Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics


Thanks Tree88Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 26th, 2017, 07:48 PM   #51
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
They started that with American companies. Walmart is personally responsible for killing American clothing manufacturing. Not to mention thousands of other small companies that made everything from electric fans to plastic bowls.

They'd give them a contract, help them get financing to expand their factories to meet wally world's production and delivery schedules. Then they come back a year later an demand a lower price. Eventually their price demand will be below the cost of production. So Wally pulls the contract. The company goes bankrupt and Wally or one of their existing off shore partners buys up the assets and ships it all to China or where ever.

This is pure evil and unmitigated greed. Purposefully damaging our economy to benefit your self really should be criminal.
No argument. Which is why Trump is right about unfair trade. You can not compete in open trade in a fair manner with slave and child labor.
Thanks from Sabcat
coke is offline  
Old March 27th, 2017, 07:31 AM   #52
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by sumara View Post
It's still a fact continually ignored by the Left, that capitalism has given the common man the highest standard of living in the world. Socialism has led to restrictive governments and communism which caused the death of over 100 million people in the last century and has never worked nearly as well as capitalism. The Left never seems to "get it".


The Left ignores nothing of the kind. Capitalism DID give the common man a higher standard of living, but Capitalism has evolved into something far beyond it's original intent. It began with the hard work and entrepreneurship of families/individuals--the Mom and Pop shops--Main Street finance which benefited everyone. That is no longer the case, although there are exceptions.
The new name is something called 'financialization'. According to Time Magazine "It's an academic term for the trend by which Wall Street and its methods have come to reign supreme in America, permeating not just the financial industry but also much of American business. It includes everything from the growth in size and scope of finance and financial activity in the economy; to the rise of debt-fueled speculation over productive lending; to the ascendancy of shareholder value as the sole model for corporate governance; to the proliferation of risky, selfish thinking in both the private and public sectors; to the increasing political power of financiers and the CEOs they enrich; to the way in which a "markets know best" ideology remains the status quo. Financialization is a big, unfriendly word with broad, disconcerting implications."
It is crafted by the government leaders, policymakers and regulators entrusted with keeping markets operating smoothly. It distorted local businesses and economies. It's investing, hedging, tax optimizing, attorneys, lawmakers and financial services. It's moving money and business overseas for financial gain.
It's offshore accounts, hiding income in lieu of paying taxes.
AND now there's a new twist in the wind: closing brick and mortar businesses to pave the way for online sales. Capitalism is no longer working for the majority of Americans. Time Magazine calls this a "great American crisis" and I agree.

Last edited by Clara007; March 27th, 2017 at 09:25 AM.
Clara007 is offline  
Old March 27th, 2017, 08:58 AM   #53
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 5,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by sumara View Post
It's still a fact continually ignored by the Left, that capitalism has given the common man the highest standard of living in the world. Socialism has led to restrictive governments and communism which caused the death of over 100 million people in the last century and has never worked nearly as well as capitalism. The Left never seems to "get it".
And you obviously haven;t been reading the posts or you have a reading comprehension problem. WE GET IT !!

WHAT we've been discussing is that UNFETTERED, UNREGULATED capitalism is JUST AS BAD as any other system. Even with the industrial revolution, America didn't really have much of a middle class until the rise of labor unions and eventually government fair labor laws. It wasn't altruism from corporate America that gave us 8 hour work days, paid vacations, sick leave, health insurance, minimum wage and safety regulations.

Companies would NEVER have given these things to the average worker on their own. It was first the labor unions then state and federal labor laws that gave the average worker our standard of living. Of course as wages rose the economy grew and more people could afford buy the products and services those companies produced.

We are in the opposite trend now. So many companies have exported jobs and/or are using illegal labor that wages have stopped rising. Adjusted for inflation wages have actually started to fall. I fear we've reached the point where the average person can NOT afford the products and services that support our economy.

For many companies much of their profit growth is NOT from expanding market share or increased sales, but simply by cutting structural costs, primarily labor. Everyone I know seems to be doing more with less. Larger areas, more customer per person, longer hours for the same money. Every time a company lays off a few more people every one else has to pick up the slack. Even when things do get better and companies start hiring again, they never replace everyone they got rid of.

Our standard of living is slipping, has been for a couple of decades now. And it's because all those wonderful capitalist are sending the jobs that support that standard of living to China, Mexico, India, Bangladesh and other such places. Places that do not have labor laws or trade unions.
Thanks from imaginethat and Daws77
BubbaJones is offline  
Old March 27th, 2017, 09:12 AM   #54
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 24,226
The other factor that RTL and I keep saying is grossly underestimated is that the economic growth in North America was due largely to the fact that there were abundant untapped resources to exploit.

Part of the decline in growth rate is due to the fact that there essentially isn't any more land to expand into and as far other resources like oil and minerals, the low hanging fruit has been picked and now any growth in those areas are becoming more and more costly.

Free enterprise (rather than capitalism) was a driving force in the speed and efficiency with which this expansion happened, but perhaps with a long term view, it wasn't all rainbows and unicorns. Perhaps a greater degree of regulation would have slowed the growth then to allow continued growth now.
Thanks from imaginethat and right to left
RNG is offline  
Old March 27th, 2017, 09:41 AM   #55
forgot my old user name
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by sumara View Post
It's still a fact continually ignored by the Left, that capitalism has given the common man the highest standard of living in the world. Socialism has led to restrictive governments and communism which caused the death of over 100 million people in the last century and has never worked nearly as well as capitalism. The Left never seems to "get it".
You can't even prove that much! Because your measure of "standard of living" is solely based on per capita GDP data (if you got something else, let's hear it). In many of these so-called "developing" nations like Bangladesh..I mentioned previously, according to income data, they're earning more than they were on their small plots of land passed down through their families. BUT, any legitimate quality of life measurements has to take note of these facts:
1: as peasant farmers, they produced their own food/while after abandoning the farm to work in some Dacca sweatshop, they have to take their meager wages and buy whatever they can afford of low quality at a local market.
2. their earnings are higher as sweatshop workers, but so are their costs of living, that are not factored in to pro-globalization math.
3. they've had to leave a comparatively clean rural environment, for what are among the worst urban environments in the world.

And all that aside, one thing capitalist economics never does is take an honest look into the deep future. Cause if we were able to come back at the end of the 21st century (assuming there's anything left) we would see all this capitalist "progress" turn into complete dystopia!
right to left is offline  
Old March 27th, 2017, 09:58 AM   #56
forgot my old user name
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
The other factor that RTL and I keep saying is grossly underestimated is that the economic growth in North America was due largely to the fact that there were abundant untapped resources to exploit.

Part of the decline in growth rate is due to the fact that there essentially isn't any more land to expand into and as far other resources like oil and minerals, the low hanging fruit has been picked and now any growth in those areas are becoming more and more costly.

Free enterprise (rather than capitalism) was a driving force in the speed and efficiency with which this expansion happened, but perhaps with a long term view, it wasn't all rainbows and unicorns. Perhaps a greater degree of regulation would have slowed the growth then to allow continued growth now.
Capitalism is good at using up resources at a faster and faster pace I suppose. I came across an article by an economist a couple of weeks ago, who I'm guessing is the first economist in the world to have come to the realization that our global industrial system is fast using up most of the essential non-renewable resources needed to keep everything going. I wish I bookmarked it! Cause a simple fact that should be plainly obvious to everyone..whether or not they've ever worked in mining or primary production is that mines do not replenish themselves with new ores and minerals! And this guy was the first writer on economics I ever came across that was even trying to think out how do we change economic patterns to drastically reduce our present consumption of resources. The fact that many of them are going to be past the point where they can be profitably developed only a couple to a few decades from now, should have already led to a system of pricing in scarcity. But whatever we call today's capitalist paradise, the last thing it does is look into the future.
*There's a slight caveat to add when it comes to energy sources from carbon fuels, since those are replenished over very long periods of time...but last I heard..about five years ago, we've already burned through over half of the world's known oil reserves.

I came across a writer of dystopian fiction about 10 years ago named James Howard Kuntsler (World Made By Hand series). I don't agree with his rightwing survivalist pov on today's events, but the basic plotline of his futuristic novels and short stories: a future of ecological devastation, with smaller and smaller groups of human survivors left with fewer and fewer resources, until one day...they're pretty much back to living the way people did thousands of years ago off the land, and with only renewable resources to depend on, say goodbye to the cars, the skyscrapers, the computers and all the other trappings of modern civilization that people take for granted as things that once here/will always be here. So, when it comes to how civilization will look in 100, 200 or more years, I think JHK has got that one down pretty accurate! Too bad he doesn't have an equally good grasp of human nature..but, can't ask for everything from a writer!

Last edited by right to left; March 27th, 2017 at 10:02 AM.
right to left is offline  
Old March 27th, 2017, 10:05 AM   #57
Banned
 
Daws77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: California
Posts: 7,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
Capitalism is good at using up resources at a faster and faster pace I suppose. I came across an article by an economist a couple of weeks ago, who I'm guessing is the first economist in the world to have come to the realization that our global industrial system is fast using up most of the essential non-renewable resources needed to keep everything going. I wish I bookmarked it! Cause a simple fact that should be plainly obvious to everyone..whether or not they've ever worked in mining or primary production is that mines do not replenish themselves with new ores and minerals! And this guy was the first writer on economics I ever came across that was even trying to think out how do we change economic patterns to drastically reduce our present consumption of resources. The fact that many of them are going to be past the point where they can be profitably developed only a couple to a few decades from now, should have already led to a system of pricing in scarcity. But whatever we call today's capitalist paradise, the last thing it does is look into the future.
*There's a slight caveat to add when it comes to energy sources from carbon fuels, since those are replenished over very long periods of time...but last I heard..about five years ago, we've already burned through over half of the world's known oil reserves.

I came across a writer of dystopian fiction about 10 years ago named James Howard Kuntsler (World Made By Hand series). I don't agree with his rightwing survivalist pov on today's events, but the basic plotline of his futuristic novels and short stories: a future of ecological devastation, with smaller and smaller groups of human survivors left with fewer and fewer resources, until one day...they're pretty much back to living the way people did thousands of years ago off the land, and with only renewable resources to depend on, say goodbye to the cars, the skyscrapers, the computers and all the other trappings of modern civilization that people take for granted as things that once here/will always be here. So, when it comes to how civilization will look in 100, 200 or more years, I think JHK has got that one down pretty accurate! Too bad he doesn't have an equally good grasp of human nature..but, can't ask for everything from a writer!
the search for exploitable resources is a staple in science fiction.
Daws77 is offline  
Old March 27th, 2017, 11:16 AM   #58
forgot my old user name
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daws77 View Post
the search for exploitable resources is a staple in science fiction.
Sure it is, but the search does no good once resources get past the EROEI point of being economically viable for exploitation. The only question is WHEN, because just as steam is pumped down into oil wells to free up what's left if the market price is high enough, mines will continue production as ore grades continue to decline, if they can get a high enough price to justify the increased costs in energy and smelting ores to extract the desired metals and removing the slag refuse.

What goes unmentioned in almost all discussions of today's global economic stagnation problems is that there are good indications that many resources-starting with oil, are reaching an extraction and development cost level that is making them too costly for the prolifically energy-wasting capitalist economies that run this world. So, as demand for oil has risen, so did prices, until they hit about $100 per barrel..and then there was a global recession that caused a decline in oil consumption with a corresponding drop in prices.

Up here right now, the expensive and dirty development of bitumen for oil byproducts in Alberta may be the first of what will eventually take out the rest: all the efficiency ideas in the world aren't bringing costs down to the point ($50 per barrel) where they can be profitably extracted by the major oil companies. So, the majors are trying to do a face-saving move of selling off their operations at a loss to smaller, local, more efficient developers who are willing to take lower profits than big oil companies are willing to bother with.

About 10 years ago, when some oil analysts were noticing the lack of new major oil developments and declining reserves/against increasing oil demand in developing industrialized economies, we started hearing the term "Peak Oil." The big surprise that many peak oil theorists like former CIBC chief economist-Jeff Rubin didn't forecast was prices would not continue rising to $200 or so in some upward trend to unaffordability. Instead the reality looks more like prices get stuck hovering around a level ($50) that is too low to justify spending billions on tight oil extraction, while demand keeps crashing every time they go significantly above $50.

So, the future of global capitalism on this planet (ecological disasters aside) is an endless story of economic stagnation with wealth-extraction by the rich, and wars over remaining resources. Any sci fi scenarios of solving the dilemma and getting back into a glorious, futuristic tomorrow (like A.C. Clarke used to write) will require some kind of extraordinary cheap extraction from asteroids and the Moon that are presently unrealistic and unaffordable.
Thanks from Daws77
right to left is offline  
Old March 27th, 2017, 12:28 PM   #59
Wall-crawler
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
Sure it is, but the search does no good once resources get past the EROEI point of being economically viable for exploitation. The only question is WHEN, because just as steam is pumped down into oil wells to free up what's left if the market price is high enough, mines will continue production as ore grades continue to decline, if they can get a high enough price to justify the increased costs in energy and smelting ores to extract the desired metals and removing the slag refuse.

What goes unmentioned in almost all discussions of today's global economic stagnation problems is that there are good indications that many resources-starting with oil, are reaching an extraction and development cost level that is making them too costly for the prolifically energy-wasting capitalist economies that run this world. So, as demand for oil has risen, so did prices, until they hit about $100 per barrel..and then there was a global recession that caused a decline in oil consumption with a corresponding drop in prices.

Up here right now, the expensive and dirty development of bitumen for oil byproducts in Alberta may be the first of what will eventually take out the rest: all the efficiency ideas in the world aren't bringing costs down to the point ($50 per barrel) where they can be profitably extracted by the major oil companies. So, the majors are trying to do a face-saving move of selling off their operations at a loss to smaller, local, more efficient developers who are willing to take lower profits than big oil companies are willing to bother with.

About 10 years ago, when some oil analysts were noticing the lack of new major oil developments and declining reserves/against increasing oil demand in developing industrialized economies, we started hearing the term "Peak Oil." The big surprise that many peak oil theorists like former CIBC chief economist-Jeff Rubin didn't forecast was prices would not continue rising to $200 or so in some upward trend to unaffordability. Instead the reality looks more like prices get stuck hovering around a level ($50) that is too low to justify spending billions on tight oil extraction, while demand keeps crashing every time they go significantly above $50.

So, the future of global capitalism on this planet (ecological disasters aside) is an endless story of economic stagnation with wealth-extraction by the rich, and wars over remaining resources. Any sci fi scenarios of solving the dilemma and getting back into a glorious, futuristic tomorrow (like A.C. Clarke used to write) will require some kind of extraordinary cheap extraction from asteroids and the Moon that are presently unrealistic and unaffordable.
You're ignoring that which you call stagnation is contradicted by the fact that in recent times, for the first time in history most of the human race now lives above the level of bare subsistence.

Extracting from asteroids is more realistic and within our grasp than creating prosperity with windmills and solar power.

Last edited by webguy4; March 27th, 2017 at 12:31 PM.
webguy4 is online now  
Old March 27th, 2017, 12:35 PM   #60
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 16,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
You're ignoring that which you call stagnation is contradicted by the fact that in recent times, for the first time in history most of the human race now lives above the level of bare subsistence.

Extracting from asteroids is more realistic and within our grasp than creating prosperity with windmills and solar power.
Why EXACTLY do you say that, "Extracting from asteroids is more realistic and within our grasp that creating property with windmills and solar power?"

1. Extracting specifically what from asteroids?
Hollywood is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Money and Finance > Economics

Tags
benefits, capitalism, common, man



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The failure of Capitalism goober Healthcare 51 September 3rd, 2016 09:27 PM
Capitalism! coke Current Events 27 October 12th, 2015 10:15 AM
Capitalism. Sabcat The White House 1 February 15th, 2014 04:56 AM
Is Capitalism bad? Danjb25 Current Events 16 November 21st, 2012 07:47 AM
Capitalism's New Era imaginethat Money and Finance 87 September 9th, 2011 07:46 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.