Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Paul Krugman Attacks Britain's Austerity Drive As 'deeply Destructive'


Recommended Posts

********.

Productivity is NOT the same as wealth creation.

Wealth is the stuff, the goods and services we consume. Productivity is an increase in the rate of wealth creation. You clearly have no idea of what wealth creation is.

"Adam Smith, in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, described wealth as "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society". This "produce" is, at its simplest, that which satisfies human needs and wants of utility. In popular usage, wealth can be described as an abundance of items of economic value, or the state of controlling or possessing such items, usually in the form of money, real estate and personal property."

If there had been no new wealth created no new houses would have been built since labour came to power, no food would have been grown, no electricity generated, no patients treated in hospital, no criminals prosecuted, no internet access available over the past decade, no clothes in shops, no petrol in petrol stations, etc ,etc. ALL of that is wealth!

Wealth is access to warmth, safety, enlightenment, longevity(health), etc. The easier that is, the most wealthy we are. Wealth is created when there is more of it to go around. When people used to work the fields they were productive in feeding themselves. When the plough was invented and irrigation thought off new wealth was created.

that the state can create no wealth only destroy it.

Definitely not true but lots would argue they are very bad at creating it and very good at destroying it.

Edited by cica
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 311
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's the bloody problem with this country

It is full of people who have managed to escape from failed states and they then try and recreate the thing they have fled from here.

I have a family friend who was forced to flee Iran when the Shah was deposed and the other day he actually said to me

'what we need in this country is a revolution'

The irony of this statement was completely lost on him.

:blink:

Yeah, I have an American friend who says that paying taxes is nothing more than slavery.

Irony is such a beautiful and precious thing, don't you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What utter utter moronic nutjob garbage.

So in communist russia there were no homes, no food, no clothes, no electricity, no cars, no nothing? Because thats what you are saying

What a imbecile. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Your childlike debating style is to tell me that what I'm saying is X, when X is obviously untrue, and thus you claim victory. You are the moronic nutjob for such obvious trolling.

Your beloved Soviet Russia was a hell hole of grinding poverty, and lefties like you want more of the same. Just because after 80 odd years of communism they had not managed to regress to the bronze age does not make it an example of economic success.

Why do you think in East Germany they flooded over the boarder when the wall came down?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a imbecile. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Your childlike debating style is to tell me that what I'm saying is X, when X is obviously untrue, and thus you claim victory. You are the moronic nutjob for such obvious trolling.

Your beloved Soviet Russia was a hell hole of grinding poverty, and lefties like you want more of the same. Just because after 80 odd years of communism they had not managed to regress to the bronze age does not make it an example of economic success.

Why do you think in East Germany they flooded over the boarder when the wall came down?

Your previous statement was

"wtf??

You do realise, you communist moron, that the state can create no wealth only destroy it. In your bat shit crazy feces eating madness you have somehow come to the conclusion that a country that is 90% state is remotely viable. It would subject its citizens to the most horrendous poverty and go bankrupt. Just like the murderous oppressive hell hole that was your beloved soviet Russia."

and wealth is

"Adam Smith, in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, described wealth as "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society". This "produce" is, at its simplest, that which satisfies human needs and wants of utility. In popular usage, wealth can be described as an abundance of items of economic value, or the state of controlling or possessing such items, usually in the form of money, real estate and personal property."

So if your moronic nutjob fantasy statement that states can only destroy wealth is true then the USSR had zero wealth. Therefore it HAD no homes, no food, no clothes, no electricity, no cars, no nothing, because all of these are wealth! You are saying exactly this!!! Or are you somehow going to come up with another nutjob fantasy statement to somehow claim that all of these things are not wealth???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your previous statement was

"wtf??

You do realise, you communist moron, that the state can create no wealth only destroy it. In your bat shit crazy feces eating madness you have somehow come to the conclusion that a country that is 90% state is remotely viable. It would subject its citizens to the most horrendous poverty and go bankrupt. Just like the murderous oppressive hell hole that was your beloved soviet Russia."

and wealth is

"Adam Smith, in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, described wealth as "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society". This "produce" is, at its simplest, that which satisfies human needs and wants of utility. In popular usage, wealth can be described as an abundance of items of economic value, or the state of controlling or possessing such items, usually in the form of money, real estate and personal property."

So if your moronic nutjob fantasy statement that states can only destroy wealth is true then the USSR had zero wealth. Therefore it HAD no homes, no food, no clothes, no electricity, no cars, no nothing, because all of these are wealth! You are saying exactly this!!! Or are you somehow going to come up with another nutjob fantasy statement to somehow claim that all of these things are not wealth???

Its impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you because you don't have any intelligence.

All you do is google stuff, copy and paste it as your own insights and then make absurd strawman arguments.

Later looser!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your previous statement was

"wtf??

You do realise, you communist moron, that the state can create no wealth only destroy it. In your bat shit crazy feces eating madness you have somehow come to the conclusion that a country that is 90% state is remotely viable. It would subject its citizens to the most horrendous poverty and go bankrupt. Just like the murderous oppressive hell hole that was your beloved soviet Russia."

and wealth is

"Adam Smith, in his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, described wealth as "the annual produce of the land and labour of the society". This "produce" is, at its simplest, that which satisfies human needs and wants of utility. In popular usage, wealth can be described as an abundance of items of economic value, or the state of controlling or possessing such items, usually in the form of money, real estate and personal property."

So if your moronic nutjob fantasy statement that states can only destroy wealth is true then the USSR had zero wealth. Therefore it HAD no homes, no food, no clothes, no electricity, no cars, no nothing, because all of these are wealth! You are saying exactly this!!! Or are you somehow going to come up with another nutjob fantasy statement to somehow claim that all of these things are not wealth???

What you appear to be missing is that they had vast wealth to start with, so the fact that they didn't end up living in mud huts proves nothing because they didn't start off living in mud huts.

South Africa is a good example - if you inherit a rich country, with valuable resources and a fully modern well maintained infrastructure you can live off this legacy for decades.

This was my point about the Nu Labour years and housing - the housing built was less than the population increase so for the whole of this period real housing 'wealth' was being destroyed

This is what I was arguing - under Nu Labour real wealth was being destroyed far faster than it was being created and this happens whenever Socialists get their hands on power.

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy is a troll, stop feeding him. I really doubt anyone is genuinely that stupid.

TBH I think these people do actually, genuinely believe what they are saying.

In fact much of what they argue is mainstream thinking.

Newsnight keep wheeling out some female economist who insists that if the government just printed loads of money we would all be rich.

The people they put up against her just sit staring at her incredulously - how can you debate with someone who is so deluded that their arguments defy any sort of rational analysis?

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

On both accounts factually wrong and dangerously misleading.

Historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 4 million to nearly 10 million, not including those who died in famines.[102] Russian writer Vadim Erlikman, for example, makes the following estimates: executions, 1.5 million; gulags, 5 million; deportations, 1.7 million out of 7.5 million deported; and POWs and German civilians, 1 million – a total of about 9 million victims of repression.[103]

Some have also included the deaths of 6 to 8 million people in the 1932–1933 famine among the victims of Stalin's repression. This categorization is controversial however, as historians differ as to whether the famine was a deliberate part of the campaign of repression against kulaks and others,[52][104][105][106][107] or simply an unintended consequence of the struggle over forced collectivization.[68][108][109]

Accordingly, if famine victims are included, a minimum of around 10 million deaths—6 million from famine and 4 million from other causes—are attributable to the regime,[110] with a number of recent historians suggesting a likely total of around 20 million, citing much higher victim totals from executions, gulags, deportations and other causes.[111] Adding 6–8 million famine victims to Erlikman's estimates above, for example, would yield a total of between 15 and 17 million victims. Researcher Robert Conquest, meanwhile, has revised his original estimate of up to 30 million victims down to 20 million.[112] In his most recent edition of The Great Terror (2007), Conquest states that while exact numbers may never be known with complete certainty, the various terror campaigns launched by the Soviet government claimed no fewer than 15 million lives.[113] Others maintain that their earlier higher victim total estimates are correct.

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Accordingly, if famine victims are included, a minimum of around 10 million deaths—6 million from famine and 4 million from other causes—are attributable to the regime,[110] with a number of recent historians suggesting a likely total of around 20 million, citing much higher victim totals from executions, gulags, deportations and other causes.[111] Adding 6–8 million famine victims to Erlikman's estimates above, for example, would yield a total of between 15 and 17 million victims. Researcher Robert Conquest, meanwhile, has revised his original estimate of up to 30 million victims down to 20 million.[112] In his most recent edition of The Great Terror (2007), Conquest states that while exact numbers may never be known with complete certainty, the various terror campaigns launched by the Soviet government claimed no fewer than 15 million lives.[113] Others maintain that their earlier higher victim total estimates are correct.

:blink:

Socialism, isn't it great.

Add in National Socialism and you have a very successful ideology.......if wasting lives and murdering is your thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism, isn't it great.

Add in National Socialism and you have a very successful ideology.......if wasting lives and murdering is your thing.

Apparently believing that any of this happened is dangerously misleading

So I guess Pol Pot didn't manage to halve the population of Cambodia

and 10's of millions Chinese didn't starve during the 'Great Leap Forwards'

:blink:

Edited by Game_Over
Link to post
Share on other sites

What you appear to be missing is that they had vast wealth to start with, so the fact that they didn't end up living in mud huts proves nothing because they didn't start off living in mud huts.

South Africa is a good example - if you inherit a rich country, with valuable resources and a fully modern well maintained infrastructure you can live off this legacy for decades.

This was my point about the Nu Labour years and housing - the housing built was less than the population increase so for the whole of this period real housing 'wealth' was being destroyed

This is what I was arguing - under Nu Labour real wealth was being destroyed far faster than it was being created and this happens whenever Socialists get their hands on power.

:blink:

That's not true. The standard of living in the USSR rose from 1945-1985. It is true that a particular government may destroy wealth for example labour certainly did, but so did G.W.Bush's neo-con government in the US. It also is true that certain governemental/economic systems are better at raising the quality of life of the masses.

You appear to be saying everything is the fault of socialism which is not true. If it is how do you explain this -

98115-124884111211955-John-Lounsbury.png

You'll note that the 1979 dip was due to the iranian oil shock. You'll also note that the point at which the earnings of the financial sector started to rebound while the non-financial sector did not was when the conservative administration of Ronald Reagan took office.

There is also this -

04reich-graphic-popup.jpg

The truth is that these show that where the common man is concerned its the re-engineered economic system that began in 1980 that has been the destroyer of wealth for the masses, crony or financial oligarchic capitalism. It has f*** all to do with socialism.

Edited by alexw
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not true. The standard of living in the USSR rose from 1945-1985. It is true that a particular government may destroy wealth for example labour certainly did, but so did G.W.Bush's neo-con government in the US. It also is true that certain governemental/economic systems are better at raising the quality of life of the masses.

You appear to be saying everything is the fault of socialism which is not true. If it is how do you explain this -

98115-124884111211955-John-Lounsbury.png

You'll note that the 1979 dip was due to the iranian oil shock. You'll also note that the point at which the earnings of the financial sector started to rebound while the non-financial sector did not was when the conservative administration of Ronald Reagan took office.

There is also this -

04reich-graphic-popup.jpg

The truth is that these show that where the common man is concerned its the re-engineered economic system that began in 1980 that has been the destroyer of wealth for the masses, crony or financial oligarchic capitalism. It has f*** all to do with socialism.

Yes, they got so rich their entire economy collapsed.

And it collapsed because Socialism doesn't work UNLESS you hold a gun to people's heads

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you because you don't have any intelligence.

All you do is google stuff, copy and paste it as your own insights and then make absurd strawman arguments.

Later looser!

Amusing I post a logical coherent argument which you don't refute instead deciding to say I have no intelligence.

If i'm wrong please point out where the logical chain of statements I made regarding what you said was incorrect.

As for my intelligence the last time I took the mensa test my IQ was 135. I also have a U.S. obtained doctorate in the hard sciences. I'm trying to educate you but it doesn't seem possible sadly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not true. The standard of living in the USSR rose from 1945-1985. It is true that a particular government may destroy wealth for example labour certainly did, but so did G.W.Bush's neo-con government in the US. It also is true that certain governemental/economic systems are better at raising the quality of life of the masses.

You appear to be saying everything is the fault of socialism which is not true. If it is how do you explain this -

98115-124884111211955-John-Lounsbury.png

You'll note that the 1979 dip was due to the iranian oil shock. You'll also note that the point at which the earnings of the financial sector started to rebound while the non-financial sector did not was when the conservative administration of Ronald Reagan took office.

There is also this -

04reich-graphic-popup.jpg

The truth is that these show that where the common man is concerned its the re-engineered economic system that began in 1980 that has been the destroyer of wealth for the masses, crony or financial oligarchic capitalism. It has f*** all to do with socialism.

debt destroys wealth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they got so rich their entire economy collapsed.

And it collapsed because Socialism doesn't work UNLESS you hold a gun to people's heads

:blink:

No.

Answer my points directly. Give a coherent logical explanation as to how socialism is to blame for the great divergences seen in those graphs beginning in 1981. If you are correct then surely you must be able to explain how socialism was the cause of the divergence with hard data as evidence.

Edited by alexw
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also this argument that the current crisis goes back to Thatcher and Regan is just childish and pathetic.

Nothing to do with the vast global trade imbalances caused by China

or the fact that as soon as China attempts to spend some of the Trillions of Dollars it has accumulated, commodity and food price inflation crashes the World economy.

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

Answer my points directly. Give a coherent logical explanation as to how socialism is to blame for the great divergences seen in those graphs beginning in 1981.

It is a false argument

The damage was inflicted over half a century from the end of the second world war when the west introduced the welfare state as a counter balance to Socialism in the USSR.

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also this argument that the current crisis goes back to Thatcher and Regan is just childish and pathetic.

Nothing to do with the vast global trade imbalances caused by China

or the fact that as soon as China attempts to spend some of the Trillions of Dollars it has accumulated, commodity and food price inflation crashes the World economy.

:blink:

WRONG.

china was running trade deficits all through the 1980's.

Again explain in hard factual evidence how socialism was the cause.

Edited by alexw
Link to post
Share on other sites

Amusing I post a logical coherent argument which you don't refute instead deciding to say I have no intelligence.

If i'm wrong please point out where the logical chain of statements I made regarding what you said was incorrect.

As for my intelligence the last time I took the mensa test my IQ was 135. I also have a U.S. obtained doctorate in the hard sciences. I'm trying to educate you but it doesn't seem possible sadly.

Well my IQ is about 130 and I don't agree with you

And there are Nobel Prize winning economists who I wouldn't trust to run a raffle

So where does that leave us?

In fact, thinking that you can win an argument by quoting your alleged IQ actually demonstrates you have very little understanding of how the World works in reality.

:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a false argument

The damage was inflicted over half a century from the end of the second world war when the west introduced the welfare state as a counter balance to Socialism in the USSR.

:blink:

So your saying the lag time between a policy being implemented and its economic effect is 50 years?

Give hard factual evidence for this, since the accepted wisdom that the time lag between government policy to perceivable effect is a few days to a few years. Certainly not 50.

Where is your data proof for your statement.

Either give data or retract it.

Also your saying its just a coincidence that the great divergence began to occur during the administrations of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.?

Edited by alexw
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.