Notices
Results 1 to 46 of 46

Thread: Entitlements

  1. #1 Entitlements 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    So, I recently took this class on Mexican history (from philosophical point of view), and I think I'm starting to see a pattern among third world cultures, and certain minority groups in the USA.

    They seem to spend a great deal of time digging through the past so they can describe what they think the first world countries/cultures owe them. It's like all of their effort is going into writing out debts they can claim as representing wealth someone else is going to give them someday (or ought to), instead of creating real wealth right now that they could tangibly hold in their hands.

    So what I'm wondering is: what can we do to work against this trend?


    Is the importance of these supposed debts (uncollect-able for the most part) to their cultural identity real or imagined?

    If it's real, is it a strong enough reason to balance against the unproductive-ness of having unreasonable expectations for the future? (Or unreasonable expectations of other cultures, leading to unreasonable demands, and there by tending to lead toward violence?)


    ---


    The case I'm most familiar with might be the Mexican culture, which still hasn't gotten over how the USA seized land from them in the Spanish American war, or even the fact that Spain once enslaved their ancestors 400 years ago.

    Another case might be certain portions of the American black community, who still remember vividly how their ancestors were brought over from Afrika to be slaves.

    Apparently in Iraq, the various tribal factions that we want to get working together have very long memories of different crimes each other have committed that prevent them from being able to join forces.

    ---

    Now contrast this with the USA and Germany, or Japan. We fought a hugely bloody war with them less than half a century ago, but they're some of our closest allies today. (Though Germany is getting to be more of a rival).

    England, the nation we fought with for our independence, was our ally in that very bloody war, and we still seem comfortable sharing certain military secrets freely with them.

    ---

    On the other hand...

    Isreal might be considered another kind of entitlement situation (a rare first world example) who, for thousands of years, justified to themselves that they were owed this area of land their ancestors had once inhabited, but which had been "wrongly" taken away from them at the hands of the Romans. They've gotten it "back", so it kind of worked out, but socially I don't think any good has come of it, for anyone but them.

    They will almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians in order to fully secure their hold on that land, if the rest of the world allows them to.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Kojax

    We owe the Mexicans 'nothing'.
    The land we took from them was land they took from the native Indians in that region they ocupy and formerly occupied.

    Regarding the Israelies, we should tell them to dump their religion that is devisive and discriminating, because our Constitution does not endorse any religion. Especially that kind. So they should be a secular state only . With these circumstances, we can support their reestablishment as former occupants in that region.
    Besides, since they already dumped their religion for the 'gun and cannon', this should be easy for them to do so.

    We do owe the blacks compensation for the past sins of enslaving their anscesters and the continuous discrimination that exists even today in some isolated pockets of the south.
    I thought about this and so I suggest that all blacks of 3/4 anscestry , be given a free entitlement to have access to any university, college, technical school or other of their choice.

    And now our citizens should have an entitlement as being represented by our government to have a JOB, healthcare and a secure pension in old age.
    What other representation would they need?

    Our workers are a NATURAL resouirce that capitalism is exploiting to enrich themselves without giving the citizen workers a decent subsistence level of existence.
    That means a wage that they can buy a new car, a house and all living essentials for a reasonable comfotable lifestyle.
    Hey, we are supposed to have a government that represents us, not those self serving vacuum bags that never seem to be satisfied with all that surplus
    UNneeded stagnant wealth that stops circulating when it reaches their vacuum bags also known as bank accounts .

    So lets press our government to promote and pass the 'Public Financing Of Our Elections and shut out all the illegal influence dollars that buy our politicians.
    This way, we can recapture our Democracy from the current 'dollar republic'.

    Cosmo


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    The trouble with entitlements is that you often end up entitling yourself (or others) to more resources than what actually exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore kingjacob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    between time and timbuktu
    Posts
    131
    We do owe the blacks compensation for the past sins of enslaving their anscesters and the continuous discrimination that exists even today in some isolated pockets of the south.
    I thought about this and so I suggest that all blacks of 3/4 anscestry , be given a free entitlement to have access to any university, college, technical school or other of their choice.
    That's interesting, I don't remember owning any slaves and none of my ancestors ever owned slaves. In fact a very large percentage of the american population's ancestry were not slave owners. Also giving entitlements based on race would just create further rifts and racism. The best solution is to get rid of the idea of race. And instead of trying to help certain races, help those in need.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    As a student of Mexican history can you enlighten us as to how much land Mexico lost to the USA in the Spanish-American War?

    Iím also curious about the furiousness of Mexicans about their enslaved ancestors. There are Mexicans of almost pure Spanish descent, Mexicans of mixed Indian and Spanish descent and Mexicans who are pure Indian. There are also Mexicans of Irish descent. Who are the furious ones and what exactly are they demanding of the developed countries?

    So what I'm wondering is: what can we do to work against this trend?
    I think you have not yet demonstrated any trend. You have stated an opinion and neglected to provide any sort of evidence that your opinion is correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    One thing that needs to be pointed out at this point:

    Most ethnocentric views of entitlement are based on false or embellished versions of history. So... while the historical claims may often be false, the problems that arise from those historical claims are very real. Just because something isn't true doesn't mean people don't believe it.

    If one slave master can be found, in the whole history of Jamaica, who gave his female slaves an STD, it will be immediately assumed, by a person pursuing an ethnocentric entitlement, that absolutely every slave master must have done so, or the majority of them.

    To answer your question: "Who are the furious ones and what exactly are they demanding of the developed countries? "

    The furious Mexicans are mostly of Mestizo ancestry, and poor. They're the only ones who could even make a semi credible argument to having descended from the poor, abused, Aztecs/Nahuas. According to Wiki, they make up about 45% of the population, though I'm sure not all of them are concerned about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...co#Ethnography

    Where I see the discussion taking place most often is among Chicano Americans, and immigrants, who are predominantly Mestizo. Arguments to unfair history are the most common philosophical arguments made in favor of illegal immigration. It creates a strong tendency among immigrants to convince themselves that North Americans owe them something.

    Whatever the rest of Mexico is doing, it doesn't affect the USA as much, so I guess I don't care as much.

    As far as what I'm going off of. Well, lets see: I speak fluent Spanish. In a past section of my life I befriended quite a few immigrants. I actually used to like their culture until I started to actually compare it with my own culture.

    As far as academics, I've only taken two collegiate courses, so far that deal directly with the topic. Both were basically electives. Both arrived at the same conclusions, however, in this respect. One dealt with south American economics, taught by a Mexican professor, and the other..... was more philosophy, dealing with what arguments prominent Chicano/Mestizo writers have made over the years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    My point in the above post is: I really don't want to get into a big discussion over whether I know what I'm talking about or not.

    I'm also not trying to suggest that you don't, Bunbury.

    While a correct understanding of history is an interesting and valuable thing to have, most entitlement arguments are not based on a correct understanding of history, or at least not a very carefully studied understanding.

    A comparison of the self-entitlist's version of history with your (probably more correct) version might actually shed some light on the problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The trouble with entitlements is that you often end up entitling yourself (or others) to more resources than what actually exist.
    Well, this is a new version of entitlements and that is our hands as natural resources. Ha ha.
    Since the governent is considered to be in control of our natural resources like the forests, minerals under or above ground, that the capitalists are so eager to harvest, well their use of our citizen workers can be included as natural resources because you 'cannot' create anything without these workers and their hands.

    Since the gov has passed a minimum wage law, then I suggest that the gov pass a 'fair' wage and benefits law to our workers as entitlements.
    So a fair wage would have to be higher than a MW.
    By that, I mean where the workers can buy a car, house, higher education for their children, and any other such essentials for a satisfactory and secure lifestyle.

    Cosmo





    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Pay them more money, and the cost of land will go up until they're poor again (either from higher land values making it cost too much to buy your own house, or higher land values driving up the cost of renting --- same effect).

    Why? Because land is a static resource, and everyone needs it. Cost of food will go up to. Any static resource that people can't do without will simply increase in price if you give them all more money.

    You're trying to play an endless game. Entitle people to land and food outright, and then you run into exactly the problem I was talking about. Only so much exists, and you can't entitle people to resources you don't have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Kojax

    According to the free market concept, there is the Law of supply and demand.
    So these workers are going to invest in land when they cannot even buy cars that they need?
    You have to pay taxes on land so why should they take on that added burden?

    Nope, your argument is without merit.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    My point in the above post is: I really don't want to get into a big discussion over whether I know what I'm talking about or not.

    I'm also not trying to suggest that you don't, Bunbury.

    While a correct understanding of history is an interesting and valuable thing to have, most entitlement arguments are not based on a correct understanding of history, or at least not a very carefully studied understanding.

    A comparison of the self-entitlist's version of history with your (probably more correct) version might actually shed some light on the problem.
    I've been away for a few days hence the delayed response. My point was that your confusing the Spanish American War with the Mexican War did not inspire great confidence in your grasp of Mexican history, and by extension in the basis of your argument. That mestizo Mexicans are collectively furious at Norteamericanos is a claim that is not obviously true on its face and therefore needs to be supported with some kind of evidence. I'm not claiming any special knowledge on the subject; I just find it irritating when people spout off unsupported opinions and then expect us to debate them as if they had presented some profound new theory. But that's just me, and I'm still furious at the illegal immigrant who stole my lawnmower.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    My point in the above post is: I really don't want to get into a big discussion over whether I know what I'm talking about or not.

    I'm also not trying to suggest that you don't, Bunbury.

    While a correct understanding of history is an interesting and valuable thing to have, most entitlement arguments are not based on a correct understanding of history, or at least not a very carefully studied understanding.

    A comparison of the self-entitlist's version of history with your (probably more correct) version might actually shed some light on the problem.
    I've been away for a few days hence the delayed response. My point was that your confusing the Spanish American War with the Mexican War did not inspire great confidence in your grasp of Mexican history, and by extension in the basis of your argument. That mestizo Mexicans are collectively furious at Norteamericanos is a claim that is not obviously true on its face and therefore needs to be supported with some kind of evidence. I'm not claiming any special knowledge on the subject; I just find it irritating when people spout off unsupported opinions and then expect us to debate them as if they had presented some profound new theory. But that's just me, and I'm still furious at the illegal immigrant who stole my lawnmower.
    Misnaming a war is not the same as mistaking one war for another. I don't really bother myself to dot "i"'s or cross "t"'s, even in areas where I'm totally specialized. There are much more important things to worry about in life.

    "That mestizo Mexicans are collectively furious at Norteamericanos is a claim that is not obviously true on its face "

    Actually.... yes.... it is quite obviously true on its face.

    The more elite people in Mexico will always manage to convince themselves that it's not so, but in the meantime the Federal Government lost control of Chiapas, because all those angry mestizos who don't exist and/or aren't angry showed up one day with guns and decided to assert control. If you ask their leader "Marcos", the catalyst had a lot to do with NAFTA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Kojax

    According to the free market concept, there is the Law of supply and demand.
    So these workers are going to invest in land when they cannot even buy cars that they need?
    You have to pay taxes on land so why should they take on that added burden?

    Nope, your argument is without merit.

    Cosmo
    No, they won't "invest". They'll pay rent. They'll be able to pay a higher rent than they could before, which will motivate land lords to raise rent, which will drive up the land values..... which will drain all their money again.

    Real estate is this massive sponge that just loves to eat money. Unlike cars, which increase their quantity when the price goes up, leading an equilibrium, real estate never increases in quantity, and therefore never achieves equilibrium.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Kojax

    You sure come up with some odd rebuttals.

    I came up with a post on how to do a quick fix for our economy that would not involve any welfare for the untra wealthy individuals and that was that raising the minnimum wage to $10.50 an hour would give the workers a better capability to buy the things they need like houses, cars and etc.

    At the same time, I suggested that the income tax be revised to tax the 'surplus, UNneeded stagnant' income to as high as 95% to supply the dollars that would create millions of dollars for new jobs throughout the country. This tax rate would scale down uniformally to 5% for the bottom wage earners.
    Jobs are easy to create. What is the problem here is to supply the dollars needed.

    So for the ultra rich , this high tax rate would still leave them 5% of the stagnant income for pocket money and that would be about 25 million for those at the top with incomes that are in the ONE Half billion category.

    Of course, deductions for living expenses would be allowed plus a cushion of about 2% and the added 5% at the top would NOT place a hardship on these top payers.

    The president could invite all these untra rich individuals to the Whitehouse for a seminar on how to be a loyal patriot of our country and then tell them about taxes as a duty.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Really, I guess my objection is directed at any attempt to fix the economy by giving out more money. It's too easy for it to deflect into "price in-elastic" goods, as I now understand they are called. (Goods which do not increase in quantity, regardless of how high the price gets)

    If you're going to take out huge amounts of debt, or inflate your own currency to try and stimulate an economy into action, you need to make sure that money is going into areas of the economy that are capable of expansion, rather than areas that are totally incapable of expansion.

    Minimum wage solutions involve inflation, and quite a lot of it. What happens when you raise the minimum wage to 10.50 is that all prices in your economy will uniformly raise as well. If you over tax the rich, they'll just dip into their investments to support the same lifestyle they had before, and money gets pulled out of the pool of money which entrepreneurs need to get access to in order to start up new companies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Really, I guess my objection is directed at any attempt to fix the economy by giving out more money. It's too easy for it to deflect into "price in-elastic" goods, as I now understand they are called. (Goods which do not increase in quantity, regardless of how high the price gets)

    If you're going to take out huge amounts of debt, or inflate your own currency to try and stimulate an economy into action, you need to make sure that money is going into areas of the economy that are capable of expansion, rather than areas that are totally incapable of expansion.

    Minimum wage solutions involve inflation, and quite a lot of it. What happens when you raise the minimum wage to 10.50 is that all prices in your economy will uniformly raise as well. If you over tax the rich, they'll just dip into their investments to support the same lifestyle they had before, and money gets pulled out of the pool of money which entrepreneurs need to get access to in order to start up new companies.
    What I suggested here is not inflation but redistribution of dollars to those that deserve them since the workers create the REAL wealth.
    Since there would be NO new money printed, than that is not inflation.

    This method would put those STAGNANT dollars to work rather than just accumulate in the bank accounts of the wealthy.

    After all, our Constitution mandates a representative goverment and some degree of equality. So this is just a small step in the right direction.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Huh... good point. You can't get overall inflation if no more money is printed (And with new banks expanding it... cause that can accomplish the same thing). In reality, I guess you'd accomplish almost exactly the effect that you've been trying for in so many of your posts.

    It would not be overall inflation. It would be what's called "local inflation", which is to say that the price of goods and services your average worker usually buys will go up while the price of goods and services they usually don't want to buy will go down.

    An increase in the price of a manufactured good is usually temporary, until the economy starts producing more of it in order to bring the supply up to the level of the demand (which means more people have jobs as well).

    A decrease in the price of a manufactured good works the same way. Supply goes down to match it. So, "luxury goods" would probably get manufactured less.

    The only major problem I see is that part of this local inflation might hit land/rent prices, which of course represents an area that might not have the same potential to expand. If more apartment complexes are going up, then rent problems might solve themselves (denser housing uses less land). If, on the other hand, they all want to buy places out in the country, then we're back in the same vicious circle, because the supply of "quiet places in the country side" doesn't have the same potential to grow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Huh... good point. You can't get overall inflation if no more money is printed (And with new banks expanding it... cause that can accomplish the same thing). In reality, I guess you'd accomplish almost exactly the effect that you've been trying for in so many of your posts.

    It would not be overall inflation. It would be what's called "local inflation", which is to say that the price of goods and services your average worker usually buys will go up while the price of goods and services they usually don't want to buy will go down.

    An increase in the price of a manufactured good is usually temporary, until the economy starts producing more of it in order to bring the supply up to the level of the demand (which means more people have jobs as well).

    A decrease in the price of a manufactured good works the same way. Supply goes down to match it. So, "luxury goods" would probably get manufactured less.

    The only major problem I see is that part of this local inflation might hit land/rent prices, which of course represents an area that might not have the same potential to expand. If more apartment complexes are going up, then rent problems might solve themselves (denser housing uses less land). If, on the other hand, they all want to buy places out in the country, then we're back in the same vicious circle, because the supply of "quiet places in the country side" doesn't have the same potential to grow.
    You are just speculating .

    You do not seem to understad that what I am trying to do is put all those
    STAGNANT dollars to work with no government welfare for anyone but the transfer of dollars that would create new jobs.
    Jobs are easy to create, it just needs dollars for this purpose.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I'm listing the possible outcomes. When I say "local inflation", that makes it sound bad, but it isn't. Re-distribution and "local inflation" are pretty much the same thing.

    What happens in the manufacturing sector (and this pretty much always happens), is that, if the price of a good goes up, manufacturers start producing more of it until it goes back down.

    So.... if I say that there's going to be local inflation in the manufactured goods that workers buy, that's probably not bad. The price will go up temporarily, but it will probably go back down again, and new jobs will come out of it.

    What I've been getting at the whole time, however, is that some things don't do this. If they buy gold (jewelry for the wife), or real estate, or any manufactured good that requires a scarce resource, then the price of those things will go up and stay up, and then you just have more stagnant dollars.

    I don't know which one they'll buy more of. I hope it would be manufactured goods, but "home ownership" is such an ambition for so many people, they might not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Kojax

    Do you know how many jobs are being cut because of all these budget imbalances?
    Well, these jobs have to be saved and new jobs have to be added to restore the economy to a level of normalcy.

    So my solution is practical by putting those stagnant dollars to work .

    What is your plan for restoring the economy?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    My plan for restoring the economy? Break the federal interest rate into two rates: one for non-land, non-static resource, purchases, and whole other rate for other purchases, such as factory machinery purchases, or new car purchases.

    Keep the rate for static resources fairly high, and make the rate for non-static resource purchases much lower. Likewise, if they do another economic stimulus. Only target areas of the economy that are capable of expansion.

    The basic problem with "Demand Side Economics" is that its effects make no distinction between spending that helps the economy and spending that does nothing to the economy. At least with "Supply Side Economics", the money you pump into an economy is targeted to increase production.

    However, if we modify the "Demand Side" model in the right ways, I think we can get the best of both worlds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    My plan for restoring the economy? Break the federal interest rate into two rates: one for non-land, non-static resource, purchases, and whole other rate for other purchases, such as factory machinery purchases, or new car purchases.

    Keep the rate for static resources fairly high, and make the rate for non-static resource purchases much lower. Likewise, if they do another economic stimulus. Only target areas of the economy that are capable of expansion.

    The basic problem with "Demand Side Economics" is that its effects make no distinction between spending that helps the economy and spending that does nothing to the economy. At least with "Supply Side Economics", the money you pump into an economy is targeted to increase production.

    However, if we modify the "Demand Side" model in the right ways, I think we can get the best of both worlds.
    I believe in simple solutions like SHARE THE WEALTH (StW) and TAX STAGNANT DOLLARS at the highest rate.
    At the same time, eliminate the SALES TAX that is really a consumer (buyer) tax.

    Also, increase the mass purchasing power by raising the Minimum Wage, StW, to a more respectible level.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Mine's simple too, just the reasons aren't simple.

    I screwed up above, though. I didn't mean one rate for non-land and another for things like factory machinery. I said that, but I was getting it all backwards. I meant one rate for land, and static resources, and another rate for non-land, non-static resources. Factory machinery, cars, and stuff like that are great examples of what I mean by non-land, non-static resources.

    So, my plan is just to have two rates for loans, depending on what the purchaser intends to buy. (And requiring them to declare what they intend to buy, of course.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    My plan for restoring the economy? Break the federal interest rate into two rates: one for non-land, non-static resource, purchases, and whole other rate for other purchases, such as factory machinery purchases, or new car purchases.

    Keep the rate for static resources fairly high, and make the rate for non-static resource purchases much lower. Likewise, if they do another economic stimulus. Only target areas of the economy that are capable of expansion.

    The basic problem with "Demand Side Economics" is that its effects make no distinction between spending that helps the economy and spending that does nothing to the economy. At least with "Supply Side Economics", the money you pump into an economy is targeted to increase production.

    However, if we modify the "Demand Side" model in the right ways, I think we can get the best of both worlds.
    I believe in simple solutions like SHARE THE WEALTH (StW) and TAX STAGNANT DOLLARS at the highest rate.
    At the same time, eliminate the SALES TAX that is really a consumer (buyer) tax.

    Also, increase the mass purchasing power by raising the Minimum Wage, StW, to a more respectible level.

    Cosmo
    The fallacy here is that dollars that sit in a bank account are patently static. When banks don't lend, as in the current situation, the dollars are stagnant. At the same time, this is not an isolated event, driven by one or two evil greedy rich people. It's driven by the entire free market.

    As long as it's more economically viable to leave money in a bank account doing nothing than it is to invest that money by lending it, the money will stay put. People won't invest until it's more profitable to do so than it is to stand pat.

    The reason Keynesian economics works is because in a time of recession, it's unsafe for investors to invest. That's dries up the money supply, causing deflation, which increases the incentive to keep cash, as opposed to investing it. But when government puts more money into the system by spending, it drives inflation, which encourages investors to invest.

    The reason Keynesian economics doesn't work is because the policies are controlled by morons in government, instead of smart people. Smart people will run a sustainable and justifiable budget deficit to kick start inflation to prevent the downward spiral of deflation that would otherwise cause a depression. Morons will run unsustainable budget deficits to prop up the moronic policies that caused the free market to fail in the first place, like labor unions, and other government sponsored monopolies.
    A historical figure once said something that's extremely relevant to the current dialogue. If I knew who that was, or what they said, I'd probably quote them in this signature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    The problem with Keynesian economics is when the consumers decide to buy homes with the money, or jewelry for the wife.

    Instead of inflating a market the investors could invest in, like cars or electronics manufacture, we end up inflating a market that has very little or no investment potential. The only viable investment strategy for inflation of land and gold type markets is to try and buy low and sell high or (in extreme cases) corner the market.

    You can build houses on the land before you resell it, or you can work the gold into jewelry, but that ultimately runs into a barrier once all the acreages have buildings on them. Some markets are incapable of real expansion, regardless of how much money the consumers have to spend.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The problem with Keynesian economics is when the consumers decide to buy homes with the money, or jewelry for the wife.

    Instead of inflating a market the investors could invest in, like cars or electronics manufacture, we end up inflating a market that has very little or no investment potential. The only viable investment strategy for inflation of land and gold type markets is to try and buy low and sell high or (in extreme cases) corner the market.

    You can build houses on the land before you resell it, or you can work the gold into jewelry, but that ultimately runs into a barrier once all the acreages have buildings on them. Some markets are incapable of real expansion, regardless of how much money the consumers have to spend.
    Which is why it's my opinion that the single best domestic economic policy the Obama Administration has stated (among a huge number of generally crummy ones) is the policy on investing in infrastructure. As long as it doesn't turn out to be a scam set up solely for companies like GE to jack up their profits selling infrastructure upgrades that aren't actually better than the infrastructure they're replacing, I don't have a problem building roads or bridges (or wind turbines, or solar collectors).
    A historical figure once said something that's extremely relevant to the current dialogue. If I knew who that was, or what they said, I'd probably quote them in this signature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    Morons will run unsustainable budget deficits to prop up the moronic policies that caused the free market to fail in the first place, like labor unions, and other government sponsored monopolies.
    What?
    The real tangible wealth is created by the workers.

    All capitalism does is think. So with their greedy eyes, they see all that natural wealth like the trees, minerals and any other forms of natural weath and so they hire the workers to harvest it for them.
    Brains create nothing.
    Only HANDS create.

    Back 4 or 5 decades ago when the ratio between the top earners (CEO's) and the bottom workers (Union workers) was about 40 to 0ne.
    Now that ratio is about 1000 to one. These are rough estimates but you get the idea.
    Back then, there were no billionaires. Now they number in the hundreds.

    So all that excess wealth is simply accumulated and stuffed into their bank accounts or investments that earn more dollars.
    These dollars DO NOT buy the manufactured goods that promote a prosperous economy .
    Since the workers create the real tangible weath like the buildings, bridges, roads, houses, cars and etc, than I think they should GET one half of the gross wealth that they create .

    The management that are lesser in numbers, would still get higher pay scales than the workers but the distribution would be more equitable . And the workers spend all they earnings rather than stuffing them in stagnabt accounts.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    Morons will run unsustainable budget deficits to prop up the moronic policies that caused the free market to fail in the first place, like labor unions, and other government sponsored monopolies.
    What?
    The real tangible wealth is created by the workers.

    All capitalism does is think. So with their greedy eyes, they see all that natural wealth like the trees, minerals and any other forms of natural weath and so they hire the workers to harvest it for them.
    Brains create nothing.
    Only HANDS create.
    Those hands are totally incapable of creating anything valuable if someone doesn't coordinate them, arrange for them to have the right tools, and raw materials to do work on.

    Try getting a bunch of your buddies together and building a car. Even if 5 of them are mechanical engineers, you won't have much success unless one of them brings some pretty expensive tools.

    You see, a car is only built if someone arranges for workers, tools, and raw materials to be in the same place at the same time, and that's not an easy task by anyone's estimation. There are so many risks and variables. Murphy's law rears its ugly head. But, you'd like the people who accomplish this task to go uncompensated? (Well, only compensate them the same as the workers)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Kojax

    Your solution to this final product that is the automobile, has gone through a long revolutionary process that does involve the brain.
    But, as I said, the brain does not create any REAL TANGIBLE WEALTH. By that, I mean what you see and feel'.
    You do not see or feel what goes on in the brains of people. This can only be done with a pencil and paper. So you NEED a pair of HANDS.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Cosmo, you're right that the hands are necessary. The various things we're discussing are all Co-Necessities.

    Like, for human life, you need Air, Water, Food.... and a few other things, but let's focus on those 3 for a moment. Which of the three is the most scarce? Which of the three would you pay the most money for at a supermarket?

    You see, unskilled laborers are so easy to come by that industry tends to see them as being like water or air. Smart and/or educated people are rare. Factory machinery is also rare (though we could fix that by building more of it). People who know how to get all those assets in one place: extremely rare.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chris the Bloviator
    [
    Which is why it's my opinion that the single best domestic economic policy the Obama Administration has stated (among a huge number of generally crummy ones) is the policy on investing in infrastructure. As long as it doesn't turn out to be a scam set up solely for companies like GE to jack up their profits selling infrastructure upgrades that aren't actually better than the infrastructure they're replacing, I don't have a problem building roads or bridges (or wind turbines, or solar collectors).
    I'd have to say I very much agree. Some of those jobs will be perpetual, too, because you have to do maintenance. Just so long as too much of it doesn't end up going just to pad someone's profit margins.

    I'd like to see us beef up our energy infrastructure, and connecting the internet to remote areas. (That would win conservative votes)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris the Bloviator
    Which is why it's my opinion that the single best domestic economic policy the Obama Administration has stated (among a huge number of generally crummy ones) is the policy on investing in infrastructure. As long as it doesn't turn out to be a scam set up solely for companies like GE to jack up their profits selling infrastructure upgrades that aren't actually better than the infrastructure they're replacing, I don't have a problem building roads or bridges (or wind turbines, or solar collectors).
    I'd have to say I very much agree. Some of those jobs will be perpetual, too, because you have to do maintenance. Just so long as too much of it doesn't end up going just to pad someone's profit margins.

    I'd like to see us beef up our energy infrastructure, and connecting the internet to remote areas. (That would win conservative votes)
    The wind farms in West Texas have created a ton of jobs in a region that used to be completely reliant on petroleum. Towns would spring up and vanish, depending on the price of oil. Given the fact that the wind in West Texas is never under 15 MPH in any direction, I'm surprised it wasn't thought of sooner.

    On the subject of broadband, I also couldn't agree with you more. My parents live about 20 miles outside of San Antonio by Medina Lake, and they still don't have broadband. I'm not sure if having the government mandate the expansion is necessary, since I really think most things like that should be justified by the free market, but at the same time, more broadband in rural areas will add an additional avenue for commerce to those areas, which would most likely provide a very reliable return on the investment, in terms of productivity.
    A historical figure once said something that's extremely relevant to the current dialogue. If I knew who that was, or what they said, I'd probably quote them in this signature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Kojax

    The title of this thread is entitlements.
    So our Constitution mandates entitlements from our government as
    'representation' of our freedom and needs in an orderly manner.

    It also outlaws discrimination. So why is capitalism discriminating against the
    workers? Workers are people, NOT ROBOTS.
    And another thing , I hate to have to keep saying this, but the workers create the REAL TANGIBLE WEALTH.
    So if these wealthy individuals have the privelege of using our hands, then the government should have the privelege of using their hoarded stagnant dollars that are unemployed . That way we can employ them to create NEW JOBS to stimulate the economy instead of using public dollars that are increasing our National Debt?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris the Bloviator
    On the subject of broadband, I also couldn't agree with you more. My parents live about 20 miles outside of San Antonio by Medina Lake, and they still don't have broadband. I'm not sure if having the government mandate the expansion is necessary, since I really think most things like that should be justified by the free market, but at the same time, more broadband in rural areas will add an additional avenue for commerce to those areas, which would most likely provide a very reliable return on the investment, in terms of productivity.
    Well.... the free market *would* be a better way, if our economy wasn't sick. I think, right now, connecting people who haven't had broadband before might open up commercial opportunities in other sections of the economy. -- Besides putting people to work right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Kojax

    The title of this thread is entitlements.
    So our Constitution mandates entitlements from our government as
    'representation' of our freedom and needs in an orderly manner.

    It also outlaws discrimination. So why is capitalism discriminating against the
    workers? Workers are people, NOT ROBOTS.
    Yes, but the unskilled ones are replaceable by robots. If not yet, then probably very soon.

    And another thing , I hate to have to keep saying this, but the workers create the REAL TANGIBLE WEALTH.
    So if these wealthy individuals have the privelege of using our hands, then the government should have the privelege of using their hoarded stagnant dollars that are unemployed . That way we can employ them to create NEW JOBS to stimulate the economy instead of using public dollars that are increasing our National Debt?

    Cosmo
    Without someone to coordinate them, their hands are useless in the same way as an ape's hands are useless. Most people only have the skill and intelligence necessary to do the task immediately in front of them.

    For some reason, minds capable of thinking on a much larger scale are very rare. And yet, it is those minds that are necessary in an industrial society. The people without such minds cozy up to the people who do have such minds, who will give them instruction so they can go out and do useful work. (Otherwise they would not be able to do so.)

    The people who do have such minds could make themselves a decent living even if they decided not to lead their fellow workers. So, how do you convince them to stick around and help, if you don't want to pay them very much?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Kojax

    What kind of an economy are you talking about? Just capitalists and robots?

    Most jobs are just simple jobs. You do not need a genius to dig ditches or punch
    typewriter keys.

    Again, I said that robots do NOT buy cars and houses.
    So who is going to buy your products? Only CEO's. Those workers with those easy tasks are going to buy the houses and cars.

    This is not a billionaires economy. Their accumulated dollars are unemployed.
    That is why we should put their dollars to work.
    The government can do that.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Kojax

    What kind of an economy are you talking about? Just capitalists and robots?

    Most jobs are just simple jobs. You do not need a genius to dig ditches or punch
    typewriter keys.
    When you do stuff like that as a job, those simple tasks are just parts of a larger task that someone very intelligent/educated is trying to carry out on a much larger scale. They're willing to pay you to do them because it saves them some time, so they can focus their skills/intellect on the most important aspects of that larger task.

    A factory worker may do some simple task, like screwing bolts into the headlight housings of cars as they go by on the assembly line, but a factory builder's job is nowhere near that simple. There's no question that the factory builder could do the factory worker's job on their own.

    They'd build fewer cars that way, but they could pocket the *whole* price of those fewer cars instead of dividing it up. If you want them to split up the price per car, then the number of additional cars built because of the unskilled worker's contribution would have to be proportional to that division.

    Again, I said that robots do NOT buy cars and houses.
    So who is going to buy your products? Only CEO's. Those workers with those easy tasks are going to buy the houses and cars.
    In terms of real wealth, instead of imagined wealth (money), it doesn't necessarily matter (to a rich person) if anyone buys your production. Just produce less if they're not buying as much. Rich/intelligent/educated people stay rich when the economy fails (for the most part). Only poor people suffer.

    If the factory builder decides to produce fewer cars, and fire workers, he'll find that each worker he fires brings him closer to the ideal of only producing what he could produce on his own, but getting to keep the full price (and not divide it up).

    The unfavorability of the split is what prevents this. Because the factory builder is not quite paying the workers the full value of their contribution, he doesn't like scaling back like that. If he were paying them the full value, however, then it would make no difference to him whether he fired them or not. So, basically, it's the very fact workers are not payed quite what they are worth that makes a business owner want to hire workers in the first place. Otherwise they'd run their shop alone.


    This is not a billionaires economy. Their accumulated dollars are unemployed.
    That is why we should put their dollars to work.
    The government can do that.

    Cosmo
    Dollars don't do work. They incite humans to do work. In particular they are used as incentives to direct people to work in the right ways. They're only very useful in the hands of people who know how to do useful tasks. On their own, with no intelligent guidance, they just cause us to randomly mill around.

    If you want to make the economy move forward, you should focus on doing what Chris the Bloviator is talking about. Find people useful tasks to do. Let them build something the rich people want to buy, or want to have around. Otherwise the rich people will stop wanting to make profit for themselves, and that means they'll stop wanting to hire people to help them make stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Kojax

    You have got to be kidding?

    Our economy is composed of all the people.
    The inventor, capitalist (organizer), managers, workers and the buyers.
    So all the people involved will be the consumers.
    No buyers, no business.
    So when the wealth is divided proportionately, thay are all consumers and you then have a thriving business.

    You cannot have a one person economy.

    I had problems with a hacker that kept me off the internet for a while.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Kojax

    You have got to be kidding?

    Our economy is composed of all the people.
    The inventor, capitalist (organizer), managers, workers and the buyers.
    So all the people involved will be the consumers.
    No buyers, no business.
    So when the wealth is divided proportionately, thay are all consumers and you then have a thriving business.

    You cannot have a one person economy.

    I had problems with a hacker that kept me off the internet for a while.

    Cosmo
    What society do you live in where the only people who are paid are the "capitalists"?

    Furthermore, if everyone recieves the same lifestyle regardless of their efforts, then what's to prevent everyone from pursuing the career that requires the least effort? It takes a lot of education to become a doctor or an engineer, for example, and it also costs a lot of money. If one could make the same money pushing carts at Wal Mart as they would make as a doctor, then what motivation would they have to become a doctor? Why would someone perform an inherently undesirable or dangerous job in your society?
    A historical figure once said something that's extremely relevant to the current dialogue. If I knew who that was, or what they said, I'd probably quote them in this signature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    You cannot have a one person economy.
    Actually... that's where you're wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris the Bloviator
    Furthermore, if everyone recieves the same lifestyle regardless of their efforts, then what's to prevent everyone from pursuing the career that requires the least effort? It takes a lot of education to become a doctor or an engineer, for example, and it also costs a lot of money. If one could make the same money pushing carts at Wal Mart as they would make as a doctor, then what motivation would they have to become a doctor? Why would someone perform an inherently undesirable or dangerous job in your society?
    I never said everyone should be making the same money or wages.
    But the upper faction (capitalists) are OVER paying themselves while the workers that create the real tangible wealth are grossly underpaid. Result?

    The cheap wages paid out to the workers denies them the ability to buy cars or houses.
    You see the result, reduced purchasing power contributing to bankruptcies.

    Cosmo

    My access to the internet has increased with microsofts invasion of my computer and reformatting of my XP Home OS.
    I was lucky to get on this website through a side door.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris the Bloviator
    Furthermore, if everyone recieves the same lifestyle regardless of their efforts, then what's to prevent everyone from pursuing the career that requires the least effort? It takes a lot of education to become a doctor or an engineer, for example, and it also costs a lot of money. If one could make the same money pushing carts at Wal Mart as they would make as a doctor, then what motivation would they have to become a doctor? Why would someone perform an inherently undesirable or dangerous job in your society?
    I never said everyone should be making the same money or wages.
    But the upper faction (capitalists) are OVER paying themselves while the workers that create the real tangible wealth are grossly underpaid. Result?

    The cheap wages paid out to the workers denies them the ability to buy cars or houses.
    But did their contribution to the company's productivity actually amount to a car or house worth of additional production? It's complicated trying to weigh their contribution against that unless they were actually working in the automobile manufacturing, or house building industry, but I think you get my point.

    At the end of the day, all consumption must add up to production.

    You see the result, reduced purchasing power contributing to bankruptcies.

    Cosmo

    My access to the internet has increased with microsofts invasion of my computer and reformatting of my XP Home OS.
    I was lucky to get on this website through a side door.
    Yes, but artificially created purchasing power, if it doesn't map back to a genuine core reality, would only cause the bubble to grow larger before it burst. And then the burst would be even more devastating than it already is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Misnaming a war is not the same as mistaking one war for another. I don't really bother myself to dot "i"'s or cross "t"'s, even in areas where I'm totally specialized. There are much more important things to worry about in life.
    I just saw this. Doubtless there are much more important things to worry about in life. However, on a science forum, in a reasoned debate, there is almost nothing as important as accuracy in ones claims. To be sloppy in those is to be dismissive of other members and casual readers. It is arrogant and insulting behaviour.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    That's fair. And reading back, I hadn't realized that I'd actually said "Spanish American", because he is right that there was a separate war fought between the USA and Spain directly, which had no effect on the boundaries between the USA and Mexico. I wasn't confusing them, however. I know which one is which, and I should have been more apologetic.

    Mind you: The entire intent of his post was to dismiss me, so if I responded dismissively in return, that's actually fair play.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    139
    Cosmo,

    If the government mandates higher wages, then prices will go up because shop keepers will have to make up the difference in the wages somewhere. If simultaneously, business taxes were to take a major decrease, then no change would need to occur. People will not take a lesser margin that will jeopardize their way of life. I used to manage a small restaurant, let me give you a little look at the books I had to balance: (Not 100% complete, this was quite a while ago, and my memory sucks.)

    The major bills were:

    Payroll
    Mortgage
    Insurance
    Lawyer
    Food Purchase
    Cleaning Supplies
    Preparation machinery (one time buys mostly)
    Sales equipment (one time buys)
    Computers (4 one time buys)
    Server
    Utility bills- Electric, Water, Gas, Heat, Pest control, trash, phone

    In addition there were taxes to pay:

    Payroll
    Sales
    Delivery
    Utility -- all were added to the bills, but I'm listing anyway
    Medicare
    Land
    Income
    Incorporation Taxes (vary by state)
    (I'm drawing a blank but there were at least 3 more.)

    Owner had to pay self employment tax on top of it.

    What it all amounts to, is that this is a small list of the costs of running a small business. Most normal employees couldn't handle balancing all of this and still turning a profit. Hell, the owner was the guy that balanced all of this, I just checked his math, and he'd end up taking away 20% of the net profit for his own payment. The rest was reinvested in his employees, equipment, and general business needs. He did not make a large amount of money. He still lives in the same house his mother bought and left to him, on which he needed to pay the estate tax, inheritance tax, and now land tax on.

    My point, is that there are good people that work an honest job for decent pay, and there are great people that worry, fret, and don't sleep at night to keep those people in a job. The added stress and risk is what makes these people deserve a better wage than their workers. When it comes to smaller businesses, the owners also have a major financial stake in their business because they likely had to personally guarantee the rent or some other contract. This makes them liable for any failure to pay, and the person owning that debt can choose to collect by taking their house or car, etc.

    If you want pay to increase, and mandate it via law, then the price of goods will increase proportionally so those small business owners can survive. When those business owners increase, the larger corporations will see an ability to increase and still give comparable or better prices.

    Also, don't think the large companies are without risk. I recently got laid off by a very large computer/hand-held company. Before we went on the public market, the CEO (yes, I know him personally) was constantly worrying about how to balance the budget while getting enough engineers to design new products, as well as producing those products, and testing them. After we went public, there was added pressure from investors, he had to turn a higher profit, he had to get higher stock prices, and most importantly, he had to maintain a balance in the savings account, or they'd bitch. I remember talking to him some days after one or two of our meetings, he was always worried about losing his job because the market wasn't being as receptive as he thought it was. The stock price was fluctuating with a downward trend. Then we lost a giant buyer, our stock lost 75% of it's value. The SEC hired lawyers to investigate him, and make sure it was a natural plummet, not something he manufactured. He was certain he was going to be canned. Somehow, he survived it. That's where my story with the company ends, I was part of the layoffs needed so that the company could survive this horrible economic time.

    Finally, redistribution of wealth can't work because people are greedy. Those getting the money would only want more, and those losing the money would either want to find a way to make it back by going to another country, or some other less oppressive place, or give up and do little to nothing since they'd also be getting the same wage. When there is no incentive because you're getting paid the exact same as anybody else, there is no reason to do your best and put in more effort than the guy that sits around all day playing games and ignoring his job.
    --
    -M

    "Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of Pennsilvanya, 1759
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Well said, alienmindsinc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Alien

    So, I never said the employees should get the same wages or income as the management.
    And I do not criticize the small businesses.

    What I am criticising is the 'runaway' capitalists that cry about taxes, environment issues while bribing the politicians for special priveleges.
    Also, the huge disparity between the incomes of the CEO's and the workers.

    There were no billionaires about 4-5 decades ago. Today , there are hundreds of billionaires in our country.

    So result? Economic collapse.
    Those hoarded dollars at the top are not being spent but just piling up and acumulating as stagnant unemployed dollars.

    Cosmo



    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Alien

    So, I never said the employees should get the same wages or income as the management.
    And I do not criticize the small businesses.

    What I am criticising is the 'runaway' capitalists that cry about taxes, environment issues while bribing the politicians for special priveleges.
    Also, the huge disparity between the incomes of the CEO's and the workers.
    I think I can agree that we've reached a point where there are too many ways to use money to make money, which hurt the economy instead of helping it. If you pay 10 million dollars to a lobbyist to secure say... a really big prison construction project for you (and buy the politicians overseeing the contract), and then by cutting corners and/or overcharging the government, you're able to make 80 million off of the contract, you might consider that 10 million to be well spent.

    The goal of correctly applied capitalism is to ensure that it's not possible to make money except by contributing positively to the economy as a whole. We're starting to fail at that, I think.


    There were no billionaires about 4-5 decades ago. Today , there are hundreds of billionaires in our country.
    Well, 4-5 decades ago there wasn't enough inflation yet for anyone to become a billionaire. Remember the Beverly Hill Billies TV series? They had something like maybe 23 million dollars on that show, and it was enough to justify buying whatever crazy thing the writers wanted to give them. Nowadays, you'd have to be a billionaire to afford that.

    So result? Economic collapse.
    Those hoarded dollars at the top are not being spent but just piling up and acumulating as stagnant unemployed dollars.

    Cosmo
    How are they hoarded, though? If you have money and you don't reinvest it, you lose it gradually to inflation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Kojax

    Rather than discussing economics here, we should be dicussing 'Political Reform".

    We have to transform our government back to the Constitutional mandate of a Peoples Democracy as defined in the Greek Root 'people power'.
    What we have now is a 'dollar' republic' as defined in the Latin root, 'WEALTH + public'..
    That capitalized word is as the dictionary spells it.

    The Public Financing of Our Elections is the solution.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •