby and the bath water.
- I am quite anti-government, I mean I am closer to an anarchist in terms of my perception of government than event to a libertarian.
But when I write what I write about US and the West and the way they should dramatically reduce the power of their governments is not because I want to see those places destroyed.
I want to see them revitalize, get out of the insane death spiral they are in right now, with their social agendas and get back into free market capitalism, so that they can improve their economies, increase the wealth of their societies and help themselves to get back into the economic game, not try and destroy themselves with the unachievable goal of socialist/communist ideology, that is driving their economies South, completely destroying the wealth of their economies by destroying the capital and production capacity.
When you say this:
I listen to economists talk about the world economy, when they comment about what makes rich countries rich, they say "social institutions".
- I am telling: you are listening to the wrong people. They are not economists, they are preaches of the powerful political elite. These are not economists.
If you care about economics, and not about 'fairness' or 'social justice' of any kind, if you care about economics, about wealth of the society, about raising the wealth and giving everybody a better standard of living, you wouldn't listen to these useless sellouts.
Maybe you should check out the video in my sig to see what a real economist sounds like.
they finally figured out talk and ytalk. Good for them.
ust think of a OPEC formed to control europe's food imports, and imagine the effect of a speculation attack on the price of food. It would be suicide.
- cartels don't work.
Cartels don't work, because it you are part of the cartel and you agree to quotas, then if you believe that everybody else will only fulfill their quota, then you may as well go above it, because it's not a big deal in terms of total output.
However if you believe that everybody else is going above their quota, then for you not to go above it is really stupid.
This means that regardless of what is agreed upon by the cartel, everybody is cheating and trying to sell more than they agreed to, so price controls don't work.
Everybody in the cartel wants to sell more, so cartels are delusions.
Any subsidy to any business, regardless of whether you perceive it to be strategic or not are mis-allocation of resources, taking resources away to activities that should not happen due to lack of market need and they push prices up for whatever the product is, thus costing more to those, who can least afford it and at the same time they cause people to have less money in the pocket for other expenses and investments.
At the same time this destroys a large portion of the market, that could be the one that produced this product at the cheapest levels.
Basically, like all other human protectionist scams, this one is just as bad for the economy, as any other.
To True, The facts is t
To true or not to true?
That is the question.
A guy who is stuck with nothing to excavate and an excavator, is the one, who missed the boat on where the economy was moving to and got stuck in the unproductive part of the world, instead of moving the capital to where his capital is in demand. So since I understood those real world conditions, I moved my 'excavator', so to speak.
You know, this entire metric of 'debt to GDP' or the way you used it: 'nasa to GDP' should make you extremely uncomfortable, shouldn't it?
Because GDP is not something that is true measurement of the taxes, that government collects and it's certainly not the true measurement of the production capacity of the economy, especially now, that GDP numbers are highly inflated basically that the dollar valuation and bonds are inflated and the transactions dealing with these papers by all the financial institutions, who are turned into a 'market' for holding US Treasury bonds are backed by counterfeit money basically, and also that US Fed and Treasury are playing politics, trying to keep the valuations of all the bad debt, that needs to be restructured up, keeping the mortgage values up by inflating money supply and thus causing rising prices for things people actually need to buy every day - food, energy, goods, etc. This GDP number is not a useful metric, it's highly manipulated, just like core inflation or unemployment numbers are.
You know, I am tired of your BS, so here is my reply to you:
1. Nobody owes you a wage.
2. You can't reconcile your own points, on one hand you are implying it's easy to make profit, so that everybody you know does it in 2 months, on the other you want some silly wage protection, which you are free to negotiate with your employer, but you won't start your own business. Why not, it's so easy, you'll be the boss and make all that money? So why are you getting your panties in a knot about some silly wages, when you can have this great profit that quickly? You are an inventor, you invented something? Sell it, make some money, go live the high life.
3. Your ignorance is not my problem, so I am not going to explain to you anything about markets or depression or money or finance or business, you are obviously not interested and maybe you are better than me at all of that, maybe you know all of that so then why are you coming here for more in this thread? It's pointless, and I have to hit the road tomorrow, it's a long long road and thus I need my sleep.
Your Marxist views are not welcome with me, so go find somebody else to annoy.
As I am sitting here, in Baden Baden today, I am asking myself the same question. I have to deal with German 'quality' too often, it's really really really not all it is made out to be. But Baden Baden is where I go when I come here for a reason - it's really not what Germany is, in a way that for example Miami is not what USA is all about (I love Miami BTW., excellent climate).
The answer to the question is of-course that Germany does not have enormous debts that USA has, it has dual health care system, it's much more sane than what US or Canada have for example, but the truth is.
The truth is that people on average are much much more POOR in Germany than they are in USA. They truly are much more poor. They do not have the same life styles, and even though they used to have much more in terms of social obligations, all of this is shrinking.
Germany did one thing right: it opened its borders to cheap labor from all around Europe and Middle East, so instead of shifting so much labor to Asia, it sort of invited cheap labor from all across and it is busy reducing government interference. That's correct: the social obligations are being constantly lowered, the government interference is being reduced. BTW., Germany has a trade surplus with China, so when US politicians say that Chinese are not playing fair and it's impossible to play fair with China, how do they reconcile the fact that Germany has a trade surplus, not a trade deficit with China? But of-course USA has trade deficit with everybody, even Canada.
I think Euro will fail, but USD will fail first. Euro is deeply flawed, but USD is more flawed and its day of reckoning is closer now than anybody else's.
One more thing: Germany does not guarantee deposits with government insurance (FDIC,) so internally, German banks have more scrutiny from the populations. The preferred way of payment in Germany is cash, not credit.
Germans do not live on credit - this is very important. Few Germans buy consumer goods on credit, they buy with cash, so they don't buy as much, but they still produce plenty, and even with comparatively high social obligations (which are being reduced now, as they must, because they are unrealistic), they can still manage to keep capital and produce.
Of-course as the government starts bailing out various bankers in Germany and France via Greece bail outs and thus transferring the costs onto German tax payers and everybody who holds Euro via inflation, the capital will still be leaving, because one thing capital does not like is being destroyed via inflation, especially while there are places that have less inflation.
BTW., the differences between Eastern and Western Germany are stark, and they especially were pronounced at the time when the wall fell, so if somebody wants to compare what it looks like, when the same basically people live under different political and economic systems, where one is more 'communist' than the other, it's a great example.
There's an alternate view presented by some professor of foreign affairs that I have been pondering since I read it.
- I am sorry, I just read that, and that's why I am sorry. Why did you make me read that? Ok, ok, you didn't make me do anything, but I still want to hold somebody accountable.
---
Seriously though, they guy says absolutely nothing beyond: we are in trouble, but so are other guys, and we will invent something that will help us to get out of our trouble.
Well, there is a remote possibility that somebody in US will invent something, but with the destruction of capital, caused by US government do you even think that even if something was invented in US, somebody will be able to get credit to build a real product out of that? Besides, if US can build something, others can too, right, that's the premise behind that piece, that US is in trouble but so are others?
Seriously though, US won't be building anything much beyond iPods and iPads (and don't get me wrong, Jobs is great, all hail Jobs.)
But even more seriously: to compare the US problems to Chinese problems is like to compare the oceans of Titan to the fiery core of the Sun. Because China has the production capacity, it has the capital, it makes the tools, because of that it needs more and more engineers and scientists, while US doesn't need any, US only really produces weapons. Well, I guess maybe US can use the weapons to take things away from others, but others also have weapons, and fighting wars on many fronts doesn't end well, historically speaking.
US has the problem that is not just debt. US has 14T USD debt, but also all the pension funds and all the SS and Medicare liabilities, and then 1/3 of all mortgages in US are debt owned by the Treasury as well, don't forget, that's how they kept the financial industry from disappearing (which it should have done.)
Chinese will shrug off their US denominated debt even if it is reduced into absolute nothingness, but they will keep the capital that lets them build, manufacture things, products that people need. THAT is the real wealth, not fake money and not foreign debt.
I am afraid that before it gets better for the West, the West will go through a dark period of time, where it will have to learn that it must be productive again, and to be productive it must abolish its gigantic government structures and so called 'social obligations' and wars.
Mostly I was defending the ac. I agree with a lot of what you said but the problem isn't in the American workers.
- it's American voters that are the problem, whether they work or not is irrelevant.
Hell even if the money being taken was making it into their hands through 'socialist' programs the savings to the average person would trickle back up to the producers
- that's the big part of the problem, that's what I meant when I said that China has its head up its ass in terms of fiscal policy - printing Chinese fiat to buy all those US dollars in China from the banks, who hold that money for the companies that sell to US.
The problem there is that by printing the Chinese yuan to buy the US dollar, this creates the inflation, which, in a producer nation like China, is immediately reflected in rising prices - thus they have food prices go up by 15-25% a year, while they are the ones that are producing huge part of everything the world consumes, and they are the ones who cannot keep their purchasing power to be real consumers of those goods, because of their government currency policy.
The money that US consumers pay the manufacturers from China are fake, but the Chinese politicians take that fake money and launder it and cause massive price hikes for their own people, who are the ones producing the stuff! This is what Chinese should be furious about - inflation caused by their government.
I was defending the AC though who is right in that the disparity between ceo and worker has grown to obnoxious levels and the fault of that is greed not the government.
- this comes from lack of understanding of wealth creation and economics.
Do you know what drives me to build my businesses? Greed. I want to make profit, I want to be able to earn more money than I made on contracts (and I made a pretty decent living, making maybe couple of hundred thousand a year). But I want more. But I also like doing what I do. Because I want more and because I like what I do, I build my own products with my own knowledge and this became a business. It's because of greed that there are a bunch of new products in the market, that are useful to people in more ways than one, since those products allow distribution companies, manufacturers and retailers to be much more efficient. So greed creates wealth.
However if I had government protecting me, taxing my competition and subsidizing me through contracts and laws and excise taxes, I would not be competing against others, who make similar products, but I would be in a position of government protected monopoly, which I would maintain by paying off some politicians and keeping them happy would keep me happy. But if I am protected against competition that way, then I don't have to face competition, I can raise prices, while not probably even worrying about quality of my products much more. With high prices and little in terms of spending, I could become one of those big guys, with yachts and airplanes, and whatever, I could have millions upon millions in salary, being 'obnoxious'. And I would immediately do it too, if I had a way.
Do you still not see the problem?
The real problem?
Is it my greed that's the problem? Or is it my greed combined with government protections that are the problem? Because after all, my greed by itself is creative and it's generating wealth for the society, but my greed combined with government power only pushes prices up, decreases competition and choices and creates real disparity, because when I have to compete, I have to spend pretty penny on building more products and providing more services.
The business owner gets into his pocket only what is left after he pays everybody who is hired, he pays the creditors, he pays the utility bills and all costs, be it of transportation or taxes or marketing or whatever. If after paying all of those costs, there is something left over, and it's not immediately needed by the b
Nice job completely missing the point
- right back at you. The reason that Americans are unproductive is government destruction of capital. Capital is what makes somebody productive.
A guy with a shovel is more productive than a guy with a stick.
A guy with an excavator is more productive than a guy with a shovel.
The difference is capital that companies can use to acquire the tools necessary to make their workforce more productive. As the mob rules and punishes the producers, the producers move their capital and the mob is left there without the capital. As long as the producers can enter a different market, they will be just fine. Who will suffer? The mob that is left behind.
The difference between Americans and Chinese is not in the wages, it is in the approach to the economy. One is mostly free market capitalist country with a rigid political structure, and the other is a centrally planned failure, which bails out banks, taxes income beyond any reason, strangles any new business by regulations, which protect the preferred monopolies and prints what is supposed to be a 'reserve' currency as though the trees are going out of style.
Chinese are failing in one respect: their fiscal policy is hurting them as they are trying to devalue their currency as fast, as the dollar is being devalued. Once they stop with that nonsense, everybody who is now producing in Asia will find all the customers they ever wanted right there, without having to go anywhere, and Americans and others from various 'socialist' Western nations will finally have to face how much their socialist lifestyles are subsidized by the so called "communist" nation.
See, the problem with all of that is that you are ignoring the facts.
- no, no, that's you projecting your own problem onto me.
You say that working for literal slavery is not a possibility in a free market
- No, I am saying that 'literal slavery' is not a possibility where you are not a literal slave. Being a slave means you have to do something because you are forced to do it by whoever sets your laws for you - so that they are in a legal position to punish you for something that you do or not do. Being a slave means you are owned and have no legal way to escape that ownership, or that you are kidnapped and even though held illegally, you can't escape the bonds.
So when you say somebody is a 'literal' slave in a free market, while actually meaning that they are not owned by anybody is quite a leap.
In reality today people are slaves, but they are slaves of their government, so that when a TSA agent puts his hands on your genitalia, you must take it and not make a fuss, much like slaves had to take being handled by their buyers, who checked their muscles and teeth and inspected their body for signs of disease, etc.
Now, you can say somebody is a slave figuratively speaking, but then you have to be able to support your argument, and you cannot.
In addition to those problems, in the past 40 years labor regulations have relaxed
- you must have never dealt with FINRA. Or the EPA. Or the department of education. Or the department of energy. You must have pretty sheltered life, the kind that just glosses by and doesn't actually try to do anything productive, where you actually stumble over all of the regulations, that are set to protect the monopolies and keep you out of becoming a competitor.
I never said anything about sharing gains. I said it is about value. If each worker has a production capacity of 150k worth of merchandise a yea
- negotiate your contract, and since you are but one competitor in the labor market, be prepared to be paid somewhere around where others are paid for similar positions.
Your 'value' to the company is actually directly correlated to the amount of capital that the company spends on your ass by getting the tools necessary to make your work more efficient, similar how a guy with a shovel is less efficient than a guy with an excavator.
But the excavator was bought by the company.
The business is set up by the company.
The clients are found by the company.
The goods are created by the company.
The services are provided by the company.
Whatever you think is your value to the company - it's your absolute right to negotiate it with the company, but you won't be getting a PERCENTAGE of the value or of the company or anything like that. You will be getting your salary or your hourly wage, because that's how the employer knows what he must set aside to pay your ass by the end of the month, and as hired help you don't care if the company MAKES that money that month or if it loses it.
You get paid either way. But if you want to own PERCENTAGE of company's worth - get in line and become an investor. Or start your own company. And then you actually will find out that companies can have losses as much as they can have gains, and that the employees get paid anyhow, while the business owners may get nothing, because they have to have the business moving.
top brass of a company makes a bad decision which causes the company to take losses
- right, so you are always a valuable asset, while the top brass makes bad decisions. You want your 'value' in dollar amount, but if the 'value' is negative that month, will you write the check back to the company?
Also, right now, billionaires have a top marginal tax rate below 30%, and the less you make the smaller the tax.
- I don't know what your point is, all income t
I like how my comment was moderated 'troll' for some reason, /. is interesting that way.
Why would anything be made in America? WHO would be buying this 'shit' at higher prices in America?
Tell me something: if somebody decided to go all the way through with the socialist agenda, and open a restaurant that paid really good, excellent wages to all the employees, that had first class amenities and provided employees with first class benefits, that paid all the taxes without trying to avoid any, that complied with every single regulation that exists. If it bought only locally produced groceries to make the dishes, etc.etc.etc.
How fast would they go out of business? Would anybody go there, if a plate cost like 120 bucks? Who would go? Would you go?
The point is that there is no way in hell that this 'shit' can be made in America as long as there are other places that make this 'shit' much cheaper, because nobody will pay more, when they can pay less for the same thing. Instead of hoping to pay more for 'shit', people should be gratefuller somebody makes it and sells it for less, because at the end, people want goods, not silly pieces of paper.
The only way to have Americans employed, is to make them competitive, to make them cost effective and to make them efficient. But the government is very much busy doing all of the opposite things - destroying capital formation through inflation and taxes, protecting monopolies, and thus destroying opportunities for more businesses to be created by those, who want to compete, but can't due to government regulation, which acts as protection for large monopolies against any competition.
The only thing that stands between Americans and productive capacity, which they really need in order to restart wealth generation is their government, and that's the sad part, that so many Americans are totally oblivious to it and are taking the position, that government should be meddling with economy and that it is those pesky businesses, that must be punished for working, and that people must be able to get stuff for free without actually producing anything for it.
Also it's not 'consumers', that feed you - that's such a ridiculous statement, I am flabbergasted. It's producers who feed you. Those who produce feed you, not those who consume. Those who consume only can compete with you for consumption of the produced goods.
Trying to cut through the thick BS that is wrapped around people's understanding of economics since 1998.
Ha ha, I guess you don't actually need all that cash in your wallet, that you are so gracefully offering up for grabs to pay for all the overhead generated by such a regulation?
They sell ads, but the users of sites don't pay the sites directly. The sites get paid by advertisers, so advertisers are the customers and site users are the product that is sold by the site to the advertiser. Do ads work? Of-course they do somewhat, just like spam works somewhat, even if 1% of people buy something because of the ads, then I guess it's worth it, maybe?
The convincing argument for the opposite is that I don't have a user account on one of those sites, and on /. I turned the ads off and I block ads as well, so that's one argument. The other is that I actively make sure to skip all ads I see somehow, that's another. But again, if the ads generate even 1% of the overall buyers, then maybe they are worth it? I just don't think sites like that are worth anything much themselves, but that's a valuation question to those, who buy the stocks.
"Being friends" through these sites is sort of like 'having sex' with blow up dolls, but worse, because you actually own the dolls and can do whatever.
On the other hand nobody who uses these sites pays them anythings, so maybe it's not like 'having sex' with blow up dolls.
Or maybe it is, I am not sure anymore. How many libraries of congress can fit in one's 'friends list' on a site like that exactly?
Too much whining, disguised as sarcasm, not enough work doing something.
Yeah, come back when you, yourself, start buying everything local, regardless of the price, (which by the way, is a wasteful thing to do as well, as if you do spend more money on consumables, you have less left for other investments, so it's a no win situation).
No, governments print fiat, that's why I don't hold fiat, because governments print them. Large corporations have no competition from the market, because governments protect large monopolists from competition so that they get their kickbacks and campaign contributions back from monopolists, since in real competitive markets there is no government interference and there is no extra money and more importantly reasons to bribe politicians.
As to 'little citizens' - so why don't you do something about it? Start your own business, work your ass off and become somebody.
Oh, the problem is in the name, but it's not the 'rare' part, it's the EARTH part, as the Japanese have clearly shown here - it's not earth, it's ocean.
I said it before, and will say it again:
government has no business protecting any form business.
Government is protecting corporations by taking away liability of the management, which creates moral hazard of people not having to care about the outcomes of their actions, it is protecting monopolies by regulations and laws, which prevent competition, and patents are a large part of that racket, but so are various laws that are on the surface aimed at 'protecting consumers', but in reality serve to protect large corporations from small startups - competitors, like in the case of FINRA, which makes it impossible for new comers into the financial market and keeps the old monopolies, that are now part of the government and thus must have their businesses protected by the government from any competition.
Patents do not increase innovation, what increases innovation is lack of red tape around your every move, what increases innovation is lack of punishment for working - income/payroll/and yes, corporate taxes. What increases innovation is people being able actually to try and do things, without having to jump through bureaucratic hoops and without being stopped by a system, that is deliberately set up to keep only the largest corporations in play, because monopolies are what governments prefer, as monopolies do not have to compete and thus they can over-charge, they are guaranteed profits from the government (even given profits, the way Fed discount window and Treasury 'market' works now), so monopolies with their guaranteed profits of-course recycle some of the money to the politicians.
Do you think politicians want a good efficient market, where prices fall due to increased efficiencies and where money is stable or even appreciates in value over time, rather than falling in value? Do you think politicians want companies that are constantly thinking about actual customers, trying to give customers more value for less money, because that's the way to survive in that game against other competitors?
Who will have the money for kickbacks? Who will do the bribing? Who will finance their campaigns? Who will hire them to be lobbyists, if government would not interfere into business and economy in the first place?
Oh, come on, there will be no meaningful patent reform, there will be no meaningful reduction in government spending, there will be no stoppage of any wars or money printing, there will be no meaningful reduction in bureaucracy and regulations and taxes, nothing that actually would help the economy will be done, because it is absolutely not profitable for politicians.
Government may be a 'non-profit' organization, but it's certainly profitable for many many people, and those who profit are the ones who make the rules, and you think they'll change the rules so that they can then get less profit and less power?
Hmmmmm.
Correction - financed by foreign debt, every 40 cents spent by US government is borrowed from abroad.
The free market can drive wages down to literally slavery
- nonsense. Nobody can force you to work for in a 'literal slavery' unless they actually own you.
Because corporations have an essential monopsony on labor markets
- this makes even less sense. An employer and an employee negotiate the terms of a contract, they agree on conditions. When WWII ended and USA federal government finally stopped money after all the bailouts and stimulus of the depression era, US labor was in very high demand, which drove purchasing power so high, that a secondary school graduate could maintain a family of a stay-at-home wife and a few kids on a single paycheck, own his house and a second property, own a couple of cars, buy health insurance/care out of pocket and do all of that without getting into any debt. Eventually the government milked that cow dry, while growing intensely, as foreign nations became productive again, US government became too expensive, too many regulations were enacted, too many labor laws and very high taxes hit the producers in USA, all coupled with huge government thirst for finances, which lead to US gov't getting off the gold standard so that it could print ever more cash and get into ever more debt while financing insane wars, monopolies, etc.
As capital was leaving in the open market to other nations, US worker became less and less productive, because productivity depends directly on capital - tools, machinery that are available to labor. As capital was leaving, efficiency was decreasing, while costs associated with expensive government laws, regulations, taxes were rising. This is what makes US worker unemployable, nothing else.
Your entire perception of what is happening in terms of 'fairness' is screwed up.
. The free market inevitably drives prices up, wages down, quality down
- nonsense, as USA 19 century showed, as China in fact is showing today. Free market causes prices to fall, as USA displayed in 19 century, while dollar was going appreciating, the prices in the very competitive market were constantly lowered.
In fact whatever the price for a good was in 1800, it was cut in half by 1913, all while more and more products and services were created by the free market (mostly free at that time, as government really only dealt with the biggest businesses, helping tycoons and robber barons of the time.) The free market in USA is responsible for every bit of wealth that was created in 19 century, which also incidentally drove the quality of life up for everybody, rich or poor, and allowed more leisure time, and allowed for rights of people to become more equal. As free market capitalism was increasing efficiencies and improving working conditions by using more and more capital, which means more and more effective tools, that are easier to use, less and less manual hard work was required, which is exceedingly clear especially in farming, as society shifted from 95% farmers to only 5%, and allowed more people to free their time from living at subsistence levels, so they could pursue other careers and they could work on changing the perception of society upon the rights of minorities - women, children, other races.
Businesses are always at war, and the best among them always wins, taking enough market share to be able to abuse their market share.
- I see a person who never built a business trying to tell me something here? First: there is no such thing as 'best' among businesses. Second: even if one business is more efficient, it does not mean another must be destroyed, it means that another must find a way to be even more efficient and/or to approach the business from a different perspective. Survival is key of-course, but that's only good for the consumers, as those who survive must provide better value, and if somebody slips and stops providing the best value possible, given the conditions of the market, then another player wi
I didn't.
oh?
so I'm going to assume you are some sheltered kid who has had life handed to him on a silver platter. Or at least a copper one.
---
I have dealt with people like you hundreds of times before, and you all rely on the same fallacious depictions of reality in the creepiest way possible
---
Sincerely, whenever somebody starts using arguments of the personal nature, they lose my interest.
you be a deer and do something to help society instead of your mongering to exacerbate t
- I am doing something useful. I build my own businesses and add to the wealth of the society by offering services and products that didn't exist until I built them.
So there will be no 'making wages fair' support from me - the only fair wage is a wage that is set by free market.
So if you truly care about fair wages, you'd support free market and not government destroying the free market.
Oh, and free market does work every time, as opposed to government, with millions of examples, from lasic eye surgery, to computers and cell phones, to TVs, to the first flying airplane (as opposed to a government sponsored version by Langley, that ended as an abysmal failure), to medical care and insurance and education, which worked in US very well and was very affordable, even cheap, before government got its hands all over it, to the very foundation of the economy - money, which government has destroyed.
Governments fails every time, that's why I moved my business to a place, where government does very little because people here care more about success of economy, than about some government supported idea of 'fairness', which always ends up in a disaster.