Daily Economy Thread

[Luc 4,776]

There's rumors of Financial Minister Varoufakis (Greece) resigning... would be good.

[Economy 52,861]

There's rumors of Financial Minister Varoufakis (Greece) resigning... would be good.

​i dunno who could possibly run that Nation now

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

​i dunno who could possibly run that Nation now

​The gov of grease runs the gov. of grease...The Mafia runs everything else there.

[Economy 52,861]

​The gov of grease runs the gov. of grease...The Mafia runs everything else there.

Get dat corruption  

[Luc 4,776]

http://www.marketwatch.com/Story/investors-flee-us-stock-funds-at-a-rate-last-seen-in-2009-2015-03-27

 

Yes Europe, get that bubble!

[Better Day 5,766]

@Economy One question, I remember you saying a while back you were a capitalist. Why do you believe in that attitude?

[Economy 52,861]

@Economy One question, I remember you saying a while back you were a capitalist. Why do you believe in that attitude?

​well understand the idea behind capitalism. The free market makes it easier for someone with an idea to open up a business and start investing wiothout so many regulations and taxes in the way. It also encourages larger businesses to wanna continue to invest and hire

One common misconception people hav is that Capitalism is about benefiting the rich but thats not the goal. The goal is a general stronger economy to benefit as many people as possible

 

I saw an interview the other day where Mitt Romney was mad because everyone thinks hes just catering to the rich. In fact his response was that the rich do well regardless of the policies. The middle class is the one who gets most crushed with socialism

 

The reason for that is that when u discourage less business investment (or less businesses coming to your Country cause other Countries have less regulation and lower taxes) you get higher unemployment... and what does higher unemployment lead to??? lower wages!!!

 

The problem is the extra free services people enjoy from socialism by taxing the rich usually does not make up for higher unemployment and lower wages...

 

Companies dont have to compete for labor when unemployment is higher, and no amount of regulation or wealth distribution is gonna compensate for that

 

the recession ended 6-7 years ago yet only now were finally recouperating a bit better... and despite some improvement one thing were no seeing is wage growth and wealth income gap is getting worse. Europes Socialism and Obamas policies by now should of been helping the middle class but its not working

 

People dont understand that just because left-winged policies are more direct in trying to help people (by taxing the rich diorectly), doesnt mean its the most effective form of helping people

 

Create economic growth, create jobs, higher pay... and that helps most people more than a little extra welfare or a bit more generous coverage for this here and there which is peanuts in comparison to making a good living!

 

Of course im generalizing... in some circumstances u might benefit more from socialism. But the majority of people would be better off without it!

[Better Day 5,766]

​well understand the idea behind capitalism. The free market makes it easier for someone with an idea to open up a business and start investing wiothout so many regulations and taxes in the way. It also encourages larger businesses to wanna continue to invest and hire

One common misconception people hav is that Capitalism is about benefiting the rich but thats not the goal. The goal is a general stronger economy to benefit as many people as possible

 

I saw an interview the other day where Mitt Romney was mad because everyone thinks hes just catering to the rich. In fact his response was that the rich do well regardless of the policies. The middle class is the one who gets most crushed with socialism

 

The reason for that is that when u discourage less business investment (or less businesses coming to your Country cause other Countries have less regulation and lower taxes) you get higher unemployment... and what does higher unemployment lead to??? lower wages!!!

 

The problem is the extra free services people enjoy from socialism by taxing the rich usually does not make up for higher unemployment and lower wages...

 

Companies dont have to compete for labor when unemployment is higher, and no amount of regulation or wealth distribution is gonna compensate for that

 

the recession ended 6-7 years ago yet only now were finally recouperating a bit better... and despite some improvement one thing were no seeing is wage growth and wealth income gap is getting worse. Europes Socialism and Obamas policies by now should of been helping the middle class but its not working

 

People dont understand that just because left-winged policies are more direct in trying to help people (by taxing the rich diorectly), doesnt mean its the most effective form of helping people

 

Create economic growth, create jobs, higher pay... and that helps most people more than a little extra welfare or a bit more generous coverage for this here and there which is peanuts in comparison to making a good living!

 

Of course im generalizing... in some circumstances u might benefit more from socialism. But the majority of people would be better off without it!

​The fact in this world people are too greedy. When someone makes money they want as much money as possible whilst the majority of us suffer due to not high enough wages. It is getting worse (especially here in Britain) Capitalism just isn't working. For two reasons poverty rates are rising plus it is an unmoral stance in today's society. I believe the we should enforce high taxes on the rich and share it amongst the poorer sectors of society so people are a little more equal rather than one big greedy being is sitting in a 15 room mansion in the middle of highlands in Scotland whilst their workers are living on minimum wage in the poorest areas of Glasgow. The people in the poorest areas of Glasgow deserve at least a decent wage to live and enjoy life rather than worrying about how they will afford the next pint of milk they will need to pay for. Not taxing the rich is hurting the British economy as record number of people are visiting food banks and are in desperate poverty. They should be, in my opinion, an democratic socialist revolution which means that if someone is struggling, financially, in life they should get enough to afford to live. 

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

​The fact in this world people are too greedy. When someone makes money they want as much money as possible whilst the majority of us suffer due to not high enough wages. It is getting worse (especially here in Britain) Capitalism just isn't working. For two reasons poverty rates are rising plus it is an unmoral stance in today's society. I believe the we should enforce high taxes on the rich and share it amongst the poorer sectors of society so people are a little more equal rather than one big greedy being is sitting in a 15 room mansion in the middle of highlands in Scotland whilst their workers are living on minimum wage in the poorest areas of Glasgow. The people in the poorest areas of Glasgow deserve at least a decent wage to live and enjoy life rather than worrying about how they will afford the next pint of milk they will need to pay for. Not taxing the rich is hurting the British economy as record number of people are visiting food banks and are in desperate poverty. They should be, in my opinion, an democratic socialist revolution which means that if someone is struggling, financially, in life they should get enough to afford to live. 

​The social welfare of a nation is first and foremost for the leadership and the political system.    Right?

Theoretically , but reality is pretty far away from this premise. 

A balance must be struck to preserve the incentive to achieve, for all levels of income.

If taxation reaches a point as to undermine independent achievement (France/Russia socialistic policies) then all suffer except those in power.

If there aren't enough regulation to prevent monopolist capitalistic business practice, the same thing happens,  only those in charge prosper.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle imo.

[Economy 52,861]

​The fact in this world people are too greedy. When someone makes money they want as much money as possible whilst the majority of us suffer due to not high enough wages. It is getting worse (especially here in Britain) Capitalism just isn't working. For two reasons poverty rates are rising plus it is an unmoral stance in today's society. I believe the we should enforce high taxes on the rich and share it amongst the poorer sectors of society so people are a little more equal rather than one big greedy being is sitting in a 15 room mansion in the middle of highlands in Scotland whilst their workers are living on minimum wage in the poorest areas of Glasgow. The people in the poorest areas of Glasgow deserve at least a decent wage to live and enjoy life rather than worrying about how they will afford the next pint of milk they will need to pay for. Not taxing the rich is hurting the British economy as record number of people are visiting food banks and are in desperate poverty. They should be, in my opinion, an democratic socialist revolution which means that if someone is struggling, financially, in life they should get enough to afford to live. 

Thats why you need to provide jobs for them where they can be useful. Not focus on taxing the rich to giveaway a little extra in welfare or social assistance that at the end of the day wont fix income inequality issues

 

as u said, greed motivates Corporations. That is why exactly that u must give them economic incentives to open up their wallets and make them invest, hire and pay workers more

 

Low taxes and low regulation attract more businesses to your Country and encourage investment. It creates competition for labor which raises wages (they are forced to pay more to get labor) and business invest also has the positive ripple effect of supporting industries that supply them with equipment etc

 

what u are suggesting with socialism is making businesses pack and move away and with little competition, the remaining businesses pay workers garbage and charge unfair prices to customers. Socialism in some ways makes it easier to exploit people and i believe that backfire is EXACTLY WHY THE PAST 20-30 YEARS WHERE SOCIETY HAS BEEN MOVING TOWARDS SOCIALISM WERE ACTUALLY GETTING MORE INCOME INEQUALITY NOT LESS!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The US with their 35% Corporate tax rate (plus whatever States add) is resukting in Corporations feeling away in record numbers. Here in Canada with our 15% Corporate tax rate we have Corporations moving in all the time. They cant build office buildings fast enough for all the demand in Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver especially.

 

Winning over the Long iconic Burger King which moved its head quarters to Canada i think was one of our greatest triunphs with Canadas move towards Capitalism over the past decade  

 

and get this, our income inequality is LESS than in the US despite the fact that the US has been raising Corporate, Investment, and Capital Gains taxes all above Canadas tax rate!!!

 

of course socialism CAN at time work because if used the extra income from taxes really well, and invest it properly, the benefits from the investments in infrastructure and education can offset some of the negatives of socialism. However u need a really competent Government to manage money well and priorite where you are going to spend it...

 

with the exeption of Scandinavian Countries, generally Capitalism Nations are doing better, and socialist Nations have failed (generally speaking). Socialism is very hard to pull off... More often than not Government screws it up  

[Economy 52,861]

​The social welfare of a nation is first and foremost for the leadership and the political system.    Right?

Theoretically , but reality is pretty far away from this premise. 

A balance must be struck to preserve the incentive to achieve, for all levels of income.

If taxation reaches a point as to undermine independent achievement (France/Russia socialistic policies) then all suffer except those in power.

If there aren't enough regulation to prevent monopolist capitalistic business practice, the same thing happens,  only those in charge prosper.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle imo.

Of course taking Capitalism to a TOTAL EXTREME is not a good idea. A few basic regulations need to be in place to maintain order

 

a few badic smart regulations (like laws that prevent large monopolies like in 1870 that led to a long depression in the US) is also a good idea

 

I also think taxing the rich a smige higher rate than lower brackets can be beneficial

 

but ATM most of the developed world has overdone the regulations and taxes and is paying for it

 

even here in Canada generally were becoming more Capitalist. But some parts of the Country are more than others because of influence from Provincial Governments... And i notice the Provinces doing better than the National Average are right-winged Provinces while most below National Average are left-winged Provinces. Left-Winged socialist Provinces are also the most indebted

 

funny how that works for those who claim socialism is so fantastic  

[Luc 4,776]

Thats why you need to provide jobs for them where they can be useful. Not focus on taxing the rich to giveaway a little extra in welfare or social assistance that at the end of the day wont fix income inequality issues

 

as u said, greed motivates Corporations. That is why exactly that u must give them economic incentives to open up their wallets and make them invest, hire and pay workers more

 

Low taxes and low regulation attract more businesses to your Country and encourage investment. It creates competition for labor which raises wages (they are forced to pay more to get labor) and business invest also has the positive ripple effect of supporting industries that supply them with equipment etc

 

what u are suggesting with socialism is making businesses pack and move away and with little competition, the remaining businesses pay workers garbage and charge unfair prices to customers. Socialism in some ways makes it easier to exploit people and i believe that backfire is EXACTLY WHY THE PAST 20-30 YEARS WHERE SOCIETY HAS BEEN MOVING TOWARDS SOCIALISM WERE ACTUALLY GETTING MORE INCOME INEQUALITY NOT LESS!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The US with their 35% Corporate tax rate (plus whatever States add) is resukting in Corporations feeling away in record numbers. Here in Canada with our 15% Corporate tax rate we have Corporations moving in all the time. They cant build office buildings fast enough for all the demand in Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver especially.

 

Winning over the Long iconic Burger King which moved its head quarters to Canada i think was one of our greatest triunphs with Canadas move towards Capitalism over the past decade http://gagadaily.com/uploads/default_woot.gif 

 

and get this, our income inequality is LESS than in the US despite the fact that the US has been raising Corporate, Investment, and Capital Gains taxes all above Canadas tax rate!!!

 

of course socialism CAN at time work because if used the extra income from taxes really well, and invest it properly, the benefits from the investments in infrastructure and education can offset some of the negatives of socialism. However u need a really competent Government to manage money well and priorite where you are going to spend it...

 

with the exeption of Scandinavian Countries, generally Capitalism Nations are doing better, and socialist Nations have failed (generally speaking). Socialism is very hard to pull off... More often than not Government screws it up  

I don't like the idea of competitiveness between countries. That's what's happening in the world right now. You have to give your people less and less rights to attract budinesses. Having to pay the taxes the country you sell your products would change this.

I'm a socialist liberal (two opposites, I know). We should protect the people in the society, and also lower the amount of rules here and there. Getting 250000€ whem being fired isn't socialist - it actually supports wealth inequality.

Capitalism in't the best for economic growth. You need strict regulations in some sectors like the banking sector, to prevent huge economic crises - the Big Depression in 1929 was caused by full capitalism. Government spending was at 3% of the GDP. It didn't work. The last economic crisis was mainly thanks to right-wing politicians, who claim to put the economy at the front. Only reason right wing politicians get votes is because they put so much emphasis on security and military.

 

It's also a misconception to believe that socialism goes together with low business investment. My country is socialist, but recently Netflix, IKEA and Starbucks got their headquarters here, and Google is investing millions of dollars too. Next to that, Shell, KLM, Heineken, Unilever and Philips have their headquarters here. That's because we have high taxes, high regulations, but at the same time low corporate taxes, well-educated people and some of the best infrastructure in the world.

 

I believe the government shoulf higher taxes, and gove everybody €800 a month as a standard income. Next to that, there should be more taxes on big corporations (they pay like 2% tax here), lawful tax evasion should be made unlawful, you should pay taxes as a business in the country you earn the money, and the income distribution should be bette: prople at the top of a bank shouldn't give themselves 40% extra salary while the lower people at the bank haven't seen their wages rise in 5 years. Also, education overspending should be limited - in the internet age, teachers aren't necessary anymore. If we fired 50% of teachers and digitalized education, we would save a lot of trees, money and get a way higher amount of high-skilled people in the labor force.

[Economy 52,861]

I don't like the idea of competitiveness between countries. That's what's happening in the world right now. You have to give your people less and less rights to attract budinesses. Having to pay the taxes the country you sell your products would change this.

I'm a socialist liberal (two opposites, I know). We should protect the people in the society, and also lower the amount of rules here and there. Getting 250000€ whem being fired isn't socialist - it actually supports wealth inequality.

Capitalism in't the best for economic growth. You need strict regulations in some sectors like the banking sector, to prevent huge economic crises - the Big Depression in 1929 was caused by full capitalism. Government spending was at 3% of the GDP. It didn't work. The last economic crisis was mainly thanks to right-wing politicians, who claim to put the economy at the front. Only reason right wing politicians get votes is because they put so much emphasis on security and military.

 

It's also a misconception to believe that socialism goes together with low business investment. My country is socialist, but recently Netflix, IKEA and Starbucks got their headquarters here, and Google is investing millions of dollars too. Next to that, Shell, KLM, Heineken, Unilever and Philips have their headquarters here. That's because we have high taxes, high regulations, but at the same time low corporate taxes, well-educated people and some of the best infrastructure in the world.

 

I believe the government shoulf higher taxes, and gove everybody €800 a month as a standard income. Next to that, there should be more taxes on big corporations (they pay like 2% tax here), lawful tax evasion should be made unlawful, you should pay taxes as a business in the country you earn the money, and the income distribution should be bette: prople at the top of a bank shouldn't give themselves 40% extra salary while the lower people at the bank haven't seen their wages rise in 5 years. Also, education overspending should be limited - in the internet age, teachers aren't necessary anymore. If we fired 50% of teachers and digitalized education, we would save a lot of trees, money and get a way higher amount of high-skilled people in the labor force.

I dunno that ur Country is the best example of socialism. Its definitely not very Capitalist but over-all its not THAT Socialist especially with regards to taxes (if i recall correctly)

 

Anyways as ive said, generally speaking most Countries that have attempted socialism failed while Capitalist ones are prospering. Scandinavia is the one exeption but these are small Countries easier to Control. 

 

I always say, socialism is NOT IMPOSSIBLE to pull off but its very hard. U have to trust that the Government will use tax money really well and make really wise investments and that its benefits will offset the cons that come with socialism. Most Governments just arent competent enough for that.

 

I also make the case that in my Country the Right-Winged Provinces have been performing better than Left-Winged Provinces because Socialist Provinces like Quebec and Ontario have overspent sooooo bad and are so in debt its not even funny. However low Federal Taxes, low interest rates and wealth transfers (Provinces in Canada below National Average get financial aid) has helped maintain our Provinces intact

 

u know these socialist Governments are doing something wrong when PROVINCES RUN A BIGGER DEFICIT THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!! For crying out loud thats not normal

 

as for competition i agree its an issue and ive talked about that before. Economies are not domestic enough. But to discourage trade on everything ud need standard regulations and high import taxes WW that everyone would agree with to make economies more domestic and only trade with necessairy things. But i wouldnt count on such agreements which means unfortunately, u do have to compete to get businesses into ur Country or they go somewhere else

 

i must also disagree with education. U learn social skills and team work skills that home schooled kids dont learn as well. Its also harder to prevent cheating and stuff. The quality of education in general is better with a real person.

 

education and infrastructure are the 2 forms of government spending that usually pay off great in the long term as they are good investments!!!

[Luc 4,776]

I dunno that ur Country is the best example of socialism. Its definitely not very Capitalist but over-all its not THAT Socialist especially with regards to taxes (if i recall correctly)

 

Anyways as ive said, generally speaking most Countries that have attempted socialism failed while Capitalist ones are prospering. Scandinavia is the one exeption but these are small Countries easier to Control. 

 

I always say, socialism is NOT IMPOSSIBLE to pull off but its very hard. U have to trust that the Government will use tax money really well and make really wise investments and that its benefits will offset the cons that come with socialism. Most Governments just arent competent enough for that.

 

I also make the case that in my Country the Right-Winged Provinces have been performing better than Left-Winged Provinces because Socialist Provinces like Quebec and Ontario have overspent sooooo bad and are so in debt its not even funny. However low Federal Taxes, low interest rates and wealth transfers (Provinces in Canada below National Average get financial aid) has helped maintain our Provinces intact

 

u know these socialist Governments are doing something wrong when PROVINCES RUN A BIGGER DEFICIT THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!! For crying out loud thats not normal

 

as for competition i agree its an issue and ive talked about that before. Economies are not domestic enough. But to discourage trade on everything ud need standard regulations and high import taxes WW that everyone would agree with to make economies more domestic and only trade with necessairy things. But i wouldnt count on such agreements which means unfortunately, u do have to compete to get businesses into ur Country or they go somewhere else

 

i must also disagree with education. U learn social skills and team work skills that home schooled kids dont learn as well. Its also harder to prevent cheating and stuff. The quality of education in general is better with a real person.

 

education and infrastructure are the 2 forms of government spending that usually pay off great in the long term as they are good investments!!!

I believe that education in its current form isn't effective. In high school, you listen to the teacher for half of the class (or you don't), and the rest of the lesson you do your homework (or you don't) (which can also be done at work). We should digitalize education:

- More emphasis on long-term knowledge; most 'general knowledge' subjects' stuff you learnt is forgotten the day after the test. This could be done by doing a test on the same thing you have to learn multiple times.

- More digitalisation; We don't need to use that much paper for education. Everythijg besides tests could be done digitally.

- Digital libraries; It's the future. We have Spotify, Netflix, etc. but we don't have something like that for books yet. It helps greatly in cutting the amount of paper used, costs less, is easier and still gives a little bit of money to the makers.

- More stuff learnt; students are generally lazy here and in the 'best' school of the city, I only spend about an hour a week on homework without paying attention in class or doing my homework during class.

- Let classes last shorter

- Remove unuseful subjects. My subjects include Latin and Ancient Greek - what's the use of that?

- Let the 'smarter' take less lessons, and the ones who have to try harder have more lessons. Right now every student gets 1040 hours (went up 40 hours a few years ago thanks to the nationalist party ), while many students could do with half the amount, and some students maybe need a little bit more.

 

All in all, I believe that the amount of teachers could be cut greatly by either making the amount of students per teacher higher (could be over 100, instead of the current 24), more focus on long-term knowledge and skills and being a social human being, using today's possibilities to your advantage and cuting greatly on the amount of hours of lessons a week. The money could be used to make the universities better, to fund sport clubs and such (so that getting friends outside school gets easier), to have better teachers, etc.

[Economy 52,861]

I believe that education in its current form isn't effective. In high school, you listen to the teacher for half of the class (or you don't), and the rest of the lesson you do your homework (or you don't) (which can also be done at work). We should digitalize education:

- More emphasis on long-term knowledge; most 'general knowledge' subjects' stuff you learnt is forgotten the day after the test. This could be done by doing a test on the same thing you have to learn multiple times.

- More digitalisation; We don't need to use that much paper for education. Everythijg besides tests could be done digitally.

- Digital libraries; It's the future. We have Spotify, Netflix, etc. but we don't have something like that for books yet. It helps greatly in cutting the amount of paper used, costs less, is easier and still gives a little bit of money to the makers.

- More stuff learnt; students are generally lazy here and in the 'best' school of the city, I only spend about an hour a week on homework without paying attention in class or doing my homework during class.

- Let classes last shorter

- Remove unuseful subjects. My subjects include Latin and Ancient Greek - what's the use of that?

- Let the 'smarter' take less lessons, and the ones who have to try harder have more lessons. Right now every student gets 1040 hours (went up 40 hours a few years ago thanks to the nationalist party ), while many students could do with half the amount, and some students maybe need a little bit more.

 

All in all, I believe that the amount of teachers could be cut greatly by either making the amount of students per teacher higher (could be over 100, instead of the current 24), more focus on long-term knowledge and skills and being a social human being, using today's possibilities to your advantage and cuting greatly on the amount of hours of lessons a week. The money could be used to make the universities better, to fund sport clubs and such (so that getting friends outside school gets easier), to have better teachers, etc.

The issue here seems more to be the curriculum subjects and material rather than the digital vs physical stuff itself

 

i believe digital CAN be a part pf education. However some skills u still learn like team work and social skills. Cannot be replaced. I dont wanna offend anyone but 50% or more of home schooled kids ive met are socially challanged

 

Also i remember when i was in school if i didnt understand something that day id stay after school for extra help as did other kids. That direct help with someone explaining is much more effective than computer directions

 

we can use computers but we arent computers. As useful as they may be i dont see how u can expect them to raise u up as far as everything knowledge goes