Asher Edelman (Real-Life Gordon Gekko) says Bernie Sanders is the best candidate (of the 2016 USA presidential race) for the Economy. He justifies that statement on the basis that Bernie Sanders is coming up with the best policy to reverse the shrinking velocity of money that is due to the continuous transfer of wealth to the top 1%. At the 2m45s of this video: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9xSVzdUNqo[/youtube]
In your own words explain how Bernie Sanders' policies will increase the productivity of American workers. Bet you can't.
Those are not my words and Asher didn't talk about productivity. Moreover, I don't understand how the problem of the USA Economy is about productivity. I bet if we ask american companies where's their biggest challenge, production or sales, the vast majority of them will tell the latter. Anyway, do you have any critic to make about Asher's statements?
Ignoring whether Edelman's stats are in fact correct, he says: Edelman: "the top 1% spend 5% of what they earn". So the other 95% is saved - this saved money is used to support investments in capital goods used to increase productivity, or it is hoarded (very unlikely). Edelman: "the lower end of the economy spend 100% or 110% of what they earn." They spend everything they earn or they spend more than what they earn!!!! They have no savings that can be used to enhance their own wealth and in fact, destroy their own economic wellbeing by spending more than what they earn and as a result, place themselves at the mercy of others for their future wellbeing. Now in what weird turtled up world is it good for people to spend all of their earnings and more?
Or it is used to enlarge profits via financial investments on bonds or stocks (not the real economy), which in turn the companies may very well not use it in capital investment but in financial reserves or to enlarge the management salaries. Your notion that barely all saved money is used on investments in capital goods is too romantic. The journalist question was not who is the best candidate for the people. You are once again dodging the topic (like when you talked about productivity). Regardless, neither Bernie Sanders nor Asher Edelman claim it's good to spend more than you earn. They claim that only strengthening the middle class you can reverse the shrinking velocity of money, make companies to sell more and employ more people. Stacking all the wealth on the top 1% has solved nothing. By your logic, we should be having tremendous amounts of investment in capital goods and tremendous increases in productivity, but we aren't.
I didn't avoid productivity at all, if you had any understanding of the function of productivity in the creation of wealth you wouldn't even need to pose the statement that industry would be more interested in sales than productivity. Edelman is arguing that the banks need to increase the amount of loans to middle class Americans in order to increase spending in order to grow the consumer base blah blah blah blah ie buy more shit we don't need with money we don't have. We should be - but we're not, because rather than deferring spending for another day and focusing on saving and investing in capital goods to increase productivity, we have policies that are directed to encouraging us and businesses to borrow more than we have the capacity to repay ain order to spend our way to prosperity. This fiscal stimulus is not working and it never will. Edited to get rid of some of the side tracking.
Doesn't seem like a typical sanders supporter. I wonder what the policies are that he is talking about. I never bother following the candidates.
There's nothing that strikes me in Sanders' policies that Edelman would say increases the "velocity of money". Sanders wants higher taxes and higher government spending, not much incentive there to produce more to meet the needs of consumers. Maybe it's a ruse designed to draw support away from Trump who is a very real threat to the Wall Street mob.
Bonds and stocks are investments in capital which are part of the real economy (and are a critical part of moving capital toward the most valuable structure of production). Financial reserves of companies is an investment in capital which is part of the real economy. Increased management salaries are investments in the skilled labour that is managing the allocation of capital and resources and is an investment in the real economy (when funded from savings or profits). Printing money or forcibly redirecting capital away from its "natural" allocation to fund pet projects (or especially welfare) is a distortion that typically results in a dead weight loss in the real economy.
I know. You avoid the topic, which was NOT about productivity. I think that (and maybe Edelman and Sanders think that too) the problem is not lack of wealth. There's plenty of wealth. We are ever evolving in knowledge, technology, means of production, etc. The problem is that wealth is more and more concentrated on the top 1% (or even the top 0.1%). That is bad for the Economy for the reasons Edelman pointed out. So, productivity is not the issue. It wasn't mentioned by Sanders, it wasn't mentioned by Edelman, it wasn't mentioned by me. It was only mentioned by you. And you are yet to explain what it has to do with our discussion. Companies struggle to survive nowadays not because of production or supply-chain issues, not because of operational efficiency, but because of lack of sales. Because consumers have no purchase power and therefore do not consume. I believe he was talking about lending to small businesses, not middle class americans. Edelman claims the top 1% spends 5%-10% of what they earn. You're telling me the top 1% spends everything they earn + everything they have + borrow more?! Are you for real? What isn't working are the policies that favor the top 1% in hopes they invest and create jobs. That hasn't happened and it never will. The top 1% stacks, hoards, gambles on the derivatives market...they don't create new companies and new jobs. If anything, they move operations to China, eliminating jobs on the West. He wants to end the wars (he was one of the very few congressmen to opose the war in Iraq). In that sense, he wants less government spending. Do you know what's the real incentive to produce more? More purchase orders. And you only have that if you have consumers able to consume. Sanders is the only one promising to break down the big banks, and therefore promising real change in Wall Street. Trump is just making noise.
Financial capital, digits, like the derivatives market, not the real Economy. When management enlarge their own salaries it's hardly an investment in skilled labour. Printing money is definitely bad. I don't recall saying it's good. Forcibly redirecting capital away from its "natural" allocation, you mean taking from the derivatives market, top management's insane annual rewards, people that do nothing but sit on their wealth, and giving it to who actually produces and consumes (small businesses and middle class working people)? Yeah, that must be a dead weight loss in the real Economy.
Well yes and no. There is the real economy and there is the FIRE economy (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate). The FIRE economy doesn't produce anything, it just takes a cut from the real economy, like a leach sucking the blood of a host. Problem is the FIRE leach is now bigger than the host it is feeding off and is choking it to death.
The "finance economy" manages my investments and tax obligations on my behalf because I don't have the expertise or time to do so myself. Just like going to a restaurant and dining out or catching a cab to drive me from one point to another. It's very real and much in demand. The "insurance economy" hedges my investments and lifestyle choices giving me peace of mind, regardless of whether I'll need to claim upon their offers or not. It's very real and much in demand. The "real estate" economy provides me with a house in which I live and an asset upon which I can either draw against or sell in the future. It's very real and much in demand. There is nothing imaginary or "unreal" about your examples trew.
It's interesting when you run out of arguments and can't answer simple and direct questions. First you dodge the topic. Then you insult me. I'm not a socialist. I despise the left wing as much as the right. But I know that you see Socialism in everything that doesn't fit in your Anarcho-capitalism. I've posted an economic topic about the USA presidential race explained by a financial guru on a "Markets & Economies" forum. You brought up the spam.
Like I said before, fuck off with your socialist tripe phransisku. There are enough mainstream media stories being published and policies pursued by both sides of politics without you adding to the mix. Get lost.
Since the 1% are being mentioned so much, I thought I'd mention that this is meant to be the year that the top 1% cross over the line of having more wealth than the other 99%. Even though I don't think that governments should touch private property, I honestly find it hard to believe that's not a joke. I wonder how many of these people have got all of this money because of governments' corruption of markets, because lets be honest, you can't get to the point where 80 people own as much as 3.5 billion people through hard work .
That is about the most accurate thing you have posted yet in your whole time on this forum. Anarcho-capitalism has at its roots the belief in individual sovereignty ie the right of the individual to engage in any economic and political relationships that best meet their own needs without the unwanted interference of a governing body. Then we have you, who thinks you can decide what is best for another. :/ Yep. Your "financial guru" who happens to be a Wall Street investment banker and trader in derivatives. Now hang on.............weren't you just banging on about gambling on the derivatives market earlier? :lol: Yep, you're a spammer phransisku.
