Au Revoir SARKOZY

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
A barter economy for the benefit of the community is most definitely NOT capitalism. Unfortunately for you, capitalism isn't "anything that sounds good when goods are exchanged", it's quite a bit more specific.
you have to read with more attention.. i never sayd it IS capitalism... i sayd it shows the fundamental elements (the reason for more wealth) - the elements of capitalism allways existed, no matter if you name them or not.

All of those markets you consider "free" had heavy governmental and religious involvement. Trade does not automatically equal "capitalism".

And thanks for highlighting post-feudal names like Fugger to support your argument for ancient capitalism....:rolleyes:
you really should start to read about the fugger... you would notice it was them, who had the "heavy influence" on the goverment
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
you have to read with more attention.. i never sayd it IS capitalism... i sayd it shows the fundamental elements (the reason for more wealth) - the elements of capitalism allways existed, no matter if you name them or not.

By that logic, it also shows the fundamental elements of socialism, which has also always existed, and even been the basic economic system of powerful, long-lasting empires.

But hey lets cherry-pick history to support a bad argument!

you really should start to read about the fugger... you would notice it was them, who had the "heavy influence" on the goverment

Bankers having a cozy relationship with governement? Wow, it's almost as if capitalism has nothing to do with free markets, even historically!
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
By that logic, it also shows the fundamental elements of socialism, which has also always existed, and even been the basic economic system of powerful, long-lasting empires.

But hey lets cherry-pick history to support a bad argument!

what you think was socialism, was also a raw way of capitalism. they supported each other and chared goods, cause it was a very simple way of our banking/monetary system. just without intrests.

they wouldnt help each other, if they wouldnt benefit from community. - you only do things, you benefits from (or at least hope you will). again, a fundamental part of capitalism
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
what you think was socialism, was also a raw way of capitalism. they supported each other and chared goods, cause it was a very simple way of our banking/monetary system. just without intrests.

I'm talking of whole civilizations that didn't have a banking or monetary system.

they wouldnt help each other, if they wouldnt benefit from community. - you only do things, you benefits from (or at least hope you will). again, a fundamental part of capitalism

Capitalism is about benefiting the ownership class, not the community.

I love how capitalism gets to be "anything that sounds good" in Perados land. Capitalism has quite a long history of fucking over the community quite badly in favor of a few, because 'rational self-interest' is neither rational nor community based.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm talking of whole civilizations that didn't have a banking or monetary system.
i know, thats why the had to care and chare. that was their simple bankingsystem


Capitalism is about benefiting the ownership class, not the community.

I love how capitalism gets to be "anything that sounds good" in Perados land. Capitalism has quite a long history of fucking over the community quite badly in favor of a few, because 'rational self-interest' is neither rational nor community based.
capitalism is way more, then it looks like your mind can take...
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Why does it matter? the issue is not how much state production there is but whether the private sector can be grown.

I've worked in both private and public sector, and self employed.

The overwhelming characteristic of the public sector is inefficiency. Almost every task can be done cheaper and better in the private sector. In the UK we need a massive reduction in the public sector. If we want a top-quality health service and education system it is absolutely imperative that far more is done by the private sector. France plans to boost its public sector. What breathtaking stupidity!
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I've worked in both private and public sector, and self employed.

The overwhelming characteristic of the public sector is inefficiency. Almost every task can be done cheaper and better in the private sector. In the UK we need a massive reduction in the public sector. If we want a top-quality health service and education system it is absolutely imperative that far more is done by the private sector. France plans to boost its public sector. What breathtaking stupidity!
yes useually it can be done way more efficienc. but the problem is, that markets, like education and health, doesnt work. by this it has to be done by state. so we have to find a way to make the state more effectiv
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
i know, thats why the had to care and chare. that was their simple bankingsystem

LOL

"You see, even though it was nothing like capitalism, I will choose to define it as so because it really fucks up my argument".

capitalism is way more, then it looks like your mind can take...

Yeah I just can't take the brilliance that is your ramblings....
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
You don't have to patronise us about the countries that we live in Sinwin and you don't.

Generally across Europe 80% of voters sit in the 20% middle ground of the political spectrum. All of the parties representing these people pursue full social welfare programmes. If you look at the historic spending of UK governments for example, you will see only small differences in government spending, even when we had a loony labour government that bankrupted the country in the 70's.

The question that you didn't answer is where Hollande will take Gov spending as a % of GDP. The US gov takes under 40%, but then you don't have universal healthcare for example, nor do you have across the board education budgets. Most European countries are over or heading towards 50%.

You can reduce this % by increasing GDP of course, but Europe is struggling to do that, with the exception of Germany. The Global Banking US Fraud has little to do with this now, but what we are left with are some very serious questions about the future and whether our political models are sustainable. The Greek elections have shown that in a crisis the middle ground parties fall to pieces, granted their performance merited it.

My personal view (and I concede that the numbers are fuzzy) is that you are in dangerous territory when you start taxing people at more than half what they can earn and have Government accounting for more than 50% of GDP. We will see first hand.
 

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,306
Media
0
Likes
2,087
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
He's pretty full of shit so I wouldn't go about buying his whole line because he uses big words.

Oh government capial projects don't make a profit? Holy shit, stop the presses. Oh wait, you don't understand how government spending works, do you? Of course capital projects don't directly make money, they make money for pretty much everyone BUT government, that's why you have government take care of them.

Hahahahahahaha you just blamed "socialism" for preying on bankers and businesses in Europe. Holy fuck, have you been asleep next to a Margaret Thatcher propaganda tape for the past decade? It's like literally the opposite of reality.

Bankers, the victims? What planet are you watching the news on?

You, in this post, identified that the world economy is broken, but then blamed socialism and unions.

It's fun to watch someone come so close to getting it, then suddenly veer off.

That's not meant to be a blanket approval of the US's economic policy, I'm just trying to explain to you how US debt works, since you appear to have bad info.

No, really, I do, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

Perhaps we should move away from the bombastic economic summaries?

You're talking about systems that weren't remotely capitalist and making things up to support your uneducated stance, not to mention that you're being entirely eurocentric in your history.

People who spend their lives studying this(ie not you!) generally can't agree on what historical economies can be considered even partially capitalist, but here is Perados to inform everyone that capitalism has in fact existed for 10000 years!

I eagerly anticipate your PhD presentation.

And thanks for highlighting post-feudal names like Fugger to support your argument for ancient capitalism....:rolleyes:

By that logic, it also shows the fundamental elements of socialism, which has also always existed, and even been the basic economic system of powerful, long-lasting empires.

But hey lets cherry-pick history to support a bad argument!

LOL

"You see, even though it was nothing like capitalism, I will choose to define it as so because it really fucks up my argument".

Yeah I just can't take the brilliance that is your ramblings....

Someone has such remarkably bad manners that it's more sad than annoying.
 

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,306
Media
0
Likes
2,087
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
You old fart Conan :biggrin1:. Don't you know that the sardonic style of the arrogantly opionated kid is kool? :cool: Dude reads Rolling Stone.

I try to know it, but I can't, Drifter.
Jus plane caint.
Kewl is as kewl does, mon.

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone is a damn, damn fine investigative journalist, one of the last surviving exemplaires.

Very informed, very economical, and bearing strong opinions ... but he's not gratuitously rude.

Some Rolling Stone readers need to pick up more of Mr. Taibbi's class. (Not you of course, kind sir.)
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
You don't have to patronise us about the countries that we live in Sinwin and you don't.

Generally across Europe 80% of voters sit in the 20% middle ground of the political spectrum. All of the parties representing these people pursue full social welfare programmes. If you look at the historic spending of UK governments for example, you will see only small differences in government spending, even when we had a loony labour government that bankrupted the country in the 70's.

I'm pretty well aware of European politics, the internet is a wonderful thing...It's somewhat telling that you've identified labour in the 70's as "loony" but didn't mention the tories in the 80's at all.

The question that you didn't answer is where Hollande will take Gov spending as a % of GDP. The US gov takes under 40%, but then you don't have universal healthcare for example, nor do you have across the board education budgets. Most European countries are over or heading towards 50%.

I didn't answer because I really don't care. I don't think it's the underlying cause of any of Europes issues, and there is no single correct answer to what is "right" and even if there was, it would change from country to country.

You can reduce this % by increasing GDP of course, but Europe is struggling to do that, with the exception of Germany. The Global Banking US Fraud has little to do with this now, but what we are left with are some very serious questions about the future and whether our political models are sustainable. The Greek elections have shown that in a crisis the middle ground parties fall to pieces, granted their performance merited it.

The global banking industry has everything to do with European instability right now. I know the neolib line is that what's happening now is social democracies failing, because that was always going to be their line. They were pissed when they didn't fail before this, and they're sure as fuck going to try and blame them now.

However, massive influxes of investment into various asset bubbles, such as sovereign debt, is really at the heart of all the debt crises.

My personal view (and I concede that the numbers are fuzzy) is that you are in dangerous territory when you start taxing people at more than half what they can earn and have Government accounting for more than 50% of GDP. We will see first hand.

Your numbers are fuzzy because there isn't a set amount. There is no Laffer curve. What matters is the condition of the people, and what they're getting for their money.
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
You old fart Conan :biggrin1:. Don't you know that the sardonic style of the arrogantly opionated kid is kool? :cool: Dude reads Rolling Stone.

If you're going to shit on Taibbi because he's published in Rolling Stone(which is kinda funny because they've done serious political coverage since the 70's), that says a lot about you, more than I.

If you have a problem him, try to put some more effort in than "heh rolling stone", and actually attack his journalism on the merits.

I try to know it, but I can't, Drifter.
Jus plane caint.
Kewl is as kewl does, mon.

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone is a damn, damn fine investigative journalist, one of the last surviving exemplaires.

Very informed, very economical, and bearing strong opinions ... but he's not gratuitously rude.

Some Rolling Stone readers need to pick up more of Mr. Taibbi's class. (Not you of course, kind sir.)

Taibbi is probably the best and most visible writer on the finance industry right now, and he is very good.

I don't know that you've read enough of him, though, if you think he's above being rude and insulting.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
I wasn't dissing Taibbi. I read his article that you linked. I could critique it, but I have to work.

If you treated these threads as a discussion rather than an argument (that you wish to win for some reason), then everyone would be a lot happier.

Tell me about the Tories in the 80's.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
But the think is, it suited Gordon not to, it suited the consumers not to. All, including the banks, are to blame for the debt crisis in the West. Some people think that they can get out of debt by taking on more debt. Interesting, but I think it has more to do with promises that get people elected.
Sure, we have a big problem in our so-called democracies that politicians are not called to account for lying. Secrecy and outright lies are very pervasive and ultimately destructive of the system. I said in a different post, perhaps cabinet meetings should be televised so we see just a little more about what government is doing and why. Whenever politicians are able to hide what they do, then they hide their mistakes. If we never see their mistakes, then we can never adjust our voting behaviour accoordingly.

Few politicians right now seem to be saying we need to do something about the banks, except as a way to passify the voters without really doing anything. I dont see signs of anything being done, do you? So stop blaming the voters for making bad choices if no one ever explains the real issues to them.

Several people have tried to explain to you Dandy, why State expenditure is at best an inefficient form of wealth creation, and you have never accepted that view.
Several people have stated it as a fact, but no evidence has been produced to support it. In the absence of evidence it isnt a fact, its an opinion.

Someone posted that newspaper piece claiming it said civil servants were over paid. Well, that illustrated exactly your problem with regard to evidence. The piece when read carefully did NOT say civil servants were over paid. In fact it said they were paid less than comparable private sector workers, and the reason they got bigger average salaries than the private sector was because government employs better qualified people for skilled jobs rather than cheap labourers. Do you want uneducated people running the treasury?

I'll say that it is naive to think that people work hard when it makes no difference to their reward.
Sudy after study (and no, I couldnt give you references) and also common sense tells you that monetary reward has a diminishing return. Sure, man doubles your company earnings and you give him a £1000 bonus, which is 10% of his salary. Hes very excited. Pay him £1,000,000 and what does he care whether he gets a bonus or not? Its enough to retire on after 1 years work. So lie and cheat as much as you have to. once the year is over, nothing else matters. Doesnt matter what happens to the company in 10 years time, hes long gone. Not that guy on £10,000, he needs his salary to keep being paid, year after year. Big money payments actually break the link between the interest of the company and the interest of the employee.

Its like estate agents. i never understand why anyone thinks estate agents will try to get that extra £20,000 for your house. They have a choice, they can earn their percentage of £300,000 for very little work, or they can work very hard trying to flog your house for the same percentage of £350,000. What would be sensible? Why sell a couple of houses for £300,000 for little work rather than one at £350,000 for lots. So you reckon I just made an argument for big bonuses? No, I didnt. I said small bonuses (which are big compared to wages) make a difference to people who have small incomes. But over a certain level money doesnt matter any more. Just look at these rich people complaining they cannot get tax breaks for their charirtable giving. They have so much money they just give it away! It doesnt matter to them. Obviously people will take money if its going, and its not much work to tell people you just wouldnt do the job for less, but it is also nonsense.

since we started traiding with cows, chicks and pigs, later with money. we allways used somehow free markets (the fundamental detail of capitalism).and as more as we used it as more everyone could afford. - so it looks like the system proofed the last 10,000 years, that it works.
Really? I suggest to you that the system of trading cows as wealth has completely failed and any attempt to reintroduce it now would lead to us all starving to death. What you say is a demonstration of capitalism at work, i say is a slow evolution of how to do things better. Evolution works by making mistakes. A new idea comes along and people try it. It fails, they try a different one. Socialism in the form of social control of production and markets is with us to stay because it has been a huge success for the great bulk of the population. What we see now is a slow creep back to an elite rich class. This idea is again fast proving to be a big mistake and we will soon be doing something about it.

what do you think, would they have done, as soon as they got in contact with the next village? they traded, not out of pure good will, but cause everyone benefits... the fundamental element of capitalism
Hardly. Isnt capitalism about ownership? I dont recall any description of socialism or communism says that people cannot exchange goods. It doesnt make any difference whether the goods belong to the village or the individual. So inside this communist village, one man is a blacksmith and makes horse shoes. Another grows wheat. The blacksmith makes shoes he give to the farmer, and the farmer grows wheat he gives to the blacksmith. The label 'communist' only says something about how it is organsed, not whether an exchange takes place.



A social democracy is a political ideology that supports social rights for citizens, like univeral healthcare, universal education, fair wage and labor laws, etc. Many leftist parties and governments in europe claim to be, or are, this. Their parties are often called Socialist(in France) or Labor(in UK).
Except that from this perspective there isnt much difference between nominally left labour and nominally right conservative. All mainstram UK parties follow this policy.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
So stop blaming the voters for making bad choices if no one ever explains the real issues to them.

In what you quoted, I was talking about the debt crisis. I don't buy the blame game, I think everyone has responsibility to burden.

Debt is a gamble with someone else's money, only we have a banking system in which that money doesn't have to exist. Until of course the bet goes bad, then suddenly it becomes real and causes the liquidity problems that drive up the value and cost of real money.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
what you think was socialism, was also a raw way of capitalism. they supported each other and chared goods, cause it was a very simple way of our banking/monetary system. just without intrests.
hey, maybe its time to knock some heads together here. The argument from both sides is that certain activities which have existed throughout history are fundamental to extreme capitalism and to extreme socialism. The truth is certain things simply happen everywhere as part of everything. Whoever heard of any form of social organistaion which did not involve people breathing?

Seems to me there are two labels 'capitalism' and 'socialism' which are frequently used to mean the sort of system which happens now in many developed countries. Ordinary people like me use those labels very differently to how theorists do when describing certain pure methods of running a society. We use them pragmatically as do the politicians in parties which have these names attached to them. They may guide choices in one direction or another. But other people like to use these labels as weapons to attack their opponents. This is not helpfull, especially when both sides behave much the same.

The overwhelming characteristic of the public sector is inefficiency. Almost every task can be done cheaper and better in the private sector.
I'd guess that frequently things can be done more efficiently in all organisations. Where is the evidence that introducing the private sector into government procurement has saved even 1p? PFI, for example, has been shown to be much more expensive than governments doing work themselves. Maybe theoretically an organisation could do things cheaper, but there is no reason for them to do so. Maybe bosses in a private company are interested in keeping down their own costs, but they have no interest in keeping down the bill to the state. In fact, they have a vested interest in increasing it. Maybe they are allowed a modest proft, say 5% of rurnover? why.....boost turnover! You are hiring someone whose interest is to charge you as much as possible! (see different thread , yesterdays news about recent contract where RAF is being charged £150million for £50 million refuelling planes. classic example of hyping up costs to make profits look reasonable)

you only do things, you benefits from (or at least hope you will). again, a fundamental part of capitalism
Exactly. Their task in life is to charge government as much as possible.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
You can reduce this % by increasing GDP of course, but Europe is struggling to do that, with the exception of Germany. The Global Banking US Fraud has little to do with this now,
Whoah! How do you justify that? The banking crisis caused a step change in government finances. Debt rose sharply. Economies shrank overnight. Government incomes fell and havnt recovered. Borrowing costs rose. Private banking institutions became insolvent and are still insolvent. How can you say this is no longer affecting the current situation? I suggest to you the cost of the banking fraud was several (many?) trillion euros, and is still rising. If you could produce a bailout fund the size of the lost money we would all be doing fine.

Though the situation is worse than that. The fraud merely crystalised an insolvent situation caused by inflated and unrealistic asset valuations. This underlying failure of the system to creat such a situation has not been addressed and is still waiting to bite us again.

but what we are left with are some very serious questions about the future and whether our political models are sustainable. The Greek elections have shown that in a crisis the middle ground parties fall to pieces, granted their performance merited it.
I think what is happening in Greece mirrors what happened in the Uk in 70's. Politicians with unacceptable answers are being sent packing, democracy in action. Throughout history rule by consent has relied upon the masses getting what they consider a fair deal. I'd say Greeks have been overpaid and this has to be corrected, but telling ordinary people to acept a drop in living standards is not going to work while the rich keep getting richer. Modern democracy simply will not accept this.

My personal view (and I concede that the numbers are fuzzy) is that you are in dangerous territory when you start taxing people at more than half what they can earn and have Government accounting for more than 50% of GDP. We will see first hand.
Do you mean the headline rate, or the cumulative rate? The cumulative rate of taxation in a closed system must always be 100%. The state taxes every transaction so gets all the money eventually. If you mean the general first-pass rate, income tax, then its a number which sounds reasonable at face value. Except, we have evidence the richer you are the lower the actual rate you pay, and the richest in the Uk are only paying 10%? Likewise, in the US the situation is fast becoming ridiculous.

Aside from the question of percentage there are issue about maximum wages. A very high tax rate on high incomes can be regarded as one way to prevent very high pay, but probably more subtle ways are needed. Like the proposal that shareholders can set a spread within the company between the lowest and highest pay rates which the bosses must follow. Or a nationally imposed rate of this sort.

As to comparisons with the US economy and the percentage spent nationally by government compared to GDP. ANyone have figures about this. I saw the figure of 40% quoted, but this does not include health care, and what happens about state spending? Anyone know what the real figure would be on a comparable basis to what the Uk government pays for?