This topic has been autolocked for inactivity. If you have something to add, Click Here to request it is re-opened.
#1508740 by bolg (Power User) at 2012-11-26 22:36:27 (8 months ago) - [Report]
What we're lacking here in serious chat is a thread about world economics. This thread is supposed to be a general discussion topic about anything that concerns world economics so feel free to post anything.
I'll go first with one of the more, in my opinion, interesting aspects in the politcal-economical dimension:
The generous post ww2 baby boomers The story is that us who are currently working are predicted to be the first generation in decades to generally have less when we retire than our parents. The reason behind this is generally considered to be the generous post ww2 generation baby boomers who were born in the 40s and 50s. The short version is that they grew up in on of the biggest economic booms ever. They got good jobs with little or no education and they modeled public spending around approximately the same growth they experienced. This is of course manifested in different ways (in Sweden it's in high taxes and a previosuly extremely generous pension for every citizen). I found an article regarding this issue in the US:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc … rs/263291/
So what do we do about it? Honestly, I'm fine with the standard of living my generation enjoys, I don't need it to increase at the same rate as the baby boomers'. The thing to do is of course to dismantle the welfare states and decrease public spending and the size of our governments. We really can't afford them to expand.
____________
This leads me to another aspect of economics/demographics that I'm interested in, which is:
The elimination of the middle class This is actually "they took our jobs!!!". As it says in the link above the economic expansion during the post ww2 period lead to an increased demand for education and a larger and wealthier middle class. However as we develop more effective ERP/CRM/other IT systems the demand for certain types of academic degrees is actually being reduced while the supply isn't, which is causing structural unemployment withing certain fields such as business administration (and even law!). This is pushing a wedge into the middle class and causing increased polarization. I'm actually not really sure where I'm going with this, it's just and interesting side note I suppose.
What do you guys think and what do you want to discuss?
Nice thread start. Think I am gonna try to hang here a bit if it kicks of and I can find time.
I would say that the yuppie-age and the wall-street romantics more or less destroyed what capitalism once was. When companies realised that it didn't matter at all how you treated your employees and all that really mattered was to have a catchy marketing plan.
That led to the economic zone labour we see today. Most of our non qualified jobs in the western world is service. Everything else is pushed out and subcontracted to small sweatshops in Asia.
Today most of us (lucky enough to have a job) in the western world are working in the service factor giving each other favours. Selling what is produced by (dare I say it?) slaves. I think that pretty soon China will flick the switch and make the countries that once was owning the world their slaves.
All this chase to cheaper prices every where makes it almost impossible to become an entrepreneur when it comes to producing goods. And whom would want to go up and compete against companies like the multinational ones that just can set their price below what it would cost you to produce it and therefore kill your business off.
#1508794 by bolg (Power User) at 2012-11-27 11:12:53 (8 months ago) - [Report]
beblebox wrote:
Nice thread start. Think I am gonna try to hang here a bit if it kicks of and I can find time.
I would say that the yuppie-age and the wall-street romantics more or less destroyed what capitalism once was. When companies realised that it didn't matter at all how you treated your employees and all that really mattered was to have a catchy marketing plan.
That led to the economic zone labour we see today. Most of our non qualified jobs in the western world is service. Everything else is pushed out and subcontracted to small sweatshops in Asia.
Today most of us (lucky enough to have a job) in the western world are working in the service factor giving each other favours. Selling what is produced by (dare I say it?) slaves. I think that pretty soon China will flick the switch and make the countries that once was owning the world their slaves.
All this chase to cheaper prices every where makes it almost impossible to become an entrepreneur when it comes to producing goods. And whom would want to go up and compete against companies like the multinational ones that just can set their price below what it would cost you to produce it and therefore kill your business off.
That debates topic was "Human rights in a globalised labour market - cheap clothes, but at what price?"
Are you suggesting that the yuppie generation were the first to want cheaper products? Because that's basicaolly what it's about; the workers within the manufacturing industries want higher wages and more benefits while the end consumers want lower prices. In the end it's basically either outsource, raise prices or go bankrupt. If we want to keep our industries the workers, unions and the state will have to make concessions by reducing wages and taxes (the union's refusal to lower wages was e.g. what killed the American steel industry). It's basically impossible to keep spending as much as the post ww2 generation did.
The Chinese are already starting to outsource their manufacturing jobs to cheaper countries.
Are you suggesting that the yuppie generation were the first to want cheaper products?
No I am saying that the globalisation really kicked off during the yuppie generation. There is a book I would like to suggest you to read. It is called No Logo by Canadian writer Naomi Klein. To get a general concept of what I am talking about you can watch when she is talking about her book here.
I am also saying that we should try to raise customs in order to keep the funds within the country. So that the production will be close to home. Slavery was something we where suppose to abolish in the 18th century. I am saying that we should not allow Nike to reinstate it just because its so much cheaper.
I want to decentralise the economy instead of doing like Stalin when he decided that everything was suppose to be run through Moscow when he started Comecon. When the Soviet started Comecon they put all their money on the same horse and that failed. The same thing we are doing now with the Dollar and the Euro and if you look around you can see that it is not going so well. Soon we all probably will have Yuan.
The thing is that when the population in Sweden have as high salaries as they do they also have the consumer power. If Sweden loses the power over the means of their production like they have done especially in the last six years it will only be money going out of the country instead of in to the country hence our consumer power will disappear completely. We should also force the companies not not be able to hire polish worker everywhere with that I mean that we should force the companies to hire people under the union agreements.
Sweden need to leave the European Union Asap and maybe start a Union with Norway and share the forest, iron and Oil. If they still would let let them that is. Wallenberg fixed so that Sweden didn't get half the Norwegian Oil by threatening to move SAAB and Ericsson out of the country when Norway was looking for investors. (oh, the irony).
The market don't give a shit on how low our salary's are, because we can never go as low as the Asian competitors where you can get a worker for a dollar a day.
#1508868 by bolg (Power User) at 2012-11-27 19:46:40 (8 months ago) - [Report]
beblebox wrote:
No I am saying that the globalisation really kicked off during the yuppie generation. There is a book I would like to suggest you to read. It is called No Logo by Canadian writer Naomi Klein. To get a general concept of what I am talking about you can watch when she is talking about her book here.
I am also saying that we should try to raise customs in order to keep the funds within the country. So that the production will be close to home. Slavery was something we where suppose to abolish in the 18th century. I am saying that we should not allow Nike to reinstate it just because its so much cheaper.
I want to decentralise the economy instead of doing like Stalin when he decided that everything was suppose to be run through Moscow when he started Comecon. When the Soviet started Comecon they put all their money on the same horse and that failed. The same thing we are doing now with the Dollar and the Euro and if you look around you can see that it is not going so well. Soon we all probably will have Yuan.
The thing is that when the population in Sweden have as high salaries as they do they also have the consumer power. If Sweden loses the power over the means of their production like we have done especially in the last six years it will only be money going out of the country instead of in to the country hence our consumer power will disappear completely.
We need to leave the European Union Asap and maybe start a Union with Norway and share the forest, iron and Oil. If they still would let us that is. Wallenberg fixed so that Sweden didn't get half the Norwegian Oil by threatening to move SAAB and Ericsson out of the country. (oh, the irony).
Why should we raise customs? If we raise customs other countries will do the same towards us and suddenly export companies like Atlas Copco, Alfa Laval, Ericsson, Sandvik etc will find it even more profitable to move their remaining factories to their other markets where they aren't punnished by the government. Does that sound good for a country that's relying heavily on exports? The EU has grown to become another political cancer on our society, but the free trade agreement still makes it worth our while despite the other costs.
"Especially in the last six years"?! Our politicians have been missmanaging our industries for decades and punishing them with too high taxes which've lead to the failure of several industries and relocations of alot of factories and headquarters. If you think taxes mean power you're dead wrong, they're the exact opposite.
Wallenberg never threatened to relocate SAAB and Ericsson, he just said that the financing should come from Swedish investors. The real showdown was between the Norwegian government and Swedish government through AP-fonderna.
EDIT: How do you suppose third world countries are ever going to climb out of poverty if they aren't allowed to sell their services? Even if the salaries are low in Cambodia, the textile industry is an incredibly lucrative employer since the companies pay wages that are comparable to government jobs and far exceeds agricultural jobs.
______________
EDIT 2: Something to get our American posters going perhaps?
This image has been resized, click here to view the full-sized image.
I am not saying that we should raise all customs however we should establish a market for some non qualified jobs in Sweden. The textile industry and the milk butter and cheese industry is a good place to start.
bolg wrote:
Our politicians have been missmanaging our industries for decades and punishing them with too high taxes which've lead to the failure of several industries and relocations of alot of factories and headquarters. If you think taxes mean power you're dead wrong, they're the exact opposite.
That is your opinion. I am saying that the tax system and the Swedish model was highly successful until we joined the European Union and the reason we even joined the EU was because of anarchocapitialistic lobbyist groups like TIMBRO and similar. They managed to fool gullible politicians that this was something that was good for the Swedish economy.
Tax is not power. Tax is a way to have a bit of a non commercial market in a mixed economy. We could limit some parts of the market to the people and in that way maybe even have a self-supporting public sector.
bolg wrote:
Wallenberg never threatened to relocate SAAB and Ericsson, he just said that the financing should come from Swedish investors.
Yes he did. He forced the Swedish government to turn down the offer Norway gave Sweden. You can play with definitions how much you want but it doesn't change the fact that if not for him we would have Norweigan oil right now.
bolg wrote:
How do you suppose third world countries are ever going to climb out of poverty if they aren't allowed to sell their services? Even if the salaries are low in Cambodia, the textile industry is an incredibly lucrative employer since the companies pay wages that are comparable to government jobs and far exceeds agricultural jobs.
Through removing their debts created by some silly financial system, multinational companies, banks and governments forcing them to become in debt with them and in that way forever undermining any kind of progress.
Also by building up the countries through bilateral aid. I would suggest at least 5% of GDP should be given in aid. We should also establish ways to in a cheap way distill salt water for India and Africa.
Here is an example of how much of GDP that is salaries. (Tyskland is Germany, the rest I think you guys can translate)
This image has been resized, click here to view the full-sized image.
The financial crisis is a hoax created by the financial market in order to drain the governments and lower the salaries. That in combination with rents according to the rules of the market will be devastating for our population. Are we really all Swedes gonna fit in Norway just because we let the market take control with silly election marketing?
#1508886 by bolg (Power User) at 2012-11-27 21:05:49 (8 months ago) - [Report]
beblebox wrote:
I am not saying that we should raise all customs however we should establish a market for some non qualified jobs in Sweden. The textile industry and the milk butter and cheese industry is a good place to start.
beblebox wrote:
That is your opinion. I am saying that the tax system and the Swedish model was highly successful until we joined the European Union. And the reason we even joined the EU was because of anarchocapitialistic lobbyist groups like TIMBRO and similar. They managed to fool gullible politicians that this was something that was good for the Swedish economy.
Exactly what was so good about it? The politicians devalued our currency time and time again during the 70s and 80s to boost our export which lead to short term success and long term catastrophy. Can't remember who said it but devaluing a currency is like peeing your pants; it feels good at first but then becomes quite uncomfortable. This combined with several other reforms during the 80s then lead to the early 90s bank crisis (which the socialists have taken credit for so don't even try to spin it some other way). Add to that the ship yard crisis that the politicians only made worse by promising bailouts left, right and center.
What's so succesful about this? We've only manged to get by thanks to industries established before the high tax nightmare was launched some time in the wake of '68.
beblebox wrote:
Tax is not power. Tax is a way to have a bit of a non commercial market in a mixed economy. We could limit some parts of the market to the people and in that way maybe even have a self-supporting public sector.
The public sector is never self-supporting. If it had been self-supporting it would've been the private sector. And what do you mean by "limit some parts of the market"?
beblebox wrote:
Yes he did. He forced the Swedish government to turn down the offer Norway gave Sweden. You can play with definitions how much you want but it doesn't change the fact that if not for him we would have Norweigan oil right now.
Through removing their debts created by some silly financial system and multinational companies and banks and governments forcing them to become in debt with them and in that way forever undermining any kind of progress.
Also by building up the countries through bilateral aid. I would suggest at least 5% of GDP should be given in aid. We should also establish ways to in a cheap way distill salt water for India and Africa.
Ok, so we scratch their debt and send our money to them. And then what? They just sit on their asses? When and how will they actually produce something of value or are we going to pay them forever to scratch their balls? Trade has proven to lift people out of poverty, foreign aid has done jack shit. It's trade and foreign investment that's making several African economies boom, nothing else.
beblebox wrote:
Here is an example of how much of GDP that is salaries and how much that is companies. The financial crisis is a hoax created by the finacial market in order to drain the governments and lower the salaries. That in combination with rents according to the rules of the market will be devastating for our population. Are we really all Swedes gonna fit in Norway just because we let the market take control with silly election marketing?
Exactly what was so good about it? The politicians devalued our currency time and time again during the 70s and 80s to boost our export which lead to short term success and long term catastrophy. Can't remember who said it but devaluing a currency is like peeing your pants; it feels good at first but then becomes quite uncomfortable.
Now you are trying to rewrite the history and make everything look bad by saying it was bad. Lets start to say that what is good for the market is not necessarily good for a mixed economy. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad to devaluing the currency right now? LINK however that would mean raising the interest witch would be a pretty tough nut to crack. It has obviously bin proved that we didn't devalue our currency enough when we decided to try to see if it really did float in the beginning of the 90s.
Ok, so we scratch their debt and send our money to them. And then what? They just sit on their asses? When and how will they actually produce something of value or are we going to pay them forever to scratch their balls? Trade has proven to lift people out of poverty, foreign aid has done jack shit. It's trade and foreign investment that's making several African economies boom, nothing else..
First lets start of with that funny link you sent about Wallenbergs mate reassuring trough a newspaper called "The Business world".
I can provide sources amongst Stalin's mates telling that he didn't strangle his wife in his flat, that doesn't mean it is true. Second it states in that article that we would own 40% of the Norwegian oil-fund right?
It would be pretty nice to have 40% of a fund of $653364162000 and a bunch of Oil fields. I think we also like Jens Stoltenberg could have walked up to the podium in the beginning of the crisis and said "-I've heard that the economy is bad right now and in order to ride it out we have decided to save 5% less of our oil profit.
Also my bad. I meant multilateral aid all the time. We are suppose to go in, make sure that they have infrastructure to get clean water, self supply of food and education. We are not suppose to send money to governments at all even if we do trust them.
I am also pretty sure we could help the Somalians organise their oil reserves in exchange of a small fee. Pretty sure they would become one of the richest countries in the world, we could take 40%.
bolg wrote:
The financial crisis is a product of governments intervening in markets and creating bubbles. Have you actually read about subprimes?
No. Have you bin sleeping under a rock or something? Sure the subprimes had a little bit to do with it but not at all when it comes to countries like Greece and Spain. The banks and especially ECB started to print shitloads of money in the mid 90s. They sent it to countries like Greece and Greece spent it. Remember that 97% of the money printed in the world are just made up monopoly money.
Now they want it back because they know that the guys that borrowed the money cant do it. And now the bank is like kids in a candy shop with a millionaire uncle pointing at what parts of what's left that they can take.
Here is a nice graph on what countries that has bin fooled in to doing these kind of "market reforms"
This image has been resized, click here to view the full-sized image.
Here I am taking some earlier quotes because I feel that it is needed to read what I wrote above to get my point.
bolg wrote:
This combined with several other reforms during the 80s then lead to the early 90s bank crisis (which the socialists have taken credit for so don't even try to spin it some other way)
So ARE you telling me that if we would have owned 40% of Norways Oil our currency still would have sunk in the beginning of the 90s? Also look at how much the right winged government borrowed from other banks in the 80s and 90s.
Here is Swedens debt through out the years you are speaking about.
This image has been resized, click here to view the full-sized image.
The right winged government ruled from 79-83 and 91-94. Seems like they did borrow some money right?!
Later when we restored power Socialdemokraterna where the ones solving the problems The Right winged coalition had created. In Göran Perssons book "The one whom is in debt is never free" he describes pretty well how he had to stand in front of bankers half his age and they where trying to pick parts of the Swedish public sector just as they are doing to Greece right now.
The fact that Sweden has managed the crisis so well is because of two things. First Göran had bin preparing Sweden for this exact moment for about 12 years and the alliance came to a made table.
Second was one socialistic reform that made sure that if you rebuilt your house the government would pay half the cost for labour.
bolg wrote:
What's so succesful about this?
[...]
The public sector is never self-supporting. If it had been self-supporting it would've been the private sector. And what do you mean by "limit some parts of the market"?
Come on you cant tell me that Absolute vodka and SBAB is not successful? And all the profit from Absolut vodka went straight to where alcohol made damages. Tell me please why we had to sell this world tax machine and instead send that money to a bank account in France?
I can also suggest all marijuana should be sold by the government and pay our hospitals and education. Systembolaget is a good thing and I did miss it when I was living in the UK having to pick what ever whiskey Sainsbury had decided to have.
Also Bilprovningen is another good example, now sending all their money to a tax paradise instead.
The money the government makes they wont have to tax the workers with.
And why if the economy and the market is going so well there has popped up cash for gold businesses everywhere? You don't think we are gonna crash hardcore? Remember that 97% of the bank currency doesnt exist. It has bin proven through out the history that we cant trust the guys behind the market. Why would that change all the sudden?
If printing money all the time was such a good idea how come Zimbabwe isn't the richest country in the world?
#1509005 by Timex (Power User) at 2012-11-28 16:04:45 (8 months ago) - [Report]
beblebox wrote:
If printing money all the time was such a good idea how come Zimbabwe isn't the richest country in the world?
When local currency is only backed by "full faith of government" it is going to devalue.
After WWII when the world agreed to peg the value of local currency on the US Dollar...and that Dollar was backed by silver...the worlds local currency was stable.
In 1964 the US went off it's silver standard and the world was then left not with real money but with script that was based on nothing but floating credit.
Can't remember who said it but devaluing a currency is like peeing your pants; it feels good at first but then becomes quite uncomfortable
I don`t know much about economics, but I like how this sounds and somehow I got the feeling that it`s true.
#1509037 by bolg (Power User) at 2012-11-28 20:54:22 (8 months ago) - [Report]
beblebox wrote:
Now you are trying to rewrite the history and make everything look bad by saying it was bad. Lets start to say that what is good for the market is not necessarily good for a mixed economy. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad to devaluing the currency right now? LINK however that would mean raising the interest witch would be a pretty tough nut to crack. It has obviously bin proved that we didn't devalue our currency enough when we decided to try to see if it really did float in the beginning of the 90s.
It was bad, the high taxes post '68 saw several industries like Tetra Pak and IKEA move their capital out of Sweden and the headless regulations and interventions combined with a stagnating economy caused several crises.
We can't devalue our currency since we don't have a fixed exchange rate. We switched to a floating exchange rate as a direct effect of the devaluations in the 70s and 80s.
beblebox wrote:
First lets start of with that funny link you sent about Wallenbergs mate reassuring trough a newspaper called "The Business world".
I can provide sources amongst Stalin's mates telling that he didn't strangle his wife in his flat, that doesn't mean it is true. Second it states in that article that we would own 40% of the Norwegian oil-fund right?
It would be pretty nice to have 40% of a fund of $653364162000 and a bunch of Oil fields. I think we also like Jens Stoltenberg could have walked up to the podium in the beginning of the crisis and said "-I've heard that the economy is bad right now and in order to ride it out we have decided to save 5% less of our oil profit.
Also my bad. I meant multilateral aid all the time. We are suppose to go in, make sure that they have infrastructure to get clean water, self supply of food and education. We are not suppose to send money to governments at all even if we do trust them.
I am also pretty sure we could help the Somalians organise their oil reserves in exchange of a small fee. Pretty sure they would become one of the richest countries in the world, we could take 40%.
And your sources are? It wasn't 40 % o all the oil, it was prospecting rights to 3 fields out of which one proved lucrative.
So you're pro exploiting the Somali people if 40 % of it heads your way?
beblebox wrote:
No. Have you bin sleeping under a rock or something? Sure the subprimes had a little bit to do with it but not at all when it comes to countries like Greece and Spain. The banks and especially ECB started to print shitloads of money in the mid 90s. They sent it to countries like Greece and Greece spent it. Remember that 97% of the money printed in the world are just made up monopoly money.
Now they want it back because they know that the guys that borrowed the money cant do it. And now the bank is like kids in a candy shop with a millionaire uncle pointing at what parts of what's left that they can take.
Here is a nice graph on what countries that has bin fooled in to doing these kind of "market reforms"
http://i.imgur.com/2ECgc.jpg
Here I am taking some earlier quotes because I feel that it is needed to read what I wrote above to get my point.
Spain and Greece are where they are because of generous government policies, jobs, benefits and outright cheating.
You're misinformed. ECB wasn't created until 1998, the Euro wasn't launched until 1999 and Greece didn't join until 2001. So the ECB didn't print money in the mid 90s and send it to Greece. Where the fuck have you read that?
beblebox wrote:
So ARE you telling me that if we would have owned 40% of Norways Oil our currency still would have sunk in the beginning of the 90s? Also look at how much the right winged government borrowed from other banks in the 80s and 90s.
Here is Swedens debt through out the years you are speaking about.
http://i.imgur.com/GnJKj.png The right winged government ruled from 79-83 and 91-94. Seems like they did borrow some money right?!
Later when we restored power Socialdemokraterna where the ones solving the problems The Right winged coalition had created. In Göran Perssons book "The one whom is in debt is never free" he describes pretty well how he had to stand in front of bankers half his age and they where trying to pick parts of the Swedish public sector just as they are doing to Greece right now.
The fact that Sweden has managed the crisis so well is because of two things. First Göran had bin preparing Sweden for this exact moment for about 12 years and the alliance came to a made table.
Second was one socialistic reform that made sure that if you rebuilt your house the government would pay half the cost for labour.
The government loans money to finance headless government spending. A right wing government can't abolish or tear down everything the socialists have instigated just because they are in power for four years every fifteen years.
And no, Göran Persson increased our debt by taking money out of AP-fonderna to finance his politics. The table wasn't made at all.
And no, I'm not to keen on the current semi-socialist regime either. I miss the old right wing party.
beblebox wrote:
Come on you cant tell me that Absolute vodka and SBAB is not successful? And all the profit from Absolut vodka went straight to where alcohol made damages. Tell me please why we had to sell this world tax machine and instead send that money to a bank account in France?
I can also suggest all marijuana should be sold by the government and pay our hospitals and education. Systembolaget is a good thing and I did miss it when I was living in the UK having to pick what ever whiskey Sainsbury had decided to have.
Also Bilprovningen is another good example, now sending all their money to a tax paradise instead.
The money the government makes they wont have to tax the workers with.
And why if the economy and the market is going so well there has popped up cash for gold businesses everywhere? You don't think we are gonna crash hardcore? Remember that 97% of the bank currency doesnt exist. It has bin proven through out the history that we cant trust the guys behind the market. Why would that change all the sudden?
If printing money all the time was such a good idea how come Zimbabwe isn't the richest country in the world?
SBAB is government owned by not a part of the public sector. The public sector is defined as something financed by taxes and available to everyone.
We sold the Vin & Sprit since the yearly decrease of interest payments on our debt was greater than even the best yearly profit Vin & Sprit ever delivered to us.
Bilprovningen is owned to 52 % by the Swedish government. Are you suggesting that the government is involved in tax evasion?
It was bad, the high taxes post '68 saw several industries like Tetra Pak and IKEA move their capital out of Sweden and the headless regulations and interventions combined with a stagnating economy caused several crises.
We can't devalue our currency since we don't have a fixed exchange rate. We switched to a floating exchange rate as a direct effect of the devaluations in the 70s and 80s.
And devalued our currency even more than what socialdemokraterna did in the first place. If they want to take the money out of our finacial zone, fine. But don't come with products and expect us to not charge customs in order to not destroy our market.
bolg wrote:
So you're pro exploiting the Somali people if 40 % of it heads your way?
I am saying better to give Somalia 60% than nothing. If you want to call it exploit than be my guest. What is it the markets are doing when they are giving them 0%?
bolg wrote:
Spain and Greece are where they are because of generous government policies, jobs, benefits and outright cheating.
Getting fooled in there by chaos capitalist investors.
bolg wrote:
You're misinformed. ECB wasn't created until 1998, the Euro wasn't launched until 1999 and Greece didn't join until 2001. So the ECB didn't print money in the mid 90s and send it to Greece. Where the fuck have you read that?
No they are just giving bailouts now buying the debt created by other dark forces. At the same time they are taking what the good forces in the governments has built. The banks fooled Greece and the population was misinformed and thought it was free money that never would have to get paid back. Foolish? Sure but the human mind and the minor errors democratic bureaucracy made it possible and it should have bin illegal.
Furthermore I say nuke the banks and build parking lots instead.
bolg wrote:
The government loans money to finance headless government spending. A right wing government can't abolish or tear down everything the socialists have instigated just because they are in power for four years every fifteen years.
And no, Göran Persson increased our debt by taking money out of AP-fonderna to finance his politics. The table wasn't made at all.
And no, I'm not to keen on the current semi-socialist regime either. I miss the old right wing party.
With all this shit you are writing about the AP-fonderna. What would you suggest instead? It wasnt really a popular choice to reform the pension system but without the oil backing it up we couldn't keep it.
Göran Persson said that it wouldn't be a popular road to head down but what would have bin your option? I get a feeling you don't even want a pension system to begin with?
bolg wrote:
The public sector is defined as something financed by taxes and available to everyone.
I am saying make a part of the market a part of the public sector so that the money earned will become profit not taken with tax.
bolg wrote:
We sold the Vin & Sprit since the yearly decrease of interest payments on our debt was greater than even the best yearly profit Vin & Sprit ever delivered to us.
Vin och Sprit made (sv)(eng) about 10 000 000 000sek a year to the tax system. They sold it for 55 000 000 000sek. That is five and a half years of profit. Please tell me more about how good of a deal it was.
I call it financial rape.
bolg wrote:
Bilprovningen is owned to 52 % by the Swedish government. Are you suggesting that the government is involved in tax evasion?
Furthermore how much do you want to have private? Is the Police gonna be private? The army? Do you really think the market is better than democracy? Do you think the people wont revolt against your society and whom is gonna pay for protecting the market against counter-revolutionarys?
#1509068 by EspenT (Power User) at 2012-11-28 22:50:35 (8 months ago) - [Report]
beblebox wrote:
I am saying make a part of the market a part of the public sector so that the money earned will become profit not taken with tax.
That may be one of the worst things you can do. The public sector has no incentive to reform itself or run an efficient business. Look at SAS, they should have been bankrupt years ago, but they get bailed out time and time again by the government. A state-owned company competing in a free market damages the market as it has an unfair advantage, with the wallet of the states backing it, making it unnecessary to run a sound business.
A totally state-controlled market is similarly lacking of incentive for inventive thought, as it is free of competition. It is also generally a socially economical unsound way of doing business. Unless it has huge benefits from mass production, like the norwegian wine monopoly, which is (as far as I know) the biggest single buyer of alcohol beverages, as everything is bought centrally. Thus it gets a huge quantity discounts.
Quote:
Furthermore how much do you want to have private? Is the Police gonna be private? The army? Do you really think the market is better than democracy? Do you think the people wont revolt against your society and whom is gonna pay for protecting the market against counter-revolutionarys?
I won't put words in the mouth of bolg, but taking it to those extremes are fairly ridiculous. Even Ayn Rand wouldn't go that far. Most agree that the police, army and justice-system, at the very least should be state controlled.
Now, as for democracy being better than the market, that is kind of an oxymoron. The market in itself is one of the purest forms of direct democracy we have, if the state would just leave it alone. The consumers "vote" with their purchases.
That may be one of the worst things you can do. The public sector has no incentive to reform itself or run an efficient business.
Nike, Apple, McDonald's is pretty well-run planned economy's. Sure they don't have five year plans but quater-reports.
EspenT wrote:
A totally state-controlled market is similarly lacking of incentive for inventive thought, as it is free of competition. It is also generally a socially economical unsound way of doing business. Unless it has huge benefits from mass production, like the norwegian wine monopoly, which is (as far as I know) the biggest single buyer of alcohol beverages, as everything is bought centrally. Thus it gets a huge quantity discounts.
As I stated marijuana business don't need that much innovation. It does however need research to make it less harmful to the population.
EspenT wrote:
I won't put words in the mouth of bolg, but taking it to those extremes are fairly ridiculous. Even Ayn Rand wouldn't go that far. Most agree that the police, army and justice-system, at the very least should be state controlled.
Now, as for democracy being better than the market, that is kind of an oxymoron. The market in itself is one of the purest forms of direct democracy we have, if the state would just leave it alone. The consumers "vote" with their purchases.
No the population only thinks of their wallets. If really people voted with consumption wouldn't Gregs hardware store be more popular that wall-mart? With globalisation the companies becomes the states and I'm pretty sure sooner or later one company would invade the other to get their resources. The only way to stop it is to make it run from the people at the bottom of the pyramid.
And as it comes to taking it to extremes I have spoken with new-liberals/anarchocapitalists that think just that.
#1509100 by EspenT (Power User) at 2012-11-28 23:59:14 (8 months ago) - [Report]
beblebox wrote:
Nike, Apple, McDonald's is pretty well-run planned economy's. Sure they don't have five year plans but quater-reports.
I don't even.... What? Nike Apple and McDonald's are hardly state-owned? They do publish quarterly reports, yes, but I have never argued against that. The firms you mentioned runs their business in a competitive environment. They have to constantly evolve, or they will go bankrupt. A state-owned company does not have the same need for innovation, because it has the wallet of the state to back it up if business goes sour.
Quote:
As I stated marijuana business don't need that much innovation. It does however need research to make it less harmful to the population.
Well, I do agree that marijuana may be best off being distributed through controlled channels. However, even when it comes to marijuana everyone would benefit from competition. The quality of the product would increase, as bad marijuana would be priced out. Some suppliers may find a better way to grow it, or a more efficient way to distribute the product, making prices lower. In very few cases does complete state control give the best solution. In some cases partial state control is beneficiary, yes. But very seldom does complete state-run companies deliver the best end product.
Quote:
No the population only thinks of their wallets. If really people voted with consumption wouldn't Gregs hardware store be more popular that wall-mart? With globalisation the companies becomes the states and I'm pretty sure sooner or later one company would invade the other to get their resources. The only way to stop it is to make it run from the people at the bottom of the pyramid.
Now, let me get this straight. The population likes walmart better than Gregs Hardware (whatever that is). They have voted with their wallet, they believe walmart delivers the best value for money. In comes beblebox, and informs them that they are wrong. They should in fact purchase their computer from Gregs hardware, 'cause Greg is a nice guy. Where's the democracy in that? The people on the bottom does vote in the market, you simply don't agree with the matter in which they decide. Namely, value for money. Bottom line, the big companies are big because they deliver a product the public wants. The state couldn't possibly do it better.
As for companies invading each other, they already do. Corporate espionage is big business. Open warfare on the other hand just seems silly to me. I don't believe we will see Apple raising an army any time soon. And I'm pretty confident that many would boycott them the moment they started raising said army, crippling their finances, and rendering them unable to start a war.
Quote:
And as it comes to taking it to extremes I have spoken with new-liberals/anarchocapitalists that think just that.
I know some people believe that, which is why I wrote "most agree". Some people will always be radical, but they are in a marginal minority. But I mean, if we are going to argue in extremes we would never see the end of it. And again, I don't really understand where you are going with this. Some people believe we should privatize the police, so we should make some companies state-owned instead? Is this some sort of give them the pinky, and they'll eat the hand-argument?
I don't even.... What? Nike Apple and McDonald's are hardly state-owned? They do publish quarterly reports, yes, but I have never argued against that. The firms you mentioned runs their business in a competitive environment. They have to constantly evolve, or they will go bankrupt. A state-owned company does not have the same need for innovation, because it has the wallet of the state to back it up if business goes sour.
No they are not owned by a state per say I am saying that they are a state, and their board runs them with planned economy. It is the markets greatest flaw, that they eventually turn in to stalinism.
Quote:
Now, let me get this straight. The population likes walmart better than Gregs Hardware (whatever that is). They have voted with their wallet, they believe walmart delivers the best value for money. In comes beblebox, and informs them that they are wrong. They should in fact purchase their computer from Gregs hardware, 'cause Greg is a nice guy. Where's the democracy in that? The people on the bottom does vote in the market, you simply don't agree with the matter in which they decide. Namely, value for money. Bottom line, the big companies are big because they deliver a product the public wants. The state couldn't possibly do it better..
I mean that Greg's hardware store wont be able to start in a globalised economy. Walmart sells their product cheaper than Greg ever could buy it if ordering it straight from the company delivering it. Walmart is such a big market that it is impossible for greg to even start his harware store.
Hence, globalism is anti-capitalistic. It is impossible to compete with multinational companies. Therefore capitalism died with the yuppie age.
Quote:
As for companies invading each other, they already do. Corporate espionage is big business. Open warfare on the other hand just seems silly to me. I don't believe we will see Apple raising an army any time soon. And I'm pretty confident that many would boycott them the moment they started raising said army, crippling their finances, and rendering them unable to start a war.
Not to mention that Bush invaded Iraq and stole the resources from the people of Iraq and gave it to a bunch of his mates.
Quote:
I know some people believe that, which is why I wrote "most agree". Some people will always be radical, but they are in a marginal minority. But I mean, if we are going to argue in extremes we would never see the end of it. And again, I don't really understand where you are going with this. Some people believe we should privatize the police, so we should make some companies state-owned instead? Is this some sort of give them the pinky, and they'll eat the hand-argument?
More out of the interest if it was so and how he would motivate it. What I really am asking is how far we should drag the new communistic capitalism.
#1509120 by EspenT (Power User) at 2012-11-29 01:20:15 (8 months ago) - [Report]
beblebox wrote:
No they are not owned by a state per say I am saying that they are a state, and their board runs them with planned economy. It is the markets greatest flaw, that they eventually turn in to stalinism.
Well, that's a great stretch of imagination. I don't see how they even remotely resemble a state. They are a profit seeking organization trying to get the most out of the market they are in. They are not a governing power with legislative power.
Some companies may grow big, and some companies already have grown bigger than some countries, but I don't see any case in which a company would get the same power as a country.
Quote:
I mean that Greg's hardware store wont be able to start in a globalised economy. Walmart sells their product cheaper than Greg ever could buy it if ordering it straight from the company delivering it. Walmart is such a big market that it is impossible for greg to even start his harware store.
Hence, globalism is anti-capitalistic. It is impossible to compete with multinational companies. Therefore capitalism died with the yuppie age.
It is not impossible to compete with multinational companies. Wasn't Kodak multinational? Wasn't IBM? Microsoft? How about Nokia? They were pretty big once. Multinational companies are in the same position as every other company. They have to perform to survive. If anyone can deliver a better or cheaper alternative than the already established companies, they will survive and grow. Getting straight in as a multinational company off the batch is hard, but it is not necessary. Companies can start locally, compete with the big companies and grow. This happens all the time.
Now, I do believe that the market need some regulations in some cases. It would be impossible for a newly started company to compete with at multinational company with huge cash reserves if the big company squeeze the new company out of the market by running at a loss until the new company goes bankrupt. In cases such as these a governing power should intervene, as this is market destroying behavior.
I do not, however believe that the right answer is to give our politicians control of companies. Politicians gets their jobs because the masses like them, not because they are suited to run big companies. You should always be skeptic of your government, and giving them the power to control the market is not healthy skepticism.
Quote:
More out of the interest if it was so and how he would motivate it. What I really am asking is how far we should drag the new communistic capitalism.
Well, personally I believe that the market should be left alone, as long as they work satisfactory. I do not believe that the state could do a better job by intervening. This is backed by a lot of theory both in macro and micro economics. I would draw you the graphs, but you seem to have a decent understanding of things, and probably know of what I am talking about.
I do believe that police, firemen, hospitals (and health-care), education, military and the court should be state-driven. At the very least. I also believe that a lot of infrastructure is better of state-driven. Like the railway and roads. Now, the railways and roads in Norway is a disgrace, and I don't believe that any private company would ever let them dwindle too such a sorry state, as someone else would come around and build a better alternative, but as these are high-capital investments with little potential income, but still vital to the country I think them best left to the state to govern.
Education, hospitals and health care for the elderly and disabled should have private alternatives, to drive both the state-owned and the private to deliver a better, cheaper product.
But that's just my 2 cents. I haven't really given this too much thought, as I live in Norway, and something like this would never be possible here.
I am going to provide a tip of a third documentary now.
If you have a Swedish IP-adress you can watch it here thanks to the public service media:
http://urplay.se/170919
The rest:
Four.Horsemen.2012.DVDRip.XviD.AC3-MAJESTiC
This is some bankers own statements. They even drag out some Adam Smith quotes the new-liberals don't want you to hear. Would even say this one has a better way of keeping your interest than the other two but all three is important to understand what is going on.
Quote:
Now, I do believe that the market need some regulations in some cases. It would be impossible for a newly started company to compete with at multinational company with huge cash reserves if the big company squeeze the new company out of the market by running at a loss until the new company goes bankrupt. In cases such as these a governing power should intervene, as this is market destroying behavior.
I am with you here but I must say I am even more extreme. I think we need to find a way to stop companies to grow to big period. That it is undermining our productivity and that so many more of the population could be more well off if we just limited these guys power. Something these guys will try to stop at any cost.
Only in Europe would it be legal to seize 20% of the money in private bank accounts to "save" the economy that had been mismanaged into ruin.
Quote:
Politicians in Cyprus have agreed a new levy on the country's savers in order to secure a European bailout.
The measures include a 20% tax on savers with deposits over 100,000 euros at the country's largest bank, the Bank of Cyprus, which would see some individuals lose a fifth of their money.
A 4% tax on deposits over 100,000 euros will be levied at other banks.
Cyprus has to raise 5.8bn euros by Monday or face being kicked out of the single currency
You would think the damage done by this move would cause infinity higher long term damage to the entire European banking system than simply taking the short term hit of cutting Cyprus loose and letting them default. Who at this point would ever risk parking their money in any EU country if this is a real possibility? I also give it a year before that 100k euro mark starts creeping down to steal more people's savings.
I also give it a year before that 100k euro mark starts creeping down to steal more people's savings.
Actually the 100,000 euro mark was a compromise because they originally were going to tax all accounts no matter the balance but the EU bank objected.
After speaking to my wife this isn't the first time things like this have been done. She said in the 90's in Italy they did something similar but the % was 0.00001 or something like that. As far as I know it's never been repeated in this country. The tax in Cyprus is only to raise a specific amount (5.2bn) by Monday or risk being thrown out of the EU. I don't think it will be continued nor expanded being that if they raise that money the EU central bank is going to give them a hand-out thus making any further "taxes" uncecessary.
#1525700 by Timex (Power User) at 2013-03-23 20:20:05 (4 months ago) - [Report]
VeryBadGuy wrote:
So Euro-socialism bullshit strikes once again.
Only in Europe would it be legal to seize 20% of the money in private bank accounts to "save" the economy that had been mismanaged into ruin.
Quote:
Politicians in Cyprus have agreed a new levy on the country's savers in order to secure a European bailout.
The measures include a 20% tax on savers with deposits over 100,000 euros at the country's largest bank, the Bank of Cyprus, which would see some individuals lose a fifth of their money.
A 4% tax on deposits over 100,000 euros will be levied at other banks.
Cyprus has to raise 5.8bn euros by Monday or face being kicked out of the single currency
Nothing like being taxed on what you had left over from being taxed up the ass to start with.
They should be happy they don't loose 100% at the push of a button...the real problem with script and numbers in place of hard money.
The tax in Cyprus is only to raise a specific amount (5.2bn) by Monday or risk being thrown out of the EU.
I take it you mean the euro, not the EU right?
#1525807 by POTI (Power User) at 2013-03-24 19:21:19 (4 months ago) - [Report]
When they finally reopen the banks they will collapse. Why would anyone keep their cash in a back that has previously stolen it. This is all fallout from bad investments into Greece.
I also give it a year before that 100k euro mark starts creeping down to steal more people's savings.
Actually the 100,000 euro mark was a compromise because they originally were going to tax all accounts no matter the balance but the EU bank objected.
In politics there is no such thing as a "compromise" there is what you want to do, what you can get away with right now, and than after enough time what you wanted in the first place.
This topic has been autolocked for inactivity. If you have something to add, Click Here to request it is re-opened.
(Mad Ultra Mod) at 2013-03-23 19:21:12 (4 months ago) - [
(Power User) at 2013-03-24 19:21:19 (4 months ago) - [
