|
On November 01 2011 14:55 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 14:33 Kiarip wrote:LOL... You think the FED has been stabilizing prices? Look at commodities index... Food is going up 15% a year... You don't seem to understand correlation and causation. Food prices have gone up due to worldwide shortages. Without monetary policy, food prices (and the prices of everything else) would fluctuate far more.
Yeah, if government interferes in its distribution then yeah it will fluctuate even more.
Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 14:33 Kiarip wrote:FED bails out foreign banks and we don't know anything about it... 15 trillion dollars lent straight out of the printing press? np np. You're making shit up. The Fed's emergency lending programs as part of the bailout packages totaled 3.3 trillion, most of which were directed towards US corporations. Foreign banks did recieve some of the money due to bailouts of their US subsidiaries. Regardless, these lending programs actually turned a profit, and helped prevent a complete financial meltdown.
right 15 trillion is our debt... bailout packages isn't the only money that the FED has been lending.
according to biased government studies? Lol at preventing complete financial meltdown... yeah it's beign prevented at the price of our rapidly decaying currency
Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 14:33 Kiarip wrote:How does that help unemployment and stability of prices? Ever since the easy money policies have been adapted by the FED our economy has been sprinting downhill. Our economy has continued to grow since the days of the Great Depression, despite various problems. The biggest problems with our economy have come from increasing budget deficits/public debt, the decline of the education system, and increasing outsourcing of manufacturing as too much of the workforce has shifted towards finance and services. The monetary policies of the Fed have mitigated these problems and prevented them from becoming worse.
No... our economy has been growing ever since Europe got destroyed by WW2 which allowed us to both sustain our production, and have the wealth to invest in their re-construction
Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 14:33 Kiarip wrote:LOL. FDIC simply lifts the liability from the banks and put it on the government (which is sponsored by tax-payers' dollars...) No. What it also does is have a strong positive effect on depositor confidence. Do yourself a favor and study Akerlof's The Market for Lemons and learn why preventing consumer uncertainty benefits the market. The FDIC might not have been the best way to go about it, but it's implementation was a positive step.
Its implementation led to people not caring about what happens to their deposits... how is that a positive step?
Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 14:33 Kiarip wrote:How does it take people out of danger? If anything it puts economy in more danger, because if peopel arne't worried about their deposits the banks can do w.e the hell they want, and then when their deals fall through, and they lose money the government steps in and uses tax-payer money to bail out the small deposits, thus condoning the banks' behavior... Because the economy will fail if people are scared to put their money in banks.
People won't be too scared to put money in their banks if the interest rates are allowed to rights.
Interest rates coordinate the flow of money into the banks and they change based on the availability of capital, and the capital holders' risk assessment of bank failure.
You have to let both parts of the system work.
|
On November 01 2011 14:55 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 14:13 Kiarip wrote:On November 01 2011 14:04 sunprince wrote:On November 01 2011 13:43 Kiarip wrote:Glass-Steagal was only needed because the government guaranteed a 200,000$ compensation in case money was lost, which gave the banks the freedom to gamble riskily.
The need for regulation is only ever spawned by other regulations. Except that banks gamble riskily to the detriment of the economy regardless. The repeal of Glass-Steagall was what allowed commercial banks to trade risky financial instruments, thereby leading to the financial crisis. Low interest rates was what gave them the incentive to gamble with money in the first place, which were implemented by the FED. The guaranteed bank accounts by the government is what allowed them to do it without blowback from their customer-base. Glass-Steagall was there to counter-act two things in which the government already messed up in the first place... Then what was the cause of the recessions and depressions before the Fed was created? We're talking about contractions of 10+% of GPD before the Fed was created, then ones of much smaller severity after. I'll admit it's not a perfect system that we have, but it's MUCH better than what we had 100 years ago. This debate over market intervention actually reminds me of control system theory. Basically, there is a simple control system design called "open loop" which essentially can have a consistent error of 0% at all times, as long as conditions are perfect. However, when disturbances are added to the system, the error can balloon to very large numbers. Because of this, a better approach is to use a much more complicated "closed loop" system. This type of system hardly ever reaches that perfect 0% error, but disturbances are easily manageable.
Not it's nothing like that at all. How is market intervention a closed loop control system, when regulations continuously spawn the need to create more regulations?
The free market is a closed-loop control system with negative feedback...
Mal-investments occur, with a significant portion of total capital (analogous to noise)? OK... some businesses fail -> money becomes scarce -> interest rates go up -> people start saving, consumption is decreased, people repay their debts, people accumulate money -> interest rates go down, and resources accumulated in the marketplace are bought out -> People re-invest...
What we have now is like this:
Economy is rising -> we need to keep this going, create new control sequence LOWER INTEREST RATES -> mal-investmetns occur, system attempts to go into recession -> Create new control sequence LOWER INTEREST RATES -> more mal-investments occur -> "CRAP we need another control sequence..." CREATE REGULATIONS!, by the way don't forget to "lower interest rates."
then eventually...
Government uses lower interest rates,
People are scared, it's not very effective...
Economy enters depression.
|
On November 01 2011 15:57 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 14:55 aksfjh wrote:On November 01 2011 14:13 Kiarip wrote:On November 01 2011 14:04 sunprince wrote:On November 01 2011 13:43 Kiarip wrote:Glass-Steagal was only needed because the government guaranteed a 200,000$ compensation in case money was lost, which gave the banks the freedom to gamble riskily.
The need for regulation is only ever spawned by other regulations. Except that banks gamble riskily to the detriment of the economy regardless. The repeal of Glass-Steagall was what allowed commercial banks to trade risky financial instruments, thereby leading to the financial crisis. Low interest rates was what gave them the incentive to gamble with money in the first place, which were implemented by the FED. The guaranteed bank accounts by the government is what allowed them to do it without blowback from their customer-base. Glass-Steagall was there to counter-act two things in which the government already messed up in the first place... Then what was the cause of the recessions and depressions before the Fed was created? We're talking about contractions of 10+% of GPD before the Fed was created, then ones of much smaller severity after. I'll admit it's not a perfect system that we have, but it's MUCH better than what we had 100 years ago. This debate over market intervention actually reminds me of control system theory. Basically, there is a simple control system design called "open loop" which essentially can have a consistent error of 0% at all times, as long as conditions are perfect. However, when disturbances are added to the system, the error can balloon to very large numbers. Because of this, a better approach is to use a much more complicated "closed loop" system. This type of system hardly ever reaches that perfect 0% error, but disturbances are easily manageable. Not it's nothing like that at all. How is market intervention a closed loop control system, when regulations continuously spawn the need to create more regulations? The free market is a closed-loop control system with negative feedback... Mal-investments occur, with a significant portion of total capital (analogous to noise)? OK... some businesses fail -> money becomes scarce -> interest rates go up -> people start saving, consumption is decreased, people repay their debts, people accumulate money -> interest rates go down, and resources accumulated in the marketplace are bought out -> People re-invest... What we have now is like this: Economy is rising -> we need to keep this going, create new control sequence LOWER INTEREST RATES -> mal-investmetns occur, system attempts to go into recession -> Create new control sequence LOWER INTEREST RATES -> more mal-investments occur -> "CRAP we need another control sequence..." CREATE REGULATIONS!, by the way don't forget to "lower interest rates." then eventually... Government uses lower interest rates, People are scared, it's not very effective... Economy enters depression.
You're looking too far into the analogy. I meant it in a surface way, but even your expansion of it is grossly inaccurate. The only way in which I was comparing is a non-reactionary model and a reactionary one. One will give us best growth at a specific scenario and severely worse at other times, while the other will dampen the effects of both.
I don't really want you to respond to this because I'm tired of your blind crying about things you really simply don't understand. You sit around all day listening to conjectures by people who stand to gain millions by peddling Austrian Economic nonsense. Ever wonder why many libertarians are largely funded by gold resellers? I'll give you a hint: they're not immune to corruption. Whether it's corporate or personal interest, the people that peddle the shit you spout on these forums continuously are just as corrupt as the morons who accept legislative suggestions from banking institutions. Frankly, I'm tired of this severely blind and naive view that Austrian theory would somehow hold up to any academic scrutiny and it's somehow being persecuted by ignorance. It holds no more weight in economic debates than religion does in scientific debates.
|
On November 01 2011 15:48 Kiarip wrote:
Yeah, if government interferes in its distribution then yeah it will fluctuate even more.
Prove it. Mainstream economics literature backs the idea that sound monetary policy reduces market fluctuations. History shows that market fluctuations in the United States were greater prior to the adoption of the Fed.
If you think you're smarter than the world's top economists and/or know history , I strongly suggest you back that shit up with something better than "because you said so". The burden of proof is on you since you're the one breaking from the mainstream. Show me the graphs and charts which back up your claims.
On November 01 2011 15:48 Kiarip wrote:
right 15 trillion is our debt... bailout packages isn't the only money that the FED has been lending.
The majority of our debt has nothing to do with the Fed.
On November 01 2011 15:48 Kiarip wrote:
according to biased government studies? Lol at preventing complete financial meltdown... yeah it's beign prevented at the price of our rapidly decaying currency
If you think they're biased, back up your claim with evidence. Conspiracy theories aren't permitted on TL.
On November 01 2011 15:48 Kiarip wrote:
No... our economy has been growing ever since Europe got destroyed by WW2 which allowed us to both sustain our production, and have the wealth to invest in their re-construction
It was growing before that up until the Great Depression and has continued long after reconstruction of Europe ended. Regardless, your original claim that our economy has been spiraling downward is false.
On November 01 2011 15:48 Kiarip wrote:
Its implementation led to people not caring about what happens to their deposits... how is that a positive step?
That's a laughable spin on it. The implementation of the FDIC led to people feeling safe enough about their deposits that they're actually willing to put money in banks, and therefore, save.
On November 01 2011 15:48 Kiarip wrote:
People won't be too scared to put money in their banks if the interest rates are allowed to rights.
Interest rates coordinate the flow of money into the banks and they change based on the availability of capital, and the capital holders' risk assessment of bank failure.
You have to let both parts of the system work.
We've done that. It results in massive speculation and market crashes. Hence why we adopted the Fed and sound monetary policy.
|
On October 31 2011 10:02 ilovelings wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 09:54 wherebugsgo wrote:
Women and minorities need to be paid more; there are still huge discrepancies in these areas as well. This is completely stupid. Women get payed less because most women choose shitty careers like math teaching or nursing instead of getting a degree in Engineering or being a doctor.
Fuck them! Who needs math and who needs to be taken care of when sick! 2+2= 22!!! And I'm never sick, they should work in a bank and move fantasy money around!!! That's a meaningful way of life and great for our society!!!!
/sarcasm
|
On November 01 2011 19:17 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 10:02 ilovelings wrote:On October 31 2011 09:54 wherebugsgo wrote:
Women and minorities need to be paid more; there are still huge discrepancies in these areas as well. This is completely stupid. Women get payed less because most women choose shitty careers like math teaching or nursing instead of getting a degree in Engineering or being a doctor. Fuck them! Who needs math and who needs to be taken care of when sick! 2+2= 22!!! And I'm never sick, they should work in a bank and move fantasy money around!!! That's a meaningful way of life and great for our society!!!! /sarcasm
Right wing doxa: "When something bad happens to someone, it's because he deserves it." Oppression, tyranny and discrimination don't exist in the Holy Market's wonderland. Lucky we are not in XVIII century, because slavery would have been the slave's fault.
|
On November 01 2011 19:17 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 10:02 ilovelings wrote:On October 31 2011 09:54 wherebugsgo wrote:
Women and minorities need to be paid more; there are still huge discrepancies in these areas as well. This is completely stupid. Women get payed less because most women choose shitty careers like math teaching or nursing instead of getting a degree in Engineering or being a doctor. Fuck them! Who needs math and who needs to be taken care of when sick! 2+2= 22!!! And I'm never sick, they should work in a bank and move fantasy money around!!! That's a meaningful way of life and great for our society!!!! /sarcasm
Nah, women get payed less because they get married and have children.
Apparently, cutting back hours to look after children impacts your earnings.
Its a travesty.
|
On November 01 2011 19:37 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 19:17 BlackFlag wrote:On October 31 2011 10:02 ilovelings wrote:On October 31 2011 09:54 wherebugsgo wrote:
Women and minorities need to be paid more; there are still huge discrepancies in these areas as well. This is completely stupid. Women get payed less because most women choose shitty careers like math teaching or nursing instead of getting a degree in Engineering or being a doctor. Fuck them! Who needs math and who needs to be taken care of when sick! 2+2= 22!!! And I'm never sick, they should work in a bank and move fantasy money around!!! That's a meaningful way of life and great for our society!!!! /sarcasm Nah, women get payed less because they get married and have children. Apparently, cutting back hours to look after children impacts your earnings. Its a travesty.
Great news: men don't get married and don't have children.
Interesting.
|
On November 01 2011 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 19:37 vetinari wrote:On November 01 2011 19:17 BlackFlag wrote:On October 31 2011 10:02 ilovelings wrote:On October 31 2011 09:54 wherebugsgo wrote:
Women and minorities need to be paid more; there are still huge discrepancies in these areas as well. This is completely stupid. Women get payed less because most women choose shitty careers like math teaching or nursing instead of getting a degree in Engineering or being a doctor. Fuck them! Who needs math and who needs to be taken care of when sick! 2+2= 22!!! And I'm never sick, they should work in a bank and move fantasy money around!!! That's a meaningful way of life and great for our society!!!! /sarcasm Nah, women get payed less because they get married and have children. Apparently, cutting back hours to look after children impacts your earnings. Its a travesty. Great news: men don't get married and don't have children. Interesting.
Apparently, men have been going on strike. They absolutely refuse to breast feed.
Its just not fair.
|
On November 01 2011 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 19:37 vetinari wrote:On November 01 2011 19:17 BlackFlag wrote:On October 31 2011 10:02 ilovelings wrote:On October 31 2011 09:54 wherebugsgo wrote:
Women and minorities need to be paid more; there are still huge discrepancies in these areas as well. This is completely stupid. Women get payed less because most women choose shitty careers like math teaching or nursing instead of getting a degree in Engineering or being a doctor. Fuck them! Who needs math and who needs to be taken care of when sick! 2+2= 22!!! And I'm never sick, they should work in a bank and move fantasy money around!!! That's a meaningful way of life and great for our society!!!! /sarcasm Nah, women get payed less because they get married and have children. Apparently, cutting back hours to look after children impacts your earnings. Its a travesty. Great news: men don't get married and don't have children. Interesting.
Everyone can be anything! They are just not trying hard enough, all they need for it is here, they are just not taking their chances! They don't get children because they don't want to! Men are a bunch of lazy bastards!
|
On November 01 2011 19:41 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 19:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 01 2011 19:37 vetinari wrote:On November 01 2011 19:17 BlackFlag wrote:On October 31 2011 10:02 ilovelings wrote:On October 31 2011 09:54 wherebugsgo wrote:
Women and minorities need to be paid more; there are still huge discrepancies in these areas as well. This is completely stupid. Women get payed less because most women choose shitty careers like math teaching or nursing instead of getting a degree in Engineering or being a doctor. Fuck them! Who needs math and who needs to be taken care of when sick! 2+2= 22!!! And I'm never sick, they should work in a bank and move fantasy money around!!! That's a meaningful way of life and great for our society!!!! /sarcasm Nah, women get payed less because they get married and have children. Apparently, cutting back hours to look after children impacts your earnings. Its a travesty. Great news: men don't get married and don't have children. Interesting. Apparently, men have been going on strike. They absolutely refuse to breast feed. Its just not fair.
In France:
8,8% of women in boards of director of big companies.
25% of women manager in CA40 companies.
7% of salary difference in average between men and women for the same job, same competences, same seniority.
Statistic for women representation in board of directors in all Europe: http://www.rue89.com/sites/news/files/styles/asset_img_full/public/assets/image/2009/10/A285056A_0.GIF
(accidentally, the most social democrat countries, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland seem to have the fairest male/women representation... how weird!)
Sources for detailed statistics in France:
http://www.maviepro.fr/observatoire/statistiques
Fuck man, breast feeding is really evil.
|
2.9 deaths on the job per 100,000 employees in france. 94% of those deaths were male. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_safety
Breastfeeding saves lives.
Seriously though, when you spout the nonsense about the wage gap, I'm not sure whether I want to laugh or cry. The wage gap exists, and it has nothing to do with sexism, but rather because of the differing choices that men and women make. There is no conspiracy to pay women less for equal work. If you believe there is, I invite you to start a company that only employs women. With lower labour costs, you'll clean up.
Whether these be career path (men do the dirty, dangerous, lonely work), hours worked (women work less hours than men), children (stay at home fathers are outnumbered by housewives a hundred to one) or a myriad of other choices, men tend to make the tradeoffs that women are generally unwilling to make.
As an aside, I personally find it repugnant that the left considers a woman's wage to be the only measure of her worth.
|
On November 01 2011 20:27 vetinari wrote:2.9 deaths on the job per 100,000 employees in france. 94% of those deaths were male. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_safetyBreastfeeding saves lives. Seriously though, when you spout the nonsense about the wage gap, I'm not sure whether I want to laugh or cry. The wage gap exists, and it has nothing to do with sexism, but rather because of the differing choices that men and women make. There is no conspiracy to pay women less for equal work. If you believe there is, I invite you to start a company that only employs women. With lower labour costs, you'll clean up. Whether these be career path (men do the dirty, dangerous, lonely work), hours worked (women work less hours than men), children (stay at home fathers are outnumbered by housewives a hundred to one) or a myriad of other choices, men tend to make the tradeoffs that women are generally unwilling to make. As an aside, I personally find it repugnant that the left considers a woman's wage to be the only measure of her worth.
I think you don't understand.
The 7% wage gap is between men and female with the same job, same experience and equal seniority. So it has nothing to do with choices or path of career. It's not a conspiracy. It's people like you that think that women are not really suited to responsibility jobs because they supposedly want to work less or are unwilling to take risks, or any bullshit conservative can invent.
Now if 91,2% of board directors are male, that's probably not because women don't want to access to the top of their companies. It's maybe because people are prejudiced and biased when they chose who climb where and at what speed.
I really laughed at your last sentence. How much bad faith one can have, it's admirable. Nobody ever said that wage is measure of anybody's worth. What is pointed out is that we live in a society that doesn't consider men and female equal; that roles are predetermined. It's enough to read your posts to realize that people still consider that the role of the women is at home with the children when the male go do ambitious careers and succeed to climb to the top because "they have what it takes".
|
On November 01 2011 20:27 vetinari wrote:2.9 deaths on the job per 100,000 employees in france. 94% of those deaths were male. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_safetyBreastfeeding saves lives. Seriously though, when you spout the nonsense about the wage gap, I'm not sure whether I want to laugh or cry. The wage gap exists, and it has nothing to do with sexism, but rather because of the differing choices that men and women make. There is no conspiracy to pay women less for equal work. If you believe there is, I invite you to start a company that only employs women. With lower labour costs, you'll clean up. Whether these be career path (men do the dirty, dangerous, lonely work), hours worked (women work less hours than men), children (stay at home fathers are outnumbered by housewives a hundred to one) or a myriad of other choices, men tend to make the tradeoffs that women are generally unwilling to make. As an aside, I personally find it repugnant that the left considers a woman's wage to be the only measure of her worth.
The studies are excluding everything you enumerate when they come to their conclusion. Women really get less money for the exact same quality and quantity of work.
If this happens in a company like what was in the news this year, it kind of has to do with sexism. It was an insurance company having parties in a brothel. The negotiations for the next salary raise between the men and their bosses sharing such private experiences surely look different than what their women colleagues can work with.
But for the rest of men and women, the difference in hourly wages is confusing if it is not objectively justified. I tend to believe the authors of the studies, because I guess they have put in months of work into drawing their conclusions, which should be better than five minutes of me pondering the state of the matter.
Also, if I think about women getting the short end of the stick in life, I can come up with a few personal anecdotes about that, but not for men, so I subjectively am not inclined to pick up the pitchfork and argue against the studies.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 01 2011 14:55 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 14:33 Kiarip wrote:LOL. FDIC simply lifts the liability from the banks and put it on the government (which is sponsored by tax-payers' dollars...) No. What it also does is have a strong positive effect on depositor confidence. Do yourself a favor and study Akerlof's The Market for Lemons and learn why preventing consumer uncertainty benefits the market. The FDIC might not have been the best way to go about it, but it's implementation was a positive step.
"The Market for Lemons" is about quality control in a theoretical market where asymmetrical information highly favors the sellers. "The Market for Lemons" is empirically shown to not correctly capture the dynamics of the used car market.
If Akerlof suggests Lemon dealers be held responsible for fixing Lemons, the FDIC suggests Lemon buyers be reimbursed for buying Lemons. One is a minimum standard of quality for sellers. The other is a moral hazard for buyers.
Do yourself a favor and learn about moral hazard. (privatized profits / socialized losses - you'd think leftists would be all over that subject)
|
On November 01 2011 17:39 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 15:57 Kiarip wrote:On November 01 2011 14:55 aksfjh wrote:On November 01 2011 14:13 Kiarip wrote:On November 01 2011 14:04 sunprince wrote:On November 01 2011 13:43 Kiarip wrote:Glass-Steagal was only needed because the government guaranteed a 200,000$ compensation in case money was lost, which gave the banks the freedom to gamble riskily.
The need for regulation is only ever spawned by other regulations. Except that banks gamble riskily to the detriment of the economy regardless. The repeal of Glass-Steagall was what allowed commercial banks to trade risky financial instruments, thereby leading to the financial crisis. Low interest rates was what gave them the incentive to gamble with money in the first place, which were implemented by the FED. The guaranteed bank accounts by the government is what allowed them to do it without blowback from their customer-base. Glass-Steagall was there to counter-act two things in which the government already messed up in the first place... Then what was the cause of the recessions and depressions before the Fed was created? We're talking about contractions of 10+% of GPD before the Fed was created, then ones of much smaller severity after. I'll admit it's not a perfect system that we have, but it's MUCH better than what we had 100 years ago. This debate over market intervention actually reminds me of control system theory. Basically, there is a simple control system design called "open loop" which essentially can have a consistent error of 0% at all times, as long as conditions are perfect. However, when disturbances are added to the system, the error can balloon to very large numbers. Because of this, a better approach is to use a much more complicated "closed loop" system. This type of system hardly ever reaches that perfect 0% error, but disturbances are easily manageable. Not it's nothing like that at all. How is market intervention a closed loop control system, when regulations continuously spawn the need to create more regulations? The free market is a closed-loop control system with negative feedback... Mal-investments occur, with a significant portion of total capital (analogous to noise)? OK... some businesses fail -> money becomes scarce -> interest rates go up -> people start saving, consumption is decreased, people repay their debts, people accumulate money -> interest rates go down, and resources accumulated in the marketplace are bought out -> People re-invest... What we have now is like this: Economy is rising -> we need to keep this going, create new control sequence LOWER INTEREST RATES -> mal-investmetns occur, system attempts to go into recession -> Create new control sequence LOWER INTEREST RATES -> more mal-investments occur -> "CRAP we need another control sequence..." CREATE REGULATIONS!, by the way don't forget to "lower interest rates." then eventually... Government uses lower interest rates, People are scared, it's not very effective... Economy enters depression. You're looking too far into the analogy. I meant it in a surface way, but even your expansion of it is grossly inaccurate. The only way in which I was comparing is a non-reactionary model and a reactionary one. One will give us best growth at a specific scenario and severely worse at other times, while the other will dampen the effects of both. I don't really want you to respond to this because I'm tired of your blind crying about things you really simply don't understand. You sit around all day listening to conjectures by people who stand to gain millions by peddling Austrian Economic nonsense. Ever wonder why many libertarians are largely funded by gold resellers? I'll give you a hint: they're not immune to corruption. Whether it's corporate or personal interest, the people that peddle the shit you spout on these forums continuously are just as corrupt as the morons who accept legislative suggestions from banking institutions. Frankly, I'm tired of this severely blind and naive view that Austrian theory would somehow hold up to any academic scrutiny and it's somehow being persecuted by ignorance. It holds no more weight in economic debates than religion does in scientific debates.
Lol... What? The vast majority of Ron Paul's campaign donations have been from private individuals. Plus why shouldn't Gold Sellers support those who argue for Austrian Economics? Austrian Economics predicts the value of gold, silver and other commodities to go up (and it's going up lol.) It's not actually corruption. It would be corruption if they were preaching the Keynesian system and the money printing which is what CAUSES gold and commodities to go up in the first place.
and it's absolutely HILARIOUS to me that you think it's Free market that results in the most growth in the "perfect conditions." but then crumbles due to noise in the system...
That's actually what happens when you have artificially low interest rates like we've had during all those bubbles... huge unsustainable growth... followed by a collapse.
The free market provides a very stable growth resulting directly from our increases in productivity, not from manipulation of our monetary system.
|
On November 01 2011 18:38 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 15:48 Kiarip wrote:
Yeah, if government interferes in its distribution then yeah it will fluctuate even more. Prove it. Mainstream economics literature backs the idea that sound monetary policy reduces market fluctuations. History shows that market fluctuations in the United States were greater prior to the adoption of the Fed. If you think you're smarter than the world's top economists and/or know history , I strongly suggest you back that shit up with something better than "because you said so". The burden of proof is on you since you're the one breaking from the mainstream. Show me the graphs and charts which back up your claims.
mainstream economics is Keynesian, and it's what got us where we are today. The reason it's so easy to accept is because empowers the government to do a lot of spending, and of course the government isn't going to reject this system even in the face of it's complete failure, because it would mean to willingly give up power.
Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 15:48 Kiarip wrote:
right 15 trillion is our debt... bailout packages isn't the only money that the FED has been lending. The majority of our debt has nothing to do with the Fed.
Yeah I'm just saying by most estimates the FED has given out way more than 3 trillion dollars in loans.
Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 15:48 Kiarip wrote:
according to biased government studies? Lol at preventing complete financial meltdown... yeah it's beign prevented at the price of our rapidly decaying currency If you think they're biased, back up your claim with evidence. Conspiracy theories aren't permitted on TL.
Look at government "calculated" inflation rate, then look at the real inflation rate in the market.
Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 15:48 Kiarip wrote:
No... our economy has been growing ever since Europe got destroyed by WW2 which allowed us to both sustain our production, and have the wealth to invest in their re-construction It was growing before that up until the Great Depression and has continued long after reconstruction of Europe ended. Regardless, your original claim that our economy has been spiraling downward is false.
It hasn't been spiraling down because we were in such advantageous position as manufactorers at the end of world war 2, but as others have rebuilt and are also increasing their production our regulations and monetary system makes it impossible for us to compete... regulations and the monetary polices date back to the early 1900s.
Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 15:48 Kiarip wrote:
Its implementation led to people not caring about what happens to their deposits... how is that a positive step? That's a laughable spin on it. The implementation of the FDIC led to people feeling safe enough about their deposits that they're actually willing to put money in banks, and therefore, save.
If putting money in the bank isn't safe then the banks can higher the interest rates. If they don't, people can keep the money under their mattress.
Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 15:48 Kiarip wrote:
People won't be too scared to put money in their banks if the interest rates are allowed to rights.
Interest rates coordinate the flow of money into the banks and they change based on the availability of capital, and the capital holders' risk assessment of bank failure.
You have to let both parts of the system work. We've done that. It results in massive speculation and market crashes. Hence why we adopted the Fed and sound monetary policy.
[/quote]
LOL... high interest don't lead to massive speculations. High interest rates drastically DECREASE speculation, and that is why the FED was called upon to lower the interest rates in the first place, because as the interest rates went up, due to the mal-investments and harmful speculation, this also slowed down the economy, by effectively forcing people to repay the debt accumulated due to defaults as a result of those mal-investments, the FED wasn't pleased with people starting to save and dropped the interest rates resulting in more mal-investments and bubbles, which led to a crash.
|
So if you want to live better, go get a job where you're more likely to die.
Makes perfect sense. -_-
On November 01 2011 20:27 vetinari wrote:
Whether these be career path (men do the dirty, dangerous, lonely work), hours worked (women work less hours than men), children (stay at home fathers are outnumbered by housewives a hundred to one) or a myriad of other choices, men tend to make the tradeoffs that women are generally unwilling to make.
1. This shouldn't be the main criteria when it comes to wages anyway. Teaching math, which you consider to be a "shitty job", contributes more to the society than most dirty and dangerous jobs - ergo it should be rewarded accordingly.
2. This is because men are overworked (on average), usually because they're more capable of withstanding physical strain. It's not that women work less, it's that men just work more. It would be much healthier for families and the society if the amount of hours one could work per week was limited to a reasonable amount instead of forcing people to push themselves to the limit of what's sane and healthy (and usually past that limit as well).
3. Again, this isn't a good enough excuse. Both men and women should be encouraged to spend more time within the family circle, not less - again a necessity for a healthy society.
Very few men make these tradeoffs because they want to. They make them because they have to. Whether they're willing or not, this should not be allowed to happen. People aren't cattle and shouldn't be treated as such.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 01 2011 21:31 Talin wrote:So if you want to live better, go get a job where you're more likely to die. Makes perfect sense. -_-
Some people do. It's their choice. Outlaw the fishing, mining, and logging industries?
On November 01 2011 21:31 Talin wrote:
2. This is because men are overworked (on average), usually because they're more capable of withstanding physical strain. It's not that women work less, it's that men just work more. It would be much healthier for families and the society if the amount of hours one could work per week was limited to a reasonable amount instead of forcing people to push themselves to the limit of what's sane and healthy (and usually past that limit as well).
Women work less and men work more. Either both are true or neither is true. Arbitrarily deciding what a reasonable amount of work hours isn't yours to determine.
On November 01 2011 21:31 Talin wrote:
3. Again, this isn't a good enough excuse. Both men and women should be encouraged to spend more time within the family circle, not less - again a necessity for a healthy society.
Very few men make these tradeoffs because they want to. They make them because they have to. Whether they're willing or not, this should not be allowed to happen. People aren't cattle and shouldn't be treated as such.
Ok. Time to outlaw professional sports and other type of profession that takes obsessive dedication.
All of this seems to be directed at fostering a culture of leisure. It isn't for everyone. People who value leisure can easily live in a smaller house, go without the latest gadgets, and otherwise live frugally. That many people don't is a choice.
|
On November 01 2011 20:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 20:27 vetinari wrote:2.9 deaths on the job per 100,000 employees in france. 94% of those deaths were male. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_safetyBreastfeeding saves lives. Seriously though, when you spout the nonsense about the wage gap, I'm not sure whether I want to laugh or cry. The wage gap exists, and it has nothing to do with sexism, but rather because of the differing choices that men and women make. There is no conspiracy to pay women less for equal work. If you believe there is, I invite you to start a company that only employs women. With lower labour costs, you'll clean up. Whether these be career path (men do the dirty, dangerous, lonely work), hours worked (women work less hours than men), children (stay at home fathers are outnumbered by housewives a hundred to one) or a myriad of other choices, men tend to make the tradeoffs that women are generally unwilling to make. As an aside, I personally find it repugnant that the left considers a woman's wage to be the only measure of her worth. I think you don't understand. The 7% wage gap is between men and female with the same job, same experience and equal seniority. So it has nothing to do with choices or path of career. It's not a conspiracy. It's people like you that think that women are not really suited to responsibility jobs because they supposedly want to work less or are unwilling to take risks, or any bullshit conservative can invent.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to actually control for experience? Is it by years worked in the same field? Is it controlling for the specific type of experience? Is it controlling for unpaid overtime? Sick leave taken?
And if women are actually being paid less for the EXACT same work, start your company, and outcompete everyone else. With your lower labour costs, you'll either put everyone out of business, or male wages and female wages will converge!
Now if 91,2% of board directors are male, that's probably not because women don't want to access to the top of their companies. It's maybe because people are prejudiced and biased when they chose who climb where and at what speed.
Yeah, they pick people they know and trust. Friday night drinks, networking in general, these help build trust. Guess what women do less.
I really laughed at your last sentence. How much bad faith one can have, it's admirable. Nobody ever said that wage is measure of anybody's worth. What is pointed out is that we live in a society that doesn't consider men and female equal; that roles are predetermined. It's enough to read your posts to realize that people still consider that the role of the women is at home with the children when the male go do ambitious careers and succeed to climb to the top because "they have what it takes".
What you just wrote reinforces my point. Your words show that you believe that a stay at home mother is inferior to a woman climbing the corporate ladder.
.
On November 01 2011 21:31 Talin wrote:So if you want to live better, go get a job where you're more likely to die. Makes perfect sense. -_-
Yeah, it does. People take in risks in the hope of a higher reward than the risk free rate. I mean, come on. This should be obvious.
Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 20:27 vetinari wrote:
Whether these be career path (men do the dirty, dangerous, lonely work), hours worked (women work less hours than men), children (stay at home fathers are outnumbered by housewives a hundred to one) or a myriad of other choices, men tend to make the tradeoffs that women are generally unwilling to make. 1. This shouldn't be the main criteria when it comes to wages anyway. Teaching math, which you consider to be a "shitty job", contributes more to the society than most dirty and dangerous jobs - ergo it should be rewarded accordingly. 2. This is because men are overworked (on average), usually because they're more capable of withstanding physical strain. It's not that women work less, it's that men just work more. It would be much healthier for families and the society if the amount of hours one could work per week was limited to a reasonable amount instead of forcing people to push themselves to the limit of what's sane and healthy (and usually past that limit as well). 3. Again, this isn't a good enough excuse. Both men and women should be encouraged to spend more time within the family circle, not less - again a necessity for a healthy society. Very few men make these tradeoffs because they want to. They make them because they have to. Whether they're willing or not, this should not be allowed to happen. People aren't cattle and shouldn't be treated as such.
1. Wages are determined by supply and demand. No one wants to die. Lots of women find teaching appealing. No shit people who risk their lives for society, should be compensated for their risk of death. Guess what, those dirty, dangerous jobs are important. Want to be like Naples, where the garbage is overflowing? Do you like living in a house? Eating food? (you seem to have mixed me up with someone else. Good maths teachers are very important.)
2. If men work more than women, it means that women work less than men. As for limiting hours: fuck that. I've worked 80 hour weeks. Why? Because I like getting paid double time, with triple time on weekends, thank you very much. I don't see why I should be limited to working 36 hours. Or why a man, who wants to build a better life for his family, should not be allowed to work additional hours, to move out of the slum.
3. Of course it is. Having children limits the primary caregiver. The caregiver cannot work as much overtime, if any. Must take additional days off if kids are sick. Has to juggle additional responsibilities. This negatively impacts job performance. Since primary caregivers, in the vast majority of cases, are women, this negatively impacts the quality of women as workers, more than it does men. Women want to be the primary caregiver far more than men do. You know, instinct?
Yeah, in third world shitholes, people work 90 hour weeks because if they don't, they die. In the first world, they work longer, harder, because if they don't, they won't have as big a house, or as fast a car, as many shoes or as much jewellery. They don't have to work. They do it because they want to spend their time and effort to attain something that they value more than their time and effort. Unemployment benefits do have their uses, you know.
On November 01 2011 21:02 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 20:27 vetinari wrote:2.9 deaths on the job per 100,000 employees in france. 94% of those deaths were male. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_safetyBreastfeeding saves lives. Seriously though, when you spout the nonsense about the wage gap, I'm not sure whether I want to laugh or cry. The wage gap exists, and it has nothing to do with sexism, but rather because of the differing choices that men and women make. There is no conspiracy to pay women less for equal work. If you believe there is, I invite you to start a company that only employs women. With lower labour costs, you'll clean up. Whether these be career path (men do the dirty, dangerous, lonely work), hours worked (women work less hours than men), children (stay at home fathers are outnumbered by housewives a hundred to one) or a myriad of other choices, men tend to make the tradeoffs that women are generally unwilling to make. As an aside, I personally find it repugnant that the left considers a woman's wage to be the only measure of her worth. The studies are excluding everything you enumerate when they come to their conclusion. Women really get less money for the exact same quality and quantity of work. If this happens in a company like what was in the news this year, it kind of has to do with sexism. It was an insurance company having parties in a brothel. The negotiations for the next salary raise between the men and their bosses sharing such private experiences surely look different than what their women colleagues can work with. But for the rest of men and women, the difference in hourly wages is confusing if it is not objectively justified. I tend to believe the authors of the studies, because I guess they have put in months of work into drawing their conclusions, which should be better than five minutes of me pondering the state of the matter. Also, if I think about women getting the short end of the stick in life, I can come up with a few personal anecdotes about that, but not for men, so I subjectively am not inclined to pick up the pitchfork and argue against the studies.
Only in part, and not very well at that. Do you really think something like experience is so easily quantified?
Why exactly should people not be allowed to have parties in brothels? Sure its not in good taste, but its not illegal, last I checked (well, in Australia, anyway). Well, yeah, it would look different. Just as it would look different if it was a female boss (they exist) and female employees had bonded over a baby shower or whatever it is that women do together.
No shit. Men don't get to complain if they get the short end of the stick. They are expected to harden the fuck up, and we filter them out of our consciousness. A man who fails may as well not exist. If a woman gets into trouble, men everywhere are expected to bail her out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
