The 3 most important rules of thumb about economics.

[nawpar]

1 The most important rule of thumb about economics, is the rich and the poor tend to disagree about what is best for the economy.

2 The second most important rule of thumb about economics is each country, nation, empire, ect. is an economic experiment, with different laws and stuff that effect economics.

3 The the third most important rule of thumb about economics, is history swears up and down, that the poor are better off under capitalism.

 

[wamose]

Trump. Republicans who put Americans first are the best for our economy. The Democrat philosophy of living large on barrowed money is unsustainable. It's like fools gold

 

[Darkwind]

The first rule of economics is: Keep your hands off of My stack.

 

[sparky]

The universal axiom being good, fast, cheap
pick two, anyone claiming you can have all three is bullsh*t

~S~

 

[rightwinger]

Trump. Republicans who put Americans first are the best for our economy. The Democrat philosophy of living large on barrowed money is unsustainable. It's like fools gold

Fact

The US exists in a global economy. We do not get to set the rules. We do better in economic partnerships than every man for himself

 

[skews13]

Wrong. When you cut taxes and create revenue shortfalls, you have to borrow the money to make up for the difference. Now you know why conservatives have shit for brains.

Knowing that a thread like this just promotes what ignorant fools like you think, allow me to give you three real economic don'ts.

You don't stimulate an already recovering economy, as it creates inflation.

You don't cut taxes for the wealthiest people, creating revenue shortfalls, requiring money to be borrowed, that creates deficits and debt.

You don't repeal banking regultions allowing banks to gamble with peoples money, speculating on high risk investments, and you never, ever, cut corporate taxes, allowing the buy back of a companies own stock, at the detriment of it's employees wages and benefits.

Anyone who has ever taken economics classes, and is not a bullshit artist, understands those don'ts very well. If you're an easily led, low info conservative, you actually believe working for less wages so your boss can live even higher on the hog, at the detriment of your own childrens future, is a good thing, because you are really really fucking stupid.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You forgot number 4 in your description...

4) This is only a pretend analysis that doesn't have anything to do with economics, but I don't like the idea of having to go to work everyday to get the stuff I want - so I am going to complain. Besides, I fear the extended-extended unemployment bonus is ending... so I am very upset!!

 

[Turtlesoup]

Fact, is pretty much everyone else in the world mooches off us. We are better off cutting off the mooches both foreign and domestic because they are bankrupting the rest of us and lowering our standard of living.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Trump. Republicans who put Americans first are the best for our economy. The Democrat philosophy of living large on barrowed money is unsustainable. It's like fools gold

Fact

The US exists in a global economy. We do not get to set the rules. We do better in economic partnerships than every man for himself

Never ceases to amaze me when a liberal who staunchly proclaims wages need to be higher, benefits need to increase... then go and support globalism.
You just can't make this stuff up.

 

[danielpalos]

3 The the third most important rule of thumb about economics, is history swears up and down, that the poor are better off under capitalism.

It wasn't true Capitalism that created our "first world" economy. True capitalism exists nowhere since the fall of Mogadishu.

The socialism of using Capitalism for all of its capital worth is what has achieved what it has.

 

[danielpalos]

Never ceases to amaze me when a liberal who staunchly proclaims wages need to be higher, benefits need to increase... then go and support globalism.
You just can't make this stuff up.

Congress should be taxing firms who leave for lower wage Labor at the current federal minimum wage rate, regardless. They should only get tax breaks if they are going to a higher wage economy.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Never ceases to amaze me when a liberal who staunchly proclaims wages need to be higher, benefits need to increase... then go and support globalism.
You just can't make this stuff up.

Congress should be taxing firms who leave for lower wage Labor at the current federal minimum wage rate, regardless. They should only get tax breaks if they are going to a higher wage economy.

Haha... yeah... that will never happen. And BTW - you realize Trump wanted to do that right? (Tax companies who produce off shore)

 

[danielpalos]

Never ceases to amaze me when a liberal who staunchly proclaims wages need to be higher, benefits need to increase... then go and support globalism.
You just can't make this stuff up.

Congress should be taxing firms who leave for lower wage Labor at the current federal minimum wage rate, regardless. They should only get tax breaks if they are going to a higher wage economy.

Haha... yeah... that will never happen. And BTW - you realize Trump wanted to do that right? (Tax companies who produce off shore)

You must be on the right-wing.

Trump-GOP Tax Law Encourages Companies to Move Jobs Offshore–and New Tax Cuts Won’t Change That

New tax cuts to incentivize bringing jobs back to the United States will fail. No new tax provisions can be more generous than the zero percent rate the 2017 law provides for many offshore profits or the loopholes that allow corporations to shift profits to countries with minimal or no corporate...

itep.org

 

[itfitzme]

The universal axiom being good, fast, cheap
pick two, anyone claiming you can have all three is bullsh*t

~S~

In Quality Management, that goes by quality, delivery and cost.

All other things being equal (ceteris paribus), yep, they are tradeoffs.

In the long run, it's a bit different of a story. Improvements in efficiency can improve on all three.

 

[rightwinger]

Trump. Republicans who put Americans first are the best for our economy. The Democrat philosophy of living large on barrowed money is unsustainable. It's like fools gold

Fact

The US exists in a global economy. We do not get to set the rules. We do better in economic partnerships than every man for himself

Never ceases to amaze me when a liberal who staunchly proclaims wages need to be higher, benefits need to increase... then go and support globalism.
You just can't make this stuff up.

Globalism is a reality whether you like it or not
And yes, when we cut corporate taxes by 40 percent, I expect higher wages

 

[itfitzme]

Trump. Republicans who put Americans first are the best for our economy. The Democrat philosophy of living large on barrowed money is unsustainable. It's like fools gold

The entire money supply is borrowed money.
That's how the money supply works.

How Banks Create Money | Macroeconomics

courses.lumenlearning.com

This is an extremely important thing to understand about how the economy functions.
Money is just a bunch of numbers used to track the flow of goods and services.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Trump. Republicans who put Americans first are the best for our economy. The Democrat philosophy of living large on barrowed money is unsustainable. It's like fools gold

Fact

The US exists in a global economy. We do not get to set the rules. We do better in economic partnerships than every man for himself

Never ceases to amaze me when a liberal who staunchly proclaims wages need to be higher, benefits need to increase... then go and support globalism.
You just can't make this stuff up.

Globalism is a reality whether you like it or not
And yes, when we cut corporate taxes by 40 percent, I expect higher wages

?? - I am fully aware that globalism is a reality. That isn't the point.
Hearing you defend globalism, which is at the VERY least 50% of the reason why wages in America have been stagnate for 30 years, and is THE reason the entire finance market exploded at the same time - is a bit hypocritical. No. It is monumentally hypocritical.
Globalism is the very foundation of wealth concentration that capitalizes on basically slave labor.
And here you are - defending it and saying we win with it.
That is not to say nationalism is the way to go. There is a word in the dictionary called "Balance". Look it up.
Right now corporatism/globalism has almost completely taken over America's economy.
Think about this line - "There is a high cost to the lowest price". I am not talking to an idiot here, you are more than smart enough to get the meaning of that complex sentence.

 

[Blues Man]

The first rule of economics is: Keep your hands off of My stack.

Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie.

 

[itfitzme]

Trump. Republicans who put Americans first are the best for our economy. The Democrat philosophy of living large on barrowed money is unsustainable. It's like fools gold

Fact

The US exists in a global economy. We do not get to set the rules. We do better in economic partnerships than every man for himself

Never ceases to amaze me when a liberal who staunchly proclaims wages need to be higher, benefits need to increase... then go and support globalism.
You just can't make this stuff up.

Well, They don't have to make it up because reality is just what it is.

There is no way to know what you are thinking because you aren't explaining yourself.

The economy has always been global. Different countries have different resources. Then there is a thing called comparative advantage. The economy is all about trade, trade between two people, trade between two companies, trade between regions, states, countries.

A couple of definitions of "globalism";

"a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence — compare imperialism, internationalism."

"An ideology based on the belief that people, goods and information ought to be able to cross national borders unfettered. A socio-economic system dedicated to free trade and free access to markets."

"internationalism is political, economic and cultural cooperation between nations while globalism is an ideology based on the belief that people, goods and information ought to be able to cross national borders unfettered."

The opposite would be isolationism. That has proven out to not work.

By it's very nature, the economy, trade, is a combination of both competition and cooperation...

A big part of the motivation that led to the American Revolutionary War was the The Navigation Acts. They were a series of laws passed by the British Parliament that imposed restrictions on colonial trade in their ability to trade with other countries. Basically, British Mercantilism was not allowing the colonies to engage in globalism. Among other things, the United States of America was founded on the right to globalism.

Globalism and wages are not directly related. They are both parts of economics, but so are a lot of things that have nothing to do with each other except that everything is related to economics. Wages and benefits of workers is only related because they both are part of economics. Companies pay wages and companies engage on global trade. That is about the extent of that relationship.

There is nothing inconsistent with supporting higher wages and supporting globalism. They aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[itfitzme]

Trump. Republicans who put Americans first are the best for our economy. The Democrat philosophy of living large on barrowed money is unsustainable. It's like fools gold

Fact

The US exists in a global economy. We do not get to set the rules. We do better in economic partnerships than every man for himself

Never ceases to amaze me when a liberal who staunchly proclaims wages need to be higher, benefits need to increase... then go and support globalism.
You just can't make this stuff up.

Globalism is a reality whether you like it or not
And yes, when we cut corporate taxes by 40 percent, I expect higher wages

?? - I am fully aware that globalism is a reality. That isn't the point.
Hearing you defend globalism, which is at the VERY least 50% of the reason why wages in America have been stagnate for 30 years, and is THE reason the entire finance market exploded at the same time - is a bit hypocritical. No. It is monumentally hypocritical.
Globalism is the very foundation of wealth concentration that capitalizes on basically slave labor.
And here you are - defending it and saying we win with it.
That is not to say nationalism is the way to go. There is a word in the dictionary called "Balance". Look it up.
Right now corporatism/globalism has almost completely taken over America's economy.
Think about this line - "There is a high cost to the lowest price". I am not talking to an idiot here, you are more than smart enough to get the meaning of that complex sentence.

The reason for the financial market collapse in 2009 was due to speculation in the housing markets. This was true in the US. It was true in Ireland. It was definitely global because the financial markets are global.

Globalism is not the cause of wealth concentation. Market leverage and power differential is what concentrates wealth. Wealth will concentrate under any economic structure. Under nationalism or isolationism, it just concentrates nationally. "The very foundation of wealth concentration" is an absolute statement and attributes wealth concentration to a diaphanous concept, 'globalism', rather than to the simple iteration and propagation of both local and systemic human greed.

I agree that "balance" is the right idea.

There is a big problem in using terms like "globalism", "nationalism", "fascism", and this list of exceedingly abstract terms. They don't have any real meaning. I was in a company meeting and listened to the owner and the engineer arguing about something for five minutes before asking them what they were talking about. They weren't even talking about the same thing. There is a trap in using these marginally defined terminology. Often, it devolves into this either/or argument based on a false dichotomy. The very nature of "balance" is not simple. If it was simple, DNA wouldn't have 3.2 billion base pairs to achieve it.

The term I am looking for means "an economic system of oligopolies combined with a political system that supports the oligopoly power at the expense of human rights." Perhaps "robber-baron monarchy"?