5 best sentences on economics

[Fook Seng]

You are repeating yourself and your response is very confusing. Please try and gather your thoughts and perhaps not lumped all in one post.

It is foolish don't you think, to regurgitate phrases without real understanding of the human aspects that dictates how the ideals of capitalism can be and had been corrupted and twisted for selfish reasons. When peasants asked for more welfare, politicians threatened by being voted out will promise heaven and earth to stay in power longer. Both parties are motivated by greed which is a natural human failing and thus corruption exists to dismantle whatever idealistic goals we humans strived for. So your arguments about capitalism so far fails to be convincing because in reality it does not exist.

I agree. Capitalism without taking into account human nature is like applying micro-economics to everything you see around you. If pure capitalism works, the US government would not have interfered and came in with rescue plans.

 

[brocoli]

I agree. Capitalism without taking into account human nature is like applying micro-economics to everything you see around you. If pure capitalism works, the US government would not have interfered and came in with rescue plans.

the US government sould have let the banks fall, bailout is protectionism... not capitalism...
pure capitalism works, but the US government choose socialism

in real free markets... if the biz cant make it, they should fall...

all of you are confused not me,,,

 

[Seee3]

the US government sould have let the banks fall, bailout is protectionism... not capitalism...
pure capitalism works, but the US government choose socialism

in real free markets... if the biz cant make it, they should fall...

all of you are confused not me,,,

Based on theories I have gathered so far, "capitalism" would have

(1) prevented the banks from failing because selling derivatives and hiding their risks is not "capitalism"
(2) prevented Americans from losing their jobs because pegging the exchange rate to devalue the yuan (to reduce cost) is not "capitalism"
(3) prevented companies moving operation to other places because control and restriction of labour and technology across borders should also not be part of "capitalism"
(4) allow cheap labour to replace productivity as long as the cost of production is reduced
(5) prevented wide disparity in income because demand and supply would seek its equilibrium and salary of hard menial labour will "eventually" increase because the supply of such labour will dry up as less and less people will take up such jobs.
......

I don't know economics. Above are my layman understanding. However, what I had gone through in life tells me that before any theory can "eventually" work its course, something much more destructive would inevitably happen, changing the entire situation. If the banks had not been bailed out, I might not have the peace to write this now.

 

[brocoli]

Based on theories I have gathered so far, "capitalism" would have

(1) prevented the banks from failing because selling derivatives and hiding their risks is not "capitalism"
(2) prevented Americans from losing their jobs because pegging the exchange rate to devalue the yuan (to reduce cost) is not "capitalism"
(3) prevented companies moving operation to other places because control and restriction of labour and technology across borders should also not be part of "capitalism"
(4) allow cheap labour to replace productivity as long as the cost of production is reduced
(5) prevented wide disparity in income because demand and supply would seek its equilibrium and salary of hard menial labour will "eventually" increase because the supply of such labour will dry up as less and less people will take up such jobs.
......

I don't know economics. Above are my layman understanding. However, what I had gone through in life tells me that before any theory can "eventually" work its course, something much more destructive would inevitably happen, changing the entire situation. If the banks had not been bailed out, I might not have the peace to write this now.

its very hard to debate about free market when you guys are all confused and thinking of some other stuffs...

(1) capitalism cant prevented any1 from failing, only socialism throw $ at failed entreprise to protect jobs ....
selling derivatives is fine as long as there is a willing buyer and not disclosing certain risks is not "capitalism", it may be fraud
(2) pegging the exchange rate to devalue the yuan (to reduce cost) is not "capitalism", its called the capital control...Americans lose their jobs because they are overpayed ... they been enjoying cheap chinese porducts on their overvalued greenbacks because it happen to world reserve currency ... something got to give... if you dun have price stability peg to some kind of gold standard
(3) free market is opposite of the control and restriction...those are called protectionism and tariffs
(4) free market does not allow cheap labour to replace productivity
productivity have a price ... is it cheap enough to get more output per cost....?? duh they are different side of the same coin... you are so confused
(5) free market does not prevented wide disparity in income, if you cannot supply something the market want .. dun expect to earn shit...

read this http://ecocritique.free.fr/roachglo.pdf

unlike free trade... there is no comparative advantage in freedom of labour movement, overpaid workers in sinkie land and other western countries wll suffered ... they woill lose job bnut they can buy goods and service more cheaply

 

[Fook Seng]

the US government sould have let the banks fall, bailout is protectionism... not capitalism...
pure capitalism works, but the US government choose socialism

in real free markets... if the biz cant make it, they should fall...

all of you are confused not me,,,

SMRT as it is run is capitalism.

 

[Seee3]

Hi brocoli
You have misunderstood me and reiterated most of what I have already stated i.e. those factors are against capitalism. My point is, it is not possible to embrace capitalism in totality because we are human. Before any economic theory can have the time to run its course, another world war could befall us.

You mentioned that there is no comparative advantage in freedom of labour movement. Let us take a look at the local case of importing cheap labour to support the manufacturing and service industries. Based on cost alone, there is definitely a comparative cost advantage. If we are able to redistribute the wealth gained from such practice to all our citizens equally, I am quite sure most people would not be complaining that they are out of job. They will not mind attending WDA courses if WDA is paying them $3000 per month instead. Unfortunately, it is not possible. Therefore, I can only agree that, there is no comparative advantage in freedom of labour movement if we are unable to distribute the wealth equally because the social cost is too great.

read this http://ecocritique.free.fr/roachglo.pdf

unlike free trade... there is no comparative advantage in freedom of labour movement, overpaid workers in sinkie land and other western countries wll suffered ... they woill lose job bnut they can buy goods and service more cheaply

 

[Windsor]

Hi brocoli
You have misunderstood me and reiterated most of what I have already stated i.e. those factors are against capitalism. My point is, it is not possible to embrace capitalism in totality because we are human. Before any economic theory can have the time to run its course, another world war could befall us.

You mentioned that there is no comparative advantage in freedom of labour movement. Let us take a look at the local case of importing cheap labour to support the manufacturing and service industries. Based on cost alone, there is definitely a comparative cost advantage. If we are able to redistribute the wealth gained from such practice to all our citizens equally, I am quite sure most people would not be complaining that they are out of job. They will not mind attending WDA courses if WDA is paying them $3000 per month instead. Unfortunately, it is not possible. Therefore, I can only agree that, there is no comparative advantage in freedom of labour movement if we are unable to distribute the wealth equally because the social cost is too great.

As is spouted by brocoli, to practice capitalism, one must live in a perfect world. Might as well play Monopoly, because it does not exist.

 

[Leongsam]

As is spouted by brocoli, to practice capitalism, one must live in a perfect world. Might as well play Monopoly, because it does not exist.

The same argument can be made regarding any system. For socialism to work, you need a perfect world too. Otherwise, humans simply take advantage of the whole concept.

 

[Windsor]

The same argument can be made regarding any system. For socialism to work, you need a perfect world too. Otherwise, humans simply take advantage of the whole concept.

Nothing can work well when money is created out of nothing. Somewhere somehow someone has to pay the interest accrued from the moment it was created. Everyone seems to have forgotten or do not wish to know it exist.

 

[brocoli]

SMRT as it is run is capitalism.

As is spouted by brocoli, to practice capitalism, one must live in a perfect world. Might as well play Monopoly, because it does not exist.

both of you confuse capitalism with Monopoly.... in Monopoly there is no price signal signal there are only price takers..

Hi brocoli
You have misunderstood me and reiterated most of what I have already stated i.e. those factors are against capitalism. My point is, it is not possible to embrace capitalism in totality because we are human. Before any economic theory can have the time to run its course, another world war could befall us.

You mentioned that there is no comparative advantage in freedom of labour movement. Let us take a look at the local case of importing cheap labour to support the manufacturing and service industries. Based on cost alone, there is definitely a comparative cost advantage. If we are able to redistribute the wealth gained from such practice to all our citizens equally, I am quite sure most people would not be complaining that they are out of job. They will not mind attending WDA courses if WDA is paying them $3000 per month instead. Unfortunately, it is not possible. Therefore, I can only agree that, there is no comparative advantage in freedom of labour movement if we are unable to distribute the wealth equally because the social cost is too great.

you confuse comparative advantage with absolute advantage.... all sinkies are economically illiterate...

on the other hand PAP leadership all got their harvard MPA..... no wonder no 1 understand the PAP govt////

 

[Fook Seng]

both of you confuse capitalism with Monopoly.... in Monopoly there is no price signal signal there are only price takers..

you confuse comparative advantage with absolute advantage.... all sinkies are economically illiterate...

on the other hand PAP leadership all got their harvard MPA..... no wonder no 1 understand the PAP govt////

Don't you agree that capitalism's focus is on wealth creation and socialism's focus is wealth distribution. In a human world, if you just have one but not the other, you will have war. If only the haves have all their way and the have nots have nothing, then there will be chaos. I liken, before, capitalism, or socialism for that matter, to micro-economics focussing on just one aspect of a very complex human situation when what would actually work is macro-economics. Your mention of monopolies could actually be the end result of pursuing capitalism to its limit. Evidently, those Harvard MPA programmes did not work out well for our leadersl, otherwise we would not have made such major policy lapses in the past 10 years. By the way, during the 2008 crisis, Harvard University's investment fund suffered major losses almost putting the University into bankruptcy. Take note but never rely too much on past laurels.

 

[Cruxx]

Those who can, do; those who cunt, teach.

 

[Windsor]

Don't you agree that capitalism's focus is on wealth creation and socialism's focus is wealth distribution. In a human world, if you just have one but not the other, you will have war. If only the haves have all their way and the have nots have nothing, then there will be chaos. I liken, before, capitalism, or socialism for that matter, to micro-economics focussing on just one aspect of a very complex human situation when what would actually work is macro-economics. Your mention of monopolies could actually be the end result of pursuing capitalism to its limit. Evidently, those Harvard MPA programmes did not work out well for our leadersl, otherwise we would not have made such major policy lapses in the past 10 years. By the way, during the 2008 crisis, Harvard University's investment fund suffered major losses almost putting the University into bankruptcy. Take note but never rely too much on past laurels.

I doubt he understands a tongue-in-cheek comment about Monopoly. So let it pass.

Capitalism cannot exist in a vacuum and what makes it work is? Labour, but I am done with this thread and say no more.

 

[Boliao]

So good of you to reproduce the article written by RR Rajan. Try harder.

www.savingcapitalism.com/capintro.pdf

CAPITALISM, or more precisely, the free market system, is the most effective way to organize production and distribution that human beings have found. Constant financial innovation creates devices to channel risk capital to people with daring ideas.

 

[zhihau]

Those who can, do; those who cunt, teach.

overheard: the only people who think parenting and teaching are easy are those who have done neither :o:o:o

 

[Cruxx]

overheard: the only people who think parenting and teaching are easy are those who have done neither :o:o:o

No one says indoctrinating minds is easy. The point I was making is that those in academia are usually ne'er do wells. For instance, Harvard University which lost billions on endowment investments.

 

[zhihau]

The point I was making is that those in academia are usually ne'er do wells.

indoctrination of the minds should be relatively easy if one followed the N.Korean model. butchering the mind is another ball game altogether
good to note that the academia have trouble teaching their own kids, akin to doctors whom aren't able to self medicate
next you imagine teachers with kids of their own, scary aye? :*::*::*: