Then you should know better than to promote folk economics, in particular the notion that mean income should rise as a % of GDP when compared to the income of the wealthy, as the author of that Zerohedge blog to which you linked argued. Unlike yourself, I've had no formal education in economics, all I understand (and misunderstand) I've taught myself by reading the writings and ramblings of others over the past few years. In fact it may have even been you that sent me a link to my first foray into economics back in 2011, a series of readings about how wealth is destroyed by inflation and how the government has planned this destruction. So I'd much prefer you not let anything through to the keeper, but play them. As to your rebuttal against Watkins and Brook, that's not even worth responding to, it's absolute meaningless nonsense especially as you've obviously never read the book or are familiar with its content as evidenced by your oblique reference to bailing out banks, whatever the fuck that has to do with Equal Is Unfair: America's Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality.
That is correct, profit is the motive so in order to profit you have to provide consumers with what they want. If you rip them off then they are going to find an alternative and your profits will diminish. This is real life, not folk economics, companies that don't provide what the consumer wants don't survive. Unless they are protected by regulation and legislation. That's what the regulators want you to believe.
Wrong, you can rip people off and then just move on to the next victim, happens all the time and people do very well out of it. Everyone - well most people knows of examples. VW fudging test results, they will not go broke and will continue. Ripping off the eldery, aboriginals etc. The free market encourages it, Peter Foster is a good example. https://www.accc.gov.au/media-relea...igenous-communities-to-sell-goods-or-services. Look at what happened in the Libertarian community in Chile, they had no regulation paid in cash and PMs and they all lost their shirts and they will never get the cash back...... why? No regulation, paid in PMs and cash. I think it was halarious how all the Libbertarians got taken for a ride and some lost their life savings and as a bonus it showed exactly what happens in a Libertarian society. It never even got off the ground before it imploded.
You're always going to get individual cases of unscrupulous operators. What's interesting is that all the examples used to condemn the free market actually occurred under the regulated market's watch. And as far as Chile goes, haven't you flogged that horse to death yet - my eyes glaze over now whenever I see you mention it. If you're looking for Nirvana, maybe you need to go to a cave in India or something.
Woohoo! Just said goodbye to our last lot of customers. Business has been slow this week, maybe I need to rip everyone off so I can lift my profits.
I keep mentioning Chile because Libertarian Nirvana land you speak of has never existed anywhere in the world. The only example I can find is Chile and them all being Libertarians you would think it should have at least become established before it imploded. All the examples you gave and all the principles you speak of were proven wrong in a very short period of time in spectacular fashion. They are still in court and it is costingbthem hundreds of thousands and they are getting nowhere and if they do have success in the courts they are not going to get there money back. Yes people will still get ripped off in a regulated market but it will be to a much lesser of a degree.
Might be to hard to do with all the rules and regulations, maybe you should move to Chile I hear there is some cheap land being sold and it is in a Libertarian community. Dirt cheap and you get a discount for cash or PMs.
Na, according to you lot the easiest way to make money is just to rip off customers. Not sure why every business doesn't do it.
It ia rife in Libertarian societies, did I tell you about Chile - glowing example of what happens in a libertarian society. Luckily we live in Australia and regulations prevent a lot of businesses from ripping people off. https://www.accc.gov.au/media-relea...igenous-communities-to-sell-goods-or-services
Yes Padawan, it is I, let go of your hate for your fellow man, return from the dark side. Financial repression is how the act has come to be known - in your words 'how wealth is destroyed by inflation and how the government has planned this destruction'. Wealth transfer not destruction is more accurate. Wealth transfer from ordinary savers to the powerful. Plan of the govt - they are not that smart, rather the plan designed by the puppeteers of the govt - the oligarchy. The author of the series is a US based accountant. There is a design and implementation of wealth transfer that is at the heart of the ruling oligarch corporations. There is nothing free nor fair about the world economy. It is not merely the advantages of corporations that need to be kept in check. We need something other than GDP measures as an objective, rather we the people need something that takes into account the goals of a community. Quality of life and sharing in earned standards of living, the legacy built over generations. All taken away by anyone able to print 'cheap' money and charge interest on something created out of nothing, and corporations demanding excessive immigration for cheap labour to help their GDP measure yet doing nothing to maintain quality of life for citizens. It takes a dark soul to defend and propagate the lie.
The slur 'folk' economics I give the contempt it deserves, as with all public relation 'straw man' exercises that corporations spew through the media. We exchange trade tariffs for currency wars, send factories overseas and they demand cheaper labour through excessive immigration for the gutted businesses (or should I call them outlets) that remain resulting in hospital services etc etc etc declining. Take away all of this national treason by corporations what would the average worker/sole trader be left with? Higher wages and a better quality of life and standard of living that would rise as a % of GDP when compared to the income of the wealthy. The Anzacs didn't fight for a corporate takeover of our nation. Legacy of generations have been stolen from under us. Look at what the youngest generation now faces in trying to start a family. Only a cold dark soul can't see beyond their own selfishness - which is the corporate way. Yes continue.
You can dish out as much contempt as you like, but if you can't challenge the concept with direct logical rebuttal, but rather need to resort to conspiratorial or nationalist slogans then you're not doing a very good job of engaging in economic debate, especially considering you taught it. The weakness of your position, and that of the author of the Zerohedge article is that both you and he consider that wealth is a pie. It exists to be distributed amongst the various claimants according to some formula eg some would argue equally, whilst others argue in proportion to their effort etc. Folk economists (they are the ones that hold that "pie view" of wealth) would further argue that whilst the amount of wealth may change, the distribution of wealth amongst the various members and groups in society should always remain in proportion to one another regardless of any groups' or individual's's contribution to that growth in wealth, or even better, that middle income earner's wages should grow in relation to the rich. The logic behind this belief is baffling and has no basis in any framework built upon freedom. The folk economists are responsible for the modern day obsession with income inequality, witness Obama's statement that "it is the defining challenge of our time" and the growth of the State. No fiatphoney, income inequality is not the defining challenge of our time, it's just a ruse for governments to enact legislation that would give them greater powers to claim and redistribute the wealth of individuals. And you are an unwitting aide to that process which would shower favours on select groups at the expense of others.
I think we are in vigorous agreement about the immoral, financial repression and wealth transfer effects of government mandated fiat currencies in the presence of central banks. That is a completely different thing to the free market economics shiney's discussing.
Is it? Some predators in the jungle are stronger than its prey. Freemarkets is where the law of the jungle rules. Unfortunately the dream of free markets is like letting your kids into a zoo without any cages. One way or another dominance in a 'free' market will result whereby that market is no longer in a state of being free. The killer of free markets is free markets when sharing the land with corporate giants. For example who decides to allocate capital to whom - is pure power allocation, the kingmakers in the jungle. Corporates favour one another through deals and we are back to an oligarchy again. I have put forward some policy ideas to seek freer markets with fairness scales balanced back more equally towards citizens. I have already discussed how a local food business will be destroyed by open 'free market' borders above. Our nation cannot impose your system on other nations, so even if you changed our system - Australia's wealth will be ravaged by external non-players of our 'freedoms'. So in practical terms if we agree that the present system is immoral, what policies are available to us to right this wrong against citizens?
You raise one very good point, no matter what system you have other countries may not play how you want them to. They can impose tarrifs etc.
Why on the one hand to you cite data based upon GDP figures to support your position on the concept of "wealth inequality" http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-914224.html#p914224 yet on the other argue that using measures such as GDP is inappropriate for our needs http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-915406.html#p915406 implying that they are actually tools of the elite or powerful?
I cited this data? You cited the GDP data, then accuse me of not answering your senseless arguments, and when I was answering a direct question, you now turn the content of a direct answer with your GDP quote to boost your position? You have taken your rhetoric to a new low. You comb my posts for any possible flaw to divert attention away from central issues. But let me humour your ego, rising GDP in a nation ought to reflect rising wealth, however the measure has many flaws. GDP is like a speedometer: it tells you whether your economy is going faster or slower. As in cars, a speedometer is useful but doesn't tell you everything you want to know. For example, it won't tell you whether you are overheating, or about to run out of fuel... It is, of course, entirely possible for an economy to go faster and faster without getting closer to meeting these goals indeed, while heading in the opposite direction. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/five-measures-of-growth-that-are-better-than-gdp/
Ummmm, yes. You even typed it in italics and bolded it in case I would miss it. And then: And then you cite this: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-06/no-wonder-were-poorer-wages-share-gdp-has-fallen-46-years , and I quote from the article: You refer and cite GDP in order to suit your inconsistent polices. Make your mind up fiatphoney, are you going to accept that GDP figures are a justifiable measure of economic activity or not? I haven't got a problem either way. GDP figures hinge upon government expenditure so I'm not happy to see any growth measured by GDP at all. But you can't have it both ways fiatphoney, you can't appeal to data using GDP figures in order to promote your theories yet discount it when it doesn't suit you.
I have already answered this and I have pointed you to another thread that also discusses this. If you can't be bothered to read what is posted then you'll make a fine politician. :lol:
