by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Sunday August 31, 2003 @04:45PM (#6840349)
There is only one certainty, and that is that we will run out of money. Corporations gather money faster than any force on the planet, and eventually, they will have it all sewn up. The consumer will have less money to throw around, because McDonalds, Microsoft, and Major Movie labels will have gobbled up the entire economy in their attempts to keep stocks rising, even as the balloon's dimensions stretch into dangerous proportions.
You're assuming that the amount of money in the world is finite. We're not talking about a natural resource like oil, we're talking about a medium where people exchange the fruits of their labor. The only way there could be a finite limit to the amount of money in the world is if population growth stopped overnight, resulting in a finite number of man-hours available on the planet. But even then, technology increases the base value of the individual man-hours (ie. fewer people can do more work, creating
You're assuming that the amount of money in the world is finite.
It's not like that. Money is just an abstraction for the ability to exchange work. "Running out of money" means losing the freedom to exchange work. This could happen under an authoritarian government that criminalizes non-state bartering.
The AC's contention is that corporatism will accelerate to the point where an oligarchy of companies becomes a new fascist power. The probablity of this occuring is a matter of opinion- he seems to thi
Many corporations are pretty good at gathering money (ie: Microsoft), but you're assuming those corporations will hang onto that money and do nothing with it. Business-wise, that doesn't make any sense. Corporations tend to invest that money in the form of assets, among other things, and may also declare dividends. Remember, those corporations are there to make -investors- money, so those investors will want to see some money in return for placing their trust (and their money) in that corporation's abili
McDonalds, Microsoft, and Major Movie labels.... You might enjoy the little know fact that the biggest piramide scheme in post-Soviet Russia was the company called MMM.:)
One of the counter-arguments is the devastating effect this has on the demand side of the economy. If only capitalists (those who are rich enough to live off the income of their existing wealth, and their agents such as CEOs) can afford to go to the movies, it follows that either (a) ticket prices go through the roof (as in thousands of dollars) or (b) the studios go out of business -- a few hundred people paying $10 to see the movie will NOT cover the costs of the theatre, let alone movie production and d
Follow-on thought. If Disney (for example) has just six stockholders (the ultra-wealthy), a CEO who insists that he/she get $200M in annual compensation instead of passing most of that on to the stockholders will find himself/herself out of a job very quickly. The current looting of corporations by their officers at the expense of the stockholders is, IMO, happening because so many of the shares are held by funds (mutual, pension and otherwise) that are run by individuals who are managing "other people's
What really scares me is how IGNORANT of ECONOMICS most Slashdot users are. You folks are generally pretty educated about technology and science, but you have no clue when it comes to economics.
We live in a world where the expansion of the free market has transformed a planet of people whose daily challenge was to feed themselves, into one where we see poverty going away rapidly. In 1950, only half of Americans had indoor plumbing. Now even some of the poorest Americans have microwave ovens and television sets, let alone indoor plumbing.
Not only has the super-rich West been moving forward. In 1970, the percentage of humanity living at under $2 per day was 40%, under $1 per day was 16%. By 1998, less than 20% of humanity lived under $2 per day, and less than 7% live on under $1 per day (all measurements in 1985 dollars).
We have a long way to go still. But thanks to economic liberalization in countries such as India and China, these numbers are expected to continue dropping.
Totally right - one of the more insightful comments on this topic.
I'd like to add that what is really happening when people get richer is that their productivity increases so that the value of their work is more than $2 a day.
This is what the modern world is all about. The industrial revolution was really more about the indutrialisation of agriculture so that instead of being dependent upon physical labour for agricultural productivity a single farmer could produce more than enough food to feed hundreds o
If anyone is interested in a free daily periodical where you can learn a great deal more about the machine and the reality of modern economics to the tune of dripping sarchasam I recommend the The Daily Reckoning. [dailyreckoning.com]
To paraphrase an article I read their recently, You can no more understand the modern world without understanding econimics than you can understand the renasance without understanding religion.
For instance they recently had a great article on the real nature of deflation. [dailyreckoning.com] It's contraction of t
By "economic liberalization" of course you mean destruction of collective workers rights (in as much as they ever existed), lower wages, longer hours, fewer benefits, and in some cases outright slave or prison labor.. Not to mention an economic structure which allows the rich of developed nations to make as much money with as few legal restrictions as possible from the labor of developing nations.
Free trade and globalization of trade has allowed big business to exploit the poor of other countries far more
In 1950, only half of Americans had indoor plumbing.
This is an absolutely false statistic. Indoor plumbing was required in apartments in New York City in the 1890's. MAYBE 50% of Americans did not have access to heated water, but indoor plumbing?
What do you think people were doing? Going out to the well and dropping a bucket? Going to the local fountain?
Come on.
I won't even bother addressing your other ridiculous statistics. Did you just pull that shit out of your ass?
Well, my first school, in about 1968, had outhouses, with drinking water pumped by a windmill. Not everybody in 1950 lived in NYC, not by a long shot. Back then most Americans still lived in rural areas or small towns.
I will agree that 50% sounds high, but it's not as low as you seem to think.
You must be one of those people who think that companies have big vaults where they keep all their money. I guess you took Walt Disney's "Scrooge McDuck" literally.
The "money" in companies is really the value of their physical inventory (which may be nothing), or money in the bank (a little), or the value of their stock (a lot), or lots of other ways that companies accrue wealth.
But what do you think happens with that money? That's right, it gets reinvested. If you put it in the bank, the money is loan
Unix is the worst operating system; except for all others.
-- Berry Kercheval
The Future: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Future: (Score:2)
Re:The Future: (Score:2)
It's not like that. Money is just an abstraction for the ability to exchange work. "Running out of money" means losing the freedom to exchange work. This could happen under an authoritarian government that criminalizes non-state bartering.
The AC's contention is that corporatism will accelerate to the point where an oligarchy of companies becomes a new fascist power. The probablity of this occuring is a matter of opinion- he seems to thi
Re:The Future: (Score:0)
Re:The Future: (Score:2)
You might enjoy the little know fact that the biggest piramide scheme in post-Soviet Russia was the company called MMM.
Re:The Future: (Score:2)
Re:The Future: (Score:2)
Re:The Future: (Score:5, Insightful)
We live in a world where the expansion of the free market has transformed a planet of people whose daily challenge was to feed themselves, into one where we see poverty going away rapidly. In 1950, only half of Americans had indoor plumbing. Now even some of the poorest Americans have microwave ovens and television sets, let alone indoor plumbing.
Not only has the super-rich West been moving forward. In 1970, the percentage of humanity living at under $2 per day was 40%, under $1 per day was 16%. By 1998, less than 20% of humanity lived under $2 per day, and less than 7% live on under $1 per day (all measurements in 1985 dollars).
We have a long way to go still. But thanks to economic liberalization in countries such as India and China, these numbers are expected to continue dropping.
Re:The Future: (Score:1)
I'd like to add that what is really happening when people get richer is that their productivity increases so that the value of their work is more than $2 a day.
This is what the modern world is all about. The industrial revolution was really more about the indutrialisation of agriculture so that instead of being dependent upon physical labour for agricultural productivity a single farmer could produce more than enough food to feed hundreds o
Re:The Future: (Score:2)
To paraphrase an article I read their recently, You can no more understand the modern world without understanding econimics than you can understand the renasance without understanding religion.
For instance they recently had a great article on the real nature of deflation. [dailyreckoning.com] It's contraction of t
Re:The Future: (Score:0)
yeah poor people need microwaves and television sets instead of govt funded healthcare and a good standard of living...
Re:The Future: (Score:1)
Obviously you don't know many poor people. They'll pay $70 a month for cable and $0 for health insurance.
Re:The Future: (Score:0)
Free trade and globalization of trade has allowed big business to exploit the poor of other countries far more
Re:The Future: (Score:2)
This is an absolutely false statistic. Indoor plumbing was required in apartments in New York City in the 1890's. MAYBE 50% of Americans did not have access to heated water, but indoor plumbing?
What do you think people were doing? Going out to the well and dropping a bucket? Going to the local fountain?
Come on.
I won't even bother addressing your other ridiculous statistics. Did you just pull that shit out of your ass?
Re:The Future: (Score:1)
I will agree that 50% sounds high, but it's not as low as you seem to think.
Re:The Future: (Score:1)
Stupid (Score:0)
The "money" in companies is really the value of their physical inventory (which may be nothing), or money in the bank (a little), or the value of their stock (a lot), or lots of other ways that companies accrue wealth.
But what do you think happens with that money? That's right, it gets reinvested. If you put it in the bank, the money is loan