Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 05-04-2020, 09:04 AM
 
13,961 posts, read 5,625,642 times
Reputation: 8617

Advertisements

Let's start at the basics - define growth in economic terms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-04-2020, 09:41 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,565,372 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Let's start at the basics - define growth in economic terms.
The real basics is freedom. Are people slaves or are they free to do what they want to do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2020, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,889,092 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Marx was also an economist I believe.

Right now free market dogma is a religion in economic teachings, and has turned human society into a mechanized jungle where life force has been drained from all existence.

Globalism, homogenization, and the destruction of man is what these 'theories' have achieved.
If Marx ever read Adam Smith he didn’t understand it.

These theories have freed billions from the direst poverty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2020, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Manchester NH
15,507 posts, read 6,432,565 times
Reputation: 4831
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
If Marx ever read Adam Smith he didn’t understand it.

These theories have freed billions from the direst poverty.
Marx liked Smith.

I don't like either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2020, 09:59 AM
 
Location: Manchester NH
15,507 posts, read 6,432,565 times
Reputation: 4831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Let's start at the basics - define growth in economic terms.
You define it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2020, 10:12 AM
 
7,827 posts, read 3,381,911 times
Reputation: 5141
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
The real basics is freedom. Are people slaves or are they free to do what they want to do?
We are not free under extremes when an elite rule. We are not free under an authoritarian regime where the government controls all. Equally, are not free when the government plays a minimal role and we are ruled by a plutocracy.

The historical record and the data all show us that the middle way in all things is what works best. We need a market economy with private ownership balanced with government regulation.

No one on the left side on this forum is calling for a government takeover of all aspects of the economy - that would be ludicrous. The real extremists here are those calling for no government regulation or role at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2020, 10:25 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,565,372 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastwardBound View Post
We are not free under extremes when an elite rule. We are not free under an authoritarian regime where the government controls all. Equally, are not free when the government plays a minimal role and we are ruled by a plutocracy.

The historical record and the data all show us that the middle way in all things is what works best. We need a market economy with private ownership balanced with government regulation.

No one on the left side on this forum is calling for a government takeover of all aspects of the economy - that would be ludicrous. The real extremists here are those calling for no government regulation or role at all.
So people are slaves to you and must do what you want them to do at the gunpoint. Got it.

Now we have that settled, it’s easy to figure out how to crap more on the slaves.

Last edited by lifeexplorer; 05-04-2020 at 10:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2020, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,170,143 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
They claim growth is good, and there is no alternative to growth. If revenue and capital doesn't appreciate, then poverty and depression are bound to follow. This does not follow logic and suggests there is more at play here, but this is a foundational belief economists follow.

The Ottoman Empire followed free trade dogma as a root between Europe and Asia along the silk road. As a result their industrial base was never formed, and any minimal investment that went to factory work was bankrupted by foreign competition.
You just doomed your thread by making things up as you go along.

The fact that the Ottoman Empire was the conduit between Europe and Asia neither means nor proves the Ottomans practiced free trade.

Perhaps if you had an understanding of Economics, your comments wouldn't be so obtuse.

Not to talk over your head, but the Ottoman's practiced an economic policy called "provisionism."

Since you don't know what that is, I'll explain it.

The government's fiscal and tax policies were geared toward over-production of domestic goods. Since the Ottoman Empire was a Zero Level Agrarian society and never moved into the 1st or 2nd Level economies like Europe did in the late 18th Century, that meant domestic production was based on agriculture.

The purpose of over-producing is two-fold, 1) to ensure there are never shortages and 2) to keep prices stable, since there are never shortages, and keep prices low, since all domestic goods is over-produced.

Those policies, and specifically the miri mubaya, actually prohibited the Empire from moving into the 1st and 2nd Level economies, which was a major cause in its decline.

Oh, sorry to talk over your head again. The miri mubaya was a tax that ensured domestically produced goods were sold at below market rates.

So, what kind of economic system did the Ottoman's use? The Command System, not the Free Market System, right? When government dictates prices through policies, that is Command Economics.

Previously, in other threads, I addressed the use of waqfs.

No such thing as inheritance in the Ottoman Empire. Other than your clothes and a few trinkets, the only way to leave your family anything was to create a waqf, a sort of non-profit organization. It could be a school, hostel/hotel or soup kitchen or something that would give your spouse and children a place to live, a job opportunity and a steady income.

Note that the use of waqfs prevented or limited private domestic investment.

The miri mubaya created a situation where the focus is so heavily on domestic production, that you have to import those things you cannot produce because you have neither the labor nor other Capital, since that is all invested in domestic production.

The Empire had to import everything it didn't produce, and over time, its exports couldn't fund imports, so the government started borrowing heavily from European powers to pay for its imports.

Note that situation is not even remotely similar to the modern day US trade imbalance.

The Ottoman Empire also owned and operated the few major industries it did have. That is Socialism and Socialism in combination with Command Economics.

The Empire did not, of course, control the cottage industries, but note that the Empire's policies resulted in rural areas never being developed.

Ever wonder why those countries are backwards? Well, now you know, because that's one reason. All the tax money goes into State-owned enterprises, none of which were in rural or under-developed areas and that's because the focus was over-producing domestic products, namely agricultural products, to prevent shortages and keep prices stable and low.

Here's a new word for your limited vocabulary: Concession.

Because you make things up as you go along, and because your vocabulary and knowledge are so limited, you don't understand it was the Ottoman Empire that engaged in protectionist policies, not the Europeans.

The Ottoman's markets were closed.

Because of the many wars, and because the Empire borrowed heavily from Europeans to finance its many wars, the Empire was forced into concessions.

The first concession was with Britain. It allowed British investors to come into the Empire and set up shop.

Because Britain was leading the Industrial Revolution and the Empire was ignoring the Industrial Revolution, the Brits could out produce the Ottomans.

So, the Brits came in, and using modern production methods, out-produced the Ottomans who were still using 15th Century production methods.

That caused domestic markets to collapse.

While the Empire did issue the last of the Tanzimat reforms in 1879, the Empire had lavished tax money on itself, couldn't export squat, couldn't produce anything, was heavily indebted to foreign countries to fiance the lavishness the tax money couldn't and all the wars and all the things they imported, so there was not a lot of money to get with the program and join the Industrial Revolution, which by now was more than a century old.

If you want to see the failure of the Ottoman Empire, look at Egypt.

Little Egypt exported 4x-6x more than the entire freaking Ottoman Empire.

Why? Because Egypt got with the program and modernized, which allowed it to produce more goods with far fewer people.

Wanna know how pathetic the Ottoman Empire was?

Who build their rail system?

Not the Empire. It was Britain and Germany who came in the 1890s with British and German and Belgian money and built the railroads, because the Ottomans didn't have any money.

Same with the ports.

The Empire had never done anything with its ports. Foreign countries had to come in with foreign money and expand all of the Empire's ports, because none of the ports could handle the newer larger ships that were being built by the rest of the world.

How sad is that?

Anyway, you'll probably want to read and study the Ottoman Empire at least once in your life before screaming, "Free Trade!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2020, 11:02 AM
 
7,827 posts, read 3,381,911 times
Reputation: 5141
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
So people are slaves to you and must do what you want them to do at the gunpoint. Got it.

Now we have that settled, it’s easy to figure out how to crap more on the slaves.
I’m sorry you didn’t read what I wrote. You must not have because your response is illogical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2020, 11:04 AM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,565,372 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
You just doomed your thread by making things up as you go along.

The fact that the Ottoman Empire was the conduit between Europe and Asia neither means nor proves the Ottomans practiced free trade.

Perhaps if you had an understanding of Economics, your comments wouldn't be so obtuse.

Not to talk over your head, but the Ottoman's practiced an economic policy called "provisionism."

Since you don't know what that is, I'll explain it.

The government's fiscal and tax policies were geared toward over-production of domestic goods. Since the Ottoman Empire was a Zero Level Agrarian society and never moved into the 1st or 2nd Level economies like Europe did in the late 18th Century, that meant domestic production was based on agriculture.

The purpose of over-producing is two-fold, 1) to ensure there are never shortages and 2) to keep prices stable, since there are never shortages, and keep prices low, since all domestic goods is over-produced.

Those policies, and specifically the miri mubaya, actually prohibited the Empire from moving into the 1st and 2nd Level economies, which was a major cause in its decline.

Oh, sorry to talk over your head again. The miri mubaya was a tax that ensured domestically produced goods were sold at below market rates.

So, what kind of economic system did the Ottoman's use? The Command System, not the Free Market System, right? When government dictates prices through policies, that is Command Economics.

Previously, in other threads, I addressed the use of waqfs.

No such thing as inheritance in the Ottoman Empire. Other than your clothes and a few trinkets, the only way to leave your family anything was to create a waqf, a sort of non-profit organization. It could be a school, hostel/hotel or soup kitchen or something that would give your spouse and children a place to live, a job opportunity and a steady income.

Note that the use of waqfs prevented or limited private domestic investment.

The miri mubaya created a situation where the focus is so heavily on domestic production, that you have to import those things you cannot produce because you have neither the labor nor other Capital, since that is all invested in domestic production.

The Empire had to import everything it didn't produce, and over time, its exports couldn't fund imports, so the government started borrowing heavily from European powers to pay for its imports.

Note that situation is not even remotely similar to the modern day US trade imbalance.

The Ottoman Empire also owned and operated the few major industries it did have. That is Socialism and Socialism in combination with Command Economics.

The Empire did not, of course, control the cottage industries, but note that the Empire's policies resulted in rural areas never being developed.

Ever wonder why those countries are backwards? Well, now you know, because that's one reason. All the tax money goes into State-owned enterprises, none of which were in rural or under-developed areas and that's because the focus was over-producing domestic products, namely agricultural products, to prevent shortages and keep prices stable and low.

Here's a new word for your limited vocabulary: Concession.

Because you make things up as you go along, and because your vocabulary and knowledge are so limited, you don't understand it was the Ottoman Empire that engaged in protectionist policies, not the Europeans.

The Ottoman's markets were closed.

Because of the many wars, and because the Empire borrowed heavily from Europeans to finance its many wars, the Empire was forced into concessions.

The first concession was with Britain. It allowed British investors to come into the Empire and set up shop.

Because Britain was leading the Industrial Revolution and the Empire was ignoring the Industrial Revolution, the Brits could out produce the Ottomans.

So, the Brits came in, and using modern production methods, out-produced the Ottomans who were still using 15th Century production methods.

That caused domestic markets to collapse.

While the Empire did issue the last of the Tanzimat reforms in 1879, the Empire had lavished tax money on itself, couldn't export squat, couldn't produce anything, was heavily indebted to foreign countries to fiance the lavishness the tax money couldn't and all the wars and all the things they imported, so there was not a lot of money to get with the program and join the Industrial Revolution, which by now was more than a century old.

If you want to see the failure of the Ottoman Empire, look at Egypt.

Little Egypt exported 4x-6x more than the entire freaking Ottoman Empire.

Why? Because Egypt got with the program and modernized, which allowed it to produce more goods with far fewer people.

Wanna know how pathetic the Ottoman Empire was?

Who build their rail system?

Not the Empire. It was Britain and Germany who came in the 1890s with British and German and Belgian money and built the railroads, because the Ottomans didn't have any money.

Same with the ports.

The Empire had never done anything with its ports. Foreign countries had to come in with foreign money and expand all of the Empire's ports, because none of the ports could handle the newer larger ships that were being built by the rest of the world.

How sad is that?

Anyway, you'll probably want to read and study the Ottoman Empire at least once in your life before screaming, "Free Trade!"
Excellent write-up. I always admire your knowledge! Can’t rep you anymore.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:10 AM.

© 2005-2024, 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