roachboy

so in your imaginary world---which is all you ever talk about----i am not Authentic enough, not enough of a Man of the People---to understand the Wisdom of Milton Freidman.

i think this is close to degree zero of idiotic.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

You have to admit, though, that this imaginary world is pretty cool. At the Milton Friedman School for Conjurers of Wealth, wizards of the monetary stripes will act for the benevolence of the universe, magically creating wealth so that one day—one day—none of us will have to work another day, because we'll all be independently wealthy.

I should train to become a wizard, not unlike Harry Potter. I bet you I could conjure me some serious wealth.

*raises wand to the air* "Riddikulus!"

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

Let me put it this way, you understanding Friedman economics from me is like you being a John Phillip Sousa man and me explaining Charlie Parker to you. In the context of the language that we share, you will never see nor accept the reason and structure in the genius of Friedman. You always get lost in what is trivial.

---------- Post added at 10:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 PM ----------

I still don't understand why you fail to acknowledge some of the most basic concepts in economics. Is it really a fantasy to accept that real economic growth comes from real wealth creation? Is it really a fantasy to want capital allocated in a manner that derives the best returns for a society? Perhaps the fantasy is yours as you seem to always put your faith and trust in a few selected political leaders.

---------- Post added at 10:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 PM ----------

Thank you.
I think you missed the important connection with leveraged wealth creation. This simplest way for me to see it is to think of a farmer. If a farmer normally produces X, but with $10,000 additional dollars, he produces X+Y we have to look at Y in the context of the $10,000. Y did not exist until the $10,000 was invested. What does Y do? Let's first assume the Farmer earns a good profit on the $10,000 from the sale of Y, just to pick a number if that profit is $5,000 (I know there are implied assumptions, i.e. a demand or need for Y, etc.). That profit might be used for further profitable re-investment meeting market demands. The $5,000 is recirculated in society, assuming re-investment, consumption or even savings in a bank that loans money to others. Society may benefit from more food resources, possibly lowering prices or lessening the need for more costly alternatives. New uses may arise out of more availability of the crop, i.e. think about the history peanut. Etc. Etc. Again, real wealth creation is a real benefit to society. And the question is, what is the best use of the initial $10,000 and who determines that?

I agree, but that is not my argument. My argument is in the context of efficiently allocating capital. I agree that in some regards public spending is going to be more efficient or productive than private spending. However in our current circumstance I think we are well beyond government spending the capital they get more efficiently than the private sector would. I do not support any additional taxation of the private sector by government.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

The irony here is painful. My comments are in response to your myopic view of economics.

No.

No.

False.

The problem, ace, is that you credit holders and users of capital solely for "real wealth creation" whilst making the astounding and staggering error of assuming that by simply being a holder and user of capital that you can create wealth. Wealth cannot create more wealth on its own. If you shoot a million dollars to the moon, 100 years later it will still be a million dollars.

You conveniently leave an integral part out of the equation and seem to assign a kind of mythology to entrepreneurs, as though they are the patron saints of wealth and dole it out by their good graces.

It's not difficult. Wealth is created not by capital alone. Capital is applied to things such as labour and land, which, in turn, create the wealth.

It's Economics 101.

I'd take you more seriously if you'd demonstrate a sounder understanding of basic economics. I assume you do have a grasp on basic economics, so it makes me think that you simply choose to undermine the value of labour. From a business perspective, labour has a price and productivity value, sure, but from a social and political perspective there are other factors to labour.

For example, if those who make up the labour pool have instability financially, socially, politically, or biologically, it presents widespread problems. These problems are often downplayed if not overlooked in business. The more forward-thinking companies don't, but most do.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

You confuse me? Are you saying that Edison in general and specifically the commercialization of electric light was not a major change in living standards in the world? Was this not a major and measurable incremental step in the creation of wealth in the world?

There is real data regarding the costs and results of various education systems both public, private in the US and in other nations. some systems are clearly more efficient than others. If a system is inefficient, that condition may be true and have absolutely nothing to do with needing more money. My point is that simple. In my view, it seems so obviously true, I don't understand why there is a need to state it. Yet, here and in this country just asking the question regarding a school system improving through being more efficient without additional money comes across as if one is asking for the impossible. Or, it you ask the question, you are a mean person who doesn't like the "children!"

Do some of your own homework and find-out.

---------- Post added at 11:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 PM ----------

Can you be specific. I agree that I have some "myopic" views, including some on economics, but they all are not - and when I have a "myopic" view I will admit it. anyone who reads what I write can clearly see that I fully believe that there is a role for government and that government can do some things more efficiently than the private sector.



I have never stated that, nor implied it.

Again, I specifically say something like - there is a difference between wealth creators and those who get wealthy... - I emphasize that there are those who create real wealth...Etc, and in return you state "Wealth cannot create more wealth on its own" - well I don't even know what you wrote means! so perhaps your statement is correct, but it is not responsive to anything I have written here.

I am being "myopic" when I say to me entrepreneurs are the patron saints of wealth creation. The truth is, people other than entrepreneurs can and do create wealth and history has many examples of that. for example in another post I mentioned the peanut. George Washington Carver, was an educator who developed scores of new uses for the peanut, as a result of his work wealth was created.

Secondly, entrepreneurs, don't do what they do out of "good graces", they do it for a profit. the motive for profit has been a net good for the human race. I understand that reasonable people can disagree on that.


You don't need to take me seriously. If you don't like my style, examples, questions or whatever, who cares? It is the economic theory behind my posts that matters. If I distract you from that, it seems to me, as they say, its a you problem, not a me problem.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Willravel

Mein Deutsch ist nicht besonders gut, but I have to say that the idea of owning and operating a business in Munich or Dresden has serious appeal. Germany's stable economy and friendly business environment, along with superior social programs, make me even more frustrated working in the United States. Sure, I pay lower taxes here, but taxes aren't the end-all be-all of life, and it seems like there are massive hidden costs to our lower-tax system, including emerging oligarchy and the slow death of our economy at the hands of investment bubbles.

Baraka_Guru

I'm not saying that. I'm pointing out to you, again, that the wealth has to come from somewhere. Did you know that Johannes Gutenberg went bankrupt despite inventing the printing press? However, over 500 years later, I sit here five days a week working in the book publishing industry. I help create "real wealth" by offering my editorial and marketing expertise. And the Ontario government understands this, as with every $1 they invest in the Ontario industry, over $10 in local economic activity is generated. I'm proud to be a part of that wealth creation.

I don't understand the issues of education in the U.S., but I'm inclined to believe it's a far-reaching issue that involves both problems of efficiency and lack of funding. It's probably also based on a wider problem of poverty.

Or you could just tell me. I'm not doing any work without earning credits.

You removed one side of the equation with regard to wealth creation. You need more than just capital and a good idea to create wealth. Will you discuss the other side of the equation sometime?

You have implied it by omission, and more than once in more than one thread.

The confusion I think lies in what you state as the factors that create wealth.

How was the wealth created?

This is beside the point.

I'll admit to a problem. I admit that I have a problem understanding your economic theory. You have yet to demonstrate a rudimentary understanding of how wealth is created.

Do you know how wealth is created?

Let's start with the definition of "real wealth creation" and how it differs from other forms of wealth creation.

---------- Post added at 08:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 PM ----------

Canada is a good stepping stone to Europe. Try us; you'll love it.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

You've done me the kindness of speaking my language. How can I refuse that kind of warm, syrupy hospitality?

dc_dux

Why do I get the sense that the economic theory of Milton Friedman is the divine word in ace world and that any other economic theory is unacceptable or even subject to discussion.

Does that devotion to Friedman approach cult status?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

roachboy

but despite the lack of grasp of basic critical thinking skills and information, ace nonetheless equates himself with charlie parker.
except without the skill or interest or intelligence or charisma.
maybe it's the heroin habit that they have in common.
or the same kind of hats.
hard to say.

all that's sure is that here we are 50 posts into a thread about germany and ace has managed to turn it into yet another non-debate about his cognitive limitations on the one hand and abjection on the other. ace is talking about himself and his loopy interpretations of milton freidman, super genius. it is beyond tiresome. seriously.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

Well, it's a non-starter if ace can't accept or acknowledge a fundamental and rudimentary fact of macroeconomic theory.

He's entitled to his opinions, but when he gets called out on such an error of omission, it's impossible for it to be a case of, "Well, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree."

Facts are tricky that way.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

Just fyi, you don't have to respond to him.

Baraka_Guru

Heh, I know. Maybe it's just that I want him to be a part of the conversation. Maybe it's just that I'm a glutton for punishment.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

well, you know that if time magazine is taking notice of the flight into abstract dissociation on the right

How Today's Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality - TIME

then it's pretty much obvious to everyone.
because that's how they roll there.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

Yeah, I suppose this indicates an unfortunate entrenchment.

At least there are beacons of hope, perhaps not unlike people such as Deirdre McCloskey.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

there's several things that are maybe interesting.

first is that even the lamest instruments of the mainstream corporate press in the united states are coming out against this dissociative version of what once was neo-liberal orthodoxy.

second is that the transposition into metaphysics that we see performed at great tiresome length by comrade ace here seems mostly an identity politics move. it's as if in this post united-citizens political climate, the right has opted for straight machine politics. so the metaphysics are about drawing a line around the in-group. the ideology seems to operate as a continuous generator of a sense of crisis (because without total reactionary control, things do not operate along a logic that is comprehensible) and the media-space the right can live in simply reinforces that sense.

if that's the case, then it would follow that the idea is simply to be able to mobilize bodies around a largely negative space, politically speaking. you see this reflected in the manner in which the right is conducting itself in congress.

and for way way too long this dissociative horseshit that's at the core of what contemporary conservatism is has been treated as if it represented a coherent alternative to something.

this sits inside the still-larger problem of 40=odd years of neo-liberal hegemony in a centralized corporate media environment (particularly over the past 15 or so) that has almost uniformly assimilated neo-liberal doctrine into the baseline assumptions that are used to process infotainment.

the problem with that is simply that it makes anything beyond tactical quibbles about applications of an economic policy logic (which leans on a broader ideological worldview) almost impossible.

and that's what we're seeing in the u.s. of a. today.

it's a central feature of the collapse of empire, one of the major space in which you can see what i think is a characteristic inability to confront reality that accompanies the slide away from hegemony of a (once-)hegemonic power.

in this, ace is little more than an annoying symptomatic actor, one who is doing what he's told as he's told when he's told but is able to convince himself, using his charlie parker-like skillz in the one area i suspect they exist, that the whole thing is his idea.

but whatever.

the persistence of neo-liberalism as anything remotely like a viable frame in other contexts that are less corporate-authoritarian in terms of media model is difficult to explain, except to the extent that it's also become an institutional lingua franca. if that's the case, what we're seeing is the inability of those heroic institutional actors in both private and public spheres to deal with crisis, particularly of a type that requires a basic political shift to address.

and that's where we collectively are.

so there's reasons to be a little maybe optimistic that a socio-economic group representing wealthy interests in germany can at least assess the situation that confronts germany (and the eu) and propose **something** that can be done to ameliorate some aspects of the consequences of neo-liberalism itself that strays outside the tedious, stupid orthodoxy that in the main explains the crisis in the first place.

not much like that happening in the united states, where you get the ideological worldview you pay for.

and in this post citizens united situation, the people who bankroll contemporary neo-fascism have a LOT of money to spend.


aside: if you want to see just how entrenched this neo-liberal lunacy is, take a look at the reports just emerging about the "deal" struck by the european union and imf to "rescue" greece---assuming that exactly the nutty "austerity" measure that have caused the general strike there get passed:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d2702...#axzz1PSk4jDbb

this is what ideological paralysis looks like.


a little background on the greek situation, fyi:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...tions-answered

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

When I talk about "real wealth creation", I am specifically referring to a process that results in a bigger "pie" as opposed to those who create personal wealth by taking a bigger slice of the "pie" at the expense of others.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

filtherton

Financial wealth is created via consumption. Current economic problems are rooted in a lack of consumption, not a lack of unallocated capital. The wealthy are having a rough go of it because non-wealthy folks can't afford to consume enough to justify more investment.

aceventura3

Interesting.

Over the past few days I have been studying some of the works of Fredric Nietzche (he was been interpreted incorrectly in many instances and in one circumstance in particular that is of no relevance here), and in one area I found myself in strong agreement, was when he talked about the two distinct branches of human thought and behavior. He pretty much explained why DC (along with others here) and I will never agree on any broad based political or economic issues.

It is clear from my avatar and the quotes in my sig, what my point of view stems from. People of a different ilk ascribe inappropriate meanings to my thoughts, desires and behaviors.

For people who can get beyond some of the obvious problems with Nietzche, give him a read.

---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:15 PM ----------

I am pretty sure I was not comparing myself to Charlie Parker. Re-read what was written and you will find I was making the point of trying to explain Charlie Parker.

---------- Post added at 07:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:18 PM ----------

I am entrench in my point of view, are you entrenched in yours? I am willing to let my point of views be challenged, are you? I try to explain what I am entrenched in and why, do you? Is being entrenched an inherent bad thing in your mind?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

More broadly, wealth creation is based on the consumption of goods and services, which are created by a combination of capital and labour.

What ace is referring to, I think, is economic expansion. But economic expansion isn't possible without basic wealth creation through the application of capital and labour.

Again, there is a distinction between some guy with an idea and being able to apply it. Applying ideas, inventions, new technologies require capital and labour.

This "real wealth creation" isn't created out of nothing. It's created out of resources and labour.

This is basic stuff. So if we can move beyond that, ace, what is your position beyond "taxes are bad" and "if rich people want all rich people to pay more, then they should just write cheques to the government instead"? Is there anything beyond that?

---------- Post added at 03:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:21 PM ----------

Are these rhetorical questions? If not, you might want to be more directed with them. My points of view are subject to change.

Whether entrenchment is a bad thing depends on what is entrenched and the factors associated with it.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

This is incorrect. In short order i can think of so many examples, but I assume none will change your view on this. Perhaps, the key point is that "financial wealth" is a concept with no real meaning - what is real is the measurement of true living standards.

Look at this:

U.S. Companies Sitting On $2 Trillion In Liquid Assets : NPR

When business puts this money to work through investing in the future the recession will end. The best thing government can do is to reduce uncertainty in the market.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

Now you have me curious. What methods of wealth creation do you know that don't require consumption?

---------- Post added at 03:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------

This will likely include stabilizing the lower and middle classes. I think this is the point established in the OP.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

There are circumstances where capital stays the same, labor stays the same, but wealth gets created. A person can come up with a better, more efficient way to do something, creating real wealth, making the "pie" bigger. The result is capital can be redirected or employed more efficiently. The result is labor can be redirected or employed more efficiently.

Certainly as a result of real wealth creation there is increased consumption.

Are we disagreeing on what comes first?

Do you argue that increased consumption leads to real wealth creation?

If it is so basic, clearly state what your view is, rather than telling me I am wrong.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

in what is no doubt a dionysian frenzy of abject subordination of neo-liberal orthodoxy, ace will no doubt argue that wealth is sui generis, a magic outcome of the pure movement of capital like worms spring from cheese.


ace reads nietzsche. this should be funny.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

What you are talking about here is the reallocation of capital or capital expenditures. It also includes adjustments made to labour practices (training, etc.). Anything that increases efficiency or productivity does indeed lead to greater wealth creation, but the fact remains: wealth is created via capital and labour.

I don't know what you're getting at here. I'm not sure this is necessarily true.

I don't know. I'm simply arguing for the fact of what factors are required to create wealth.

It can. There is a wealth of information that suggests this. Though, I think I'm still getting hung up on your use of the word real. Are you talking about economic expansion or increased efficiency or increased production capacity? It's a bit confusing. You should consider using other terminology. Normally, in economic parlance, real has a different meaning from what you're using it for. (I'm referring to the term differentials real vs nominal as an example.)

It isn't my view; it's a fact.

Wealth is created by the allocation of resources. In general, it is the use of capital and labour to generate a product or service for consumption. If a profit is made, wealth happens.

Any questions?

I suppose the risk of trying to be clear and concise means that it's oversimplified, but that's basically how it works.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

I assume what is meant by consumption is consumer driven demand creating wealth. On an individual level, planting a garden and canning the surplus can create wealth. And again, it can allow for resources to be allocated in other ways improving an individual's standard of living. Multiply that by the people in a community and you can get larger macro-economic results. The yield from a garden can be a function of rain and not a function of labor or capital.

My point is and has been to free those who have the ability to create real wealth and let them do it. Government rarely has the ability to create real wealth directly, governments tend to re-distribute wealth once beyond government doing what it is most efficient at doing..

---------- Post added at 07:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 PM ----------

When do you tell us what you believe? Or, as Nietzsche might say, your religion is one that says that the strong are strong only at the expense of the weak.

Note: I am not saying I am Nietzsche.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

The garden isn't going to plant itself, nor will it irrigate itself if there isn't enough rain, nor will it take care of its own pests beyond its existing evolutionary mechanisms, nor will it harvest itself, nor will it store the harvest adequately to prolong its shelf life. This requires labour. Though, as far as those tomato plants are concerned, it's not like they require some guy to sit beside them and turn a crank to get them to grow. So it's a bit from column A and a bit from column B: the creation of this wealth is dependent on land and labour.

And....

Unless the garden magically was already there, it likely required capital expenditures to make it happen.

And....

Are these tomatoes going to be let to rot, or is someone planning on consuming them?

Here's a cheat sheet for you, ace:

And this is where you lose me. You want to free whom from what, exactly? What the fuck does real mean anyway? Are you talking about the kind of thing that went down during the time of the robber barons?

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:03 PM ----------

Oh, I wouldn't go that far. I just wish he'd be more upfront about things. It would be much easier if he'd just come out and say, "Since I'm a libertarian, I think taxing beyond military and infrastructure is a waste of taxpayers' money. These Germans are making a mistake. They should eliminate all these social programs, drop the tax rate to the minimum required to fund the aforementioned items, and then stand back and let the country prosper. Only then will they see real wealth creation."

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

That's what I took him as posting, or at least suggesting.

filtherton

Don't get all metaphysical on me here. Financial wealth has meaning. Though when I said it, I mean something other than its common meaning. I mean it as wealth that can be monetized. My family is an example of wealth that can't be monetized. "Financial wealth" actually means something else, but my point is valid for either meaning.

My point being that you can have all the wealth in the world, but unless you have someone who is willing to give you something of value for that wealth, it isn't actually worth anything in the wider economy. You can build neighborhoods' worth of houses, but if no one can afford to buy them, they're worthless. They're less than worthless.


Why aren't they investing, Ace? I'll tell you: they aren't investing because there isn't demand. There isn't demand because the middle class can't afford or isn't willing to buy things as much as they used to. Because people aren't sure they're going to have a job in a year. So unless you would like the government to reduce uncertainty in the job market, you're wrong about what the government should be doing.

The fact that these companies have all this fucking money and aren't doing a damn thing with it is pretty solid evidence that supply side theories are bullshit.

Baraka_Guru

Well, at least we know that taxes aren't really the problem.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

of course supply side is bullshit. it's been bullshit from the outset.
milty freidman's theories of magickal wealth creation are nonsense.
and they aren't relevant to this thread.

the problem that's unfolding in the eu across the greek crisis---which is connected to the move in germany that the thread is actually about---is in significant measure a *political* crisis to do with the collapsing status of neo-liberal ideology. functionaries of the new class war cannot expect words like "necessary cuts" in the name of some imaginary "fiscal responsibility" to hold. the imf is the quintessential neo-liberal organization. it's primary function has been to generate socio-economic crisis in the southern hemisphere since the 1970s in the interest of softening up space for the expansion of neo-colonial economic relations---you know, what we in the metropole call "globalization"---the idea that the imf has suddenly reverted to its bretton woods function (and somehow jettisoned an entire staff of expert engineers of crisis) is laughable. at the same time, that there is no overarching governor (in the motor sense) that is able to act meaningfully to address structural problems is worrying. that's what we're watching happen.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

Do you do this on purpose? Wasn't I clear enough when I said that in some circumstances the labor input can be constant, the capital input constant, but that real wealth can be created. Never did I say it could happen without labor or capital. And, note the example was in direct response to a point you made, to take my point out of context seems a bit wrong to me for anyone wanting a serious discussion. But, I guess you have already made it clear that these things are so simple that they are not worthy of serious discussion - and some wonder why severe unemployment persists in the US.

---------- Post added at 03:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:05 PM ----------

Monetized wealth or however you state it, is meaningless. The financial crisis is a perfect example illustrating how wealth measured in fiat currency can change in an instant. One day a guy has millions of dollars of wealth in real estate and the next day it is zero or negative.

I think that view is too narrow.

They are not investing because of excessive and unknown risks due to political uncertainty. For people who invest capital it mostly boils down to math. Eliminate uncertainty, reduce risk and the results from the equations change, making it attractive to invest.

Give an example of when demand drives real wealth creation. The printing press was mentioned in this thread. At the time there was no demand for books. when the record player was invented, there was no demand for records. When the PC was invented there was no demand for PC's. When Facebook started there was no demand for Facebook!

---------- Post added at 03:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 PM ----------

Raising taxes won't solve Greece's problems.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

No.

No. My response was to your suggestion that wealth creation can occur without consumption being a part of the equation. You statement on constants occurred otherwise in another context. For the record, I agree that if capital input and labour input are constant that real revenue increases can be made with efficiency or production improvements. But that wasn't the point here. Or was it? I'm not sure what your point is.

I think your point is that efficiency or productivity improvement can increase revenues and/or reduce expenses, which can lead to increased profits. This is true. But what's the point and what does it have to do with this thread?

Don't make insinuations about me based on my confusion that arises out of your own lack of cogency. It makes you look bad.

If you haven't noticed, I'm trying to have a serious discussion. I'm trying really hard to know what your arguments are. Will you work with me here?

---------- Post added at 11:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 AM ----------

1. I wasn't referring to Greece. (Where did that come from? Did you mean Germany?)
2. Lowering taxes won't solve Greece's problems either.
3. Greece's problems aren't a tax problem.
4. No single factor is fully attributable to Greece's problems.
5. I would appreciate it if you would stay focused.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

You consistently describe what you see as the problem, but never offer a specific thought on any solutions. What are you saying, end neo-liberal policy and replace it with what? And if you ever take the time to understand what I write you would know my view is the murky middle or hybrid systems and solutions are generally the most problematic, but that no one system or ideology is perfect.

---------- Post added at 03:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:25 PM ----------

A single person stranded on an island can have what I consider "wealth". This person's wealth can be increased without consumption. I measure wealth by living standards, not by a measurement of fiat money. With that as a basis, extending the concepts to communities, nations and the world the same principles apply.

I thought I also made clear that real wealth creation can certainly lead to increased consumption, but that the real wealth creation occurs first. Do you insist on taking the position that consumption or demand drives real wealth creation? If so, give examples in history when this has been true.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Baraka_Guru

I know this was addressed to roachboy, but this is something that we can discuss because it's clear what your position is and there is no factual problems with your statement.

However, I think your view is difficult to accept. Are you saying that either communism or laissez-faire is less problematic than established, long-term, stable, mixed economies? Would you suggest it's less problematic to have a command economy vs. a system that incorporates social spending programs amongst market economy elements? You would suggest that the days of the robber barons were less problematic than today? Should Canada, for example, move away from its problematic mixed economic system and move towards the business-oriented nanny-state (albeit otherwise largely unregulated) model adopted by 19th century America?

I know you have extreme positions when it comes to economics. However, I fail to see why a place like Canada should adopt an extreme position such as yours.

Any problem that arises anyplace, whether it be the U.S., Germany, or Greece, isn't likely a problem with mixed economies themselves. I doubt the core problem is that these economies aren't laissez-faire. I doubt the core problem is that these economies aren't command economies. I surely don't want to see any real-life experiments conducted to find out. There are too many real-life failures and indications to look back on to already know.

---------- Post added at 11:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 AM ----------

Partaking in increased living standards is considered consumption, ace. Otherwise, it's merely kept "in inventory" and no one's living standards increase.

If "real wealth creation" = "increased profits via increased efficiency or productivity vis-à-vis the application of new technologies whether product-, service-, or idea-based," then yes.

History is replete with examples.

In order to make use of new technologies to increase profits, you must consume them. Otherwise you don't use them.

ace, if you don't consume something, you don't benefit from it. You can't get something from nothing.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

first, a little history of the libertarian blight:

Robert Nozick, father of libertarianism: Even he gave up on the movement he inspired. - By Stephen Metcalf - Slate Magazine

The Liberty Scam.

it's interesting, kind of horrifying read. it is good to know whence comes such incoherence.

here's another:

The Greek protests are not just about the economic crisis | Aditya Chakrabortty | Comment is free | The Guardian

which outlines some of the delightful politics circulating amongst greek fascists in a time of crisis, politics that resemble more than a little mainstream american conservatism.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

The interesting thing is that when you think of all the factors of liberty and freedom, the U.S. isn't necessarily the freest nation in the world.

I remember coming across the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal's Index of Economic Freedom a while back and seeing that the U.S. indeed wasn't the freest. (I assume they stumble a bit on labour freedom, for one.)

Though I find the statistical measurement and indexing of freedom to be a bit odd.

This does, however, point out what doesn't sit right with me regarding the libertarian philosophy. It assumes that no regulation or lax regulation automatically means more liberty. We know this to be demonstrably false. Unless, of course, you mean more liberty for those who are wealthy.

There are other aspects of the philosophy that don't sit right as well, but that's one of the relevant ones here.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

Ah, you saw that, too? I almost started a thread on John Rawls after reading it, about the veil of ignorance and whether or not our talents are morally intrinsic to us.

It was a great article.

filtherton

It isn't just a problem with fiat currency. Tying currency to a finite resource effectively places a cap on the amount of wealth a currency can represent. Shit, even if we're talking a barter-based economy - having something of value to trade with no demand is functionally equivalent to having nothing at all. Illiquid assets are pretty much worthless for anything but prettying up a balance sheet.

That's economics for you.

You're right that capital investors are driven by math. One reason these folks haven't invested in more jobs is because they've done the math and demand isn't there to justify hiring more people to produce more produce. All this nonsense about political uncertainty is bullshit. Political uncertainty always exists.

Right, and if after the printing press was created there continued to be no demand for books, then we wouldn't be talking about printing presses. If after the record player was invented there continued to be no demand for record players, then we wouldn't be talking about record players. If after PCs were invented there continued to be no demand for PCs, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. You get the point. In each instance, it wasn't the creation of a new product that instantiated wealth, it was the demand for that product, along with an adequate market to allow for the exchange of that product for money.

In terms of real value, ie, worth in terms of sandwiches and rent, a brilliant idea is worthless if no one wants it and if you can't convince people to pay for it. Hence, demand.

Baraka_Guru

This is along the lines of the thought that popped up in my head this afternoon.

A brilliant idea that never generates any demand isn't merely worthless; it's considered a failure.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot