U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-09-2012, 10:10 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,470 posts, read 18,198,178 times
Reputation: 4343

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
You think there was a Federalized Nomad Union regulating American Indian use of North America?
Firstly government ownership, or any sort of ownership, of land makes no sense in Nomadic societies. The group, the individual, etc make no claims on any land. Much different with non-nomadic tribes and in these tribes you most certainly see government ownership of land, you can also see federations and agreements between multiple tribal governments about land-use.

So, yes, in any society that makes a claim to land (i.e., isn't nomadic), common ownership of land is government ownership. Government is the way complex societies do such things.....

I see you don't get the Marx comment....that's okay. Regardless, don't bring George into your anti-monetarist rants....he has nothing to do with it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2012, 10:25 PM
 
19,337 posts, read 16,946,602 times
Reputation: 7515
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Firstly government ownership, or any sort of ownership, of land makes no sense in Nomadic societies. The group, the individual, etc make no claims on any land. Much different with non-nomadic tribes and in these tribes you most certainly see government ownership of land, you can also see federations and agreements between multiple tribal governments about land-use.
It makes no sense to you because you don't understand the concept well understood in other societies, the usufruct. International waters... You have the right to use it as a preexistence just like breathing the air. It has the same effect as making ownership based upon the fruit of labor aka enjoy the fruits.

Quote:
So, yes, in any society that makes a claim to land (i.e., isn't nomadic), common ownership of land is government ownership. Government is the way complex societies do such things.....
No its isn't until it has marginal utility. That's why sea space is free and not one cared about land in early America. There is no economic principle of complexity per se. Its marginal utility and the rise of rents when the best space is occupied when land "ownership" comes into play. Its discussed by Ricardo. Do you want me to show you where?

Quote:
I see you don't get the Marx comment....that's okay.
Why would I?

Your unoriginal, and wrong, comparison to George was nothing but a political attack by his enemies. Lest anyone is fool enough to believe you:

The Neo-Federalist: Henry George vs. Karl Marx


Henry George and Karl Marx rose to fame in the middle and late nineteenth century over their critiques of the current economic systems that dominated the Western countries. Marx opposed George, and George opposed Marx. Marx opposed George because George was highly critical of Marx’s theories on communism, but what exactly did George have against an ideology similar to his “quasi-socialism.”

George, in the 1870s, stated that if any nation attempted to enact Marx’s theories on communism, the country would devolve into a dictatorship, and the elite (the bureaucrats and government leaders) would simply replace the “Capitalist” class and rule over the “proletarians” in the same fashion as before. Henry George was on to something, over 50 years before the West saw communism as a totalitarian ideology, he correctly predicted that any form of communism would devolve into totalitarianism with innocent people dying or suffering as a result.


Milk is still under $5 as predicted.

Why do you keep trying play this game about having not read<fill in the blank> when its blatantly obvious I have? What would you do if you read the Gospel of Matthew 10 times when some nit on a board kept saying you didn't, especially when it will be obvious they haven't? Would you have any respect for them? Be fore warned I have read most of the major works before the 20th century so if you want to keep embarrassing yourself..

Last edited by gwynedd1; 08-09-2012 at 10:47 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2012, 10:57 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,470 posts, read 18,198,178 times
Reputation: 4343
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
It makes no sense to you because you don't understand the concept well understood in other societies, the usufruct. International waters... You have the right to use it as a preexistence just like breathing the air. It has the same effect as making ownership based upon the fruit of labor aka enjoy the fruits.
Sure thing, yet the fact remains, all non-nomadic societies have some sort of government regulation of land. That may be common ownership via the government, private ownership allowed by the government, etc......

In non-nomadic societies common ownership is government ownership.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
Your unoriginal, and wrong, comparison to George was nothing but a political attack by his enemies. Lest anyone is fool enough to believe you.
Still not getting it....

So, back to the point, George has nothing to do with your anti-fed rants.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2012, 11:11 PM
 
19,337 posts, read 16,946,602 times
Reputation: 7515
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
Sure thing, yet the fact remains, all non-nomadic societies have some sort of government regulation of land. That may be common ownership via the government, private ownership allowed by the government, etc......

In non-nomadic societies common ownership is government ownership.


Still not getting it....

So, back to the point, George has nothing to do with your anti-fed rants.
All Chinese are not non Chinese...and no I cannot guess a number between 1 and infinity. That is where we are. Since there is nothing material in this post, you can end it here or punctuate it with another immaterial post. I am moving on.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2012, 09:43 AM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,797 posts, read 6,629,681 times
Reputation: 5180
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
the whole idea of the stimulus money was to get corporations and individuals to spend. that didnt get them to spend more and stimulate growth .

the next idea was if they dont have the money to spend then lets give them cheap money to borrow and try to grow that way.

so rates went to zero and that didnt create growth.

individuals and corporations have been paying down debt ,not increasing it. the whole world is going through a process of de-leveraging...

corporations arent spending either and have big cash balances on their books.


not good for preventing us from sliding into recession or deflation.
they are out of ammo. they can print all the money they want but with no market for taking that money its a moot action.

earnings and guidance estimates are being cut like crazy .


im afraid we can see another recession in a year or so..

i think if i had to bet on one investment for the next few years i think zero coupon 30 year treasuries have an excellent chance of seeing another 25-30% in gains as if we dont improve a 1% drop in rates will be just about a given.
QE and stimulus were different programs. QE and its predecessor TARP were designed solely to bail out and to profit the banks. The whole reason for QE is to provide cheap or free money to the banks which they can then use to invest in various investments at profit.
Stimulus was a much smaller program used mostly to benefit auto companies.
None of these programs does much or anything to help the majority of wage earners and is therefore not going to do much to improve the overall economy.

Why do you keep saying consumers are paying down debt when it is not true? Consumer debt is still increasing not decreasing. June 2012 consumer debt stands at 2,577.4 billion compared with 2,467.3 a year ago and 2,528.8 in 2007. The problem is most of this new consumer credit is not being spent on decressionary spending but rather on necessities. People are paying 20% interest to put their electric bills and grocery bills on their charge cards.

You also need to look at where the money the Fed is printing is going. It is going into government spending which is increasing exponentially.
That money spent by government goes directly into the economy usually with very little production in exchange, due to massive graft and waste, not to mention welfare, and is thereby inflationary.
So on the one hand you have the Fed supplying free money to the banks to speculate with, driving commodity costs, and on the other you have massive government spending not justified by increasing GDP pushing inflation and dollar devaluation.
On top of that you have massive unemployment and wage stagnation. What this all adds up to is greater disparity between the classes and the continual erosion of the ability of people to achieve any type of upward mobility.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2012, 11:41 AM
 
85,572 posts, read 83,022,350 times
Reputation: 61296
Both qe2 and the stimulus money was geared to get us to borrow or spend and both are failing in that respect.

There isnt a whole lot left that can be done except let things run their course.

consumer credit debt fell from 841 billion on 3/31/2010 to 803 billion as of 3/31/2012
.
only thing up was auto loans and student loans.

since 2008 we went from 1,008,000,00 in revolving debt to 864.6 billion in june.

If we were buying and spending more the largest corporations in america wouldnt be slashing their upcoming revenue and profit estimates .......

for every company in the s&p 500 forecasting an earnings increase ,5 are forcasting a decrease.

3rd quarter profits were expected to come in up 14.5% and instead came in at a loss.


raises suck , employment sucks and the biggest catalyst for spending housing sucks. we have no additional money to buy things with.

im not even sure what your trying to argue, plain and simple business is getting worse.

less spending = bigger chance for recession.

Last edited by mathjak107; 08-10-2012 at 12:45 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2012, 05:21 PM
 
Location: WA
5,538 posts, read 22,590,292 times
Reputation: 6293
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
...
There isnt a whole lot left that can be done except let things run their course.

...
from Jeffery Snider today...

Five years of low interest rates, including almost four at the zero lower bound, a couple of QE's, a Twist or two to the US treasury yield curve (that flattened rather than twisted), and numerous emergency interbank lending and dollar swap programs have not kept the economy from suffering the approaching abyss of "not seen since 2009".

getting worse for sure.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2012, 05:56 PM
 
85,572 posts, read 83,022,350 times
Reputation: 61296
yep my view for the same reasons. the proof is in the pudding and we are sliding backward and the feds out of ammo. thats not to say i dont see us pulling out eventually, i do , just not yet.

any improvents i think we will see will be by further deflating slightly making what little money we do have go further and buying more goods and services.

while the majority see inflation as the feds plan im not so sure thats where we are headed. they very well may be pulling us the other way .

rates in a few countries are already at negative rates.

i think the world is deleveraging and the central banks will have to sell assets to raise cash to get the euro under control. selling assets is deflationary in itself.

i only go with what i see regardless of what the media and talking heads spew about inflation.

Last edited by mathjak107; 08-10-2012 at 06:06 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:05 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top