Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Politics] Gary's Economics



M

Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
18,504
Fiveways
BadFish said:
Surely if you are in the business of selling war machinery, rebuilding countries in the void of war or redistributing resources then war is very profitable. There are many companies in the US that have made vast sums of money from America's foreign policy over the last 30 odd years.

I guess this isn't classed neoliberalism though.
Click to expand...
I can't respond in full to @Bakero and this but can say that US military spending has reduced from c8% of GDP during the Cold War to 3.3% now -- which covers most of the period of neoliberal financialised globalisation. You're both right to point to this but all I'll add is that it's a relatively minor part of global throughput/output and the remainder of the economy thrives better in the absence rather than presence of war (when governments nationalise parts of the economy and/or heavily regulate it).
This is not to say that there haven't been substantial periods of capitalism's (which is far broader than neoliberalism) history where war was perpetrated.
 




Uh_huh_him

Uh_huh_him

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2011
13,997
schmunk said:
His own parents have disputed his account of his childhood.

Several of his former colleagues (from his very truncated banking career) have disputed his claims of being the best trader in the business.

To be very clear, I am not against his (borrowed) economic arguments, but I don't think he does the message any favours by continually repeating his exaggerations.
Click to expand...
He never specifically calls out his childhood as anything other than working class.
He makes it clear that plenty of his peers were much worse off than his family.

He doesn't claim to be the best trader in the business.
He claims to be the most profitable trader in 2011 (or 2010, I don't remember which)
This success was due to him guessing right in those years, when most of his peers were expecting the economy to improve.
 


Bakero

Bakero

Languidly clinical
Oct 9, 2010
15,602
Almería
BadFish said:
Surely if you are in the business of selling war machinery, rebuilding countries in the void of war or redistributing resources then war is very profitable. There are many companies in the US that have made vast sums of money from America's foreign policy over the last 30 odd years.

I guess this isn't classed neoliberalism
Click to expand...

Machiavelli said:
I can't respond in full to @Bakero and this but can say that US military spending has reduced from c8% of GDP during the Cold War to 3.3% now -- which covers most of the period of neoliberal financialised globalisation. You're both right to point to this but all I'll add is that it's a relatively minor part of global throughput/output and the remainder of the economy thrives better in the absence rather than presence of war (when governments nationalise parts of the economy and/or heavily regulate it).
This is not to say that there haven't been substantial periods of capitalism's (which is far broader than neoliberalism) history where war was perpetrated.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you agree that the drop in defence spending was due to the shift to a unipolar world?

I totally agree that the economy functions better in peace time than when billions are being blown on foreign wars. Vietnam and Afghanistan being prime examples.

However, neoliberalism is intrinsically linked to globalisation. The whole system was based on all countries falling into line and was achieved through a variety of means: economic power, cultural hegemony, institutional influence, and military might in certain cases.

The concept of Regime Change goes hand in hand with neoliberalism.
 




beorhthelm

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,434
Bakero said:
Wouldn't you agree that the drop in defence spending was due to the shift to a unipolar world?

I totally agree that the economy functions better in peace time than when billions are being blown on foreign wars. Vietnam and Afghanistan being prime examples.

However, neoliberalism is intrinsically linked to globalisation. The whole system was based on all countries falling into line and was achieved through a variety of means: economic power, cultural hegemony, institutional influence, and military might in certain cases.

The concept of Regime Change goes hand in hand with neoliberalism.
Click to expand...
you're confusing political and economic ideals. regime change is a decision to achieve a political aim, not a economic outcome. you could achieve globalisation through other, non-military means, usually perfered. economic power, cultural hegmony, institutional influence are not objectives of neoliberalism, simply have free trade and market will decide.
 




Bakero

Bakero

Languidly clinical
Oct 9, 2010
15,602
Almería
beorhthelm said:
you're confusing political and economic ideals. regime change is a decision to achieve a political aim, not a economic outcome. you could achieve globalisation through other, non-military means, usually perfered. economic power, cultural hegmony, institutional influence are not objectives of neoliberalism, simply have free trade and market will decide.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree. The political and economic aims are intertwined.

I didn't say that cultural hegemony and institutional influence were the objectives but the tools. The US's dominance, alongside institutions like the World Bank and IMF, spread, through SAPs etc, neoliberal ideals. When countries resisted, military action was often taken.
 
Last edited:




nicko31

nicko31

Well-known member
Jan 7, 2010
19,089
Gods country fortnightly




highflyer

highflyer

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2016
2,719
nicko31 said:
Always so many threats about the rich leaving, very few will. They don't spend that much of their money, they can't. What's more when they do a lot leaves the country.

Public finances are screwed, we need to get a grip
Click to expand...
More importantly (though I agree that the threats are far lower than the daily mail.and torygraph endlessly insist) the alternative, rarely spoken aloud, is that we have accepted that the rich now decide policy. In their own interests. And that there is nothing we can do about it. I don't think many people would say that is a good idea. Yet it is exactly what is being accepted by those saying 'you can't tax the rich because it's too difficult/they will all leave'. I say f*ck that.
 


D

dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,900
BadFish said:
What I find interesting about this stuff isn't explicitly stated as such but there seems to be a thread around the idea that to progress one must be entrepreneurial. Such people are lauded and highlighted as successes of our time. I can't help but wonder why these people with this personality type are the ones we choose, as a society to reward. This is over-simplified, but it does beg the question of how we decide which roles in our society we value and choose to reward with riches? The next question of course is how we look at changing those decisions.
Click to expand...
The simplest way to stop entrepreneurs getting so very, very rich would be to tax employment. If there was some way to ensure that no-one was allowed to gain from the employment of perhaps 10 other people, then no-one could get rich. By and large, people get rich via employment of many, many people.
 


highflyer

highflyer

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2016
2,719
dsr-burnley said:
The simplest way to stop entrepreneurs getting so very, very rich would be to tax employment. If there was some way to ensure that no-one was allowed to gain from the employment of perhaps 10 other people, then no-one could get rich. By and large, people get rich via employment of many, many people.
Click to expand...

Paging doctor No.

The rich get richer through capital accumulation.
 




Doc Lynam

Doc Lynam

Helping police with their enquiries
Jun 19, 2011
7,404
schmunk said:
I find him rather self-aggrandising - by various accounts he was not nearly as successful in his career as he likes to make out.
Click to expand...
This comment reminded me of this.
IMG_1545.jpeg
 












Doc Lynam

Doc Lynam

Helping police with their enquiries
Jun 19, 2011
7,404
schmunk said:
Why?

Which one do you take to be Gary Stevenson? Which one me saying he's too boastful? What does the other person represent? :shrug:
Click to expand...
It’s more that fact that it’s a target of someone who’s from a low socioeconomic background, arguing for more financial equality. And then you continue a rumour that’s put out to undercut him. That I don’t get.
 






D

dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,900
highflyer said:
Paging doctor No.

The rich get richer through capital accumulation.
Click to expand...
Specifically, you're saying that entrepreneurs get rich by capital accumulation? Most dictionary definitions say that entrepreneurs are businessmen who see an opportunity and bear the risks of loss in order to make a profit.
 


schmunk

schmunk

Well-used member
Jan 19, 2018
11,006
Mid mid mid Sussex
dsr-burnley said:
The simplest way to stop entrepreneurs getting so very, very rich would be to tax employment. If there was some way to ensure that no-one was allowed to gain from the employment of perhaps 10 other people, then no-one could get rich. By and large, people get rich via employment of many, many people.
Click to expand...
I propose a 15% Employers Tax on everything paid to an employee above a base threshold of £5,000.

That's got to be a votewinner, right?
 


You must log in or register to reply here.
Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Share this page


Top
Link Here