Your Questions About Wealth Creation Economics

Maria asks…

history, please help!?

1. After about 1825, factories began to be located near
A. rivers.
B. coal mines.
C. the ocean.
D. cotton fields.

2. Which of the following natural resources was most important for the early development of industry in Great Britain?
A. coal
B. iron ore
C. water
D. timber

3. John Kay’s invention of the “flying shuttle” led to
A. the expansion of slavery in Great Britain.
B. the invention of the spinning jenny.
C. a rise in the price of cloth.
D. many weavers losing their jobs.

4. Which of the following countries was the first to industrialize?
A. The United States
B. Great Britain
C. France
D. Japan

5. How did industrialization hurt skilled craft workers working in the cottage industry?
A. It led to the creation of unions.
B. It led to a shortage of raw materials.
C. It shifted populations from the countryside to the city.
D. It undercut prices for their products.

6. Which of the following was an effect of the factory system on both workers and society?
A. More people joined the middle class.
B. Workers became more skilled.
C. The price of products increased.
D. Workers dealt directly with merchants.

7. Mass production, which created an increase in the quantity of goods produced, led to
A. more consumer goods available to more people.
B. the need for skilled men to operate machinery.
C. an increase in the cost of factory-made goods.
D. an increase in the number of workers needed by factories.

8. _____________________ enabled the United States to industrialize rapidly.
A. A wealth of natural resources and a large labor force
B. The importation of industrial equipment from Europe
C. A strong U.S. Navy and Merchant Marine
D. The criminalization of the labor movement

9. Industrialization had which of the following effects on middle-class people?
A. They worked harder than ever before.
B. They now had time and money to spend on leisure.
C. They became active in the labor movement.
D. Their standard of living decreased.

10. Britain’s colonial empire fueled the development of industry in Britain because
A. the colonies provided raw materials and markets for British products.
B. the war machine required quick and efficient production of goods.
C. the colonies provided slave labor to work in factories.
D. the colonies produced industrial equipment for Britain.

11. Which of the following was a negative result of the growth of the textile industry in Great Britain?
A. Fewer cotton farms in Great Britain
B. The huge population growth in the country
C. The expansion of agriculture in India
D. The spread of slavery in the United States

12. A region in northwestern England became known as the “black country” because
A. a large number of slaves worked in industry.
B. iron-smelting factories polluted the air.
C. industries located there were all immensely profitable.
D. the sand on the beaches was dark gray.

13. The Luddite movement emerged in order
A. to agitate for the ten-hour day.
B. to oppose industrial changes that were putting weavers out of work.
C. to control strikes in British industries.
D. to abolish child labor in factories.

14. What led to the growth of the middle class?
A. The industry needed managers and other mid-level employees.
B. Profits increased from small, family-owned farms.
C. The prices of manufactured goods increased.
D. There were more universities.

15. The mercantile system in Britain was replaced by
A. entrepreneurship.
B. socialism.
C. department stores.
D. laissez-faire economics.

16. According to Marx and Engels, establishing a society based on cooperation and equal distribution of wealth would require
A. an energy crisis.
B. the development of a wealthy industrial class.
C. universal public education.
D. a revolution.

17. Negative effects of industrialization included crowded, dirty cities and
A. a decrease in the size of the middle class.
B. work that required a few easily learned skills.
C. polluted air and water.
D. greater demand for raw materials.

18. The inventor James Watt developed _________________ that was a crucial innovation in industrialization.
A. a spinning frame
B. an efficient steam engine
C. a cotton gin
D. an assembly line

19. The idea of separate spheres implied that
A. women and men should work side by side in industry.
B. men provided moral guidance in the business world.
C. women stayed home while men financially supported the family.
D. boys and girls should be educated separately.

20. Beginning in the Industrial Revolution, Eli Whitney made the production of cotton more profitable by inventing a machine that
A. produced cotton clothing.
B. spun cotton into thread.
C. harvested cotton plants.
D. remov

admin answers:

I don’t know them all, so I’ll try and answer as much as I can.


Sorry I couldn’t be of more help.

Robert asks…

Why is our government taking actions that destroy the economy and kill jobs?

I mean there have to be people who’ve got this figured out. Keynesian Economics is absolutely insipid and strictly for sheeple consumption. It’s a manipulating tool for government to gain more power by controlling the economy. It doesn’t help the economy, it helps concentrate resources and power in government. I mean it’s fairly obvious wealth isn’t from Government and money isn’t wealth itself but a trade tool representative of wealth. I don’t have any illusion that the brains government can bring together are really stupid, they are just not. Our Representatives may well be majority of morons economically, as most lawyers are on must subjects, but people with good minds can’t buy into the garbage they shovel, they just can’t.

Government can’t create real jobs, they can either kill the environment for job creation, or just leave it alone and let the economy roll. They are killing the economic environment, by choice in fact. It has to be by choice, the cause and effect is too clear.

Government can fake jobs, but a job that doesn’t produce wealth can’t help the economy and the taxation destroys it because a few different negative effects involved and the synergistic negative chain reaction is sets through the economy.

This ain’t no joke folks … keep trying to parasite through government and we gonna crash, and it will hurt the poor more than anyone. Government will be more powerful, but they only care about groups as long as they matter to their power. Crash the system, usurp the Constitution by creating panic and being the answer to desperation? And they take all the power, and they will take all the wealth leaving just enough for the live stock to survive.

That’s how I see this progression and the end game, assuming that those moving and shaking are really not stupid, and I know they are not. The minds behind the Federal Reserve and other Central Banks? They own Central Banks like our mess in every single country but 4 … well 3 now with Libya’s fall and rebels who’ve been talking to Rothschild Central Bankers since probably before the revolution. They are not stupid. Really evil, but not stupid.

Most of us are pretty stupid, and we are being manipulated into a plan that will put us into those evil monsters trap, and at their mercy.

I don’t see it turning around as almost all of buy into the situation either heavy (progressives) or light (republicans), I hope it can be turned, but I can’t see how. We keep on arguing about things that won’t matter, trying to control and beat each other when we can’t win divided.

admin answers:

Our Government consists mostly of Puppets and dupes. The Master runs the Fed, the Rothschild Cartel, and George Soros is their agent. The end game is well documented, their push for world domination through a One World Government they control.

It’s very simple, but it’s very Obfuscated and so very hard to understand. A family began with a goal, spread out in influence and manipulaiton since the mid 1700s. They had the World Domination goal from the start, and they used Banking. The Bower Family, who changed their name to “The Red Door” or Rothschild in German. They tried for One World Government control in the 1800s, and were thwarted by the Czar of Russia. They have been behind so many wars, and usually finance both sides, and crush economies and make huge profits usually many times what they put into it because they control money in entire countries, every single country in the world but 3 now.

Donna asks…

History Help!!!!!!!!!!!!?

1.After about 1825, factories began to be located near

B.coal mines.
C.the ocean.
D.cotton fields.
2.Which of the following natural resources was most important for the early development of industry in Great Britain?

B.iron ore
3.John Kay’s invention of the “flying shuttle” led to

A.the expansion of slavery in Great Britain.
B.the invention of the spinning jenny.
C.a rise in the price of cloth.
D.many weavers losing their jobs.
4.Which of the following countries was the first to industrialize?

A.The United States
B.Great Britain
5.How did industrialization hurt skilled craft workers working in the cottage industry?

A.It led to the creation of unions.
B.It led to a shortage of raw materials.
C.It shifted populations from the countryside to the city.
D.It undercut prices for their products.
6.Which of the following was an effect of the factory system on both workers and society?

A.More people joined the middle class.
B.Workers became more skilled.
C.The price of products increased.
D.Workers dealt directly with merchants.
7.Mass production, which created an increase in the quantity of goods produced, led to

A.more consumer goods available to more people.
B.the need for skilled men to operate machinery. increase in the cost of factory-made goods. increase in the number of workers needed by factories.
8._____________________ enabled the United States to industrialize rapidly.

A.A wealth of natural resources and a large labor force
B.The importation of industrial equipment from Europe
C.A strong U.S. Navy and Merchant Marine
D.The criminalization of the labor movement
9.Industrialization had which of the following effects on middle-class people?

A.They worked harder than ever before.
B.They now had time and money to spend on leisure.
C.They became active in the labor movement.
D.Their standard of living decreased.
10.Britain’s colonial empire fueled the development of industry in Britain because

A.the colonies provided raw materials and markets for British products.
B.the war machine required quick and efficient production of goods.
C.the colonies provided slave labor to work in factories.
D.the colonies produced industrial equipment for Britain.
11.Which of the following was a negative result of the growth of the textile industry in Great Britain?

A.Fewer cotton farms in Great Britain
B.The huge population growth in the country
C.The expansion of agriculture in India
D.The spread of slavery in the United States
12.A region in northwestern England became known as the “black country” because

A.a large number of slaves worked in industry.
B.iron-smelting factories polluted the air. located there were all immensely profitable.
D.the sand on the beaches was dark gray.
13.The Luddite movement emerged in order agitate for the ten-hour day. oppose industrial changes that were putting weavers out of work. control strikes in British industries. abolish child labor in factories.
14.What led to the growth of the middle class?

A.The industry needed managers and other mid-level employees.
B.Profits increased from small, family-owned farms.
C.The prices of manufactured goods increased.
D.There were more universities.
15.The mercantile system in Britain was replaced by

C.department stores.
D.laissez-faire economics.
16.According to Marx and Engels, establishing a society based on cooperation and equal distribution of wealth would require energy crisis.
B.the development of a wealthy industrial class.
C.universal public education.
D.a revolution.
17.Negative effects of industrialization included crowded, dirty cities and

A.a decrease in the size of the middle class. that required a few easily learned skills.
C.polluted air and water.
D.greater demand for raw materials.
18.The inventor James Watt developed _________________ that was a crucial innovation in industrialization.

A.a spinning frame efficient steam engine
C.a cotton gin assembly line
19.The idea of separate spheres implied that

A.women and men should work side by side in industry. provided moral guidance in the business world.
C.women stayed home while men financially supported the family.
D.boys and girls should be educated separately.
20.Beginning in the Industrial Revolution, Eli Whitney made the production of cotton more profitable by inventing a machine that

A.produced cotton clothing.
B.spun cotton into thread.
C.harvested cotton plants.
D.removed seeds from raw cotton blossoms.
21.In response to low wages and poor working conditions in factories during the Industrial Revolution, British workers organized into ____________________ in the early 1800s to p

admin answers:

1 ab 2ac 3d 4b 5cd 6b 7ad 8a 9b 10a 11d 12b 13b 14a 15a 16d 17c 18b 19c
by the way,re.12 the black country is not in the north is in the midlands,smack in the middle.

Lisa asks…

How do you, US citizen feel this opinion?

This is an opinion by Yukio Hatoyama, new prime minister of Japan.

A New Path for Japan

Article Tools Sponsored By By YUKIO HATOYAMA Published: August 26, 2009

TOKYO — In the post-Cold War period, Japan has been continually buffeted by the winds of market fundamentalism in a U.S.-led movement that is more usually called globalization. In the fundamentalist pursuit of capitalism people are treated not as an end but as a means. Consequently, human dignity is lost.

How can we put an end to unrestrained market fundamentalism and financial capitalism, that are void of morals or moderation, in order to protect the finances and livelihoods of our citizens? That is the issue we are now facing.

In these times, we must return to the idea of fraternity — as in the French slogan “liberté, égalité, fraternité” — as a force for moderating the danger inherent within freedom.

Fraternity as I mean it can be described as a principle that aims to adjust to the excesses of the current globalized brand of capitalism and accommodate the local economic practices that have been fostered through our traditions.

The recent economic crisis resulted from a way of thinking based on the idea that American-style free-market economics represents a universal and ideal economic order, and that all countries should modify the traditions and regulations governing their economies in line with global (or rather American) standards.

In Japan, opinion was divided on how far the trend toward globalization should go. Some advocated the active embrace of globalism and leaving everything up to the dictates of the market. Others favored a more reticent approach, believing that efforts should be made to expand the social safety net and protect our traditional economic activities. Since the administration of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi (2001-2006), the Liberal Democratic Party has stressed the former, while we in the Democratic Party of Japan have tended toward the latter position.

The economic order in any country is built up over long years and reflects the influence of traditions, habits and national lifestyles. But globalism has progressed without any regard for non-economic values, or for environmental issues or problems of resource restriction.

If we look back on the changes in Japanese society since the end of the Cold War, I believe it is no exaggeration to say that the global economy has damaged traditional economic activities and destroyed local communities.

In terms of market theory, people are simply personnel expenses. But in the real world people support the fabric of the local community and are the physical embodiment of its lifestyle, traditions and culture. An individual gains respect as a person by acquiring a job and a role within the local community and being able to maintain his family’s livelihood.

Under the principle of fraternity, we would not implement policies that leave areas relating to human lives and safety — such as agriculture, the environment and medicine — to the mercy of globalism.

Our responsibility as politicians is to refocus our attention on those non-economic values that have been thrown aside by the march of globalism. We must work on policies that regenerate the ties that bring people together, that take greater account of nature and the environment, that rebuild welfare and medical systems, that provide better education and child-rearing support, and that address wealth disparities.

Another national goal that emerges from the concept of fraternity is the creation of an East Asian community. Of course, the Japan-U.S. security pact will continue to be the cornerstone of Japanese diplomatic policy.

But at the same time, we must not forget our identity as a nation located in Asia. I believe that the East Asian region, which is showing increasing vitality, must be recognized as Japan’s basic sphere of being. So we must continue to build frameworks for stable economic cooperation and security across the region.

The financial crisis has suggested to many that the era of U.S. unilateralism may come to an end. It has also raised doubts about the permanence of the dollar as the key global currency.

I also feel that as a result of the failure of the Iraq war and the financial crisis, the era of U.S.-led globalism is coming to an end and that we are moving toward an era of multipolarity. But at present no one country is ready to replace the United States as the dominant country. Nor is there a currency ready to replace the dollar as the world’s key currency. Although the influence of the U.S. is declining, it will remain the world’s leading military and economic power for the next two to three decades.
Skip to next paragraph
Times Topics: Yukio Hatoyama

Current developments show clearly that China will become one of the world’s leading economic nations while also continuing to expand its military power. The size of China’s economy will surpass that of Ja

admin answers:

Hey! America is sinking and the rats are jumping ship. Japan can see that China is the next big super power and is getting it ducks in a row. It all makes sense to me. The big question is: when will America wake up? Why are Americans acting like lemmings, lining up to jump off a cliff? Or, like following a madman to our demise.

Susan asks…

will someone read this and tell me if it sounds ok?

Worldview paper
A worldview, some people define it as a collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or group of people. I on the other hand would define it a little differently. I would define it as the way a person or group of people act and react in and to the world around them. I think that everyone believes and sees different things in the world we live in. Each person is influenced differently according to what they see and believe about the world around them.
Similar to Christianity, Islam believes that society is made up of three parts: the family, the church (mosque), and the state. Even though Islam is similar to Christianity in many ways they are also very different in many ways. One of the main differences between the two worldviews is the way they think of marriage and the way they treat their women. Muslims believe that the men are above the women in every aspect of life, especially in the area of marriage. In the Muslim society they do not look down on divorce, though most believe that divorce may only be initiated by men (Understanding the Times). They also believe that men can have up to four wives and beat them if they are un-submissive. This area of Islamic society is totally opposite from Christianity in
that Christians respect their women. In Christianity divorce is very looked down upon as well as abuse and polygamy.
Secular Humanism-Law
Unlike Islam, Secular Humanism has no similarity to Christianity; in fact they are quite opposite. Secular Humanist legal theory is founded on two basic assumptions: First, God does not exist and second, human beings are perfectible, evolving animals (Understanding the Times). This totally contradicts what we as Christians believe; our whole belief system stands on God and his word. We also believe in creation rather than evolution, where as evolution is what Secular Humanists base their beliefs on. Secular Humanists also believe that we are to be put on the same level with animals, where as we believe that God placed us above animals, he created us first to be over them. I believe that we should stop treating animals like humans when we can’t even get along with and treat other humans with respect. I am not saying that we should miss treat animals but we can not keep putting them up on pedestals when we are treating our fellow humans like trash.
Most people tend to agree that the majority of Postmodernists are on the left side when it comes to politics. For Postmodernists, politics is a tool of experimentation that involves: a radical critique of the existing systems of power in a society, the identification of oppressed groups (women, blacks, and the poor), and the remedy for being those identified groups out oppression to achieve a sense of social justice (Understanding the Times). So basically the goal of the Postmodernism politics is to have a sense of total social justice, or in other words making everyone equal. This way of thinking sounds good at first but once you really think about it and look deeper it is not so good. Unlike Christianity there understanding of social justice is that it is attained by treating everyone (the poor, immigrants, women, blacks, gays, etc.) equal and with fairness. Also as we can see unlike Christianity, Postmodernists accept homosexuality as a healthy way of living. We, being Christians highly disagree with this way of life; we believe that God has created man and women to be together, no exceptions!
Cosmic Humanism-Economics
Cosmic Humanists main theory of economics is based on self-government. They are extremely unlike Christians in that they believe if we have positive thoughts and listen to our inner self, letting it lead us, we will have wealth and we will never have a want for anything. Shakti Gawain says “The more you are willing to trust yourself, and take the risk to follow your inner guidance, the more money you will have. The universe will pay you to be yourself and do what you really love!” (Understanding the Times). This is one of the most nonsensical things I have ever heard, I do not understand how people, even people of intelligence, could truly believe that the world will pay them for what they love to do. I, as a Christian, believe that the Lord will bless us with what we need and what we deserve, sometimes he even blesses us with thing we do not deserve.
Historical materialism what the view that the Marxists have on history is called. The definition of the term is: The methodological approach to the study of society, economics, and history that looks for the causes of developments and changes in human societies through economic analysis (e.g., social classes, political structures, ideological, etc.) (Understand the Times). In other word history is just an account of matter because that is the only thing that exists, there is no God, or angles, or human soul. This is not at all what I

admin answers:

Ok that’s too long to tell anyone to read, but I will try my best skimming.
Overall you spent a lot of effort into this, so good job on that.
“Secular Humanist legal theory is founded on two basic assumptions:” is found on*
*A worldview, some people define it as a collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or group of people.*
Some people define a worldview as … Sounds better

Powered by Yahoo! Answers


Your Questions About Wealth Creation Economics

Helen asks…

Is this Britains policy on Domestic poverty?

Protect our the creation of a “hated and despised underclass”.


If the non beneficiaries of capitalism were treated with any sympathy – through the media, this would essentially mean redistribution, high taxes, high inflation, and a drop in the value of your savings…and our economic model and society would be brought into disrepute.

1) Every single poor person – must now be portrayed as either dumb, inferior, morally bankrupt, uneducated, unskilled, illiterate, undeserving or criminal.

Every Single One.

There cannot be a minority of undeserving poor, or a list of people – who have been let down of left behind, through our necessary poor and unequal distribution of wealth or employment opportunity. The media must continually broadcast this message to allow this perception to grow in the public. This will create stability and a moral faith in our society as a whole.

2) There must be a whole vocabulary established that instantly discredits the poor.

Some examples are…
Young adults – being failed by our societies vastly expensive housing economics must be labelled Mummies Boys.

3) There must be absolutely no vocabulary that discredits us.

4) If there is criticism – it can easily be dismissed with tried and tested Victorian esq. language such as

5) You must never at any time resort to the language of the underclass.

6) The poor must never be able to take the moral high ground, even if they have spent the last fifteen years writing out application forms, for every minute of every day, or they somehow manage to get very qualified, skilled and experienced in areas such as voluntary work.

7)“Chinks” must always be exposed in their moral or ethical or intellectual armour.

Our society (and your sustained wealth) now desperately rely on the creation of the perception of our moral superiority..

8) We will turn the society against itself – on the basis of employed/unemployed, by creating an environment where the poor / working man moralise and judge themselves, and not either us or our perfect system.

9) The exception must always be the rule, to now protect our ageist, elitist, low opportunity, poverty dependant and discriminatory society.

10) Any abuse of the system must be developed, and encouraged to have maximum impact and then thoroughly exploited through the media – to maintain the illusion of the criminality in the poor.

11) A perception of a perfect moral and rewarding world through “work” (even if there in no employment) must survive, at all costs…through the creating of heroes and villains. It is suggested we create a perception of an abundance of work society by publishing the case of illegal aliens and illegal workers.

12) The plight of the poor in other countries – must be put at the forefront of of any debate of this issues, to divert attention from the poor people of Britian.

By creating this environment, we will protect YOUR WEALTH, and YOUR economic stability – and will instill terror in the critics of our poverty dependant society.

Carry On.

admin answers:

Being one of the benefit claiming council house dwelling uneducated social parasites that people on here are always whining about (who gets thousands of pounds and produces one illegitimate child after the other) i have to agree with you. But even though my answer makes no sense my English is poor my spelling is terrible and my punctuation non existent (as i often get told if i have the cheek to ask a question or in the unlikely event of me thinking i might have an answer) i will try to answer this one.The patronising pompous know it alls should think themselves lucky that they had the chance to get an education find a job and be able to afford a house and a car .they should get on with they’re own life instead of making assumptions about people who they know nothing about no body wants to live in poverty and have no hope of getting out of it unless they`re crazy ,and do these people who point there finger know how much an unemployed person actually gets a single person on benefit gets about £50 a week they still have to pay water rates gas electric TV licence food and with whats left they can buy cigs and go to the pub every day ,living the life of Riley arn`t they.Well none of the superior class knows what might be around the corner ,cause tomorrow they could get knocked of their perch and and find them self among the socially inferior and lucky enough to live in our privileged lifestyle i wonder if they would still go on about how great it is.

Mandy asks…

Conservatives/Republicans who are also scientists: from a purely scientific standpoint, doesn’t it strike you?

as a little pathetic that with all the non-stop talk that we get from Corporate America about “synergy, innovation, new ideas, etc.” that we haven’t developed a more comprehensive basket of energy resources? Doesn’t it strike you as incredibly lame that the on-going solution to our nation’s energy needs has been “get more oil”?

Let’s take this all the way back to Adam Smith: in his book “The Wealth of Nations” – considered by many to be the founding text of modern economics – Smith outlined two means of creating wealth:

1. The development of as yet unused natural resources (by which he meant not just developing new stores of resources already in use but also the development of technologies that would permit the creation of social utility using materials that were largely ignored)

2. The development of ways to extend the useful life of existing resources. i.e. efficiency.

To me, it seems quite strange that our country has developed a willful ignorance of these basic economic precepts and there is an on-going demand that we ignore the development of alternative resources and focus solely on a single resource.

Maxwell, your statement about btus/kg is correct, but we also don’t use anywhere near the full energy potential of gasoline. 65% of the btus in gasoline go out the tailpipe of the car. Use of micro-turbines in a hybrid power arrangement could increase that figure dramatically, but car-makers have willfully avoided using that kind of technology, even though technology for the various components has existed since the 60s. The real problem with energy is a wholesale failure of the free market to provide the kind of innovation that they claim is there stock in trade.

admin answers:

We achieved nuclear, but society shunned its further development after 3-mile and chenobyl

The problem is, we simply haven’t found an alternate form of energy that contains the stored energy per kg that fossil fuels contain that is anywhere near as usable or cheap.

We have gotten markedly better even in automobiles with getting more energy out of the gas we do burn compared to 20 years ago.

The hybrid tech is growing, and there have been a couple of turbine vehicle engines introduced, but society has yet to be on board with them yet. I think when a hybrid car implements a high efficiency turbine to run a generator, it will be a hit with the public.

I think the problem is more the market inertia than the technology on that front. People are afraid to be the first to invest in new things, and that goes for the manufacturer and the customer. So in that respect our progress is slow.

Linda asks…

How do you feel about bailing out the liberal banking cartel after the bubbles that they nurtured burst?

especially now as they are off again with naked longs and naked shorts, this time with tax payers money.

Liberal Lassiez faire economics until it goes wrong then liberal socialism to bail out their companies. This boom bust cycle is not an unavoidable cycle, its a deliberate creation, nurturing and destruction of bubbles that transfers wealth up the chain.

I wonder why we allow it and why people like Ron Paul are seen as crazy for speaking against them. Well, maybe he is crazy, Kennedy took the same position.

Bit of a rant I know but Im annoyed by this and Im annoyed by the lack of real information thats given to the public as they worship another wall st. / military industrial complex / globalist puppet and vote him into power when there was an other option.
Treacy, above and beyond the left / right bait and switch system theres is the group that are behind modern globalist liberalism, its more or less the British Empire, associated banking families and de facto owners of the US fiancial system and government.

You know, the people that indoctrinate society with the falshood that average white people were responsible for their wars, slavery, classism and sexism.
and you didnt answer me, how do you feel about the debt that you and all your decendants will never escape from, defaults will result in the US handing over natural resources to private banks.
American liberalism was adopted, infultrated and corrupted by elements of the british empire after your war of independence.

There is more to the UKs and Americas “special relationship” than the public know.
Well said Capone, we need to clear them out.
Everyone please have a read of I LUV U’s answer.

admin answers:

Honestly, anyone know got burned because of the 06 housing bubble deserves to get burned because of personnel stupidity.

In a healthy economy the burst would of been painful but not “Next great depression land!”.

We are simply paying the price of shipping all our real job’s over sea’s, runaway immigration, HB1 visa (aka citizen replacement visa).

I have no sympathy for those idiots that thought an adjustable load was a “GREAT” idea.

I figured it out in 06 that it was bad(didn’t think it would have such a domino effect) and yelled at half a dozen people who where thinking about it(half tempted to use those “I told you so’s” but there suffering enough).

The UK is a former Empire that uses America as a crutch since the first world war. I don’t know why we should be so cozy with the red coats(had ancestors that fought in the revolution so call me a traditionalist if I show my dislike for the British crown and people).

America would be better off if we closed our doors and let the Europeans defend themselves.

Donna asks…

What do you think of these ideas for a radical transformation of Christianity?

Here are Matthew Fox’s 95 theses. What do you make of them?
1. God is both Mother and Father.

2. At this time in history, God is more Mother than Father because the feminine is most missing and it is important to bring gender balance back.

3. God is always new, always young and always “in the beginning.”

4. God the Punitive Father is not a God worth honoring but a false god and an idol that serves empire-builders. The notion of a punitive, all-male God, is contrary to the full nature of the Godhead who is as much female and motherly as it is masculine and fatherly.

5. “All the names we give to God come from an understanding of ourselves.” (Eckhart) Thus people who worship a punitive father are themselves punitive.

6. Theism (the idea that God is ‘out there’ or above and beyond the universe) is false. All things are in God and God is in all things (panentheism).

7. Everyone is born a mystic and a lover who experiences the unity of things and all are called to keep this mystic or lover of life alive.

8. All are called to be prophets which is to interfere with injustice.

9. Wisdom is Love of Life (See the Book of Wisdom: “This is wisdom: to love life” and Christ in John’s Gospel: “I have come that you may have life and have it in abundance.”)

10. God loves all of creation and science can help us more deeply penetrate and appreciate the mysteries and wisdom of God in creation. Science is no enemy of true religion.

11. Religion is not necessary but spirituality is.

12. “Jesus does not call us to a new religion but to life.” (Bonhoeffer) Spirituality is living life at a depth of newness and gratitude, courage and creativity, trust and letting go, compassion and justice.

13. Spirituality and religion are not the same thing any more than education and learning, law and justice, or commerce and stewardship are the same thing.

14. Christians must distinguish between God (masculine and history, liberation and salvation) and Godhead (feminine and mystery, being and non-action).

15. Christians must distinguish between Jesus (an historical figure) and Christ (the experience of God-in-all-things).

16. Christians must distinguish between Jesus and Paul.

17. Jesus, not unlike many spiritual teachers, taught us that we are sons and daughters of God and are to act accordingly by becoming instruments of divine compassion.

18. Ecojustice is a necessity for planetary survival and human ethics and without it we are crucifying the Christ all over again in the form of destruction of forests, waters,
species, air and soil.

19. Sustainability is another word for justice, for what is just is sustainable and what is unjust is not.

20. A preferential option for the poor, as found in the base community movement, is far closer to the teaching and spirit of Jesus than is a preferential option for the rich and powerful as found in, for example, Opus Dei.

21. Economic Justice requires the work of creativity to birth a system of economics that is global, respectful of the health and wealth of the earth systems and that works for all.

22. Celebration and worship are key to human community and survival and such reminders of joy deserve new forms that speak in the language of the twenty-first century.

23. Sexuality is a sacred act and a spiritual experience, a theophany (revelation of the Divine), a mystical experience. It is holy and deserves to be honored as such.

24. Creativity is both humanity’s greatest gift and its most powerful weapon for evil and so it ought to be both encouraged and steered to humanity’s most God-like activity which all religions agree is: Compassion.

25. There is a priesthood of all workers (all who are doing good work are midwives of grace and therefore priests) and this priesthood ought to be honored as sacred and workers should be instructed in spirituality in order to carry on their ministry effectively.

26. Empire-building is incompatible with Jesus’ life and teaching and with Paul’s life and teaching and with the teaching of holy religions.

27. Ideology is not theology and ideology endangers the faith because it replaces thinking with obedience, and distracts from the responsibility of theology to adapt the wisdom of the past to today’s needs. Instead of theology it demands loyalty oaths to the past.

28. Loyalty is not a sufficient criterion for ecclesial office—intelligence and proven conscience is.

29. No matter how much the television media fawn over the pope and papacy because it makes good theater, the pope is not the church but has a ministry within the church. Papalolotry is a contemporary form of idolatry and must be resisted by all believers.

30. Creating a church of Sycophants is not a holy thing. Sycophants (Webster’s dictionary defines them as “servile self-seeking flatterers”) are not spiritual people for their only virtue is obedience. A Society of Sycophants — sycophant clergy, sycophant semina

admin answers:

I think they’re great. You should check out this site it is very consistent with these points

Betty asks…

Do liberals really want to create jobs?

If so, why are they endorsing policies that do the complete opposite? Like increasing minimum wage that harms small businesses(meaning less job available), contributes to negative employment rate, inflated cost of commodities, etc? The harmful effects(such as unemployment rate) of raising minimum wage drastically is self-evident in 1950s in the USA. This is just simple supply and demand. There are unintended consequences for distorting equilibrium in the market. To deny this would be going against modern economics.
Why are liberals fund of other state imposed policies that stifles prosperity and coerce the market into stagnation? A brief analysis of OECD 1960-1996 on the effects of government spending revealed that government spending is negatively correlated with growth rate. And why more tax when it impedes job creation in the private sector, consecutively resulting in less wealth growth?
This is not about “correlation does not equal causation” matter, logically speaking the more money people have in their pockets the more likely they will invest, create jobs, etc even if you have other factors that come into play that overshadows this rationally/empirically sound proposition. Most of all, why do liberals complain about cartels and whine about high prices when they were the ones endorsing policies that contribute to high prices, and maintaining oligarchical structure in the market?
Proud Progressive, i provided sources, and stated one of the most fundamental “laws” of economics. Thanks for the reaffirmation of my perception of liberals, proves my point.
stop being whinny and address my arguments or are you liberals too retarded to do so?

admin answers:

Yes, they want to create jobs.
Will their policies work? Probably not.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers


Your Questions About Wealth Creation Economics

Sharon asks…

I need some help with these question on Economics?

1. What do economists mean when they state that a good is scarce?
a. There is a shortage or insufficient supply of the good at the existing price.
b. It is impossible to expand the availability of the good.
c. People will want to buy more of the good regardless of price.
d. The amount of the good that people would like to have exceeds the supply that is freely available from nature.
2. Economic choice and competitive behavior are the result of
a. basic human greed.
b. poverty.
c. private ownership of resources.
d. scarcity.
3. Which of the following sayings best reflects the concept of opportunity cost?
a. “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.”
b. “Time is money.”
c. “I have a baker’s dozen.”
d. “There’s no business like show business.”
4. Does voluntary exchange create wealth (value)?
a. No, exchange does not expand output.
b. No, if one person gains, the other party must lose an equal amount.
c. Uncertain, it does when it results in the creation of additional goods and services; otherwise it does not.
d. Yes, trade generally permits the trading partners to gain more of what they value; this is why they agree to the terms of the exchange.
5. When a price floor is above the equilibrium price,
a. quantity demanded will exceed quantity supplied.
b. quantity supplied will exceed quantity demanded.
c. the market will be in equilibrium.
d. This is a trick question because price floors generally exist below the equilibrium price.
6. The price of chicken increases as the result of higher beef prices. This indicates that
a. chicken and beef are substitutes.
b. chicken and beef are complements.
c. the market demand for beef is inelastic.
d. the market demand for chicken is elastic.
7. The invisible hand principle indicates that competitive markets can help promote the efficient use of resources
a. only if buyers and sellers really care, personally, about economic efficiency.
b. even when each market participant cares only about getting a “bigger slice of the pie” rather than about the overall efficiency of resource use.
c. even if business firms fail to produce goods efficiently.
d. if, and only if, businesses recognize their social obligation to keep costs low and use resources wisely.
8. In a market economy, an increase in demand will generally cause the equilibrium
a. price to fall.
b. quantity supplied to increase.
c. quantity demanded to fall.
d. number of firms in the market to decline.
9 If the United Auto Workers union can obtain a substantial wage increase for auto workers, the price of automobiles will rise. The rise can be attributed to
a. a shift to the right in the supply curve for automobiles.
b. a shift to the left in the supply curve for automobiles.
c. a shift to the right in the demand curve for automobiles.
d. a shift to the left in the demand curve for automobiles.
10. A decrease in demand will
a. reduce supply.
b. increase the quantity traded in the market.
c. cause higher prices, although quantity traded in the market will decline.
d. lead to a reduction in the quantity supplied.

admin answers:

1. C?
3. B
4. Not sure
5. D.
10. D

Joseph asks…

Are you an economic atheist?

Labor is the origin of value, capital is imaginary and incidental. Capital is the wasteful artificial redistribution and counterproductive concentration of value produced exclusively by labor. Capital does not ‘create’ ‘jobs’. Capital precludes the direct benefit of the value of labor, interferes with productivity and prevents cooperative constructive action. I reject primitive superstitious ‘miraculous creation of wealth from the dark immaterial void’ mythology.

In an advanced society of specialization, the corporate CEO is as helpless, vulnerable and completely dependent on society as the welfare recipient, the only difference between the two is degree of participatory prohibition and the numerical value printed on their checks. I reject hero worship and primitive superstitious ‘individualism’ and ‘self-reliance’ mythology.

If Thomas Edison never develops the light bulb, somebody else develops it a week later. Innovation occurs incrementally and inevitably, and no single contribution is invaluable. The value of the invention of the light bulb is the benefit of the light bulb, nothing more and nothing less. I reject the welfare entitlement of ‘intellectual property’ and primitive superstitious ‘invention and innovation’ mythology.

The labor required to produce an article is objectively scientifically quantifiable. If value is ‘subjective’ then the effort required to produce food neither automatically nor necessarily warrants the compensation of food, or if value is ‘subjective’ then under favorable circumstances, an apple is worth ten apples. Science and subjectivity are mutually exclusive. Belief in subjectivity is unscientific. I reject ‘subjective’ value and primitive superstitious ‘transformative miracle’ mythology.

Modern humanity produces with ease not only everything every human on the planet will ever need for a comfortable life without perpetual threat of punitive deprivation but produces as well an overabundance of everything every human on the planet will NEVER need. Our traditional belief in ‘jobs’, ‘productivity’, ‘incentive’ and ‘merit’ is a catastrophic anachronism, and we are destroying our environment and killing ourselves with chaotic hyperactivity in the service of economic beliefs. I reject blood sacrifice ritual and primitive superstitious economic mythology.

Future generations will compare our era to the Aztec and Inca eras of blood sacrifice, and will correctly identify our economics as precisely the same violent ritual motivated by precisely the same primitive superstitious beliefs but if they read anything I wrote, they will know some of us dissented and resisted, and that will only compound the severity with which future generations will judge our era because they will know neither ignorance nor lack of sophistication ever served as sufficient excuse for our actions.

I am an economic atheist – I am an Aconomist!

Your turn now… pretend this is for posterity for future generations… Are you an Aconomist or would you prefer to leave as your record, ritual recitation of superstitious economic incantation?
Deco Teague, “does a man have a right to the sweat of his own brow? -to the product of his own labor?”
Yes, he does, with two conditions:
1) The ‘sweat of his own brow / product of his own labor’ means his own, not mine or yours. When a man hires you as an ‘employee’ and profits from your actions, you no longer own the product of your own labor, so my counter question to you is: Did you not just intimate you agree with that? -and if not then have you not also entered into an internal contradiction?
2) If a man wishes to benefit from exchange with society then society, not one individual, will determine exchange value by cooperative process, and the arbitrary exploitation of your vulnerability by one individual is NOT a ‘cooperative social process’.
In an advanced civilization of specialists, these ‘ownership’ ideals are antiquated and no longer applicable. Our specialization makes us dependent and vulnerable, that is a cooperative trust. Allowing the aggressive to prey on our dependence and vulnerability to profit disproportionately through the material deprivation of others is a betrayal of that trust that cancels out the value of the trust and merits termination of the trust. If we are going to prey and profit through aggression, deprivation and exploitation, I like my odds much better if we do it with weapons. That is how serious I am about ownership of the product of our labor, and anyone that tells me that the value of a man’s labor includes some portion or all the value of my labor as long as he is aggressive enough, clever enough and forceful enough to figure out a way to take it, is clearly nowhere near as serious about it as me.
EDIT ADD round II.
1) I do not miss that logic, I reject it. The act of employment is selling your labor only in theory but not in practice. There is no ‘free’ market. A market that prohibits the use of weapons is a restrictive and prohibitive artificial market. A market that accommodates employers and disproportion artificially places the employee at a gross disadvantage. The employee acts under perpetual threat of punitive deprivation and principally out of sheer desperation. This is the most essential function every modern market serves — by design — and that fact is not now nor has it ever been in dispute. “Selling our labor through employment” is a rhetorical misrepresentation that is intended to deceive those that do not independently study and comprehend the economic theories (which is a substantial portion of the general public, perhaps even a majority). In other words, this argument is a strategy designed to exploit the trust of honest people that know no better.
EDIT ADD round II.
2) Socially cooperative process IS “allowance to set the conditions” and furthermore the only possibility of preserving real ‘ownership’. The greatest ‘illusion’ of ownership occurs in liberal economics. In the best of all examples, we borrow money to purchase homes (or businesses) we then casually refer to as ‘private property’ but the property is anything but ‘private’. For the overwhelming majority, a bank intervenes and breathes over their shoulders for the entirety of their lifetimes with absolute power to dispossess and displace at the slightest hint of misfortune. ‘Private property’ under the terms of liberal economics implies no measure whatsoever of ‘privacy’, ‘liberty’ or ‘security’. It is a lie that converts the concept of private property into a weakness and liability.

I self-contradict nothing. These subjects go beyond the words you and I type on this screen. My content is limited for this forum. That is not the same thing as self-contradiction.

admin answers:

“If Thomas Edison never develops the light bulb, somebody else develops it a week later.”
Your naivete is unimaginable. In saying this, you make the claim that ideas spontaneously appear with no effort on anyone’s part, contradicting your proclaimed rejection of ‘miraculous creation of wealth from the dark immaterial void.’ Without the inventor of something, you cannot be sure when or by whom it will be invented, or even if something completely different will be invented to accomplish the same task, all varying in degree depending on the subject of invention. If there is nobody both intelligent and motivated enough to invent something, that something will not be invented. ‘Invention and innovation’ are not mythology.

I have a question for you: does a man have a right to the sweat of his own brow? To the product of his own labor? If you say yes, you are internally contradictory. You reject the idea of property, and therefore reject the idea of a man owning his labor. If you say no, then I must ask by what standard do you claim that a man is not the ruler of his own life?

You are the one who holds fast to mythology.

1) The act of employment is the act of selling your labor (thus simultaneously selling the products thereof). Since you own your labor (and its products), you have every right to exchange them with someone else for something else (in this case: money). It perpetually confounds me that people who share your mindset deliberately overlook this logic, as it’s impossible to honestly miss. I have entered into no contradiction.
2) If you are not allowed to set the conditions with which the products of your labor are to be exchanged or taken from you, you do not own them. What you have offered is not a condition of ownership; it is a condition of the granting of permission to hold an illusion of ownership. Still you contradict.

Susan asks…

Tax is charged on money changing hands. If money changes hands more often does it increase tax revenue?

I think it’s fairly obvious that money changing hands and being taxed more often increases revenues.

So how do you get it to change hands more often?

That’s a question with a simple answer. You create a tax and Regulatory environment where putting money out there is rewarded. When you do that it circulates and is taxed much more often. THAT is why reducing taxes increases revenues, right there.

More Complex …

Additional to that circulation is PRODUCTION OF WEALTH. When money invested is rewarded jobs are created to create Production of goods that can be sold. THAT is the Creation of Wealth, right there. That is how the pie gets bigger. That is what Keynesian types don’t get because they think that Wealth Comes from Government, but Government at it’s best facilitates trade through components of business environment they control and protect. Government produces nothing, Government creates no wealth.

What Happens When Government tries to force using money, on their terms? Basically Stealing control of assets from the hands of the people? You know, Collectivism?
As some have advocated make business spend by governmental force? Tell people business they have to go out and spend all their reserves so it can be taxed? The genius (sarcasm) move Progressives are advocating? That won’t work, people will just move assets out of the oppressive zone or find a way to hide their assets. They sure won’t put a lot of assets into trying to make more which will be confiscated by an oppressive government. That’s why people with that kind of government, the Progressive Dream, end up starving and poor as hell.

See Collectivism isn’t the people sharing, it’s government taking it all. You think a government pushing collectivism is going to take it all in then allow the people to have it back when they can have all the wealth and power themselves? Well it’s never gone the way of the people at any time in history. Human nature dictates that where there is that kind of power, the corrupt few will take the resources, and they will use the resources to bribe and manipulate until they have it all. That’s just the way it is. That’s why Collectivism doesn’t work Part 1. Why Collectivism doesn’t work part 2? The vast majority of People won’t work when their work doesn’t directly reward them. So that Kills production of wealth, you know stuff? Food? all those things people need. There is no reward for production so Production just about stops. People starve, and the government keeps taking what little they do produce to keep themselves comfortable.

So do you get it? Do you get why lower amounts taken from people and less obstructive and time wasting regulation results in a better economy? Because of the increased circulation and the growing of the total pie through production of wealth?

It’s not that complicated, it’s just human nature, and because it’s true. Complex economics that you have to memorize because it doesn’t make natural sense? That’s because it’s a scam. The Economy IS people, it IS alive, it IS that simple until you get manipulators involved, and the only ones who can force manipulation on a serious scale, is Government. Without Government big corporate greed and power are toothless because they depend on the consumer and can force them to do nothing.

So … get it? I sure hope you get it. They key to our economic prosperity is the voters getting the simple truth, understanding that greed brings us all down, incentive to produce creates wealth we all can share in if we work for it, that this business friendly environment inspires charity (which the USA has demonstrated and proved) and informed citizens, choosing their government accordingly.
lol, well the supporting information makes the answer pretty obvious when you see it. It’s not that complicated. Unfortunately this truth is not being taught in schools, it’s being attacked by those who want to see Government more powerful (mostly government dependent people) and those who buy into their con game.
Beaver, I typed out every single letter on this. The answers to your success stories take some investigation. Canada reduced it’s debt, did you know that? German taxes and regulation are less invasive, and less complicated, business knows where it stands. There is a story for each, and the fact that you overstate probably based on others over statements based on incomplete analysis.
Zombie G … absolutely, there is a point of diminishing returns. The smart people have it around 7% taxation where the revenues start to decline, of course that’s dependent on many other factors. Regulation is a factor. Being unsure about what will happen is a huge factor. Obama tends to target and take without regard for equal protection. He just took car company first bond holders assets and gave them to the Unions in Chevy and Chrysler. He backed them down through the threat of defamation in the media and attacks on their homes by mobs like Obama did to bankers when he was working with Acorn under Soros direction and money. You think our taxes are low? You need to really add it all up, understand the regulatory / governmental environment … that tells it very clearly, crystal, if you just use the facts.
The National Debt is a huge factor, 14.5 Trillion in debt heading for 23 trillion under this plan that actually reduced that, but it’s all rear ended and those cuts will never happen, if history is repeated. That’s how it works. The National debt has been a buried issue, while they play games with the numbers of the deficit based on HUGE inflated government spending as a baseline, inflated size and pay of federal government workers and programs cost. The insanity that has us borrowing more than 40% of each dollar we put out … THAT IS THE BASELINE? The DEBT will crush the economy, blow up interest rates, destroy our credit rating. If you had a few billion $$ would you want to toss it into that boiling Cauldron of impending economic doom? Few smart enough to make that kind of cheddar are going to risk it on any venture that’s as involved in creating jobs in this environment. They speculate some do, like Soros, but he’s got inside scoop on everything going down so it’s a rigged game for
No Zombie G, way to isolate and rediculize. Not everything complex is a scam, you took a sound bite and made it something different than I said. Is that what you’re about? Sophism?

Keynesian Economics is complicated, it’s circular logic, it assumes that Government creates wealth and there is a finite supply of wealth, and that’s money. Money isn’t wealth it’s representative of wealth and used to facilitate trade.

The Health Care Bill is 2700 pages they couldn’t read, do you think that’s for the sake of clarity? lol, no, it’s how to pass a scam by the people. The Catholic Church did the same thing when they had the Bible written in Latin and only a few could read it. They didn’t want people to understand, they wanted people to listen and obey their whims. Same principal.
Zombie … Austrian School of Economics goes much on empirical data and an understanding in human behavior. It’s what Peter Shiff used to predict the crash in 2008 many years before, while the corrupt establishment elite idiots like Krugman, who get all the rigged awards and fake cred from propaganda rags like the New York Times, laughed hard at him. Austrian School is simple in it’s principals. It gets complex in the details because the economy is so huge and to understand cause and effect the details and the relationships must be studied and the more detailed you can get the better, so it’s in practice very complex, but in principal it’s simple and honest. Keynesian is the opposite, it’s complex and nonsensical in principal, and simple in application, but the application is crap because the principal is crap. It was designed to con the commoners into thinking the fleecing the elite gave them was good economics. It’s based around the central banking scam and an elite class system. We
Mark, you’re parroting propaganda and it’s clear you don’t understand and are reciting. What you are reciting is garbage, not true. AND people saving their money isn’t savings any more? It’s hording? LOL! Business is supposed to take irresponsible risk just to fake up economic activity? That’s the key to a good economy? Way to Hitlarian for real life. Way to USSR, way to totalitarian, it won’t work. It’s proven it won’t work.

admin answers:

Yes, people have to understand that. It’s not how much you can take at once that increases revenue because then people don’t put it out there. It’s how much you can get money circulating and incentivizing production of Goods and services.

Of course that takes government power because they gain power through dependence of the people, they gain voting blocks by stealing for special interest groups. Government is naturally enemy to the people, which is why the Constitutional controls on government have served the USA so well and made it the most successful civilization in the history of civilization.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers


Your Questions About Wealth Creation Economics

Linda asks…

economics question pls help?

how can wealth creation reduce poverty, and how can it create poverty.

admin answers:

Wealth Creation CAN reduce poverty.

By making people wealthy (by lowering taxes) People will spend that money. The wealth they spend will create jobs. Creating Jobs reduces poverty.

By increasing taxes and giving the money away to the lower or even middle class the wealthy will not spend as much and that won’t be good for companies so the companies will lay off workers to keep making a profit (and not go Bankrupt completely) and that will increase poverty.

Susan asks…

What does “bit actors” mean in this context?

The uncomfortable truth is that, in terms of global economy, nation states have become little more than bit actors. They may originally have been, in their mercantilist phase, independent, powerfully efficient engines of wealth creation. More recently, however, as the downward-ratcheting logic of electoral politics has placed a death grip on their economics, they have become — first and foremost — remarkably inefficient engines of wealth distribution…

*From Michael Ohmae’s “The End of the Nation-State”

I don’t understand what “bit actors” means in this sense. Help anyone? Thanks in advance!

admin answers:

Bit actors are the ones on the jury in Law and Order, or the waitress who hands the coffee to the hero in the diner. Or the hispanic guy on the bus in Speed. Unmemorable, could be played by anyone, could be cut out without affecting the rest of the story, are pretty ineffectual, don’t advance the story.

Nation States are bit players, multi-national corporations have taken over as the main actors. Corporations pick where they want to invest, where they want to build, how they want to market products. It’s easy for them to pick up and move operations to another country if taxes get too high, regulations get too strict, workers demand higher pay. Nation states no longer control the world.

William asks…

Economics Class 101…?

In all honesty – please explain how you think a nation becomes wealthy.

To simplify the process, one can point to 2 processes:

- Either the government allows people to make their own money and dictate the market, thereby promoting growth and job creation.


- The government grows and controls the economy. The market influence is reduced and is no longer controlled by consumer interest. You are told what you need, there is no private sector. The notion of wealth creation is abolished in favour of wealth redistribution, simply consuming and living.

Yes, I understand this is a simplified version – but I struggle to understand how the second option creates wealth. Taking a look back into history, every nation that has a strong state influence in the economy has been backward….until people were allowed to make money for themselves.
Yes, I know it’s simplified. Believe you me I could have gone into a whole lot more detail. Unfortunately I had to take into account the IQ of some of the people posting here.
Wirestring: Exactly. Which is dependent on producing something.

admin answers:

I understand your reasons for over simplifying your question, though I think it’s rather insulting albeit true. A more accurate and kinder reason should have been that people won’t read a long rant.

But to your point, the laissez faire option is of course the proper one.
And to those who ask if “we” should allow poorly managed companies or industries to go under, the short answer is Yes.
The reason is that there is no allowance for Congress to bail out any business. The US Constitution is the law of the land and ANY Congressman who votes to violate that law is guilty of treason! Any president who signs such a bill is equally guilty of treason as is any Supreme Court justice who upholds such a bill.

And so now, since we know every single one of those mentioned above (except one Congressman) is guilty of treason by violating his or her sacred oath of office, and since nobody is calling them out on it, the Constitution is basically voided by our tacit agreement with government’s law-breaking.

We’re all waiting for *somebody* to do *something*. We hopelessly want the very people who have tossed our beloved Constitution into the shredder to make it all better; we dutifully line up at our polling place like good little sheep just as we’ll dutifully line up to the slaughterhouse when the time comes.

Anyway, here’s a link to a story about a Congressman who lived long ago (Davy Crockett) and his take on government’s role in our economy.

Sharon asks…

Okay, so the Bush tax cuts have been in effect for years now and Americans are paying?

less in gross taxes than ever before in modern history. According to supply-side economics, shouldn’t the money be trickling down causing creation of jobs/wealth/ect? Why then is unemployment still high?

admin answers:

Laffer Curve theory is an academic myth.

Debunking One of the Worst Ideas in Economics
by Charles Wheelan, Ph.D.

Chris asks…

Should Americans be Punished For Their Economic Ignorance?

Average Americans have been living a cozy existence for many decades now and have become very spoiled. They expect the economy that provides their lofty life styles to keep chugging along regardless of what they do. So many feel they don’t really need to learn basic economics…after all economics is rather dry and boring. So now we have a majority of Americans who are economically ignorant ripe for the picking. And of course these breeds a class of preditor politicians who will feed off this herd of docile dummies.

A majority of Americans today feel they can have an endless supply of free government goodies and that evil rich people will pay for it all. Unfortunately a minority of us know that this is plain ignorant. We know that in a few years as the predator politicians lounge around with their lavish retirement benefits, the average American and their offspring will suffer greatly in dire straights from the economic turmoil the actually inflicted on themselves.

But throughout life humans learn their most valuable lessons by suffering the consequences of their own mistakes. Children who burn their fingers dramatically learn the danger of fire. Can America as a whole learn from the mistake of believing in the lies of the class warfare and welfare state predator politicians? Can a majority of Americans learn that wealth has to be created before it can be redistributed and that wealth creators should be admired not despised?

Can a generation of Americans be brought up being weary of predator politicians and their false government solutions? Can this new generation learn that all of societies needs are addressed by wealth and that wealth creation is a fundamental and vital role to be viewed with respect and admiration? And can the next generation devise a system that rises the wealth creator to a position well above that of the predator politician who reigns supreme today? Maybe if the punishment Americans suffer today is harsh enough can it lead to a society with a realistic understanding of basic economics.
White Lightening: I have two words for you, poor angry man, and they are not “Merry” or “Christmas”.
HAH! I am no democrat, that is a given.

admin answers:

The majority of Americans are not taking handouts from the government. The extremely loud minority are. The majority are hard working and take care of their own lives while the minority sit and wait of government assistance. At the rate we are going the next generation may have a majority of freeloaders, but I doubt the system can hold up that long. The hard working majority will take control again or America will go into bankruptcy. Hopefully the former happens first.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers


Your Questions About Wealth Creation Economics

Daniel asks…

Does anyone know if Obama took an economics class in college?

The definition of wealth is taking a raw resource and transforming it into a good or service that people want to buy. Taxing people to pay others to build out-houses in national parks is not wealth creation.

admin answers:

That is the definition of production, not of wealth. Google wealth.

John asks…

Does the success of a society depend on economics or ethics?

One of the most authoritative theories about the constitution of society in the modern world is that economics and economic relationships define the fundamental structure of all social relationships, indeed of society itself. Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx, in their very different ways, either asserted or implied the primacy of economics and economic relationships as fundamental to the existence and evolution of nations and to the creation of wealth. But these views displaced an older conception of society which considered ethics and ethical codes as the fundamental bedrock of societies. In that older view, the success of a society was judged by its adherence to the ‘good’ rather than to its store of accumulated wealth. Ethical codes may have had a religious dimension, but it was the way conduct and behavior were regulated by or referred to ethical judgement that allowed for the stability, maintenance, and success of social relationships and, hence, of society as a whole.
this came from an essay topic for the 2007/2008 national Humanitaries essay competition at UBC…

admin answers:

Coming from a guy who is devoting his career to the study and application of economics, all I can say on ethics and economics is that econ is a GREAT way to maximize profits, but it’s not a good way to live your life.

Charles asks…

How can the capitalist system remain stable without redistribution of wealth?

It’s very well known that it’s easier to make money when you already have a lot of it. For someone with a net worth of $50 million, it’s easy to have an extremely comfortable life by just sitting back and investing in investment-grade fixed income securities – you collect millions of dollars in interest payments, and can just as easily continue increasing your fortune with no risk and no effort. For someone starting out at the bottom though, it’s become very difficult just to advance to middle-class status. Even if you’re incredibly smart and have an innovative idea for a business, securing the capital necessary to get it running is nearly impossible, at least without toiling away for years and years, working in comparatively unproductive menial jobs.

Despite the social and moral problems with allowing such a neo-aristocratic society to develop, the inherent nature of unfettered capitalism presents us with economic problems as well. In the example above, it is highly uneconomical for the idle beneficiaries of a large inheritence to consume society’s resources without taking any risk or exerting any effort. Likewise, it is highly uneconomical to make a bright, innovative person born into poverty toil away at Wal Mart. Would it not be far better economics to tax the idle holder of idle capital, not to give the smart, poor person a handout, but to invest in them (i.e., providing low-cost education), allowing them to advance in economic and social status, and therefore realize their potential to the benefit of all?

Structurally, there’s also the problem of wealth concentration. As more and more wealth is concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people, much of our economic output is devoted to “managing” their wealth – in practice, this means loaning it out to businesses (which is somewhat productive) and consumers (which, in the case of things like credit cards, is often wholly unproductive). Not only is this uneconomical, but eventually, if those at the bottom do not have the playing field leveled in their favor somewhat, we reach a point in which all “production” centers around kicking an ever-increasing share of the society’s income up to the idle creditors at the top.

Left unchecked, this inevitably leads to a total economic collapse (i.e., what’s happening now), as business doesn’t have enough customers financially able to buy their products. In other words, as the working classes become more and more heavily indebted, the people at the top hold the claims on so much of workers’ income that they can’t consume enough to warrant current levels of production, so economic output must fall. So then, how can the capitalist system continue to be productive without government action to ensure that the ratio between work and reward remains at least somewhat equitable?

Along the same lines, those who favor letting this concentration continue cite two objections – first, that of wealth creation. Of course new wealth can be created, but what is there in the laissez-faire paradigm to ensure that the gains won’t simply be sucked up by those at the top? They necessarily control capital allocation.

Second, they often object on moral grounds, saying that it’s immoral to “take” from the upper classes to invest in the lower. Now, I think this objection has some merit, but on the other hand, if what’s being “taken” are just paper assets and they’re left with more than enough to maintain their lifestyle, is anything really being taken at all? For the most part, it’s really just an accounting adjustment – there’s no material effect to them – to ensure the durability of the system, is it not?

You make a valid point. You are correct that if too much is redistributed – especially, possibly exclusively, if it is merely handed over – the incentive to produce at all disappears. I don’t think anyone would dispute that.

However, looking on the other side of this, surely there’s a point wherein too much wealth concentration causes systematic problems, no? I mean, capitalism functions though finance and accounting, and those have to operate within certain mathematical limits. What I’m saying, in mathematical terms, is that in the system without redistribution, the share of income going to those at the top increases geometrically approaching a limit of infinity. However, for obvious reasons, the material limit is 100% – and in practice, it is far lower still. Once we get to whatever the practical limit is, physical production cannot continue, as the accounting/math of the thing cannot deal with such a high degree of concentration.
“Your follow up under your question is way too long to read.”

Imagine how I felt writing it! It’s really not my fault that reality can’t always be expressed in soundbytes, however.

“‘Redistribution of wealth‘ is socialism.”

Actually, socialism is state control of wealth. Redistribution proper necessarily occurs within the strictures of the capitalist system.

“With free enterprise, everyone has an opportunity.”

They do in theory, but do they in practice? For instance, in the US, a poor black student with straight A’s in high school is much less likely to finish a 4-year college degree than a rich white C-average student. Call me crazy, but I don’t think this is the “meritocracy” that capitalism is supposed to embody. What I’m asking is, IN PRACTICE, is some redistribution necessary for the theoretical potential of the capitalist meritocracy to be realized?
For the last time, I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR SOCIALISM, CENTRAL PLANNING, or anything of the sort. I agree that socialism proper does not and cannot work. However, it seems to me that totally unfettered capitalism is every bit as impractical.

Indeed, is there even a single example of the “pure” form of any ideological system EVER existing, much less working, in practice? Not to my (quite extensive) knowledge.
Mo Fayed,

“Tax-and-spend socialism” is a contradiction in terms. Under socialism, the state owns all income-producing property, so there is no need for taxation at all.
Mark M,

The United States experienced its most rapid economic growth and development when the tax rate on the wealthy was a staggering 91%. Your claim is historically and materially false.

admin answers:

We already tried that under Bush. Huge tax cuts for the rich, paid for by the middle class. You see where that has landed us, don’t you?

The remarkable thing is that after 8 years of that–it is still the only only answer the republicans can come up with (even though the results show it does not work).

Mary asks…

Are illegals really taking away jobs from Americans? Do people no understand Economics?

Do people who say “illegals are taking jobs from Americans” not understand how an Economy works?
Do they not realize that our economy is not a “Zero Sum” system??

A job held by an illegal immigrant is a job taken away from an American seems to be what most think. That jobs can be stolen, moved, but not created. this is known as the “lump job fallacy” and has been used mostly in political instances. they assume that there is a fixed amount of work to be done, and that by reducing the amount that those are already employed are allowed to work, the remaining amount will then accrue to the unemployed.

The truth is that the number of jobs in an economy is not static and is not limited in principle or practice. this number fluctuates by the minute. If there were a fixed number of jobs to be filled, then how would native-born Americans find employment when they reached working age? The fact is there are always more wants that can be satisfied if we have more resources available to do the work—and this includes the two hands and mind that come with each new member of a society

there is not a single shred of evidence that suggests illegal immigrants have actually stolen a job from anybody nor driven up the unemployment immigrant workers most often enhance the productivity and demand for other workers in the market, increasing the opportunities of almost everyone in society.

Immigrants increase the supply of labor, but they also increase the aggregate demand for the output of labor. thus helping to create more jobs. The average illegal immigrant actually tends to pay more in taxes as a percentage of their income than the average U.S. citizen because they aren’t entitled to a tax refund if they overpay,

So are the people who claim “illegals are stealing jobs from Americans” just no understand economics? or are the people who spread this assumption just trying to spread fear and hatred towards illegal immigrants?

admin answers:

Close detailed examination of illegal immigration does in fact show it’s a net loss for the USA. Read the paper “The Fiscal Cost of Low Skill Immigrants to the USA Taxpayer”. The cost of illegal (ie low-skill) immigration is huge.

What part of economics analysis do you not understand?

Lizzie asks…

Why Did The Western World Move Away From Keynesian Economics After The 1960s?

The world never experienced such a boom and it was hailed as the ‘golden age of capitalism’ with Britons ‘never having it so good’ and economic progress high. Standards of living rose along with relatively low unemployment (by modern neoliberal standards) as well as a constant rate of GDP growth which was slower than neoliberalism but stable. Until I took Politics at school I was virtually a Marxist, but thanks to my class I use my own brain to analyse the political systems and to me Keynesian economics seems to have been the ideal system of macroeconomics in the Western world. I seriously think this, mixed with a modern approach to social issues which is fairly libertarian in attitude would create the ideal conditions for life in the Western world. To sum up my question, it seemed ludicrous to move away from a system which had struck the balance right in terms of the political spectrum in keeping wealth creation and ambition alive whilst giving the working class a good standard of living.

admin answers:

Because it made the rich richer and the poor poorer, like almost any monetary system.
It was not the Keynesian system that made some people better off in the late fifties, it was the re- building of the country after the war. In the mid sixties the rot set in again.
In the ‘Never Had it So Good’ time the plight of the homeless was first higlighted with ‘Kathy come home’ on tv, and damaged ex soldiers wearing old army greatcoats were sleeping in shop doorways and buying inexpensive pea soup for breakfast at the UCP chain.
You are not necessarilly a marxist if you believe that a labourer is worthy of his hire. It’s in the bible somewhere.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers