Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

No, a casino isn't a market. What you're buying at a casino is entertainment.

A market is buyers and sellers meeting to trade goods and services. You could call the casino itself an "entertainment service", and there is a market in that, that is, I'll decide whether the Tropicana or the Golden Nugget is better value for my entertainment dollar, just as I'd decide whether a trip to Vegas or a trip to Baja is more fun.

Yep it's an entertainment service, that looks exactly like Wall Street. A world of speculation where everything is fake, where greedy people agree to follow absurd rules.

BTW. British and Austrian bookmakers are in stock market.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The Federal Reserve made money -- a LOT of money-- in its financial liquidity operations in 2008. Central banks exist to provide liquidity in panics, they are definitionally the "lender of last resort". It turns out that its not only good for the national economy for them to fulfill this function, its actually very profitable.

So... why they don't make money for 49 million poor American people? (I can ask the same for the Swiss system, don't see particularly an attack against your nation, but a critic to this absurd economic system.)

That's all birdshit.
In extension to this, I sadly suppose that you think that being a immigrant working poor is normal. Am I wrong ?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

British bookmakers are in stock market.

Casinos and bookmakers are themselves profitmaking companies, sure. They're in the business of providing an entertainment service, like Disneyland. Riding a roller coaster is fun for some people, gambling is fun for others.

When you go to a casino and place a bet, that is not a market.

Originally Posted by xyzde69

So... why they don't make money for 49 million poor American people? (I can ask the same for the Swiss system, don't see an attack to your nation, but a critic to this absurd economic system.)

The profits made by the Federal Reserve go to the US Treasury. How the US Government spends its money is a matter of the policy of elected officials, not the Central Bank.

Some nations are more generous to the poor, some are less. So the Swedish government spends more generously than the US government on social welfare policies; that's a good idea, IMO. The Swedish central bank, (Sveriges Riksbank) doesn't operate any differently than the US Federal Reserve.

The purpose of a central bank is to keep the financial system healthy, keep the value of the currency steady and encourage full employment through promoting lending. That's all they do.

Originally Posted by xyzde69

In extension to this, I sadly suppose that you think that being a immigrant working poor is normal. Am I wrong ?

Immigrants come to wealthy countries to work because the economic opportunities are much _better_ than they are at home. Mexican immigrants in the United States send some $25 billion a year back to Mexico-- that is a _lot_ of money. Mexicans could, of course, stay in Mexico and work-- but they make more money in the US, so that's where many choose to work.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The purpose of a central bank is to keep the financial system healthy, keep the value of the currency steady and encourage full employment through promoting lending. That's all they do.

When we know that they can't print money when they want, we understand that the rules they wrote, aren't fair.

I'm not 100% sure about the amount of money, but it seems to me that UNO mentionned that few money is needed to eradicate hunger on this planet, few money is needed to help more to create a more sustainable economy.

Something like 100 or 200 billion (if I remember well).
So why don't they print this f***** money, if so many people need money to act and improve the world?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

When we know that they can't print money when they want, we understand that the rules they wrote, aren't fair.

The Central Banks are in the business of creating credit; which banks then lend, if they have creditworthy borrowers. They don't "print money when they want".

Originally Posted by xyzde69

I'm not 100% sure about the amount of money, but it seems to me that UNO mentionned that few money is needed to eradicate hunger on this planet, few money is needed to help more to create a more sustainable economy.

We produce more than enough food to feed everyone in the world -- obesity is a greater problem than hunger, even in the developing world. When you see famine today, that's caused by politics, not lack of resources. So starvation in the Sudan-- that's the result of warlords, not lack of funds or lack of food.

If you want to solve famine in the Sudan, you have to send troops to the Sudan

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Something like 100 or 200 billion (if I remember well).
So why don't they print this f***** money, if so many people need money to act and improve the world?

Again, lack of money isn't the cause of starvation. Its the politics of the places.

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

If you want to solve famine in the Sudan, you have to send troops to the Sudan

Never happen, not after US experience in Somalia. In places controlled by warlord clans, there is really nothing you can do, unless you are willing to commit genocide and repopulate the whole area with people more amenable to centralized government.

xyz, a fairish percentage of the working poor people I have met are dumb. I mean actually really bone-headed stupid, the sort with low-paying jobs and endless financial difficulties. They wreck everything they touch.

If you handed them a wad of cash, they wouldn't be smart enough to put it in the bank and let it grow, not even smart enough to pay a straight-out lump sum for something they wanted, instead they'd put some money down on a snowmobile, AND a truck, and a new four wheeler, AND a giant big screen TV, on credit, and then they'd start missing the payments on all of it, and the repo guys would come and take all that stuff away from them, and they'd be back at square one.

You can't train that kind of stupid. You can't even make decent Communists out of them.

Saying that banks and casinos are "preying" on these sorts is wrong. because they are LITERALLY financial food animals for the more carnivorous in the world.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Never happen, not after US experience in Somalia. In places controlled by warlord clans, there is really nothing you can do, unless you are willing to commit genocide and repopulate the whole area with people more amenable to centralized government.

We do have troops in South Sudan, contractors mostly. Our solution was to create a separate state of South Sudan (aka "Juba"); there's a UN mission there.

You're right that no one has an appetite for the scale of effort that it would require to pacify this very difficult region-- but the international community actually has been and still is trying.

See: "The Military Doesn't Advertise It, But U.S. Troops Are All Over Africa"
https://www.npr.org/sections/paralle...ll-over-africa

[judy84]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

xyz, a fairish percentage of the working poor people I have met are dumb. I mean actually really bone-headed stupid, the sort with low-paying jobs and endless financial difficulties. They wreck everything they touch.

If you handed them a wad of cash, they wouldn't be smart enough to put it in the bank and let it grow, not even smart enough to pay a straight-out lump sum for something they wanted, instead they'd put some money down on a snowmobile, AND a truck, and a new four wheeler, AND a giant big screen TV, on credit, and then they'd start missing the payments on all of it, and the repo guys would come and take all that stuff away from them, and they'd be back at square one.

You can't train that kind of stupid. You can't even make decent Communists out of them.

Saying that banks and casinos are "preying" on these sorts is wrong. because they are LITERALLY financial food animals for the more carnivorous in the world.

I know what you mean


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/820540...nd-oven-broke/

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

xyz, a fairish percentage of the working poor people I have met are dumb. I mean actually really bone-headed stupid, the sort with low-paying jobs and endless financial difficulties. They wreck everything they touch.

How do you think the first rich people emerged in America?

In Spanish and French colonies land was claimed for King and he appointed governors (paid from homeland treasury), so their territories were at loss (excepting a few idealistic governors) and did not know private property. Am I correct on this?

But in the British piece -- everything was owned by British stockholders? But later the King took direct charge? So the original pilgrims owned nothing? Did they later saved from their wages to buy out land or what? Were the prices and salaries fully identical to England?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Enrico32

How do you think the first rich people emerged in America?

In Spanish and French colonies land was claimed for King and he appointed governors (paid from homeland treasury), so their territories were at loss (excepting a few idealistic governors) and did not know private property. Am I correct on this?

But in the British piece -- everything was owned by British stockholders? So the original pilgrims owned nothing? Did they later saved from their wages to buy out land or what?

A lot there is confused.

The Spanish, in particular, came to the New World to make their fortunes-- there was a LOT of gold. Being a conquistador was a way to get rich very fast.

North America was much, much less promising. There was a trade in furs, and later a trade in tobacco, but for Britain and France, their Caribbean colonies-- producing rum, molasses and sugar-- these colonies were far _more_ valuable than North America.

The American colonies where chartered by the King, so yes, the colonists owned their land, not the King, and not "British stockholders". There _were_ various land development companies that had English and French investors, but in general the Crown gave charters to men like William Penn who was given control over forty-five thousand square miles of land.

Why did the King give this charter to Penn? It was in exchange for forgiveness of a debt to Penn's father, some £16,000 (a very large amount of money at the time), which the King did not have.

North America was pretty marginal economically so far as the British and French crown were concerned, and mostly they saw it as a place to get rid of religious malcontents, and were concerned to prevent its domination by their enemy. So they were more than happy to to encourage settlement, and giving out what they considered to be mostly worthless land was easy enough

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

A lot there is confused.
The American colonies where chartered by the King, so yes, the colonists owned their land, not the King, and not "British stockholders". There _were_ various land development companies that had English and French investors, but in general the Crown gave charters to men like William Penn who was given control over forty-five thousand square miles of land.

Virginia Company was a group of rich Britons who pooled capital to establish business in America. They owned everything and did not even set foot on American soil. Ordinary migrants worked for salary.

But later the King closed the company and what? Really redistributed land to common workers-settlers? Did it cover all land? Or perhaps only some, some reserved for the State (King)?

What about the later comers - if they were to buy land, on what par? Why wouldn't all later settlers just become proletarian workers subservient to the original landowners?