All right then, so why are you a protectionist? You can't be a protectionist and a capitalist at the same time.
If your hard work can create enough disposable capital to pay off all your necessaries and accumulate savings in a reasonable amount of time, then, yes, hard work will just do it. But that is not the case in many countries in this planet.
I searched the entire thread and didn't find the use of the term NET WORTH. Just because a person is an employee there is no reason why shouldn't they know accounting and concentrate on increasing NET WORTH. Do you hear banks, politicians or economists saying it should be mandatory in our schools? http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-11714,00.html CAPITALISM was phased out around 1900. The technology of the second industrial revolution made CORPORATE CONSUMERISM possible. Consumers are supposed to work their lives away running on a treadmill going into debt buying garbage designed to become obsolete. It is 37 years after the moon landing and we are suppose to believe that economists with PhDs from Harvard and the University of Chicago and the London School of Economics have no idea that planned obsolescence is going on in automobiles. YEAH RIGHT! http://booksliterature.com/showthread.php?t=236 psik
$300,000,000,000/year and counting. That was very informative. Have you sought the truth about how much Americans lose on depreciation of automobiles each year? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States#Total_number_of_vehicles psik
Hey man, I believe you! When I said "HA!" I was just expressing how funny it is when someone says the truth so clearly and the truth is so incredibly far from what the majority believe!!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't think they bother measuring the depreciation. I'm sure at least half of them don't even know what "depreciation" means!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sandoz: Capitalism under a protectionist system is the only thing that produced and sustained the great nations. Moreover, it is the only system that allows said countries to have had little to no taxes on their populace. As soon as free trade became dogma, taxes were raised, and monetary policy changed, life turned to crap. Industries left, life quality went down, inflation rose...
If it is true that work = wealth shouldent the people with mor than one job be the weathiest? Many poor are forced to take second and third jobs to survive. Most of these people work well over 40 hours.
I was wondering whether a system of be paid in bill that say the number of hours worked would work. All people would recieve the same payment for the same number of hours worked. If all people in a country were paid like this we would rid ourselves of exploitation because the price of an item would be the same opportunity cost to all. People would only go to school because the jab they were interested in will need that person to have more knowledge to do it. If school is not your thing you could drop out and do any job you are interested in and qualified for. Therefore the only way to get ahead is to work longer hours. People would be dismissed from their jobs if they were not perfoming at the needed level. Tell me what you think!! :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:
Then we kill him and take his stuff. Duh. Oh, and hey, please explain to me why you are such an economically liberal little bitch. It irritates me to no end that you can't get the best bits of conservatism right.
Taxes increased with the rise of the military-industrial complex and social security. If it weren't for all the wealth generated by free trade, nations would have been crushed by the taxes required to pay for bloated governments. Taxes were low prior to the 20th century because government was small. Increase the size of government, and you must raise taxes. Fiscal policy led to higher taxes, not monetary policy. Inflation rose due to the percieved trade-off of unemplopyment and inflation. They are well correlated, as per the Philips Curve (look it up). Nixon and his economic advisors didn't realize there was a lurking variable, and ended up sending the economy into a spiral of inflation and recession that didn't stop until Reagan. Oft misunderstood are Reagan's economic policies. Unlike Bush Jr., he used supply-side economic policies were he cut taxes rather than handed out rebates in demand-side Keynesian fashion. Which is FDR screed. Which increases inflation. Bush's moves are the type that increase inflation. If it weren't for tight monetary policy, we'd see far greater inflation.