| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 12 2013 10:07 sam!zdat wrote: ^case in point notice the part where I said I was just offering an analysis of the way things are? Yeah, why do you ask? | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On September 12 2013 09:55 sam!zdat wrote: either way. It amounts to the same thing, whether your landlord is a private entity whose landlord is then the territorial power, or just the territorial power directly. Maybe there's a distinction and my language is imprecise If I understood ground rent right, then I'm gonna dissagree with your point. Ground rent isn't the problem, since it is a contractual relationship between the owner of the land and those that use it. The problem, in your perspective, should be land ownership in the first place. Another thing is that you probably have 18th-century England in mind when you claim "a main part of the function of property tax/ground rent is to make it impossible for you to escape from the monetized economy" (the enclosure process comes to mind). In modern times, communities centered around subsistence farming are hardly an option (and would be even with both land ownership and no property taxes). Only the most eccentric would be willing to forgo everything modern society has to offer to live in this theoretical commune. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
it's true that I also think you need a culutral shift in perceptions of what material propserity means, away from unrealistic midcentury american standards. I'd rather have time than stuff | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
 . But hey, time will tell. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 12 2013 10:29 sam!zdat wrote: it's true that I also think you need a culutral shift in perceptions of what material propserity means, away from unrealistic midcentury american standards. I'd rather have time than stuff You're pretty free to choose more time over more stuff. That's largely the direction the economy has been moving in too. People want additional services and experiences rather than additional stuff (for the most part). I'm going to take this to mean that you're finally coming around to embracing the status quo and sleep well tonight  | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 12 2013 11:09 sam!zdat wrote: I'll start sleeping at night when we stop printing infinite money to prop up a recovery that isn't happening I'd be happy if some of that infinite money made it out and actually increased the (broad) money supply. But, alas, it is what it is... | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
I love how people have been convinced that monetary policy doesn't matter and anyone who thinks it does is a crazy person | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On September 12 2013 11:48 DoubleReed wrote: Ugh. Printing money is fine. I don't know why people keep spouting this stuff. You're supposed to print money in that situation. Why do people act like this is a bad thing? Marxists are simply still a bit butthurt that it was money printing and Keynes that pretty much left us fucked. And concerning libertarians, I am not sure myself at times. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Long term, it's entitlement spending that is the real worrisome thing. If we put entitlement obligations on the balance sheet, you're looking at National Debt going from $16 billion to $200 trillion (source and additional exposition) | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On September 12 2013 12:30 sam!zdat wrote: doublereed you would be correct if this were a cyclical crisis as ideology demands that it must be (because ideology can only admit the existence of cyclical crisis). But it is not cyclical crisis it is structural crisis. That is why QE is doing nothing and will not do anything. They are trying to flood the engine with gas to get it started again, but the problem is the axle is broken. Uhm. No. Financial Crises are different from a normal cyclical crisis which we would just jump back from. That's already been pretty firmly understood. This isn't a "structural crisis" either. The structural part is just because we didn't do a large enough stimulus to get the financial markets back on track. And we're up against the zero lower bound. So yes, there are going to be long-term drags on the economy and such but it's not structural in nature. That's just to excuse the shoddy job we've done in responding to the crisis. Printing money is basically harmless right now. This idea that it's going to do serious harm is just the normal ideological scaremongering that always happens whenever printing money is ever suggested. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
jobs are gone and never coming back. The economy has no use anymore for human beings, we are obsolescent. I'd call that a structural crisis but yeah sure it'll all work out fine just keep printing | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On September 12 2013 13:11 sam!zdat wrote: yeah we should have given the crooks even more money, that would have helped The bailout is not the same thing as the stimulus. jobs are gone and never coming back. The economy has no use anymore for human beings, we are obsolescent. I'd call that a structural crisis but yeah sure it'll all work out fine just keep printing Bull. Fucking. Shit. Do you honestly think there isn't more shit to do in the US? This is such an obviously ridiculous thing to say. We have plenty of crap that needs doing. We are not at all at full employment. And what's worse is that this is exactly the attitude that will prevent us from getting to full employment. It can create a self-fulfilling prophecy and cause more economic stupidity than we've already had. Stop it. We have to get our economy back to work. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
stimulus bailout whatever it's all free money to capitalist scum from where I'm standing | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On September 12 2013 13:21 sam!zdat wrote: there is stuff to do but the private sector can't do it Yea, and our public sector is what is lagging most right now because of austerity. stimulus bailout whatever it's all free money to capitalist scum from where I'm standing You do know that a significant chunk of stimulus was just sent to the states to help out with their budgets, right? | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Clem vs Cure
ByuN vs TBD
TBD vs Solar
MaxPax vs TBD
Krystianer vs TBD
ShoWTimE vs TBD
Big Brain Bouts
Serral vs TBD
BSL 21
BSL 21
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Invitational
|
|
|
EPT
