GuyInTaiwan wrote:This is a funny thread.
I completely agree with you. Of course, neither of us are American.
Gman wrote:Then ask them if they'd take work at a fast food place or as a janitor. I've done that work in my time and it's was as about as exciting as being unemployedcfimages wrote:Gman, talk to some long term unemployed and most will tell you that it is incredibly boring.
Dr. McCoy wrote:No, I think what we're saying (at least me) is that this austerical hysterical theatrical protestations are unnecessary. Suddenly stopping all the stimulus is going to prolong the recession which only will make things worse. The best thing we can do is fix the economy (which won't be done through cutting spending drastically) then work on balancing the budget.
Economic recovery will improve the deficit situation in the short run because revenues will rise as people go back to work, and money spent on the social safety net will decline as fewer people are forced to rely on it. But even after the economy recovers, federal spending is projected to increase faster than revenues, so the government will have to continue borrowing money to spend. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects if we continue on our current course, deficits will remain high throughout the rest of this decade and beyond, and debt will spiral ever higher, reaching 90 percent of GDP in 2020.
Over the long run, as the baby boomers retire and health care costs continue to grow, the situation will become far worse. By 2025 revenue will be able to finance only interest payments, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Every other federal government activity – from national defense and homeland security to transportation and energy – will have to be paid for with borrowed money. Debt held by the public will outstrip the entire American economy, growing to as much as 185 percent of GDP by 2035. Interest on the debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion by 2020. These mandatory payments – which buy absolutely no goods or services – will squeeze out funding for all other priorities.
Federal debt this high is unsustainable. It will drive up interest rates for all borrowers – businesses and individuals – and curtail economic growth by crowding out private investment. By making it more expensive for entrepreneurs and businesses to raise capital, innovate, and create jobs, rising debt could reduce per-capita GDP, each American’s share of the nation’s economy, by as much as 15 percent by 2035.
Gman wrote:It's not just me. $terms is how everyone values things. You clearly have no understanding about what money truley is. Capalist Soviet Union? what the hell does that even mean? I'll tell you one thing my way is built on the voluntary exange of labour. Your's is built on coercion by the state ie slavery. So if you want to look at it that way, you would have been right at home as a priveleged member of Mao's China or Stalin's Soviet Union.
cfimages wrote:Gman wrote:It's not just me. $terms is how everyone values things. You clearly have no understanding about what money truley is. Capalist Soviet Union? what the hell does that even mean? I'll tell you one thing my way is built on the voluntary exange of labour. Your's is built on coercion by the state ie slavery. So if you want to look at it that way, you would have been right at home as a priveleged member of Mao's China or Stalin's Soviet Union.
This is the only part I'm going to bother replying to now.
What is money truly? Depends who you ask. Ask a tribesman and it might be a pig. Ask a bank or insurance executive and it might something to accumulate as much of as possible by any means possible regardless of who gets stepped on along the way. Ask a 5 year old and it might be a trading card and stick of gum. Ask a Beverly Hills housewife and it's something to spend on Rodeo Drive. Ask someone living next to a train track in Jakarta and it's something they never see. Ask an African villager and it's the thing that stops them growing crops because of Monsanto's terminator genes and Technology - Stewardship Agreements.
[/quote]Capitalist SU essentially means required labor but done with profit as the end goal. Your system is not built on voluntary exchange of labour because you're essentially forcing the people, particularly those at the bottom, to work crappy jobs. Your attacks on welfare are basically coercion so I'm not sure how you can call my idea coercion by the state or slavery as nobody is being coerced into anything or forced to do something. I've offered a suggestion that gives everyone the freedom to do what they excel at, which is about as far from slavery as you can get - I'd probably be sent to a gulag in Stalin's Soviet Union or Mao's China.
Gman wrote:You like to point out cases where people are exploited or to an uneven distribution of wealth favoring the elite but, those are failures of government not the free markets. If you give a government too much power people will comendere government and use it for their own interests regardless of the economic system in place.
Gao Bohan wrote:The uneven distribution of wealth is a predictable, and positive result of the free market system. Rewards go to those firms (and their investors) able to establish and sustain a competitive advantage over other firms.
CraigTPE wrote:[quote="Gao Bohan"The uneven distribution of wealth is a predictable, and positive result of the free market system. Rewards go to those firms (and their investors) able to establish and sustain a competitive advantage over other firms.
Gao Bohan wrote:Alright, cfimages, let's think how your idea would play out. An additional $600 billion is gathered from the wealthiest Americans and disbursed to everybody. So we all get $20,000, perhaps enough to meet our most basic needs. So the factories shut down, as do the commercial farms and ranches. People leave the danger of the oil field behind, as do the sailors and longshoreman that bring us the oil on which we depend. All retail and distribution centers shut down, having no one willing to work in them. Even employees making high salaries and who want to continue working couldn't, because the bulk of the employees have left. Essentially our entire supply apparatus shuts down, and we are wholly dependent on imports. So we might have a few years to enjoy the good life, until our fuel reserves are used up and the billionaires on which we depend for welfare go bankrupt because all of their businesses shut down. So there goes the tax source on which the system depends. So now we're reduced to living in small agrarian communes. But we'll have lots of art, presumably.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I think we'll give it a pass.
Forumosans browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], finley and 3 visitors