|
On January 31 2010 00:00 FieryBalrog wrote:
Europe is in worse shape than the US economically,
No.
GDP 3/4 2009
EU: 2 975 094 000 000
USA: 2 489 355 400 000
(source: Eurostat)
If you were reffering to the EU - Europes GDP is even higher.
If you wanted to say that Europe was hit harder by the crisis then you are also right in most cases (some economics even grew like Polands...)
On January 31 2010 00:00 FieryBalrog wrote:
and is facing a major demographic crisis, to boot.
Now that is true for most (all?) western European countries.
|
|
|
Little tip here, they never decide to "give" executives money. Thats called a profit, once expenses are taken care of. You could use the profit for things like advertising, new stores, or paying your CEO a 20 million dollar bonus, whateva.
Overall I agree capitalism's "competition = perfection" is bullshit.
|
On January 31 2010 01:12 Romantic wrote:
Little tip here, they never decide to "give" executives money. Thats called a profit, once expenses are taken care of. You could use the profit for things like advertising, new stores, or paying your CEO a 20 million dollar bonus, whateva.
Overall I agree capitalism's "competition = perfection" is bullshit.
uh... that's not called a profit at all for tax purposes. paying your workers is called a business expense. its a way to avoid paying corporate tax. and yes, they do decide how much to pay their execs. the board does so every year
|
"You're right. Calling somebody a whore, is not in the least misogynistic."
No, it's not. Read the definition... Would you also portray me as misandrist if I call George Bush a whore?
""Naomi Klein is a liar" in particular is a video that purports to hate Klein's 'smear' campaign while doing exactly the same thing itself."
Yes, I don't like videos like that either but it makes the simple point that she is a liar. Why? Not because her statements are in conflict, but because that video has been thoroughly prepared and reviewed before going into production. And Friedman never said the military should be privitized.
"Here is Friedman during the war ..."
Notice that it doesn't say anywhere that he actually supports the war. Read the questions and the answers.
"So, his two main points. First he says she quoted Friedman out of context, "real change comes after a crisis". He follows up by saying "If you look at the real quote"... then doesn't say anything about the quote at all. Whoops."
Well, I own the book so I know the quote; not memorized though. Anyways, the way Klein presents it in her video and at her speeches is disingenuous to say the least. You can probably find the real quote on amazon by previewing the book if you're interested.
"In my eyes, lying factually about, and distorting the message of, a talented reporter is disgusting."
She is not a talented reporter. She is an anti-capitalist lying piece of scum. That aside, it just so happens that you can find ALL her smeartalking and distortions in her book and on youtube. She doesn't even try to hide it.
Would you please explain why she talks about Milton Friedman while showing those kinds of pictures and then continuing with that narrator thingy taken from some CIA book perhaps? She paints a very false picture and she is not an honest person.
If you truly believe that Johan Norberg is the one that cannot be trusted here then you will have to find yourself on the far left edge of society with very few supporters. That doesn't mean that you are wrong of course; but I'm trying to put things in context here a bit.
Her underlying claim throughout the entire book is that free market libertarians somehow need or support military dictatorships. It's a work of fiction; and not a very good one.
|
On January 30 2010 23:46 FieryBalrog wrote:
Really unique and edgy stuff, OP. No, really. This is groundbreaking, someone call the New York Times.
Back to reality, sounds like someone just took Microeconomics 101 and decided to blog their Deep Thoughts on the matter. Seriously, this is like freshman undergraduate level material. I suggest you do a little more research into the history of the 20th century and the manner in which various political and economic systems have played out over the years. You'll realize:
*yes, the ideal free market is a myth
*the notion of government as altruistic is a myth
*there is no true solution to dehumanizing, modern institutions
OK, Gandalf. Some really unique and edgy stuff here.
|
On January 30 2010 23:29 sc4k wrote:
It seems to me that you either try to have bright, educated thinking people who deal in 'country management' (government) to decide where the country's money for public services goes, and have to pay a price for that which is corruption and bloated inefficiency; or you have the common man deciding where he thinks his money should be spent and being preyed on by adverts, propaganda and a general lack of time to think about the issues in any level depth.
Also, I think one reason I have issues with the ideas of big corporations running everything is that I doubt you will be able to FOI them much. Sure, if you can expose a scandal in a private company, the offenders will lose their job because it's bad for business. And, it's always possible that whistleblowers will be purged and silenced when you are dealing with government shenanigans. But I expect that government (at least in the UK) is far more transparent than private corporations; and therefore less capable of getting away with ripoffs and scandals.
So can someone address those issues from a economist, free-market or whatever perspective?
Yes.
In a free market, you expect people to be the least informed on each issue so they can at least select a company that does the service for them. I.e., you want a new plasma TV, you go to radioshack or someplace. Consumer -> Entrepreneur.
The entrepreneur acts on decentralized price controls that are subject to everyones evaluations on products and services available in the market. His incentive is to provide something better than others in the market can, more efficiently, etc.
In a perfect democracy, really really perfect, discounting corruption and delay constraints due to sporadic election times, that same relation is only but attenuated into Voter -> Bureaucrat.
The bureaucrat however acts not on precise price controls (well, he does when he takes a bribe, but discounting that) but on the amount of voters that tell him to do something. His only measure of success is the voting that happens, and whether he'll be reelected or not. This alone provides a bad measure of how much work he should put into something, whether hes doing it right or wrong, whether hes oppressing a minority or sucking off the majority by ways of compromise or whatever.
Anyway, you know or at least suspect yourself why government has a ton of reasons to be inefficient already.
Now, whether thats necessary? Necessary for what? For whom? It ain't for me, I sure know that much. You think it's necessary to force everyone to be a member of your little gangster club and have their money "collected for their own good" every day? It's bullshit. People know what's best for them, there's no excuse to say that you nor anyone else can know what's best for them rather than themselves. The state is not here for your own good. They're here to leech off of you and grow as much as they can, until a time when people are too fed up and a revolution is due again.
And if you think governments protect you from corporations, you're dead wrong. The state can't even protect you from box-cutter terrorists. If you wonder why the EVUL CORPORATIONS haven't got massive armies and started walking down the street like they're the local gang, it's because violence is not cost-beneficial in the long run, it can only destroy and bring scarcity. If evil corporate men were to do it out of their own pocket, they would lose more than they would gain. How do I know that? Because they're greedy, correct? They would do anything for money, correct? Therefore, if they're not doing something right now, it's because it gives them no flow.
Guess how can they bring about war and destruction more cheaply however? Thats right, through state corruption. What's cheaper, raising your own billion-dollar army to bomb some middle easterns, or lobby a couple million so the state does it with tax-payer money? Hell, for a couple million and the right pretext, you can get a billion dollar bailout easy. Competition bitting your ass? just pass some regulation, raise the barriers of entry, put the small guys out of business and raise your prices easily. Label it "anti-trust laws" or "healthcare reform" for the luls.
"Oh thats just bad government, if we get the right people in..." You're not going to get the right people in, ever. The state is a scum institution. It is flame to moths. Sociopaths and thieves of all kinds love the legitimized power they have. The ones who buy them out may be evil, but they're utilizing the cash that's there to be used, because the peons think it's been stolen from them for their own good. Because it's necessary. Yeah it certainly is necessary, necessary for the scum to have a good time maybe.
|
I haven't had time to read all the replies but I hope somebody with some training in economics has come out to correct the misguided OP. If not, I could point out the major flaws and suggest some simple undergraduate textbooks.
Not to sound condescending but it has always struck me as a bit presumptuous that people with no formal education in economics will debate the subject with vocal conviction. After all, I do not argue with doctors on their prescriptions or debate with engineers how best to build their bridges or correct accountants or lawyers in their job. Yet it seems that every man on the street will happily lecture me about economics.
|
On January 31 2010 01:22 ParasitJonte wrote:
"You're right. Calling somebody a whore, is not in the least misogynistic."
No, it's not. Read the definition... Would you also portray me as misandrist if I call George Bush a whore?
""Naomi Klein is a liar" in particular is a video that purports to hate Klein's 'smear' campaign while doing exactly the same thing itself."
Yes, I don't like videos like that either but it makes the simple point that she is a liar. Why? Not because her statements are in conflict, but because that video has been thoroughly prepared and reviewed before going into production. And Friedman never said the military should be privitized.
"Here is Friedman during the war ..."
Notice that it doesn't say anywhere that he actually supports the war. Read the questions and the answers.
"So, his two main points. First he says she quoted Friedman out of context, "real change comes after a crisis". He follows up by saying "If you look at the real quote"... then doesn't say anything about the quote at all. Whoops."
Well, I own the book so I know the quote; not memorized though. Anyways, the way Klein presents it in her video and at her speeches is disingenuous to say the least. You can probably find the real quote on amazon by previewing the book if you're interested.
"In my eyes, lying factually about, and distorting the message of, a talented reporter is disgusting."
She is not a talented reporter. She is an anti-capitalist lying piece of scum. That aside, it just so happens that you can find ALL her smeartalking and distortions in her book and on youtube. She doesn't even try to hide it.
Would you please explain why she talks about Milton Friedman while showing those kinds of pictures and then continuing with that narrator thingy taken from some CIA book perhaps? She paints a very false picture and she is not an honest person.
If you truly believe that Johan Norberg is the one that cannot be trusted here then you will have to find yourself on the far left edge of society with very few supporters. That doesn't mean that you are wrong of course; but I'm trying to put things in context here a bit.
Her underlying claim throughout the entire book is that free market libertarians somehow need or support military dictatorships. It's a work of fiction; and not a very good one.
I really can't believe you're still trying to defend your "Naomi Klein is a whore" statement.
You presented the videos as a king hit by a apparently well respected analyist. I showed them to be full of crap and the best you can come up with in response is a bit of vague handwaving about how you have the actual quote and how Friedman doesn't specifically say "I support the war in Iraq".
Then you launch back into your hatred and unsubstantiated personal opinions. Good one.
|
Still, though.. With globalisation we should be seeing some increased living-standards for Chinese workers, right? Theoretically, that eliminates your problem at some point in time, thanks to technological advancement, right? I don't know, I'm just 16, don't eat me!
|
On January 31 2010 01:32 theSAiNT wrote:Not to sound condescending but it has always struck me as a bit presumptuous that people with no formal education in economics will debate the subject with vocal conviction. After all, I do not argue with doctors on their prescriptions or debate with engineers how best to build their bridges or correct accountants or lawyers in their job. Yet it seems that every man on the street will happily lecture me about economics.
I do that all the time!
Stupid doctors... with their... pills, who the fuck do they think they are?
Lol.
On January 31 2010 01:49 Lovin wrote:
Still, though.. With globalisation we should be seeing some increased living-standards for Chinese workers, right? Theoretically, that eliminates your problem at some point in time, thanks to technological advancement, right? I don't know, I'm just 16, don't eat me!
And they are advancing, I don't think no one denies that. But a statist would say "it's thanks to the superb chinese government, keeping a check on those greedy capitalists!" while a free marketeer would say "...it's despite the authoritarian government with their enslaving regulations..."
There's also moderates who say "too much beating bad, no beating also bad, some beating good" lololol
|
The OP is just completely one sided. Leaving all the good out and just talking about everything that's bad about globalization and capitalism. Sure, a lot of what he says is right. Capitalism is most likely the best we've got.
|
On January 31 2010 02:05 Djzapz wrote:
The OP is just completely one sided. Leaving all the good out and just talking about everything that's bad about globalization and capitalism. Sure, a lot of what he says is right. Capitalism is most likely the best we've got.
I have to disagree. Most of what he says is wrong. He's using 'capitalism' and 'globalization' as buzzwords but he doesn't really understand how they work.
|
On January 31 2010 02:19 theSAiNT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2010 02:05 Djzapz wrote:
The OP is just completely one sided. Leaving all the good out and just talking about everything that's bad about globalization and capitalism. Sure, a lot of what he says is right. Capitalism is most likely the best we've got. I have to disagree. Most of what he says is wrong. He's using 'capitalism' and 'globalization' as buzzwords but he doesn't really understand how they work.
lol more like you don't understand how OPs work. Try to refrain from making assumptions about what other people know and don't know, please.
|
On January 31 2010 02:05 Djzapz wrote:
The OP is just completely one sided. Leaving all the good out and just talking about everything that's bad about globalization and capitalism. Sure, a lot of what he says is right. Capitalism is most likely the best we've got.
Depends on what you value.
|
On January 31 2010 02:21 StorkHwaiting wrote:
lol more like you don't understand how OPs work. Try to refrain from making assumptions about what other people know and don't know, please.
Does anyone honestly think it is a good thing to compete with sweatshop workers in terms of pay/productivity?
If you think international trade is a question of 'competing with sweatshop workers' then you don't understand how it works. Sorry. In the same way that if someone tells me the sun orbits the earth, I can conclude they don't understand how it works. I'm not making assumptions.
International trade is one of those rare things, a win win situation. It's a net gain for both parties. Yes, there are situations where the trade can be detrimental but they are rare and the reasons behind the failure are more complicated then the ones you suggest. In the vast majority of cases, free trade is good.
|
On January 31 2010 02:32 theSAiNT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2010 02:21 StorkHwaiting wrote:
lol more like you don't understand how OPs work. Try to refrain from making assumptions about what other people know and don't know, please. Show nested quote +
Does anyone honestly think it is a good thing to compete with sweatshop workers in terms of pay/productivity?
If you think international trade is a question of 'competing with sweatshop workers' then you don't understand how it works. Sorry. In the same way that if someone tells me the sun orbits the earth, I can conclude they don't understand how it works. I'm not making assumptions. International trade is one of those rare things, a win win situation. It's a net gain for both parties. Yes, there are situations where the trade can be detrimental but they are rare and the reasons behind the failure are more complicated then the ones you suggest. In the vast majority of cases, free trade is good.
No. But way to frame your opinion as if it's scientific fact.
|
Instead of writing 2000 words in the OP you could have just linked a couple of books or articles on neoliberalism. It's a very well known subject by anyone interested in economics. I don't know why you would present the OP as something new or something people aren't familiar with.
|
On January 31 2010 03:40 Scooge wrote:
Instead of writing 2000 words in the OP you could have just linked a couple of books or articles on neoliberalism. It's a very well known subject by anyone interested in economics. I don't know why you would present the OP as something new or something people aren't familiar with.
You know full and well next to no one from TL would read that.
|
On January 31 2010 03:46 Lovin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2010 03:40 Scooge wrote:
Instead of writing 2000 words in the OP you could have just linked a couple of books or articles on neoliberalism. It's a very well known subject by anyone interested in economics. I don't know why you would present the OP as something new or something people aren't familiar with. You know full and well next to no one from TL would read that.
Frankly I skimmed the OP (and I don't think I'm alone in that) so I doubt a lot of people read the badly written, condescending alternative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
