Hey White People! - Page 9

On September 20 2014 20:24 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On September 20 2014 11:28 Gnarly wrote: , who's on unemployment, and who is unemployed but looking for work. . I would absolutely take you seriously if you didn't write about things you don't know the basics of... you have to be actively seeking for work to be considered as "unemployed". Its things like this that make me completely disregard your posts Stroggoz you don't see how governing 1.4billion people by a single government is different from governing 100m or 200m people? Obviously all of the stuff you mentioned matter, however creating a stable enviroment for such a large amount of people by a single government is still something yet to be seen. If however what you're talking about comes to a reallity eventually service jobs will shift to the east as well, since they will also be cheaper ( obv outsource in eastern europe and india is something quite popular these days, but thats not really of a big scale ). However things usually reset themselves because of technical progress, jobs that are not even thought of yet, might be within the most sought for in 10 years And Gnarly the so called APLR you re talking about is on a huge peak from 84 to 08, considering in 08 the crisis struck thats nothing to be surprised about.

Well, you see, not everyone actually knows that to be "unemployed", one must be out of work but looking for work. Like, only people who have studied economics either academically or personally know what it means, but literally no one else does at all. If I were talking to just you, maybe I'd care a little more, but most likely not. However, to completely dismiss someone because of semantics shows how deep you can't go.

Also, the APLR, was it the same back then in 84? I mean as in the different percentages of who's employed, fully or not, and the wages, etc.. I highly doubt it. In fact, I may go look for the certain statistics right now.

On September 20 2014 23:12 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On September 20 2014 22:09 soberstone wrote:   On September 19 2014 21:58 Baalim wrote: So you are suggesting the state forces the companies to pay for welfare instead of people? Well what will happen is that since the profit margin for companies have been greatly reduced salaries will be reduced thus indirectly taxing the people, that extra money will have to come from somebody it wont appear magically. Also your example is ridiculous not only it didnt generate in your example any wealth but just bankrupt 3 companies but it wouldnt even apply that way because first of all if you were to inject extra money to people the companies that would be directly benefited would be luxury items, so your retarded idea would only transfer money from companies that provide basic needs (food, gas etc) to luxury ones (cars, clothing etc). Your point is well proven by the fact that during the current Obama administration (I know we have a black president despite racism being a huge driving force in our country, it's weird right?) - the stock market has recovered tremendously (AKA rich people getting richer) - yet the median income (an actual stat that MATTERS) has gone down about 5 percent. This is what low-level socialism, AKA the nanny state, does (we already know what full blown socialism does). It's historically proven time and time again. It doesn't taken an MIT economics professor to figure it out - just someone who isn't fully invested in the mainstream progressive media and has half a brain. Just look at Dallas vs Los Angeles, it's fucking as obvious as the sky is blue. eh, if you venture out of the united states, people would collapse in hysterical laughter if you told them that Obama was a socialist. To everyone not in the united states his policies are very right wing.

He's a socialist at heart and his policies have failed miserably. We have a Constitution and a system of checks and balances that didn't allow for a complete overthrow of the free-market, thank God. And there is a reason that people want to come to America more than any other country on the planet and it's not for our shitty culture and obnoxious people. Yes, you are right though, countries like Greece would view America as really right-winged. Sure looks good for them.

Interesting read Stroggoz. Care to elaborate on how debt obligations force countries to lower import/export taxes?

On September 20 2014 20:00 Stroggoz wrote: Well, that's quite clearly linked to economic globalization. As countries have been forced to let down their barriers(tax rates on imports/exports) because of debt obligations

On September 21 2014 04:18 eestwood wrote: Interesting read Stroggoz. Care to elaborate on how debt obligations force countries to lower import/export taxes? Show nested quote + On September 20 2014 20:00 Stroggoz wrote: Well, that's quite clearly linked to economic globalization. As countries have been forced to let down their barriers(tax rates on imports/exports) because of debt obligations

Sure, it's called the Washington Consensus, or the third world debt crises.(there are many names) The rich nations loan out money to poor countries and those countries havn't been able to pay them back. So the rich nations impose their own conditions with their loans. This is called structural adjustment. The structural adjustment forces the country to take up economic principles which are recommended to them by the rich nations. Those principles can be read about here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_adjustment. One of them includes lowering barriers. Some countries have lowered their barriers willingly. (New Zealand, China). This was mostly done in the 80's and 90's.
Anyway, you see it being done not only in the third world but it's coming back to the west now, with the European Central Bank/Germany making loans to the countries around them. But their conditions are not as brutal as the ones in the third world, and they call it austerity rather than a structural adjustment, i guess.

Its laughable that you criticize modern economy and then talk about the goods about giving money away to increase demand, which is an extreme case of keynesian consumism, there is nothing more aligned with modern economy than giving money away to keep the wheels turning (till they fall off).

In a free market there is no profit whatsoever shrot or long-term for giving money away so people buy your shit with that money.

A company's way to "help" the public besides its workers its simply improving its production efficiency thus lowering prices and increasing its quality, a good example of this is google, they give away for free google docs, in the past a mediocre text processor like Word had a pretty steep price, now its obsolete, the same product is free thats how you help people not by giving money away, thats simply charity and its clumsy, it does not work and does far less for the overall long term advanced of mankind than advancements in production.

I think some type of "societal salary" can be viable in increasingly automated post-scarcity societies, like Norway. Like you just give everyone enough money to get by with (already the case, just that you gotta jump through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops and either be declared unfit for working due to illness, be in a constant job-hunting mode, or spend loads of time every day waiting to get the money) and then give more for people who actually do work, so there's still some economic incentive for that. Personally I know that not working becomes boring after a short period of time, and I would hate having to feel like a useless leech, and this is a sentiment I know is shared by many Norwegians. (Probably less common elsewhere, as our society functioning so well and being so inclusive (relating to other societies) means that we're all to a larger degree willing to accept some role as pinwheels in a greater machinery or whatever.) So basically I'm not too concerned about this killing productivity/motivation, there seems to be some motivational science out there that supports the idea that you get the most productive workers by giving them enough money to make money a non-issue while giving them the freedom to pursue their endeavors anyway.

But anyway, this idea is not built around the goal of increasing productivity or whatever, it's just a way of simplifying life for people, a slightly less "just" but prolly more viable alternative than making everyone work 3-4 hour days, as that is only going to be viable for certain types of jobs. If anything it's supposed to halt productivity and economic progress because in Norway, overconsumption is a much bigger problem than underproductivity, and consumption goes hand in hand with productivity. So like, the notion that companies should just start handing out money to poor people to somehow become more successful economic entities, that's just.. dumb. But societal salary as a more effective form of redistribution than the combined various types of unemployment benefits we have here, I think it can be good in the future. I mean it's just, we're not gonna be living in a society where "how hard you work" is what defines your wealth, the best way to make money in the west is to already have money, + some very rare instances of brilliant ideas arriving at the right time, so I think it's silly to pretend that everyone needs to put down the allotted hours before they can eat, because that's not gonna be the reality we live in.

Baal, do you know what happens when someone starts eating up at your market share? You lose money. And that person? They make money. The profit doesn't come from the customer, it comes from the competition. Monopolies are really good at making money...

I'm confused, Profit comes from competition but monopolies are really good at making money?

Im under the assumption that most monopolies (i.e. government owned / subsidized) such as utilities and transportation run at a loss?

On September 22 2014 10:29 Gnarly wrote: The profit doesn't come from the customer, it comes from the competition. Monopolies are really good at making money...

In business, say like a restaurant, there is a thing called market share. Each place has it's own share of the market. Some places have a higher % than others. So, when an underdog taps into a market that's already been established, they are actually taking away from the competition that have already set up a market. Companies can actually project their market share.

your idea might be right, but the way you try to put it into words seems to make it completely incomprehensible.

On September 22 2014 11:43 SugoGosu wrote: I'm confused, Profit comes from competition but monopolies are really good at making money? Im under the assumption that most monopolies (i.e. government owned / subsidized) such as utilities and transportation run at a loss?

Profit comes from beating competition (either through lower prices or better quality products). Monopolies are really good at making money due to lack of competition. Hence US companies love to increase regulations to decrease competition. E.g. FDA. They want to have the people eat up that FDA is good because all drugs go through a certain process to become available to the public. Now that just increases costs for companies that small ones cannot afford.

Most government utilities and transportation would run at a loss since there would be subsidies running them. (Assumption is if Profit minus subsidies = Negative)

The concept of any government agency running at a loss or a gain is an oxymoron. There is no cost of doing business since that cost is assumed by society eg taxes, so even if your revenue is far exceeded by your costs, society simply eats it. If you are 'profiting' - then people will rightfully assume that you are over-funded. Hence, no 'profit motive' (which is not a fictional driver of business and economic success - which is contrary to some really dumb things I've seen earlier in this thread), This is why gov agencies are inefficient and if they are profitable, they simply create useless jobs, pensions, bureaucracy etc to dump money so they can show that they are indeed not 'making money' and need funding. This whole concept is very easy, obvious, and true - and yet closet socialists who call economics a 'false science' find really complicated ways and wordy essays to try and disprove the truth. It's quite frustrating.

Los Angeles, where I live, is the most obvious microcosm and metaphor of this concept ever, yet people continue to vote for liberals because they are fooled on social issues that are relatively unimportant and backwards in logic as well. We have the highest taxes in the country, yet the city is on the verge of bankruptcy. It's very frustrating and sad.

On September 22 2014 10:29 Gnarly wrote: Baal, do you know what happens when someone starts eating up at your market share? You lose money. And that person? They make money. The profit doesn't come from the customer, it comes from the competition. Monopolies are really good at making money...

how can you fail to understand basic logic for fucks sake.

corporations are giving money away, yours included not just monopoly, there is no benefit in there whatsoever for corporation, the only benefit its the public (the ones receiving free money), so what you are doing its simply redistribution of money from corporations to the public, and its somewhat what the government already does with taxes, and what you are saying is that a super welfare tax payed exclusively by the companies will help them thrive... smart lol.

On September 22 2014 21:31 Jubert69 wrote: Show nested quote + On September 22 2014 11:43 SugoGosu wrote: I'm confused, Profit comes from competition but monopolies are really good at making money? Im under the assumption that most monopolies (i.e. government owned / subsidized) such as utilities and transportation run at a loss? Profit comes from beating competition (either through lower prices or better quality products). Monopolies are really good at making money due to lack of competition. Hence US companies love to increase regulations to decrease competition. E.g. FDA. They want to have the people eat up that FDA is good because all drugs go through a certain process to become available to the public. Now that just increases costs for companies that small ones cannot afford. Most government utilities and transportation would run at a loss since there would be subsidies running them. (Assumption is if Profit minus subsidies = Negative)

this is extremely important, the vast majority of monopolies and ALL the shitty inefficient ones are owned or aided by the state, as you say the FDA, and countless other regulations not only in the US but in the entire world produce monopolies in a symbiotic relationship with the state, this is what happens in the energy sector, automotive industry, oil industry, drug and food industry etc.

There are some rare fee market "monopolies" like Google, but I think we can all agree that google its a pretty good company and I wish all companies were like it.

Baal, Jubert69, You guys have it wrong about deregulation. Deregulation and the rise of shadow banking saw the rise of monopoly finance and the result was increased financial stability, and financial crises have gone way up because if this, and it was the direct cause of the 2008 crises. This is something that even the economics profession concedes. I won't go on any more about shadow banking but, that is a corporation that has turned into an investment bank without regulators realizing it(or pretending not to notice), and thus it becomes a big bank that is never regulated in the first place

One of the major regulations was put into place to prevent commercial and investment banks from merging and becoming large monoplies, such as citigroup. Actually the 'golden age of capitalism'(1945-71) was the age of high growth, and had heavy regulation on banks, which forced them to keep small. Also, competition without regulation naturally leads to monopolies. Companies know they can make larger profits by repeatedly merging into monopolies to beat the competition.

The energy sector is another perfect example of where deregulation has gone wrong. In New Zealand, the state used to run their electricity company at a loss, and it produced a cheap source of energy for everyone in the country. Then it was turned into a very little regulated privatized oligopoly, now electricity prices have gone way up. When neoclassical economics was bought to New Zealand, they called it 'inefficient'. Well that's not an economical term, it's ideological. The company ran at a loss, it was inefficient from that point of view. But from the point of view of the rest of the population it was very efficient at keeping electricity prices cheap. Anyway, in America you have much worse examples like ENRON.
As for the other sectors i havn't studied them too much. The sector i have studied the most is the media. I write essays for university press on this subject in fact.

Also, Google is not a good company, they spy on people and share that info with the government. Their accomplishments could have been achieved without doing this. This company wouldn't have done this if their stakeholders had a say in the decision making process. But they don't, because it is a tyranny. Perhaps some of you don't notice the bad effects of spying, but it is used effectively to keep people from challenging the status quo. Not to mention it simply just violates elementary human rights.

If there's one thing i agree with baal on it's that the vast majority of monopolies are aided by the state. But's not because of regulations, it's because once they are deregulated, they can make large profits, keep those profits,and when it fails get the taxpayer to bail them out so they can continue to make huge profits. That's pretty much how the modern tribute system works.

Dunno but i figured that arguing with Gnarly about economics is the equivalent of explaining to someone that doesn't know the rules of poker what a polarized range is

Stroggoz is right

But's not because of regulations, it's because once they are deregulated

s quite important

Btw its not just Google, Microsoft bought Skype for the same reason, Apple does it as well. In fact I doubt there is any big corporation that doesn't leak all of your information to the government. They obviously don't do purchases like Skype & Whatsapp only for that, but they can basically build a perfect marketing strategy and keep themselves in the downfall zone for a longer period ( not sure if its called downfall zone in english, the zone from a marketing point of view where after you've developed and targeted your customers and the brand has become well known they keep the sale at the same level for a long time period, like coca-cola has been at that point of the graph for decades for example )

google doesn't spy on the people, unless you are saying that they collect information on the users to use for advertising purposes, which in itself isn't such a problem. Many companies do this, from Amazon, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, phone companies, Akamai Technologies, apps ranging from food delivery to the various text-messaging programs, etc.. Don't combine Google and governmental agencies, as it just leads to a very sticky situation, as Google is actively fighting against such actions.

Also, I admit I don't know as much about economics as other people in this thread, and it is something I should focus on when time allows. But I think what Gnarly is trying to hint at, is not towards companies handing out freebees and turning into a wellfare corporation, but just the direction of the economy as a whole. What I find interesting is the concept of post-capitalistic societies, where not everyone can have a job. We may be leading to such a job-less economy with mostly a demand of only highly trained specialists (which honestly, not everyone can become a scientist).

On September 22 2014 23:13 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On September 22 2014 10:29 Gnarly wrote: Baal, do you know what happens when someone starts eating up at your market share? You lose money. And that person? They make money. The profit doesn't come from the customer, it comes from the competition. Monopolies are really good at making money... how can you fail to understand basic logic for fucks sake. corporations are giving money away, yours included not just monopoly, there is no benefit in there whatsoever for corporation, the only benefit its the public (the ones receiving free money), so what you are doing its simply redistribution of money from corporations to the public, and its somewhat what the government already does with taxes, and what you are saying is that a super welfare tax payed exclusively by the companies will help them thrive... smart lol.

You're the one who fails to understand that when automation is pretty much fully in every place of business, no one will be able to work because humans, at that point, will become inefficient. You're saying businesses will survive by paying their... robots and then having those same... robots... buy things from them? Cause if not, then who the fuck is going to do the consuming? People without jobs?

Makes sense, maybe you should be Fed Chairman?

On September 23 2014 08:00 Gnarly wrote: Show nested quote + On September 22 2014 23:13 Baalim wrote:   On September 22 2014 10:29 Gnarly wrote: Baal, do you know what happens when someone starts eating up at your market share? You lose money. And that person? They make money. The profit doesn't come from the customer, it comes from the competition. Monopolies are really good at making money... how can you fail to understand basic logic for fucks sake. corporations are giving money away, yours included not just monopoly, there is no benefit in there whatsoever for corporation, the only benefit its the public (the ones receiving free money), so what you are doing its simply redistribution of money from corporations to the public, and its somewhat what the government already does with taxes, and what you are saying is that a super welfare tax payed exclusively by the companies will help them thrive... smart lol. You're the one who fails to understand that when automation is pretty much fully in every place of business, no one will be able to work because humans, at that point, will become inefficient. You're saying businesses will survive by paying their... robots and then having those same... robots... buy things from them? Cause if not, then who the fuck is going to do the consuming? People without jobs? Makes sense, maybe you should be Fed Chairman?

Technology doesn't decide who has jobs, economic and social structures of human beings do. We could have many people in the future jobless with automation, or full employment in the future with automation.

@sugo. Yeah i was wrong when i said google spied. I meant they take users information and hand it over to the government, which then uses it to spy.