Leonid 409 Posted November 7 Piketty would be horrified by Kimmo’s “smash capitalism” nonsense. He’s pro free-market. Pro private ownership and enterprise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NZT48 31 Posted November 7 @fliptopia: What are "contracting conditions"? Do you say all deflation always involves "contracting conditions"? Why is it "an ever downward spiral"? What do you mean by "retract their spending"? 13 hours ago, fliptopia said: Are these inventions at the expense of workers? Perhaps, at the short-term expense of some but if you look at an overall picture it would be beneficial for the population. 13 hours ago, fliptopia said: The only way for deflation to work happily would be simultaneous deflation across all nations and then everyone would essentially be in the same spot. Why? 13 hours ago, fliptopia said: Also, when you have a majority of people all with more money to spend you basically start inflation again as people realise there is more money to be made so the cycle just starts again. What "cycle"? Why would there be "more money to be made"? Monetary inflation doesn't necessarily beget inflation. It depends how much of it there is compared with how much real GDP increases as I understand it. 11 hours ago, Kimmo said: All this comes back to our economies depending on constant growth, right? I don't think so. Why do you think so? 11 hours ago, Kimmo said: a pyramid scheme 11 hours ago, Kimmo said: Heaven forfend we contemplate alternatives. What alternatives? 10 hours ago, Kimmo said: a mountain of actual real world data Please expand on this. 5 hours ago, chrisg said: He was a lot less than perfect but Paul Keating saw it as the crock it was and whilst he had the controls he steered us back to a robust economy that rode out the next crisis quite well. I was in primary school when he was PM but I have a bit of a soft spot for Keating. I recall a long time ago seeing CIA's World Factbook page on Australia which attributed the good shape of Australia's economy to Hawke's and Keating's reforms. I think this was late in or after Howard's rule. I don't think it's there any more. I suspect there is another great recession coming that we could have avoided if we allowed a correction earlier instead of putting it off and making it worse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fliptopia 303 Posted November 7 12 minutes ago, NZT48 said: Perhaps, at the short-term expense of some but if you look at an overall picture it would be beneficial for the population. In what way and how will it be beneficial? 13 minutes ago, NZT48 said: What "cycle"? Why would there be "more money to be made"? Monetary inflation doesn't necessarily beget inflation. It depends how much of it there is compared with how much real GDP increases as I understand it. The cycle of increasing prices. I'm saying if everything got cheaper all at once and somehow magically people had the same amount of money or more so had relative increased buying power then prices for trades and other services go up as demand on there services increases and therefore manufacturing prices go up to pay for it. The cycle perpetuates as more people have more money. This happens because a good or service is not valued on its own cost of production but the value is in what someone will pay for it. 18 minutes ago, NZT48 said: 14 hours ago, fliptopia said: The only way for deflation to work happily would be simultaneous deflation across all nations and then everyone would essentially be in the same spot. Why? What happens if your country goes through deflation while everyone else has inflation (at around 2-3% rather than 400-500%)? I'll hopefully get back to the rest later. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kimmo 235 Posted November 7 13 hours ago, Leonid said: Piketty would be horrified by Kimmo’s “smash capitalism” nonsense. I reckon he'd be far more horrified by a grotesque caricature of a free market fundamentalist, so keen on the trickle-down koolaid it's in an IV drip. What for brekky, Rupert's toe jam on toast? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leonid 409 Posted November 7 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Kimmo said: I reckon he'd be far more horrified by a grotesque caricature of a free market fundamentalist, so keen on the trickle-down koolaid it's in an IV drip. What for brekky, Rupert's toe jam on toast? The man wants to reduce taxation on investment owners. Think that through through the lens of your psychopathic ideology, loser. Perfect description of Kimmo’s economic understanding, right here: Edited November 7 by Leonid Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kimmo 235 Posted November 7 Piketty can be whatever he likes. The fact is, he pointed out R>G, and absolutely nothing I've ever seen you say advocates any response to the baseline reality of wealth flooding up. We can fiddle around the edges, making capitalism better, and that'll be great for a short while. But the fabulous and wonderful ability of the free market to set prices isn't worth a damn while 'externalities' like pillaging and defiling the natural world aren't factored in. How's that gonna happen in your prescription, smart guy? A voluntary code of conduct, no doubt. Anyway, fuck you with a chainsaw, and your blind insistence on vicious slander and unrelenting straw manning. You're not worth a second. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leonid 409 Posted November 7 2 minutes ago, Kimmo said: We can fiddle around the edges, making capitalism better, and that'll be great for a short while. But the fabulous and wonderful ability of the free market to set prices isn't worth a damn while 'externalities' like pillaging and defiling the natural world aren't factored in. To none of that is the solution socialism or communism unless you want to make the problem worse. 5 minutes ago, Kimmo said: Anyway, fuck you with a chainsaw, and your blind insistence on vicious slander and unrelenting straw manning. You're not worth a second. Thank you, Grave Liner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NZT48 31 Posted November 8 13 hours ago, fliptopia said: In what way and how will it be beneficial? As productivity increases more wealth is created which begets higher living standards. 15 hours ago, fliptopia said: The cycle of increasing prices. "Increasing prices" is not a cycle. 15 hours ago, fliptopia said: I'm saying if everything got cheaper all at once and somehow magically people had the same amount of money or more so had relative increased buying power then prices for trades and other services go up as demand on there services increases and therefore manufacturing prices go up to pay for it. The cycle perpetuates as more people have more money. This happens because a good or service is not valued on its own cost of production but the value is in what someone will pay for it. Competition means the prices don't go up. People will buy other things and start and invest in new businesses. Saying stuff getting cheaper makes stuff get more expensive is lunacy. 15 hours ago, fliptopia said: What happens if your country goes through deflation while everyone else has inflation (at around 2-3% rather than 400-500%)? You tell me. You are the one claiming to know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeruselem 788 Posted November 8 (edited) NZT48, ever heard of the credit cycle? Guess where the global economy is? Late cycle Edited November 8 by Jeruselem Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fliptopia 303 Posted November 8 2 hours ago, NZT48 said: Competition means the prices don't go up. People will buy other things and start and invest in new businesses. Saying stuff getting cheaper makes stuff get more expensive is lunacy. What I'm saying is short term gains for longer term losses is the net result. 2 hours ago, NZT48 said: As productivity increases more wealth is created which begets higher living standards. Wealth for who? If large companies can automate and smaller start ups can't afford the same level of automation then how do they survive? How do they create competition? In your freedom for markets, how do you stop a monopoly by the best funded most able to reduce costs type of company? 2 hours ago, NZT48 said: "Increasing prices" is not a cycle. In a world where you decrease prices to then have them increase you are cycling up hill Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NZT48 31 Posted November 8 @Jeruselem: Do you expect me to address what you say when you don't address what I say? That seems unreasonable to me. 8 hours ago, fliptopia said: What I'm saying is short term gains for longer term losses is the net result Well you are wrong. I have explained why. 9 hours ago, fliptopia said: Wealth for who? Those who are more productive initially, then others they buy goods and services from as they have more money to spend. 9 hours ago, fliptopia said: If large companies can automate and smaller start ups can't afford the same level of automation then how do they survive? Perhaps the get loans or merge or go out of business. Not that it is up to me to provide solutions for businesses to survive. What's your solution? To ban inventions? 9 hours ago, fliptopia said: How do they create competition? See above. 9 hours ago, fliptopia said: In your freedom for markets, how do you stop a monopoly by the best funded most able to reduce costs type of company? Take one's business elsewhere. 9 hours ago, fliptopia said: In a world where you decrease prices to then have them increase you are cycling up hill You are not sensical or funny or witty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fliptopia 303 Posted November 8 11 minutes ago, NZT48 said: Perhaps the get loans or merge or go out of business. Not that it is up to me to provide solutions for businesses to survive. What's your solution? To ban inventions? No but these are real questions we are likely to be facing in the next couple of decades to an increasing extent. 12 minutes ago, NZT48 said: Take one's business elsewhere. When so many will be struggling to find work they are not going to just go for the cheapest option? The larger companies price out the smaller companies or just buy them out. 14 minutes ago, NZT48 said: You are not sensical or funny or witty. I just don't agree with you. Mostly because you are wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NZT48 31 Posted November 8 1 minute ago, fliptopia said: No but these are real questions we are likely to be facing in the next couple of decades to an increasing extent. Why? 4 minutes ago, fliptopia said: When so many will be struggling to find work they are not going to just go for the cheapest option? The larger companies price out the smaller companies or just buy them out. Why and in what hypothetical scenario will " so many will be struggling to find work"? Are you suggesting that deflation causes unemployment? I think we have already covered that. 8 minutes ago, fliptopia said: I just don't agree with you. Mostly because you are wrong. You have yet to show that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NZT48 31 Posted November 8 The best thing the government can do for the economy is let it be free. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scruffy1 928 Posted November 9 freedom isn't free, it costs a buck o' five Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NZT48 31 Posted November 9 "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leonid 409 Posted November 9 1 hour ago, scruffy1 said: freedom isn't free, it costs a buck o' five $1.16 since the introduction of the GST. The government is entitled to a cut of your freedom. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scruffy1 928 Posted November 9 yes, the federal government with dutton's guidance are very keen on cutting freedom fuck, that smile is scary 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eveln 1,128 Posted November 9 (edited) lol. Dutton has the look there of the wide eyed stare of one who has seen the ravages . unlike most though he appears to be revelling in the picture. Bronwyn is just plain shameless. And Craig knows where his next meal is coming from and is happy 'bout that, for now Edited November 9 by eveln I think that guy to the right is Craig ... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fliptopia 303 Posted November 9 Or maybe their all posing and feeling uncomfortable til they can take their human suits off and let their lizard skin breathe? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeruselem 788 Posted November 9 16 hours ago, NZT48 said: The best thing the government can do for the economy is let it be free. Privatize everything then? Yeah that's working well ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NZT48 31 Posted November 12 (edited) On 11/2/2019 at 1:58 PM, Leonid said: Goods and services do not get cheaper. They get more expensive relative to purchasing capacity of individuals. Which "individuals"? Inflation hasn't always existed. On 11/2/2019 at 2:07 PM, TheManFromPOST said: open a hamburger place next to a McDonalds, tell us how it works out or , if you want a quick study, google Walmart and the Pickle jars Or just tell us what your point is? On 11/5/2019 at 5:36 PM, datafast69 said: Add to it that most small businesses fail within the first two or three years (some the first year), It's far from as easy as a lot of people think it is. Yep. It should be much easier and the government can make it so by getting rid of bad and unnecessary taxes and regulations. On 11/9/2019 at 5:27 PM, Jeruselem said: Privatize everything then? Yeah that's working well ... Is "everything" being privatised? What is going wrong and why do you attribute it to privatisation? Edited November 12 by NZT48 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
datafast69 68 Posted November 12 (edited) 3 hours ago, NZT48 said: Yep. It should be much easier and the government can make it so by getting rid of bad and unnecessary taxes and regulations. It is very clear you don't know what is involved in achieving success in starting and sustaining a small business. Edit: just to be clear, those things you mention are NOT why most small businesses fail, the leading reasons are all at the feet of the operator, foremost poor record keeping, and the rest are numerous and combinations of them. The market is saturated, no room for another to succeed in It's geographic or demographic, is a big one. To be successful even if you have everything else covered, it takes hard work and long hours, and you need a financial base to keep you afloat for the first few years, the rule of thumb is first year the business runs at a loss, second year breaks even, third year the business makes a profit....this is if everything works favorably. Expect to personally earn less than the basic wage to live on for the first year or two. You can't take sick days off, as there is nobody to replace you, the business doesn't run if you are not running it. Edited November 12 by datafast69 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cybes 1,327 Posted November 12 4 hours ago, NZT48 said: Inflation hasn't always existed True. Inflation did not exist before hominids. However, inflation has existed for as long as trade has - even before money, when 'people' (and I use the term loosely, since we've seen apes trade items) were bartering goods. (ie: Longer than money) I reiterate my previous post in this thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NZT48 31 Posted November 13 My point is deflation has occurred in the past. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
