Login/Join to access your personalised dashboard now! Returning user? Log in or Register
Log in to your GrownUps

Economics contemplations

This topic contains 36 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  jens 1 day, 20 hours ago.

Discussions Money & Life Plans Economics Economics contemplations

Viewing 7 posts - 31 through 37 (of 37 total)
  • #1742778
    jens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 16
    Replies: 7750
    jens

    halcyon –  since  you did not even comment on the  only way of  wealth creation  beyond  hand-to-mouth   consumption, you  have to  acknowledge it as truth, that no wealth can be created  without saving  sacrifices or  surpluses at the  expense of   hand-to-mouth consumption potential.

    Yes, and millions of poor can be helped  if  people have saved  surpluses,  as I received  help  from the  American  Red  cross  when a Displaced Person  for nearly  4  years  after WW2 in Germany.

    How  do you expect  charity and welfare  be  financed  without  savings, surpluses or  profits  from those  that  produce them ?

    And a $1000.-  KiwiSaver  kick-start to all  the more needy  than those  who have received it already, will not be  eroded in inflation  when invested in  material assets  which help to generate  wealth  –  and the  values  of  which keep  up while the  value of money  is reduced  through inflation and especially  “debt free”  money printing.

    And if  a $1000.-  KiwiSaver  kick-start  owner  dies  before  65   or say,  a few months after  birth, it will belong  to his/her estate and  at least contribute  to his/her  funeral costs, if  necessary.

    And  halcyon  –  is  not  economic power through some  meaningful level of individual  capital  ownership more  democratic  than  a govt. Monpoly  Capitalist “dictatorship of the proletariat” ?

    #1742779
    halcyon
    Member
    Member since: May 4, 2014
    Topics: 8
    Replies: 5025
    halcyon

    Again jens, your are living in the past. Yes, I know that many received help from the Red Cross in the aftermath of WWII. However, the needs are greater now. Far more people need help.

    And given the current world economic situation, money invested will not give an adequate return to fund the relief needed by so many. Why, there is even talk of  our Reserve Bank setting interest rates to under 1%.

    There is no reason why returns from production could not be directly channeled into world poverty relief. Those returns could be paid out equally and globally rather than a few being able to live in luxury while the majority suffer.

    Our current economic models are failing to meet the needs of all people. It is time we explored new was of doing economics.

    “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” (George Orwell, The Animal Farm)

    • This reply was modified 6 days, 8 hours ago by  halcyon.
    #1742818
    jens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 16
    Replies: 7750
    jens

    O.K. halcyon.

    I thought that  the new  –   never having  existed  before(?)  –   100% property owning democracy concept would be the most effective  and modern answer to eliminate  partial  poverty under  traditional plutocratic  capitalism  and total poverty  under  recently  collapsed or  still  struggling  State Monopoly capitalism  –

    but  I would be still extremely interested  to examine all the other  “new  ways  of  doing  economics” of which we have not heard  before.

    Which new  way of  doing  economics  would  you propose  for  examination  and  application –  halcyon  –  and all  those  knowing of    –   or  hoping  for   –   new  ways  of  doing economics ”

    I think then the  discussion of  this  subject matter –   with far  longer term  consequences and “cleaner”  than heavily on  personalities and  some “trickery”  based  politics  –  will  result in this  thread becoming one of  the  most  lively  ones  among  among all the  others  threads.

    • This reply was modified 6 days, 2 hours ago by  jens.
    #1742822
    jens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 16
    Replies: 7750
    jens

    And P.S. halcyon –

    Is there not  some peculiarity in the  attitude of  proposing  massive  donations to eliminate poverty in the  world – when at the same time opposing a $1000.- KiwiSaver  kick-start wealth ownership  creative  “seed  grain”   to our  own  have-nots and  those  poor or even  prosperous who  have not  received it because  they  thought  they  could not afford  a savings  commitment, or thought  they did not need it ?

    #1742824
    halcyon
    Member
    Member since: May 4, 2014
    Topics: 8
    Replies: 5025
    halcyon

    Jens, proposing massive donations to eliminate poverty in the world is a totally different beast to the $1,000 kickstart wealth ownership plan for NZ. For one thing the later, if implemented,  only allows those in NZ to sit back smugly and say we are stamping out poverty. It totally ignores the million starving in overseas countries.

    Secondly, if you compare our level of poverty with that in some countries, well we all seem well off. So lets focus on the International scene. How would you fund a similar $1,000 kickstart  for all those in third world countries. People who are surviving on only a few dollars a week?

    Do you not think that all people in the world should have a fair share of the rewards of the raw materials our industries use to manufacture goods  for sale?

    “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” (George Orwell, The Animal Farm)

    #1742844
    jens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 16
    Replies: 7750
    jens

    But  halcyon –

    the $1000.- wealth  ownership  creative  kick-start for  all our  citizens  from  cradle to grave will increase  our  national wealth ownership  and  raise  our  donations  and welfare  financing  capacity in a sustainable  way, whereas  just  raising our  donations etc. without raising our  productivity  through   more profitable  investment will not  raise  our  capacity  of financing welfare, unless we are  prepared to reduce  our  own welfare  for the benefit of  poor  foreigners.

    Small New Zealand cannot  make much difference to the  poverty e.g. in India – but if we  set our  own house in order  by achieving  total  poverty elimination  through an effort with participation  by all, we  would  certainly give  the  world a  clue  about  how they can do it in their own countries.

    A few  years ago  there  were  news  how  poor  women in India were helped to raise their  profitable  productivity and savings  capacity  by  supplying them  with  sewing machines not  debt free.

    That means – much smaller  amounts  than the symbolic $1000.- in NZ  can give a  bigger kick-start in India  than the  $1000.- in NZ.

    In principle, would not a fair  share  to all  in a fair and sustainable  way become achievable  only  by assisting all  those  in  need –

    to participate  in the efforts and responsibilities  to raise  their  own productivity ?

    If that is not  done, then would we not be faced  by endlessly  increasing demands  for more welfare relief ?

    #1743194
    jens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 16
    Replies: 7750
    jens

    Well yes  halcyon  –  I  agree  that I have  gained my experience  about  wealth creation  from  economic  history, peoples’ behavior and my own life  in the  past  –  and  not  from dreams about the  future.

    I believe we have agreed  that “neo-liberalism”  intensifies socio-economic  polarization into   haves and have-nots – which was  my reason  for  giving up on ACT.

    In a recent  article  commenting about the  seemingly still surviving  popularity and power of neo-liberalism the  author suggested –

    that perhaps it is so because the political Right’s messages reflect  views and  feelings  as if we were all  home owners, which was the  “proper”  way to  be, socio-economically   ?

    But we  know, that the liberal political Right  has not  made  a systematic economic  effort  towards achieving  home ownership  potential  by all, and the  free market has  also failed to  achieve it.

    So halcyon – don’t  you think that  such an effort would be economically  more  wealth   ownership  creative than just massive  redistribution  of wealth  to the  poor  for  consumption ?

Viewing 7 posts - 31 through 37 (of 37 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Advertisement
 
Join Free.  Register for newsletter updates & complete your membership for full site access.  Welcome & Enjoy!

Register Free today and go in the draw to win a $50 gift card!

Close X  
GrownUps

Register

Join 165,000 GrownUps for Free. Register now to receive our regular email newsletters to keep you up to date & complete your membership to access all areas of the site. We can’t wait to meet you. Enjoy!

Please tick the box to continue:

GrownUps

Excellent, you're all signed up for the GrownUps newsletter!

An email has been sent to the email address you provided for when you're ready to finish setting up your user profile.

We hope to see you soon!

 
Join Free.  Register for newsletter updates & complete your membership for full site access.  Welcome & Enjoy!

Register Free today and go in the draw to win a $50 gift card!

Close X  
GrownUps

Register

Join 165,000 GrownUps for Free. Register now to receive our regular email newsletters to keep you up to date & complete your membership to access all areas of the site. We can’t wait to meet you. Enjoy!

Please tick the box to continue:

GrownUps

Excellent, you're all signed up for the GrownUps newsletter!

An email has been sent to the email address you provided for when you're ready to finish setting up your user profile.

We hope to see you soon!