Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
The error is in believing exist some deserving for having money.
The error is in your understanding of what money represents.
After your basic survival needs are satisfied, then money is not more than a grade for you. When you use it to buy iPhone, then yes,, you must deserve this. Above basic survival needs money works exactly like the grades from the class example. So, government should only secure people's basic survival needs and maintain fairness and order.
well, I don't believe it.
Money does not measure in any way any virtue.
money measure only the access to wealth.
About what gov must do, that is your libertarian religi.. ehm ideology.
free to believe in it, but it is no more real than the opposite ideology was.
The error is in your understanding of what money represents.
After your basic survival needs are satisfied, then money is not more than a grade for you. When you use it to buy iPhone, then yes,, you must deserve this. Above basic survival needs money works exactly like the grades from the class example. So, government should only secure people's basic survival needs and maintain fairness and order.
well, I don't believe it.
Money does not measure in any way any virtue.
money measure only the access to wealth.
About what gov must do, that is your libertarian religi.. ehm ideology.
free to believe in it, but it is no more real than the opposite ideology was.
You seem to give too much importance to money.
umh. Money matters.
Money is just a tool, to able able to exchange value. Value is what you create by working. A carpenter for example is able to build furniture, and helps building a house. The material before he starts has some value, but the final product is much more valuable.
without demand, no good has value. And demand express itself with a monetary face.
Taxation only makes sense, when a land has a good productivity.
taxation is a redistribuition.
Even the poorest country in history had taxation.
Point 1 makes no sense. Wealth itself doesn't. Money is an exchange tool, if you keep much money, you're taking it out of the system. That money is no more available, and can't be used for exchanges, nor for creating value.
Rich people generally become rich, because they wanna have always more, and know how to avoid taxes.
How can you say, that taxation could change anything?
see above.
Anyway, it is A FACT.
Look at EUROPE, we have no poor people why? Because of taxation adn redistribuition, and we have a lot of rich people, why? Because they have someone NOT POOR to sell goods to.
the failure of libertarians is the lack of demand.
The success of social democracy is the redistribuition and demand growing mechanism.
Point 2 is definitly true. It makes sense to help someone, while he's searching a job. But he's not producing any value during that time, he's using the value (or money, if you prefer) someone else has produced.
just study a little bit
Point 3: the government is here, to keep the system working, ensure his people's security. I don't get what you mean.
don't mess your ideology with reality,
in europe most people want gov to ensure their standard of life.
anyway see above.
Point 4: you can't multiply wealth, you can only multiply value. If you multiply wealth, it will lose its value. Multiplying money like the US or Japan do only creates inflation, and the money loses its value.
This is false, as it is false the old statemente "there are no free meal" (in facts it was meant in an other sense!!!)
The only way o create real value is work. But you always forget to recognize that nobody works if there's no one that buy yuor product. so the taxation and redistribuition mechanism allow people to start the producing->buying->producing->buying circle. And once started it can avoid the crisis and ammortizate the production changes.
Point 5: True. It doesn't matter, if it's a failure of ideology or system. Such a scenario means a huge loss of productivity...
When people start thinking someone else must work for him it is not a question of ideology, is a problem of how that system is ruled.
The example of that post (every student the same grade) is stupid, there's no ideology (neither communism) that tells it. Social democracy works different, ando Obama's (and believe me, I don't like him!) nevere ever thinked something like giving everybody the same.
The point some people miss is that redistribuition is not to give everyone the same.
(modificato)
umh. Money matters.
Money is just a tool, to able able to exchange value. Value is what you create by working. A carpenter for example is able to build furniture, and helps building a house. The material before he starts has some value, but the final product is much more valuable.
without demand, no good has value. And demand express itself with a monetary face.
Taxation only makes sense, when a land has a good productivity.
taxation is a redistribuition.
Even the poorest country in history had taxation.
Point 1 makes no sense. Wealth itself doesn't. Money is an exchange tool, if you keep much money, you're taking it out of the system. That money is no more available, and can't be used for exchanges, nor for creating value.
Rich people generally become rich, because they wanna have always more, and know how to avoid taxes.
How can you say, that taxation could change anything?
see above.
Anyway, it is A FACT.
Look at EUROPE, we have no poor people why? Because of taxation adn redistribuition, and we have a lot of rich people, why? Because they have someone NOT POOR to sell goods to.
the failure of libertarians is the lack of demand.
The success of social democracy is the redistribuition and demand growing mechanism.
Point 2 is definitly true. It makes sense to help someone, while he's searching a job. But he's not producing any value during that time, he's using the value (or money, if you prefer) someone else has produced.
just study a little bit
Point 3: the government is here, to keep the system working, ensure his people's security. I don't get what you mean.
don't mess your ideology with reality,
in europe most people want gov to ensure their standard of life.
anyway see above.
Point 4: you can't multiply wealth, you can only multiply value. If you multiply wealth, it will lose its value. Multiplying money like the US or Japan do only creates inflation, and the money loses its value.
This is false, as it is false the old statemente "there are no free meal" (in facts it was meant in an other sense!!!)
The only way o create real value is work. But you always forget to recognize that nobody works if there's no one that buy yuor product. so the taxation and redistribuition mechanism allow people to start the producing->buying->producing->buying circle. And once started it can avoid the crisis and ammortizate the production changes.
Point 5: True. It doesn't matter, if it's a failure of ideology or system. Such a scenario means a huge loss of productivity...
When people start thinking someone else must work for him it is not a question of ideology, is a problem of how that system is ruled.
The example of that post (every student the same grade) is stupid, there's no ideology (neither communism) that tells it. Social democracy works different, ando Obama's (and believe me, I don't like him!) nevere ever thinked something like giving everybody the same.
The point some people miss is that redistribuition is not to give everyone the same.
(modificato)
There is a lot of truth in what you write. I would say that you're mostly right. Still, this part is really terribly wrong:
Money does not measure in any way any virtue.
money measure only the access to wealth.
Money is a measure of economic virtue. That's just a simple fact. Our work is also an economic resource and it must abide economic laws just as any other resource. The fact that we need to maintain humane relationship towards money and wealth does not change that fact. Both things apply: money is a measure of virtue and we need to redistribute it for the sake of humanity.
The question is not whether to redistribute or not. The crucial question, as always, is the measure, i.e. we need to determine what is the extent to which we need to use the necessary evil of taxing and redistributing. Yes, this is a necessary evil from the perspective of economic efficiency and general well-being and not the market. Market is a simple natural process that would happen in any case and on the other hand government taxing and redistribution are necessary because human nature is not perfect and so we are not able to make the necessary redistribution by our individual decisions. That's why we have to do it collectively. But again, the key is to "keep it simple and make it short". We should do it knowing that it is a necessary evil for economic efficiency and do only that is really necessary. That is the key and it usually gets ignored and so we have most governments that behave like drunken billionaires.
Money does not measure in any way any virtue.
money measure only the access to wealth.
Money is a measure of economic virtue. That's just a simple fact. Our work is also an economic resource and it must abide economic laws just as any other resource. The fact that we need to maintain humane relationship towards money and wealth does not change that fact. Both things apply: money is a measure of virtue and we need to redistribute it for the sake of humanity.
The question is not whether to redistribute or not. The crucial question, as always, is the measure, i.e. we need to determine what is the extent to which we need to use the necessary evil of taxing and redistributing. Yes, this is a necessary evil from the perspective of economic efficiency and general well-being and not the market. Market is a simple natural process that would happen in any case and on the other hand government taxing and redistribution are necessary because human nature is not perfect and so we are not able to make the necessary redistribution by our individual decisions. That's why we have to do it collectively. But again, the key is to "keep it simple and make it short". We should do it knowing that it is a necessary evil for economic efficiency and do only that is really necessary. That is the key and it usually gets ignored and so we have most governments that behave like drunken billionaires.
Look at EUROPE, we have no poor people why? Because of taxation adn redistribuition, and we have a lot of rich people, why? Because they have someone NOT POOR to sell goods to.
the failure of libertarians is the lack of demand.
The success of social democracy is the redistribuition and demand growing mechanism.
In Europe there are many poor people. Look at what happens in Greece, you can't seriously say, that there are no poor people in Europe... -.-
taxation is a redistribuition.
Even the poorest country in history had taxation.
I miss the the point, where you're contradicting with my statement... Maybe I didn't look well enough... :P
Well, if you really think its an argument.
So taxation during the roman empire was there to redistribute the wealth to the poor. Oh no, my mistake, taxes were there to pay for the military (it's in wikipedia, click here).
just study a little bit
Interesting page. But it's a predicting tool, and not the solution to the crisis... Did you even read it carefully?
don't mess your ideology with reality,
in europe most people want gov to ensure their standard of life.
anyway see above.
Also missing the contradiction to my statement.
This is false, as it is false the old statemente "there are no free meal" (in facts it was meant in an other sense!!!)
The only way o create real value is work. But you always forget to recognize that nobody works if there's no one that buy yuor product. so the taxation and redistribuition mechanism allow people to start the producing->buying->producing->buying circle. And once started it can avoid the crisis and ammortizate the production changes.
The consumation has decreased due to over-taxation, because people have less money to spend.
We see how well it's working in France, where the higher taxes accelerated the spread of poverty...
When people start thinking someone else must work for him it is not a question of ideology, is a problem of how that system is ruled.
The example of that post (every student the same grade) is stupid, there's no ideology (neither communism) that tells it. Social democracy works different, ando Obama's (and believe me, I don't like him!) nevere ever thinked something like giving everybody the same.
The point some people miss is that redistribuition is not to give everyone the same.
???
Are you answering to me, or to the statement I'm refering to?
And please watch your tone. I'm not here to get insulted. It's rather a sign of weakness than anything else...
(editado)
the failure of libertarians is the lack of demand.
The success of social democracy is the redistribuition and demand growing mechanism.
In Europe there are many poor people. Look at what happens in Greece, you can't seriously say, that there are no poor people in Europe... -.-
taxation is a redistribuition.
Even the poorest country in history had taxation.
I miss the the point, where you're contradicting with my statement... Maybe I didn't look well enough... :P
Well, if you really think its an argument.
So taxation during the roman empire was there to redistribute the wealth to the poor. Oh no, my mistake, taxes were there to pay for the military (it's in wikipedia, click here).
just study a little bit
Interesting page. But it's a predicting tool, and not the solution to the crisis... Did you even read it carefully?
don't mess your ideology with reality,
in europe most people want gov to ensure their standard of life.
anyway see above.
Also missing the contradiction to my statement.
This is false, as it is false the old statemente "there are no free meal" (in facts it was meant in an other sense!!!)
The only way o create real value is work. But you always forget to recognize that nobody works if there's no one that buy yuor product. so the taxation and redistribuition mechanism allow people to start the producing->buying->producing->buying circle. And once started it can avoid the crisis and ammortizate the production changes.
The consumation has decreased due to over-taxation, because people have less money to spend.
We see how well it's working in France, where the higher taxes accelerated the spread of poverty...
When people start thinking someone else must work for him it is not a question of ideology, is a problem of how that system is ruled.
The example of that post (every student the same grade) is stupid, there's no ideology (neither communism) that tells it. Social democracy works different, ando Obama's (and believe me, I don't like him!) nevere ever thinked something like giving everybody the same.
The point some people miss is that redistribuition is not to give everyone the same.
???
Are you answering to me, or to the statement I'm refering to?
And please watch your tone. I'm not here to get insulted. It's rather a sign of weakness than anything else...
(editado)
the failure of libertarians is the lack of demand.
What failure? Really, I don't know if this is intellectual ignorance or pure stupidity. Your call.
What failure? Really, I don't know if this is intellectual ignorance or pure stupidity. Your call.
In Europe there are many poor people. Look at what happens in Greece, you can't seriously say, that there are no poor people in Europe... -.-
LOL, oviously.
But less than countries where there are less redistribuition
So taxation during the roman empire was there to redistribute the wealth to the poor. Oh no, my mistake, taxes were there to pay for the military
and military were who? Ah.. those damned public spending.. always paying someone to work..
for the rest..
I don't have time to lose with ideologic or religion fanatic.
Your religion of markets, denied by reality EVERY TIME, is simply made up by fear.
your believing in the "badpublicspendig" is stupid as the world history demonstrate, who take that road fail.
your constant blaming for taxation for every crisis forget to look at the analisys of demand lack.
What takes France to crisis is EURO. What takes europe to crisis is the austerity politics. What takes occidental economies in crisis is the growing poverty on working class, and relative lack of demand.
In the end, what is really is killing us.
Too much freedom in work and commerce. I'll say the lack of rule for protection of work value.
LOL, oviously.
But less than countries where there are less redistribuition
So taxation during the roman empire was there to redistribute the wealth to the poor. Oh no, my mistake, taxes were there to pay for the military
and military were who? Ah.. those damned public spending.. always paying someone to work..
for the rest..
I don't have time to lose with ideologic or religion fanatic.
Your religion of markets, denied by reality EVERY TIME, is simply made up by fear.
your believing in the "badpublicspendig" is stupid as the world history demonstrate, who take that road fail.
your constant blaming for taxation for every crisis forget to look at the analisys of demand lack.
What takes France to crisis is EURO. What takes europe to crisis is the austerity politics. What takes occidental economies in crisis is the growing poverty on working class, and relative lack of demand.
In the end, what is really is killing us.
Too much freedom in work and commerce. I'll say the lack of rule for protection of work value.
LOL, oviously.
But less than countries where there are less redistribuition
Switzerland, my country, is going pretty well, despite the fact, that the taxation is pretty low, compared to the countries around. Seems like your statement doesn't fit to Switzerland... I don't know for other countries, but have you even any hard data that confirms your statement?
and military were who? Ah.. those damned public spending.. always paying someone to work..
Yeah, the military, who garanties the security of their country. The police is here for inland security, but the army's task is to protect the people from abroad threats.
for the rest..
I don't have time to lose with ideologic or religion fanatic.
Your religion of markets, denied by reality EVERY TIME, is simply made up by fear.
your believing in the "badpublicspendig" is stupid as the world history demonstrate, who take that road fail.
your constant blaming for taxation for every crisis forget to look at the analisys of demand lack.
What takes France to crisis is EURO. What takes europe to crisis is the austerity politics. What takes occidental economies in crisis is the growing poverty on working class, and relative lack of demand.
In the end, what is really is killing us.
Too much freedom in work and commerce. I'll say the lack of rule for protection of work value.
Did I sound fanatic to you? I really doubt it.
But you're proving something. You don't prove your statements with any facts.
You miss the fact, that France's problem is not really the Euro, but their completly dilettantic political class, who instead of trying to solve the economical problems, focuses on societal problems (mariage and adoption for everybody, no more CDI (indefinite working contract)) or external problems (syria, mali, etc).
Prove what your stating and I might believe to you. I really will, but as it is now, you have proven nothing. You just kept insulting me... -.-
But less than countries where there are less redistribuition
Switzerland, my country, is going pretty well, despite the fact, that the taxation is pretty low, compared to the countries around. Seems like your statement doesn't fit to Switzerland... I don't know for other countries, but have you even any hard data that confirms your statement?
and military were who? Ah.. those damned public spending.. always paying someone to work..
Yeah, the military, who garanties the security of their country. The police is here for inland security, but the army's task is to protect the people from abroad threats.
for the rest..
I don't have time to lose with ideologic or religion fanatic.
Your religion of markets, denied by reality EVERY TIME, is simply made up by fear.
your believing in the "badpublicspendig" is stupid as the world history demonstrate, who take that road fail.
your constant blaming for taxation for every crisis forget to look at the analisys of demand lack.
What takes France to crisis is EURO. What takes europe to crisis is the austerity politics. What takes occidental economies in crisis is the growing poverty on working class, and relative lack of demand.
In the end, what is really is killing us.
Too much freedom in work and commerce. I'll say the lack of rule for protection of work value.
Did I sound fanatic to you? I really doubt it.
But you're proving something. You don't prove your statements with any facts.
You miss the fact, that France's problem is not really the Euro, but their completly dilettantic political class, who instead of trying to solve the economical problems, focuses on societal problems (mariage and adoption for everybody, no more CDI (indefinite working contract)) or external problems (syria, mali, etc).
Prove what your stating and I might believe to you. I really will, but as it is now, you have proven nothing. You just kept insulting me... -.-
Switzerland, my country, is going pretty well, despite the fact, that the taxation is pretty low, compared to the countries around. Seems like your statement doesn't fit to Switzerland... I don't know for other countries, but have you even any hard data that confirms your statement?
well there's something to say on Swiss economy..
Yeah, the military, who garanties the security of their country. The police is here for inland security, but the army's task is to protect the people from abroad threats.
I said that professional military is public spending too..
that France's problem is not really the Euro, but their completly dilettantic political class
i disagree.
The second economy of the continent doesn't go wasted for populism or politicians errors.
Is always easier to blame some politician than to face the real source of problems.
I think that politicians can't change too much this trends. What can they do?
lower 1 or 2 % of public deficit? And with this what have we gained?
The europe crisis is an economic one. it has macroeconomics sources in labour market regulation and coordination.
Prove what your stating and I might believe to you. I really will, but as it is now, you have proven nothing. You just kept insulting me... -.-
I don't want to insulte anyone, excuse me.
About proving:
there are study of FMI saying euro is unsubstainable for economies of south europe.
almost libertarian economist (Friedman above all) that say euro is an error
every keynesian economist say euro is an error.
BCE reports saying euro needs compensation from north to south to survive (and BCE that is ruled by Germany that stamp money to buy southern debt..)
Internal europe ommerce balance of payments that flow in 10 years from south vs north.
Euro is a problem only because certain governments within Euro-zone spend too much. The only mistake about Euro is a pretty simple one. It's actually quite a beginner's mistake. I really don't understand what kind of economic imbecile must you be to think that you can have a common currency without a strict common fiscal policy. In short, having a common currency is possible only combined with putting a limit to each government's fiscal sovereignty. When Euro was introduced, there were rules about public spending but without any tools to prevent governments from breaking them. That's what caused the problem with Euro. No country wants to solve budget deficit problems of countries that didn't follow the agreed rules. Economy is all about trust. When trust is broken, economic crises appear.
That reminds me of a joke we have here about gentleman's poker. A Mediterranean, let's not choose a nation, came back from a game of poker with a German, a Swiss and a Norwegian and his friend asked him how did he do. He said: "Well, at first I was having no luck with my cards. They were so terrible that I didn't make any bids at all. But then I noticed that these guys don't even show their cards. They just say what they have at the end of each game and who says he's got the best cards, collects the pot. So, I asked them what's it all about and they said that they're all gentlemen and that their word is the most valuable currency on this table. So, there's no need to prove it. They just trust each others word." Mediterranean looked at his friend with a big proud smile and said: "And then my luck has turned."
That reminds me of a joke we have here about gentleman's poker. A Mediterranean, let's not choose a nation, came back from a game of poker with a German, a Swiss and a Norwegian and his friend asked him how did he do. He said: "Well, at first I was having no luck with my cards. They were so terrible that I didn't make any bids at all. But then I noticed that these guys don't even show their cards. They just say what they have at the end of each game and who says he's got the best cards, collects the pot. So, I asked them what's it all about and they said that they're all gentlemen and that their word is the most valuable currency on this table. So, there's no need to prove it. They just trust each others word." Mediterranean looked at his friend with a big proud smile and said: "And then my luck has turned."
Euro is a problem only because certain governments within Euro-zone spend too much.
this is not a public deficit or public debt crisis.
This is an economic crisis.
Economic means of private sector.
let's start from basics.
First comed private economic crisis, then, recovering less taxation, camed public sector deficit.
I really don't understand what kind of economic imbecile must you be to think that you can have a common currency without a strict common fiscal policy.
I agree.
In short, having a common currency is possible only combined with putting a limit to each government's fiscal sovereignty. When Euro was introduced, there were rules about public spending but without any tools to prevent governments from breaking them.
well, they substitued greek, italian and spain gov's when they thinked they needed it...
No country wants to solve budget deficit problems of countries that didn't follow the agreed rules. Economy is all about trust. When trust is broken, economic crises appear.
partially false,.
the probem is not believing your partner WANT to pay debts. The problem is believing he CAN..
And i remember you that this is not for public sector, but for private..
About your joke..
I'll say that the cheater at the euro-table is Germany.
In fact is the only one nation getting an incredible luck..
(editado)
this is not a public deficit or public debt crisis.
This is an economic crisis.
Economic means of private sector.
let's start from basics.
First comed private economic crisis, then, recovering less taxation, camed public sector deficit.
I really don't understand what kind of economic imbecile must you be to think that you can have a common currency without a strict common fiscal policy.
I agree.
In short, having a common currency is possible only combined with putting a limit to each government's fiscal sovereignty. When Euro was introduced, there were rules about public spending but without any tools to prevent governments from breaking them.
well, they substitued greek, italian and spain gov's when they thinked they needed it...
No country wants to solve budget deficit problems of countries that didn't follow the agreed rules. Economy is all about trust. When trust is broken, economic crises appear.
partially false,.
the probem is not believing your partner WANT to pay debts. The problem is believing he CAN..
And i remember you that this is not for public sector, but for private..
About your joke..
I'll say that the cheater at the euro-table is Germany.
In fact is the only one nation getting an incredible luck..
(editado)
this is not a public deficit or public debt crisis.
This is an economic crisis.
Economic means of private sector.
I repeat myself, but: "There are no Americans in Baghdad."
This is an economic crisis.
Economic means of private sector.
I repeat myself, but: "There are no Americans in Baghdad."
I repeat myself, but: "There are no Americans in Baghdad."
uff.
i would like to know what is this crisis source and mechanism in your opinion, because what I've said is what FMI, EU, all economists (liberals and keynesians), every media and BCE tells..
except the priests of "less state, less public spending", everybody on this earth thinks the economy burst a bubble of private credit..
(editado)
uff.
i would like to know what is this crisis source and mechanism in your opinion, because what I've said is what FMI, EU, all economists (liberals and keynesians), every media and BCE tells..
except the priests of "less state, less public spending", everybody on this earth thinks the economy burst a bubble of private credit..
(editado)
I have already explained what caused this crisis. The too close relationship between the financial world and the political world.
That reminds me of a joke we have here about gentleman's poker. A Mediterranean, let's not choose a nation, came back from a game of poker with a German, a Swiss and a Norwegian and his friend asked him how did he do. He said: "Well, at first I was having no luck with my cards. They were so terrible that I didn't make any bids at all. But then I noticed that these guys don't even show their cards. They just say what they have at the end of each game and who says he's got the best cards, collects the pot. So, I asked them what's it all about and they said that they're all gentlemen and that their word is the most valuable currency on this table. So, there's no need to prove it. They just trust each others word." Mediterranean looked at his friend with a big proud smile and said: "And then my luck has turned."
:-)
:-)
I have already explained what caused this crisis. The too close relationship between the financial world and the political world.
this is not an explanation, but I can agree on it.
Private lenders know that public balance will ensure them for their lending risks..
but this still doesn't explain why people started not to repay back their loans.
this is not an explanation, but I can agree on it.
Private lenders know that public balance will ensure them for their lending risks..
but this still doesn't explain why people started not to repay back their loans.
Private lenders know that public balance will ensure them for their lending risks..
Exactly. Even more, the governments have stimulated banks to merge (because those banks would be more stable, oh irony), which made them too big to fail. Which was for those bankers a ticket to paradise.
So I'm not saying the financial world didn't make mistakes, I'm just saying that those mistakes were a predictable outcome of the government intervention in the financial world. Just like the anti-American sentiment in some countries is the predictable outcome of America's foreign policy.
but this still doesn't explain why people started not to repay back their loans.
Which people are you talking about here?
Exactly. Even more, the governments have stimulated banks to merge (because those banks would be more stable, oh irony), which made them too big to fail. Which was for those bankers a ticket to paradise.
So I'm not saying the financial world didn't make mistakes, I'm just saying that those mistakes were a predictable outcome of the government intervention in the financial world. Just like the anti-American sentiment in some countries is the predictable outcome of America's foreign policy.
but this still doesn't explain why people started not to repay back their loans.
Which people are you talking about here?