Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Hello folks!

For all familiar, the National Inflation Association (NIA) has just released the long awaited documentary entitled, "College Conspiracy." In a nut shell, NIA attempts to expose the dark reality of the educational system in the United States of America. If you are a current college student or perhaps someone thinking of attending college, give this documentary your undivided attention. Although I disagree on certain points, I credit NIA for doing their homework. Well done. Enjoy!

College Conspiracy

VpZtX32sKVE

For HD quality (and full-screen capabilities), view the documentary on YouTube.

What points are the ones you disagree with?

My primary objection to the documentary is that... some professions (absolutely) require college/university degrees - professions in the medical field and positions as a CPA come to mind.

Other than that, NIA hits the nail on the head. A good friend of mine earns 100k a year building websites for a company in DC. He doesn't have a degree of any sort, just a HS diploma. On the other hand, I have friends with master degrees selling cars.

I can only assume NIA is overlooking minor details (while focusing on the big picture).

I would agree, basically. I think colleges are mainly useful for science based careers. Engineering, medicine, etc. My father did get a college degree but he made all his money starting businesses completely unrelated to his degree. meanwhile my mother was a schoolteacher, which requires tons of education and paid a pittance in comparison.

Something lots of low income kids don't realize, either, is that it could actually be cheaper to go to a high-end private college than to a local school due to the large endowments these schools have. as a result most people do not really take advantage of the flaws int he system and instead suffer for it.

The fact is that most jobs are going away in america. the only jobs that are guaranteed to be booming are technical fields; so that's the only occupation you can rely on to repay your college investments.

Not everyone who went to collage ends up with good jobs anyway.I know this by some of my collage friends who works at the same place I do.

No doubt.

It's easy to attack a "college" mentality when the economy is suffering so thoroughly. I'd be interested to see numbers about a decade after the economy rebounds to see if the trend continues.

Trades always do well, and require less formal education. But they're also less glamorous so there's less demand, so it makes sense. I've actually been considering one myself.

Colleges themselves are not suffering; on the contrary, they are experiencing record profits.

The documentary - College Conspiracy - is merely relaying the fact that, most Americans assume that they need a college degree to become successful.

As a whole, such is not the case - unless you have aspirations to persue a career in the medical field or something in the sciences, like King Kandy mentioned. Some professions require a degree, but not all, to become successful.

Through experience, you can attain a wealth of success without a college degree (in the long run). I mentioned my friend - today, he is making 100k a year - without a college degree. I also have friends with master degrees selling automobiles. And they are being hassled by ridiculous amounts of debt.

In any case... the US economy is not going to "rebound," until we create and reconstruct a strong manufacturing base - an economy no longer based on debt.

With US economic trends in mind, all we see in the future, is additional debt (to pay off existing debt). Countries like Brazil, Russia, India and China are well aware of this fact. That's precisely why they are working to debase the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. The US dollar - through inflation - is losing value.

Thanks to the US of America, not having a manufacturing base, to include massive government spending (monetary and fiscal) policies and entitlement programs, it is absolutely impossible to balance our budget, not mention paying off our debts. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security amount to 80+ trillion. Our national debt: 14+ trillion. Tax receipts sum to the tune of 2 trillion dollars.

Do the math. But hey... let's have universal heath care - where the government takes care of you from cradle to grave.

This equates to the FED printing more, more and more money - which further devalues our dollar. In the end, you can expect hyperinflation in America. It's a mathematical certainty.

Harping back to China and other countries that I've mentioned, it's no wonder they want nothing to do with the dollar. It's going to tank.

An article was release today (on the Drudge Report), that the Federal Government is dipping into the pensions of federal employees to manage US debt. This is insane! It simply reflects how dire US debt is.

The article further stated, that all monies taken from federal worker pension funds, will be reimbursed (legally). Any one with a brain will ask: How?

Such will be done with the printing of fiat currency. This creates inflation, and foreign countries are sick of it - because their investments (T-bonds) are losing value, through inflation.

So... bye-bye the US of America - and with it, jobs.

While I enjoy a good business rant as much as anyone, the above post is just speculation. People in business are great at sounding like they know what's up, yet we see the greatest business minds failing to predict or know a LOT of things.

So let's stick to college/no-college here, eh? When you put together as many ideas as there are in ushome's post, there's bound to be some abject speculation and at the very least a criminal amount of generalization.

The idea that you don't need a college degree to be successful is a well-known one. Lesser known is that it's difficult to be the 100K+ guy with OR without one. Those are the outliers, the statistical margins. "Knowing a guy" and using it as an example is a bit fallacious, and creates a greater expectation than any average or median endeavor should expect in a similar field. Anecdotes aren't data, they are almost by the very quality of them being worth telling, somewhat an exception. That said, it's probably worth looking into non-degree jobs more and more, if only because of the nature of many job markets right now. Like I said, this may change as we rebound collectively and job markets open up a bit mroe for degreed jobs.

Actually an interesting video though, imo...amusingly enough, given my normal reaction to ushome's threads. I'm about 25% through it.



Like most things, I have a hard time saying I agree before I see the opposite argument and weighing the two. But it's not entirely without merit imo. They endorse some of the same doomsday economic ideas that Glenn Beck does, though, so a few alarms went off when I perused the website. Ultimately, no one does anything this large for entirely altruistic purposes and without profit in it, and the heavy endorsement of, say, gold buying seems fishy to me.

The idea of government being more hands-off and allowing private banks to compete more heavily in and among the education system is one that resonates with me though. I'm very much a proponent of free market competition driving down costs and improving quality of the product (in this case, education).

Speculation? Digi... I love you brotha.... You simply must understand that the US economy is based on debt. This is unsustainable. A country can only print money for so long before it's currency is debased and becomes worthless - those with central banks anyway.

You need only to look at the actions of foreign countries - aside from history - to confirm this: that a total US economic collapse is near. That's why Brazil, Russia, India and China are making preparations to diversify away from the US dollar. They're not divorcing themselves from the US dollar because it's gaining in value. I totally promise. I'm totally, totally not making this up.



Many ideas? What are you talking about? My thread is all about the US economy and it's impact on future jobs, not to mention the value of college degrees (under such circumstances). Our generation is bearing eye-witness to the downfall of America, but politicians will tell you otherwise. "Hey... the US economy is strong, and it will further strengthen, but we need to steal money from pension funds. We also need to raise the debt ceiling by next week or the government will be forced to default. But hey... the economy is strong and employment will rise." C'mon, Digi.



I didn't realize that. What do you think accounts for record profits amongst colleges/universities then (if people think they don't need a degree "is well known"?



Fallacious how? What field(s) are you taking about?



Anecdotes - was is that all about, and what do you mean by to "rebound collectively?" The US job market is dwindling, and it's pace is only going to increase. Degrees in the future, are going to be even more worthless. I really don't understand what you are saying; help me out.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Colleges themselves are not suffering; on the contrary, they are experiencing record profits.

The documentary - College Conspiracy - is merely relaying the fact that, most Americans assume that they need a college degree to become successful.

As a whole, such is not the case - unless you have aspirations to persue a career in the medical field or something in the sciences, like King Kandy mentioned. Some professions require a degree, but not all, to become successful.

Through experience, you can attain a wealth of success without a college degree (in the long run). I mentioned my friend - today, he is making 100k a year - without a college degree. I also have friends with master degrees selling automobiles. And they are being hassled by ridiculous amounts of debt.

In any case... the US economy is not going to "rebound," until we create and reconstruct a strong manufacturing base - an economy no longer based on debt.

With US economic trends in mind, all we see in the future, is additional debt (to pay off existing debt). Countries like Brazil, Russia, India and China are well aware of this fact. That's precisely why they are working to debase the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. The US dollar - through inflation - is losing value.

Thanks to the US of America, not having a manufacturing base, to include massive government spending (monetary and fiscal) policies and entitlement programs, it is absolutely impossible to balance our budget, not mention paying off our debts. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security amount to 80+ trillion. Our national debt: 14+ trillion. Tax receipts sum to the tune of 2 trillion dollars.

Do the math. But hey... let's have universal heath care - where the government takes care of you from cradle to grave.

This equates to the FED printing more, more and more money - which further devalues our dollar. In the end, you can expect hyperinflation in America. It's a mathematical certainty.

Harping back to China and other countries that I've mentioned, it's no wonder they want nothing to do with the dollar. It's going to tank.

An article was release today (on the Drudge Report), that the Federal Government is dipping into the pensions of federal employees to manage US debt. This is insane! It simply reflects how dire US debt is.

The article further stated, that all monies taken from federal worker pension funds, will be reimbursed (legally). Any one with a brain will ask: How?

Such will be done with the printing of fiat currency. This creates inflation, and foreign countries are sick of it - because their investments (T-bonds) are losing value, through inflation.

So... bye-bye the US of America - and with it, jobs. A lot of people have predicted many things and they were right about many of these things, in terms of money. College was fine *many* years ago, when it was cheaper and had a larger impact. But as time went along the degrees became more inflated because more people went. College became a big business and a victim of its own success. Now people are leaving with more and more debt, with less and less jobs. Things will eventually correct themselves. Government guaranteed loans only raise the cost of it. College is expanding in cost much faster than the rate of inflation, or even health care.


When you're talking about a trillion dollars of student loan debt, higher than the credit card debt, that's pretty bad. But the middle and lower class have been conditioned from when they were young to "go to school, get a degree, buy a house, get married soon, etc." People do these things without thinking that many of these actions trap you in debt. (Funny I was watching the vid and that first thing I said in this paragraph came up.)

If you do go to school, make sure it is in a useful field and get a little debt as possible. I went and I paid for it with my company, while my degree has done next to nothing for me. But I didn't expect it to, and I didn't leave school with the staggering debt that many have, I had only about $1,000 from a private school. The saying goes "The C students rule the world", because you do not need enhanced academic education to be successful. Just hard work, ambition, the willingness to take risk and real world education. Many of the worlds most successful were dropouts or C students. People don't realize that even if you get "that good job" and make "big money" (which isn't that big, like early 6 figures or so), you can still lose that job. Therefore it is wise to place earn passive income in several areas as it is less taxed.


Trade schools are in now because they are more practical, and because people are starting to catch on that jobs like that are always going to be needed. 4 year school is for some people, but not for everybody.

As I said in my other thread, the education system is here to train employees and soldiers. No financial education is in our schools, no schools on investing or starting a business. Just "get a job and cross your fingers".

I've been saying this years. Glad to see it's been put out in detail.

Tha C-master - you are the man!

Originally posted by ushomefree
Tha C-master - you are the man! I just call them like I see them.

Like I said before, college does benefit *some* people, doctors, lawyers, etc. It however is *not* an instant success bubble, and because people in our country have such terrible financial education and spending habits, it won't really matter what they make, no different than the millionaire musician or athlete with no financial skills.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Speculation? I really don't understand what you are saying; help me out.

Sure. For the most part, my criticisms of your stance were mostly based around the idea that you seem to "know" exactly what course the economy will take. It's an unfortunate amount of hubris. Post-diction is 20/20, to mix and match some cliches with logical fallacies for a moment, and there's been people a lot smarter than you or I about the economy who haven't known the first thing about how things will turn out, or they thought they did and were wrong.

Because, of course, there exists somewhere (either on the internet, in books, board rooms, etc.) hard data to refute some of their points (the predictive ones more so than the "here's what already happened" ones). The nature of these beasts necessitates that both sides exist in their extreme. And are you familiar with that side? I'm certainly not, nor am I probably qualified to say which is the more correct. But my guess is, you aren't either.

So basically, I think you're a bit too sure of yourself is all. Watching a documentary and reading a website with a clear agenda doesn't make you an expert, it simply makes you a lopsided researcher. The fact that you are preaching the opposite of those who helped cause (or didn't foresee) the financial collapse doesn't mean that your precognitive capabilities are any sharper, or that we are unequivocally doomed to spiral downward from here.

...

All of that is somewhat ancillary to my reason for being in this thread, and that's that it genuinely interests me and I don't think it's total bunk. But acting like posting a video then paraphrasing it in about 15 sentences lays to rest our financial future is, well, silly. The reasons for the collapse are already (largely) known, so parroting them isn't any particular insight. And, yes, predicting something you don't know the entirety, or even the majority of, is indeed premature.

However, some of the video is common sense, and I would be fool to say it's not without some merit. The dangers of wracking up debt are obvious, and it's usually just a lack of information that leads people down such roads. The same of government involvement, as large organizations will tend to be wasteful, and I'd rather see more free market competition driving up education and driving down prices. But when they parade that one fellow...he shows up a lot but I forget his name...to scream about the "system" doing things like "taking away you ability to think" and "teaching you only how to think their way" it's not hard to detect the rhetoric of someone with a clear agenda and a lack of perspective. It's anti-establishment conspiratorial fear-based preaching, which is a powerful tool, but not a strictly rational in its approach and therefore subject to emotional manipulation to achieve some end that may be premature or agenda-driven. It's the same with, say, climate change "controversy." You have two sides, but not only do you have to have the requisite knowledge of the science behind it to make sense of either side's argument, but you also have to know what group is funding or profiting from both sides' respective endeavors to detect the political motivations behind them, and then uncover whether or not the science is legit or being misused to further an economic or political agenda. It takes a lot of time just to get up to speed on the topic, let alone form a cohesive opinion that doesn't have noticeable gaps. You think this is any different?

Really, just apply some critical thought. I'm not against the video's message necessarily. I'm just endorsing measured skepticism and provisional approval. Not "c'mon Digi" when I doubt something you say simply because you posted a video on it.

...

As for college not being the only answer as "common knowledge," maybe it hasn't reached that level yet, but I had that exact conversation with a group of my friends the other day and none of us are incredibly destitute. It wasn't a reaction to massive college debt, it was just kind of like "well here's where the jobs are. You know {insert trade skill} is actually the highest-paid per-hour trade, etc. etc." That was the gist of it, and none of us are heavily invested in the issue. So it's common knowledge to us.

...so as for why colleges are rich. I dunno. Everyone in that conversation had at least a 4-year degree.

srug

Originally posted by ushomefree
Do the math. But hey... let's have universal heath care - where the government takes care of you from cradle to grave.
That's pretty funny, because the US does not have universal health care; China does. Shouldn't China be the one suffering by this line of reasoning?

why is our socialist dollar worth more than yours, us?

EDIT: why are our heavily regulated banks more stable than yours?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Countries like Brazil, Russia, India and China are well aware of this fact.
In fact, strangely enough all four of these "financially sound" countries, have universal health care.

Originally posted by ushomefree
The US job market is dwindling, and it's pace is only going to increase. Degrees in the future, are going to be even more worthless.

If the job market's shrinking is *only* going to accelerate than in a few decades there won't be *any* jobs at all. You should probably be more concerned about the US vanishing into some kind of economic black hole than the discovery that college's don't have a magic ability to make you wealthy, just a statistical one.

In 2010, US health care reform policies were singed into law, but they do not take effect until 2014. In any case, the point that I was trying to make, is that, the US economy is based on debt - meaning, the US is no longer solvent.

America used to be the manufacturing epicenter of the world; today, it's China - the next superpower. America is currently undergoing an economic collapse, and to make matters worse, leaders in Washington, have seen it fit, to supply an additional entitlement program: universal health care. The US can not afford it, that was my point.

Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security have already bankrupted America - 80+ trillion dollars. This is insane when you take note of the fact that, US GDP equates to 14+ trillion dollars (with trade deficits).

And just to be sure that you understand what I am talking about, what has the US government done as a result and continues to do? And what are the consequences of those actions?

US Dept Clock



What country are you from?



I've posted threads about the US economy in the past. If my memory serves me correctly, my latest thread was called "Melt Up." It contained an hour long documentary about the US economy and government spending, not to mention other topics. Give it a watch. You could also skip the thread and simply watch it on YouTube in HD.

I think you might like to watch this documentary yourself... the US debt results from more than a simple shift in jobs...

Dc3sKwwAaCU

Originally posted by ushomefree
In 2010, US health care reform policies were singed into law, but they do not take effect until 2014. In any case, the point that I was trying to make, is that, the US economy is based on debt - meaning, the US is no longer solvent.

America used to be the manufacturing epicenter of the world; today, it's China - the next superpower. America is currently undergoing an economic collapse, and to make matters worse, leaders in Washington, have seen it fit, to supply an additional entitlement program: universal health care. The US can not afford it, that was my point.

Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security have already bankrupted America - 80+ trillion dollars. This is insane when you take note of the fact that, US GDP equates to 14+ trillion dollars (with trade deficits).

And just to be sure that you understand what I am talking about, what has the US government done as a result and continues to do? And what are the consequences of those actions?

US Dept Clock



What country are you from?



I've posted threads about the US economy in the past. If my memory serves me correctly, my latest thread was called "Melt Up." It contained an hour long documentary about the US economy and government spending, not to mention other topics. Give it a watch. You could also skip the thread and simply watch it on YouTube in HD. He's from Canada.

Our weaker dollar is because of the printing of money, one thing they are also doing in hopes of weakening the dollar for more exports, to create "jobs", jobs which really aren't needed and have no value. Entitlement is expensive.

Edit: Not to mention the "bailouts" were more "socialist" and they didn't help anything. There aren't really any completely socialist or capitalist societies. Some just lean more one way than the other.

Umm... duh! And I've already watched the video. Just answer my questions, please.

The point is that private control of banks has caused such ridiculous inflation... not socialism.

Yes this is absolutely true, but don't forget about the US fiscal policies that allow massive amounts of spending, which results in additional debt. That's why the FED, authorizes the printing of money (out of thin-air) to begin with - to back US debt. America is finished; we are seeing signs of it now, especially with China. The Chinese are tired of the economic games played at the White House and FED.

If things don't drastically change - which it won't, because politicians, like our President, don't have the courage - the US downfall will only continue. The US is insolvent, and current fiscal/monetary policies set in Washington will only result into hyperinflation. The US is right on course with history/economics for this to occur - perhaps this decade. Total economic collapse.

And the side effect: societal collapse. Americans won't even be able to purchase food - many will starve. The US dollar (during hyperinflation) will have zero purchasing power. It's hyperinflated.

As long as we're throwing around anecdotes:

I went to college for 5 years, got a degree, didn't accrue massive student loans (lived at home, granted, which helped). I'm from a lower middle class family, had some financial support but not a lot of it and had to pay for most of it myself. It took me a couple years out of school to find a decent job, but I did, and I've never been more than a couple thousand dollars in debt.

So it's possible. And I'm not alone.

Now, am I the statistical anomaly, the norm, or what percentage have what kinds of debt? We're not told, the video is lopsided in that sense. The perception is that it's ALWAYS that way, which is fallacious. Which goes back to my original point, and a call for not wholehearted endorsement or abject denial, but critical analysis and provisional skepticism.

what degree did you get?

Can you answer my questions?

Originally posted by King Kandy
what degree did you get?

A teaching degree, English specifically. Ironically what I do is tied into my language skills, and the English degree helped, but I don't actually teach.

Without the degree, I wouldn't have the job I'm in, even though it's not the exact field I went into.

My point is that I'm not alone in this. I'm not the statistical rarity, and I've received my degree within the timeframe that the video pounds into us (2005 and later, roughly). So it's not being totally candid by not discussing what percentages don't have debt, or do get jobs in their field. They focus only on the data that supports their point. Even if they have a good point to make, they're grossly overstating it. Because I can name dozens who do have jobs and little to no debt, dozens who maybe don't have a job in their field but are "getting by," and, well, no one who's simply ass deep in debt because of the educational system.

Stupid people are stupid. And smart people can be stupid about a specific thing. In this case, debt. It doesn't mean that it happens to everyone though, or that it can't be avoided.

...

And anyone opposing my skepticism so far seems to be treating their position as an a priori truth, not opinions to be considered and discussed, which is unfortunate, because as I've said numerous times, I don't think the video and point its making is without merit. It's blind adherence, not critical analysis.

Digi... can I ask you a simple question? Yes or no?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Digi... can I ask you a simple question? Yes or no?

Meaningless question obviously, needs context. You also never bothered to respond to anything I've said to you or about your points in this thread, you've just pushed your line of thinking. Reminded me of why I gave up talking to you years ago back in religion.

So... I can ask you a question?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Can you answer my questions?
What questions?

Oh. I thought "yes or no?" was the question. "Can I ask you a question?" would have been enough to get the point across.

I can't stop you from posting a question, so yes, you can. Whether or not I'll respond is entirely a different matter. I've already wasted time responding to you at length when specifically asked, and receiving no feedback whatsoever, so I wouldn't hold your breath.

Digi... are you insane? Relax. My gosh.

Can you answer my questions, King Kandy?

Oh. I would say, the problem is mainly in low tax rates decreasing our government revenue... you seem to favor the socialist model, so i'd say we agree on this, right?

King Kandy... the underlying problem is not "low tax rates." The problem is government spending. Government expenditures far exceed tax revenue. Do you actually read my posts? The US national debt is 14+ trillion dollars; entitlement programs like medicare, medicaid and social security amount to 80 - even 90+ trillion dollars. Plus, the US has a trade deficit.

So... back to my original questions: what has the US government done as a result and continues to do? And what are the consequences of those actions?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Digi... are you insane? Relax. My gosh.

The forums never upset me. I'm relaxed. I'm just letting you know that you haven't paid me the same regard that I have you in this thread, and that I'm both somewhat a fool for expecting otherwise and unlikely to reciprocate to your requests anymore unless I see actual engaged discourse from you. Because the proper response would be "oh, sorry about that, let me take a look and I'll try to respond when I can." Instead, you only want to talk about your topics, questions, etc. It's rarely different. So even when you specifically ask me to explain my position to you, you then ignore the response in favor of trying to push your beliefs through a series of selective videos/questions/statements/etc. It's pointless for both sides.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Do you actually read my posts?

Lulz. Irony.

Digi... can I ask you a question? Yes or no?

You can ask me a question, I'd really like to know what this question is, your set up makes it sound as if it is going to be really, really good.

Originally posted by ushomefree
What country are you from?

Canada

Originally posted by ushomefree
Digi... can I ask you a question? Yes or no?

I already answered that.

Originally posted by ushomefree
King Kandy... the underlying problem is not "low tax rates." The problem is government spending. Government expenditures far exceed tax revenue. Do you actually read my posts? The US national debt is 14+ trillion dollars; entitlement programs like medicare, medicaid and social security amount to 80 - even 90+ trillion dollars. Plus, the US has a trade deficit.

So... back to my original questions: what has the US government done as a result and continues to do? And what are the consequences of those actions?
The underlying problem cannot be entitlement programs, because the countries you champion as having "good" financial systems, have even more extensive programs than those of the US.

As a result, the current congress has demanded a reduction in entitlements; the result of this action will be widespread death and poverty as people will no longer be able to get pensions, health care, or basic services (basically defeating the point of having a government at all).

fyi: canadian banks refused a government bailout

First off, look... I have not "championed" countries. What you are talking about? I'm just telling it like it is. Brazil, Russia, India, China and (if my memory serves me correctly) Saudi Arabia, are proposing efforts to diversify out of the US dollar, because they know, the US dollar is about to tank. And how you are ignorant of this, blows my mind. The US is the number one debtor nation of the world!



Yes, and it is completely worthless. Congress should be cutting government spending in the tune of trillions, not millions. The US dollar is being destroyed through inflation; in the end, the United States of America will fall as a whole. You know absolutely nothing about economics, and it's pathetic.



Idiot... the proper roll of government is to protect the freedoms/liberties of US citizens (guaranteed by the US Constitution). That is it! The US used to be a nation of "doer's," not sheep, dependent on government entitlement programs. That is what made American great! Politicians - over time - have destroyed this country, and we are reaping what we sowed.

As for the latter of your statement: where have you been you frickin' mo-mo? The US government is flat broke! All it can do to keep the economy afloat - while providing "cradle to the grave" health care, pensions and other entitlement programs - is to print and/or borrow money from foreign nations, primarily China.

This creates inflation, and it is destroying the value of the US dollar. We - as Americans - are bearing witness to the collapse of the US - an entire nation - and you are talking about health care and pensions? Death and poverty? When the US dollar is dumbed as the world's reserve currency, most Americans, won't even be able to put gasoline in their automobiles and/or put food on the table. Wake up!

The National Debt Crisis

LL99b7_golQ

The Tytler Cycle

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage."

Sound familiar, King Kandy?

The American form of Government

DioQooFIcgE

Yikes, no need to insult guys.

You are absolutely, right. I lost my cool. I apologize, King Kandy.

Oh yeah? And if you think entitlements spell doom and gloom for any country that takes them on, why is China's economy going up, up, up?

Our country was going up, up, up at the start of many of our entitlements, they just became a drain in the long run. All economies go up and down short term. Doesn't mean it isn't an encumbrance.

I hope you guys can come up with an answer to all this inflation. America is looking to its KMC and other message boards for the solutions of tomorrow.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I hope you guys can come up with an answer to all this inflation. America is looking to its KMC and other message boards for the solutions of tomorrow.

as well they should

we are the beacon of the best ideas, evar

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Our country was going up, up, up at the start of many of our entitlements, they just became a drain in the long run. All economies go up and down short term. Doesn't mean it isn't an encumbrance.

And now America exports debt. The reason the economy is failing is because the system is a failure, it just cannot exist. It has never worked, it will never work.

Pretty much, we're more of a burden than anything. Using debt for expansion only works if there is a positive balance, not a negative one. We have no assets to back up our money. Now that it is off of the gold standard, we're just printing more and more debt.


Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I hope you guys can come up with an answer to all this inflation. America is looking to its KMC and other message boards for the solutions of tomorrow. Unfortunately it is a group effort. More production and asset development takes time, education, and effort.

on that "oh so amazing how could we do without it" gold standard

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/04/18/how_to_think_about_tea_party_economics

shockingly, its not perfect and there are reasons we moved away from it!!!! gasp, I know

Nothing is perfect, but I'd say it is better than printing money that isn't backed by anything at an alarming rate. They did it because of the issue with imports/exports. Fixed a quick issue, but caused a long term one.

not entirely, they did it because a gold standard is pretty much non-responsive in the face of financial catastrophy, which still happen when you use the gold standard, and because you need nearly draconian style regulation of any system with a gold standard

I sort of assume you aren't in favor of nationalizing the entire banking system?

Originally posted by inimalist
not entirely, they did it because a gold standard is pretty much non-responsive in the face of financial catastrophy, which still happen when you use the gold standard, and because you need nearly draconian style regulation of any system with a gold standard

I sort of assume you aren't in favor of nationalizing the entire banking system? But you have value for your dollar in the long term. Printing debt helps short term, but artificial prices and debt just leads to recessionary periods.

You mean as in one central bank? No. I'm more a free market man with some regulation.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
But you have value for your dollar in the long term. Printing debt helps short term, but artificial prices and debt just leads to recessionary periods.

sure... like you said, nothing is perfect, and I really don't think you should assume my perspective is "print more money". tbh, I really don't think it matters if we have a gold standard or not, the problems with the economy don't have such simple solutions as "gold standard" and "free market". In fact, I hardly think the fix to the economy will fit on a bumper sticker or Tea-Party protest sign.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
You mean as in one central bank? No. I'm more a free market man with some regulation.

ok, but to have an even remotely stable and efficent gold standard, you would need something like this to avoid catastrpohy in even the smallest of poor economic times

Gold is basically the definition of artificial value... why not base our currency on something meaningful?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Gold is basically the definition of artificial value... why not base our currency on something meaningful? It's all based on assets in the end, it's really a representation of what a country is producing.

Free market is the answer that should have happened. It would have been tough for a while, but would have slowly fixed itself, instead of blowing money on businesses and jobs that don't make profit.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Free market is the answer that should have happened. It would have been tough for a while, but would have slowly fixed itself

Well it would have crashed devastatingly and then rebuilt. The evil government (OOGHA-BOOGAH!) alternative is to slump rather than crash and then slowly recover.

I know, I know, it doesn't let enough poor people starve to death for your tastes. I just can't seem to care.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
instead of blowing money on businesses and jobs that don't make profit.

Like which ones? Outside the financial sector US corporate profits are at all time highs and banks are already starting to pay back the money that was lent to them.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
It's all based on assets in the end, it's really a representation of what a country is producing.

Free market is the answer that should have happened. It would have been tough for a while, but would have slowly fixed itself, instead of blowing money on businesses and jobs that don't make profit.
Which is why the gold standard is incredibly flawed... the amount of mineral wealth a country has is in no way indicative of it's economic production. If anything, it seems like bank notes should be tied to steel production, or something else of actual economic value.

What makes you think it would have fixed itself?

Who knows, maybe still would be better, it is all just a faster way of barter.

That's the cycle it goes into. Boom and bust. Many of the most powerful businesses are built in down times.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well it would have crashed devastatingly and then rebuilt. The evil government (OOGHA-BOOGAH!) alternative is to slump rather than crash and then slowly recover.

I know, I know, it doesn't let enough poor people starve to death for your tastes. I just can't seem to care.



Like which ones? Outside the financial sector US corporate profits are at all time highs and banks are already starting to pay back the money that was lent to them. People in America starving to death? Hardly. Basic foods and necessities aside, giving money to areas that don't produce is simply draining the energy out of something that could produce. It has to come from somewhere. A recession/depression is necessary after the "booming" market we had. Nothing new?

Paying back money with money that has been printed rapidly? It has lost it's value.

I was talking about bailing out failing businesses and things like that? If they were run ineffectively then they should expire. Other competition would soak up the remains.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Who knows, maybe still would be better, it is all just a faster way of barter.

That's the cycle it goes into. Boom and bust. Many of the most powerful businesses are built in down times.
"boom and bust" is a minority theory of economics... prove it if you think it is true.

Regardless of what we all may think, the US dollar is quickly approaching rock bottom. Foreign countries are aware of this, especially China. If you think otherwise, ask yourself: why is China lending less money to the US? How about other foreign countries? And why are other foreign nations - including China - striving to participate in commerce and trade without the US dollar?

The answer is simple, but it carries tremendous consequences. The US dollar is backed by NOTHING, except DEBT.

The US dollar is NOT backed by a healthy manufacturing base, nor is it backed by precious metals - like gold and silver. To keep the US economy afloat - bypassing a default on US debt - the government simply prints and prints money out of thin air. This "printing of money" may have positive short term effects, but it is only kicking the can down the road. For economists and math majors - or even those with common sense - the graph is NEGATIVE in REAL growth.

The US dollar is losing purchasing power. This is why foreign governments and China are stepping in. They want to save their investments, and China is tired of inflating their currency (just to maintain cheap US exports), when they could simply allow their currency to gain value and sell goods to their population of 1.4 billion!

China is tired of the nonsense, and when the gig is up - after the US prints many more billions and trillions of dollars (out of thin air) to keep an artificial economy afloat, and when foreign goverments turn their backs on the US, the US as a Nation will be hammered to the ground. This is a mathematical/economic fact.

This equates to almost nil coverage in universal health care, medicare, medicaid, social security and retirement. This also means, that the majority of Americans will not be able to buy food or even gasoline for their cars. And personal savings will be wiped out! Their US dollars are hyperinflated, hence, worth nothing. Scary? You damn right, and it could become a reality within this decade if things don't change soon - primarily government spending in the form of entitlement programs, which is well above our GDP and tax receipts.

You need to understand that politicians created all this impending nonsense, not you and I. The downward spiral of the US economy - to include US jobs - has been seeping into America some 30 - 40 years ago.

Now, we are merely weeping what we sowed. It's really, really hard to maintain a positive attitude (for me), because the US government is in so much debt, all it can do it continue to print money (out of thin air).

All this does is devalues the US dollar while our Federal debt increases by the billions and trillions (with nothing to back it up). No real assets - not even precious metals. This is not rocket science, people.

American is finished, and it's truly, truly a shame; buy precious metals while you can, however. Hyperinflation is a stone through away. Sheesh... read the darn news already. May God bless you all. And... good luck.

Alot of what you say is true. This is becoming a global economy anyways, and those who don't adapt will be left behind.

Originally posted by King Kandy
"boom and bust" is a minority theory of economics... prove it if you think it is true. So you think economies just go up and up and up?

I think we haven't figured out a sound economic model yet, and as a result suffer from the flaws in the system. Much like how for millenia, many treatments of doctors actually harmed the patient. However, I think we will undergo an economic revolution much like we did in medical science, eventually.

King Kandy... how is this for an idea, free markets governed by consumers (not politicians)?

There needs to be a change through out the whole political process of our governing system. It just doesn't work. The little guy is flippin the bill constantly.

It's ass backwards.

http://www.weapon-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Gadsden_flag.png

Originally posted by ushomefree
King Kandy... how is this for an idea, free markets governed by consumers (not politicians)? Sounds better, with some regulation of course.

Oh and you may want to reduce your image sizes in the future. I have a huge monitor and I have to scroll a tad bit.

Originally posted by ushomefree
free markets governed by consumers (not politicians)?

is as utopian and impractical of an idea in the modern world as is Communism

What in the world are you talking about? Quit using choice words that have zero meaning in a conversation (just to sound smart). Explain yourself, instead. What are you talking about?

Originally posted by ushomefree
What in the world are you talking about? Quit using choice words that have zero meaning in a conversation (just to sound smart). Explain yourself, instead. What are you talking about?

both "free-market capitalism" and "communism" are fantastic theories of social and economic organization that make claims about how humans will behave in a given economy.

however, because the assumptions of human behaviour in both of these systems are flawed, the theories themselves are flawed. In both, generally, it is assumed that somehow human nature will move away from the collusion of the powerful with those who operate the economy, or that people wont act for their immediate self interest against their long term interests. Psychologists have shown for the past 2-3 decades (with little interest from economists unfortunatly) how most of the underlying principles economic theories are based upon are flawed in fundamental ways. People just don't behave in a way that makes either a totally free market or a totally controlled market the best option.

At the very least, neither system is set up in a way that its ideas are going to be meaningful in the current economic context. State control for the sake of state control is no better or worse than is free market for the sake of the free market. Both are ideologically and emotionally based ideas, not based in the empirical understanding that we have of how people behave.

Sorry if what I say makes me look smart. I do try to do better than posting pictures that cry out for people to see how limited my ideology is, I can see why that would be intimidating.

Could someone please punch me in the face.

didn't like that, huh?

for some reason, I couldn't ask for more

Originally posted by inimalist
both "free-market capitalism" and "communism" are fantastic theories of social and economic organization that make claims about how humans will behave in a given economy.

however, because the assumptions of human behaviour in both of these systems are flawed, the theories themselves are flawed. In both, generally, it is assumed that somehow human nature will move away from the collusion of the powerful with those who operate the economy, or that people wont act for their immediate self interest against their long term interests. Psychologists have shown for the past 2-3 decades (with little interest from economists unfortunatly) how most of the underlying principles economic theories are based upon are flawed in fundamental ways. People just don't behave in a way that makes either a totally free market or a totally controlled market the best option.

As a rule, humans are emotional, short-term thinkers who occassionally can be rational; not rational beings who occassionally get emotional.

Sorry if what I say makes me look smart. What's wrong with being internally consistent?

Originally posted by Mindship

As a rule, humans are emotional, short-term thinkers who occassionally can be rational; not rational beings who occassionally get emotional.

exactly, right

but the problem with most economic theories, is they assume some sort of rationality behind human behaviour. Every theory of social organization has fallen apart through history because it assumes these sort of core axioms that drive how we behave, and you can see the limitations of all of the "-isms" when we finally do get them as policy by governments.

I'm not sure if you have acess to any journals, but there is one, Political Psychology that I like to look through from time to time. Not a lot of neuro based stuff, but it tends to find those really sort of cynical results about the way people act politically or what have you. You might enjoy it.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not sure if you have acess to any journals, but there is one, Political Psychology that I like to look through from time to time. Not a lot of neuro based stuff, but it tends to find those really sort of cynical results about the way people act politically or what have you. You might enjoy it. I do enjoy cynicism...almost as much as I enjoy having to horizontally scroll over half a page to read anything on it.

"Some sort of rationality"? Do you know what you are taking about? What does any of this statement above have to do with "economic theories" or economics/free markets in general? You seem (in my mind) to be flirting with the concepts of marketing, not economics.

Let me break it down for you (in the form of a question): Do you have a cell phone? Most likely, you do. What kind of cell phone do you own? It is an:

1) iPhone,

2) Android,

3) or some other mobile phone (manufactured by a third company) that cashed in your hard earned money - whether it was based on price, functionality, customer support or whatever?

The point is, marketing convinced you to purchase one product over another - or perhaps, you sat back and chose not to buy any of the products at all. It's your choice; that is what free markets are all about: freedom of choice. And these freedoms dictate prices in the markets.

Simply said, if everyone and their mother were demanding a certain product, but output was low, prices would increase; otherwise, they would decrease if demand was low and output was high.

Economics has absolutely nothing to do with "assuming some sort of rationality" - other than competing for the distribution/sales of their goods and services. This is universal.

The problem is, governments around the world (more so than others) manipulate the free market in the form of taxes, regulation and money supply - even bailouts. And such things have a direct impact on consumer goods in the market, not "some sort of rationality" - as if it's a mysterious plague or something unknown to man (if I understood you correctly).

Otherwise, square me away.



Like what, inimalist? Are you talking about social/entitlement programs in this statement? If so, I'm with you on that, but what does that have to do with economics (directly)? Quite with the fancy talk and get to the point already. That's why I said in my last post, "Could someone please punch me in the face." Make your point known and understandable to those who may not be as informed as you. Pretend that your writing a thesis paper in college, and make sure it's MLA formatted, ha ha! Kidding.

Originally posted by ushomefree
"Some sort of rationality"? Do you know what you are taking about? What does any of this statement above have to do with "economic theories" or economics/free markets in general? You seem (in my mind) to be flirting with the concepts of marketing, not economics.

ok, so, I'm not sure how much free market literature you have read...

Are you familiar with Rand's non-fiction? With Friedman or Smith even?

if you were to read them, and the basic theories that are behind free market capitalism, you will see that it assumes people behave in a certain way, and in fact, many of the conclusions from these thinkers only work if people behave in the way they think they do.

So, for instance, for capitalism to work, you need people to be what I would call "rational actors". Much like you describe below, you need people to think about and weigh their options before they buy things, you need corporations willing to invest for long term gains, you need people to think rationally about what is or is not in their self interest, not just about their immediate needs.

And this is where is largely breaks down. Psychology has spent 30 years showing that the decisions people make in the economy are not based on rational interest at all.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Let me break it down for you (in the form of a question): Do you have a cell phone? Most likely, you do. What kind of cell phone do you own? It is an:

1) iPhone,

2) Android,

3) or some other mobile phone (manufactured by a third company) that cashed in your hard earned money - whether it was based on price, functionality, customer support or whatever?

The point is, marketing convinced you to purchase one product over another - or perhaps, you sat back and chose not to buy any of the products at all. It's your choice; that is what free markets are all about: freedom of choice. And these freedoms dictate prices in the markets.

Simply said, if everyone and their mother were demanding a certain product, but output was low, prices would increase; otherwise, they would decrease if demand was low and output was high.

Economics has absolutely nothing to do with "assuming some sort of rationality" - other than competing for the distribution/sales of their goods and services. This is universal.

this is just absurd... you are using an example of how a rational actor works to try and prove that there is no assumption of rational actor in capitalism...

you really don't understand what I'm saying, do you? Have you read any Rand/Friedman/Smith?

Originally posted by ushomefree
The problem is, governments around the world (more so than others) manipulate the free market in the form of taxes, regulation and money supply - even bailouts. And such things have a direct impact on consumer goods in the market, not "some sort of rationality" - as if it's a mysterious plague or something unknown to man (if I understood you correctly).

Otherwise, square me away.

well, yes... and those government policies themselves are based on theories of how people behave in a market, largely influenced from ideas about rational actors...

like, the bailouts, or the idea that by easing tax burdens on the wealthy, is based entirely on an idea of rational self-interest engaged in by wealthy people. The state assumes the wealthy will behave in a way psychologists can empirically prove is not the case, and thus, the "trickle down" or "rising tide" analogies don't pan out in the long run, because it assumes things about the behaviour of people that aren't actually true.

Similarily, look at the predatory lending. Not only does this show a lack of self-interest from those lending, it shows that people in the market are not willing or able to make informed and rational choices that would have kept them from taking a morgage they would have defaulted on. One of the leading causes of the financial meltdown was the fact that both lenders and lendees did not behave in the rationally self interested ways that capitalist theorists had predicted they would.

in both of these examples it highlights the problem humans have with prefering immediate gratification to long term gratification, something that is pretty easy to show experimentally.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Like what, inimalist? Are you talking about social/entitlement programs in this statement? If so, I'm with you on that, but what does that have to do with economics (directly)? Quite with the fancy talk and get to the point already. That's why I said in my last post, "Could someone please punch me in the face." Make your point known and understandable to those who may not be as informed as you. Pretend that your writing a thesis paper in college, and make sure it's MLA formatted, ha ha! Kidding.

I've been trying to keep this at a general level... I think most people actually have understood what I've said...

mocking me because I can say things in a way you don't understand is silly at best, and ya, I hardly need to bolster my posts with meaningless filler to appear intelligent

Why did you make your text so big ushomefree?

I got a Windows Phone 7

ahhh freedom of the press!

As somewhat of an advocate for the free market, I'm much more a fan of Friedman than Rand personally. Haven't heard of this Smith, mind posting a wiki link or something in?

Part of the idea of the free market, though, is that there will indeed be some "losers" in it. It becomes as much about personal and economic freedom and less about being an ideal economy. So I'm not sure the "people don't behave like they need to for it to work" argument entirely discredits it as an economic goal.

Still, it's not hard to poke holes in an entirely free market. 90% of the complaints I've heard can, imo, be solved by anti-trust laws and/or subsidizing the lower class to living wage so that they can compete in the market. It's just not feasible outside of an academic setting right now. When you have a system that relies on governmental intervention, simply creating enterprises to be "free" is in essence yanking the rug out from beneath them. They will falter miserably because they don't exist in a conducive context.

So what, inimalist? Is that my fault (or your fault) that idiot-consumers participate in any given economy? Is it the fault of small businesses and/or fortune 500 companies that become rich over selling Snuggies, for example? Should governments around the world regulate what people can and can not buy in an economy? No... just let markets rise and fall (as they naturally would) under supply and demand laws governed by consumers. Who cares that one person decides to buy a gas guzzler over a more economical-efficient automobile.

The US economy is failing as a result of high taxes, government regulation and manipulation of the free markets, not idiot-consumers purchasing goods and services based on irrational reasons.



When you say that I am trying to prove - through the actions of consumers - that "no assumption of 'rational actor' in Capitalism" exists, are you referring to research and development? Market analysis?

If so, I'm not trying to disprove that. Research and development, not to mention market analysis, is a very healthy thing for small businesses, fortune 500 companies - even entrepreneurs. Any CEO, small business owner or entrepreneur would do this. For example, would you spend millions of dollars to develop, manufacture and distribute a hexagon shaped fart box? You might, but you'd wanna check things out first. Even on your best day, open markets will determine your success. Research and development, not to mention market analysis, are merely tools necessary to make an educated guess.

I'm simply stating, that in open markets, consumers are the bottom line. Without the exchange of money for goods and services, companies like Apple, Inc., for example, are doomed. Apple knows this, along with others; and so they strive to improve on their product line (while attempting to keep prices at competitive rates) - to keep their products affordable to consumers.

Moreover, Apple competes with companies in their market, like Dell, Compact, IBM, Sony and numerous others. They are all competing for consumer purchases. Consumers regulate markets, not businesses. That only thing mega corporations can do, not to mention small business and entrepreneurs, is "market/advertise" their goods and services. Consumers have the power (in an open market).

I hope I understood you correctly.



Social/entitlement programs provided by the US tax payer - medicare, medicaid, social security, welfare, unemployment and others - have nothing to do with economics (directly), inimalist. They have an impact on domestic debt, but what are you talking about? Are you trying to tell me, that social/entitlement programs were mandated to increase the value of stock on Wall Street? Of course not.



Sure... self interests are involved, but they are not "rational." More often than not, they are based on greed and the stink of Corporatism and Cronyism. And you and I are not part of the club. This, of course, has nothing to do with Capitalism. If Capitalism were to rein in the US (as it once was), we would have never seen the bailouts granted to multibillion dollar corporations - corporations that have gone bankrupt for a very simple reason: little to no one wants to buy their product. Or how about this: shady business deals (behind closed doors) that go belly up?



Like what...? Counting billions of dollars, while the middle class and poor pay through the nose. Brilliant.



That is their own stupidity. Not mine or yours; nor is it the lenders fault. It all boils down to this crazy idea called, accountability. Predatory lending is a direct consequence of greed and the hope to profit off of ignorant, desperate people. And guess what... they are making a fortune. Not by my dollar, though. What do you think all the nonsense over AIG and subprime mortgage loans dealt with? People looking out for the little guy? The housing market is now in shambles, thanks for white-collard criminals. Again, this is not Capitalism.



Like what?



I understand this, and you don't need experiments to verify such. Just open your eyes and take in the world around you. I just fail to see the application of your views (or those of Rand, Friedman and Smith) into the real world. Things aren't as complicated as you seem to make them.

With all in mind, if I missed a point (or points) of yours, simply tell me. Otherwise, I think we should agree to disagree. I'm getting a head ache, ha ha! And this thread was supposed to be about college!

Correct.



Correct.



Correct.



Correct, amongst other things.



Incorrect.

Take any business or economics class in college to confirm this. Objective independent learning will suffice as well.

I'll provide one basic example: minimum wage. When the Federal Government mandates an increase in minimum wages, this (particularly) puts pressure on small businesses within local communities.

In some cases, since the minimum wage has increased, small businesses are forced to layoff employees or... increase the price attached to their goods and/or services to make up the difference lost in increased wages for their employees. This obviously presents two problems:

1) with employees being laid off, they are no longer able to participate in the local economy, and other businesses are effected as a result. They too, might have to lay off employees or raise prices attached to their goods and services to make ends meet,

2) due to the increase in prices attached to the goods and services provided by small businesses, they will lose customers. This could possibly result in lay offs (within that particular small business), because profits have been hampered. This further has a negative impact on local businesses. Less employed folks + an increase in price of goods and services = bad times.

But... forget about all of that for a moment. Let us pretend, that increases in the minimum wage, have zero impact on small businesses. Are we pretending? Okay. When you are finished, understand this: minimum wage increases will be wiped out due to open market forces.

Let me explain: when minimal wages increase, this puts additional money in people's pockets. Yes? This equates to an increase in discretionary spending. Yes? In other words, people have additional money to spend, that they wouldn't have had otherwise, if not for the increase in minimum wages. Yes? Okay, ha ha!

We are tracking so far.

Now... thanks to the increase in minimum wages, people now have more money to spend. The problem is, in time, with more and more people (now) participating in the local economy - that wouldn't have been able to do so, if not for minimum wage increases - prices increase! Simply said, the economy now has more consumers competing for goods and services. As a result - yep, you guessed it! - prices increase to stabilize supply and demand.

So, in the long term, minimum wage increases are effectively wiped out; and this doesn't even factor in inflation. This is a best case scenario. Expect another Federal mandate to increase minimum wages again this decade.



Correct.



Correct.

Mo love, Digi. Mo love. God bless you.

Originally posted by Digi
As somewhat of an advocate for the free market, I'm much more a fan of Friedman than Rand personally. Haven't heard of this Smith, mind posting a wiki link or something in?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

Dude...

Originally posted by Digi
As somewhat of an advocate for the free market, I'm much more a fan of Friedman than Rand personally. Haven't heard of this Smith, mind posting a wiki link or something in?

Part of the idea of the free market, though, is that there will indeed be some "losers" in it. It becomes as much about personal and economic freedom and less about being an ideal economy. So I'm not sure the "people don't behave like they need to for it to work" argument entirely discredits it as an economic goal.

Still, it's not hard to poke holes in an entirely free market. 90% of the complaints I've heard can, imo, be solved by anti-trust laws and/or subsidizing the lower class to living wage so that they can compete in the market. It's just not feasible outside of an academic setting right now. When you have a system that relies on governmental intervention, simply creating enterprises to be "free" is in essence yanking the rug out from beneath them. They will falter miserably because they don't exist in a conducive context. That and the US isn't as free as a market as it once was. Some of the more "oppressed" countries don't intervene with their dollar nearly as much.

Originally posted by Digi
As somewhat of an advocate for the free market, I'm much more a fan of Friedman than Rand personally.

fair enough. One point that I think gets missed in a lot of these debates about capitalism is that, all of its philosophical proponents have said, yes, government needs to keep its hand out of the economy, but outside of that, they have wanted an extremely powerful central state that does monitor for criminal activity in the marketplace.

imho, one of the biggest problems in Capitalism now is that it has come to mean toothless state, which is something Rand and Friedman would not have supported at all. The collusion of business and political interests, unavoidable in a free market system, pressures people into reducing the effort and effectiveness of what regulations do exist, and people jump from jobs in the government and business world all the time, so nobody burns those bridges.

I tend to see this type of thing as an inevietable concequence of a free market system, but I guess my point more is, this is something none of the philosophers of the free market would have ever wanted and without any power over the economy, the ideas of capitalism don't work, because you end up with worse abuses by those in the market than you would from state intervention.

Originally posted by Digi
Haven't heard of this Smith, mind posting a wiki link or something in?

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html

I'm not sure if I actually recommend trying to read it, you know, 18th century english and economics, not an exciting time at all

Originally posted by Digi
Part of the idea of the free market, though, is that there will indeed be some "losers" in it. It becomes as much about personal and economic freedom and less about being an ideal economy. So I'm not sure the "people don't behave like they need to for it to work" argument entirely discredits it as an economic goal.

I don't actually believe that governments (since they exist) should be run based off of moral or ideological principles. I don't see why you saying "we should be capitalist because it is morally better" is different than saying "we should be Christian because it is morally better". When you put government policy in terms like that, it really leaves it open for anyone to make whatever policy choices they want, based on ideas that exist in the abstract, rather than based on how things can be seen to work empirically. Saying you would rather have a faulty economy, rather than an ideal one, simply because it appeals to this concept of "freedom" seems almost like a lunacy to me, especially when the changes that would be required to make the economy run much more efficiently are modest and generally can be solved by actively trying to reduce the impact of the corporate sector on politics.

I'd also question the definition of freedom that thinks an economic policy that leads to the vast majority of the wealth in a nation being controlled by a small group is "free". Whether you think such inequality in wealth distribution is moral or fair or whatever, I can't believe you think it is indicitive of a financial system in which the most individuals are the free-est.

additionally, its simpler than "people behave dumb". Capitalism assumes that wealth accrued by the wealthy will be redistributed through basic market forces. ie, the wealthy employ people, build infrastructure, spend their money, etc, and through this, all people get a share of their wealth. However, this isn't how people who are wealthy behave. This nearly altruistic role they are supposed to play is something they don't do, much like how in communism the party is supposed to play a similar role, only much more direct in resource distribution to people. The problem in both systems is that those who the system is relying on to provide the resources, do whatever they can to keep those resources for themselves. They fight wage increases, they send jobs overseas, they do everything in their power to reduce their financial burden, thus reduce the very single mechanism through which resources are supposed to enter the market. This is what I mean by human behaviour doesn't support Capitalism.

Originally posted by Digi
Still, it's not hard to poke holes in an entirely free market. 90% of the complaints I've heard can, imo, be solved by anti-trust laws and/or subsidizing the lower class to living wage so that they can compete in the market.

yes, for some reason you and ushomefree seemed to take my radical suggestion that the free market for the sake of the free market might not be a good way to do things as saying that there should be no free market at all...

obviously the best choice is a well regulated market in which people are able to compete under limited restrictions that ensure the market doesn't bankrupt everyone. Hell, Canada's banks did fairly well during the recession because we have very tight regulations and enforcement, that would be the type of model I'm presenting. Not sucking capitalism's dick is a little different than not wanting a free market

Originally posted by Digi
It's just not feasible outside of an academic setting right now. When you have a system that relies on governmental intervention, simply creating enterprises to be "free" is in essence yanking the rug out from beneath them. They will falter miserably because they don't exist in a conducive context.

yes, another reason I don't think ideological solutions are the best. They might be "right" or whatever, but they don't really acount for the situational context.

Goddamn, did ushome and I just agree on some things?

I may need some time to collect myself after such an ordeal, I'll reply later.

Originally posted by ushomefree
The US economy is failing as a result of high taxes, government regulation and manipulation of the free markets

then why are nations with greater government regulation and higher taxes fareing better than you right now?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Just open your eyes and take in the world around you. I just fail to see the application of your views (or those of Rand, Friedman and Smith) into the real world.

and I found this funny

Rand, Smith and Friedman are probably the three most important philosophers in the history of capitalism. In fact, so important was Rand, that the US Senator and Tea Party love child, Rand Paul is named after her.

So, while I think it is funny you say my views don't fit into the real world (by which I mean, you have totally just assumed things about my views because I disagree with you), it is even more humerous that you say Friedman, Rand and Smith's wouldn't either, as they are the people who invented the ideas you are defending...

makes me chuckle heartily, ifyouknowwhatimean

Such countries have less foreign and domestic debt to GDP for one, and such countries have a healthy manufacturing base to support their debt/spending. The United States has none of these.



Capitalism has been around for centuries, inimalist. Look... I've made genuine efforts to respond to your posts. I'm done.



ha ha!

Originally posted by ushomefree
Such countries have less foreign and domestic debt to GDP for one, and such countries have a healthy manufacturing base to support their debt/spending. The United States has none of these.

which are a product of long term economic planning and strict market regulation mixed with a reasonable tax policy...

Canada isn't a magically better or different country than is America, we just have some better fiscal policies that aide our population in times of economic downturn.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Capitalism has been around for centuries, inimalist. Look... I've made genuine efforts to respond to your posts. I'm done.

I'd really suggest you at least read, say, anything from these "centuries" of history of capitalism then. I linked Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" above, from the late 18th century, considered the book that presented the first argument in favor of the free market.

I don't believe you have made genuine effort. It seems you have put more effort into trying to make me look silly for knowing what I'm talking about than you have actually looking at the substance of my argument. The idea that there are assuptions of human behaviour at the core of capitalist principles is not hard to understand.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I just call them like I see them.

Like I said before, college does benefit *some* people, doctors, lawyers, etc. It however is *not* an instant success bubble, and because people in our country have such terrible financial education and spending habits, it won't really matter what they make, no different than the millionaire musician or athlete with no financial skills. QFT

Yes, It is right. college does benefit some people, doctors, lawyers.There is a advantage that we have to go college and get the knowledge about the specific subject.

Anyone else really want to buy some silver from the NIA?