Best Thread Keynes Vs. Hayek

[Atilla]

Whatever you say, mate, whatever you say...

Here we go another personal attack and off he goes on his tangent...


What is a You're obviously a last word freak.???

It is a debate of ideas for goodness sake. Why bring it down to a personal insult?

 

[Atilla]

Well worth watching Inside Job on the financial crises...

Inside Job | Film review and movie reviews | Radio Times



Hollywood was hit just as hard as any other industry by the global financial crisis of 2008, but while it was probably too soon for a compelling drama about the situation to be made then, this complex documentary certainly tackles the subject head-on. Calmly narrated by Matt Damon, Charles Ferguson's powerful film explains that Wall Street's meltdown wasn't simply an unfortunate fluke but the inevitable consequence of a flawed and breathtakingly manipulated system. Though its frequent use of jargon can be intimidating - as Michael Moore's less acerbic Capitalism: a Love Story proved, even financiers themselves don't understand half of it - what slowly emerges is a portrait of an industry that creates nothing but greed. Worse still, Ferguson reveals how unscrupulous bankers operate with impunity, working in the knowledge that governments will always bail them out, and leaves us with the uncomfortable realisation that the way the gravy train is structured means that nothing is ever likely to change. It's a fascinating but terrifying insight into a very murky world.

Plot Summary
Winner of the best documentary feature award at this year's Oscars, narrated by Matt Damon. Using exhaustive research and interviews with financiers, politicians, journalists and academics, director Charles Ferguson traces the origins and effects of the 2008 global financial crisis.

 

[JRP2891]

If Cameron is serious about "all init togevver" then he has to set the tax on the rich to a meaningful sum i.e. Any earnings over £1m should pay at least 75% ! And before you say how unfair in so many words - let me assure you the rich have all the food they can eat, more beds than they can sleep in at 10 nights, more luxury than 90% would see in a lifetime available at any time.
Will they suffer ? Not so much, that even they would notice. A mere drop in the ocean, soon to be made up anyway

Here's a little story from a blog which relates to the above post:


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18..
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.'

Drinks for the ten now cost just $ 80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.

But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings) The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before.

And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man.

He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man.

'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man.

'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison.

'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor.'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him.

But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.

They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

The moral of the story; if you keep attacking the rich with obscene taxes, then they'll just go somewhere else more accommodating to their talents and business, leaving you in an even bigger mess than you were in before.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

nonsensical tripe with no basis or similarity to reality

 

[JRP2891]

nonsensical tripe with no basis or similarity to reality

I think it's a perfect fit myself, but i appreciate your feedback.

 

[counter_violent]

nonsensical tripe with no basis or similarity to reality

People with no money always trot out this kind of response

 

[Atilla]

I think it's a perfect fit myself, but i appreciate your feedback.

You need to go to spec-savers mate.

Blind as a bat and dead as a door nail comes to mind.

Could do with a laugh. So give us a real world scenario from one of your perfect fits then.

 

[Atilla]

People with no money always trot out this kind of response

Here we go man on horseback. Charge of the Light Brigade

 

[scose-no-doubt]

People with no money always trot out this kind of response

I only deal with tax for a living so what would I know?

For starters (if you insist on using stupid metaphors) in the real world, there is no beer.

 

[JRP2891]

You need to go to spec-savers mate.

Blind as a bat and dead as a door nail comes to mind.

Could do with a laugh. So give us a real world scenario from one of your perfect fits then.

I don't concern myself with people who resort to insults aimed at anyone that disagrees with their view.

 

[Atilla]

I don't concern myself with people who resort to insults aimed at anyone that disagrees with their view.

How about you share a beer with me paying $59 and maybe we can talk it over :cheers:

 

[JRP2891]

How about you share a beer with me paying $59 and maybe we can talk it over :cheers:

You want to be careful...that scoosey ruffian will drink for free and then beat you up.

 

[Atilla]

You want to be careful...that scoosey ruffian will drink for free and then beat you up.

No need to worry about him.

He ain't heavy, his my brother :cheesy:


Do you reckon Fred can afford to buy the rounds with his pittiful pension?

RBS Post-Mortem Spares 'Fred The Shred' - 09/12/2011

I wouldn't be surprised if he takes RBS to an industrial tribunal now and sues the pants off them, the government and your average tax payer for defamation of character.

Life can be so cruel on Bank executives. You know if like all the cuts in salaries and bonuses wasn't enough they have the face the likes of FSA chasing their tails.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

Question: What drove this company into the ground

2 and a half years and several million pounds later...

Answer: Management



you gotta love it.

 

[Atilla]

Question: What drove this company into the ground

2 and a half years and several million pounds later...

Answer: Management



you gotta love it.

Whilst discussing with a group of friends I've heard that the FSA staff work from home and seldom come into the office unless it's for a drink up.

I'm mean how do these people work?

They are brilliant they get hired by the Banks (oh yeah heard that before)

If they are not good enough for the Banks but been around somewhat they get to work for the FSA.


How bloody marvellous. No tooth, no nails. Bend over your average peasant and think of Queen and Country.

No more unions left to blame so its poor management. Well why the freaking hell were they rewarded so much then?


Good call pension funds

 

[Atilla]

Interesting article about Capitalism or how it is not so much Capitalism as we know it... Never realised there were so many different types of capital-ismsimisms.

The One Capitalism That Dare Not Speak Its Name - Bloomberg

 

[ducati998]

Chap's,

A bit late to the discussion. I spotted this a little earlier in the thread.

This means there are three questions:
1) How do you make sure that the rules of the game are enforced?
2) How do you make sure the rules are fundamentally "sound" and "fair"?
3) How do you define "soundness" and "fairness"?

1. The "rules" must be enforced by a non-arbitrary party. This obviously excludes government as we know it currently. The "Rule of Law" has been so roundly ignored to date by "Power" that surely I need not actually provide any examples? No, ok, then going back to where Ford granted Nixon a Presidential pardon. Since then, there have been endless examples.

2. The rules can be considered to be fundamentally "sound" and "fair" when they fulfill the following conditions: the axiom that they are based upon is a true statement, known to be true in that no argument in logic can be raised against it that does not result in a contradiction.

The example of this is "the right in/of property." From this axiom, you can logically proceed to deduce a fully valid and true "Rule of Law" that is both "sound" and "fair."

3. I believe that this question has already been answered.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati998]

From Atilla,

But we do need a minimum wage. I notice that even with the big fat cats salaries when they are calculating they are using average salaries to compare rather than lowest and highest differential.

I note that you do not actually provide an argument to support your assertion with regard to a "minimum wage."

Wages are paid simply on the Law of Diminishing Discounted Marginal Productivity. If you raise, through legislation, the minimum wage, you raise the curve of discounted marginal productivity, thereby lowering total employment.

Problem is still capitalism which has little or no clue on how to approach a slow down as the whole system is based on mass consumption and production.

When you say "slow down" you are I take it referring to the "bust" phase of the business cycle? Assuming for the moment that you are, then: capitalism views the "bust" as the recovery phase, where the mal-investments of the "boom" phase are reallocated into profitable, or more urgently demanded goods and services.

Mass production implies the production of "scarce" goods and products, so that they become less scarce, so that the "masses" can afford to purchase these now increased supply of formerly scarce goods and services.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati998]

I agree - whoever produced that ridiculous study has got his assumptions well crossed.

In which case you would be mistaken.

Key factors of production are Land Labour and Capital. Capital includes technology. In the last 250 years capital re:technology played less a part other than finance.

True. You have the answer right in front of your nose. Capital.

So between Labour and Land to say cheap Labour was more profitable than zero cost labour is utter BS of the freaking biggest magnitude one can possibly imagine.

Incorrect.

It is the "Discounted Marginal Value Product" of labour that is important. With increased capital, increasing the DMVP of labour, it is entirely possible for "paid labour" to be more productive, or, profitable than slave labour.

I'd be interested in this study and who commissioned it.

Beggars belief some people have no freaking common sense.

Have you even read the research?

Not to mention reason why West was so far ahead of Latin America and Africa is precisely because these continents were ravaged and raped by exploitation and slavery.

I wonder if you know the real reasons?

jog on
duc

 

[Martinghoul]

Chap's,
A bit late to the discussion. I spotted this a little earlier in the thread.

1. The "rules" must be enforced by a non-arbitrary party. This obviously excludes government as we know it currently. The "Rule of Law" has been so roundly ignored to date by "Power" that surely I need not actually provide any examples? No, ok, then going back to where Ford granted Nixon a Presidential pardon. Since then, there have been endless examples.

2. The rules can be considered to be fundamentally "sound" and "fair" when they fulfill the following conditions: the axiom that they are based upon is a true statement, known to be true in that no argument in logic can be raised against it that does not result in a contradiction.

The example of this is "the right in/of property." From this axiom, you can logically proceed to deduce a fully valid and true "Rule of Law" that is both "sound" and "fair."

3. I believe that this question has already been answered.

jog on
duc

I am curious about this, duc... May I ask you some questions about the above? Seeing as how we never concluded our conversation on an older thread...