The Suicide of the West

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Yes, it’s a modern European-style socialism. They even have a president from a socialist party.

Socialism is not communism.

But it is the natural progression…

Free Market…then to socialism…then revolt to communism…then stagnation/starvation…then revolt to Free Market and the cycle begins all over again.

History shows that the standard of living and overall freedom was the best during the times of a totally Free Market…but those without the goal of people’s well being always want to change things…:sad_yes:

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

But it is the natural progression…

Free Market…then to socialism…then revolt to communism…then stagnation/starvation…then revolt to Free Market and the cycle begins all over again.

History shows that the standard of living and overall freedom was the best during the times of a totally Free Market…but those without the goal of people’s well being always want to change things…:sad_yes:

Exactly. That’s why we get a president who wants to “fundamentally transform” the greatest nation in world history.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;12621300:

Say two old ladies are trying to get home late at night.

One meets a multimillionaire who has his P.A. open a briefcase full of money and peels out one $20 bill so the old lady can get a taxi home. He will never notice the loss of that one note.

The other meets a homeless guy who gives her every last penny he has - fortuitously just

enough for her to get the bus home. This means that he will sleep hungry on the streets rather than being able to get a bed and a meal at the local shelter.

Which has been most generous - the multi millionaire or the homeless guy? Certainly the old lady would prefer to have the taxi than the bus, but that is not the same question, is it?

The purpose of generosity is to help or assist by sharing what one can afford.

Since the millionaire was able to share more and provide more assistance, obviously he was the most generous. Not to diminish the nobility and benevolence of the homeless guy…he gave all he could afford. The lady who took the taxi benefited the most.

:nope:
Ridiculous. Not to say unbiblical.

Giving $20 out of millions is trivial. Giving all you have and suffering as a result is clearly far more generous.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

:nope:
Ridiculous. Not to say unbiblical.

Giving $20 out of millions is trivial. Giving all you have and suffering as a result is clearly far more generous.

No, it is nothing more than stupid altruism.

 

[weller2]

No, it is nothing more than stupid altruism.

Mark 12:

41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

:nope:
Ridiculous. Not to say unbiblical.

Giving $20 out of millions is trivial. Giving all you have and suffering as a result is clearly far more generous.

The point is that policies that create more millionaires are preferable to policies which create more poverty. Our current leftist president in the US has helped create more poverty and more government dependence.

 

[weller2]

The point is that policies that create more millionaires are preferable to policies which create more poverty.

Usually policies which create more millionaires are the same which create more poverty.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Usually policies which create more millionaires are the same which create more poverty.

Leftist propaganda that is clearly false.

Prosperity is contagious, and so is poverty.

Wealth is not static, it is dynamic. Policies that increase wealth help all income levels.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Usually policies which create more millionaires are the same which create more poverty.

No.

If you look at the history of GDP distribution, you will find that capital and labor almost always have the same percentage share, though it varies a little. Labor’s share is greatest in periods of high employment and lowest in periods of high unemployment. That all has to do with the utilization of capital. One can, for example, only get so much out of a given factory by adding more labor. At the high end, the productivity of each additional unit of labor gets progressively lower, and the efficiency of capital goes down. But in times of high employment, the capitalist doesn’t care about that because even those low-productive hours are profitable. He doesn’t mind paying high wages either, because his capital is being fully and profitably utilized. As such, the value of his capital is greater.

On the other hand, when capital is not being used to its maximum potential, the value per unit of labor to the capitalist is greater, but only to the extent he can still sell his product. Since employment is scarce, he can pay less for labor. But his overall profit is still reduced; just not as much as the value of labor is, because he can’t sell everything he might otherwise be able to produce, and the value of his capital is reduced.

Overall, the “profitability” of labor and capital move together. The real depressor of labor value is unemployment, which is significantly exacerbated by current administration policies.

 

[weller2]

If you look at the history of GDP distribution, you will find that capital and labor almost always have the same percentage share, though it varies a little.

Provided that the entire economy grows in real terms, yes.

However if it stops growing in real terms – i.e. because it becomes energy-limited – then “pro-growth” policies amount to wealth redistribution from poor towards the rich. This is what can be observed since 2009 (“jobless recovery”).

 

[Ridgerunner]

Provided that the entire economy grows in real terms, yes.

However if it stops growing in real terms – i.e. because it becomes energy-limited – then “pro-growth” policies amount to wealth redistribution from poor towards the rich. This is what can be observed since 2009 (“jobless recovery”).

The first sentence, as I understand it, is incorrect. The percentage distribution of GDP to capital and labor is almost always the same. Labor’s share increases at full employment and decreases with unemployment, but not all that much. Interestingly, “money for work” and “money for non-work” are both mostly part of labor’s share. As transfer payments increase, the percentage of GDP going to “labor for work” decreases. Transfer payments affect “income from property” (capital) much less.

Regardless, real income for both capital and labor move in tandem. If the economy declines, both capital and labor are negatively affected; labor a bit more than capital, but not by much. The ratio for dividing a big pie and a little pie are about the same.

It is no surprise, then, that some moribund economies settle into a poverty stricken peasantry/proletariat at the bottom and a threadbare aristocracy at the top.

You might be right about the reason for increased income and wealth at the top and no improvement for the rest in the economy, and I don’t doubt for a minute that energy cost affect that. However (and kind of scary) I don’t know that the position of capital and capitalists has improved much since 2009. It depends on what the capital is doing. Certainly the stock market is being subsidized, in effect, by the Fed, and those whose assets are there have done very well. But I’m not sure owners of other kinds of capital have done very well. Those whose capital is in savings have had a negative return. Those in bonds have done okay, but any upturn in rates will put them in a loss position. People who own things like construction equipment have not done well. Those whose capital is in range land did horribly in 2011 and 2012, but have done very well since because of lowered supply. It has been the reverse for row crop farmers.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Provided that the entire economy grows in real terms, yes.

However if it stops growing in real terms – i.e. because it becomes energy-limited – then “pro-growth” policies amount to wealth redistribution from poor towards the rich. This is what can be observed since 2009 (“jobless recovery”).

Just so you know, capital’s partion of national income is always about 1/3 of the total. Labor’s is always about 2/3. It hasn’t varied much from that since 1929 when the government first started keeping track. But, as I said, the share of “labor and paid non-labor” goes up at full employment relative to the return on capital.

That whole thing is interesting to me. Why is capital’s portion always about 1/3? Well, that’s in an advanced economy, and apparently it takes that much capital to make labor productive. Labor’s share goes up a bit at full employment because the last additions to labor in, let’s say, a factory, don’t add very much to production, but do add some.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I don’t know that the position of capital and capitalists has improved much since 2009. It depends on what the capital is doing. Certainly the stock market is being subsidized, in effect, by the Fed, and those whose assets are there have done very well. But I’m not sure owners of other kinds of capital have done very well. Those whose capital is in savings have had a negative return. Those in bonds have done okay, but any upturn in rates will put them in a loss position. People who own things like construction equipment have not done well. Those whose capital is in range land did horribly in 2011 and 2012, but have done very well since because of lowered supply. It has been the reverse for row crop farmers.

Actually, if you look at corporate profits, which is an aggregate measure of returns for capitalists, they have done very well since Obama took office. When Obama took office, corporate profits were at about $1.26 trillion, now they are at $2.17 trillion, or up about 72%. Certainly they have done better than wage earners under Obama.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Actually, if you look at corporate profits, which is an aggregate measure of returns for capitalists, they have done very well since Obama took office. When Obama took office, corporate profits were at about $1.26 trillion, now they are at $2.17 trillion, or up about 72%. Certainly they have done better than wage earners under Obama.

One would expect they would do well relative to wage earners in a period of poor employment levels.

One would also expect increased profits from cost-cutting. It’s not true of all corporations, but some of them have increased profits though that measure. Sometimes its employees; sometimes unprofitable lines of product, sometimes whole subsidiaries. Some of it has come as a result of “upstreaming” costs to others. We have seen quite a bit of all of those. I’m not criticizing it. I guess that’s part of becoming “lean and mean”. I’m just saying it’s not surprising.

And, of course, corporate interest rates on debt have been very low. Interesting how that works and what the psychology of it is on the market. I follow food stocks a bit, and if you look at the price of TSN recently, for example, and its profitability, both have increased greatly in the last few years. Some of that is due to the “poultry cycle”. No question about that at all. If you look at a “purer” poultry play like PPC, it’s plain. Some of it is due to drastically lower grain prices, particularly corn. Some of it is due to cost-cutting, including shutdown of whole product lines, plants and feed lots. Some of its stock performance is due to expectations from the acquisition of Hillshire Farms notwithstanding the whopping debt that was undertaken to buy it. A few percentage points in interest rates could put a serious dent in that picture, and especially if those changes coincide with the eventual oversupply inherent in the “poultry cycle”.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Mark 12:

41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Then Jesus took out His purse and as an example…

 

[SuperLuigi]

Actually, if you look at corporate profits, which is an aggregate measure of returns for capitalists, they have done very well since Obama took office. When Obama took office, corporate profits were at about $1.26 trillion, now they are at $2.17 trillion, or up about 72%. Certainly they have done better than wage earners under Obama.

That’s because they weasel out of a lot of new laws and regulations by funneling money offshore and other gimmicks to avoid the actual tax rate.

Main Street American can’t funnel its money around the Caymans or Ireland to avoid Democrat Party tax rates.

But that’s what you get when you vote based on skin colour, age and who is cool. If Americans want to vote on the basis of trivial means, then they’ll probably get trivial leadership.

Also, a lot of growth has been in spite of the Obama Administration. States like North Dakota and Texas are booming because of state policies.

 

[weller2]

The first sentence, as I understand it, is incorrect. The percentage distribution of GDP to capital and labor is almost always the same.

No it isn’t. Meet Thomas Piketty.

The problem is that once economy became energy-limited, the real GDP growth per capita stalled to zero (there is a nominal GDP growth, but it’s caused by the financial industry moving virtual money around). In other words, worker’s productivity grows as long as the amount of energy he has available grows. To use a naive example, a worker equipped with a 2kW power drill will work twice faster as the one equipped with a 1kW power drill, thus have 2x productivity of the former. As energy (name removed by moderator)ut per capita is constant since 1975 (even arguably decreasing since 2005), so is energy per worker, and so the growth of the real economy (per capita) is zero.

However, if you happen to belong to the capitalist class, and your income comes from capital investments (i.e. usury), then the growth rate of your capital is what Fed declares – which is non-zero.

IOW, the capitalist is borrowing the worker the money to buy the 2kW power drill, but the worker has only 1kW available to him, so he has no net profit from the new drill, so the capitalist forecloses on him – and so, the wealth is moved from the worker to the capitalist.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/21797/large/Corp_profits_v._GDP.png

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

No it isn’t. Meet Thomas Piketty.

The problem is that once economy became energy-limited, the real GDP growth per capita stalled to zero (there is a nominal GDP growth, but it’s caused by the financial industry moving virtual money around). In other words, worker’s productivity grows as long as the amount of energy he has available grows. To use a naive example, a worker equipped with a 2kW power drill will work twice faster as the one equipped with a 1kW power drill, thus have 2x productivity of the former. As energy (name removed by moderator)ut per capita is constant since 1975 (even arguably decreasing since 2005), so is energy per worker, and so the growth of the real economy (per capita) is zero.

However, if you happen to belong to the capitalist class, and your income comes from capital investments (i.e. usury), then the growth rate of your capital is what Fed declares – which is non-zero.

IOW, the capitalist is borrowing the worker the money to buy the 2kW power drill, but the worker has only 1kW available to him, so he has no net profit from the new drill, so the capitalist forecloses on him – and so, the wealth is moved from the worker to the capitalist.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/21797/large/Corp_profits_v._GDP.png

This ignores the fact that a higher percentage of Americans now own stocks.

We are becoming an ownership society. Corporate profits are good for all Americans.

 

[alchemist3]

No, it is nothing more than stupid altruism.

That is about the must un-Catholic statement that I have ever heard. I guess laying down one’s life for one’s friends is also “stupid altruism.” Man that Jesus was an absolute idiot.

 

[alchemist3]

This ignores the fact that a higher percentage of Americans now own stocks.

We are becoming an ownership society. Corporate profits are good for all Americans.

More Americans own stocks because companies have been cutting defined pension plans and simply providing 401k’s and other such stock based programs so the worker gets screwed, the corporation benefits.

I am actually a free market capitalist but I am absolutely opposed to Corporate Capitalism. In a true Laissez-Faire system corporations would not exist as they have no existence outside of being a legal entity created by state governments. They are a legal fiction protected by the state.