|
shrike82 posted:It would help if people like Helsing clarified what exactly they're railing against. The tirades about capitalism, globalisation, and neoliberalism are pretty meaningless when you see them shifting goal posts depending on what's advantageous to their argument e.g. China as good versus Russia because they did not 'liberalize' whatever that means, and then on the other hand argue that China is worse off because they have adopted capitalist/market practice.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
Oh ok, I didn't realise that people were actually making the argument that China was better off as it was circa GLF/Cultural Revolution. Or if the argument is the speed of liberalisation, I'm all for that - there's obviously a transition period.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Those statements are easily reconciled by reading them as "China did well compared to Russia because it didn't liberalize as fast, but it could have done better by liberalizing even slower or not at all." Nah, I've never suggested that "China is worse off because they have adopted capitalist/market practice." Quite the opposite, as I said upthread, I think China's development obviously wouldn't have proceeded at the same pace without access to foreign capital and markets. My point is that China's development hardly vindicates neoliberal economic theories given how much China diverges from their commendations. Russia followed a lot of those suggestions much more closely and suffered for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Nah, I've never suggested that "China is worse off because they have adopted capitalist/market practice." Quite the opposite, as I said upthread, I think China's development obviously wouldn't have proceeded at the same pace without access to foreign capital and markets. My point is that China's development hardly vindicates neoliberal economic theories given how much China diverges from their commendations. Russia followed a lot of those suggestions much more closely and suffered for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:We just bought a condo and I'm super convinced the crisis is going to happen either this year or early next year, but maybe I'm an idiot. I bought a house this year too, but in an exurb of the city I work in (45 minute drive). I'm 100% convinced that the market and the wider economy is absolutely hosed. I've seen the market here move up up up up on houses with even moderate appeal and a dozen new developments between my house and my office. I don't know if there are enough buyers to justify these prices. (I managed to buy very cheap, partly because of the distance from the city and partly because the schools suck; nice, big house though.) Edit: I can't help but feel I bought at the tail end of a boom. I'm glad to have a place to live that's nominally mine and to have a skill set that literally every industry needs. If poop hits the fan, I think we could weather it, but most people I know are hanging over a cliff. Half of my family will be on our doorstep when the recession hits. anonumos fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Feb 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Nah, I've never suggested that "China is worse off because they have adopted capitalist/market practice." Quite the opposite, as I said upthread, I think China's development obviously wouldn't have proceeded at the same pace without access to foreign capital and markets. My point is that China's development hardly vindicates neoliberal economic theories given how much China diverges from their commendations. Russia followed a lot of those suggestions much more closely and suffered for it. It is both about the speed of the reforms and the sort of "end state." In the case of China, it is very clear the pace of reforms have slowed and more or less the country has reached an equilibrium state. I am actually doubtful they are going to get rid of most of the SOEs at this point, at best they cut their employment a little through buy-outs. At the same time there is a push for more environmental and labor regulations and better public health care. There is something to say about some economic liberalism is necessary, and that a complete command economy is simply not the most efficient way of doing things. But the preferred economic end state for a developing country may be a heavily regulated form of state capitalism where the "commanding heights" are still entirely dominated by the state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
Singapore is an example of a heavily interventionist government fused with a very open market but progressives heavily criticize it from not just a human rights standpoint but an economic equity standpoint as well given its lack of a welfare structure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 10:57
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Singapore is an example of a heavily interventionist government fused with a very open market but progressives heavily criticize it from not just a human rights standpoint but an economic equity standpoint as well given its lack of a welfare structure. SOEs are a significant part of the economy of Singapore but I still think the degree is significantly less than China. The welfare structure of Singapore is debatable, it has public housing as well as a public health care system. But yeah Singapore only liberalized so far and that it clearly reached a equilibrium state. Singapore also makes for a weird case since its economy is so dependent on trade due to its history and location (also its a city-state). It was forced to open itself to probably a higher degree because it simply couldn't survive without trade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
So when the economy eats poo poo it's not going to be like the depression where people's money in banks disappear/devalue? For a while now I've been wondering how to brace for impact but I'm not good enough at economics to even know how the damage will manifest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:So when the economy eats poo poo it's not going to be like the depression where people's money in banks disappear/devalue? For a while now I've been wondering how to brace for impact but I'm not good enough at economics to even know how the damage will manifest. Money in stocks and bonds (including fun stuff such as pensions) will disappear if the companies go belly up. Actual "paper" money in the bank won't go bust without hyperinflation, ala Germany in the middle war period. Deflation was the norm during the great depression in USA. IF hyperinflation becomes a thing your best bet is to have a resource which stays in value, typically land which is not speculative, the upper class who owned land fared the best during hyperinflation (as opposed to the middle class who lost all their savings, and the poor who lost their jobs and did not have savings). But that's extremely unlikely to happen. Your real problem is lack of income if your job gets cut and your current expenditures in, for example, housing balloons away from you forcing you to move. If you have a lot of money tied up in a mortgage and your fired that can be a big problem. Value job security over other factors, get out of debt (if that's actually possible) , be ready and willing to move or downsize. Or you could live in a commune. Depends on your situation. White Rock fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Feb 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Money in stocks and bonds (including fun stuff such as pensions) will disappear if the companies go belly up. Actual "paper" money in the bank won't go bust without hyperinflation, ala Germany in the middle war period. Deflation was the norm during the great depression in USA. IF hyperinflation becomes a thing your best bet is to have a resource which stays in value, typically land which is not speculative, the upper class who owned land fared the best during hyperinflation (as opposed to the middle class who lost all their savings, and the poor who lost their jobs and did not have savings). I think the biggest danger is the fact that when the next recession happens there is going to likely be little to no additional fiscal stimulus if not more extreme cuts which will only exacerbate the crisis. Building the wall is going to produce so many jobs especially since non-defense spending is going to be cut to the bone. The most likely result is deflation and a very very slow recovery even compare to the last recession. Basically, start saving everything you can right now because it is going to be a long hard fight. That said, I also have to wonder about the future because if situation is already tense right now, what is going to happen when you add a recession on top of everything else? Edit: Silver is so volatile and unpredictable you might as well be playing the slots. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Feb 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
So buy
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Or alternatively, spend and enjoy your life now while keeping your monthly commitments manageable, because the future's not going to be a place you want to retire in
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I was just replying to shrike82's post, but the first part of my post is pretty much what you just said. Russia followed the suggestions to the letter (liberalizing their economy so quickly that it collapsed into an oligarchy), while China took a more measured pace which allowed them to take advantage of foreign capital and markets without the disruption. I mean, you say it yourself; what gave China a boost was access to foreign capital and markets, not their politics - even if they had to adopt them to a limited degree to unlock that access. I just wouldn't go so far as to say that China would have been better off not liberalizing itself at all. Just the fact that China reoriented it's economic strategy around exports was a pretty big and comparatively "liberal" break from Mao's development strategy. Ardennes posted:It is both about the speed of the reforms and the sort of "end state." In the case of China, it is very clear the pace of reforms have slowed and more or less the country has reached an equilibrium state. I am actually doubtful they are going to get rid of most of the SOEs at this point, at best they cut their employment a little through buy-outs. Well, at the risk of being dangerously simplistic: I think there's a case to be made that for late-developing countries -- especially in regions that have acted as economic colonies on the periphery of the world trading system -- a coercive planned economy may be the fastest route at a certain stage of industrialization, but that at at a later stage of development opening up more space for private investment and initiative is necessary to avoid stagnation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Well, at the risk of being dangerously simplistic: I think there's a case to be made that for late-developing countries -- especially in regions that have acted as economic colonies on the periphery of the world trading system -- a coercive planned economy may be the fastest route at a certain stage of industrialization, but that at at a later stage of development opening up more space for private investment and initiative is necessary to avoid stagnation. The transition between industrial investment and consumerism is probably the key factor. Industrial development is relatively easy to forecast and plan for compared to a complicated consumer economy. However, at the same time it may not make sense to actually liberalize all your SOEs especially if they are the commanding heights of the economy. Ultimately, the Soviets would have done a lot better if they had switched to some very moderate reforms during the 1960s as growth from industrial development slowed (lift price controls on some consumer goods and allow some NEP style flexibility). Admittedly, China is stuck a bit at the moment since growth from manufacturing is starting to drop as they are undercut by sources of even cheaper labor. That said, I am not really sure how further liberalism would help this compared to developing a stronger domestic economy through income redistribution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
In addition to the bulk weirdness I mentioned earlier, I'm seeing container weirdness. Overcapacity had been a problem / trend for a while, but holy poo poo, I've never seen a vessel the size im on right now, almost ready to sail, with only 8 containers on deck. Granted this is the first US port, but normally to see this means shipyard, new charter, or heading to scrap. Again a lagging indicator doing a weird thing. On the other hand it is chinese new year...
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:On the other hand it is chinese new year... That's a pretty fuckin huge factor, to be fair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:That's a pretty fuckin huge factor, to be fair. Yeah we see haz drop off to nothing for a month every year. All the vessel schedules change too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
It's kinda funny how Chinese slaves actually get more time off from their jobs than American workers do, what with the Chinese New Year and all
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Helsing posted:No one is going to deny that China benefited from it's trade relationships with the west but we're talking about whether this vindicates liberalism. Because China benefitted precisely because it did not reciprocate. China's success certainly vindicates the concept of trade, something humans have been doing in various forms for more than 10,000 years. The fact two large regions of the world which barely interacted economically began to exchange goods, resulting in one of those regions becoming substantially wealthier, is not a surprising or counter intuitive response. Nothing about liberalism is particularly useful in explaining these results. But if you actually look at the details of how this interaction has played out then the record for liberalism looks a lot worse since the Chinese were able to open themselves to trade without actually transitioning into a liberal society, which is what everyone was predicting would happen. And meanwhile the supposed benefits to western consumers came at the cost of massive social dislocation, which produced a backlash, which now threatens to overthrow the whole system, assuming that the unsustainable environmental costs we're running up don't get to us first. Bold: Really? One word first: scale. The extent to which china opened itself to foreign investment and let its economic capacity be redirected towards foreign export is by foreign entities is 'liberalism' in that regard. It's historically notable in scale and sharply contrasts with how they (and much of the world) was previously operating (hence why the world 'liberal' exists to begin with, even though yes, words like trade and freedom have been around a while). China has liberalized in every other respect to varying degrees too though at this stage, with its current GDP per capita its roughly where S Korea was under military dictatorship in the 80's. So its got a ways to go. The U.S. economically absolutely benefited in terms of GDP and purchasing power (there is no way we'd have the same access to all the consumer goods that are currently made in china) and the extent to which certain demographics were hurt by trade directly, versus automation or other trends is highly debatable. Contemptible would be the first world kicking out the ladder behind them with trade barriers in a self-defeating attempt to prevent wealth from leaving their borders with with support from certain wings of the left who selectively use examples of the developing world they don't give a poo poo about to make ideological points.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
call to action posted:It's kinda funny how Chinese slaves actually get more time off from their jobs than American workers do Literal peons got more time off than I do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Why would a recession in the US happen soon, other than it's 'bout that time? And if it did, wouldn't it be rather shallow? It's not like there's a housing bubble now. I don't know if there's a bubble to burst at all right now. Growth has been pretty anemic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
Forgive me if I do this wrong, phone posting http://i.imgur.com/MUbNvQz.jpg That's what I'm taking about, this is abnormal even during chinese new year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:Why would a recession in the US happen soon, other than it's 'bout that time? And if it did, wouldn't it be rather shallow? It's not like there's a housing bubble now. I don't know if there's a bubble to burst at all right now. Growth has been pretty anemic. The housing bubble is still there as well as other consumer debt bubbles. The fundamental problem tho is we kicked the 08 crisis down the road and never fixed any of the core problems. OTC derivatives are still completely unregulated and are still a huge ticking time bomb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Building the wall is going to produce so many jobs especially since non-defense spending is going to be cut to the bone. I wouldn't be so willing to expect this to turn out to be a positive thing. For one, it's loving Trump so he's gonna cut corners and pocket as much money as he can from the entire program because it's loving Trump and basically every contractor that he signs up will be doing the same thing. Also prisons in the area are already offering their inmates for literal slave labor, so there's more jobs gone. Even his infrastructure plans are going to make about zero point dick jobs compared to how it could be done. The entire public "investment" is tax breaks for contract companies and selling off roads to make them toll roads. Trump isn't going to be revitalizing poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:The housing bubble is still there as well as other consumer debt bubbles. The fundamental problem tho is we kicked the 08 crisis down the road and never fixed any of the core problems. OTC derivatives are still completely unregulated and are still a huge ticking time bomb. Not only is the housing bubble still a problem, but the GOP started efforts to repeal Dodd-Frank a couple days ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:The housing bubble is still there as well as other consumer debt bubbles. The fundamental problem tho is we kicked the 08 crisis down the road and never fixed any of the core problems. OTC derivatives are still completely unregulated and are still a huge ticking time bomb. don't forget about the fracking bubble
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 08:27
|
|
|
Rack up as much debt as you are allowed. Use all of it to live comfortably and happily for as long as you can. Let society crumble around you (its already going to happen, don't try and think we can control it anymore) and then use your goodwill and education you got on credit to help rebuild that society. Also don't have kids, what a cruel thing to impose on someone, existing in times such as these.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:Rack up as much debt as you are allowed. Use all of it to live comfortably and happily for as long as you can. Let society crumble around you (its already going to happen, don't try and think we can control it anymore) and then use your goodwill and education you got on credit to help rebuild that society. Also don't have kids, what a cruel thing to impose on someone, existing in times such as these. Without even knowing it, I've been preparing perfectly for future world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 12:26
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:The housing bubble is still there as well as other consumer debt bubbles. The fundamental problem tho is we kicked the 08 crisis down the road and never fixed any of the core problems. OTC derivatives are still completely unregulated and are still a huge ticking time bomb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
I kind of hate to say it, but I am really glad I don't have kids. I don't even dislike kids and I definitely see the value of raising a new generation but holy gently caress the world is uncertain and desperate at this point. I mean you have to be doing pretty drat well not to be worried about the future. Moreover, the state of education (K to PhD) and child care in the US is already hosed on top of that then you got health care. It makes be queasy even thinking about it. I don't know how you even save when you have kids at this point? Anyway, if you want to "predict" a recession the best thing to do is start looking at BLS data and to see if there is any rise of consistent rise. Our current data is starting to look like the economy is where it was in around late 06-early 07 (which means we have around 14-18 months if you expect a predictable sequence of events). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:03 on Feb 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
If you're consciously having kids these days, you probably care more about your own ego than the life they'll have to endure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
So, I'm on SSI and medicare for a childhood disability. It's being reviewed because reasons. I'd like to go back to work part time while health stuff gets worked out but that's on hold. If it does get reapproved, do I try to stay on it as long as possible until I'm of sound mind and body? Or do I get off it as soon as possible and risk not getting the insurance back because I'm not grandfathered in? Keep in mind I have five to eight doctors and therapist appointments a month and some sort of procedure or hospitalization once a year. I'm also anti-Trump; I can see him being petty enough to try to revoke services to people who don't beg at his feet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
call to action posted:If you're consciously having kids these days, you probably care more about your own ego than the life they'll have to endure. If we can't affirm that is good to exist, then there is not much to bother fighting for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
trade is overall good against poverty rarely and I mean rarely has there ever been a fact so obvious and supported by data in recorded history of society and lol if u think that poor third worlders arent gonna be the first to suffer if world trade declines developing countries like the BRICS gonna lose all their nice toys and product variety and western countries are gonna be comparably slightly inconvenienced at best edit: I mean it's gonna suck what with less iphones and such. But for certain third world countries I could literally draw a line in the income distribution and say "here, all you guys below this, probably gonna die of starvation/sickness" Edit2: and America using its large-country bargaining position in world trade may also very well have the same effect. Trump may very well be killing peeps for the jobs y'all wanna have back Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Feb 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:trade is overall good against poverty Prove it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Well, good to know our favorite villains from the last recession will have their chance to repeat history: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/extreme-vetting-but-not-for-banks-w464966
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:So, I'm on SSI and medicare for a childhood disability. It's being reviewed because reasons. I'd like to go back to work part time while health stuff gets worked out but that's on hold. I'm not a lawyer but I was a disability specialist in Texas for a few years. Sounds like an age 18 redetermination? They'll evaluate your disability against the adult standards instead of the child ones. If you're approved they'll set a diary and review your case normally after three or seven years. At that point it will be very difficult for them to ever drop you from the disability roles unless you go back to work and earn more than SGI, which for 2017 is $1170.00 per month. If you have a lot of bills and appointments it behooves you to keep your insurance until that is resolved unless you want to incur medical bills. As long as you're on SSI when you have income below SGA they just lower your payment. So you can try working part time while still on SSI, just make drat sure you're earning below SGA, or Substantial Gainful Activity. Call your social security field office if you have any additional questions. Yiggy fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Prove it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
Thanks Yiggy
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 11:41
|
|