What do you mean by property after all?
Printable View
What do you mean by property after all?
This quote explains why socialism is so popular - because people are naive and cannot think logically. The socialist propaganda is so successful, because it promises everything for free.[/quote:1nh0mjbo]Do you mean you can [s:1nh0mjbo]take[/s:1nh0mjbo] HAVE a free operation, even if it’s VERY expensive?[/quote:1nh0mjbo]Yes. Obviously "free" healthcare is not the result of a "gift from heaven" or similar... In a modern welfare state it is "free" thanks to the system of redistribution of profits generated from labour, production and interest. I.e. taxation. (I think it was done in a different way in communist countries, but I'm not familiar with how that worked.)Quote:
[quote:1nh0mjbo][quote:1nh0mjbo]Free universities, free healthcare, free culture and guaranteed housing and work for everyone".
The end result is the same though: Hospitals are funded, medical staff are paid etc, etc --using the redistributed wealth. A normal citizen can walk into the hospital get diagnosed and treated for free - without dealing with any insurance claim or paying anything at all. No matter who is is, he will get treated the same.
In a reasonably free and open society you can also complain if you are not happy with the treatment or the staff. Any incompetent or corrupt managers will eventually lose their jobs. This guarantees that the system doesn't get corrupted or degenerates. This has worked well in most of Europe for 60 years now.
Am I a victim of propaganda because I believe that a system that offers free healthcare and free university education is preferable to the system in the US or countries that are modelled on the US?
Well, I am a well educated high-income earner who normally works very hard. In the UK I pay 25% tax on most of my income and 40% on everything above a certain sum. I am happy to do that. In Sweden I'd be paying a little bit more tax, but get more services in return. To be honest, I do not need or want most of these services... but others do.... and I am not so selfish as to deny them - I still have a comfortable lifestyle. Furthermore, one day I might be the one who needs the services of the welfare state! Peoples luck changes.
Those who live just to build up more wealth for themselves, or to protect inherited wealth are shallow and/or useless parasites. Of course people need to have incentives to work and be innovative --- but it ought not be the opportunity to create wealth beyond what they need for a comfortable life for their family. People who want to live in utter luxury while billions can hardly feed themselves, or while their fellow citizens live in shacks seriously disgust me.
If this makes me a "communist" in anybody's view - then that's fine! Incidentally I've never voted communist though and I am aware of the types of problems that occurred when Eastern Europe tried (and failed) to achieve communism.
I don't think the idea is dead though, and I wish there was a less violent, corruption-proof way of implementing it. A real communist society would be much nicer than anything that capitalism can achieve. But unfortunately, so far it's mainly a hypothetical idea although there might have been some aspects of it present in the USSR, DDR etc. Also in the Nordic countries although capitalism was always present there. I also have no doubt that most communist revolutionaries were idealists who wanted the best for their country even though it didn't work out that way in some cases.
Most people who talk about the evils of communism don't seem to know what they are talking about. Talk about propaganda - they've been taught to loathe something which they couldn't even define in three simple sentenes! That's straight out of Big Brother.
(The people on this forum, at least the Russians and other Eastern Europeans are the exception of course. They probably know much more about all this than I do, and light of their experiences I am not going to argue about this with anybody from there - including my friend Crocodile :wink: who was once a member of the Komsomol organisation.)
Johanna, you will know much more if you get this book and read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
http://epicdystopia.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... ovich.html
Ok, so you don't want to discuss the "evils of communism" with "the most people" because they don't know enough about the communism and you also don't want to discuss that with "Russians and other Eastern Europeans" because they know too much (or at least more than you). :shock:Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
Excuse my stupid question, but WHOM do you want to discuss the "evils of communism" with? :mosking:
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can only suggest the following options here:
1. With yourself.
2. With the very few other people who think exactly like yourself.
3. With the Antarctic penguins.
:crazy:
Nobody has ever come across evils or goodnesses of communism, because communism has never existed. :flazhok:
Perhaps -- but I've learnt a lot from some of the posts on this forum though. But I don't enjoy heated or hostile discussions, so I will back off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Just a question: Wasn't the Paris Commune that Marx wrote about somewhat close to communism? And many Christian groups live almost exactly like communism... apart from the fact that they are religious...Quote:
Originally Posted by mishau
Perhaps Communism only works in small groups or on a local level. And none of the revolutions happened in the way that Marx predicted... So all the leaders of "communist" countries had to tweak the ideology a bit to fit their circumstances.
I was taught something like this, don't know if people in Russia agree with this: The USSR more or less abandoned the standard definition of Communism when Lenin said that they'd try to build Communism in only ONE country at first, and also when he said that a strong state and military was needed to protect against outside aggression.
It has. For a very limited number of people. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by mishau_
It does then, judging by the watch that Resin is wearing. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
http://www.gzt.ru/f/material/picture/bi ... mbnail.jpg
1) close isn't wasQuote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
2) Paris Commune and Christian groups... I don't know how rich people were/became there, I suppose not very much. It could be a good solution if we remember how much poverty was around there in those times.
In Taiwan if you're totally poor you can come to a lama monsatry, regardless your nationality and citizenship, put on an orange toga, and come out every day with a basket to gather all what people will give you, food a great deal. Then you bring all that back and share among all the dwellers. Very strict, but very poor and very boring. If that's a sort of communism, I whish it never spread across all over the country.
Come on! Don't be offended so easily! How hostile am I really? :shock: Heated - perhaps, but aren't your posts about the US foreign politics also heated? When you express your point of view you'd expect people either: (i) agree with you, (ii) disagree with you, (iii) ignore you, and finally (iv) ask you questions to better their understanding of your point of view. I'm just doing the later, that's all, really. If you worked in a PM role you know developers start asking all kinds of stupid questions as they want to think the scenarios through as much as possible. They hate it when they start working, develop significant portion of the code, and then stumble into inconsistencies which make the PM/BAs/architect to rethink their formal requirements. So, just perceive me as that kind of a stubborn developer who's trying to detect inconsistencies right from the start and we'll be friends. :beer:Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
Who do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by mishau_
I don't know either. But I think Marx used the word Communism because of the Paris Commune.Quote:
Originally Posted by mishau_
Does it matter if you are "rich" or not? As long as your material needs are met and you have a little "buffer" it isn't really that important IMHO. Money definitely does not bring happiness. The happiest people are not the richest.
Additionally, the planet simply cannot support 7 billion people living a Western consumerist lifestyle anyway, from an environmental standpoint. So capitalism in its present form is not a feasible long term strategy anyway.
Capitalism in it's present form was feasible in the West when a large part of the world was socialist and unable to live a consumerist lifestyle, and the others were stuck in the third world without education or any prospects of changing their lives. All this changed around 1990 with the changes in China, Russia etc.... Parts of India is also becoming modern.. also Brazil... Etc.
Plus, the population of the world was 4 bil in the 19980s and is 7 billion today.
And as a result, global warning is now taking place faster than all the worst case scenario predictions! Several wars have been started largely because of oil. The Middle East will soon face a water shortage. The current development / trend is not sustainable. If we don't change soon, the world will start going downhill fast....
But if becoming a rich person is ones objective - then any form of socialism is of course completely useless! Somebody who cares only about himself/herself getting rich fast should live in the most liberalistic country he can find. Minimal government, minimal regulation or taxation.
Personally, rather than becoming rich myself regardless of other peoples situation, I'd prefer see my own country / continent having a good standard of living, without excesses, and living in an environmentally sustainable way. I don't feel any need to be richer than other people. Once you are comfortable, what's the point?
People who seriously *believe* that they *need* designer handbags, luxury sports cars or holidays in the Seychelles need to have their heads examined.
I think, Johanna, you make a mistake when opposing poverty to richness and back. In fact, you're comparing richness and moderation or richness and asceticism. Few very poor people are happy, epescially if they have no money for medicine. They suffer indignity. And they die prematurely from different diseases. Being poor, really poor, isn't nice.
I think you kind of mixing two different things: the ownership principles and the environment. For example: the good old USSR had lots of the environmental problems in its territory. No better than the other countries. And some people say it was even worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
Usually, the humankind used to adapt to anthropogenic catastrophes by adopting newer and less harmful technologies. For example: when the certain megafauna and other (tasting delicious) species went short/extinct some 10,000 years ago (mainly due to the unrestricted hunting), the humankind had moved to a totally new principles of producing food - from hunting to agriculture. That allowed the human population to grow within the same ecological niche. So, due to the global warming (and stuff like that) the humankind is in transition to the other technologies. Also, technically, the humankind has the potential of extending its ecological niche beyond our planet. In addition, the "people living a Western consumerist lifestyle" tend to control their population effectively while the uncontrolled growth happens mainly in the other countries. (That is in referral to your note: "The Middle East will soon face a water shortage.")
So, to sum it up, YES - we need to worry about the environment, but NO - it has nothing to do with either form of the ownership (the Capitalism or the Communism) . :instruct:
Economics can be considered a science of resource distribution. Efficient distribution. The resources are: food, air, water, energy, etc. In our world the distribution is extremely inefficient which is the main cause of crises and conflicts. The reason of this is politics. I wish there was a way to measure the hunger for power in people. It was easier to neutralise those who interferes with the natural distribution laws. Capitalism supports ambitions and greed. That's why it is inefficient and must be replaced. Mankind must do something with the 90/10 ratio. (90% of world's resources and wealth are controlled by 10% of population).
Cool!! Replaced with WHAT though? And (also very important) HOW? :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
We've already covered that in one of our discussions, as you remember. I dream of the world free of governments and borders where people group by principles different from mere living close to each other. Therefore, since my dream at the present time is yet another utopia I would support any change that would be a step closer to it. And I would support anything that would theoretically lead to collapsing of the current world government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Yes, I remember we spoke about it. So, would you also support anything that leads to collapsing of the current local governments? (Just for the consistency reasons. Think globally - act locally.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
The local government is of no importance. It doesn't matter who would be the government locally since their policy would be dictated by necessities of their bosses. I would be indifferent to either collapsing or staying in power of the current local government. Until things change at the top, nothing would really change at the bottom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Ok, just be patient with me with my stupid questions. :oops: What do you consider the "top" or the "world" government? Wouldn't that be something like G8?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
No, the top government are those whose interests are represented by the governments of the G8. I mean richest clans (about two dozen families) abiding mostly in USA who has been defining the world's politics during the last 80 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
The 'official governments' (even if they are unaware of that) represent the interests of the richest.
But don't make the mistake of thinking that those who have many dollars (or Euros) are rich. They simply posess many worthless pieces of paper (those like Bill Gates, for example). I mean those who control the federal reserve, those who control the speculative oil prices, those who control the prices for gold - they are the true world's government.
Presidens and parliaments are nothing but puppets to entertain the masses. They don't control anyting. I would never belive that there is a country where a president is an independent figure. :lol: Such talks only make me laugh.
I agree with that statement when you speak about the local capitalistic governments. That's obvious. But what about the other local governments? For example, could you really say Stalin was a puppet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Can you support that idea with any type of evidence? (And perhaps name anyone?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Hmm. To a degree. You see,a puppet does not necessarily have to know it is a puppet. Things are usually quite the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
He tried to act independently, but after being put in certain circumstances his actions become predictable. I would call this... an indirect manipulation. I'd say that in 1920s he was independent. But if you ask me about Stalin in 1940s I wouldn't be so sure. And I would definitely say no, if you ask me about him after the WW2.
I cannot prove my saying, call it a hunch, if you like, but I'm suspecting that Hitler too was manipulated into many of his blunders. By trying to resist he was making things only worse.
And another thing. I think that that infamous world government started its forming up in the beginning of 20th century. It has made its first baby steps during WW1, it has attained relative maturity by the beginning of the WW2 and it achieved a true world's power by the mid-60s. Stalin could have suspected of its existence, he might even know it for sure, but even though he remained independent from direct manipulations there were plenty of opportunities for subtle indirectness.
Hmm, how about the Rothschilds? (as the most famous representatives of this group). Vandebilts, Du'Ponts?Quote:
Can you support that idea with any type of evidence? (And perhaps name anyone?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Unlikely. How about the OPEC? Do you really think Rothschilds (who spent so much money on Israel) govern the world together with the hypothetical shade bosses that control OPEC (who spent so much money on Islamic terrorism)? So, that "world government" builds with one hand and destroys with another? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Alright, I see what you're saying. I think it's really hard to live in the socium and be totally independent of it, or totally influence it. I'd say if someone, at least, could pull at more strings than the others, that is enough to call that person "in control" of the situation. For the rest, Voland said it all. :hlop: You can apply the same thinking you have onto that hypothetical "shade government" if we assume its existence. Do they always agree with each other? I suspect that's impossible. Then, some of them dominate over the others at some point, and lose the other times. So, is that possible they'd be really in a total control of the world if they are victims of circumstance in their own circle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Think about it that way. Some people believe that when they become managers they would be independent, in control of the situation. But that doesn't usually happen. When you are at the bottom of the "food chain", you feel small, but you only report to your boss, and the boss above and up the hierarchy. So, in fact, there's a very limited number of people (logarithmic) you'd be dependent upon. However, when you become a manager, you depend on virtually EVERYONE down the hierarchy doing their job up to your expectations. So, the amount of people you depend on with each hierarchical level is exponential. Therefore, the hypothetical "world government" depends on EVERYONE on the planet! That's absurd.
I'd say Stalin seemed to be more dependent later on just because some of his major plans didn't seem to work out. But, he had definitely more control over the country in later years (even after the WWII) than in the 20s. (For example: the kolhoses only appeared in the 30s, and that granted Stalin the degree of control over the peasants he hadn't had in the 20s.)
OPEC are mere oil suppliers. They cannot blackmail the world. Even if they stop selling their oil (which they can't since there's much more involved than simple turning a valve - oil production is an uninterruptable technological process and it costs you dearly to stop it) they would end up being poor again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Exactly what they are doing. They have to do this in order to run the most sophisticated machine in history. Terrorism is sort of necessary at this point since there is no global wars. If you want people come to you and ask for money you must create demand for money. So you arrange two or more factions fight each other and then they would both come to you and ask for more loans.Quote:
Do you really think Rothschilds (who spent so much money on Israel) govern the world together with the hypothetical shade bosses that control OPEC (who spent so much money on Islamic terrorism)? So, that "world government" builds with one hand and destroys with another? ;)
So if you control the production of money you rule this world.
There was a story on this forum:
Imagine you forged 100 gold coins and start giving them to people on one condition - they would have to return it to you along with the interest. Say you ask 3%. At the end of the term they would have to give you back 103 coins. The question is - where are the missing three coins? Those who fail to return the interest would borrow 3 more coins from you and again - they would have to return additionally 0.09 coins which had never existed.
You would of course produce more coins but peope would never be able to return their debts fully. This I what I call the control.
Federal reserve prints money then gives it to banks and governments. Virtually everyone on this planet directly or indirectly is owing money to the Federal Reserve. Then I ask again - who controls the Federal Reserve and what is their agenda?
Not quite. They don't have to agree with each other although there is certain concensus and understanding among them (after all, they're in the same boat).Quote:
Originally Posted by crocodile
A rather perverted view over things. If you become a boss, you start to understand that you don't have to rely on EVERYONE. You find out that people are replaceable and you really need to rely on two or three key figures. Then you create a system of balances and counterweights to neutralise the key figures you rely on and to prevent them from plotting against you. Pretty simple, really. Machiavelli covered everything pretty thoroughly.Quote:
Think about it that way. Some people believe that when they become managers they would be independent, in control of the situation. But that doesn't usually happen. When you are at the bottom of the "food chain", you feel small, but you only report to your boss, and the boss above and up the hierarchy. So, in fact, there's a very limited number of people (logarithmic) you'd be dependent upon. However, when you become a manager, you depend on virtually EVERYONE down the hierarchy doing their job up to your expectations.
Indeed! That's why you are wrong here. :DQuote:
So, the amount of people you depend on with each hierarchical level is exponential. Therefore, the hypothetical "world government" depends on EVERYONE on the planet! That's absurd.
If you're feeling mathematical here's what I have to say: every single individual has negligibly small potential of influence. They have to unite in millions and act as a single being in order for you to even notice them.
Control and power are slightly different things. He might indeed have more power but what about the control? Was he making the history or his actions were merely a response to some circumstances?Quote:
But, he had definitely more control over the country in later years (even after the WWII) than in the 20s. (For example: the kolhoses only appeared in the 30s, and that granted Stalin the degree of control over the peasants he hadn't had in the 20s.)
If you want people come to you and ask for money you must create demand for money. So you arrange two or more factions fight each other and then they would both come to you and ask for more loans.
=> Hmm.. sounds a bit stretched. What would the loan-issuing institutions get in return? According to your logic, both terrorists and Israel come for loans, so both depend eventually on the Federal Reserve. But, terrorists only spend their capital on the weapon that's lost! Also, Israel spends the capital on its army (so it's also lost). Lost-lost. Destroyed. No return. Why? How do the terrorists promise to pay back? Also, Rothschilds handed out capital to Israel for free. No promises to ever pay back! How do you settle that?
Control and power are slightly different things. He might indeed have more power but what about the control? Was he making the history or his actions were merely a response to some circumstances?
=> That's what I was also saying. At some point (the higher in the hierarchy, in my opinion) that difference is blurred. (Machiavelli said many things, and not all of them always work - there are just too many factors. For example: a key person may just go elsewhere for the better pay.)
So if you control the production of money you rule this world.
=> Sounds rather bombastic... There's a difference between the money and the capital, right? You can't really effectively control capital centrally. In a complex system, there should be more decision nodes, remember? The story of 100 coins is educational, but the conclusion is controversial. First, modern money is not the gold coins of the past. There is also that nasty stuff like inflation, default, etc. You know all that. Second, in the past, the process of issuing gold coins by the governments was based on the stable process of mining gold. Hence the new 5 coins would appear over time.
Federal reserve prints money then gives it to banks and governments. Virtually everyone on this planet directly or indirectly is owing money to the Federal Reserve. Then I ask again - who controls the Federal Reserve and what is their agenda?
=> Ok, so you're saying the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System http://www.federalreserve.gov are that alleged central world government?
Yeah, but the demand for money remains high and printing more money is justified this way. Sooner or later the conflict would end and something would have to be done to restore things that had been destroyed. And this again would require more money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Think again, if you can print as much money as you need money are free to you.
You do not even want your money back - what for? You give people pieces of paper and people give you back real assets - land, resources, energy, raw materials, etc. No matter what price is - you can handle that because you can always print more brazilions of green pieces of paper.
No government controls the money production. Think this over again.
:) Consider this an investment. You may also say they own the whole country and all its assets. And I've added later Vanderbilts and Du'Ponts. There are more of them.Quote:
Also, Israel spends the capital on its army (so it's also lost). Lost-lost. Destroyed. No return. Why? How do the terrorists promise to pay back? Also, Rothschilds handed out capital to Israel for free. No promises to ever pay back! How do you settle that?
That is why you have to maintain a tight grip on him. It's one of those stick and carrot things. Should I go all the way down describing multitudes of ways to do it? And again - even the key persons are replaceable.Quote:
For example: a key person may just go elsewhere for the better pay.)
So if you control the production of money you rule this world.
Why not? The monopoly for money production is their capital.Quote:
There's a difference between the money and the capital, right? You can't really effectively control capital centrally.
Yeah, they worth nothing. :DQuote:
In a complex system, there should be more decision nodes, remember?
First, modern money is not the gold coins of the past.
And once you've pushed the start button the decisions made in the middle do not matter much. You don't have to control every single aspect of this system. It doesn't really matter in which country a military coup or a revolt, or a war will occur - you will gain anyway.
Yes, but you won't give this 5 more coins for free. You will ask your 3 per cent.Quote:
Second, in the past, the process of issuing gold coins by the governments was based on the stable process of mining gold. Hence the new 5 coins would appear over time.
It's a closed loop. Remove the interest and fix the value and this system will become fair again like in the good old days.
The board of Governors are hired employees. They work for salary though some of them may be among those few who is a member of the clique.Quote:
=> Ok, so you're saying the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System http://www.federalreserve.gov are that alleged central world government?
Ramil, there seems to be too much of a distance between our point of views. You tend to think the "world government" actually exists, by pointing out the body which might benefit from the current situation. By the way, it's the US Department of the Treasury which pushes the button and prints the "evil" green paper, not the Federal Reserve:
Also, the Federal Reserve board is appointed by the President. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System) (And earlier you mentioned the President is a "puppet".) So, in your view of the world, the puppet theatrically appoints other puppets who ask another puppet institution to print out evil green paper and then give that paper to the other puppets who in return present the former puppets with the real resources, then the other puppets want to fight with each other so they also ask the former puppets for the evil green paper (and surprisingly get it!) so they buy some stuff with that green paper, destroy the stuff, and say back to the former puppets: "Hey, eventually you don't need the evil green paper and you'll benefit somehow anyways, so just #### off!" :mosking:Quote:
Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_the_Treasury
So, honestly, if you really believe in all that, you have all the rights in the world to support anything that would destroy that puppet theatre. Whether the real people would appear from the ruins of that theatre that's another utopia story... :beer: :friends:
The president is appointed and then he's told who's going to sit in the Federal Reserve Board. I don't contradict myself. It is indeed a puppet theater. Formalities must be observer or the cattle stock would get suspicious.
People we are talking of are above the law, above the constitution. You're quoting wiki that quotes some other stuff written for the 'cattle stock'. Does it really prove anything?
I know, that you could say that I am a paranoid and full of conspiracy theories. In fact, there is no conspiracy. It's out there in the open. It's so simple that people like you just refuse to believe it. Simply because it overthrows everything they'd known about the modern world. It cannot be simply because it cannot be they say.
Well, it's their right. Blue pill or Red pill - take your pick.
What's the difference if the movie is black-and-white? :hlop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Scroll down and watch the video;
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ja ... ergoal.htm
I happen to agree that the situation is pretty much exactly as Ramil outlines.
The economy of the world (based on the dollar, the Bretton Woods system, and limitless borrowing into the future) is a "castle made of air", or "the emperor has no clothes". Basically, it's fake - it's an illusion.
It MAY continue to work for as long as the majority continues to believe in it, or PRETEND that they believe in it.
One of my university lecturers said as much - and he said that a lot of economists supported it simply because they knew of no alternative that could realistically be implemented.
Ludwig von Mieses for example - was an economist who spoke out against this and accused other economists for playing along in a theatre that they knew perfectly well was unsustainable.
I guess the question is: How long can this system continue for... Indefinitely, or? Is there an alternative?
Some people say that the current economic crisis is the beginning of the end for the world economic system as we know it. For example the "La Rouche movement". Others think this system has many years left of life in it - others deny altogether that there is a problem.
It is. So, would you prefer to get your pay in golden coins?Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
I would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Great! What would you do with those golden coins? (After you spent the X of your golden coins to pay a goldsmith to forge a nice golden ring off the Y of your coins.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Crocodile, where there is a will there is a way... !
It was possible to use bank notes while the monetary system was fully backed by gold. It was not THAT long ago.
Just because the money is backed up by actual assets doesn't mean that it has to be GOLD, it can be gold + something else -- other precious metals or minerals.
You'd still use banknotes - all this is practicalities that could easily be solved. This is covered in plenty of books by people who understand it a lot better than I do. Basically this is about having a monetary system that regular people can trust in! Instead of a playground for speculation by traders, risky and unethical lending by the banks or money-printing by certain governments.
And yes - regarding investments - to illustrate: I had to re-invest my employer-contributed pension plan. I won't use it for many decades, so needed to think ahead. I had to choose London listed companies, but I was able to find a Swiss gold tracker, mineral/energy companies in ex-USSR, some Chinese tech companies plus an Islamic bank.
What these have in common is that they are backed by real assets and not based on speculation and market hype. Also they are in growing, not contracting economies. The other day the brokers called me and asked if I had access to insider information - my picks had been very lucky and they thought it was suspicious.
So it's not just talk. I seriously have no faith in the future of the monetary system out of London / New York. At best it will continue to stand still or mediocre growth while inflation grows. At worst it will crash like a house of cards, like 1929. The difference is that this time the East is ready to take over the lead.
Btw - The pensioners of the ex USSR must be the best example of a totally scr*wed generation ---- ever! Imagine working all your life to build communism, and fighting fascism and starving during the war. Then just when they want to retire it all falls to pieces! Everything they worked to build up gets bought up for peanuts by cowboy capitalists... Then they are forced to live in poverty in capitalism. What a very tragic irony.
:mosking: :mosking: :mosking:Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
Gold can always be exchanged for something else unlike paper money which can be rendered useless if something happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
Well, you could still exchange paper money with blank paper, or you could use the paper money as a wall paper. See? There's no fundamental difference between gold money or paper money. They worth some goods and services only as long as the other people are ready to exchange. In time of war or famine people are very willing to exchange their gold for food, but not vice versa. So, the real measure (=value) of the capital is the amount of the goods and services you could get. Hence the dependency on the GDP. And so the story rolled out. *)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Congrats on your short-term capital gain! :beer: (Seriously congrats. I always like it when people get more capital, and not lose capital. That's why I'm not a communist. *) )Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
So, if you think about it, you've got two totally different things in your above statement:
1. The investments are backed by assets.
2. The investments are located in growing economies.
The former stabilizes the capital and the latter increases it.
Now, let's pause and think about it:
1. Assets. You see, assets by themselves cannot grow. If they grow, it means that people are looking for stability in volatile markets, and so they are willing to include more assets in their portfolios. Therefore, the growth of the assets is purely speculative! It grows purely on people's expectations!
2. Growing economies. So, why those economies grow? A very complex question. There are lots of reasons and no one would know them all. But one of the very important reason is better capitalization. In places where there weren't certain goods or services they started to appear. The GDP had grown. Then when the economy grows, it spurs investors to invest, so more capital is thrown in there, and more businesses appear. So, the GDP grows even more spurring the investors even more, etc. That is exactly what is called the market hype. Everyone knows that those eastern markets are risky.
So, to sum it up, you were trying to explain your gains by them not being "based on speculation and market hype", but it's exactly the opposite! It's actually based on both! :crazy:
Are you joking or practicing sophistry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crocodile
The main point of gold is that it isn't bound to GDP of any particular country. Yes, in times of trouble you can't buy very much for gold but gold is still worth something even then unlike paper money which you can use as toilet paper indeed. Besides, gold would eventually regain its value when troubles end while paper money would sooner be redesigned and reissued.Quote:
Hence the dependency on the GDP. And so the story rolled out. *)
I was joking. But the point of that joke was that the money on it's own only worth the media it's issued on. Unless someone else is willing to exchange. And it's true that the gold is usually worth more than the paper (unless you find yourself in South America some 400-500 years ago).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Ha-ha, that's funny. So, you're saying that gold mines are equally distributed across the world? In reality, some countries would be able to issue their gold money for cheaper than the others. And some countries won't be able to issue their currency at all! And that would be unfair again. And then all kinds of strange questions would start, like what would be the value of the raw gold? The raw gold (as any other raw material) would be regulated by the supply and demand, but as soon as someone would put it under the press and stamp a coin, it would then be regulated by the amount of the goods and services it could be exchanged for. That would create a special inflated (=unjust) demand for the raw gold and subsequently cause other issues. Also, if you're so obsessed with the dependency on the particular colour of that "evil paper", let's move towards something like "WTO currency". Does that sound compelling?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
I think you should seriously start considering the investment into the real estate market. :lol: The real estate maintains its value much better even in times of trouble (as people have to live somewhere) and definitely regains its value afterward. Unless, of course, the communists would deprive you of your property (for the social justice reasons), but that's another story. :pardon:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil