Originally posted by PhilodorIf I needed the opinion of a Diplodocus, I would have asked for it, Doris.
You are one of the foremost canting humbugs on this forum with your attempts to justify scrounging and anti-social behaviour which is rife in Britain today thanks largely to the support its perpetrators get from wets like you.
Originally posted by jammerToo bad he wasn't talking about welfare or it might have some relevance
"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking ...[text shortened]... n permanently by doing what they could and should do for themselves."
-- Abraham Lincoln
Originally posted by AmauroteNot sure if the reply was to my post but a word on personal responsibility: Being able to choose whether or not you support the likes of the french (con) artist would be a degree of personal responsibility.
There are corrupt and wicked people in every walk of life. That is necessarily an indictment of them, not their walk of life. Or are the advocates of personal responsibility now blaming society? This debate gets more surreal by the minute.
I recommend reality.
Originally posted by WajomaOnce again, you completely miss the point - I do condemn him: you're the one blaming the system because there are corrupt people out there, so you're the one ducking the issue of personal responsibility. I hate to shock you, but...you won't just find them on the welfare lines.
Not sure if the reply was to my post but a word on personal responsibility: Being able to choose whether or not you support the likes of the french (con) artist would be a degree of personal responsibility.
I recommend reality.
Originally posted by PhilodorWhy don't you misspell yourself a new handle? I suggest Krapov or Copablinca, they have a nice ring to them - if you did, I'm sure the board's collective respect for you would go through the roof.
You just need to be straightened out. Admittedly a pretty hopeless task in your case.
Originally posted by AmauroteIt's false that thrift is prejudicial to an economy. I don't know where you got that from.
With gems like that one, Lincoln would clearly have failed Economics 101. Consumer culture is premised on the discouragement of thrift, from Hire Purchase credit through shopping-spree-lead recoveries to the global savings pool. As for pulling down the strong, I fail to see anything strong about Paris Hilton or Peaches Geldof. You guys clearly aren't for ge ...[text shortened]... ted welfare. Until you square the circle, your nominal anti-welfare rhetoric is complete cant.
Sheep-like shopping sprees can only have a short term effect, as they, by definition, lead to inefficient allocations that can set the industry back and have no substantial benefit for consumers (take Beta and VHS, for example) besides the subjective feeling of participation in a fashion.
The trick is that this subjective feeling could have also been achieved, had the direction of the spree been the most efficient product. Therefore, such sprees are innefficient by the nature of the spending.
On the question of meritocracy, I fully agree with you. Redistribution is essential to achieve at least a small approximation of inter-generational meritocracy.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThe stock exchange - I don't think you'll find more than a minority of serious economists who believe that savings are preferable to consumer expenditure as an economic driver.
It's false that thrift is prejudicial to an economy. I don't know where you got that from.
I don't disagree with you entirely about the weakness of some consumer-led recoveries or the weaknesses of production they can create, but short-term factors are part of a long-term effect: to say that part of a chain reaction is just a part is to ignore the fact that every chain require a series of links.
3 edits
Originally posted by AmauroteThat's false. Many economists believe that savings are also an important part of growth.
The stock exchange - I don't think you'll find more than a minority of serious economists who believe that savings are preferable to consumer expenditure as an economic driver.
I don't disagree with you entirely about the weakness of some consumer-led recoveries or the weaknesses of production they can create, but short-term factors are part of a long-te ...[text shortened]... ain reaction is just a part is to ignore the fact that every chain require a series of links.
Obviously savings in the form of putting the money under the bed is also inefficient since you have many risk-free products. But savings as opposed to consumption goods (savings in the form of bank deposits, financial assets, etc.) are very important to growth.
They allow the indirect transfer of unproductive ressources into financing productive uses of that money. This is why too much consumption isn't efficient either because it limits the available credit.
People who deal with the stock exchange love such spending sprees because it creates more instability in the stock market. Of course that a lot of instability is overall bad, but instability in small ammounts priviliges those that have more information (the big financial investors and financial companies) who can profit over the general public at higher peaks and lower lows.
In a perfectly functioning stock market with perfect information there would be no way to make significant money through capital gains, only through dividends. The fact that the most money is made through capital gains and not dividends is a good sign that these inefficiencies are being exploited.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaHorses for courses, really - quoting that "America was built on thrift" is a palpably false statement, and it's never more demonstrably false than this era in which the foremost economy in the world is also the main recipient of the global savings pool...in a nice reversal of the "savings are an important part of growth" argument. Moreover, if there are any economists out there advocating falling demand as a way out of recession, they're not merely in error, they're a minority - hence the general state of alarm in stock exchanges around the globe at a rise in saving at various stages of the economic cycle. What I would argue for is context here, which we're not getting from the pseudo-meritocrats- in pure savings are not ipso facto bad any more than extravagance is ipso facto bad.
That's false. Many economists believe that savings are also an important part of growth.
Obviously savings in the form of putting the money under the bed is also inefficient since you have many risk-free products. But savings as opposed to consumption goods (savings in the form of bank deposits, financial assets, etc.) are very important to growth.
The capital gains and not dividends is a good sign that these inefficiencies are being exploited.
I agree with you about allocation entirely (I'm an admirer of JK Galbraith and more recently of the Parecon school), but I think you're merging the issues of growth, efficiency and stability - clearly it's possible to have an economy in which one or more of these qualities is absent, and in the particularly fortuitous and inequitable economy which we have it isn't accidental that consumer saving is widely perceived as a motor for instability. If America was built on anything, it certainly wasn't saving - and it clearly isn't maintained by it.
Originally posted by AmauroteWait. I just said that thrift wasn't prejudicial to the economy, I didn't agree that America was built [purely] on savings.
Horses for courses, really - quoting that "America was built on thrift" is a palpably false statement, and it's never more demonstrably false than this era in which the foremost economy in the world is also the main recipient of the global savings pool...in a nice reversal of the "savings are an important part of growth" argument. Moreover, if there are any ...[text shortened]... t on anything, it certainly wasn't saving - and it clearly isn't maintained by it.
As for growth, America is not the fastest growing economy, nor the most productive one. And which economist considers a long-lasting trade deficit as a healthy sign for an economy?
Stock exchanges are not the best indicator for growth, the fundamentals that drive stock markets are only important in the long term, as in the short-term stock markets are mostly driven by expectations.
My point is that savings are more than an extravagance, they are a necessity for a functioning economy. The only situations where savings are extremely low is when there exists hyper-inflation. Growth, efficiency and market stability are all connected, I think that any global view of an economy should not forget any of those aspects.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaFirstly, while I agree with much of what you're saying here, I think you're confusing several posts - your first post on this subject is actually in response to a reply to a quote by Abraham Lincoln which states that America was built on thrift. That is demonstrably untrue, even if you believe as you do that savings are useful as a reservoir of capital.
Wait. I just said that thrift wasn't prejudicial to the economy, I didn't agree that America was built [purely] on savings.
As for growth, America is not the fastest growing economy, nor the most productive one. And which economist considers a long-lasting trade deficit as a healthy sign for an economy?
Stock exchanges are not the best indicator for gr ...[text shortened]... connected, I think that any global view of an economy should not forget any of those aspects.
Secondly, I at no point said that America is the fastest growing or most productive economy, or stated that a long-lasting trade deficit is a healthy economic indicator, and nor did I say that saving was extravagant. What I don't accept is your premise that the views of the stock exchange are of little significance in indicating growth or stability - in the kind of deeply unequal society we live in, the views of the people who are planning it are very significant indeed, and the views of those people are wholly opposed to it, which would be very curious if they were net gainers from increased saving. I don't think you can seriously accuse corporations of being in it for the short haul - most of them are so far from being short-termist that they deliberately avoid short-term profit in favour of long-term stability.
In economic context, saving has virtue, just as spending has virtue in context. But in relation to the specific point, it isn't the virtue America was built on - and that was the point of the post you addressed.