The difference between a fresh leveled 85 and a high geared level 85 is like a factor of 4 or 5 or even more. (In old times where the max level was 60, the factor perhaps was 1.5 to 2.0).
Onyxia was 5-manned in vanilla.
Everything that once was complicated is now super simple
Are you kidding me. Vanilla raids were incredibly simple. The main thing stopping people from advancing was that the encounters were balanced around getting 40 people to do mindless grinding of elixirs, potions and gear. That, and the stacking certain specs. An organizational nightmare perhaps, but very simply fight mechanics.
Everything that once was complicated is now super simple or is even more simplified by writing a macro.
Remember back in Vanilla when you could spam a button and have the game automatically target people and cleanse those who needed cleansing. Not to mention that you could basically macro your whole rotation in one button. Or macro for automatically healing the person with the lowest percentage health.
That is not to mention that the rotation of some specs basically involved casting the same spell over and over.
Except for the landscape... cataclysm was a big disappointment for me. WoW transformed into a game for kids... and is even bad at that.
You sound like a bitter old man who remember things of the past that aren't even true. If anything, Cataclysm has the most complex gameplay of any of the expansions.
If you by a $20,000 car, you get $20,000 functionality
In a country using free market ideology, you get $20,000 of labor and materials when paying $20,000. How much that functionality is worth to you is completely irrelevant except to determine if anyone is willing to buy it in the first place.
At least that is what used to count as free market economy. Considering how much free market theory has been raped in the ass, it is not strange that people believe otherwise.
It's not "the rich" who caused the problem. Asking "the rich" to pay more doesn't really address the root cause and will only be a band-aid on the sucking chest wound that is the economy.
It is exactly the rich who are causing the problem. People who save a lot instead of spending their income creates unemployment by forcing a lack of demand.
This creates a stranglehold on the economy which feeds on itself. And the only one who can do anything is the government who take on the debt of the poor so that the poor can continue to spend and drive the economy for a little while longer.
But as long as you refuse to accept the root cause and start taxing the rich as much as is needed, you will never solve the problem.
boot the parasitic bastards out of the system.
Kick all the rich out of the country? Doesn't really help. You want them in small doses for the best efficiency. It is when you drink the tea party cool aid in large doses that you get a problem.
OK. So you tax the rich, what... 75%? 95%? Even if you taxed the "rich" 100%, it still wouldn't make a dent in our deficit.
This is plain bullshit. Someone is able to afford to buy the debt in the first place. Hence someone can afford to pay the taxes.
Sure, there is the matter of foreign debt which you must pay back with your own country's production. But it isn't like the US is running at full productivity right now. If some foreign country wants to use their US debt papers, that means more jobs for americans, and consequently reduced debt for the US.
And if they don't want to use the debt papers, the US government will inflate away the debt by giving those americans jobs anyway (at least, that is what the US government should be doing instead of squabbling like school children). if foreign countries think the can just accumulating debt without it starting to lose value, then they need to learn macro economics 101.
Now you have a worse job problem than you had before, since these "rich" guys can no longer invest money into the stock market, which allows companies to expand and create jobs,
This is of course even more bullshit. Lack of supply is only ever a temporary issue in modern economies. Sometimes you have to switch to alternate products that do the same thing, but the end result is always that where there are people who can and want to pay, there are people who can deliver a product.
Demand (as in people affording and willing to buy stuff) drives economies, not supply. It has been well known for a long time. Rich people aren't willing (which is why they are rich), and poor people can't afford. Hence you "tax the rich and give to the poor". Preferably by employing them to do some productive government construction work (or whatever else needs doing).
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
Witness some of the issues with Greece, Spain and Ireland
Bad examples. None of the above are using a government controlled fiat currency.
You could say Iceland, but then you are talking about a country that guaranteed debt in a currency other the the government controlled fiat currency.
Yes, you can still get issues. But they are different than the ones that they have in those countries.
What exactly is your definition of "disproportionate?"
Simple. The taxing policies in the last 30 years has shifted the wealth distribution drastically. Moving from what we knew to be a well working wealth distribution to one we know doesn't work (a.k.a. caused the great depression). At least I assume that is what the GP meant.
Those people saved their money (actually more likely they invested it, which helps the economy)).
This is the most fundamental and dangerous supply side economy lie. It sounds so nice, but in reality it is quite the distortion of the truth.
Savings are only good as far as they allow people to spend and invest without hesitation. Any savings beyond that merely serves to create distortions in the economy that actually reduce economic activity.
Investments comes naturally if you have demand, legal stability and enough savings that it can be risked. An unhealthy wealth distribution destroys demand and reduces the scope of people that can invest.
Perhaps you, president Obama and all the clueless congress people need a lecture in where exactly the money comes from.
The US simply can't run out of US dollars to spend unless there is a political problem. And what we have now is of course a political problem, not an economical one.
Why is it OK for the Government to spend recklessly?
Because monetary theory dictates that you should when using a government controlled fiat currency while unemployment is high. As long as the spending occurs in the fiat currency that is. Spending in Yuan or Euro, that would be reckless spending. Spending in US dollars, not so much.
Seriously, a spending roof will do nothing but risk creating mass employment, lower US production output and setup the basis for a real hyperinflation scenario.
Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland are having problems because their fiat currency isn't controlled by the government. Iceland have problems because they took on (or at least tried to take on) debt not in their own currency.
The US problem is of a different kind though. It has all the tools in place to maintain a well working economy, but their politicians don't want it, because their ideology demands otherwise.
What about students that have trouble learning by watching videos?
Watching videos is pretty much equivalent to listening to a teacher standing in front of a blackboard. Except that you can have alternate videos that suit different people.
Hence, using videos frees up the teacher's time so he can spend more time with those who don't learn well just by listening to lectures.
This is just what our broke-ass, can't-find-it's-dick-with-it's-own-hands, defective government
Your government is broke? I thought it just had a lot of debt nominated in US dollars. And that is kind of like not having any real debt at all, as the US government has the ability to create US dollars at will.
If your government looks broke, it is purely a political problem and not an economical one.
Or are you talking about Greece that were stupid enough to use a fiat currency it didn't own. Or something like Iceland that guaranteed a huge amount of debt in a currency it didn't own. Or some kind of country still using a metal standard. In that case you would have a point.
But seriously, half the point of a government controlled fiat currency is that your government can't go directly broke by using it.
And for those screaming inflation, it will happen regardless. The only way to keep inflation down is by increasing US internal production, and that is done by putting people to productive work. Which is something that your private industry doesn't seem capable of, and your public sector isn't politically willing to.
P.S. The US debt could stop rising today simply by the US starting to issuing non-debt backed currency paper. In fact, considering the already low interest rates, now would be pretty much the perfect time to do so.
The US is buying bonds created by the US, nominated in a currency owned and printed by the US. It is simple paper shuffling, nothing more, nothing less.
It used to be a bit more than paper shuffling before the US went full fiat, but not any more.
This is the problem with Ponzi schemes
It isn't a Ponzi scheme. It is a regressive tax plus a social program, obfuscated as a savings scheme.
The whole idea of everyone saving for their whole elderly existence is ludicrous. There is simply not enough savings capacity in the world to do it properly. Instead you pretend that savings occur, but in reality you are just taxing the young and using it to support the old.
With a fiat currency base it becomes even simpler. It doesn't actually matter how much money you collect*. If you don't collect enough, you can always create more.
The only thing you really have to watch out for is hyperinflation, which is basically just about ensuring that your country's white market production doesn't suddenly plummet. Especially in regards to basic goods.
* Well, it does matter how much you collect, but for other reasons. It does have an effect on inflation, etcetera. But there is no hard demand on having to match up government income with expenses if you are using a government owned fiat currency.
1) People would be better off with larger savings over the course of their lives.
No, it would be pretty much the same, except that the financial markets would be far more volatile as you would pump more money into stocks instead of in government debt papers.
Either way you are "investing" in the same thing which is US future productivity.
How will you increase jobs without someone who is rich getting richer?
This basically highlights everything that is wrong with the above post.
Jobs/Production is created by demand. Which is a nice way of saying spending. The rich want to remain rich and get even richer, but by doing so they are not spending and instead dragging whole economies with them.
The rich simply aren't capable of doing the spending required of them with the current wealth distribution, because saving and getting richer is so engraved in them. And that is why you need to keep a firm hand on the wealth distribution with strict taxes on the rich.
Anyway, the best short term solution is for the government to put more human and non-human capital into play, by increasing capital taxes while offering a job guarantee.
In the 1930s a complete job guarantee wasn't possible due to the US still being on a gold standard, but that is no longer a problem. With a modern fiat currency, if people want to save more of your currency, let them, while issuing more instead.
Depending on how productive the job guarantee programs are, you get more or less inflation. If you don't get much inflation, that means they are doing well and there is nothing to complain about. If inflation goes up, they are doing worse, but the added inflation serves as a direct incentive for those with dollar savings to invest them (which in turn reduces the number of people on job guarantee)
It is basically a self regulative formula that can be used by any country that owns a fiat currency.
How's that debt ceiling coming? I'd like to have mine raised. The mortgage is due tomorrow.
You mean the savings ceiling? Because in the real world, one mans debt is another mans savings.
As for your request to raise your personal debt ceiling. Unfortunately you are not eligible as your lack of ability to issue US dollars at will makes you unsuitable for the task of backing others savings.
And please stop comparing the currency issuer to a private household when it comes down to economics, because it is like comparing apples and oranges. Some things work the same, and some things work completely differently.
Recall that the definition of capitalism is merely private ownership of capital, that is, the means of production.
Correct
If you can't give away for free (either as speech or as beer) the results of your production
You are confusing Means and Results. If you control the Means of production, others have to come to you to be able to produce, and as such you will be able to get a part of their production.
And that is capitalism at its core. To gain ownership of the results of production by the shear fact that you own the means of production. That is if you own the means. Otherwise you are screwed.
It isn't like those numbers actually can be used for anything.
A number that people tell random merchants is obviously not something that is usable for any economic purposes. I can't imagine anyone using it to validate purchases as that would clearly be criminal negligence.
So, you would like the top 1% to pay over 35% of all federal income tax collected? Or maybe you think the top 5% should pay over 50% of all federal income tax collected? Of course, the fact is they already do.
Of course they do. The income tax is specifically designed for that purpose, which is why it is always singled out by right wing propaganda interests.
So, exactly what do you consider a "reasonable" amount?
A percentage high enough to ensure that you don't get a run away wealth distribution which eventually destroys the economy. While it is difficult to say exactly, historical evidence seems to indicate that 70% top margin income taxes with around 50% capital gains tax accomplishes that decently.
ou have a right not to be stolen from or murdered. You do NOT have a right to have stuff given to you,
Ok, I think I get this.
You have no right to own anything or to not have a knife stuck in your belly because that implies that there is a right to prevent another from exercising his right. Such "rights" lead straight to hell. You do have a right to take stuff.
Am I a proper libertarian now that I have figured out that negative rights means hiding the victim and positive rights means highlighting the victim. Or do I have to follow your guidelines on which victims to highlight?
magine an economy in which there are 10 workers making a combined total of only 1 widget a year. At the end of the year, they all get paid an arbitrary amount of money (it doesn't matter how much), but only one of them walks away with the widget. All the rest do without.
Now imagine an economy in which the 10 workers each make 10 widgets a year, a total of 100. At the end of the year, they all get paid (again, the numbers printed on the money don't matter), and they will all end up with an average of 10 widgets each.
Bzzt. Economics Fail.
Demand drives modern economies, not supply.
Capitalist have a mental block when it comes to this very simple principle. Demand doesn't just grow to infinity.
You can't expand an economy without having savings for investment,
Of course you can. The whole reason we allow debt in the first place is because it allows investment without savings.
You can't have more demand met without increasing production.
The US and many other western countries have inflated their demand via consumer and government lending for more than two decades just to keep their demand unfriendly policies continuing.
it turned out that smokers and the obese actually cost LESS.
While $417,000 for a healthy person vs $326,000 for a smoker looks like a clear win for smoking, it actually isn't. Smokers die 7 years earlier which means that you have to pay for them earlier. At only 4% interest those $93,000 in savings will be gone.
Of course, that is a bit simplified as I just assumed that all the money was spent in their last living moment. You have to look at exactly when in life the medical spending is done for each type to get a more full picture.
And that is for insurance companies who only are interested in direct costs. The government is just as interested in productivity, and non-smoking non-obese people are more productive. While it isn't huge, interest again makes the difference in the long run.
thanks to the Greens being in government for ages and the constant propganda spewing from Greenpeace et al., the German public are stongly against nuclear power.
Of course, if the "non-greens" were serious, they would just preemptively introduce bills to ban coal-oil power (including imported), as the greens couldn't oppose that without losing huge amounts of credibility.
Once oil/coal is banned, banning nuclear power would no longer be possible in practice.
We're being torn apart from the inside in end-stage capitalism
End stage of supply-side capitalism to be exact. While I am not a big fan of capitalism as a whole, I do see that it is the supply-side rhetorics that has lead to the huge problems we have today.
Lower taxes on the wealthy, and you don't get productivity. All you get is a large financial sector and a poorer average citizen who can't afford to buy things, hence lowering the demand in the economy.
Remove worker protections and keep minimum wages low, and all you get is workers who sell stuff they barely can afford to buy. hence lowering the demand in the economy.
Supply has never been the problem in market economies. If someone has the ability to pay and wants something, someone will be there to produce for a price. Yes, you get the occasional shortage, but those occur in any kind of economy, and market economies are quite good dealing with them compared to the alternatives.The real problem however is to have enough people able to pay (demand). And having a nation living on credit only works for so long before it collapses.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference between a fresh leveled 85 and a high geared level 85 is like a factor of 4 or 5 or even more. (In old times where the max level was 60, the factor perhaps was 1.5 to 2.0).
Onyxia was 5-manned in vanilla.
Everything that once was complicated is now super simple
Are you kidding me. Vanilla raids were incredibly simple. The main thing stopping people from advancing was that the encounters were balanced around getting 40 people to do mindless grinding of elixirs, potions and gear. That, and the stacking certain specs. An organizational nightmare perhaps, but very simply fight mechanics.
Everything that once was complicated is now super simple or is even more simplified by writing a macro.
Remember back in Vanilla when you could spam a button and have the game automatically target people and cleanse those who needed cleansing. Not to mention that you could basically macro your whole rotation in one button. Or macro for automatically healing the person with the lowest percentage health.
That is not to mention that the rotation of some specs basically involved casting the same spell over and over.
Except for the landscape ... cataclysm was a big disappointment for me. WoW transformed into a game for kids ... and is even bad at that.
You sound like a bitter old man who remember things of the past that aren't even true. If anything, Cataclysm has the most complex gameplay of any of the expansions.
If you by a $20,000 car, you get $20,000 functionality
In a country using free market ideology, you get $20,000 of labor and materials when paying $20,000. How much that functionality is worth to you is completely irrelevant except to determine if anyone is willing to buy it in the first place.
At least that is what used to count as free market economy. Considering how much free market theory has been raped in the ass, it is not strange that people believe otherwise.
It's not "the rich" who caused the problem. Asking "the rich" to pay more doesn't really address the root cause and will only be a band-aid on the sucking chest wound that is the economy.
It is exactly the rich who are causing the problem. People who save a lot instead of spending their income creates unemployment by forcing a lack of demand.
This creates a stranglehold on the economy which feeds on itself. And the only one who can do anything is the government who take on the debt of the poor so that the poor can continue to spend and drive the economy for a little while longer.
But as long as you refuse to accept the root cause and start taxing the rich as much as is needed, you will never solve the problem.
boot the parasitic bastards out of the system.
Kick all the rich out of the country? Doesn't really help. You want them in small doses for the best efficiency. It is when you drink the tea party cool aid in large doses that you get a problem.
OK. So you tax the rich, what... 75%? 95%? Even if you taxed the "rich" 100%, it still wouldn't make a dent in our deficit.
This is plain bullshit. Someone is able to afford to buy the debt in the first place. Hence someone can afford to pay the taxes.
Sure, there is the matter of foreign debt which you must pay back with your own country's production. But it isn't like the US is running at full productivity right now. If some foreign country wants to use their US debt papers, that means more jobs for americans, and consequently reduced debt for the US.
And if they don't want to use the debt papers, the US government will inflate away the debt by giving those americans jobs anyway (at least, that is what the US government should be doing instead of squabbling like school children). if foreign countries think the can just accumulating debt without it starting to lose value, then they need to learn macro economics 101.
Now you have a worse job problem than you had before, since these "rich" guys can no longer invest money into the stock market, which allows companies to expand and create jobs,
This is of course even more bullshit. Lack of supply is only ever a temporary issue in modern economies. Sometimes you have to switch to alternate products that do the same thing, but the end result is always that where there are people who can and want to pay, there are people who can deliver a product.
Demand (as in people affording and willing to buy stuff) drives economies, not supply. It has been well known for a long time. Rich people aren't willing (which is why they are rich), and poor people can't afford. Hence you "tax the rich and give to the poor". Preferably by employing them to do some productive government construction work (or whatever else needs doing).
Witness some of the issues with Greece, Spain and Ireland
Bad examples. None of the above are using a government controlled fiat currency.
You could say Iceland, but then you are talking about a country that guaranteed debt in a currency other the the government controlled fiat currency.
Yes, you can still get issues. But they are different than the ones that they have in those countries.
What exactly is your definition of "disproportionate?"
Simple. The taxing policies in the last 30 years has shifted the wealth distribution drastically. Moving from what we knew to be a well working wealth distribution to one we know doesn't work (a.k.a. caused the great depression). At least I assume that is what the GP meant.
Those people saved their money (actually more likely they invested it, which helps the economy)).
This is the most fundamental and dangerous supply side economy lie. It sounds so nice, but in reality it is quite the distortion of the truth.
Savings are only good as far as they allow people to spend and invest without hesitation. Any savings beyond that merely serves to create distortions in the economy that actually reduce economic activity.
Investments comes naturally if you have demand, legal stability and enough savings that it can be risked. An unhealthy wealth distribution destroys demand and reduces the scope of people that can invest.
before agreeing to spend money they didn't have?
Money they don't have?
Perhaps you, president Obama and all the clueless congress people need a lecture in where exactly the money comes from.
The US simply can't run out of US dollars to spend unless there is a political problem. And what we have now is of course a political problem, not an economical one.
Why is it OK for the Government to spend recklessly?
Because monetary theory dictates that you should when using a government controlled fiat currency while unemployment is high. As long as the spending occurs in the fiat currency that is. Spending in Yuan or Euro, that would be reckless spending. Spending in US dollars, not so much.
Seriously, a spending roof will do nothing but risk creating mass employment, lower US production output and setup the basis for a real hyperinflation scenario.
Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland are having problems because their fiat currency isn't controlled by the government. Iceland have problems because they took on (or at least tried to take on) debt not in their own currency.
The US problem is of a different kind though. It has all the tools in place to maintain a well working economy, but their politicians don't want it, because their ideology demands otherwise.
What about students that have trouble learning by watching videos?
Watching videos is pretty much equivalent to listening to a teacher standing in front of a blackboard. Except that you can have alternate videos that suit different people.
Hence, using videos frees up the teacher's time so he can spend more time with those who don't learn well just by listening to lectures.
This is just what our broke-ass, can't-find-it's-dick-with-it's-own-hands, defective government
Your government is broke? I thought it just had a lot of debt nominated in US dollars. And that is kind of like not having any real debt at all, as the US government has the ability to create US dollars at will.
If your government looks broke, it is purely a political problem and not an economical one.
Or are you talking about Greece that were stupid enough to use a fiat currency it didn't own. Or something like Iceland that guaranteed a huge amount of debt in a currency it didn't own. Or some kind of country still using a metal standard. In that case you would have a point.
But seriously, half the point of a government controlled fiat currency is that your government can't go directly broke by using it.
And for those screaming inflation, it will happen regardless. The only way to keep inflation down is by increasing US internal production, and that is done by putting people to productive work. Which is something that your private industry doesn't seem capable of, and your public sector isn't politically willing to.
P.S. The US debt could stop rising today simply by the US starting to issuing non-debt backed currency paper. In fact, considering the already low interest rates, now would be pretty much the perfect time to do so.
I haven't checked how Hitachi does it, but that's how Seagate and Western Digital do it.
Bullshit. Neither of my new 2TB Western Digital disks come with 2048*10^9 storage space.
The US is buying bonds created by the US, nominated in a currency owned and printed by the US. It is simple paper shuffling, nothing more, nothing less.
It used to be a bit more than paper shuffling before the US went full fiat, but not any more.
This is the problem with Ponzi schemes
It isn't a Ponzi scheme. It is a regressive tax plus a social program, obfuscated as a savings scheme.
The whole idea of everyone saving for their whole elderly existence is ludicrous. There is simply not enough savings capacity in the world to do it properly. Instead you pretend that savings occur, but in reality you are just taxing the young and using it to support the old.
With a fiat currency base it becomes even simpler. It doesn't actually matter how much money you collect*. If you don't collect enough, you can always create more.
The only thing you really have to watch out for is hyperinflation, which is basically just about ensuring that your country's white market production doesn't suddenly plummet. Especially in regards to basic goods.
* Well, it does matter how much you collect, but for other reasons. It does have an effect on inflation, etcetera. But there is no hard demand on having to match up government income with expenses if you are using a government owned fiat currency.
1) People would be better off with larger savings over the course of their lives.
No, it would be pretty much the same, except that the financial markets would be far more volatile as you would pump more money into stocks instead of in government debt papers.
Either way you are "investing" in the same thing which is US future productivity.
How will you increase jobs without someone who is rich getting richer?
This basically highlights everything that is wrong with the above post.
Jobs/Production is created by demand. Which is a nice way of saying spending. The rich want to remain rich and get even richer, but by doing so they are not spending and instead dragging whole economies with them.
The rich simply aren't capable of doing the spending required of them with the current wealth distribution, because saving and getting richer is so engraved in them. And that is why you need to keep a firm hand on the wealth distribution with strict taxes on the rich.
Anyway, the best short term solution is for the government to put more human and non-human capital into play, by increasing capital taxes while offering a job guarantee.
In the 1930s a complete job guarantee wasn't possible due to the US still being on a gold standard, but that is no longer a problem. With a modern fiat currency, if people want to save more of your currency, let them, while issuing more instead.
Depending on how productive the job guarantee programs are, you get more or less inflation. If you don't get much inflation, that means they are doing well and there is nothing to complain about. If inflation goes up, they are doing worse, but the added inflation serves as a direct incentive for those with dollar savings to invest them (which in turn reduces the number of people on job guarantee)
It is basically a self regulative formula that can be used by any country that owns a fiat currency.
How's that debt ceiling coming? I'd like to have mine raised. The mortgage is due tomorrow.
You mean the savings ceiling? Because in the real world, one mans debt is another mans savings.
As for your request to raise your personal debt ceiling. Unfortunately you are not eligible as your lack of ability to issue US dollars at will makes you unsuitable for the task of backing others savings.
And please stop comparing the currency issuer to a private household when it comes down to economics, because it is like comparing apples and oranges. Some things work the same, and some things work completely differently.
Recall that the definition of capitalism is merely private ownership of capital, that is, the means of production.
Correct
If you can't give away for free (either as speech or as beer) the results of your production
You are confusing Means and Results. If you control the Means of production, others have to come to you to be able to produce, and as such you will be able to get a part of their production.
And that is capitalism at its core. To gain ownership of the results of production by the shear fact that you own the means of production. That is if you own the means. Otherwise you are screwed.
American citizens have rights under the Constitution
All due process mentions in the constitution use the word "person" and not "citizen", just saying.
70%. 1AUD=1.05USD at the current exchange rates.
loose 2 million credit card numbers
It isn't like those numbers actually can be used for anything.
A number that people tell random merchants is obviously not something that is usable for any economic purposes. I can't imagine anyone using it to validate purchases as that would clearly be criminal negligence.
So, you would like the top 1% to pay over 35% of all federal income tax collected? Or maybe you think the top 5% should pay over 50% of all federal income tax collected?
Of course, the fact is they already do.
Of course they do. The income tax is specifically designed for that purpose, which is why it is always singled out by right wing propaganda interests.
So, exactly what do you consider a "reasonable" amount?
A percentage high enough to ensure that you don't get a run away wealth distribution which eventually destroys the economy. While it is difficult to say exactly, historical evidence seems to indicate that 70% top margin income taxes with around 50% capital gains tax accomplishes that decently.
ou have a right not to be stolen from or murdered. You do NOT have a right to have stuff given to you,
Ok, I think I get this.
You have no right to own anything or to not have a knife stuck in your belly because that implies that there is a right to prevent another from exercising his right. Such "rights" lead straight to hell. You do have a right to take stuff.
Am I a proper libertarian now that I have figured out that negative rights means hiding the victim and positive rights means highlighting the victim. Or do I have to follow your guidelines on which victims to highlight?
magine an economy in which there are 10 workers making a combined total of only 1 widget a year. At the end of the year, they all get paid an arbitrary amount of money (it doesn't matter how much), but only one of them walks away with the widget. All the rest do without.
Now imagine an economy in which the 10 workers each make 10 widgets a year, a total of 100. At the end of the year, they all get paid (again, the numbers printed on the money don't matter), and they will all end up with an average of 10 widgets each.
Bzzt. Economics Fail.
Demand drives modern economies, not supply.
Capitalist have a mental block when it comes to this very simple principle. Demand doesn't just grow to infinity.
You can't expand an economy without having savings for investment,
Of course you can. The whole reason we allow debt in the first place is because it allows investment without savings.
You can't have more demand met without increasing production.
The US and many other western countries have inflated their demand via consumer and government lending for more than two decades just to keep their demand unfriendly policies continuing.
it turned out that smokers and the obese actually cost LESS.
While $417,000 for a healthy person vs $326,000 for a smoker looks like a clear win for smoking, it actually isn't. Smokers die 7 years earlier which means that you have to pay for them earlier. At only 4% interest those $93,000 in savings will be gone.
Of course, that is a bit simplified as I just assumed that all the money was spent in their last living moment. You have to look at exactly when in life the medical spending is done for each type to get a more full picture.
And that is for insurance companies who only are interested in direct costs. The government is just as interested in productivity, and non-smoking non-obese people are more productive. While it isn't huge, interest again makes the difference in the long run.
thanks to the Greens being in government for ages and the constant propganda spewing from Greenpeace et al., the German public are stongly against nuclear power.
Of course, if the "non-greens" were serious, they would just preemptively introduce bills to ban coal-oil power (including imported), as the greens couldn't oppose that without losing huge amounts of credibility.
Once oil/coal is banned, banning nuclear power would no longer be possible in practice.
We're being torn apart from the inside in end-stage capitalism
End stage of supply-side capitalism to be exact. While I am not a big fan of capitalism as a whole, I do see that it is the supply-side rhetorics that has lead to the huge problems we have today.
Lower taxes on the wealthy, and you don't get productivity. All you get is a large financial sector and a poorer average citizen who can't afford to buy things, hence lowering the demand in the economy.
Remove worker protections and keep minimum wages low, and all you get is workers who sell stuff they barely can afford to buy. hence lowering the demand in the economy.
Supply has never been the problem in market economies. If someone has the ability to pay and wants something, someone will be there to produce for a price. Yes, you get the occasional shortage, but those occur in any kind of economy, and market economies are quite good dealing with them compared to the alternatives.The real problem however is to have enough people able to pay (demand). And having a nation living on credit only works for so long before it collapses.