Well HH, I guess were about to find out in 2008 if you’re right. Stay tuned.
[quote]lixy wrote:
[/quote]
I read about half of this and realized the author was an idiot. The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay about 3% of all income tax. The top 1% pay over one-third — data from the IRS themselves.
I do agree that we bankrupted ourselves maintaining order in the world AND dramatically increasing social spending. Those things are incompatible.
The author (and you) take for granted the order in the world provided by the US military. Do you think Coca-cola will sell its product if it can’t keep the profits? Exxon? ATT? We sell things overseas and foreigners sell here because trade is protected. Tribal chieftains, like Achmani-jihad and Chavez will only be too happy to ‘nationalize’ the investments made by foreigners. Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe) would be thrilled if you built a factory there — "Thank you for your kind donation!!', he MIGHT say. Nah, he wouldn’t even say thanks.
All the countries of the world should pony up and fund the US military. When we can’t protect business, it’ll be open season and the world’s economy will collapse. I suggest a 5% wealth tax on all Moroccans! ;D
Our ability to influence the world politically and our economic buying power will likely contract in the near future. Despite this we have a large wealth of natural and human resource within our domestic borders and the idea that our domestic production capabilities will just evaporate is not realistic.
Investment strategy is always safest with diversification and possible impending crisis does not change this. Investing in your education and career skills should be anyones priority as a beginning to building wealth. From there savings can be invested in both commodities and securities markets with the help of a reputable professional. Once your savings are adequate real estate or agricultural land is a goal that could follow.
As far as paranoia about depression and recession the most sane advice I recommend is to relocate to a locale that has an abundance of the basic resources of fresh water, farm land, and trees and somewhat removed from major urban areas.
Pursuing a career that is associated with domestic production of of a commodity could also help insulate you as well as buying a home with water and timber resources and potential food production capabilities. Hard sciences and engineers are also recession proof to a large degree. Service industries and management positions are more vulnerable.
Good luck.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
I read about half of this and realized the author was an idiot. The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay about 3% of all income tax. The top 1% pay over one-third — data from the IRS themselves. [/quote]
In other news, water is still wet.
I don’t get your logic here. Do you not think trade should be consensual?
Here’s an idea: Don’t invest in either Venezuela, Iran or Zimbabwe in the first place.
[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
Our ability to influence the world politically and our economic buying power will likely contract in the near future. Despite this we have a large wealth of natural and human resource within our domestic borders and the idea that our domestic production capabilities will just evaporate is not realistic.
Investment strategy is always safest with diversification and possible impending crisis does not change this. Investing in your education and career skills should be anyones priority as a beginning to building wealth. From there savings can be invested in both commodities and securities markets with the help of a reputable professional. Once your savings are adequate real estate or agricultural land is a goal that could follow.
As far as paranoia about depression and recession the most sane advice I recommend is to relocate to a locale that has an abundance of the basic resources of fresh water, farm land, and trees and somewhat removed from major urban areas.
Pursuing a career that is associated with domestic production of of a commodity could also help insulate you as well as buying a home with water and timber resources and potential food production capabilities. Hard sciences and engineers are also recession proof to a large degree. Service industries and management positions are more vulnerable.
Good luck. [/quote]
All excellent advice. I would add that one should be as far as possible from urban areas, where hordes of starving desperate people will be in search of food. One should migrate to exurbs like Aspen (if you can afford it) or places like Traverse City Michigan, far removed from decaying cities and suburbs.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
I read about half of this and realized the author was an idiot. The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay about 3% of all income tax. The top 1% pay over one-third — data from the IRS themselves.
In other news, water is still wet.
The author (and you) take for granted the order in the world provided by the US military. Do you think Coca-cola will sell its product if it can’t keep the profits? Exxon? ATT? We sell things overseas and foreigners sell here because trade is protected. Tribal chieftains, like Achmani-jihad and Chavez will only be too happy to ‘nationalize’ the investments made by foreigners. Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe) would be thrilled if you built a factory there — "Thank you for your kind donation!!', he MIGHT say. Nah, he wouldn’t even say thanks.
I don’t get your logic here. Do you not think trade should be consensual?
Here’s an idea: Don’t invest in either Venezuela, Iran or Zimbabwe in the first place.[/quote]
The logic is actually simple: no one will invest where loss is a sure thing. Also, investment falls off as risk rises. That’s why leaders who confiscate investments doom their people to poverty — they now have only themselves as a source of new capital.
If the leader can sell a valued commodity, like oil, he can make money for the country but these leaders are usually crooks, like Arafat, Marcos, Mugabe, and so on. What happens when the commodity runs out? What if the money earned isn’t invested properly? What about all the OTHER potential investors in that country, who now shun it?
Ever wonder why Iran has a lot of poverty, despite having the 4th largest oil reserves in the world?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The logic is actually simple: no one will invest where loss is a sure thing. Also, investment falls off as risk rises. That’s why leaders who confiscate investments doom their people to poverty — they now have only themselves as a source of new capital.
If the leader can sell a valued commodity, like oil, he can make money for the country but these leaders are usually crooks, like Arafat, Marcos, Mugabe, and so on. What happens when the commodity runs out? What if the money earned isn’t invested properly? What about all the OTHER potential investors in that country, who now shun it?
Ever wonder why Iran has a lot of poverty, despite having the 4th largest oil reserves in the world? [/quote]
Save that for the kids in your class. We are among adults here, and everybody knows that you’re only stating the obvious.
My question was this: Why the hell should I care if Coca-Cola invests in Venezuela, Libya, Zimbabwe or not? Coca-Cola obviously will, or else some other corporation will take the market there. You say that the world needs the US army to police it, and that countries should compensate the US for the service (which I personally see as bullying). Why? Why should the farmer in Oklahoma worry about Coca-Cola’s investments in Iran? Why should the Japanese worker? Why should the Russian prostitute?
You call yourself a capitalist and yet, do not have faith in the ability of markets to sort out themselves.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The logic is actually simple: no one will invest where loss is a sure thing. Also, investment falls off as risk rises. That’s why leaders who confiscate investments doom their people to poverty — they now have only themselves as a source of new capital.
If the leader can sell a valued commodity, like oil, he can make money for the country but these leaders are usually crooks, like Arafat, Marcos, Mugabe, and so on. What happens when the commodity runs out? What if the money earned isn’t invested properly? What about all the OTHER potential investors in that country, who now shun it?
Ever wonder why Iran has a lot of poverty, despite having the 4th largest oil reserves in the world?
Save that for the kids in your class. We are among adults here, and everybody knows that you’re only stating the obvious.
My question was this: Why the hell should I care if Coca-Cola invests in Venezuela, Libya, Zimbabwe or not? Coca-Cola obviously will, or else some other corporation will take the market there. You say that the world needs the US army to police it, and that countries should compensate the US for the service (which I personally see as bullying). Why? Why should the farmer in Oklahoma worry about Coca-Cola’s investments in Iran? Why should the Japanese worker? Why should the Russian prostitute?
You call yourself a capitalist and yet, do not have faith in the ability of markets to sort out themselves.[/quote]
YOU should care about international investment — without the safety of the investment, capital flows from wealthy countries to poor countries would trickle and stop. The poor in those other countries would suffer. Is that what you want?
Money flows from wealthy countries only if there is reasonable certainty of a return on investment. The US military is like the cop in the neighborhood who prevents gangs and thugs from simply emptying the stores.
Here, maybe this is simple enough for you: In America, there are very few large grocery stores in poor/ghetto areas. One reason is that the investors and store owners are afraid of crime and violence, the risk to their investment. Poor people have to shop at convenience stores which have higher prices. Criminals make everyone in the neighborhood poorer — just like thugs who nationalize investments doom their people to poverty.
You wanting the USA to pull back its military is like demanding that cops simply abandon whole areas to crime and violence, and the consequential poverty that goes with it.
I guess living in a cave in Afghanistan prevents you from caring about poor people in this world. I DO care, so I advocate capitalism and free markets. What do YOU advocate? Whipping 13 year old girls?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You wanting the USA to pull back its military is like demanding that cops simply abandon whole areas to crime and violence, and the consequential poverty that goes with it.
[/quote]
Our military is not part of a mafioso organization. The US taxpayer is funding corporatism which hurts us more than it helps us.
Free trade means businesses must be free from competitive protection too. If it costs more to do business then particular companies will have to figure out how to make it cheaper or go out of business when some other company does figure it out – with the added benefit of not making us broke in the process.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
YOU should care about international investment — without the safety of the investment, capital flows from wealthy countries to poor countries would trickle and stop. The poor in those other countries would suffer. Is that what you want? [/quote]
Unlike you, I recognize and respect people’s right to self-determination. If Venezuelans want to nationalize their wealth, that is their decision and they have to live with the consequences - good or bad.
You, on the other hand, seem pleased to decide for them.
In most cases, money flows regardless. It is the risk associated with such flow increases. Investors will demand a higher return because of that risk. That’s it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
YOU should care about international investment — without the safety of the investment, capital flows from wealthy countries to poor countries would trickle and stop. The poor in those other countries would suffer. Is that what you want?
Unlike you, I recognize and respect people’s right to self-determination. If Venezuelans want to nationalize their wealth, that is their decision and they have to live with the consequences - good or bad.
You, on the other hand, seem pleased to decide for them.
Money flows from wealthy countries only if there is reasonable certainty of a return on investment.
In most cases, money flows regardless. It is the risk associated with such flow increases. Investors will demand a higher return because of that risk. That’s it.[/quote]
Why does sympathizing with poor people mean I want to control them? You somehow equate government with self-determination. Look, if Venezuelans confiscate investments, they are hurting themselves in the long run. How is that ‘control’?
If you took the drugs away from someone who was trying to commit suicide, is that controlling them? Perhaps in a legalistic sense but in reality you are saving them.
You can’t bring yourself to admit that free market capitalism is superior to any other system, can you? You think thugs conficating wealth is acceptable ‘in the name of the people’. Simply ludicrous…so your idea isn’t worth 50 cent…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Why does sympathizing with poor people mean I want to control them? You somehow equate government with self-determination. Look, if Venezuelans confiscate investments, they are hurting themselves in the long run. How is that ‘control’?
If you took the drugs away from someone who was trying to commit suicide, is that controlling them? Perhaps in a legalistic sense but in reality you are saving them. [/quote]
So, organizing and/or backing coups against democratically elected regimes, military invasions and all that, are just for their own good. And you, are the infallible judge and the executioner saving “them” from committing suicide.
This is one of the whackiest rationalizations I ever came across.
What you are advocating is one the most crooked systems to ever exist. It’s got little to do with capitalism.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Why does sympathizing with poor people mean I want to control them? You somehow equate government with self-determination. Look, if Venezuelans confiscate investments, they are hurting themselves in the long run. How is that ‘control’?
If you took the drugs away from someone who was trying to commit suicide, is that controlling them? Perhaps in a legalistic sense but in reality you are saving them.
So, organizing and/or backing coups against democratically elected regimes, military invasions and all that, are just for their own good. And you, are the infallible judge and the executioner saving “them” from committing suicide.
This is one of the whackiest rationalizations I ever came across.
You can’t bring yourself to admit that free market capitalism is superior to any other system, can you? You think thugs conficating wealth is acceptable ‘in the name of the people’.
What you are advocating is one the most crooked systems to ever exist. It’s got little to do with capitalism.[/quote]
Why are you supporting criminals? You really do want the world to enter a new Dark Ages, where there is no international investment, since that is ‘robbing the people’. How is investing in a country robbery? To produce and sell something at a profit is robbery, unless it benefits the locals TOTALLY? The locals get jobs, the investors make profits. You want the workers to get their wages but the capitalists are not supposed to get their profits?
What sort of dementia allows you to think that anyone will invest with no return on investment, where locals get wages and local tribal chieftains keep the profit (see my Chavez thread)? That much irrationality is not possible even to looters…or is it?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What sort of dementia allows you to think that anyone will invest with no return on investment, where locals get wages and local tribal chieftains keep the profit (see my Chavez thread)? That much irrationality is not possible even to looters…or is it?
[/quote]
Since you are arguing for the exact same things when subsidizing international investments by protecting them with the military the answer to your question is obviously “yes, and you´re advocating the same”.
[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
What sort of dementia allows you to think that anyone will invest with no return on investment, where locals get wages and local tribal chieftains keep the profit (see my Chavez thread)? That much irrationality is not possible even to looters…or is it?
Since you are arguing for the exact same things when subsidizing international investments by protecting them with the military the answer to your question is obviously “yes, and you´re advocating the same”.
[/quote]
Having a police force to ensure the safety of commerce is not the same as having an occupying force. True, if some country abuses the world trading system they are to be punished, perhaps even occupied until they pay their debts, but commerce can’t take place without someone patrolling the seas and letting tinpot dictators know that they’ll be crushed if they ‘nationalize’ investments.
You are confused over the role of the police. You also may be assuming that orderly trade would continue if the USA pulled in its horns. Nope.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You are confused over the role of the police. You also may be assuming that orderly trade would continue if the USA pulled in its horns. Nope.
[/quote]
HH, that’s why private businesses hire this guy to keep the customers safe.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Nope not this time…Just checking to see if Nominal Prospect has finally written a post that makes sense.[/quote]
I figured you might have some advice for me, now that I’ve asked.
It’s always been unsolicited in the past.
Ron Paul only gets around 5% of the vote. That means that 95% of the Republican voters (even less overall) don’t want a Constitution, limited government, and freedom. They want a friendly dictatorship, as long as it provides the goodies and they get to choose the dictator.
We are doomed.