|
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. |
On March 01 2014 16:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 22:11 Wolfstan wrote:
Taxation as a punitive, negative reinforcement is less desirable than positive reinforcement through subsidies in the state affecting the behavior of an economy. "the government should only ever give out money to positively reinforce behaviour and never take money away from those who have it which negatively reinforces having money" Solid financial thinking right there. The starting assumption of infinite money is a little optimistic but I like the idea.
You hyperbolized my point a little bit but let me give you an example using everyone's favorite scapegoat the energy industry.
Let's say the governments stated goal is to promote the use of solar energy as a viable alternative the classic forms of energy. Say there is infrastructure in place to power and heat everyone's home for $10 using coal. Now say the technology exists that can heat and power everyone's home for $15, but the infrastructure is not in place. Both the left and right see that the "invisible hand" and entrepreneurship will not achieve the stated goal of the government, so the state must intervene to achieve the populist goals.
The left say that we must internalize the costs of dirty energy so they impose a $6 tax in the hopes that "invisible hand" and market participants will chase the opportunities of selling energy for $15 in a market where it's competitors must sell for $16.
I have a lot of problems with this line of thinking: first, there is still a HUGE barrier entry that is not addressed for a necessary service like heating and powering homes. With the noble goal of cleaning up america's energy you have indirectly hurt the poor. Second there is no guarantee that the capital that is fleeing and uncompetitive industry is flowing into solar. It could be going into coal plants in China, clean coal, real estate, nat. gas, the state has no control over where these resources flow.
The right believes that if getting clean energy is what the population wants, then it should assist in the costs of getting the infrastructure up while subsidizing 5 dollars of the cost of delivering clean energy to solar customers. The government has achieved the goals of its population by doing the unpopular socializing of the costs and risks and privatizing profits *gasp*.
Where does this infinite money come from ask? The first place that should be looked is last generations subsidies in now sustainable, competitive industries i'm looking at personal computers, telecom, railroads, shipping etc. Subsidies as much I advocate them are dangerous when "left on" long after the stated goals are met. It's unfortunately takes a lot of political willpower to turn them off, a lot of the time the US has a really hard time with this.
The second place to look is *those further right than me cover your ears* RAISE TAXES. This puts the debate in the productive place of "what do you want? how much are you willing to pay for it?" The realm where taxes and service is just another transaction between two parties, rather than punishment for not being who the people want you to be.
That's where I want the punitive state intervention debate not ideological:
"you hate the environment", "fucking climate denier", or the parasitic "I know what I want, but I want someone else to pay for it, because 'equality'".
TLDR; i still think positive reinforcement > punishment in achieving goals of an economy.
Join me next time when I reply to Whitedog and his assertion on how the capital markets be handled by the government and its people to achieve "equality"
|
On March 02 2014 01:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The fact of the matter is that just like how the world just kinda had to accept US invading Iraq, no matter how wrong we thought it was, there's nothing we can actually do to stop Russia from sending troops to Crimea either.
I mean we can protest, we can posture, we can impose some sanctions, we can stop giving Russia the Olympics and the World Cup, but we cannot counter-intervene militarily. Ukraine will by no means benefit from becoming some proxy-war spot, and directly intervening was never an option even in USA's heyday, and Crimea is very much in the russian sphere of influence. It's a fucked situation, but I think the best we can do is well, protest, posture, impose some sanctions and showcase our disapproval..
Well, there are things we could do, it just probably wouldn't be a good idea, and I doubt congress would approve it.
But we could easily ask for Kiev government permission to send in peacekeeping forces, or temporary military assistance or something, and if granted move in piles of stuff.
I mean, Russian military has no chance in an actual fight.
I still say it'd be better to rely on political maneuvering, if Russia wants to claim that there are real threats to minorities to justify their actions, then rely on their claim to call for a UN peacekeeping mission to Ukraine. Then Russia would have to either allow the UN peacekeeping mission which would limit their ability to actually take land, or veto the mission and make it look like they're not actually there for peacekeeping.
|
Hong Kong9157 Posts
On March 02 2014 08:56 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 08:47 itsjustatank wrote:On March 02 2014 08:44 FallDownMarigold wrote:
USA stormed into Iraq in '03 without UNSC blessing. I can't really take Obamanator seriously when scold Russia for storming into Ukraine... The United States upheld UN Security Council resolution 1441 in its invasion of Iraq in 2003. That resolution was enacted and agreed to previously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441In addition, the Gulf War only ended with a ceasefire. The no-fly zones that followed were a continuation of the mission. So was the invasion in 2003.
Shit, you're right. There was a point when USA was ready to invade w/o consulting the UN, though. Could've happened...  Also, I believe there is at least a bit of uncertainty with regard to whether that resolution sufficiently justified the decision to invade. It's clearly not the same as Russia's situation with Ukraine though, so my apologies.
Yeah there's a big difference. Putin has literally thrown international law and agreements into a gutter by doing what he did this weekend. His responses echo Hitler's during the Anschluss, "Yeah, I know, but won't you let me protect the G̶e̶r̶m̶a̶n̶-̶s̶p̶e̶a̶k̶e̶r̶s̶ Russian-speakers?"
|
On March 02 2014 08:56 Wolfstan wrote:
TLDR; i still think positive reinforcement > punishment in achieving goals of an economy.
Yeah these envious leftist losers! Americans seem to have the tendency to drag the discussion of redistribution on this ridiculous pedagogic and moral level, when it's just a pragmatical decision.
Countries with huge income&wealth inequality have worse social mobility, slower economic growth( due to the lack of consumption and purchasing power), more crime and what not. Redistribution isn't a good idea because it punishes someone, it's a good idea because economically it makes sense.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/01/readout-president-obama-s-call-president-putin
(Also: Readout of the 90 min Obama - Putin phone call)
|
Norway28702 Posts
On March 02 2014 08:59 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 01:45 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The fact of the matter is that just like how the world just kinda had to accept US invading Iraq, no matter how wrong we thought it was, there's nothing we can actually do to stop Russia from sending troops to Crimea either.
I mean we can protest, we can posture, we can impose some sanctions, we can stop giving Russia the Olympics and the World Cup, but we cannot counter-intervene militarily. Ukraine will by no means benefit from becoming some proxy-war spot, and directly intervening was never an option even in USA's heyday, and Crimea is very much in the russian sphere of influence. It's a fucked situation, but I think the best we can do is well, protest, posture, impose some sanctions and showcase our disapproval.. Well, there are things we could do, it just probably wouldn't be a good idea, and I doubt congress would approve it. But we could easily ask for Kiev government permission to send in peacekeeping forces, or temporary military assistance or something, and if granted move in piles of stuff. I mean, Russian military has no chance in an actual fight. I still say it'd be better to rely on political maneuvering, if Russia wants to claim that there are real threats to minorities to justify their actions, then rely on their claim to call for a UN peacekeeping mission to Ukraine. Then Russia would have to either allow the UN peacekeeping mission which would limit their ability to actually take land, or veto the mission and make it look like they're not actually there for peacekeeping.
Nobody has a chance in a fight between the russian and the american military. It is something that must be avoided at basically all cost.
|
All cost? Not ALL cost, Russia isn't going to use nukes anymore than the US would over Ukraine or crimea.
And my proposed plan is better anyways.
|
On March 02 2014 09:12 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 08:56 Wolfstan wrote:
TLDR; i still think positive reinforcement > punishment in achieving goals of an economy.
Yeah these envious leftist losers! Americans seem to have the tendency to drag the discussion of redistribution on this ridiculous pedagogic and moral level, when it's just a pragmatical decision. Countries with huge income&wealth inequality have worse social mobility, slower economic growth( due to the lack of consumption and purchasing power), more crime and what not. Redistribution isn't a good idea because it punishes someone, it's a good idea because economically it makes sense. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/01/readout-president-obama-s-call-president-putin(Also: Readout of the 90 min Obama - Putin phone call) The man spent a lot of time before the TLDR arguing his point. Ignoring what he said, ignoring his argument, and then rushing headlong into the blanket "it's a good idea" is infantile. Re-read why the stick doesn't work as well as the carrot (and heck taxation & fees vs taxation and subsidies both fit into your header of redistribution, so you might want to say which one you prefer and why)
|
On March 02 2014 10:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 09:12 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2014 08:56 Wolfstan wrote:
TLDR; i still think positive reinforcement > punishment in achieving goals of an economy.
Yeah these envious leftist losers! Americans seem to have the tendency to drag the discussion of redistribution on this ridiculous pedagogic and moral level, when it's just a pragmatical decision. Countries with huge income&wealth inequality have worse social mobility, slower economic growth( due to the lack of consumption and purchasing power), more crime and what not. Redistribution isn't a good idea because it punishes someone, it's a good idea because economically it makes sense. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/01/readout-president-obama-s-call-president-putin(Also: Readout of the 90 min Obama - Putin phone call) The man spent a lot of time before the TLDR arguing his point. Ignoring what he said, ignoring his argument, and then rushing headlong into the blanket "it's a good idea" is infantile. Re-read why the stick doesn't work as well as the carrot (and heck taxation & fees vs taxation and subsidies both fit into your header of redistribution, so you might want to say which one you prefer and why)
Germany is the prime example that subsidizing clean energy does hurt the consumer immensely. We have the so called 'EEG' law, which guarantees green energy producers stable prices, until 2020. Our energy cost now is twice as high as in France. (16 cent/kilowatt hour to 30 cent).
It kills our domestic consumption and a panel of experts has come to the conclusion that the best thing would be to get completely rid of it.
(http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/26/german-govt-report-get-rid-of-green-energy-subsidies/ only English source i could find)
The only people that profit from this are energy producers. Someone living on the minimum wage in a rural area is now paying for the solar panels on a rich guys house. It's redistribution from bottom to top.
I didn't respond to his complete post because he only tells what he believes. I don't need to believe anything because we have a giant experiment going on here that clearly shows that subsidizing green energy is a really bad idea.
|
There is a lot of place for capital to go. But when you measure capital in income term, what you measure is the relationship between capital and production. If capital represent 600 to 700% of the production income of one year, what it means is that your capital is overevaluated or that your country does not produce enough.
And the problem is that, in the long run, capital will take most of the income.
By the way I don't think you understand the point about human capital. The remuneration of human capital is wage, of course the two are linked because they're abstraction made for the economy, but there is a fact : you can't own human capital. So when you measure capital, you only measure capital, and not the human part, because if you own a firm you don't own the working force that work for the firm...
With no or almost no change in regulation and taxation, we would need between 3% growth (GDP growth not GDP per capita, and real term, inflation is also a way to minimise capital but only when it is not anticipated) for capitalism to survive its own contradictions. This is the reason why Marx and a big part of european thinkers were completly against capitalism (and why most european are sceptics with capitalism while the US has a completly different view) : in Europe, back in the nineteen century, we already had a low demographic (especially in France, the first country to make its demographic transition) with a "normal" growth (1 %, which seems weak in comparaison to the period after the 2nd world war, but a lot in comparaison to before) and no or almost no inflation, so we were already facing those "contradictions" with an over accumulation.
Of course there are various solutions to resolve those issues :
- A global war (Ukraine gives us a good platform for that)
- Unanticipated inflation (the problem is that it is only a short run solution, since an anticipated inflation would have no effect)
- Protectionnism
- A better taxation on capital
- A better growth
- A confiscation of capital by the state, and the instauration of a communist utopia (that would not work, men are not ready ), or just a mixted form of capitalism with the state controlling some key capital assets (like water, electricity, those kind of things).
To be fair, the US has a lot of cards it can play that the EU does not have, and it is also more active politically.
The unwashed masses see numbers on a piece of paper in the capital markets and wish to confiscate that wealth when they have no idea how to safely extract that wealth and if they should succeed in taking it find that the emperor has no clothes, The money isn't there. Injecting and extracting money from the real economy into the capital markets and vice versa is complex and needs more care than the sledgehammer the left seems to want to employ.
To start we need to see how the relationship between the real economy and the capital markets work in its purest form. Let's say we have a company with 3000 in assets and 2000 in liabilities, and earnings of 1000 giving it a value of 1000 dollars in the real world economy. Now this owner comes to capital markets whether it's for expansion or to liquefy his company, it doesn't matter. He offers to sell half his equity stake in the company for five thousand dollars, valuing his company at ten thousand dollars on the capital market. There is now 8k in assets on the balance sheet with 5k sitting in cash.that has left the capital markets is about to head to the real economy to increase production. After the extraction there is now 6000(8000assets-2000liabilities) dollars of value in the real world and 10000 dollars of value on the capital markets.
The company, the government and the real world shouldn't give a shit about what the capital markets value the company because that wealth chasing gains in the equity in the playground of the 1% is not part of the real economy anymore.
Now say the company hits it out of the park in the real world because they invested the capital given to them well and now have assets of 11000, liabilities of 1000, earnings of 2000 and a shareholders equity of 10000 in the real world. The shareholders are drinking their champagne while another values the company at 20 times the 2000 dollar earnings. Wow, now my buddy can show the world how the capital side of the world is now 400% of the real economy.
Now the masses see our owners new accepted net worth of 20000 dollars and generally flip out, not realizing this is unrealized, hard to value, paper wealth. The government cannot extract 40% taxation rate of his net worth because he simply doesn't have 8000 dollars kicking around and the unorderly liquidation of his assets to pay his tax bill would cause severe problems in the real economy as the underlying company his ownership is a derivative of is only worth 10000 dollars(5000 which he is entitled to). Just look at the situation Venezuela is in now, after taking wealth that wasn't theirs and wasn't there(troll-bait comment i know and am sorry.) That 40k is not meant for houses, cars, or food for the poor, it is meant for capital pursuits and extraction into the real economy in return seeking intelligent ways. If that 40k blows up in the financial markets it should be insulated and contained there with minimum spillover and contamination of the real economy and real peoples lives.
It is very dangerous to try to extract Mr one percenters wealth from his capital and put it into the real economy, there are better mechanisms to employ, and better dialogue to be had than looking at the bottom 20%er and the 1%er's net worth and screaming inequality. Of course social mobility is hurting, if 50% of the population is uninformed and uninvolved enough to not read a fucking book while only caring about Lindsay Lohan's addiction problems. 30% will cite a Fox or MSNBC article. 10% will be an intellectual who reads and recommends a title like Capitalism: the Path to Inequality with stories and fancy charts reinforcing their conclusion. 10% will read titles like Capitalism: What it is and how you win also with fancy charts and stories reinforcing their conclusion. Of course a certain class of people will be upwardly mobile accumulating vast amounts of wealth while others stagnate, don't act like taking the wealth and redistributing it will solve any problems at all, while creating much bigger ones down the road.
|
On March 02 2014 11:13 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 10:58 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2014 09:12 Nyxisto wrote:On March 02 2014 08:56 Wolfstan wrote:
TLDR; i still think positive reinforcement > punishment in achieving goals of an economy.
Yeah these envious leftist losers! Americans seem to have the tendency to drag the discussion of redistribution on this ridiculous pedagogic and moral level, when it's just a pragmatical decision. Countries with huge income&wealth inequality have worse social mobility, slower economic growth( due to the lack of consumption and purchasing power), more crime and what not. Redistribution isn't a good idea because it punishes someone, it's a good idea because economically it makes sense. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/01/readout-president-obama-s-call-president-putin(Also: Readout of the 90 min Obama - Putin phone call) The man spent a lot of time before the TLDR arguing his point. Ignoring what he said, ignoring his argument, and then rushing headlong into the blanket "it's a good idea" is infantile. Re-read why the stick doesn't work as well as the carrot (and heck taxation & fees vs taxation and subsidies both fit into your header of redistribution, so you might want to say which one you prefer and why) Germany is the prime example that subsidizing clean energy does hurt the consumer immensely. We have the so called 'EEG' law, which guarantees green energy producers stable prices, until 2020. Our energy cost now is twice as high as in France. (16 cent/kilowatt hour to 30 cent). It kills our domestic consumption and a panel of experts has come to the conclusion that the best thing would be to get completely rid of it. (http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/26/german-govt-report-get-rid-of-green-energy-subsidies/ only English source i could find) The only people that profit from this are energy producers. Someone living on the minimum wage in a rural area is now paying for the solar panels on a rich guys house. It's redistribution from bottom to top. I didn't respond to his complete post because he only tells what he believes. I don't need to believe anything because we have a giant experiment going on here that clearly shows that subsidizing green energy is a really bad idea.
Seems like your citizens and government didn't take the "what do we want and how much are willing to pay for it" discourse very far. You didn't have enough right wing hawks telling you about unintended consequenses. We are dangerously close to replicating your giant experiment here in North America. The 10% of left leaning intellectuals battled the 10% of right leaning intellectuals on that policy and unfortunately articulated their point better and swayed the 80% to vote for their giant experiment.
|
On March 02 2014 08:47 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 08:44 FallDownMarigold wrote:
USA stormed into Iraq in '03 without UNSC blessing. I can't really take Obamanator seriously when scold Russia for storming into Ukraine... The United States upheld UN Security Council resolution 1441 in its invasion of Iraq in 2003. That resolution was enacted and agreed to previously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441In addition, the Gulf War only ended with a ceasefire. The no-fly zones that followed were a continuation of the mission. So was the invasion in 2003.
The invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and various other states in 2003 was perfectly illegal with regards to international law, more specifically art. 2 par. 4 of the UN Charter prohibiting the use of force against another country. The Security Council's resolution 1441 certainly did not grant the U.S., or any other state, the right to use force against Iraq. Article 42 of the Charter, which grants the SC the legal authority to decide the use of force against a country, was not invoked in the resolution. Resolution 1441 clearly stated that Iraq had to comply with previous resolutions and various obligations pertaining to UN inspections but it did not include a provision authorizing the use of force against Iraq should it fail to comply with its obligations. Another resolution authorizing the use of force should have been passed before the U.S. intervention for it to be legal, but no such resolution was ever passed.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
^wolfstan we were talking about the portion of total wealth generated captured by capital. this is different from asset appreciation
|
On March 02 2014 14:06 oneofthem wrote:
^wolfstan we were talking about the portion of total wealth generated captured by capital. this is different from asset appreciation
The idea is still the same as I thought it best to explain how extracting money from the capital refuted his point better as he referenced the value of capital(capital markets) as % of income(the real economy metric that best supports his argument) and his argument that the solution is to somehow shift more value into the real economy from the capital economy.
You are more concerned about the flow from the real economy into the capital markets it seems, I agree with you but probably for different reasons. I'm more concerned about uneducated Joe Blow using his after tax income that should be spent on consumer purchase stepping into the capital markets for that 40k equity in our previous example and getting eaten alive by the smart money. Both that is also one of the best ways to achieve the goal of social mobility so I am also advocate of it.
You seem more interested in the 2k earnings made from the company? The short answer is it's not usually a problem as that money usually stays in the real economy through capital allocation, whether its spent to grow the company, or released as a dividend. The 2k earnings have already been taxed at 15%(35% at the richest, most unequal companies) and the government taxes again for cash dividend at 20% for the richest, most unholy assholes among us. Say Mr. Owner wants a lavish lifestyle, so the company declares a 1000 dollar dividend, he takes his 500 bucks pays the government their 100 bucks and the 400 stays in the real economy buying goods that the 99% produce. So congratulations, Mr owner still has 40000 net worth only paid taxes on the lifestyle he wanted, and people are still upset with him for having more net worth than he can spend in a lifetime.
In a perfect world rates for income tax = interest tax = dividend tax + corporate tax = capital gains tax + corporate tax. But hey inequality would still exist eh?
Or were you talking about wealth generated as in capital turning a company with 3000 in assets and 1000 in earnings into a 11000 asset/2000 earnings company when you feel labor should have grown the company?
|
Hold on, let me get this straight. You think normal people shouldn't be able to make capital investments? Do you also believe the flip side, where investors should be able to make consumer purchases?
|
No, I think uneducated people shouldn't wade into capital markets for their own good. Educated people should be able to purchase regulated capital investments with minimal leverage. The smart money should be able to make unregulated capital investments with greater leverage. This is much how it is in today's society with SEC oversight and accredited investor status. As I said, get yourself educated, as participating in the capital markets can be one of the easiest ways to be upwardly mobile on the social ladder.
Of course the entire investments in capital market should not be liquidated for consumer purchases.
A) it's impossible to liquidate all the capital because the value on paper isn't there yet
B) the massive injection of money would inflate the cost of consumer goods to unsustainable levels
C) the ideas and governments that need the capital markets would be left without funding for growth.
That is why money that tries to leave the capital markets for consumer goods is very regulated and taxed. That is why those with more net worth than is possible to spend in a lifetime draw just enough to sustain their lifestyle and keep most of their wealth in appreciating assets.
|
On March 02 2014 13:57 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 08:47 itsjustatank wrote:On March 02 2014 08:44 FallDownMarigold wrote:
USA stormed into Iraq in '03 without UNSC blessing. I can't really take Obamanator seriously when scold Russia for storming into Ukraine... The United States upheld UN Security Council resolution 1441 in its invasion of Iraq in 2003. That resolution was enacted and agreed to previously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441In addition, the Gulf War only ended with a ceasefire. The no-fly zones that followed were a continuation of the mission. So was the invasion in 2003. The invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and various other states in 2003 was perfectly illegal with regards to international law, more specifically art. 2 par. 4 of the UN Charter prohibiting the use of force against another country. The Security Council's resolution 1441 certainly did not grant the U.S., or any other state, the right to use force against Iraq. Article 42 of the Charter, which grants the SC the legal authority to decide the use of force against a country, was not invoked in the resolution. Resolution 1441 clearly stated that Iraq had to comply with previous resolutions and various obligations pertaining to UN inspections but it did not include a provision authorizing the use of force against Iraq should it fail to comply with its obligations. Another resolution authorizing the use of force should have been passed before the U.S. intervention for it to be legal, but no such resolution was ever passed.
Just to get into the legalese, this is actually a misconception and you should quote the relevant passage if you're going to cite it. Article 2, paragraph 4 says:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
The 2002 AUMF that the Bush administration relied upon for this:
Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
Since the AUMF tightly defines the war to defending national security and NOT to seize territory or take over the government, the invasion of Iraq was consistent with international law.
EDIT: Note that this was not a UN mission but a US-led coalition. The UN was a non-starter because France and Russia promised to veto any resolutions authorizing force even if the US could pull off the votes. It made it harder for the US public and the international community to swallow, but it wasn't illegal under US or international law.
What Russia seems to be doing in Ukraine is distinct in that Russia seeks to gain territory in which they claim the residents want to be Russian citizens.
|
On March 02 2014 19:47 Wolfstan wrote:
No, I think uneducated people shouldn't wade into capital markets for their own good. Educated people should be able to purchase regulated capital investments with minimal leverage. The smart money should be able to make unregulated capital investments with greater leverage. This is much how it is in today's society with SEC oversight and accredited investor status. As I said, get yourself educated, as participating in the capital markets can be one of the easiest ways to be upwardly mobile on the social ladder.
Of course the entire investments in capital market should not be liquidated for consumer purchases.
A) it's impossible to liquidate all the capital because the value on paper isn't there yet
B) the massive injection of money would inflate the cost of consumer goods to unsustainable levels
C) the ideas and governments that need the capital markets would be left without funding for growth.
That is why money that tries to leave the capital markets for consumer goods is very regulated and taxed. That is why those with more net worth than is possible to spend in a lifetime draw just enough to sustain their lifestyle and keep most of their wealth in appreciating assets.
What are you talking about ? I want to know, to understand in which world your comment make sense ? "Uneducated people" never explored the "capital market"... Do you actually think the sub prime crisis was caused because poor people used internet or their bankers to find out good loan ? Do you even know what you are talking ?
It's the "educated" people in banks who made bad bets... Credit comes with risks, for the creditor and the credited. What was badly assessed was the risk for the creditor. It's the bank who proposed a risky service. What is in question is also how the risk was assessed, and transfered to specific organisations that were specialized in taking risk (with credit default swap), and how, because of that structural nonsense, the risk were completly neglected.
Now you are making it seems like it was the "poor uneducated people" who are responsible of the crisis. When the world is flowing with capital, it is perfectly normal for bankers to use this relatively cheap ressource to maximize their gain. So the core of the problem is all those things, and not the fact that the capital was used to build houses for "poor uneducated people" - which is rather secondary, if it was not that, it could have been a thousand of other kind of things.
To say it bluntly, it is the "smart" and "educated" people who were stupid, and not the poor guy who took a loan to buy himself a house.
If you want to limit some risky transactions or limit them, sure go ahead, but don't make it seems like it's the fault of the guy who wants to buy himself a house.
|
On March 02 2014 22:24 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2014 13:57 kwizach wrote:On March 02 2014 08:47 itsjustatank wrote:On March 02 2014 08:44 FallDownMarigold wrote:
USA stormed into Iraq in '03 without UNSC blessing. I can't really take Obamanator seriously when scold Russia for storming into Ukraine... The United States upheld UN Security Council resolution 1441 in its invasion of Iraq in 2003. That resolution was enacted and agreed to previously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441In addition, the Gulf War only ended with a ceasefire. The no-fly zones that followed were a continuation of the mission. So was the invasion in 2003. The invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and various other states in 2003 was perfectly illegal with regards to international law, more specifically art. 2 par. 4 of the UN Charter prohibiting the use of force against another country. The Security Council's resolution 1441 certainly did not grant the U.S., or any other state, the right to use force against Iraq. Article 42 of the Charter, which grants the SC the legal authority to decide the use of force against a country, was not invoked in the resolution. Resolution 1441 clearly stated that Iraq had to comply with previous resolutions and various obligations pertaining to UN inspections but it did not include a provision authorizing the use of force against Iraq should it fail to comply with its obligations. Another resolution authorizing the use of force should have been passed before the U.S. intervention for it to be legal, but no such resolution was ever passed. Just to get into the legalese, this is actually a misconception and you should quote the relevant passage if you're going to cite it. Article 2, paragraph 4 says: Show nested quote +All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. The 2002 AUMF that the Bush administration relied upon for this: Show nested quote +Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Since the AUMF tightly defines the war to defending national security and NOT to seize territory or take over the government, the invasion of Iraq was consistent with international law. EDIT: Note that this was not a UN mission but a US-led coalition. The UN was a non-starter because France and Russia promised to veto any resolutions authorizing force even if the US could pull off the votes. It made it harder for the US public and the international community to swallow, but it wasn't illegal under US or international law. What Russia seems to be doing in Ukraine is distinct in that Russia seeks to gain territory in which they claim the residents want to be Russian citizens.
No, you are wrong. The internal authorization to use force that George W. Bush received from the U.S. Congress is irrelevant with respect to the legal or illegal character of the U.S.' use of force in Iraq from the standpoint of international law. Art. 2 par. 4 of the U.N. Charter, which you correctly quoted, specifically prohibits the use of force against other states, regardless of the objectives of the said use of force (including protecting one's national security). The only two exceptions to that prohibition are Art. 42, which grants the Security Council the authority to authorize the use of force, and Art. 51, which grants states a right to self-defense when they have been attacked.
Art. 42:
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Art. 51:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The 2003 Iraq invasion was legal with regards to U.S. national law in terms of the procedures and authorizations the decision to use military force legally has to respect, but it was completely illegal with regards to international law (which also binds the U.S.).
|
Hong Kong9157 Posts
|
On March 03 2014 01:35 itsjustatank wrote:
It doesn't exist though.
Yes it does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
