Simcountry
Forum General The Great Recession

The Great Recession

L
Linebacker Six

All worlds
05 Apr 2011 08:00Link
Conspiracies are not necessary. The current mess has been generations coming.

It represents the coninuing concentration and dilution of capital cycle that can be observed through all of recorded history.

It is not a conspiracy to note that those who wish to get rich will typically do whatever is necessary to get it, keep it, and expand it.

What is lacking in the last 100 years or so is the decline and near demise of the moderating influences of our collective culture that tended to be reflected both in legislation and throughout society.

@Laguna. I will defer to Mr Locke.
B
Billy_Bob_Joe_Bob_Steve (Kebir Blue)

All worlds
11 Apr 2011 02:34Link
Reduced tax rates for the rich and increased taxes on the poor, in addition to trillions of dollars of debt, a growing dependence on a resource that will be gone in several decades, tops, along with an increase in severe weather due to global warming, a constantly increasing world population causing more shortages, and jobs being shipped overseas resulting in a higher unemployment rate and lower salaries.
L
Linebacker Six

All worlds
11 Apr 2011 20:31Link
There seems to be a knee-jerk reaction evident throughout this conversation that any criticism of the current economic system masquerading as free market capitalism is somehow an advocacy of Socialist Marxism or some other command economy.

I do not believe that to be the case, certainly not, speaking for myself.

The issues being raised here highlight the trend towards plutocratic measures whose effects are to stifle competition and use governmental authority to concentrate capital into fewer hands despite failure in the market place.

Adam Smith wrote the Bible of free market capitalism a few centuries ago, The Wealth of Nations.

Perhaps we should examine some of his words and compare their application to our current environment.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only s

S
Scarlet (Fearless Blue)

All worlds
11 Apr 2011 22:03Link
<!-Quote-!>Quote:

US fact: Concentration of wealth has never been higher than it is today.
95% of capital owned by 1% of household.<!-/Quote-!>

That's a damn lie! [source]
L
Linebacker Six

All worlds
12 Apr 2011 08:05Link
No, John. That is what the data shows using the total definition of Capital.

You may cite any number of web pages or sources that will show any numbers from less than 25% through the upper 90% depending on definitions.

This sort of statistical chicanery is exactly the sort of thing that perpetuates the current system.

Though, I take note that you failed to take a swing at any other points.....
S
Scarlet (Golden Rainbow)

All worlds
13 Apr 2011 01:26Link
You have no data. There is no possible measure or definition of capital that results in 1% controlling 95% of capital. That "statistic" is such a massive lie as to have zero possibility of being true regardless of how broad or narrow the definition of capital is made.

As far as Adam Smith goes, I don't share his value system. Thus, his words regarding moral considerations mean little to nothing.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.<!-/Quote-!>

Why is consumption the sole end of all production? If consumption is the sole end, then why should anyone produce more than they consume? Why should there be two separate groups, producers and consumers, of which on group provides for the others? Unl
L
Linebacker Six

All worlds
13 Apr 2011 07:32Link
Wonderful counter-arguments, John. Bravo.

It will be a couple of days until I have time to respond in a manner worthy of your points.

However, my compliments on very well thought-out and presented arguments. :)
L
Linebacker Six

All worlds
15 Apr 2011 10:38Link
OK John, now that I have a few minutes, I will answer the questions you raised.

Starting with the first quote regarding production and consumption, what Smith was pointing out was the fact that Demand is the first and driving force in any economic system. Demand is universal and permanent as long as there are human beings. Supply only exists and has meaning as a concept in relation to being a means to satisfy demand. That is simple economic reality. Economics, itself, can be defined as the system by which goods and services are produced to meet demand.
On to the specific questions you raised:

Why is consumption the sole end of all production?

Without consumption, production is simply so much wasted time, effort, and resources. It has no utility to anyone and therefore no value. You could produce 1000 lead balloons and unless you, youself, have some use for them or gain some sort of satisfaction from making them,
B
Billy_Bob_Joe_Bob_Steve (Kebir Blue)

All worlds
15 Apr 2011 14:04Link
Son of a b****, did you guys get your masters degrees in economics?
D
Danny Miller (Little Upsilon)

All worlds
15 Apr 2011 16:59Link
<!-Quote-!>Quote:

My Turn.
You touched on this notion of Rights.

Here are some thoughts to ponder:

You have NO natural rights whatsoever.

Anything you might believe is a Right to you is simply a contractual promise to you within certain clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions. Those promises are only valid within the ability and willingness of governmental agencies to provide for and exercise means of redress when you feel they have been broken or violated.

Therefore, your Rights only exist insofar as our society has said they do and will enforce them.

Good Luck with that.<!-/Quote-!>



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:<
C
Crafty (Little Upsilon)

All worlds
15 Apr 2011 21:19Link
Who cares, you're all going to die anyway.
S
Scarlet (Little Upsilon)

All worlds
16 Apr 2011 09:44Link
Okay, I'm clearly no economist and do not mean to project myself as one. However, I can see when there is a political/moral argument being made and that is what I'm debating. Here's a better explanation of what I was saying in the first part:

Scarlet's Economic Thesis
Labor = Production = Money

Maybe I'm misusing producer as an economic term, but in any case, my point is that all work is production and all workers are producers - no matter if they are selling their work for a wage or working for themselves. Unless I'm totally taking this out of context or am mislead by what this appears to mean, I think even Adam Smith agrees:
<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Labour was the first price, the original purchase - money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased. -- Adam Smith<!-/Quote-!>

S
Scarlet (Little Upsilon)

All worlds
16 Apr 2011 11:24Link
Hmm, it would seem that I'm partially equipped to answer this question of Laguna's:
<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I would like to know why some consider bailouts, quantitive easing and regulation factors that favor the crisis. And whatever more you have to say regarding monetary policiy that is not included in quantitive easing.<!-/Quote-!>

I consider bailouts to favor the economic crisis by favoring firms based on factors other than market forces. Aside from political/ethical reasons, I'm sure that it's not too far of a leap to say that supporting existing companies that would otherwise fail fosters inefficiency and stacks the deck against potential new companies by providing existing companies with artificial support. I would consider quantitative easing to favor the economic crisis because it seems to me that the value of the money supply would naturally seek equilibrium with the value of un
J
Jojo T. Hun

All worlds
16 Apr 2011 21:10Link
@Laguna: You've called it a crisis, rather than a deep recession with an anemic recovery. Why?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I would like to know why some consider bailouts, quantitive easing and regulation factors that favor the crisis. And whatever more you have to say regarding monetary policiy that is not included in quantitive easing.<!-/Quote-!>



Bailouts of financial failures leave the people who made the bad decisions in charge of resources. They are more likely to mismanage those resources than those who have not failed. Also, others will see the bailouts and make some of the same financial mistakes, expecting the same bailouts. So they weaken the economy.

Regulation as refereeing of the economic players, allowing them to play the game but enforcing fair rules impartially, is useful and has much support. Regulators can under-regulate (Madoff), selectively regulate (
L
Linebacker Six

All worlds
17 Apr 2011 00:10Link
Again, John, very well reasoned response and I will get back to you Sunday evening.

@Laguna.

Despite the huge increase in both the US National Debt and that spread throughout the world Financial Community, nothing has really changed in terms of options.

The US will have to continue the balancing act between stimulus oriented Fiscal Policy and loosening/tightening Monetary policy to try to grow/inflate our economies past the red ink.

There are no short term fixes for this mess. What little growth we see will be generally anemic with frequent contractions for at least a generation.

Barring something dramatic, such as major currency collapses or defaults from some large actors, this will have to be a long, slow, frustrating process for investors, consumers, and financial authorities.

In terms of regulations, unless the regulatory firewalls are put back up between the different financial institutions
K
Khome y Peng

All worlds
13 Oct 2013 10:56Link
The Student Loan crisis is next, bigger scandal than our sub-prime mortgages... stay tuned..
L
Lotato

All worlds
13 Oct 2013 17:14Link
:O
T
thewhy

All worlds
18 Oct 2013 03:16Link
how is quantitative easing the cause of our economic woes?

with basic knowledge of the business cycle one can see that recessions and recoveries are self catalyzing vicious cycles and some sort of stimulus is required to begin a recovery
T
thewhy

All worlds
18 Oct 2013 03:22Link
just read psycho honeys posts.... very enlightening many thanks
A
Alterd Carbon

All worlds
18 Oct 2013 03:29Link
I'm doing great so as far as i'm concerned the recession is 0ver.
S
Stephen Ryan

All worlds
18 Oct 2013 04:59Link
it aint started lol
L
Lotato

All worlds
18 Oct 2013 19:15Link
yea baby keep booming like a bomb
A
Alterd Carbon

All worlds
20 Oct 2013 00:04Link
lol
M
Molotov

All worlds
20 Oct 2013 10:02Link
Hmm, @Psycho_Honey is one very intelligent woman indeed.

Wonders if she's single, haha oh boy.