|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
German prosecutors said Wednesday a letter found near the sight of the Borussia Dortmund team bus blasts suggested a possible Islamic extremist motive for the attack, adding that one suspect had been taken into custody.
Frauke Koehler, a spokeswoman for federal prosecutors, said two suspects from the "Islamist spectrum" had become the focus of the Dortmund investigation.
She said at a news conference that both of their apartments were searched and that one of them had been detained.
Koehler said the letter found at the site of the three blasts demanded the withdrawal of German Tornado reconnaissance jets from Turkey and the closure of the US military’s Ramstein Air Base in Germany.
She said authorities were still evaluating its credibility.
Source
|
On April 13 2017 02:09 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 01:56 Big J wrote:On April 13 2017 01:44 warding wrote:
Big J I'm not sure what you think the solution to unemployment and job insecurity/low pay/etc should be. Can you elaborate more on that? The plain analysis is that money is with the top percent, the top percent have no demand for more goods so we are not creating jobs. Give the money to the people,you stimulate demand which will initially lead to high inflation but also stimulate growth and thus employment. The problem is obviously if you tax the rich they will just move their money away to other states and you just lose out. I have no solution that can be employed by a single state, maybe except for the USA. That's not how economics works. The top percent save money which is = to investment. That investment is essentially what generates economic growth for the future, not consumption. The key to a prosperous economy is not consuming as much as you can. In fact, if you incentivize consumption over investment you end up with lower rates of growth.
Saving money does not always equal investment. In America circa 1940s-60s, taxes were very high on (what would be the equivalent of today's) the 1%. However investment was also really high -- because the wealthy needed to spend their money immediately on things that could procure more future profits, as opposed to losing it to taxes.
Nowadays the ultra-wealthy are more fearful of inflation than taxation, so they spend their money on things like real estate acquisitions which do not generate much economic activity.
|
On April 13 2017 02:19 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 02:09 warding wrote:On April 13 2017 01:56 Big J wrote:On April 13 2017 01:44 warding wrote:
Big J I'm not sure what you think the solution to unemployment and job insecurity/low pay/etc should be. Can you elaborate more on that? The plain analysis is that money is with the top percent, the top percent have no demand for more goods so we are not creating jobs. Give the money to the people,you stimulate demand which will initially lead to high inflation but also stimulate growth and thus employment. The problem is obviously if you tax the rich they will just move their money away to other states and you just lose out. I have no solution that can be employed by a single state, maybe except for the USA. That's not how economics works. The top percent save money which is = to investment. That investment is essentially what generates economic growth for the future, not consumption. The key to a prosperous economy is not consuming as much as you can. In fact, if you incentivize consumption over investment you end up with lower rates of growth. Saving money does not always equal investment. In America circa 1940s-60s, taxes were very high on (what would be the equivalent of today's) the 1%. However investment was also really high -- because the wealthy needed to spend their money immediately on things that could procure more future profits, as opposed to losing it to taxes. Nowadays the ultra-wealthy are more fearful of inflation than taxation, so they spend their money on things like real estate acquisitions which do not generate much economic activity.
In macroeconomics savings literally = investment. I'm not sure what your point is on taxes and how it applies to what the conversation was.
I'm also confused about the second paragraph. So rich people today just decided to put their money in crap t because they're fearful of inflation... even though it's been between 0 a 2% for the past five years? And if they are supposedly investing in real estate it must be because it's generating returns. If it's generating returns, then it is good for the economy.
|
Because the way we measure growth in the economy doesn’t contemplate that growth being beneficial to the general public. Someone can invest in real estate and make money over 2-3 years, but that doesn’t mean that the local economy will benefit from that growth.
|
Economics are not my thing but I think the problem with increasing taxes for the rich is that it's usually done poorly. >90% tax rates are ineffective because, as it was already pointed out, the rich can just move their headquarters elsewhere. Our legislators should find a way to get rid of this headquarter criterion in taxation entirely.
|
On April 13 2017 03:17 Sent. wrote:
Economics are not my thing but I think the problem with increasing taxes for the rich is that it's usually done poorly. >90% tax rates are ineffective because, as it was already pointed out, the rich can just move their headquarters elsewhere. Our legislators should find a way to get rid of this headquarter criterion in taxation entirely.
90% tax rates existed in higher scales of personal income tax. They're bad because highly talented people just move elsewhere, and Europeans love football too much to lose competitiveness over this. People are taxed wherever their residence is, which is where they live for at least 8 months. There's no way around that.
Taxation of companies happens wherever they have economic activity, not where their headquarters is. Where there is a problem is when you have digital services, but that's another story.
|
On April 13 2017 02:09 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 01:56 Big J wrote:On April 13 2017 01:44 warding wrote:
Big J I'm not sure what you think the solution to unemployment and job insecurity/low pay/etc should be. Can you elaborate more on that? EDIT: ... corporations have to pay corporate tax in each country they have activities in,... .
As I understand it this is not true, In Europe companies pay corporate tax in the country where the head office is located, which is how Apple could pay 0.005% coporate tax on their European earnings.
A single market doesn't make sense without a unified coporate taxation scheme. The race to the bottom becomes very real.
To me it is primarily a democratic problem, how much a society wishes to tax corporate profits should be subject to democratic choice, but within the EU people no longer have this choice, a company may simply chose to have their profits taxed elsewhere in the EU and keep operating as before.
If the people living in the EU together voted for a coporate tax rate of say 5% I, as a leftish person, might be unhappy, but it would feel legitimate because I had a vote, and I can campaign to change it. But under the current system, the Irish government may decide unilaterally that profits on iphones sold in Sweden should be taxed at 0.005%, without any input from me, or the rest of the Swedish people, whatsoever. That is,as I see it, fundamentally undemocratic. The only solution to restore the sovereignty of the people is to subject those things (like taxation policy) that influences the entire Union to democratic choice on a European level, OR dissolve the single market and let the old nations set rules for how to operate within their own borders.
|
On April 13 2017 03:17 Sent. wrote:
Economics are not my thing but I think the problem with increasing taxes for the rich is that it's usually done poorly. >90% tax rates are ineffective because, as it was already pointed out, the rich can just move their headquarters elsewhere. Our legislators should find a way to get rid of this headquarter criterion in taxation entirely.
Companies can only move their HQ to Ireland for tax evasion because of a loophole that's in the EU tax code. That can be fixed, thus restoring the tax rates on Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. to sane rates.
In theory rich people can just move to Somalia to avoid taxes, in practice they usually don't.
|
On April 13 2017 02:09 LegalLord wrote:
Yes, the clear problem with Europe is that there just isn't enough of it to go around. If there's more Europe there will be less problem!
Yep.
We need a regulator not to allow, say, Ireland, to put a 12% corporate tax and sucking up corporations from countries they would contribute to for a minimal gain. The mentality in Europe is "better 12% at home than 25% somewhere else". That has to stop.
Same goes for personal taxes. Europe lacks standards and governance; it's still a patchwork of petty nations looking for their self interest even when it's detrimental to everyone else. Because at the end we all lose from it.
Why isn't there a shitshow like the Luxembourg in the US, building its prosperity exclusively on the ass of its neighbours? Because the federal government would never allow a state to go full gangster like that. Why could the US implement a very needed finantial reform that has made Wall Street much healthier than it was 8 years ago while the EU is still on square one on that regard? Because New York is not a sovereign nation able to torpedoe the whole thing for its self interest like Great Britain and Germany did to protect the supremacy of the City and Frankfurt. Etc etc.
Destroying the EU is of course the best way to make the situation even worse. There is no place for small competing countries in today economically and geostrategically globalized world. Even if you decided that "Europe was a failed project" based on, if I remember, the refugee crisis, which was a fiasco for the exact same reasons: a lack of a unified and coordinated answer because countries were too busy with themselves, their little egoistic interest, and the populist xenophobic agenda of some of their governments and oppositions.
The EU is still in its infancy, and we are still each thinking about our little gain. Europe has been at war with itself for its entire history, so progress has been done. Now we have to start caring about the fate of Spain even if we live in Germany, just like California is not competing against Wyoming, but part of the same family and working towards the same interests.
The EU has three choices: become the first power in the world by unifying, stay a neoliberal shithole with nations competing against each other, or go full retard and go back to the old situation, namely being a patchwork of increasingly irrelevant countries more or less friendly towards each other and with no power to resist global superpowers.
|
On April 13 2017 04:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Why isn't there a shitshow like the Luxembourg in the US, building its prosperity exclusively on the ass of its neighbours? Because the federal government would never allow a state to go full gangster like that.
I dunno, that's essentially Delaware right there.
|
On April 13 2017 03:03 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 02:19 LightSpectra wrote:On April 13 2017 02:09 warding wrote:On April 13 2017 01:56 Big J wrote:On April 13 2017 01:44 warding wrote:
Big J I'm not sure what you think the solution to unemployment and job insecurity/low pay/etc should be. Can you elaborate more on that? The plain analysis is that money is with the top percent, the top percent have no demand for more goods so we are not creating jobs. Give the money to the people,you stimulate demand which will initially lead to high inflation but also stimulate growth and thus employment. The problem is obviously if you tax the rich they will just move their money away to other states and you just lose out. I have no solution that can be employed by a single state, maybe except for the USA. That's not how economics works. The top percent save money which is = to investment. That investment is essentially what generates economic growth for the future, not consumption. The key to a prosperous economy is not consuming as much as you can. In fact, if you incentivize consumption over investment you end up with lower rates of growth. Saving money does not always equal investment. In America circa 1940s-60s, taxes were very high on (what would be the equivalent of today's) the 1%. However investment was also really high -- because the wealthy needed to spend their money immediately on things that could procure more future profits, as opposed to losing it to taxes. Nowadays the ultra-wealthy are more fearful of inflation than taxation, so they spend their money on things like real estate acquisitions which do not generate much economic activity. In macroeconomics savings literally = investment. I'm not sure what your point is on taxes and how it applies to what the conversation was. I'm also confused about the second paragraph. So rich people today just decided to put their money in crap t because they're fearful of inflation... even though it's been between 0 a 2% for the past five years? And if they are supposedly investing in real estate it must be because it's generating returns. If it's generating returns, then it is good for the economy.
Were not talking about large scale abstract economics.
The kind of economics that leads to more demand for goods and therefore more jobs needs people to have more income to spend on goods. a rich man buying stock and real estate does not cause more demand for goods > more jobs > less unemployment.
Something that is good for 'economic growth' does not have to be good for lowering unemployment.
Switching a factory to robots that increase output by 100% but sacks 80% of the workers is great for 'the economy' but terrible for the people who need jobs to pay their rent.
|
On April 11 2017 04:37 TheDwf wrote:
So far Fillon, Macron and Le Pen didn't take Mélenchon seriously (the left was not expected to have a chance), but now they will probably start attacking him.
Well, it did not take long for the shitstorm to rise.
The Figaro (conservative liberal newspaper owned by some corrupt billionaire who also happens to be a senator from Fillon's party) started to fire with all the finesse and the subtlety of the French right. It devoted 3 pages to bash Mélenchon. Selection of titles:
Mélenchon, the delusional project of the French Chavez [main title]
Mélenchon's unpredecented fiscal slammerhedge blow
Mélenchon's program, a social big bang from another time
Castro, Chavez… Mélenchon, the apostle of revolutionary dictators
Mélenchon wants to shatter the “liberal” Europe
And, in case you didn't understand well enough, the editorial piece is called “Maximilien Ilitch Mélenchon”.
The main title is also just above an article talking about the tension around North Korea. The newspaper of the French bourgeoisie thus fears socialism more than a possible nuclear conflict. Gotta know your priorities, uh?
As for the “big” candidates, some of them started attacking him. Macron said, “The revolutionary communist, he was already a socialist senator when I was in secondary school! What does he want us to believe?”
Fillon had mocked him a few days ago: “Mélenchon dreams himself as the captain of the Potemkin, but would end up negotiating the scrap of the Titanic.” He also now calls him and his program “communist”.
Marine Le Pen seems to mostly ignore him for now.
And lastly, Hollande went out of his cave to worry about… Mélenchon's rise. This supposed ““social-democrat”” has little to say when the far-right polls above 25% for months, but suddenly gets mad when a former member… of his own party is near 20%. Hollande said that the campaign “smells” and called it “lunar”. He warned against the possibility of a Mélenchon vs Le Pen second round and implicitly supported Macron (instead of the candidate of his own party). No wonder this mandate was a disaster with such a wit.
|
On April 13 2017 04:52 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2017 04:37 TheDwf wrote:
So far Fillon, Macron and Le Pen didn't take Mélenchon seriously (the left was not expected to have a chance), but now they will probably start attacking him. Well, it did not take long for the shitstorm to rise. The Figaro (conservative liberal newspaper owned by some corrupt billionaire who also happens to be a senator from Fillon's party) started to fire with all the finesse and the subtlety of the French right. It devoted 3 pages to bash Mélenchon. Selection of titles: Mélenchon, the delusional project of the French Chavez [main title] Mélenchon's unpredecented fiscal slammerhedge blow Mélenchon's program, a social big bang from another time Castro, Chavez… Mélenchon, the apostle of revolutionary dictators Mélenchon wants to shatter the “liberal” Europe And, in case you didn't understand well enough, the editorial piece is called “ Maximilien Ilitch Mélenchon”. The main title is also just above an article talking about the tension around North Korea. The newspaper of the French bourgeoisie thus fears socialism more than a possible nuclear conflict. Gotta know your priorities, uh? As for the “big” candidates, some of them started attacking him. Macron said, “The revolutionary communist, he was already a socialist senator when I was in secondary school! What does he want us to believe?” Fillon had mocked him a few days ago: “Mélenchon dreams himself as the captain of the Potemkin, but would end up negotiating the scrap of the Titanic.” He also now calls him and his program “communist”. Marine Le Pen seems to mostly ignore him for now. And lastly, Hollande went out of his cave to worry about… Mélenchon's rise. This supposed ““social-democrat”” has little to say when the far-right polls above 25% for months, but suddenly gets mad when a former member… of his own party is near 20%. Hollande said that the campaign “smells” and called it “lunar”. He warned against the possibility of a Mélenchon vs Le Pen second round and implicitly supported Macron (instead of the candidate of his own party). No wonder this mandate was a disaster with such a wit.
Le Figaro's coverage smells like panic. The problem is, who do they want to convince? They are a newspaper for right wing bourgeois, and anyone ever reading them and thinking of voting Melenchon must be suffering from accute personality disorder.
As for Hollande, no one listens to him anymore. At all. Mélenchon scares me but I don't see those people threatening him in any way.
|
On April 13 2017 04:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 04:52 TheDwf wrote:On April 11 2017 04:37 TheDwf wrote:
So far Fillon, Macron and Le Pen didn't take Mélenchon seriously (the left was not expected to have a chance), but now they will probably start attacking him. Well, it did not take long for the shitstorm to rise. The Figaro (conservative liberal newspaper owned by some corrupt billionaire who also happens to be a senator from Fillon's party) started to fire with all the finesse and the subtlety of the French right. It devoted 3 pages to bash Mélenchon. Selection of titles: Mélenchon, the delusional project of the French Chavez [main title] Mélenchon's unpredecented fiscal slammerhedge blow Mélenchon's program, a social big bang from another time Castro, Chavez… Mélenchon, the apostle of revolutionary dictators Mélenchon wants to shatter the “liberal” Europe And, in case you didn't understand well enough, the editorial piece is called “ Maximilien Ilitch Mélenchon”. The main title is also just above an article talking about the tension around North Korea. The newspaper of the French bourgeoisie thus fears socialism more than a possible nuclear conflict. Gotta know your priorities, uh? As for the “big” candidates, some of them started attacking him. Macron said, “The revolutionary communist, he was already a socialist senator when I was in secondary school! What does he want us to believe?” Fillon had mocked him a few days ago: “Mélenchon dreams himself as the captain of the Potemkin, but would end up negotiating the scrap of the Titanic.” He also now calls him and his program “communist”. Marine Le Pen seems to mostly ignore him for now. And lastly, Hollande went out of his cave to worry about… Mélenchon's rise. This supposed ““social-democrat”” has little to say when the far-right polls above 25% for months, but suddenly gets mad when a former member… of his own party is near 20%. Hollande said that the campaign “smells” and called it “lunar”. He warned against the possibility of a Mélenchon vs Le Pen second round and implicitly supported Macron (instead of the candidate of his own party). No wonder this mandate was a disaster with such a wit. Le Figaro's coverage smells like panic. The problem is, who do they want to convince? They are a newspaper for right wing bourgeois, and anyone ever reading them and thinking of voting Melenchon must be suffering from accute personality disorder.
Yeah, but I guess you have to talk about the opposing side too. Also Mélenchon is toe-to-toe with Fillon in polls, you have to realize the psychological shock for them lol
As for Hollande, no one listens to him anymore. At all. Mélenchon scares me but I don't see those people threatening him in any way.
What scares you?
|
On April 13 2017 02:09 LegalLord wrote:
Yes, the clear problem with Europe is that there just isn't enough of it to go around. If there's more Europe there will be less problem!
I honestly fail to see where your open hostility towards the EU comes from, considering you're not even European. Do you feel the hand of Brussels in your daily life, limiting your possibilities ?
And, I mean, more EU = less problems is not obvious, but is not absurd either. The real issue at the moment, that causes instability, is the ambiguity about who should be stronger power between national governments and European government. In other words, the issue is that people don't know/don't agree on whether they are, or should be, citizens of their country and inhabitant of Europe, or citizens of Europe and inhabitant of their country. One solution to this issue is to scrap the EU and let national governments enjoy full power. Another is to clearly lower national governments' powers and to give more light to a European government. I fail to see how the latter is obviously worse than the former - or the opposite.
|
If you want to sell an iPhone in France to consumers you need a company in France. That company will play the VAT in France and the French corporate tax on profits made. What usually happens is that non-EU companies generally have their EU headquarters in the most competitive nation and then that company either supplies the final vendor or supplies subsidiaries in those countries which pay local taxes. It didn't make sense to have it any other way though.
You could argue that we should have the same corporate taxes everywhere: maybe, but there is a very good economic argument against high corporate taxes - good reason to believe they're bad for the economy as a whole. Anyway, they're generally a very small share of the total tax collection for each country - not that big of a deal. Having EU countries compete over foreign investment is actually a good thing for everyone.
Gorsameth,
Were not talking about large scale abstract economics.
The kind of economics that leads to more demand for goods and therefore more jobs needs people to have more income to spend on goods. a rich man buying stock and real estate does not cause more demand for goods > more jobs > less unemployment.
Something that is good for 'economic growth' does not have to be good for lowering unemployment.
Switching a factory to robots that increase output by 100% but sacks 80% of the workers is great for 'the economy' but terrible for the people who need jobs to pay their rent.
You can't start a post saying we're not taking about macroeconomics and then proceed to talk about macroeconomics.
Economic growth certainly isn't about generating more demand for goods, if only because that's just not an option in western countries anymore - populations are stable or declining, women are part of the workforce and we don't need 3rd cars and 2nd houses. Economic growth really is about technology and sound investment. That rich guy saving his money is the one making capital available to create the next Amazons, Teslas or Apples. Can technology put people out of work? Yes. However, it is the only way to create better lives and societies. Do we need societies and governments to think about how these advancements improve lives for everyone? Yes, just like we need the rich guy to save his money to generate capital to invest and create the advancements in the first place.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 13 2017 05:16 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 02:09 LegalLord wrote:
Yes, the clear problem with Europe is that there just isn't enough of it to go around. If there's more Europe there will be less problem! I honestly fail to see where your open hostility towards the EU comes from, considering you're not even European. Do you feel the hand of Brussels in your daily life, limiting your possibilities ?
I don't think it's a project that has a future. Some form of European integration will develop and grow but this incarnation is diseased and broken in ways that spell certain doom for its further existence. I have given enough specifics in the past; there really isn't some "secret" reason. Those who are the most well-to-do love it and behave exactly like the Europe fanboys in here who would insist that the EU is perfect up until Brexit showed that it was clearly starting to fracture in an existential way.
I don't hate it. But I think it will die and I won't mourn. The ideological bullshitting that people use to justify it are significantly far removed from the reality of a confused bureaucracy that has aspirations for being a federal government one day.
|
Honestly, I wouldn't really feel a unifying European tax framework with corporate rates set across the continent infringing on my liberties. There are many things I would actually prefer that the EU does not meddle with and leaves for local decisions to improve engagement of local people in politics, but taxation isn't a high priority in this. Surely then mechanisms are needed for redistribution of the taxes, because without being able to change taxes to balance local budgets, terrible things might happen to countries with worse economies, but in general, this could be a huge win for the project.
|
On April 13 2017 03:03 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 02:19 LightSpectra wrote:On April 13 2017 02:09 warding wrote:On April 13 2017 01:56 Big J wrote:On April 13 2017 01:44 warding wrote:
Big J I'm not sure what you think the solution to unemployment and job insecurity/low pay/etc should be. Can you elaborate more on that? The plain analysis is that money is with the top percent, the top percent have no demand for more goods so we are not creating jobs. Give the money to the people,you stimulate demand which will initially lead to high inflation but also stimulate growth and thus employment. The problem is obviously if you tax the rich they will just move their money away to other states and you just lose out. I have no solution that can be employed by a single state, maybe except for the USA. That's not how economics works. The top percent save money which is = to investment. That investment is essentially what generates economic growth for the future, not consumption. The key to a prosperous economy is not consuming as much as you can. In fact, if you incentivize consumption over investment you end up with lower rates of growth. Saving money does not always equal investment. In America circa 1940s-60s, taxes were very high on (what would be the equivalent of today's) the 1%. However investment was also really high -- because the wealthy needed to spend their money immediately on things that could procure more future profits, as opposed to losing it to taxes. Nowadays the ultra-wealthy are more fearful of inflation than taxation, so they spend their money on things like real estate acquisitions which do not generate much economic activity. In macroeconomics savings literally = investment. I'm not sure what your point is on taxes and how it applies to what the conversation was. I'm also confused about the second paragraph. So rich people today just decided to put their money in crap t because they're fearful of inflation... even though it's been between 0 a 2% for the past five years? And if they are supposedly investing in real estate it must be because it's generating returns. If it's generating returns, then it is good for the economy.
Yeah and macroeconomics all make the assumption that you have a single person that is investing and consuming and satisfying its utility function. No shit, if I have an infinite lifespan with a single good that I can scale infinitely but with diminishing returns on its utility and I have the choices to grow it more or consume it I can find a balanced growth path that will more or less tell me to hold back consume and invest more and only slowly increase my consume when my diminishing returns utility function starts getting satisfied and more growth in the future doesn't actually return more utility.
And on top of that faulty model you can then add exogenous growth and whatever you want and always pretend that you just haven't worked out all the details, it doesn't change that you have a one person, one good economy with an arbitrarily assumed utility function, which is plain bullshit. (oh hey, you can be tricky and introduce two goods, or introduce two controls like labor and capital instead of your one-fits-it-all capital good, maybe you play around with a savings rate and so on... it always fails to model millions of utility functions with millions of goods and limited information and whatnot)
It's a marvellous model for an authoritarian planned economy, just ask Stalin. Hold back consume, invest into the industries that increase growth. A marvellous model if you want to satisfy your one person state utility function, who is satisfied with some growth number.
The reality is that we have millions of people with individual utility functions. And they don't just end at some point. If you are rich you still want to get more rich, so they only invest with interest.
Let me ask you, what is better for a firm founder: To have money to invest, or to have an investor that takes 50% of your profit in return for his investment? It's the first, it's quite obviously the first. A firm that can live from demand alone, that has a lot of consume will always reward creativity and innovation more than a firm that is dependent on someone else liking an idea and demanding a reward for his investment.
I'm not asking for a society of the equal. But I honestly don't see the difference between an economy that is planned by a state, or an economy that runs on the interest of a few free market investors or investment conglomerates. They both have the same basic flaw, it's a few's utility functions that dictate over the masses of people.
All through history you can always see the same effect, that after you had a mass monbilization war or some similar catastrophe (like the plague) that led to a much more equal distribution, you get massive growth afterwards, because without the few dictating the economy in one way or another you get consume, you get demand for labor and you get high growth rates. The growth rates in the West have continously declined since the second world war in the same way that the inequality has risen again. Beating this rotten, self-destructive longrun dynamic of capitalism without destroying liberalism is the biggest and most important social, economical and democratic project of our times.
|
Big J I tino you're trying to discredit an entire body of knowledge built up by a lot of very bright minds over the last few hundred years without really having a firm grasp on it. If I didn't know much about psychology, and I don't, I wouldn't just assume I'd have the intellectual authority to say psychanalisys is bullshit.
To answer specific questions...
The people who start companies are very often not super rich. Rich people usually don't have the hunger necessary to stay successful startups. Even if they do, once they're successful and need to scale they will need investment because by then we're talking of investments of millions our tens of millions. In the case of companies like Uber it's billions. So there's a mismatch the entrepreneurs and the capital. You paint it as something negative somehow but it is how it works and how silicon valley got built. Start a company, get investment, grow, sell and get rich, invest in other companies with the money you just got and mentor them, rinse repeat.
Can entrepreneurs do it alone? Some can. I'm in the process myself. Growing without investment is much slower and actually silly - once you prove product-market fit and a viable business model and sales channel you should attack the whole world. To do that you need to invest and the money generatedfrom cashflow will not be enough.
I don't see the same parallel that you see between state planning and free market investors. First off, they're not few. Second, what makes or breaks companies is whether there's market demand for whatever you're selling. Third, price mechanisms still exist and guide everyone I the market. Fourth, what the hell is the alternative? If you're for blockchainesque investment vehicles and easier access for startups to capital markets and retail investors, I'm all for it too.
Finally, your economic history is messed up. Catastrophes may have an effect in redistributing wealth and changing social paradigms but they are not the generators of economic growth by themselves. What creates growth is the existence of political institutions that create the conditions for capitalism to exist: protection of property rights, freedom of initiative, and so on. They create the conditions and incentives for people to create companies and new technologies which then are the engine of economic growth. Economic growth, meanwhile, tends to generate inequality and that trend may accelerate depending on the existing technologies. You have to manage that in societies but you do want that growth to exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
