Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tellemurius]

Who the hell has higher GDP than us?

Europe.

Per capita only determines how much a individual provides to the GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

EU doesn't count as a country and if it does they are more fucked up than america right now.

Well, it's one monetary entity. And we aren't nearly as touched than you by economic crisis.

Im sorry, how many countries have you guys bailed out already?

[Askot Bokbondeler]

if it prosecutes black and gay people there's still enough diversity in the white majority for stagnation not be an issue

edit: i had accidentally the whole post

But if history is anything to go by (hint: it is) a whole lot less beneficial to the majority of people than the increase in diversity provides.
Benign dictatorships are pretty effective while they remain benign though.

what specific example are you thinking of? besides foreign intervention or backlash and rebellions from the oppressed minorities, the oppressive majorities were either unaffected or actively benefited from the oppression of minorities... granted "if there are no rebellions" is a big if, but to my defense, i was talking about a theoretically *effective* fascist state, i could argue that it was effective enough at oppressing minorities that rebellions were not an issue

ninjas: there are also malign democracies, you guys underestimate the wickedness of majorities

[de5me7]

terms such as socialism, liberalism, conservativism, rightwing, leftwing can have different meanings depending on the context of the discussion. so economic liberalism is different from politiical liberalism, which is different from moral liberalisim, which is different from religious liberalisim, which in turn may vary within differing religions.

Someone in the first couple of posts mentioned Keynsian and Friedman, when talking about economics this is a good place to start but i will try and simplify. Most of modern economics can be viewed from how you feel about market control vs market freedom.

so the first question to ask is do you understand what the market is? If you dont ask google, but you wont understand much of ecomonics until you do. You can view the market from two extremes. On one end, there are those who believe that the most efficient, productive and ultimatly fair system is to have a free unregulated market. This would mean that companies can trade with no restrictions, little to no tax, but under fierce competition from each other, the idea being that competition would drive them to offer a good deal to their customers and employees, and would provide motivation to deliver the best service, thus giving higher efficiency and fairness and affluence for all.

The other view is that the market will fail by its self. Either by over exploitation of the workers (Maxist theory), or buy over saving by companies or consumers, or lack of competition and the creation of monopolies, localised declines due to outsourcing (the list could go on), and you get situations like recessions where the economy crashes due to an inbalance or a failure in a vital sector. The solution to this is to regulate the economy with taxes, laws, tariffs, or even state ownership etc.

you should view

state controlled economy<------------------------->free market economy

as an axis, as most modern states are somewhere along the axis rather than at either end. North Korea is possibly the most state controlled. Not sure what the most freemarket is, possibly the US, but the US still uses tariffs to protect its steel industry, and has corperate taxes etc.

so what are capitalism, marxism and communism.

Capitalism is basically the idea that labourers should be able to sell their labour for personal material gain, or traders should be able to sell their goods for personal material gain. WIth out restrictions, and within a interlinked national or global system you get the market.

Karl Marx was an economic/political theorist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_marx. He release a manifesto (ive read it, arbeit along time ago). Which essentially says revolution against the rich is inevitable in a capitalist system. This will happen because the rich will reduce the working conditions of their labour / increase their own profits in order to improve their wealth. As the rich poor gap grows the rich will struggle to maintain control, and eventually - revolution of the poorer classes. Karl Marx then proposes that given time capitalist systems would colapse and the logical progression was to allow the workers to control production
Communisim is an extension of the idea that the workers, or for most communists the state, should control production. THis brings communism up on the extreme left of the axis i put above.

so which works,

well as someone has already stated neither. But no system will work perfectly because humans (and humanists can disagree with me here but the average front page of the news stands in my defence) generally seek to cheat and exploit each other for personal gain.

to say because they dont work perfectly they are all failures isnt really fair, and doesnt really encourage thinking.

[fqllve]

so the first question to ask is do you understand what the market is?

I have a decent general understanding of economics. It is pretty difficult not to pick a few things up, especially on the internet. If I had to guess, I would say that I am slightly more informed than average. Hehe, I definitely know about Marxism because my two best friends are Marxists and they will not shut up about it. I also had a friend who was a hardcore Keynesian, who also would not shut up about it. My issue is that I've never actually opened a book on economics, so while I can usually follow a conversation on it I'm not really informed enough to participate.

Still it was a very informative post and I believe I will link it in the OP. Thank you.

[Nadaka]

My preference is for anarcho-capitalism, with a system where the people vote for who among the wealthiest people must submit themselves in a gladiatorial fight to the death in an arena filled with deadly creatures and mechanical traps. This will be at least a weekly event televised around the globe. The wealth of the looser is then split among the people as a form of welfare.

[Darvi]

Per capita only determines how much a individual provides to the GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

EU doesn't count as a country and if it does they are more fucked up than america right now.

I wasn't talking bout Europe but whatever. And per capita is better for measuring wealth due to the fact that some countries have so many million more people living in them. Of course our country has a crappy GDP if we only are half a million or something. But as I said, whatever. I don't really care.

My preference is for anarcho-capitalism, with a system where the people vote for who among the wealthiest people must submit themselves in a gladiatorial fight to the death in an arena filled with deadly creatures and mechanical traps. This will be at least a weekly event televised around the globe. The wealth of the looser is then split among the people as a form of welfare.

*thumbs up*

[Phmcw]

so the first question to ask is do you understand what the market is? If you dont ask google, but you wont understand much of ecomonics until you do. You can view the market from two extremes. On one end, there are those who believe that the most efficient, productive and ultimatly fair system is to have a free unregulated market. This would mean that companies can trade with no restrictions, little to no tax, but under fierce competition from each other, the idea being that competition would drive them to offer a good deal to their customers and employees, and would provide motivation to deliver the best service, thus giving higher efficiency and fairness and affluence for all.

well as someone has already stated neither. But no system will work perfectly because humans (and humanists can disagree with me here but the average front page of the news stands in my defence) generally seek to cheat and exploit each other for personal gain.

to say because they dont work perfectly they are all failures isnt really fair, and doesnt really encourage thinking.

The thing is : we know that neither work, but we know what could work ok. The problem is, what would work is avoiding cheating, and make working been paid its real cost. There should be paying for the community, taking care of the disabled, the elders and other non productive.
And of course, a lot of rich poeple are better of with the benefits of the work of the community as a whole in their own pockets.

[Criptfeind]

Bluh bluh bluh America is not a unregulated capitalist paradise, china has huge issues (and bringing their military in a good thing does you no favors when trying to compete with the U.S. They do have a big budget, in fact, they spend the same amount as the rest of the world combined... But the U.S spends as much as them AND the rest of the world combined.)

China is in the mist of industrializing and desocializing, and hell, well we are at it, Sweden is nearly as socialist as you seem to think.

If you want to go this way... Lets look the true socialist nations... North Korea... Cuba.

HUMMMMM.

US Debt Clock

I think I heard a statistic that if we taxed all workers 100% of their income, we still wouldn't be able to pay the INTEREST of our debt.

Sorry, that is a lie. It is not even close.

Then why not just pay it off now? It seems rather logical as debt just piles up on itself the more you leave it alone. Pay for it now and spend less than you would have had to later.

Politics. Maybe it is like a bandage? Hurts to pull off quickly, even if that is the best way. But in politics the name of the game is to put off anything bad until it is the other guys turn.

Gdp is all well but now look at gdp grow.

"Don't be sad about the fact that you only got a 2% raise, we ALL only got 2% raises!" -Pointy hair boss

"Can I cry that my 2% raise is a pittance compared to your 2% raise?" -Worker

"Knock yourself out!" -Pointy hair boss

Europe.

WHOOPDY FREAKEN DOO! A whole continent has a bigger economy then a single country?

The thing is : we know that neither work, but we know what could work ok.

The thing is, the U.S. is not Sweeden or what ever you are talking about. We have radically different belief systems, perhaps even more so then is obvious.

Edit: Looks like I missed all the good talking. 

[Darvi]

Considering that the country in question is bigger than the entire continent combined... But then again Europe has more people. Eh.

[Criptfeind]

Considering that the country in question is bigger than the entire continent combined... But then again Europe is bigger. Eh.

What?

[Darvi]

Has more people. What I wanted to say is that it has more people. That Happens if I don't Pay attentionxP

[fqllve]

While I think it was an inapt comparison, a single European country really is closer in size to a state. The US is pretty freakin' big.

[Phmcw]

Gdp is all well but now look at gdp grow.

"Don't be sad about the fact that you only got a 2% raise, we ALL only got 2% raises!" -Pointy hair boss

"Can I cry that my 2% raise is a pittance compared to your 2% raise?" -Worker

"Knock yourself out!" -Pointy hair boss

Yeah grow is unimportant...

Europe.

WHOOPDY FREAKEN DOO! A whole continent has a bigger economy then a single country?

No, I was speaking of the EU as a monetary entity.

The thing is : we know that neither work, but we know what could work ok.

The thing is, the U.S. is not Sweeden or what ever you are talking about. We have radically different belief systems, perhaps even more so then is obvious.

Edit: Looks like I missed all the good talking. 

Of course, of course... but a belief is nothing more than a belief and never fixed an economic system. Actually these belief ar driving you into the ground. But hey whatever float your boat. What bother me more is that a) you are our allies b) The people that deceived you are trying the same thing here.

Bluh bluh bluh America is not a unregulated capitalist paradise

It completely is, compared to most other countries.

[Leafsnail]

If you want to go this way... Lets look the true socialist nations... North Korea... Cuba.

HUMMMMM.

Does "true" here mean "according to my definition"?

[Criptfeind]

No.

I changed the quote because it made no sense and I wanted to shine a light on why it makes no sense.

The people are what really matter yes? We are what makes the economy?

Well, the bigger land does help with first tier work. But most of the U.S. is third tier, and Japan proves you don't need resources for Second tier.

Phmcw, I will get back to you, I am going to arm myself with facts first.

If you want to go this way... Lets look the true socialist nations... North Korea... Cuba.

HUMMMMM.

Does "true" here mean "according to my definition"?

Is there any other meaning of true?