Originally posted by no1marauderAre you suggesting that a modern economy can run without money? Is there no difference between currency backed by precious metals, and those backed by nothing?
Money is always created out of "thin air" as it is a Man made contrivance.
Bubbles are inevitable features of the capitalist system and have existed in every one of them regardless of the level of centralized banking.
Bubbles are created by over exuberance, and overproduction, which is enhanced by easy credit, and inflating the money supply willy nilly.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou want to compare the late 19th century to our modern world. How about comparing it to itself, the capitalist system to say European serfdom.
I had no idea I was a socialist. Thanks for letting me know.
The prosperity of the modern world was based on the progressive reforms of the capitalist system put into place in the late 1800's and early to mid 1900's. Before they existed, capitalism was a Dickensian nightmare of poverty and want with even children being compelled to work 14 ...[text shortened]... s, 6 days a week. But they had "personal liberty" to do so (or the personal liberty to die).
Yes, you are a socialist, or a full blown communist. Not a libertarian bone in your body.
Originally posted by no1marauderThen why did they not return to those things if they were a better alternative?
There was little advance in the average person's life under capitalism until those progressive reforms. In fact it's fair to say that most of those living in the lap of industrial 19th Century laissez faire in places like London were worse off than subsistence farmers or even hunter gatherers in the Natural State.
Originally posted by invigorateThat'll work.
We are living in a global world.
We have 2 billion extra customers as wells as workers.
Demand is what the world is short of - and here we have the extra consumers.
We have got fat in the West - we have failed to fix the roof while the sun was shining but we are still living in the West - we still have lots of opportunity, to learn, to work, to tr ...[text shortened]...
Lets stop whinging and develop products and services to delight these billions of new people!
Originally posted by normbenignI suggested no such thing. Your economic ignorance and dogmatism is, as usual, in full display.
Are you suggesting that a modern economy can run without money? Is there no difference between currency backed by precious metals, and those backed by nothing?
Bubbles are created by over exuberance, and overproduction, which is enhanced by easy credit, and inflating the money supply willy nilly.
Money is a Man made contravariance. That gold and silver are "precious" is an artificial, Man made contravariance. The only difference between fiat currency and money backed by "precious" metals is that the second artificially restricts the supply of money for no coherent reason. There are many reasons to limit the amount of currency in a modern economy, but one of them isn't because there exists X amount of Metals A and B in the world.
Simple montarism died a well deserved death decades ago.
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignA European serf was better off than a factory or mine worker in early 1800's England - he worked less and lived longer under better conditions. Workers today are far better off than both because of the progressive reforms forced on the ruling classes in the late 1800's and early to mid 1900's. Your insane wish to reverse such reforms is noted.
You want to compare the late 19th century to our modern world. How about comparing it to itself, the capitalist system to say European serfdom.
Yes, you are a socialist, or a full blown communist. Not a libertarian bone in your body.
In our country, the Plains Indians and other tribes bitterly fought and resisted being brought into the wonderful world of the 19th Century laissez faire economic system.
Your stupid characterizations are of no interest to me. Your position that a woman has no right to self-autonomy over her own body because she "didn't have to spread her legs" is about as anti-libertarian as can be imagined. My positions are well within the libertarian tradition of Locke.
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignHow could they when every inch of land was either privately owned or owned by the Crown with severe limitations on access and use?
Then why did they not return to those things if they were a better alternative?
And naturally government created the conditions through which such capitalism was even possible:
Fundamental Shifts in Social Structure
During the Industrial Revolution, the social structure of society changed dramatically. Before the Revolution most people lived in small villages, working either in agriculture or as skilled craftsmen. They lived and often worked as a family, doing everything by hand. In fact, three quarters of Britain's population lived in the countryside, and farming was the predominant occupation (Porter). With the advent of industrialization, however, everything changed. The new enclosure laws—which required that all grazing grounds be fenced in at the owner's expense—had left many poor farmers bankrupt and unemployed, and machines capable of huge outputs made small hand weavers redundant. As a result, there were many people who were forced to work at the new factories. This required them to move to towns and cities so that they could be close to their new jobs. It also meant that they made less money for working longer hours. Add to this the higher living expenses due to urbanization, and one can easily see that many families' resources would be extremely stretched.
As a result, women and children were sent out to work, making up 75% of early workers (Stearns). Families were forced to do this, since they desperately needed money, while factory owners were happy to employ women and children for a number of reasons. First of all, they could be paid very little, and children could be controlled more easily than adults, generally through violent beatings (Sadler). Children also had smaller hands, which were often needed to reach in among the parts of a machine. Furthermore, employers found that children were more malleable, and adapted to the new methods much better than adults did. Children were also sent to work in mines, being small enough to get more coal and ore from the deep and very often unsafe pits (Stearns). They could also be forced to work as long as eighteen hours each day (Sadler). For these reasons, children as young as eight years old were sent to factories—usually those which manufactured textiles—where they became part of a growing and profitable business.
This unprecedented growth and profit was another social change that occurred during the Industrial Revolution. The laissez-faire approach taken by the government—and advocated by philosopher-economist Adam Smith—allowed capitalism to flourish. There were little or no government regulations imposed upon factory policies, and this allowed the wealthy, middle-class owners to pursue whichever path was most profitable, regardless of the safety and well being of their workers.
http://industrialrevolution.sea.ca/impact.html
We see this even today where government laws and regulations esp. in the developing world are forcing people out of their traditional rural life style into cities where they can provide cheap labor to capitalists.
Originally posted by normbenignPonder this:
Then why did they not return to those things if they were a better alternative?
Hunter-gatherers are free from
taking orders because of one important freedom they have that modern poor lack: no one
interferes with them as they use resources.141
http://www.usbig.net/papers/206-Widerquist-Stone%20Age--Oct-09.pdf
That whole article is worth your study. Hopefully you'll get to it about the time you study Paine's recommendations for a welfare state in Rights of Man.
Originally posted by no1marauderObviously the word I meant to use was "contrivance".
I suggested no such thing. Your economic ignorance and dogmatism is, as usual, in full display.
Money is a Man made contravariance. That gold and silver are "precious" is an artificial, Man made contravariance. The only difference between fiat currency and money backed by "precious" metals is that the second artificially restricts the su ...[text shortened]... d B in the world.
Simple montarism died a well deserved death decades ago.