"Freedom" thread or something

Dean wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The argument is that this will necessarily lead to legislation increasing the UBI to maintain an equal level of purchasing power. Thus giving a wage hike. Thus bringing us to the beginning of the argument. Of course in reality there would be a limiting procedure, but as a rough theoretical musing, I don't think llama's statement was wrong. (now I'm not *at work* and can devote more than 10% of my attention to it) ... It's still "No". There will be no wage hike because it is still not a closed-loop. Increasing the buying power of the poor does not result in a proportional linear increase in demand for low priced goods because they do not simply buy more of the same they buy more different things and those different things are not common to all. So the overal increase is proportional but the individual increases are minimal so do not affect demand. Rough musings are fine as long as they are not so simplified as to be unrepresentative.

The basic necessities for modern living are homogeneous so I really don't understand your objection. As I said, clearly we have an approximate geometric series idea here so that no one is saying the UBI will be raised to $1Trillion. Anyway, you can take this up with Logan since I'm weary of arguing a point that I don't agree with.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Must Read: Assange's Statement regarding the Manning trial

Extremely well put

24 years ago today. Never forget.

Gerinski wrote: If, say, a factory in Europe is profitable but producing the same in Bangla-Desh could be more profitable, it's very easy for them to turn the European factory into a loss-making site therefore justifying its closure and the production transfer to Bangla-Desh.

I have seen something similar happening in my city.  Since real estate is like gold in Mumbai, several majors have shut down pharma/chemical factories that were running profitably by citing increasing costs and are selling the land to make a killing.   But we should not underestimate the govt's role in helping these majors to sell out the city.  If they did not allow such ad hoc changes in land use, they would not be able to sell the land except to another manufacturer wanting to set up shop.   And in the meantime, the govt together with some free market evangelists keep drumming up the promise of 'moving on' to the service sector which is a cost trap that will make us uncompetitive in the long run. 

Gerinski wrote: Not been involved so far, as this thread looked to me mostly focused on American socio-politic-economics which I am not familiar with. Just a couple of quick reflections: huge fortunes (and I mean, not just big money, but huge by any standards) are being made in many business areas. This alone should make it clear that we as consumers too often pay too much for what we consume. Scale economics do of course play a role (you may sell a product with very little unitary profit but if you can sell it to 1 billion customers you make a fortune anyway) but they do not always justify those huge fortune-makings. And while defending moderate liberalism, I think that there should be a limit to how much fortune one can accumulate (alternative read as = 'to how much power one can accumulate').

While I agree from a political position that some profits are very troubling, and from a personal perspective that far too many are, I don't quite see how the implication you put forth follows. Huge profits can just as easily signify great gains for a consumer.

Gerinski wrote: Oh yeah, the 'services sector', the holy grail we also heard about in western Europe when it was becoming clear that manufacturing competitiveness was lost. Bull*t, Services are just the same as any other economical activity, only those which can only be carried out locally (i.e. distribution logistics, retail sales) are bound to survive, the rest of services are being transferred to the lowest cost countries (call centers, data storage etc). No offence as I know you are Indian and you have my outmost respect, but the fashion trend by big companies in the last years to outsource IT services to Indian-based companies has, in many cases and in my personal viewpoint, caused them more damage than benefits. Low costs on paper but complete loss of their information management capabilities. It's fine, developing countries have their right to live decently too of course, so if they can offer products and services to more developed countries at competitive costs, thumbs up to them, as long as that is not achieved via exploitation and sub-human working conditions. The Western world enjoyed big success by profiting from 'underdeveloped countries' but now it's hitting back, we deserve it.

And it doesn't really help us either.  I don't think conditions in call centers are sub human at all but it is not work that a college graduate should be doing unless that's all he's really good for.  But the pay tempted many people to get into outsourcing and give up the prospect of a more stimulating career.  It may have created lots of jobs in the short term but India is heavily dependent on a labour arbitrage that will eventually be lost.  It would have been better for homegrown IT companies to struggle and develop their own solutions instead of chasing easy money.  There are lots of India-specific software requirements that only one or two of the majors are interested in tapping.   Why, because margins.   It might make perfect sense economically, but it really doesn't add much value at all - it doesn't actualize the potential of the human capital it engages and it doesn't add to productivity.   I don't think it is very healthy for businesses to operate for the sake of profit maximisation....there has to be a desire to do things better than yesterday, to innovate...rather than endlessly shutting and selling factories to re-open them elsewhere.

Gerinski wrote: If the product or service was sold at a lower price, still giving nice profit to its investor(s) but not such insanely huge profits, wouldn't it be an even better gain for the consumers?

Yeah. And if it were free it would be a better gain for the consumers. What does this have to do with anything?

Economy in itself is not so dependent on politics as some people believe. Economy is a self-adjusting dynamical system, it will find its equilibrium point by its own rules of offer and demand. What politicians can do is limited to certain steering movements now and then, but a government can not 'create' economy by pumping money in, that's a short-term patch which only creates a fake illusion.

Edited by Gerinski - June 07 2013 at 04:23

Gerinski wrote: The States have execution power, but little decision power, is that so difficult to understand?

The fact that you didn't say that could be the main cause of misunderstanding. Great. So let's take away its execution power so that we don't have to worry about its corruptibility.

Gerinski wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Gerinski wrote: The States have execution power, but little decision power, is that so difficult to understand? The fact that you didn't say that could be the main cause of misunderstanding. Great. So let's take away its execution power so that we don't have to worry about its corruptibility.  Do you really think that those taking up the power would not be corruptible? At any rate, the corruptibility of governments is a bit more under control than the corruptibility of private entities.

I'm suggesting that the power not be taken up. Government has powers that we've largely given it. It's not that some abstract powers exist that someone must claim.

How so? I hear that said a lot, but I never hear it supported.