Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: nemo295 on June 13, 2013, 12:05:43 am

Title: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: nemo295 on June 13, 2013, 12:05:43 am
SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbor.

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.

BUREAUCRACY
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.

VENTURE CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, and 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.

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 analyse why the cow has died.

A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organize a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you do not know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.

A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5,000 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 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 IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
Nobody believes you, so they bomb the crap out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows but at least you are now a Democracy.

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.

A GREEK CORPORATION
You have two cows borrowed from French and German banks.
You eat both of them.
The banks call to collect their milk, but you cannot deliver so you call the IMF.
The IMF loans you two cows.
You eat both of them.
The banks and the IMF call to collect their cows/milk.
You are out getting a haircut.

AN IRISH CORPORATION
You have two cows
One of them is a horse
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: francois on June 13, 2013, 02:39:59 am
 :D

Not too far from reality, unfortunately!
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: 32BT on June 13, 2013, 02:43:23 am
A GREEK CORPORATION
You have two cows borrowed from French and German banks.
You eat both of them.
The banks call to collect their milk, but you cannot deliver so you call the IMF.
The IMF loans you two cows.
You eat both of them.
The banks and the IMF call to collect their cows/milk, but you cannot deliver so you call the ECB
The ECB loans you four cows,
You give two back to Germany and France,
you eat the other two,
and the ECB, in order to save face, tells EU member states that Greece is right on schedule, they already payed their debts to France and Germany. Of course, they then collect even more membershipfee from the memberstates, in particular Germany and France.

Luckily, Germany sells a shitload of Porsches and BMWs to China, which subsequently decides to offer underpriced solarpanels as a token of appreciation. Of course, the EU doesn't appreciate free energy, so they decide on provisional duties instead. Obviously, the fact that we gradually run out of oil and Greece is a prime tourist attraction because of its abundant sunny weather would both be completely irrelevant in the deployment of any desperately required new energy regime.

I say, eat the damn cows and get a haircut. Next generation? What next generation?
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: stamper on June 13, 2013, 03:09:46 am
Capitalism. The rich exploit the workers and become richer. The workers continue to struggle.
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Rob C on June 13, 2013, 04:19:35 am
Capitalism. The rich exploit the workers and become richer. The workers continue to struggle.


Oh stamper, take an aspirin or another scotch!

Are the workers fucking mindless ants? Does their future not lie in their own hands, as with the rest of us?

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: stamper on June 13, 2013, 04:45:04 am
A predictable reaction from you Rob. I had a mental bet with myself that you would be the first to react to my post and as ever you have taken the thread into a personal slant. Take your own advice and hopefully further posts from you will be a more objective one? :(
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Rob C on June 13, 2013, 11:02:57 am
A predictable reaction from you Rob. I had a mental bet with myself that you would be the first to react to my post and as ever you have taken the thread into a personal slant. Take your own advice and hopefully further posts from you will be a more objective one? :(


Well, it's your post with yet another statement of your perennial political obsession, so how else to respond but personally?

On the other hand, perhaps you preferred to be ignored instead?

But I do note that you could offer no alternative... none of your sympathisers ever does or can: there simply isn't one that has ever worked. Look at Mama Russia, Cuba, North Korea, East Germany etc. etc. (not to mention China, Red Clyde; Red Midlands): every single one has had to stagnate and fail until the moment it actually understands that progress can only come from business and commerce and the making of money.

Money is the only common exchange of value or worth that we have and can negotiate.

It's the nature of life, for the species as for the individual: you have to fend for yourself or die.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: stamper on June 13, 2013, 11:16:58 am

Oh stamper, take an aspirin or another scotch!

Are the workers fucking mindless ants? Does their future not lie in their own hands, as with the rest of us?

;-)

Rob C

Make a reply with regards to the topic. In football parlance .... play the ball, not the man.
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: stamper on June 13, 2013, 11:22:26 am

Well, it's your post with yet another statement of your perennial political obsession, so how else to respond but personally?

On the other hand, perhaps you preferred to be ignored instead?

But I do note that you could offer no alternative... none of your sympathisers ever does or can: there simply isn't one that has ever worked. Look at Mama Russia, Cuba, North Korea, East Germany etc. etc. (not to mention China, Red Clyde; Red Midlands): every single one has had to stagnate and fail until the moment it actually understands that progress can only come from business and commerce and the making of money.

Money is the only common exchange of value or worth that we have and can negotiate.

Unquote


All the countries that you worship are bankrupt and teetering on financial collapse with high unemployment rates, threats of revolution and never ending debt. Spain where you live is a basket case financially. China the most successful is a mixed economy and not free market. If it goes that way then it will go the same way as the rest. There must be a better way?

Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: BJL on June 13, 2013, 11:39:36 am
LUMINOUS LANDSCAPE
You have two cows.
They spend all their time goring each other instead of producing milk.
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 13, 2013, 12:19:18 pm
Bravo, BJL ;D
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 13, 2013, 12:23:43 pm
... All the countries that you worship are bankrupt and teetering on financial collapse with high unemployment rates, threats of revolution and never ending debt. Spain where you live is a basket case financially...

I wonder, Stamper, where would you rather live today: North Korea at al, or the "basket cases" Spain at al?
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: RSL on June 13, 2013, 12:27:54 pm
Those unable to distinguish reality from theory always would prefer Pyongyang.
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Peter McLennan on June 13, 2013, 12:40:46 pm
Bravo, BJL ;D

X2
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Vladimirovich on June 13, 2013, 01:27:32 pm
Capitalism. The rich exploit the workers and become richer. The workers continue to struggle.
nope... workers get outsourced, what's left instead are office shrimps and mcwaiters - they can't struggle.
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Vladimirovich on June 13, 2013, 01:44:20 pm

Oh stamper, take an aspirin or another scotch!

Are the workers fucking mindless ants? Does their future not lie in their own hands, as with the rest of us?

;-)

Rob C

so why are you not a billionaire yet ?
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: ErikKaffehr on June 13, 2013, 01:54:41 pm
Hi,

North Korea is a great place to live, at least according to Kim Il Sung (Kim who sings ill?)

He is still the supreme leader of North Korea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Il-sung .

Best regards
Erik

I wonder, Stamper, where would you rather live today: North Korea at al, or the "basket cases" Spain at al?
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Rob C on June 13, 2013, 02:47:17 pm
so why are you not a billionaire yet ?



Because I don't have the desire and probably not willing to make the effort. I think it enough for myself to have lived well off my photography, seen much of the world off that photography, own my home and have the 'luxury' of thinking about staying here or moving somewhere else. Without having to ask some friggin' commissar's permission.

And I never imagined the world owed me a living. Never.

How about you?

Rob C
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Rob C on June 13, 2013, 02:48:13 pm
LUMINOUS LANDSCAPE
You have two cows.
They spend all their time goring each other instead of producing milk.



Quite quick!

Rob C
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Rob C on June 13, 2013, 03:15:03 pm
"All the countries that you worship are bankrupt and teetering on financial collapse with high unemployment rates, threats of revolution and never ending debt. Spain where you live is a basket case financially. China the most successful is a mixed economy and not free market. If it goes that way then it will go the same way as the rest. There must be a better way? - stamper"


When you find it, let us mugs know.

Incidentally, which countries do you imagine that I worship?

You left out India - I lived there for several years - they are thriving too, in part. Just like China: in part. Dreams of universal joy are just that: dreams. And the reason? Simply because people are not created equal, which is where the political left concept has its terminal flaw. In every situation there are those who will flourish and those who will not. It's a sad part of being human.

You don't even need to think about it in terms of colours of government: look into any family and you find different levels of ability, succcess and good or bad choices, these from people living under the same roof, open to the same opportunities or lack of them.

You just can't legislate for human nature. You may as well rule that each cow must produce the same volume of milk. (That sounds a good example in this context.)

Anyway we face an uncrossable bridge, which is neither my fault nor yours - let's just accept we are different and that that bridge could never have been trusted in the first place: it would probably have collapsed under us, having been bought offshore.

Incidentally, I was chatting to my son on the 'phone last night; he told me that it's almost impossible to go into Glasgow city-centre these nights looking for a meal and finding one, unless you have booked.

So many somebodies have better than a Macjob; food for thought, Vlad?

Rob C


Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Vladimirovich on June 13, 2013, 03:26:02 pm

Because I don't have the desire and probably not willing to make the effort.


I see... so it is only your "desire" stands between you and a $1bln  :D
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Vladimirovich on June 13, 2013, 03:30:59 pm

So many somebodies have better than a Macjob; food for thought, Vlad?


many yes, but much more (in USA) have just that :-), granted they are not living like billions of poor souls in India/China, but they have just a McLife... one paycheck to another... and, oh, it is just they don't "desire" to be billionaires, just like you  ::)
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Landmark Landscapes on June 13, 2013, 04:13:04 pm
Ha, Ha! That's great.
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: PeterAit on June 13, 2013, 05:07:31 pm
American pseudo-capitalism:
- You have 2 cows.
- Someone with 4 cows bribes the politicians to make it illegal for you to sell your milk anywhere but Guam and Puerto Rico.
- A biotech company patents the “udder” gene and sues your cows. The Supreme Court validates the patent.
- Rush Limbaugh bloviates that selling milk is a “comma-you-nistical gummint plot” and all the people with IQ less than 90 stop buying milk, even those in Guam and Puerto Rico.
- Your 2 cows join the Tea Party and stop producing milk, because that is something actually useful. Instead, they protest to keep the government’s hands off their Medicare.
- You manage to make a small profit depite all the obstacles. The government takes most of it away in taxes to pay for agricultural subsidies to large corporations, tax breaks for the oil giants, and for unneeded and illegal wars.
- You decide to kill the cows and eat the meat, but it is tainted with pesticides, mercury, antibiotics, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria because the regulatory agencies have been prevented from doing their job by the right-wing nincompoops who hate any and all regulations no matter how sensible and needed.
- You eat it anyway and then you die. Your kids fight over your camera equipment.

Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on June 13, 2013, 05:38:24 pm
But there is hope: The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled that the "udder" gene cannot be patented!

(Of course, the billionaires can still buy any politician they want.)

Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 13, 2013, 05:57:50 pm
so why are you not a billionaire yet ?

That's the stupidest post on LuLa in a long while. And believe me, the competition has been tough.
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: nemo295 on June 13, 2013, 09:13:02 pm
Those unable to distinguish reality from theory always would prefer Pyongyang.
That's what this list is missing--North Korean economics!   :D :D :D
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: nemo295 on June 13, 2013, 09:25:37 pm
NORTH KOREAN COLLECTIVE
You have no cows because Dear Leader forbids you to have cows.
Dear Leader tells everyone you have 200 cows.
When Dear Leader shows up to collect the milk from your 200 cows you have none.
Dear Leader ships you off to the gulag for subverting socialist revolution.
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: BernardLanguillier on June 13, 2013, 10:52:56 pm
American pseudo-capitalism:
- You have 2 cows.
- Someone with 4 cows bribes the politicians to make it illegal for you to sell your milk anywhere but Guam and Puerto Rico.
- A biotech company patents the “udder” gene and sues your cows. The Supreme Court validates the patent.
- Rush Limbaugh bloviates that selling milk is a “comma-you-nistical gummint plot” and all the people with IQ less than 90 stop buying milk, even those in Guam and Puerto Rico.
- Your 2 cows join the Tea Party and stop producing milk, because that is something actually useful. Instead, they protest to keep the government’s hands off their Medicare.
- You manage to make a small profit depite all the obstacles. The government takes most of it away in taxes to pay for agricultural subsidies to large corporations, tax breaks for the oil giants, and for unneeded and illegal wars.
- You decide to kill the cows and eat the meat, but it is tainted with pesticides, mercury, antibiotics, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria because the regulatory agencies have been prevented from doing their job by the right-wing nincompoops who hate any and all regulations no matter how sensible and needed.
- You eat it anyway and then you die. Your kids fight over your camera equipment.

That reminds me of Lesterland.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: nemo295 on June 13, 2013, 11:50:00 pm
CUBAN COLLECTIVE
Fidel gives you two cows.
Your cows soon die because Fidel gives you nothing to feed them.
When Fidel shows up to collect the milk from your two cows you blame their deaths on American imperialism.
Fidel pins a medal on your chest and proclaims you a Hero of Socialist Labor.
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: 32BT on June 14, 2013, 03:03:57 am
NORTH KOREAN COLLECTIVE

Dear leader ships off the only two cows in the country to Hassle-blad in order to fund its rocket program which is called Lunatic in appreciation of the funder. Clearly a land with no cows and a starving people is in dire need of a nuclear defence program.


Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: stamper on June 14, 2013, 03:40:00 am
Bravo, BJL ;D

The forum's matador has arrived. ;) Guaranteed to be a lot of gouging and thrusting now. ;)
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: stamper on June 14, 2013, 03:47:25 am
I wonder, Stamper, where would you rather live today: North Korea at al, or the "basket cases" Spain at al?

No I wouldn't want to live in North Korea. I am not a supporter of their politics and Spain isn't a healthy place to live at this time. If China decides to withdraw the trillions of dollars that they have invested in the USA then one of the two above will look attractive. There will be tumble weeds blowing down every town and city in the USA not just Dodge city. The only reason that the USA is functioning at the moment is because China has propped them up. Now is that communist China or capitalist China that is the USA's saviour? ;)
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Rob C on June 14, 2013, 05:21:17 am
I see... so it is only your "desire" stands between you and a $1bln  :D


In a generous mood, I assume that's your idea of humour.

However, in case it's not, perhaps some clarification might help you understand.

People come in many shapes and sizes and as many mental make-ups. In my own case, I have always been attracted to, and even obsessed with beauty and its pursuit. I left school at a time when the immediate choices were further education, two compulsory years in one of the military branches or a job that brought with it a deferment from the miltary. I took the latter option and, consequently, picked up skills that have been of some use to me. Eventually, the call-up thing was ended as a waste of lives and young peoples' opportunities because works was available in post-war reconstruction and keeping people under a military blanket was no longer a useful way of massaging the employment/unemployment figures. (Perhaps more importantly, keeping the dregs of empire together was realised to be little more than a drain on resources, a money-sink without bottom - something that in some ways it still is, long after empire.) That change allowed me to quit industry and become a photographer.

Anyway, my priorities, as I said, were beauty and being near it. Hence photography.

Money. I believe that money, per se, has limited appeal. It is only if you have never had any, or never  known closely people who do have a lot of it, that you think it the most desirable thing in the world. The reality is that everyone needs enough (a variable), and when there is enough to sustain your desired style of living, excess of it has to be found a use. And that isn't as easy as you might think. And with it comes responsibility that can dominate your life and take away the very freedoms that you imagined you were trying to win for yourself in the first place. You realise you've invented another treadmill for yourself.

In the days of the football pools, there were stories about winners who found themselves broke within a few short years. I would not be surprised to learn that the same still happens in the day of the mega lottery wins. If that doesn't tell you all you ever needed to know about money, then nothing will.

But, narrowing it down further to myself, as I know you want me to do, I am not of the very rich because I don't have the desire, the mental abilities nor dedication to the pursuit of money that that requires.

But, I have always had the freedom to embark upon that quest had it appealed to me. That, my friend, your politcal views - so far - can't steal from me.

Rob C
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Rob C on June 14, 2013, 05:43:35 am
No I wouldn't want to live in North Korea. I am not a supporter of their politics and Spain isn't a healthy place to live at this time. If China decides to withdraw the trillions of dollars that they have invested in the USA then one of the two above will look attractive. There will be tumble weeds blowing down every town and city in the USA not just Dodge city. The only reason that the USA is functioning at the moment is because China has propped them up. Now is that communist China or capitalist China that is the USA's saviour? ;)


But Spain is a healthy place in which to live right now; it is not a healthy place in which to try and sell a property at this precise moment, but few places are. What always goes unnoticed is this: 26% unemployment still seems to suggest that the remaining 74% is doing reasonably well. In fact, probably very much better than you think or the figures show. The very high self-employment and employment costs here as well as the high VAT levels tend to encourage a black economy. That shows up as poor employment figures that are not telling the whole truth behind them. Folks are not buying lots of new cars because they might have to explain how they can, right now, but many are doing very well, thank you.

If China were to do as you suggest, where would China sell its product? The rich Chinese want the luxury the West can sell to it, and for their standard of living to grow they, in turn, have to sell outside their own land. Fortress economics haven't shown themselves to offer very much...

Rob C
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: stamper on June 14, 2013, 06:02:11 am
Rob, the propaganda on British TV doesn't paint a pretty picture of Spain nor the UK for that matter. As to selling properties the last thing you want is another bubble but some seem to be clamouring for one as to a means of profit. The Chinese has a lot of markets, the USA is just one of them. You are right to point out they want to sell but they don't want the USA to dictate to them on politics. I saw a program recently on TV about the investment that China has in the USA. It significant to the point that they may actually be in control of sections of the USA economy. A frightening prospect. Also controlling parts of Africa.
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: 32BT on June 14, 2013, 06:22:41 am
What always goes unnoticed is this: 26% unemployment still seems to suggest that the remaining 74% is doing reasonably well. In fact, probably very much better than you think or the figures show.

pffffff, might I suggest very friendly that you perhaps contribute more to the right-hemisphere activities that you seem to excel at?

The actually employed part of the working population usually pay for the retirees, disabled, and unemployed. Clearly, there is a limit to the sustainability of that situation with pensionfunds crashing and unemployment increasing. Unless of course you're one of those hardcore right-wingers. F**k the retirees, disabled, and unemployed… (Oh wait, you're retired yourself.)

1. A country's value = assets + productivity,
2. assets decrease because pensionfunds crash,
3. productivity decreases because unemployment increases,

Number 3 is very important, because a country can have all the resources in the world, but without productivity that is useless. And then there is the proverbial straw for this camel's back:

4. decreased productivity equates decreased tax-income

Clear enough?
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: PeterAit on June 14, 2013, 08:48:50 am
That's what this list is missing--North Korean economics!   :D :D :D


In North Korea:

- You have 2 cows
- Both are government agents
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Vladimirovich on June 14, 2013, 11:11:16 am
That's the stupidest post on LuLa in a long while. And believe me, the competition has been tough.
the stupidiest thing is to suggest that everything is only a matter of your own desire...
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 14, 2013, 11:55:57 am
... Now is that communist China or capitalist China that is the USA's saviour? ;)

Good question, Stamper.

Not about saving the USA, but the first part: is China communist or capitalist?. With the fastest growing number of billionaires on this planet, it is certainly not the communism I know. Nor with the spread between Chinese poor and rich, which exceeds by far the ones in most capitalist countries. Is it communism that made them so rich (some) or is it capitalism?
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 14, 2013, 12:07:55 pm
the stupidiest thing is to suggest that everything is only a matter of your own desire...

If that is what you meant, Vlad, then I agree. And take back my "compliment." ;)

However, that does not negate what Rob said. As suspected, even before his explanation, he actually got what he desired. Not everybody even desires to be a billionaire.

 
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: RSL on June 14, 2013, 12:19:40 pm
Is it communism that made them so rich (some) or is it capitalism?

No doubt it was the great leap forward.
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Rob C on June 14, 2013, 12:43:57 pm
pffffff, might I suggest very friendly that you perhaps contribute more to the right-hemisphere activities that you seem to excel at?

The actually employed part of the working population usually pay for the retirees, disabled, and unemployed. Clearly, there is a limit to the sustainability of that situation with pensionfunds crashing and unemployment increasing. Unless of course you're one of those hardcore right-wingers. F**k the retirees, disabled, and unemployed… (Oh wait, you're retired yourself.)

1. A country's value = assets + productivity,
2. assets decrease because pensionfunds crash,
3. productivity decreases because unemployment increases,

Number 3 is very important, because a country can have all the resources in the world, but without productivity that is useless. And then there is the proverbial straw for this camel's back:

4. decreased productivity equates decreased tax-income

Clear enough?



Oscar, I find it difficult to see here you’re coming from in this post.

I think it’s perfectly obvious that it’s the working population that pays for everything else; where have I denied that to be the case? Do you mean, here, some play on the word worker or am I reading too much into your words?

Now perhaps we need to define the meaning of worker? There are certainly those here for whom worker means blue-collar and nothing  else. That, of course, is a fundamental mistake of huge import. Many of said workers are almost outside the taxpaying regime and can therefore contribute next to nothing towards the upkeep of all those flying balls that governments of all colours try hopelessly to keep off the ground. The reality is different: the workers without those blue-collars pay the huge sums of tax through everything they do. That modest (relatively) two-million pound yacht carries a lot of VAT and it’s impossible to buy it without that these days if you are domiciled in Europe and intend to keep it in European waters. That same hateful millionaire also happens to keep all of those glass fibre workers and joiners employed, those sailmakers, rope spinners and anchor foundries cookin’ but perhaps we should ignore all of that and condemn them instead as we do those in Ferarris and Lambos – you know – for living off the sweat of the ‘workers’ we mentioned earlier, the ones in blue? Heysoos, is envy an ugly, blind emotion!

The basic truth behind it all is this: we have become too accustomed to having a public service for every need we might develop in our lifetime. The more sophisticated the service on offer, the more expensive it has to become. You can’t escape from that, and our medical one (service) is a prime example. The higher the survival rate, the more the demand from those who survive and those who are next in line. Simply put, we outlive our usefulness to society as nett producers of wealth. If we are not to be left to die on the street we face two basic choices: we work our asses off whilst we can in order to raise the dosh to support ourselves to the end or, secondly, we do the minimum we can and hope enough other people pay an ever-increasing proportion of their earnings in tax to keep us going. Something in the latter choice strikes me as rather wrong.

Your four points certainly have merit, but they tell only a fraction of the reality.

You should have added:

5. Productivity also falls because confidence falls.

It takes us back to the document posted on LuLa a week or so ago, using the example of the drinkers in the pub. The guy who picked up the lion’s share of the tab is the guy whose confidence we need to reassure, not cripple further.

Perhaps No.5 is the most problematic one to resolve.

Rob C

Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Rob C on June 14, 2013, 12:55:59 pm
No doubt it was the great leap forward.


As outlined in the Ten-Year Plans, of course.

Or was it exploitation of the 'workers'? No, of course not, that's impossible under communism! Whose town shall we poison next?

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: 32BT on June 14, 2013, 02:37:27 pm
Oscar, I find it difficult to see here you’re coming from in this post.

I think it’s perfectly obvious that it’s the working population that pays for everything else; where have I denied that to be the case? Do you mean, here, some play on the word worker or am I reading too much into your words?

No play, I simply meant the generic term used for the age group of productive people. As generic as it is, it immediately shows the problems of statistics: who are included?

So you can't simply say that the stats suggest that "the other 74%" might be doing well. If they only represent 30% of the entire community and have to pay for that community in some unsustainable way, then they're equally toast, regardless of confidence- or tax-levels.

That's why I generally break these things down to their absolute basics. At macro economic level there are no distinctions in collar-color. We will equally have to fight for and "mine" the resources and add productivity. Productivity will be taxed, that is not the problem. The question is what numbers and percentages are sustainable. I have no idea, but I wish some of our representatives would come up with some numbers, so we can see whether it is 9 o'clock, or 5 minutes to 12.

I find it personally very hard to believe that the amount of money poured into the bottomless pit also known as Greece is in any way useful to their future survival if other larger economies within the EU are already struggling even with all of their riches and productivity. And Greece is not particularly known for its productivity, but fortunately productivity can be im- & exported quite easily, so I prefer to pour "productivity" into Greece and not unsustainable debts forced upon people that have not the slightest clue of the implications and simply want a reasonable income from a reasonable job etc...

It is a bit like a mortgage. The bank generally looks at your potential (read: future productivity) and adjusts the loan accordingly. High potentials get higher loans. Why would that be any different for countries?


Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: 32BT on June 14, 2013, 02:44:15 pm
Simply put, we outlive our usefulness to society as nett producers of wealth.

Yes, but as we grow increasingly older, we also grow stronger with more productive years. Those are merely arguments for retirement-age discussions, which are important but not relevant. The net productivity is probably equalized.
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: 32BT on June 14, 2013, 02:58:29 pm
To expand upon my quasi funny solar panels remark: it is most likely Germany's solar panel lobby who are responsible for blocking cheap chinese panels. Which is both odd and stupid.

As Germany, you should grab the opportunity, move all those cheap panels to Greece and help them mine their huge solar potential so they can eventually pay off any debts they owe you and then some.

But no, protecting some overpaid, totally irrelevant job in Germany was probably more important. Exporting those knowledge workers to Greece would equally have them employed, and would benefit Germany, as well as the entire EU.

Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 14, 2013, 04:06:49 pm
The forum's matador has arrived. ;) Guaranteed to be a lot of gouging and thrusting now. ;)

Now, I've been called a lot of different things on these forums, but you get extra points for originality ;) A killer?
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: PeterAit on June 14, 2013, 04:27:19 pm
Good question, Stamper.

Not about saving the USA, but the first part: is China communist or capitalist?. With the fastest growing number of billionaires on this planet, it is certainly not the communism I know. Nor with the spread between Chinese poor and rich, which exceeds by far the ones in most capitalist countries. Is it communism that made them so rich (some) or is it capitalism?

China is neither capitalist nor communist. Is is closer to fascist than anything else.
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: stamper on June 15, 2013, 04:06:50 am
Quote Rob post #42

If we are not to be left to die on the street we face two basic choices: we work our asses off whilst we can in order to raise the dosh to support ourselves to the end or, secondly, we do the minimum we can and hope enough other people pay an ever-increasing proportion of their earnings in tax to keep us going. Something in the latter choice strikes me as rather wrong.

Unquote

The problem is that hard work doesn't mean that you automatically get earn a good living. There are lots of hard workers - educated and intelligent - who are in poverty despite their efforts and millionaires who have plenty but don't work hard because others have sweated to provide his wealth. There is a conception in society that a millionaire deserves his money mostly because he has earned his money. The reality is that nobody- no matter how intelligent they are - can possibly earn the money purely by their own efforts. Why? Because society is at all levels a collective one with regards to production. A chain that is eternally linked. Nobody can produce anything purely by his/hers own efforts but needs others to to be part of the process. The capitalist looks to exploit their efforts by creaming off the profits of others to enrich himself. Without their efforts he wouldn't have a dime/penny to his name. Workers as a productive unit can exist and share their wealth among themselves without a millionaire being part of the process, but the millionaire will be penniless without the worker.  :)
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Tony Jay on June 15, 2013, 04:40:35 am
  Workers as a productive unit can exist and share their wealth among themselves without a millionaire being part of the process, but the millionaire will be penniless without the worker.  :)
Somewhat utopian.
Unfortunately, most workers cannot run a business themselves and will be unable to raise the capital to get going.
Most self-made millionaires have risked everything to get where they are.
Yes, they may employ people, sometimes a lot of people.
These employees benefit from having a job.
Few of them would have a job without the entrepeneur (read risk-taker).

BTW most self-made in business have failed several times before success arrives - there are no guarantees.

Tony Jay
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Rob C on June 15, 2013, 04:55:06 am
Quote Rob post #42

If we are not to be left to die on the street we face two basic choices: we work our asses off whilst we can in order to raise the dosh to support ourselves to the end or, secondly, we do the minimum we can and hope enough other people pay an ever-increasing proportion of their earnings in tax to keep us going. Something in the latter choice strikes me as rather wrong.

Unquote

The problem is that hard work doesn't mean that you automatically get earn a good living. There are lots of hard workers - educated and intelligent - who are in poverty despite their efforts and millionaires who have plenty but don't work hard because others have sweated to provide his wealth. There is a conception in society that a millionaire deserves his money mostly because he has earned his money. The reality is that nobody- no matter how intelligent they are - can possibly earn the money purely by their own efforts. Why? Because society is at all levels a collective one with regards to production. A chain that is eternally linked. Nobody can produce anything purely by his/hers own efforts but needs others to to be part of the process. The capitalist looks to exploit their efforts by creaming off the profits of others to enrich himself. Without their efforts he wouldn't have a dime/penny to his name. Workers as a productive unit can exist and share their wealth among themselves without a millionaire being part of the process, but the millionaire will be penniless without the worker.  :)


And this happens where, exactly? And it isn’t replicated because…?

Jesus, stamper, who the hell do you think creates those "chains of production" who do you imagine puts up the money to set them up and spends millions taking them through development to the point where - if they are lucky - they turn into profit machines?  Do you really believe that all businesses are successful, that entrepreneurs and investors never lose their shirts?

I know several millionaires quite well; they work or worked their butts off as, in some cases, did their families before them. If you really, honestly and sincerely  believe that anybody just sits back in the sunshine doing nothing and getting richer, you are living in a world of your own - well, not of your own, you have millions of the conveniently politically blind sharing the delusion. Making the money is hurdle number one; keeping it is hurdle number two and appears to be even taller a leap that number one: everyone, from certain 'friends' looking for a piece of your action to governments wanting all of it, is out to screw you and reduce you to where they'd love you to be: down beside them or, better yet, below, so that they can feel satisfied to have brought you down to their level of failure.

Some of those rich people get there because they can't help it: they have an instinct and it just can't be refused, no matter the cost to their lives in every other respect. There's the old one that goes: "You're a beautiful, twenty-year old girl; so, tell me, what was it that first attracted you to this old, fat millionaire you married?"  People laugh wisely, but nobody stops to wonder about it from the point of view of the millionaire. Can you imagine living your own life knowing that you can’t really take anyone around you at face value? That you can never know if your wife loves you or is simply setting herself up for life, trying to give you a child in order to make the chains even stronger and a divorce more unlikely, or more profitable if it happens?

The story of Life is that nobody comes out of it with a history of supreme bliss. From successes to disasters, from rags to riches and often right back to the metaphorical rags, it is never a smooth stroll along the golden path to nirvana.

People, broadly, get out of life what they deserve, and what they put in. You simply can’t regulate for success but you sure can for failure, as every socialist government through which I have lived and tried to work has shown me.

Rob C



Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: stamper on June 15, 2013, 05:09:20 am
Somewhat utopian.
Unfortunately, most workers cannot run a business themselves and will be unable to raise the capital to get going.
Most self-made millionaires have risked everything to get where they are.
Yes, they may employ people, sometimes a lot of people.
These employees benefit from having a job.
Few of them would have a job without the entrepeneur (read risk-taker).

BTW most self-made in business have failed several times before success arrives - there are no guarantees.

Tony Jay

I think the risk is in reality small. The banks provide the money in most instances and it is they that take the risk hence the financial crisis of late. Too much lent to entrepreneurs who hadn't a clue and the banks wanted a piece of the action that the entrepreneurs wanted to create. Creating limited companies shields them from most debts and simply closing down one company and starting another works for them. It is rather ironic If I had my way - and a lot of people who think like me - then that risk wouldn't exist for individuals. Tony your last sentence sums it all up for me .... failing several times. I would like to see a society in which that didn't happen or rarely happens. You didn't mention the effect that has on the workers employed in the failed businesses. Without them there wouldn't be any businesses.
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: stamper on June 15, 2013, 05:21:19 am
Quote Rob Reply#51

Jesus, stamper, who the hell do you think creates those "chains of production" who do you imagine puts up the money to set them up and spends millions taking them through development to the point where - if they are lucky - they turn into profit machines?  Do you really believe that all businesses are successful, that entrepreneurs and investors never lose their shirts?

Unquote

Mostly the banks provide the money and individuals who weigh in with money borrow it from a bank or some similar institution. See my reply to Tony about failing. If individuals failing is such a disaster would it not be better that the horrendous burden is removed from them and spread out - if needed- over a number of individuals who all work for a business and if that business succeeds then they all benefit and just not one person,or two? I think there is nothing worse for someone employed who works for an individual who is greedy, grasping, possibly ill suited to ownership who pays poor wages, has poor conditions and little regard for the health and well being of his employers and dismisses them when he has accumulated his wealth. Do you want an example? Andrew Carnegie. His business was amongst the worst in American history and his money given to Scottish charities should have remained in America?
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Tony Jay on June 15, 2013, 05:22:30 am
The risk I refer to is not just financial.
And, most of the time, it is their own money and not the bank's.
If I default on my home loan I lose my house AND I am still responsible for the entire amount.
(It is only in the USA where handing th e house keys back satisfies the bank as to one's responsibilitie.)
It is only massive corporations borrowing billions of dollars where the bank is really at risk.
For the the up and coming entrepeneur they really are putting it all on the line.

If one borrows a million dollars from the bank and can't pay it back - one has a problem.
If one borrows a billion dollars from the bank and can't pay it back - the bank has a problem.

Tony Jay
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: stamper on June 15, 2013, 05:34:01 am
Tony I don't know about Australia but in Britain it is simple to set up a limited company which means that the house isn't repossessed. The house ownership could be transferred to the missus but that means you will have to keep her sweet. ;D There are plenty of semi- legal lawyers that will advise on ways of moving any of the money that has been "earned" from the business elsewhere before it crashes. That is a big problem in society. Shareholders getting fleeced by owners who evade their responsibility. There has to be a better way of creating a society that avoids all of the problems that you and Rob outline that will benefit most of society and not just the few. The biggest hurdle is overcoming greed. ::)
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Tony Jay on June 15, 2013, 06:01:27 am
Stamper I am not confusing personal liability with corporate liability.
That example of a mortgage was merely to demonstrate a point that the banks want their money back.
Nonetheless most small businesses depend on substantial equity from the owner/primary shareholder so he is usually risking his financial future on the venture.
Generally only "successful" businesses can acquire substantial loans from a bank.
In the event of a default that bank will explore every avenue to recoup any losses.
True losses by the bank are subsequently written off against their tax obligations.
I think it incorrect to say that the bank is shouldering the risk - generally the entrepeneur will lose everything if the business fails.
In Australia, anyway, any hint of impropriety surrounding a business collapse generally results in criminal convictions and jail terms.

Tony Jay

Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Rob C on June 15, 2013, 07:01:42 am
Tony, forget it.

That mindset is endemic in the West of Scotland, one of the reasons I left it. Envy of another's success is the keystone of life there, as is sectarian hatred. I remember an occasion when I was in an art director's office, overlooking Bothwell Street. Below his window I'd parked my brand new, fully-paid for '74 Humber. During our conversation about a shoot, he happened to look out the window and mused about whose car that was out there with the black vinyl roof. When I told him it was mine, his face fell and that car, forever after, was referred to as our car because I did lot's of work for him. That I did lot's of work for the agency because my photography kept some of their clients onside was never mentioned by him, but it sure was by an older copywriter who remarked that the AD simply took my pics and draped the writer's words around them... the fiscal input of my work for other clients wasn't mentioned by anyone in that incident: I though it diplomatically prudent to remain mute.

The basic problem with left-wing extremism is that it's a bit like religion: you have to accept it's tenets as God-given (though you may not believe in Him) dogma, never question anything nor look at life from a different perspective. The moment that you do, you have to realise, and accept, that if you live like a drone it's because you are a drone. Nobody likes that, especially the drones.

In my own case, I always knew that I was not cut out for business: it took me all my nerve to find work for myself and the thought of having to find work for an employee was a nightmare too far. I didn't like to think of photography as business: during tough periods relatives would ask why I didn't accept weddings any more, they would make me money; I would be told that money was money and that the bank didn't care where the hell it came from. I agreed, but I also told such people that it did matter to me, that I'd rather go bust than do photography that didn't please me - otherwise, why be in photography at all - almost every other job I might have done would pay more.

There were several advertising/industrial photographic studios operating in Glasgow at the time I started; I think a single one exists today, as a laboratory more than a studio. I do not, of course, include wedding photographers as photography businesses: none of us working as photographers during the 60s did. That, at least, we had in common. However, those wedding operators probably made more money than the rest of us.

Rob C

Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: stamper on June 15, 2013, 07:30:44 am
Stamper I am not confusing personal liability with corporate liability.
That example of a mortgage was merely to demonstrate a point that the banks want their money back.
Nonetheless most small businesses depend on substantial equity from the owner/primary shareholder so he is usually risking his financial future on the venture.
Generally only "successful" businesses can acquire substantial loans from a bank.
In the event of a default that bank will explore every avenue to recoup any losses.
True losses by the bank are subsequently written off against their tax obligations.
I think it incorrect to say that the bank is shouldering the risk - generally the entrepeneur will lose everything if the business fails.
In Australia, anyway, any hint of impropriety surrounding a business collapse generally results in criminal convictions and jail terms.

Tony Jay

Tony, a major factor of the collapse of the banks in the USA was that they were giving mortgages - essentially a loan - to people with little or no money who weren't in the least "successful", hence there downfall. Things are maybe tighter in Australia but it is generally the willingness of banks in the world to lend money to people, with little or no money, that has almost brought the world - with the exception of one or two - to it's knees and exposed the debts of Governments that were desperately trying to hide them from their citizens. As to criminal convictions in the UK then the incompetents who run their business into the ground are still - mostly - roaming the country looking to start up again and fleece the public.


Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: stamper on June 15, 2013, 07:35:18 am
Quote Rob Reply #57

Tony, forget it.

That mindset is endemic in the West of Scotland, one of the reasons I left it.

Unquote

Rob your tendency to personalize things once again comes to the fore. I take it is ingrained in your personality? A shame because you have in general an intellectual ability that is sometimes engaging but is marred by statements such as the one above. ::)

Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: RSL on June 15, 2013, 01:04:25 pm
Tony, a major factor of the collapse of the banks in the USA was that they were giving mortgages - essentially a loan - to people with little or no money who weren't in the least "successful", hence there (sic) downfall.

The rest of the story: The reason the banks were handing out substandard loans was that Congress insisted they do so, and through Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac guaranteed that the lenders would be able to keep any profit but that taxpayers would shoulder any loss. If you were a banker, Stamper, what would you do?
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Rob C on June 15, 2013, 02:42:02 pm
Quote Rob Reply #57

Tony, forget it.

That mindset is endemic in the West of Scotland, one of the reasons I left it.

Unquote

Rob your tendency to personalize things once again comes to the fore. I take it is ingrained in your personality? A shame because you have in general an intellectual ability that is sometimes engaging but is marred by statements such as the one above. ::)




So, you have never noti¡ced the famous West of Scotland ethic at work? You must have led a more sheltered life than I ever imagined. I raise my hat to you: you never, ever, heard of Rangers and Celtic, never sat on a bus going home at night, scared out of your head that you weren't going to make it... no, probably not: you'd might have thought it normal, and that anyone shocked by it was being 'personal' again, or simply didn't understand what was going on...

stamper, I was an apprentice when the infamous apprentices strike swept over the West of Scotland like a dose of diptheria. Of the hundreds of apprentices in our factory, maybe eight of us gave the lot of them the middle finger and carried on working as normal. We had no reason to strike; but that meant nothing. Big red brother had said out, and that was what the friggin' sheep felt that they had to do. It was an early lesson on the power of unions and of the crass stupidity of many of those who buy into the idea.

It's what drives socialism: the refusal to think for one's self.

Intellect. The only rush of it that I remember well was the flight out of Glasgow after we'd sold the house. There was for the first time in my life the knowledge that I had finally done something momentously right. But thanks for the suggestion that I might still have some left over.

Have you ever asked yourself why the South of England is full of Scots?

Rob C
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Tony Jay on June 15, 2013, 06:19:28 pm
The rest of the story: The reason the banks were handing out substandard loans was that Congress insisted they do so, and through Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac guaranteed that the lenders would be able to keep any profit but that taxpayers would shoulder any loss. If you were a banker, Stamper, what would you do?
Yes.
To enlarge on this further it was the brainchild of Bill Clinton and a great example of utopian socialist economics.
Clinton guaranteed, apparently, that the taxpayer would shoulder the risk of sub-prime mortgage loans.
But before this there was the thought that this would not be a problem since anyone in mortgage stress in the USA is allowed to hand the keys back with no further financial obligation on the loan.
Everyone thought that this was great - many people with no means signed up because the initial terms of these loans provided for miniscule repayments.
Later on though the repayments ramp up to become much more than normal mortgage loans.
At this point people began handing back the keys to the banks.
The banks began putting these houses back onto the market.
According to the theory the banks would not lose since they would just resell the house to recoup.
However supply soon began to outstrip demand and house prices fell.
More and more people found themselves paying off houses worth a fraction of the costs of the (non-subprime) mortgages they were holding.
They handed the keys back to the bank.
House prices continued falling.
The banks could not meet their costs as a result.
Financial armageddon loomed.
All the banks began calling in their loans between themselves and other financial institutions....
We all know what happened after that!

So much for Bill Clinton's utopian socialist view of the world.
So Stamper this is the result of your desire for government meddling in economics to 'level the playing field'.

Tony Jay
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: stamper on June 16, 2013, 04:05:41 am
If my memory is correct there was a financial surplus when Bill was in power. The deficit was wiped out. I am sure I will be corrected If I am wrong? Then George Bush came to power and the surplus vanished. I don't think Bill was a socialist, at least not in the conventional sense of the word. In the UK he would be described as a Conservative. Bill being the person blamed for the banking crisis is something I will have to look up. I don't think he was in power when the banks failed?? If he did what you claimed and it was bad then why did George not reverse the decision when he came to power, or was he in favour?
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: Tony Jay on June 16, 2013, 04:48:31 am
Stamper there is nothing original in my post - all this stuff is already on the record.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were two building society-type federal institutions directly established as a result of Clinton's policy although any banking institution was also able to offer subprime mortgage loans.
The fact that so many Amrican banks did so and that so many banks form around the world offered those American banks loans for the subprime mortgage market beggars belief.
It is interesting that no Australian or South African bank participated in the subprime market in the USA.
They obviously foresaw what the result of the fairy-tale approach would lead to.
As for why no one in the American government stopped it is due to the fact that by the time it was obvious trouble was coming it was far too late - ten plus years from institution of the policy to disaster spanning three presidential terms.

All this aided and abetted by highly irresponsible (criminal) banking practices by some of the major players in US financial circles.
Paradoxically, Bernie Madoff might well have been buried a fantastically rich and successful banker were it not for the GFC. As it is he is a penniless jailbird.

Stamper I reckon it is time you did some reading for yourself on this topic - it will show how stupidity and criminality managed to trash the planets economy.

Tony Jay
Title: Re: World Economics Fully Explained At Last
Post by: stamper on June 16, 2013, 05:52:14 am
Quote Rob Reply #61

So, you have never noti¡ced the famous West of Scotland ethic at work? You must have led a more sheltered life than I ever imagined. I raise my hat to you: you never, ever, heard of Rangers and Celtic, never sat on a bus going home at night, scared out of your head that you weren't going to make it... no, probably not: you'd might have thought it normal, and that anyone shocked by it was being 'personal' again, or simply didn't understand what was going on...

Unquote

Rob I have noticed it but I have learned to avoid it and have avoided leaving the country just to get away form it. Every major City in the UK with more than one football team suffers from the problem of hooliganism. As to the personal bit then I thought the statement was aimed at me. Maybe I got it wrong?

Tony, forget it.

That mindset is endemic in the West of Scotland, one of the reasons I left it.