What is an Economy? Some and I do not know.

SahTiva

SahTiva

Well-Known Member
Command economies fail, time and time again. While a mix between free market and command economies is sometimes attainable, history has shown with large populations at least, with every step taken towards a command economy, the PPF (production possibilities frontier) usually suffers an inward shift... This is not my personal opinion but pretty much in line with every economist world wide... due to the competitive advantage gained with industry rivalry. I don't know what austery is, surely you mean austerity, which is only partially relevant to the fiscal cliff the great divider throwing us off.
If you guys REALLY want to talk economics I'd love to :)
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
SahTiva said:
Command economies fail, time and time again. While a mix between free market and command economies is sometimes attainable, history has shown with large populations at least, with every step taken towards a command economy, the PPF (production possibilities frontier) usually suffers an inward shift... This is not my personal opinion but pretty much in line with every economist world wide... due to the competitive advantage gained with industry rivalry. I don't know what austery is, surely you mean austerity, which is only partially relevant to the fiscal cliff the great divider throwing us off.
If you guys REALLY want to talk economics I'd love to :)
Click to expand...
Yes I meant Austerity. Supply side economics is a better candidate for your description "command economies" than for stimulating aggregate demand. I don't believe there could be a better way of ending recession than Keynesian. I will admit, it isn't good long term, but before it is out, measures need to be taken to prevent Jeffersonian fears from remaining forever. I don't see the logic in forcing a reset by shifting to anarchocapitalism when there is no aggregate demand, what good is a free market with no customers?

That still doesn't address the issue of the consolidation of finite natural resources.

By the way, I love a good economics debate, but Deprave didn't have the patience, I'm not easily convinced.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
SahTiva said:
Command economies fail, time and time again. While a mix between free market and command economies is sometimes attainable, history has shown with large populations at least, with every step taken towards a command economy, the PPF (production possibilities frontier) usually suffers an inward shift... This is not my personal opinion but pretty much in line with every economist world wide... due to the competitive advantage gained with industry rivalry. I don't know what austery is, surely you mean austerity, which is only partially relevant to the fiscal cliff the great divider throwing us off.
If you guys REALLY want to talk economics I'd love to :)
Click to expand...
The game monopoly is a perfect free market. Do you want our economy to be like the game?
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Yes I meant Austerity. Supply side economics is a better candidate for your description "command economies" than for stimulating aggregate demand. I don't believe there could be a better way of ending recession than Keynesian. I will admit, it isn't good long term, but before it is out, measures need to be taken to prevent Jeffersonian fears from remaining forever. I don't see the logic in forcing a reset by shifting to anarchocapitalism when there is no aggregate demand, what good is a free market with no customers?

That still doesn't address the issue of the consolidation of finite natural resources.

By the way, I love a good economics debate, but Deprave didn't have the patience, I'm not easily convinced.
Click to expand...
the finiteness of resources is NOT our current economic problem, thats a looming shadow on the distant horizon which can be solved through technology if the technology is allowed to progress (distinctly different from Progressive)

a national economy is not so different than a household economy. if the budget for the household stays within it's means the economy buzzes along, children can be born reach maturity, get jobs or do work increasing overall productivity for LESS than the energy input of a single dude crouched in a cave trying to chew the last of the gristle off a bone.

more people doing work means the work gets done more efficiently, and as a result we can feed clothe and house far more people using LESS resources per unit (person) than we could even 40 years ago. (this includes agricultural area, food energy petroleum fertilizers etc, EVERYTHING uses less now than it ever has to give the people MORE shit than ever. untill gene rodenberry's "replicator" technology arrives and allows us to make shit from energy drawn from clean abundant antimatter reactors, shit is pretty good from a not dying in the street perspective.

when the household (or nation) destabilizes its economy by indulging in debt (which results in debt service which is an endless hamsterwheel of loss) or profligate wasteful spending on some boondoggle with hidden future costs not properly prepared for then shit gets quite chancey, and the new children born to the household may have to wear hand-me-down clothes or maybe only get a diaper change every other excretion. if the shit is REALLY FUCKED then the kid might have to start working in the fields at 8 years old just to keep the family in bread and baloney. (like i did, and like millions of poor kids before me) this situation may be common historically but it was unheard of in the last two generations before my birth. children were supposed to run around the idyllic neighborhood with cap guns and howdy-doody cowboy vests or watch endless hours of captain kangaroo, not weed tomato feilds or pick melons every afternoon till the sun went down. this situation is the result of an unbalanced household economy caused by a simple economic reality.

more kids in pampers and schoolbooks than the economic engine can support. or in the parlance of economics: liabilities exceeded funding. two working parents can support 6 kids, one working parent cannot, net result, austerity, unpleasantness and belt tightening. the only way to make it through tough times (for a household or a nation) is austerity, reducing expenses in the place where the cuts deal the least damage and the least pain. thats the austerity needed, not the fake keynsian idea of cutting social services till the poor can feel their rib bones scraping their spines and they will do ANYTHING to end the pain, which is the austerity currently being practiced by leftists in greece spain and california. they cut cut cut on the programs and services that matter to keep the bullshit like "high speed rail" and ecologically dubious solar power experiments while the people on the fine edge of the abyss suffer. thats not austerity, thats politics.

you cant stabilize a tight money situation with "austerity" that cuts back on milk, bread, pampers, lights and heat while increasing funding for cigarettes, beer, spinning rims and jewelry. you may be able to cut the bottom line, but it wont do shit for your problems and the essential shit that you cut back on in favour of useless luxuries will have to be put on a credit card anyhow, but thats off budget so it's Future Me's problem right?

the republicans have their own version of Jerry Moonbeam Brown's demented vision of "Austerity" and it focusses on spending more and more for military power than will hopefully never be used, but it MUST be used every now and again just to "prove" it's needed. neither side really understands how to run an economy in good times or bad, since more money means more profligate spending, and less money means... well... more profligate spending to spend your way out of the hole you dug with the profligate spending in good times.

the left (and to a lesser degree the right) spend all their effort and energy pointing fingers at the other side and shouting about this spending or those tax cuts for that group that doesnt vote for my side, while ignoringh the fact that washington takes in quite enough revenue to balance the budget, cut taxes and keep programs that are needed and even simply WANTED by all the various groups just bu cutting the waste, and trimming the useless bullshit that nobody really wants (like high speed rail in california) but only serves as a place to dump scads of money to pad the pockets of a few wealthy contributors and a few shady contractors.

Real Austerity works every time. fake austerity that forces necessary expenses onto debt and pretends everything will work out when you finally get a winning scratcher ticket NEVER works.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
In all that text and hypothetical examples and analogy, no mention of war. Unfortunately, the family analogy doesn't apply.

It doesn't take much to figure it out. $30B a year to end world hunger, the world spends that much in 8 days on militaries. It would be cheaper to feed the middle east and probably more effective for national security.
 
Mr Neutron

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
In all that text and hypothetical examples and analogy, no mention of war. Unfortunately, the family analogy doesn't apply.

It doesn't take much to figure it out. $30B a year to end world hunger, the world spends that much in 8 days on militaries. It would be cheaper to feed the middle east and probably more effective for national security.
Click to expand...
Tell us again how food stamps create jobs... mmkay?
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
In all that text and hypothetical examples and analogy, no mention of war. Unfortunately, the family analogy doesn't apply.

It doesn't take much to figure it out. $30B a year to end world hunger, the world spends that much in 8 days on militaries. It would be cheaper to feed the middle east and probably more effective for national security.
Click to expand...
if you did not see the referencce to war then you didnt read very thoroughly i shall excerptand highlight the relevant portion to make it easier, but remember there will be context lost in the excerpt.

"the republicans have their own version of Jerry Moonbeam Brown's demented vision of "Austerity" and it focusses on spending more and more for military power than will hopefully never be used, but it MUST be used every now and again just to "prove" it's needed." ~ Me, right above your cited post.

also the insane figure of $308 to end world hunger is ludicrous. $308 bucks from every person on the planet including the starving ones? not bloody likely. $308 per tillable acre of arable land? maybe, but distributing the food grown on good soil in the midwest will cost more than the growing of the crops. $308 per starving third worlder? you cant feed anything bigger than a single chicken on $308 a year. shit even a dog eats more than $308 a year unless its a fucking chihuahua. as more people eat, the price of food increases. unless we grow more food (not bloody likely unless we subsidize more giant agricorps and finally use GMO seeds) the cost of the food increases with demand. food prices would inflate in countries that CAN feed themselves to subsidize the nations that cannot (usually through corruption incompetence or the "benefits" of an Anarcho_________ist "government" of raiders bandits and tribal warlords) when you throw out meaningless hyperbole like "$308 a year to end world hunger" you reduce your credibility.

and yes, the family analogy does apply, just not the "nuclear family" of mommy daddy and 2.4 kids a dog and a goldfish that youre thinking of, im talking about a HOUSEHOLD with extended family, 3-4 generations under one roof, and what amounts to a small clan with the single goal of prosperity for the household, not the 1950's paradigm of birth/school/college/move to new york and become a businessman/start a family in longisland/rinse and repeat nonsense, but the kind of actual households you find in rural america still today.

the "nuclear family" bullshit is a destabilizing force in our society and our economy, and fortunately it is dying the slow death of exposure to reality. if every person has to have their own personal apartment, and live the solitary lifestyle until they decide to mate, breed and produce more solitary consumers then of course the consumption per person becomes unsustainably high. but fyi, progressive social engineering created this "nuclear family" bullshit and only traditional household family collectives can end it.

WHAAT? yes you heard me right, the family collective. it's like communism, only based on the common goal of prosperity for the family unit within the capitalist society. ohh snap! or did you assume that my hatred for socialism and marxism was a blind and unthinking reactionary hate driven by ayn rand propaganda? the only way my family made it through the abandonment by my father was for all the kids to work, not for pocket change, personal spending money, or a private savings to buy the rattletrap camaro from the guy down the block, or to take your best girl on a date to the movies and the malt shop, but to keep the family from having to go on welfare.

i pulled down 2 bucks an hour weeding the feilds with a few of my brothers and cousins for a local farmer who didnt have herbicide money during the spring and summer, picked melons in the late summer and fall, raked leaves through the autumn, and delivered newspapers every morning year round, and every fucking dime went to the family, to pay the rent, buy food and keep us off the dole. i bought army surplus boots for me and my brothers, we shopped at goodwill for clothes, and i grew every crop i could sprout in my garden behind our shitty cheap ass drafty house with no heat. all my brothers did the same. THATS the only place communal resources can be shared, when the bonds that tie are stronger than the urge to exploit for personal advantage. forced communism (socialism) is solely a destructive agency that ruins the independent nature and robs a man of not only his labour and wealth, but his HOPE. why strive to make a better life when your life is run by mandate from on high and you simply cannot change shit unless you become a criminal or a black-marketeer. this is the real crime of socialism, the death of dreams.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
if you did not see the referencce to war then you didnt read very thoroughly i shall excerptand highlight the relevant portion to make it easier, but remember there will be context lost in the excerpt.

"the republicans have their own version of Jerry Moonbeam Brown's demented vision of "Austerity" and it focusses on spending more and more for military power than will hopefully never be used, but it MUST be used every now and again just to "prove" it's needed." ~ Me, right above your cited post.

also the insane figure of $308 to end world hunger is ludicrous. $308 bucks from every person on the planet including the starving ones? not bloody likely. $308 per tillable acre of arable land? maybe, but distributing the food grown on good soil in the midwest will cost more than the growing of the crops. $308 per starving third worlder? you cant feed anything bigger than a single chicken on $308 a year. shit even a dog eats more than $308 a year unless its a fucking chihuahua. as more people eat, the price of food increases. unless we grow more food (not bloody likely unless we subsidize more giant agricorps and finally use GMO seeds) the cost of the food increases with demand. food prices would inflate in countries that CAN feed themselves to subsidize the nations that cannot (usually through corruption incompetence or the "benefits" of an Anarcho_________ist "government" of raiders bandits and tribal warlords) when you throw out meaningless hyperbole like "$308 a year to end world hunger" you reduce your credibility.

and yes, the family analogy does apply, just not the "nuclear family" of mommy daddy and 2.4 kids a dog and a goldfish that youre thinking of, im talking about a HOUSEHOLD with extended family, 3-4 generations under one roof, and what amounts to a small clan with the single goal of prosperity for the household, not the 1950's paradigm of birth/school/college/move to new york and become a businessman/start a family in longisland/rinse and repeat nonsense, but the kind of actual households you find in rural america still today.

the "nuclear family" bullshit is a destabilizing force in our society and our economy, and fortunately it is dying the slow death of exposure to reality. if every person has to have their own personal apartment, and live the solitary lifestyle until they decide to mate, breed and produce more solitary consumers then of course the consumption per person becomes unsustainably high. but fyi, progressive social engineering created this "nuclear family" bullshit and only traditional household family collectives can end it.

WHAAT? yes you heard me right, the family collective. it's like communism, only based on the common goal of prosperity for the family unit within the capitalist society. ohh snap! or did you assume that my hatred for socialism and marxism was a blind and unthinking reactionary hate driven by ayn rand propaganda? the only way my family made it through the abandonment by my father was for all the kids to work, not for pocket change, personal spending money, or a private savings to buy the rattletrap camaro from the guy down the block, or to take your best girl on a date to the movies and the malt shop, but to keep the family from having to go on welfare.

i pulled down 2 bucks an hour weeding the feilds with a few of my brothers and cousins for a local farmer who didnt have herbicide money during the spring and summer, picked melons in the late summer and fall, raked leaves through the autumn, and delivered newspapers every morning year round, and every fucking dime went to the family, to pay the rent, buy food and keep us off the dole. i bought army surplus boots for me and my brothers, we shopped at goodwill for clothes, and i grew every crop i could sprout in my garden behind our shitty cheap ass drafty house with no heat. all my brothers did the same. THATS the only place communal resources can be shared, when the bonds that tie are stronger than the urge to exploit for personal advantage. forced communism (socialism) is solely a destructive agency that ruins the independent nature and robs a man of not only his labour and wealth, but his HOPE. why strive to make a better life when your life is run by mandate from on high and you simply cannot change shit unless you become a criminal or a black-marketeer. this is the real crime of socialism, the death of dreams.
Click to expand...

By $30B I meant 30 billion. Brevity ftw.

Wall of text flattenned me, you win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top