The World Economics Thread

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Re: The World Economics Thread

Unread postby Lord Yang Jiahua » Sun May 29, 2011 6:29 pm

Oddly enough most Americans in my view think europe the stronger economy, one because were still feeling the effects of the recession on a pretty visable scale, look at Camden NJ and Flint Michigan, two, the Euro and Pound are always higher in value than the dollar!

Ranbir wrote:Europe's problems are more to do with the inflexibility of the Euro-zone market. One central bank setting rates which limits what each individual country can do within their own national economies. The single currency is -great- but it needs sovereignty and nationalism to be smashed with a hammer before it can be dynamically competitive as individual nation currencies.
The last part of that statement is not going to happen anytime soon, i assume you mean the kind of nationalism that means patriotism and loving ones country, so basically you mean each country has to get over its own stubburness to other countries in order for the Euro to really work? More Explanation please on your thought ranbir?
"We Will Show Wu The Meaning of Fear!"-Cao Cao in DW6
"Politicians Are all the same all over, They Promise to build a bridge even when theres no river"-Nikita Khrushchev
User avatar
Lord Yang Jiahua
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:24 pm
Location: Well....Not entirely sure if its America anymore

Re: The World Economics Thread

Unread postby Ranbir » Sun May 29, 2011 7:56 pm

High value in the currency isn't really a good thing. It harms domestic industries since exporting becomes expensive. It is why the US is printing money to help keep the dollar at low value to provide growth.


For Europe to really function under a single currency it needs to provide an improved currency area, break down barriers that limit the movement of labour and capital.
"The imaginary number is a fine and wonderful resource of the human spirit, almost an amphibian between being and not being." - Gottfried Leibniz
Science snobbery.
User avatar
Ranbir
For Queen and Country
 
Posts: 8535
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 9:27 am
Location: Your heart. <3

Re: The World Economics Thread

Unread postby Lord Yang Jiahua » Sun May 29, 2011 8:17 pm

Ranbir wrote:High value in the currency isn't really a good thing. It harms domestic industries since exporting becomes expensive. It is why the US is printing money to help keep the dollar at low value to provide growth.

So if say American Dollar- UK pound rate is 1-2 it means UK companies will have a harder time exporting goods?
Seemingly enough whenever we hear the U.S dollar value is lower than something our economists seem to immeadiately get all negative. So then Why does China With a dollar-yuan rate of 1-5 export/ produce so much of the world's goods?
Ranbir wrote:For Europe to really function under a single currency it needs to provide an improved currency area, break down barriers that limit the movement of labour and capital.
That makes more sense, only err, herr Deutschlanders, seem to think using Turks to do meanial labor jobs is a good thing. really to me it seems like What America did with Outsorcing Jobs, only rather than outsourcing the whole industry, the Germans are simply outsourcing whose doing the job within the country.

SOMEONE ELSE THROW SOMETHING ELSE UP! I do not want another of my threads i make to be a fail thread.
"We Will Show Wu The Meaning of Fear!"-Cao Cao in DW6
"Politicians Are all the same all over, They Promise to build a bridge even when theres no river"-Nikita Khrushchev
User avatar
Lord Yang Jiahua
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:24 pm
Location: Well....Not entirely sure if its America anymore

Re: The World Economics Thread

Unread postby Ranbir » Sun May 29, 2011 8:38 pm

Other way, £ is stronger than the $ so has a hard time exporting to the US. China's Renminbi is -very- weak compared to the Dollar, so that is why it enjoys exporting so much. Of course its economic policy has been to keep it as low as possible. Recently they agreed to let it strengthen a bit.

Devaluing the currency can become an issue due to inflationary pressure, which can increase the value of imported goods. They're probably upset at targets by the central bank being over/undershot. Usually financial policy is focused around keeping inflation rate at a certain level.
"The imaginary number is a fine and wonderful resource of the human spirit, almost an amphibian between being and not being." - Gottfried Leibniz
Science snobbery.
User avatar
Ranbir
For Queen and Country
 
Posts: 8535
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 9:27 am
Location: Your heart. <3

Re: The World Economics Thread

Unread postby TooMuchBaijiu » Mon May 30, 2011 4:39 am

Lord Yang Jiahua wrote:SOMEONE ELSE THROW SOMETHING ELSE UP! I do not want another of my threads i make to be a fail thread.


Oh fine. Is anyone acquainted with this "People's Budget" proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus? Wondering what you all think about it.

The whole thing: http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/The%2 ... Budget.pdf

It's big, so be patient.
I don't write fanfic, but if I did it would involve Zhou Yu and Zheng He fighting to win the heart of Lai Choi San. Then I'd make them join forces to fight Ming the Merciless, who secretly works for Master Li. I'd squeeze Lu Bu in there somehow.
User avatar
TooMuchBaijiu
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:15 am
Location: In 1939, chasing Frida Kahlo with a Gillette

Re: The World Economics Thread

Unread postby WeiWenDi » Mon May 30, 2011 10:10 am

TooMuchBaijiu wrote:Oh fine. Is anyone acquainted with this "People's Budget" proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus? Wondering what you all think about it.

The whole thing: http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/The%2 ... Budget.pdf

It's big, so be patient.


Heh - I'll start out; it's an interesting read. It's a crime that it isn't being considered and debated more broadly.

As is to be expected, I suppose, I support it in its principles if not in its particulars; in some places I believe it goes far too far, and in others I do not believe it goes far enough. I believe that capital gains should be taxed not as ordinary income (because it's not), but rather at a rate higher than ordinary income. At the same time, though, it doesn't make much sense to penalise petrol companies while at the same time pouring multiple billions more dollars into an interstate infrastructure system which encourages wasteful consumption and wasteful transportation habits. Instead, rather, that money could be delegated downward to fund local roads and public transportation projects. If you want to hit the petrol companies (a fine goal indeed), you want to hit them structurally, by channeling that productive capacity into projects which encourage people to consume less petrol! I'm sceptical of restoring or building new dams (result of having travelled in rural China and read about similar projects in rural India); I'd have to read up on what the environmental effects would be. Ending our foreign adventures by cutting their funding, however, is a goal I support unreservedly.

I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts on this budget, though.
Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.
User avatar
WeiWenDi
Hedgehog Emperor
 
Posts: 3845
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:09 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord

Re: The World Economics Thread

Unread postby Lord Yang Jiahua » Mon May 30, 2011 6:55 pm

WeiWenDi wrote:As is to be expected, I suppose, I support it in its principles if not in its particulars; in some places I believe it goes far too far, and in others I do not believe it goes far enough. I believe that capital gains should be taxed not as ordinary income (because it's not), but rather at a rate higher than ordinary income. At the same time, though, it doesn't make much sense to penalise petrol companies while at the same time pouring multiple billions more dollars into an interstate infrastructure system which encourages wasteful consumption and wasteful transportation habits. Instead, rather, that money could be delegated downward to fund local roads and public transportation projects. If you want to hit the petrol companies (a fine goal indeed), you want to hit them structurally, by channeling that productive capacity into projects which encourage people to consume less petrol! I'm sceptical of restoring or building new dams (result of having travelled in rural China and read about similar projects in rural India); I'd have to read up on what the environmental effects would be. Ending our foreign adventures by cutting their funding, however, is a goal I support unreservedly.


The Budget is definetly what democrats want to hear, and what it intends to do is very much along the majority of Americans want, im sure people who are Republicans and have been working their entire lives and are almost 60 now don't want their Pensions severly reduced because of some jack-hole republicans in congress wanting to find a way to make quick cuts. So the budget does have the promise of appealing to people of both parties. Improving roads would make jobs, lots of jobs, but yes it does enocurage environmentally bad transporatation habits, but i'd still like to see it, our roads suck in this country! and that from someone who has Highway 1 outside his front door! Buidling dams in China, such as Three Gorges, i admit was wrong, because its going to flood over huge amounts of historical sites and force thousands from their homes, but i can't seem to see a parrallel of that happening here in the U.S, and we do need to better the flood control of the Missisippi river, considering the recent ridiculous amounts of flooding that happened.
"We Will Show Wu The Meaning of Fear!"-Cao Cao in DW6
"Politicians Are all the same all over, They Promise to build a bridge even when theres no river"-Nikita Khrushchev
User avatar
Lord Yang Jiahua
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:24 pm
Location: Well....Not entirely sure if its America anymore

Re: The World Economics Thread

Unread postby TooMuchBaijiu » Mon May 30, 2011 7:19 pm

Well, as a social capitalist and a sometimes-Daoist, Grijalva's proposals to end corporate welfare, draw down our foreign entanglements, build up the country and work toward a budgetary balance is almost exactly what I'm looking for. (Of course, I'd like a disinterested party to take a look at it first).

Unfortunately, I don't think it exists as anything more than a "strawman" budget. That said, I think we'll be hearing more about this People's Budget as the calls to pass a budget get louder. I mean, with a name like "The People's Budget" the Right is going to go apeshit before they even hear what's in it. I'm afraid it's going to be used to position Obama's own budget as a healthy medium between Grijalva's "OMG Sosuhulism" budget and Rep. Ryan's "Corporate-rape-in-a-can" proposals.

So Obama will eventually pass his own budget, take credit for being the guy who convinced the Democrats and scared the Republicans into working out a deal, and all will be well, with one caveat-Obama's budget doesn't fix anything.

But personally, I've never wanted to be more wrong about one of my predictions.
I don't write fanfic, but if I did it would involve Zhou Yu and Zheng He fighting to win the heart of Lai Choi San. Then I'd make them join forces to fight Ming the Merciless, who secretly works for Master Li. I'd squeeze Lu Bu in there somehow.
User avatar
TooMuchBaijiu
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:15 am
Location: In 1939, chasing Frida Kahlo with a Gillette

Re: The World Economics Thread

Unread postby Lord Yang Jiahua » Mon May 30, 2011 10:49 pm

TooMuchBaijiu wrote:Well, as a social capitalist and a sometimes-Daoist, Grijalva's proposals to end corporate welfare, draw down our foreign entanglements, build up the country and work toward a budgetary balance is almost exactly what I'm looking for. (Of course, I'd like a disinterested party to take a look at it first).
Tch, calling it the Peoples Budget will only give republicans a bit of ground to call it "Socialist" and burn it at the stake for being such, stupid republicans. Watch ill bet $20 that if this budget gets out there intothe halls of government someone will immedaiately deface it as a socialist agenda.
I find nothing wrong with Socialism actually, but i hate the "its an inevitability" crap ive heard some total socialists preach, i had a teacher like that, and he is stubborn as a mule about it.
I think ill further the economic thread into economic systems debate.
Socialism: while its not a bad idea, iv'e found it lacks some things. it does not consider people as individuals, only as collectives.
Did Marx ever once stop to think that the poor people in this world won't rise up against capitalism, simply because they have bread to earn and a family to feed, and that its more important to them to earn what meagre lot they can rather then wasting time trying to make a revolution happen while their family starves. This is by far the biggest logic flaw in the Socialism system, more detail later. Also, the system lacks Virtue!, it simply is one system replacing another thru might and eventually as we saw with Russia post 1918, fear!,socialism doesn't rule thru kindness it rules thru everyone gets the same share, but thats not the case in most countries that were socialist, and also the "equal share" some people will get out of the socialism system will not be enough to even support themselves with.
"We Will Show Wu The Meaning of Fear!"-Cao Cao in DW6
"Politicians Are all the same all over, They Promise to build a bridge even when theres no river"-Nikita Khrushchev
User avatar
Lord Yang Jiahua
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:24 pm
Location: Well....Not entirely sure if its America anymore

Re: The World Economics Thread

Unread postby WeiWenDi » Tue May 31, 2011 1:49 am

Lord Yang Jiahua wrote:The Budget is definetly what democrats want to hear, and what it intends to do is very much along the majority of Americans want, im sure people who are Republicans and have been working their entire lives and are almost 60 now don't want their Pensions severly reduced because of some jack-hole republicans in congress wanting to find a way to make quick cuts. So the budget does have the promise of appealing to people of both parties. Improving roads would make jobs, lots of jobs, but yes it does enocurage environmentally bad transporatation habits, but i'd still like to see it, our roads suck in this country! and that from someone who has Highway 1 outside his front door! Buidling dams in China, such as Three Gorges, i admit was wrong, because its going to flood over huge amounts of historical sites and force thousands from their homes, but i can't seem to see a parrallel of that happening here in the U.S, and we do need to better the flood control of the Missisippi river, considering the recent ridiculous amounts of flooding that happened.


Well, don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-infrastructure, and I'm not anti-dam, but you really have to consider the context first. I think a lot of the projects in the US are fairly well planned-out, but at the same time I have to wonder how much environmental destruction we are willing to tolerate before we go forward with a big project like that.

Lord Yang Jiahua wrote:Tch, calling it the Peoples Budget will only give republicans a bit of ground to call it "Socialist" and burn it at the stake for being such, stupid republicans. Watch ill bet $20 that if this budget gets out there intothe halls of government someone will immedaiately deface it as a socialist agenda.
I find nothing wrong with Socialism actually, but i hate the "its an inevitability" crap ive heard some total socialists preach, i had a teacher like that, and he is stubborn as a mule about it.
I think ill further the economic thread into economic systems debate.
Socialism: while its not a bad idea, iv'e found it lacks some things. it does not consider people as individuals, only as collectives.
Did Marx ever once stop to think that the poor people in this world won't rise up against capitalism, simply because they have bread to earn and a family to feed, and that its more important to them to earn what meagre lot they can rather then wasting time trying to make a revolution happen while their family starves. This is by far the biggest logic flaw in the Socialism system, more detail later. Also, the system lacks Virtue!, it simply is one system replacing another thru might and eventually as we saw with Russia post 1918, fear!,socialism doesn't rule thru kindness it rules thru everyone gets the same share, but thats not the case in most countries that were socialist, and also the "equal share" some people will get out of the socialism system will not be enough to even support themselves with.


I think at this point, the clear distinction should be made between Marxism and socialism. Marxism is one kind of socialism, but by no means the only kind. You also have anarcho-syndicalism, which draws upon the thought of Mikhail Bakunin; various forms of technocratic socialism like that of Saint-Simon, Owen and Fourier; and Christian socialism, which draws upon the thought of John Ruskin, William Morris, FD Maurice and Catholic social teaching.

The last is the type I've personally found the most attractive, partly because it preserves individual action and choice while at the same time acknowledging that individual action always has ramifications beyond and outside the understanding of the individual human person. It acknowledges that individual human beings have legitimate needs beyond mere material sustenance (which is true - human beings also have need of art, music, literature, ritual, love) and accordingly makes provision for that. It also acknowledges that all human systems and all human activities are liable to error and abuse, something not acknowledged by Marx - there is no reason (either theoretically or empirically) to believe that, once given a position of immense power, the proletariat would not be as abusive as the bourgeoisie.
Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.
User avatar
WeiWenDi
Hedgehog Emperor
 
Posts: 3845
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:09 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved