Another economics question - should derivatives be banned ?

[WoodPeckr]

Sacrebleu Frenchy!

Why do you continue to call me frenchy, after I have corrected you on this fact at least a dozen times?
I am not French

Easy Frenchy.....
With all your slavish obsequiousness and groveling to your Corporatist masters it just follows you have quite a bit of French in you, NO?....

Heck you are even drawing in a fanboi as lil Karl-hinz now carries your pom-poms for you.....

 

[JohnLarue]

Easy Frenchy.....
With all your slavish obsequiousness and groveling to your Corporatist masters it just follows you have quite a bit of French in you, NO?....

Heck you are even drawing in a fanboi as lil Karl-hinz now carries your pom-poms for you.....

One more example of you portraying you delusions as fact.

Now , why do you not shock everyone and write something intelligent and worth reading
I know it will be difficult for you, however perhaps you can get someone in grade five to help you

 

[WoodPeckr]

One more example of you portraying you delusions as fact.

Merely mimicking you and bottie who come across as spoon fed dittoheads....

 

[JohnLarue]

Merely mimicking you and bottie who come across as spoon fed dittoheads....

Like I said , "Why don't you try and write something intelligent ? "
You are just regurgitating the same "No I am not , you are " childish retorts

This thread is about Derivatives.
Since you do not have a clue about Derivatives (it requires a basis understanding of simple mathematics), perhaps you could go bother a different group of people in another thread.

Perhaps you could start a new thread and describe the personal challenges you face in life as a dim-witted, over-bearing, commie lunatic who can't even manage simple (fuzzy) math ?

 

[WoodPeckr]

Like I said , "Why don't you try and write something intelligent ? "
You are just regurgitating the same "No I am not , you are " childish retorts

Just responding in kind to your drivel Frenchy.....

 

[Yoga Face]

I do not need to study this problem
And the big question is not if
Historically the commies have killed, imprisoned or exiled anyone with wealth or land.

The question you need to focus on is what happens to the rights and freedoms you take for granted when the commies gain power
If you allow a commie govt to gain control, you had better be real comfortable with living in that world, because it will be the last time you have any input on who governs you.
They do not give up power as per the will of the people, historically it has been the will of the armed forces and often its quite a bloody affair.

An alternative for you to consider is to stop focusing on trying to change the system of govt and devote you efforts to working within the system to make incremental changes which you feel would be for the better.

Talk of radical change to the financial systems mixed in with Marxest quotes and ideology makes people nervous and dilutes any well-intended message and ideas you may have
Translation: If you sound like a commie, no-one gives your ideas any credibility and you are viewed with suspicion.
The thought being that any wealth I have built up over years of hard work will be re-distributed as you see fit.
No Thank You

I understand your views

My main argument against CAPITALISM IS THAT WEALTH CREATES WEALTH UNTIL A FEW HAVE MOST OF THE WEALTH simply because they have wealth to invest but we have argued this point before and had a stand off

Right now 20% own 80% and it is getting worse

(Is that statistic is valid ??? I have read it several times but have never seen it sourced )

If 5% own 95% are you still OK with that ???

1% own 99% ??? Is that OK ??

Whern would you agree with me that the wealth distribution is wrong and needs to be changed?

 

[red]

as long as i am in the 1%

 

[JohnLarue]

Whern would you agree with me that the wealth distribution is wrong and needs to be changed?

Never!

The beauty of capitalism is if you do not like the size of your pie, you can make it bigger through hard work and intelligence
This often leads to innovation and new discoveries.
If we allow left-wingers like yourself to determine what the allocation of the pie will be, then what is the point in getting up early and working hard or more importantly, taking risks..
No, I am afraid your commie ideals will always fall on deaf ears as far as I am concerned.
If you are smart you will realize this is probably true for the majority of the West. (Nutjobs like WoodPeker are the exception)
If you are real smart you will embrace this notion, become successful and work within the system to make incremental social changes

Your current approach will get you nowhere fast

 

[WoodPeckr]

1% own 99% ??? Is that OK ??

When would you agree with me that the wealth distribution is wrong and needs to be changed?

bottie and Frenchy would call that paradise!
Anyone who disagrees is a commie....

 

[JohnLarue]

bottie and Frenchy would call that paradise!
Anyone who disagrees is a commie....

No
I call you a moron first

There is only one way to re-allocate wealth, that is by working for it
Ten million new millionaires will be created between 2006-2016,
http://www.paulzanepilzer.com/tnm.htm

The opportunities to improve ones standard of living are there for throe that willing to educate themselves and work hard.

Having the government reallocate wealth is communism
It is also evil, as it removes the incentives to take risks and make new innovations and discovery.

 

[burt-oh-my!]

Generallly, poor people are that way because of the way they spend almost everything they have as soon as they get it. I am NOT talking about street people etc, but your average low income dude who gets a windfall and does something stupid like buy a new pickup truck which IN FIFTEEN YEARS WILL BE WORTH PRECISELY ZERO. You can redistribute to those peopl eall you want, but in the end they will always end up with nothing because they consume all their seed corn.

 

[hinz]

Generallly, poor people are that way because of the way they spend almost everything they have as soon as they get it. I am NOT talking about street people etc, but your average low income dude who gets a windfall and does something stupid like buy a new pickup truck which IN FIFTEEN YEARS WILL BE WORTH PRECISELY ZERO. You can redistribute to those peopl eall you want, but in the end they will always end up with nothing because they consume all their seed corn.

+1 but try to explain this to as JohnLarue suggests a moron like Peck'r.

BTW, the word moron is simply an understatement to describe Woody.

 

[red]

is it possible to buy an option which pays out when the level of of debate in this forum drops to name calling. I figure I can make some real money

 

[WoodPeckr]

is it possible to buy an option which pays out when the level of of debate in this forum drops to name calling. I figure I can make some real money

Contact bottie & Frenchy!
They got the fuzzy numbers of that!....

 

[Yoga Face]

Never!

The beauty of capitalism is if you do not like the size of your pie, you can make it bigger through hard work and intelligence
This often leads to innovation and new discoveries.
If we allow left-wingers like yourself to determine what the allocation of the pie will be, then what is the point in getting up early and working hard or more importantly, taking risks..
No, I am afraid your commie ideals will always fall on deaf ears as far as I am concerned.
If you are smart you will realize this is probably true for the majority of the West. (Nutjobs like WoodPeker are the exception)
If you are real smart you will embrace this notion, become successful and work within the system to make incremental social changes

Your current approach will get you nowhere fast

Once again I understand your views but

I disagree that taking back the wealth that has not been earned will stop entrepreneurs from working hard to get rich

It would encourage it !!!!!!!!

No more lazy fat cats - they have to work now - and the pie to slice up is now bigger (not smaller which is what happens when a few own it all )

Yes this will take a fundamental change in how capitalism operates but back to my point that such changes will never be discovered if capitalistic forces crush all social changes they disagree with

Some of these changes were working quite well (Nicaragua) until USA illegally invaded a democracy they did not like (contra gate)

That alternative ideas are all " commie " is wrong as they are all simply a twist on capitalism and supply and demand will always rule any system

 

[JohnLarue]

Once again I understand your views but

I disagree that taking back the wealth that has not been earned will stop entrepreneurs from working hard to get rich

It would encourage it !!!!!!!!

No more lazy fat cats - they have to work now - and the pie to slice up is now bigger (not smaller which is what happens when a few own it all )

You are absolutely 100% wrong
The number of so-called fat cats is minuscule to number of people who put their money and energy at risk when starting up small business and technologies
If you re-allocate wealth then they do not take that risk
Why should they
No sense in me risking half a million and the next five to ten years of my life to try and build a $5 MM technology company (with several jobs created) if you are going to take it away and give it to masses.

And under you scheme you would probably determined that I was fat cat if I had been able to save half a million. You would take that money away & I do not even get the choice to think about the start up


Noooooooooooooo Thank You

Incentive is what drive the economy forward & any excessive reallocation (taxation is a re-allocation) removes this incentive
I suggest you should revisit economics 101 and give the Marxist ideas a rest until you understand what drives what you so desperately want to change

 

[burt-oh-my!]

They may be lazy fat cats, but their CAPITAL is working hard. Capitalism is about using CAPITAL, so if I SAVE my capital and put IT to work, why shouldn't I benefit?

Now, if you say people can't make maoney off their capital, or you tax away all gains from capital, what you are in essence doing is negating the idea of property rights.

 

[hinz]

They may be lazy fat cats, but their CAPITAL is working hard. Capitalism is about using CAPITAL, so if I SAVE my capital and put IT to work, why shouldn't I benefit?

Now, if you say people can't make maoney off their capital, or you tax away all gains from capital, what you are in essence doing is negating the idea of property rights.

+1

Having said that, those leftie, commie in the closet will never believe the terms profit and incentive. Plus, they have deep conviction that when one suggests the idea of respecting and upholding property rights, they consider such rights as a big conspiracy by the "fat cats" to confiscate or outright steal others' asset by default.

Simply put, just like their tea baggers/neo-cons cousins, the words Middle ground, common sense and conscience have no meaning for those leftie.

 

[Yoga Face]

You are absolutely 100% wrong
The number of so-called fat cats is minuscule to number of people who put their money and energy at risk when starting up small business and technologies
If you re-allocate wealth then they do not take that risk
Why should they
No sense in me risking half a million and the next five to ten years of my life to try and build a $5 MM technology company (with several jobs created) if you are going to take it away and give it to masses.

And under you scheme you would probably determined that I was fat cat if I had been able to save half a million. You would take that money away & I do not even get the choice to think about the start up


Noooooooooooooo Thank You

Incentive is what drive the economy forward & any excessive reallocation (taxation is a re-allocation) removes this incentive
I suggest you should revisit economics 101 and give the Marxist ideas a rest until you understand what drives what you so desperately want to change

Actually, I think you have a valid point and always have but you seem to think there is no validity in what I say and calling me a commie for discussing the failures of capitalism is infantile

There must be some compromise between incentive and allowing a few to own it all

What you ignore is the consequences

Oppressive class division and social revolt

Investment bubbles , recessions and depressions as self interest groups fight for control of the pie


The never ending need for expansion as capitalism must expand or there is depression which leads to profit wars

Trillions spent on advertisement and marketing sales pitches meant to control our behavior as they set a social agenda which is spend, spend, spend

Etc

I am open minded to the idea that there is a better system to be had and perhaps we need to find it before something ugly is thrust upon us because capitalism collapsed and the masses run to whatever alternative speaks the loudest which could be Church control, genuine communism as you and I both hate, Nazism, FASCISM etc

 

[burt-oh-my!]

Well, there is a middle ground, and in fact a country like Canada is somewhere in that middle ground. We have progressive tax rates, for starters, as well as quite a few programs, and yes, welfare is one of them, which give poor people a leg up. But there is a danger in going too far either way: rewarding laziness on one hand, and social unrest on the other.

What on earth do you mean, "Capitalism Collapsed"? I see no evidence for that. Hiccups, fits and starts, yes. Collapse? Certianly not.