Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Dude has some serious comprehension issues and a terrible case of watching too much Fox News, Fox tells him "BE MAD!!!", so.. he mad..literally retarded.
Dude has some serious comprehension issues and a terrible case of watching too much Fox News, Fox tells him "BE MAD!!!", so.. he mad..literally retarded.
i doubt kynes can afford a television, much less cable.Dude has some serious comprehension issues and a terrible case of watching too much Fox News, Fox tells him "BE MAD!!!", so.. he mad..
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves"The Central Contradiction of Capitalism: r > g
The overall conclusion of this study is that a market economy based on private property, if left to
itself, contains powerful forces of convergence, associated in particular with the diffusion of
knowledge and skills; but it also contains powerful forces of divergence, which are potentially
threatening to democratic societies and to the values of social justice on which they are based.
The principal destabilizing force has to do with the fact that the private rate of return on capital, r,
can be significantly higher for long periods of time than the rate of growth of income and output, g.
The inequality r > g implies that wealth accumulated in the past grows more rapidly than output and
wages. This inequality expresses a fundamental logical contradiction. The entrepreneur inevitably
tends to become a rentier, more and more dominant over those who own nothing but their labor. Once
constituted, capital reproduces itself faster than output increases. The past devours the future.
The consequences for the long-term dynamics of the wealth distribution are potentially terrifying,
especially when one adds that the return on capital varies directly with the size of the initial stake and
that the divergence in the wealth distribution is occurring on a global scale.
The problem is enormous, and there is no simple solution. Growth can of course be encouraged by
investing in education, knowledge, and nonpolluting technologies. But none of these will raise the
growth rate to 4 or 5 percent a year. History shows that only countries that are catching up with more
advanced economies—such as Europe during the three decades after World War II or China and other
emerging countries today—can grow at such rates. For countries at the world technological frontier—
and thus ultimately for the planet as a whole—there is ample reason to believe that the growth rate
will not exceed 1–1.5 percent in the long run, no matter what economic policies are adopted.
With an average return on capital of 4–5 percent, it is therefore likely that r > g will again become
the norm in the twenty-first century, as it had been throughout history until the eve of World War I. In
the twentieth century, it took two world wars to wipe away the past and significantly reduce the return
on capital, thereby creating the illusion that the fundamental structural contradiction of capitalism (r >
g) had been overcome.
To be sure, one could tax capital income heavily enough to reduce the private return on capital to
less than the growth rate. But if one did that indiscriminately and heavy-handedly, one would risk
killing the motor of accumulation and thus further reducing the growth rate. Entrepreneurs would then
no longer have the time to turn into rentiers, since there would be no more entrepreneurs.
The right solution is a progressive annual tax on capital. This will make it possible to avoid an
endless inegalitarian spiral while preserving competition and incentives for new instances of
primitive accumulation. For example, I earlier discussed the possibility of a capital tax schedule with
rates of 0.1 or 0.5 percent on fortunes under 1 million euros, 1 percent on fortunes between 1 and 5
million euros, 2 percent between 5 and 10 million euros, and as high as 5 or 10 percent for fortunes of
several hundred million or several billion euros. This would contain the unlimited growth of global
inequality of wealth, which is currently increasing at a rate that cannot be sustained in the long run and
that ought to worry even the most fervent champions of the self-regulated market. Historical
experience shows, moreover, that such immense inequalities of wealth have little to do with the
entrepreneurial spirit and are of no use in promoting growth. Nor are they of any “common utility,” to
borrow the nice expression from the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen with
which I began this book.
The difficulty is that this solution, the progressive tax on capital, requires a high level of
international cooperation and regional political integration. It is not within the reach of the nationstates
in which earlier social compromises were hammered out. Many people worry that moving
toward greater cooperation and political integration within, say, the European Union only undermines
existing achievements (starting with the social states that the various countries of Europe constructed
in response to the shocks of the twentieth century) without constructing anything new other than a vast
market predicated on ever purer and more perfect competition. Yet pure and perfect competition
cannot alter the inequality r > g, which is not the consequence of any market “imperfection.” On the
contrary. Although the risk is real, I do not see any genuine alternative: if we are to regain control of
capitalism, we must bet everything on democracy—and in Europe, democracy on a European scale.
Larger political communities such as the United States and China have a wider range of options, but
for the small countries of Europe, which will soon look very small indeed in relation to the global
economy, national withdrawal can only lead to even worse frustration and disappointment than
currently exists with the European Union. The nation-state is still the right level at which to modernize
any number of social and fiscal policies and to develop new forms of governance and shared
ownership intermediate between public and private ownership, which is one of the major challenges
for the century ahead. But only regional political integration can lead to effective regulation of the
globalized patrimonial capitalism of the twenty-first century."
-Capital in the Twenty-First Century (conclusion)
http://resistir.info/livros/piketty_capital_in_the_21_century_2014.pdf
so now you can cite stuff. how about that time stamp then?ohh the magical "racial slur database" that includes Ese, Vato, Mestizo, African, Bro, Canadian (????), Oriental, and even mispellings of the word Hmong. , and pretty much any word that describes race, just to cover all the faux butthurt bases
cram it with walnuts.
Sure, but comprehension is the keyi can copy/paste too
showed you POINT BY POINT what the theory believes, including(Spend Every Dime)
Not what the theory says
(spend even more on credit)
Not what the theory says
(?????)
???
Profit
???
Yeah, you've shown beyond doubt you don't understand what you're even arguing against
Just like I said
make up whatever shit you like, youre goin back on my ignore list, permanently.so now you can cite stuff. how about that time stamp then?
anyhoo, are you trying to tell me you affectionately describe obama as a "halfrican"?
because i have never seen you describe africa in a positive light, quite the opposite. nor have i ever seen you utter an affectionate or even positive word about black people in general.
as i recall, your thoughts on the subject are that "niggers" are "like that everywhere".
so when you use the term "halfrican" to describe obama, are you saying you use it in a positive or affectionate fashion?
You broke down your own retarded interpretation of a theory of economics, not the actual theory of economicsshowed you POINT BY POINT what the theory believes, including
1: saving is bad (some even argue saving is THEFT from the economy) therefore we are expected to spend every dime we have (and the govt should too) this is fundamental to keynesian theory.
2: debt is good, it increases the imaginary "aggregate demand" when you spend those debt monies on pretty much anything, even pointless Make-Work projects.
3: the rest of the theroy IS just meaningless gibberish about how taxation followed by govt spending somehow actually MULTIPLIES those taxed monies over and over and over again (literally ?????)
4: and then your shit will magically become prosperous (profit)
you cant even understand the idiotic theory when i break it down to the South Park level.
you truely are clownshoes.
what was i making up?make up whatever shit you like, youre goin back on my ignore list, permanently.
you really are a useless clump of smegma.
"everybody" is a horrible qualifier in this case.Meanwhile, everybody else can't stop laughing at you
I'd say that's a pretty good assessment, I used to feel the same way about him, but saying shit like Krugman is an idiot, standing with the 3% in opposition to anthropogenic climate change, and babbling on about arguments nobody makes shows him to be a pretty dim bulb.. I think he took a few english classes in community college, but not much else.."everybody" is a horrible qualifier in this case.
a vanishingly small contingent of people laugh with him. i used to laugh with the guy until i found out more about him.
his style is likeable, but the views he expresses will repel anyone with half a brain who understands what he is saying.
and i've come increasingly to the realization that he is actually not that smart at all.
he's arrogant. uppity even, yet well-spoken. but he ain't that smart at all.
i checked out when he said (and continues to say) that rushton is/was a respected academic.I'd say that's a pretty good assessment, I used to feel the same way about him, but saying shit like Krugman is an idiot, standing with the 3% in opposition to anthropogenic climate change, and babbling on about arguments nobody makes shows him to be a pretty dim bulb.. I think he took a few english classes in community college, but not much else..
What is the context of him supporting Rushton? I'm curious about how that got brought upi checked out when he said (and continues to say) that rushton is/was a respected academic.
that's something that only one type of person would ever say, and it is not an objective person.
in my mind, there is never any context in which one should support a white supremacist, much less the foremost white supremacist there is besides the grand wizard of the ku klux klan.What is the context of him supporting Rushton? I'm curious about how that got brought up
lmfaoin my mind, there is never any context in which one should support a white supremacist, much less the foremost white supremacist there is besides the grand wizard of the ku klux klan.
https://www.rollitup.org/t/white-people-are-so-stupid.739104/page-7#post-9718752
but here is where it started.
so your rebuttal is to squawk Nuh UHH!! and pretend that keynesian economics is like really deep and shit, and i have maliciously misrepresented it's swag...lmfao
@ travisw completely owned him
That is astonishing, man.. How can anyone take this guy seriously..
How was your nap?why dont you explain EXACTLY where my assessment is wrong?
I'd say that's a pretty good assessment, I used to feel the same way about him, but saying shit like Krugman is an idiot, standing with the 3% in opposition to anthropogenic climate change, and babbling on about arguments nobody makes shows him to be a pretty dim bulb.. I think he took a few english classes in community college, but not much else..
You are talkign about Kynes.i checked out when he said (and continues to say) that rushton is/was a respected academic.
that's something that only one type of person would ever say, and it is not an objective person.
Translation::How was your nap?
I don't feel explaining economics to you would be beneficial to me. It's your responsibility to understand the arguments you try to refute, not mine. I don't have the time, nor the inclination to teach you basic economics. I'll let Krugman do that.. He's far smarter than you and I..
Keynesian economics is far above your scope of understanding, as evident by your criticisms. Like I said, you're arguing against points and perspectives that simply don't exist outside your mind.