nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Will QE infinity render money worthless?

realitykeeper

If QE infinity does render money worthless, that will be the end of capitalism in the west. If capitalism does fail, there is every chance Communism (by another name) will take it`s place as Communism by it`s own name is discredited.

So, here is a reminder of what shopping back in the USSR looked like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8LtQhIQ2AE

Needles to say, I oppose QE and low ECB interest rates.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Ulysses Gaze

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I didn't think you would gave a figure. Do you have a figure to hand for the people killed in the name of accruing capital at all?

Don't worry, I know you don't have any figure because you don't have any clue or interest in finding out. It's funny that, isn't it?

Since you now realised you only have the deaths data on one side, will you adjust your position at all?

No.

El_Duderino 09

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

No.

Of course not, because your position isn't based on information or facts. So why bother using them to bolster your position when they don't actually have an impact on your position?

Ulysses Gaze

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Of course not, because your position isn't based on information or facts. So why bother using them to bolster your position when they don't actually have an impact on your position?

Where has Communism ever worked?

El_Duderino 09

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Where has Communism ever worked?

Changing tack again, ok. I don’t know any.

Have you finished trying to calculate deaths by capitalism or don’t want to know? Or has the deaths by system argument been abandoned?

sbsquarepants

Wanderer78 wrote: »

absolutely, continual growth is absolutely natural, and we have an endless supply of resources to do so!

Continual growth is not the basis of anything, except fantasy. An unfortunate aspect of capitalism is expansion and contraction, boom and bust. The trick is to try stash away some of the booms to lessen the busts, but most people are not particularly good at that - and we're probably among the worst at it in fact.

The general gripe you hear about capitalism is "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" but they don't really, the gap might widen but the people at each end of it are getting steadily better off over time, when the ups and down are smoothed out.

Is the life of the average poor person today not vastly superior to the life of the average poor person 50 years ago or 100 years ago. Only a fool would argue it's not.

Would you rather be "poor" in 2019 Ireland or 1950 Russia? The Russian would likely view the paddy as very well off indeed.

realitykeeper

seamus wrote: »

Nit-picking - communism didn't kill 100,000,000 people, dictators did.

I propose a compromise. Communist dictators killed 100,000,000 people. Everyone happy?

Geuze

We have had several years of QE, in several countries, and it has not caused consumer price inflation.

So money has not lost value.

Now, you could argue it has caused asset price inflation.

realitykeeper

Geuze wrote: »

We have had several years of QE, in several countries, and it has not caused consumer price inflation.

So money has not lost value.

Now, you could argue it has caused asset price inflation.

Inflation has to go somewhere and as you point out, it has gone into asset prices. The problem is, when that bubble pops, the inflation will move from assets prices to the prices on everyday consumer goods.

Thelonious Monk

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Where has Communism ever worked?

Well you could say the same about any form of government there's always winners and losers. The Earth is getting pretty f*cked by capitalism right now, as well as some countries caught between superpowers.
Anyway better distribution of wealth would probably help things in the world even out a bit and would be good for us all. So maybe some elements of socialism or communism or whatever shouldn't be ignored.

[Deleted User]

realitykeeper wrote: »

Inflation has to go somewhere and as you point out, it has gone into asset prices. The problem is, when that bubble pops, the inflation will move from assets prices to the prices on everyday consumer goods.

Do you have the date for the bubble to burst by any chance? so we call all hoard gold.

sbsquarepants

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Anyway better distribution of wealth would probably help things in the world even out a bit and would be good for us all.

For those people yes, for the world at large I'm not at all sure.

The poorest places, tend to be the most heavily populated. Who is to say if tomorrow those places were suddenly much better off that their consumption wouldn't explode and push us over the edge completely?

If you're relying on the altruism of pampered westerners to go without, so that someone in bangladesh for example can get their fair share, you are on paper thin ice.

Look at the example of china say - it has been lifting maybe a million people a month out of abject poverty for donkeys years now. Then those people start using electricity, driving cars, central heating and so on, general consumerist behaviour - fantastic for them, but it takes some toll on the planet. I see a few token gestures, but no real drive by the rest of us to offset increased Chinese consumption of anything. Do you?

[Deleted User]

sbsquarepants wrote: »

For those people yes, for the world at large I'm not at all sure.

The poorest places, tend to be the most heavily populated. Who is to say if tomorrow those places were suddenly much better off that their consumption wouldn't explode and push us over the edge completely?

If you're relying on the altruism of pampered westerners to go without, so that someone in bangladesh for example can get their fair share, you are on paper thin ice.

Look at the example of china say - it has been lifting maybe a million people a month out of abject poverty for donkeys years now. Then those people start using electricity, driving cars, central heating and so on, general consumerist behaviour - fantastic for them, but it takes some toll on the planet.

Family size drops dramatically as people become wealthy.

[Deleted User]

realitykeeper wrote: »

If QE infinity does render money worthless, that will be the end of capitalism in the west. If capitalism does fail, there is every chance Communism (by another name) will take it`s place as Communism by it`s own name is discredited.

So, here is a reminder of what shopping back in the USSR looked like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8LtQhIQ2AE

Needles to say, I oppose QE and low ECB interest rates.

Also read The Second Sleep by Robert Harris you would love it.

Thelonious Monk

mariaalice wrote: »

Family size drops dramatically as people become wealthy.

Yeah but they consume far more. I think one American consumes as much as 200 Bangladeshis or something. It's a tough nut to crack.

sbsquarepants

mariaalice wrote: »

Family size drops dramatically as people become wealthy.

There is a tendency towards that for sure, but is it dramatic enough to offset the rise in general consumption (and lets face it it, quite a lot of it needless consumption + waste)

Your average irish couple with 2 kids could easily consume as much as a couple of families of ten elsewhere, maybe even more. Throw in cars, holidays etc and you could have the carbon footprint of small village!

My missus's parent go on maybe 5 or 6 foreign holidays a year, probably same number of short breaks in ireland....but they're regimented with their recycling:) There must be whole townships out there that have less global impact than 2 well to do Irish retirees!

SeanW

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Christian discredits communism in Religio-economic shocker.

Who are you referring to here? Besides, I would have thought that 100 million corpses would have discredited communism, no?

seamus wrote: »

Nit-picking - communism didn't kill 100,000,000 people, dictators did. How many millions have died in American oil wars, and why don't we blame capitalism for it?

Question the brainwashing you've had growing up. Both "sides" are wrong.

We need a new model that's not driven by the enrichment of a small cabal of oligarchs. Communism and capitalism achieve the same result - wealth flowing up, poverty, death and oppression - just by different means.

We don't blame capitalism because capitalism has elevated almost everyone effected.

How many people did Henry Ford kill? Elon Musk? Bill Gates? Nikola Tesla? Quite the opposite, society has been able to benefit from "greed" by forcing the greedy to do something awesome as a means to getting rich.

Wanderer78

SeanW wrote:

How many people did Henry Ford kill? Elon Musk? Bill Gates? Nikola Tesla? Quite the opposite, society has been able to benefit from "greed" by forcing the greedy to do something awesome as a means to getting rich.

Yup, rent seeking behaviour rocks, everybody wins!

El_Duderino 09

SeanW wrote: »

Who are you referring to here? Besides, I would have thought that 100 million corpses would have discredited communism, no?

We don't blame capitalism because capitalism has elevated almost everyone effected.

Referring to the OP.

Clearly you don't hold consider deaths in the name of capitalism as a negative. But in that post you did consider deaths in the name of communism as a negative.

Communism does it = communism bad
Capitalism does it = not a problem (don't even know/care how many deaths)

suicide_circus

SeanW

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Referring to the OP.

Clearly you don't hold consider deaths in the name of capitalism as a negative. But in that post you did consider deaths in the name of communism as a negative.

Communism does it = communism bad
Capitalism does it = not a problem (don't even know/care how many deaths)

Yes, I consider 100,000,000 dead people to be a bad thing.

How many people did Henry Ford kill? Nikola Tesla? Cornelius Vanderbilt? Bill Gates? Elon Musk? Because these are/were capitalists.

_Brian

seamus wrote: »

Nit-picking - communism didn't kill 100,000,000 people, dictators did. How many millions have died in American oil wars, and why don't we blame capitalism for it?

Question the brainwashing you've had growing up. Both "sides" are wrong.

We need a new model that's not driven by the enrichment of a small cabal of oligarchs. Communism and capitalism achieve the same result - wealth flowing up, poverty, death and oppression - just by different means.

But if it has to be one or the other I’ll take capitalism thanks. That way I can work hard and not be one of the plebs dead at the bottom because they were sitting back waiting for a communist state to arrive and hand them everything.

You can’t separate communism and dictators, they are intrinsically linked. Communism killed all those people because it’s an ideal that allows corrupt people to govern without impunity and without the option to be challenged by open elections.

Only an idiot wants any form of communism to be established.

Capatalism isn’t perfect, but it’s not the death sentence that any form of communism is

Thelonious Monk

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, I consider 100,000,000 dead people to be a bad thing.

How many people did Henry Ford kill? Nikola Tesla? Cornelius Vanderbilt? Bill Gates? Elon Musk? Because these are/were capitalists.

Well here's 650,000 deaths by our old friends Bliar and Bush, all in the name of capitalist freedom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

Ipso

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Well here's 650,000 deaths by our old friends Bliar and Bush, all in the name of capitalist freedom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

The majority of people in the Iraq war died in the “civil war”.

beejee

Forget attaching numbers to everything.

Value = utility and desirability.

The move from genuine production (making cars) across the planet to "services" (selling car insurance over a phone) will render most people nothing more than slaves, as "service" has extremely little value.

That's why assets are increasing in value while inflation is essentially making the majority poorer. Its a genuine strategy to accumulate wealth via globalisation.

Those who have true value assets wish to pump its price, knowing its end-game time, so deflationary pressure is put on the people who don't have assets. Rich get richer, poor get poorer.

War was used throughout history to reset the clock. By eroding national borders and identity it also erodes the chance of correction, similar to destroying trade unions who would otherwise collectively work to get a better deal for its members.

It isn't some james bond type group of supervillains behind it all, its just a bunch of extremely wealthy people that so happen to have common interests. No need for coordination or secret meetings or crazy lairs. Quantitative easing is a means to keep the reality of globalisation hidden...for a little while, anyway.

is-such-a-thing-even-possible-yes-it-is-is-48939927.png

is-such-a-thing-even-possible-yes-it-is-is-48939927.png

El_Duderino 09

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, I consider 100,000,000 dead people to be a bad thing.

How many people did Henry Ford kill? Nikola Tesla? Cornelius Vanderbilt? Bill Gates? Elon Musk? Because these are/were capitalists.

I don’t know how many those people killed. I certainly didn’t suggest they killed anyone.

Now back to the question of how many people were killed in the name of capitalism. Any ideas? Any interest in knowing? Or is number killed only relevant when it’s used against communism?

Isn’t it interesting that there are commonly known stats on how many died in the name of communism but you don’t even seem curious about how many died in the name of accruing capital?

beejee

It has practically nothing to do with capitalism or communism or anything in-between.

It's about the powerful few distancing themselves from a correction to their power. They come from all different ideals and beliefs, but power is the one thing they are successfully shoring up.

The problem isn't about tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum theoretical systems, it's about restoring accountability and the means to dismantle "unfairness".

Globalisation is the ultimate shield for these people and most people can't gobble it up quick enough to screw themselves over.

SeanW

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don’t know how many those people killed. I certainly didn’t suggest they killed anyone.

Now back to the question of how many people were killed in the name of capitalism. Any ideas? Any interest in knowing? Or is number killed only relevant when it’s used against communism?

Isn’t it interesting that there are commonly known stats on how many died in the name of communism but you don’t even seem curious about how many died in the name of accruing capital?

The people I referenced are or were leading figures in capitalism. They did awesome things for mankind with a view to making money. Henry Ford is one of the main reasons most of us can afford cars today. Nikola Tesla invented Alternating Current electricity transmission - again, massively improved the lives of billions of people, every single person in the current generation included. And many of the others in my list have likewise made awesome things.

If you're going to compare communism with capitalism and claim that there is any equivalence, you'd need to:

Articulate a figure for the number of people you allege were killed by capitalism. Keeping in mind that this will be very difficult when comparing the likes of Henry Ford to Joseph Stalin.
Explain how someone like Henry Ford or Nikola Tesla could have been successful in their endeavours, or would have attempted to do so, under a Communist system run by the likes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. Were these people successful because they lived in a capitalist system that encouraged risk-taking and innovation? If so, you have some explaining to do to explain how Communism would be so much better.

AFAIK you have not even provided a figure for the number of people you allege were killed by capitalism when there's a ready figure for that number killed by Communism.

El_Duderino 09

SeanW wrote: »

The people I referenced are or were leading figures in capitalism. They did awesome things for mankind with a view to making money. Henry Ford is one of the main reasons most of us can afford cars today. Nikola Tesla invented Alternating Current electricity transmission - again, massively improved the lives of billions of people, every single person in the current generation included. And many of the others in my list have likewise made awesome things.

If you're going to compare communism with capitalism and claim that there is any equivalence, you'd need to:
Articulate a figure for the number of people you allege were killed by capitalism. Keeping in mind that this will be very difficult when comparing the likes of Henry Ford to Joseph Stalin.

Explain how someone like Henry Ford or Nikola Tesla could have been successful in their endeavours, or would have attempted to do so, under a Communist system run by the likes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. Were these people successful because they lived in a capitalist system that encouraged risk-taking and innovation? If so, you have some explaining to do to explain how Communism would be so much better.

AFAIK you have not even provided a figure for the number of people you allege were killed by capitalism when there's a ready figure for that number killed by Communism.

That's interesting and answers lots of questions I didn't ask. just a quick reminder:

Now back to the question of how many people were killed in the name of capitalism. Any ideas? Any interest in knowing? Or is number killed only relevant when it’s used against communism?

Ipso

Can you tell us how many wars were fought in the name of capitalism and not just by countries who were capitalist?

El_Duderino 09

Ipso wrote: »

Can you tell us how many wars were fought in the name of capitalism and not just by countries who were capitalist?

Ah but we don't go on for any of that nuance when calculating those 'killed by communism'. Isn't that interesting at the very least?