Yet apparently it is much too complex for you to grasp even the basics.

... destroyed IMO.

Real wealth creation looks like this.

First off grizy wins thread.

Second OP has a horrible fallacy at the core of his argument: the idea that the economy is a zero sum game. It's not. It's just not. Basically imagine the entire economy is a pie. In a perfect world where efficiency was absolutely maximized he would be right and it WOULD be zero sum. In real life the pie can get bigger. This means that two parties can make a deal that expands the pie and both win.

Thankfully we don't live in a perfect world, and it's possible for two parties to cut a deal where both sides win. I get that the OP learned everything he knows about economics from playing monopoly, but the question of whether or not the economy is zero sum was answered by the ****ing physiocrats back in the 1700's.

Thanks for playing though!

Also I can't help but notice that every single econ topic in this subforum is dominated by the discussion of currency. This tells me that very few of you know anything about how currency actually works. You just throw around terms like 'fiat money' and 'gold' and 'taxes' and other words that you don't actually understand at any theoretical level.

Not trying to be a dick... But you don't have to learn this stuff on forums. There are actual books you could read. Just saying.

You are making the common misconception of conflating money with wealth. The two are not the same. Ease up on what you think is "factually incorrect."

Money isn't wealth, its a conduit between one's production and another's production, which when exchanged voluntarily create an ex ante psychic profit for both parties (iow both parties expect to benefit, hence why the exchange is made). The profit is the gain made (by both parties) in the transaction whereby some less desired state of affairs was exchanged for a more desired state of affairs. This profit, or "value gained" is subjective and unmeasurable, yet it is forward progress towards one's satisfaction of his or her desire. Wealth on the other hand is the capacity to achieve that satisfaction (achieved by gaining something desired or removing something undesired). The ability to increase the capacity to achieve satisfaction or remove dissatisfaction, and thus become wealthier, is infinite.

Now just let that soak in.

This, in a nutshell, is the mercantilist doctrine -- that some arbitrary amount of money ("fair share" or whatever) must remain in some arbitrarily defined economy in order for that economy to serve its arbitrarily defined purpose. Again, it was logically shattered centuries ago.

Politicians would rather shoot their fnnnnnnn toe off then say no to a corporation!

In 1980 there was less then 400 lobbyist in DC, by 2009 there were over 35,000

In 1980 50 corporations owned main stream press, now its only six.

In 1980 CEOs got paid at a ratio of 42 to 1 what their workers got.......by 2010 they paid themselves 325 to 1 more then their workers.

GG

In regards to 'avoiding' taxes, tax avoidance is completely legal and one would think that a rational individual (firm) would utilize any method of avoidance in order to secure a larger portion of their money.

Certainly, if these companies you speak of are evading taxes then that is an entirely different scenario, and I think someone earlier mentioned something along the lines of that it is the government that more or less allows the corporations to avoid taxes through incredibly complicated tax codes etc.

Not to start any gov vs business argument...

Financial terrorism exposed in London this week talked about how the world is going to hit a depression that made the last one look like soft

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gQo3JwbaV8

OP, are you this guy?

1) Corporatism is not the same thing as free market capitalism. Most free marketeers despise the mingling of corporations and government.

2) Large companies tend to operate at lower costs per unit than small companies. Lower costs typically result in lower prices. Lower prices tend to result in small companies getting into trouble. Small companies getting into trouble tend to be purchased by large companies. It's no problem until the government says that only Companies X, Y, and Z can operate in a particular industry.

3) CEOs do not pay themselves. Their salaries are determined by the board and presented to stockholders. There have been several recent high-profile instances of stockholders refusing the pay schemes indicated by the board (Citigroup, for example).

If you are lumping in CEOs (no idea where you got your figures, by the way) who also are owners of the company, then it's their right to take whatever share of the profits they want. Who are you to say what workers "deserve?"

holy communists!!

I guarantee that if this guy had the opportunity to switch places with any of the 1%'ers, he would do it in a heart beat and would never look back. I think there is a lot of jealousy involved in this whole 99% vs 1% argument. Some points are valid but you can't just ignore capitalism and rewarding successful people.

I feel that there is some gray area between the ideal level of taxes and wealth re-distribution but to take too much from the rich and give to the poor, will kill our nation's future (speaking US here.)

this is not capitalism!

post a video of a hobo, did you expect him to know a damn thing...when the rest of society knows nothing?

The fact that this guy is an hypocrite wouldn't be that important if what he is saying wasn't so stupid, he clearly doesn't understand the first thing about economics.

For example, the are lots of people advocating for the right thing wich is a free market based economy, but they would be very willing to recieve money from the government in exchange for their products at a price that the market wouldn't convalidate, they are hypocrites too, but they are speaking some truth. This guy is just brainless.

Am I the only one that realized this is a level? No one who actually believed what the OP is claiming would phrase things in this way

They could if their idea of what wealth is comes from watching cartoons of Uncle Scrooge swimming in his pool of gold coins.

He also suffers from a bizarre notion that taxation is putting money into the economy, when in fact it drains it from the economy.

Im afraid you give him way too much credit.

Imo, businesses are just responding to what the government has turned into. Individuals and therefore businesses, will always be greedy. It is human nature. We can not change that.

However, we can change the way the government is organized. If the government is set up in such a way that protects individuals' freedom and liberty (eg. strictly following the constitution), then rent seeking businesses will not be able to lobby for things that provide them with above normal profits while screwing everyone else.

I recommend The Anti-Capitalist Mindset if you want to learn more about why the 99% people hate capitalism.

FWI, I think that a large % of capitalist haters seem to believe that the vast majority of the 1% got their wealth by stealing or scamming others somehow. Not sure where that comes from but that's just an insight from my own experience.

Wealth re-distribution by the government is always a terrible thing. It steps on individual liberties and reduces incentives to create wealth. However, the government goes about this will include a massive amount of waste. Think about how much wealth gets redistributed voluntarily anyway. Billions are given to charitable causes every year.

Who is "we"? I'm not witnessing a collapse of the world's economies; I'm witnessing the cyclical nature of economies in action.

What's happening now has even more historical significance than even most people realize.

Europe is slowly coming to terms with its fiscal and (eventually) political unification.

Perhaps even more significantly, the crisis is truly bringing home, for many, the fact that the world economies are more integrated than ever. It's unprecedented how all the major central banks (BoJapan, Federal Reserve, Russia and everyone else really) are already deeply involved in what's, so far, a supposedly European crisis.

Another thing that one of my politics professors (an authority on war in the field) pointed out to me was how remarkable the thought of use of force isn't even crossing anyone's minds. 70 years ago, the newspaper headlines would be quite different.

People shouldn't automatically dismiss the notion that redistributing money from the rich could be a good thing overall. In his new book, Stiglitz makes a case for redistribution, arguing that it would actually be better for growth and stability.