The economy

[Xeneize]

Re: The economy

*Tell the childrens the truth* ...



min: 2:44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5EoiQX7u5k
Babylon System - Bob Marley

 

[cmcmcm]

Re: The economy

Ultima ONLINE serious business

 

[Howl]

Re: The economy

I had to quote this because its hilarious.

Why would them being public-sector jobs have any impact on what I said at all?

You're verging into ad hominium now so there's very little point in us talking. The 1 000 000 proposed climate jobs are public-sector jobs, this is a socialist principle. Because it would spur employment in the private sector (as well as create more public-sector demand) doesn't mean it's anti-socialist. It's a socialist principle in a capitalist system.

 

[Howl]

Re: The economy

plz send me the link. i would like to read about this.

Will try and find it for you.

 

[Howl]

Re: The economy

Holy shit you know absolutely nothing about economics. There are cuts being made because major banks made some pretty shitty investments and those came back to bite them on the ass. Seeing as major banks are pretty damn important they needed funding to continue to even operate. Because the banking system plays a huge, HUGE role in economics growth by giving funds to businesses via loans and because they for the most part took a major hit in that capacity, companies that wanted loans to spur growth or even to continue to operate could not get the funding they needed. Therefore cuts were needed. Because companies are tied together via imports and exports, the damage in one countries economy is typically felt world wide at some point.

I googled dead labor. Nothing came up. What you are referring to actually falls more or less under something called structural unemployment. Which is unemployment due to a changing skill set needed. So for example, weavers are really not needed anymore because their jobs got taken over by machines and thus unemployed the weavers. So weavers became structural unemployed and had to learn NEW skill sets. Economic development doesn't somehow magically depend on human rights or the environment. We could be living in toxic sludge beating people with whips and we could still grow economically. Is this ideal? NO. But that doesn't make a damn difference as far as economics is concerned.

I already said when trickle up and trickle down should be used. I'm not repeating myself, nor am I going into more depth than I already have because quite frankly I don't want to write my economic thesis quite yet.

Economic growth creates more things, and better things. More and better things improve the standard of living. You also don't seem to understand what the standard of living means. So I'll go ahead and define it for you. "A level of material comfort as measured by the goods, services, and luxuries available to an individual, group, or nation." HOLY SHIT, what do you know but this has nothing to do with how happy or sad people are! You really really need to do more research on this stuff before talking out of your ass.

Your stance on socialism magically making people want to work for no particular reason is not only ignorant, but has been disproven by history time and time and time again. Not only that but you are missing the big picture by a long shot. Corporations are making every effort to be "green" and to give their workers human rights (oh and don't forget unions). Why? Because thankfully there are people like you who would rather see flowers and be lubby dubby than to see money. That's why people like the BP chairman got destroyed by the press and environmental activists into resignation. I'm sorry but if someone can be forced into resigning because of an enviromental blunder than I think we as capitalist nations are heading in the right direction. Same goes for human rights violators. How about all the bad press concerning the nike sweatshops? How about all of that profit they lost from bad word of mouth. Looks like the system works.

I was going to add more to this. But it's pretty clear that A. you are completely ignorant about what you are talking about. B. You are far too stubborn to actually learn something.

So if anyone else has questions or comments I'll be happy to field those. Just don't try to argue if you have no idea what you're talking about.

There are results for dead labour if you search for it with quote marks, it's a colloquialism for machinery in the means of production. I already said that but it looks like you're ignoring me.

I skipped down to the last paragraph and saw you calling me ignorant and stubborn, so if you're going to revert to ad hominium arguments then I want nothing more to do with you, as that proves you are the stubborn one to have to start insulting me because you won't debate properly.

 

[Howl]

Re: The economy

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=11138

First. Fucking. Result. for a search for "dead labour".

Learn to use Google before you decide to start insulting me for being ignorant, you fuck wit.

I guess you're still crying over that first pair of Inquis or something. Pathetic that you should hold a grudge for months and then start throwing insults in what started out as a good conversation.

 

[Howl]

Re: The economy

"http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=353&issue=115"

Oh look, second result, more explanation of what dead labour is.

 

[EvilChild]

Re: The economy

Haha...

Sorry, EC - I'm not an economist and have only a layman's knowledge of the field... (at best )

But maybe there is the problem (from my perspective): economists and those who defend the current system (as the least bad option) talk about "the utility of the population" whereas I am far more worried about the quality of life of the population, whatever their "utility"...



Hmmm...

That is exactly what they do. Companies have most definitely worked out that under the current system the risk vs reward of unethical/dangerous/monopolistic/fraudulent/unecological behaviour falls heavily in their favour.

Most of this bad behaviour never comes to light. When it does, most of the investigations are shelved as soon as the public outcry dies down. The ones that aren't languish in the limbo of the legal system for years while well paid lawyers use every loophole available to them to avoid a sentence until the "crime" has "expired". Finally, in the few cases which reach completion the fines imposed are laughable in comparison to the profits gained by breaking the rules.

I am sure that all of us can think of dozens of recent examples on both sides of the Atlantic.

Many of the corporations involved just have too much power and influence to feel threatened by the laws most of us obey in our small daily lives. The system is rigged in many ways, but one of the worst is that any company can hold society to ransom with the threat of cataclysmic cutbacks and job losses if the punishment is too harsh (and god forbid we actually put a corporation out of business or send anyone to prison...).


FE

Utility is basically a term that economists use to put a number value on happiness. So if you consider quality of life to be tied with happiness, then utility is going to be what you're looking for.


And as far as most corporations doing things behind the back of the people and never being caught. I simply must disagree on that. I think that with corporations under the scrutiny they are via audits, the FBI, the press, and the public, that corporations attempt to be as responsible and ethical as they can. Consider how bad corporations were 50 or even 30 years ago as far as human rights, ethics, the environment, etc are conerned. However, it is completely impossible to prove it one way or the other because if corporations are doing things that are illegal and unethical they would need to keep them secret to be successful. If they keep it secret then we couldn't possibly say it is fact because we lack the information and can only speculate. So that must be left to a matter of opinion.

 

[EvilChild]

Re: The economy

You're verging into ad hominium now so there's very little point in us talking. The 1 000 000 proposed climate jobs are public-sector jobs, this is a socialist principle. Because it would spur employment in the private sector (as well as create more public-sector demand) doesn't mean it's anti-socialist. It's a socialist principle in a capitalist system.

It's trickle down economics. Just because the jobs are public jobs really doesn't make much of a difference. You might feel good because its creating environmental jobs. But, it really doesn't matter if it creates 1m environmental jobs or 1m private factory jobs. The end result is the same as far as economics is concerned.

Dead labor is something that Marx used to refer to structural unemployment. More specifically what Marx is saying is that machines take away time from human laborers. It's not really an economic term. Why don't you actually try looking for a definition of dead labor?

BTW: Here are the first several yahoo links in relation to dead labor:
http://www.lsu.edu/faculty/jpullia/deadmen.htm
http://laborstrategies.blogs.com/global_labor_strategies/2008/08/it-has-been-dec.html
http://deadpool.rotten.com/occupations/labor-leader.html

First link for "dead labor definition"
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/drop-dead.html

Clearly this is a real economic principle /sarcasm

Why don't you look up the definition of structural unemployment and more specifically technological unemployment which is "due to the replacement of workers by fewer workers who use machines". So that we can actually have a somewhat intellectual conversation about the finer points of economics.

You are extremely ignorant about economics. I'm glad you majored in environmental sciences and not economics.

 

[a-e-i-Own-you]

Re: The economy

The economy

lol

 

[EvilChild]

Re: The economy

lol

LOL

 

[Xeneize]

Re: The economy

*dont drink and drive*

 

[Feersum Endjinn]

Re: The economy

Utility is basically a term that economists use to put a number value on happiness

Why the hell couldn't they just have called it the happiness number then?

*&#@ing economics jargon-mongerers... *growls*





On a more serious note:

(re-post)

SOCIALISM: You have 2 cows. The State nationalizes one and gives it to your neighbour.
COMMUNISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and gives you some milk.
FASCISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and sells you some milk.
NAZISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and shoots you.
BUREAUCRATISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away...
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.
SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

LEHMAN BROTHERS VENTURE CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publically listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at Bear Stearns, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public then buys your bull.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow has dropped dead.
A FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike, organize a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.
A JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called 'Cowkimon' and market it worldwide.
A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.
AN ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You decide to have lunch.
A RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 2 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.
A SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you. You charge the owners for storing them.
A CHINESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity. You add melamine and arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.
AN INDIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You worship them.
A BRITISH CORPORATION: You have two cows. Both are mad.
AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. Business seems pretty good. You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.
A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION: You have two cows. The one on the left looks very attractive...

FE

 

[EvilChild]

Re: The economy

Why the hell couldn't they just have called it the happiness number then?

*&#@ing economics jargon-mongerers... *growls*





On a more serious note:

(re-post)

FE

Yeah, it's strange. But you get used to it.

Also, if anyone's interested this is a pretty good read.
http://www.economicadventure.org/teachers/primer.pdf

 

[D-Nox]

Re: The economy

Yeah, it's strange. But you get used to it.

Also, if anyone's interested this is a pretty good read.
http://www.economicadventure.org/teachers/primer.pdf

it started wrong.
the sentence: "Increases in labor productivity drive increases in living standards."
should be: "Increases in labor productivity drive increases in living standards only for the ones who exploit the labor."

ill read it more carefully when i get home but i must say that ill probably not agree with most of it.

 

[EvilChild]

Re: The economy

it started wrong.
the sentence: "Increases in labor productivity drive increases in living standards."
should be: "Increases in labor productivity drive increases in living standards only for the ones who exploit the labor."

ill read it more carefully when i get home but i must say that ill probably not agree with most of it.

"For economists, a good measure of living standards would be the 'value of all goods and
services consumed per capita'"

An increase in standard of living is universal. Some people may benefit more from an increase in labor productivity than others, but everyone does benefit from it at least to some extent.

 

[D-Nox]

Re: The economy

right but while the benefits grows exponetially to the boss, they grow very slowly to the working class

 

[Frasier]

Re: The economy

Quite an interesting thread I would say, a never ending story?
I hope that "the joy of playing" stays in a bigger role than earning gold in the game, under Demise sun.
But of course, where is a light is always shadows too...

 

[Mister Dank]

Re: The economy

what a bunch of bullshit

LOL

 

[D-Nox]

Re: The economy

what a bunch of bullshit

LOL

your post was the first bullshit that was posted in this thread. just like every other post you make.