/int/ - International

>>8502 Or they would have really nice, member-only roads between the golden coast and some places of interest, but the rural population would have to use dirt tracks to get food into their village.

>>8400 The rich didn't pluck their money out of thin air. They took it from the pockets of the poor. It's why they are poor. Taxes are just a means of getting some of it back so society can function.

>>8570 The poor are poor because they don't get proper jobs and are not good with their money. They only have themselves to blame.

>>8426 This is quite stupid considering that we are living under capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich.

>>8595 >This is quite stupid No, it's the absolute truth. >are living under capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich. That's bullshit. We are living under corporatism, whose nature it is, to be good for the masters and bad for the plebs. If we would really live under capitalism we wouldn't have to pay more than the half of our money as taxes to the gov mafia. Big taxation is a sign of socialist transfer states, not of "capitalism" (that is btw just another communist bullshit buzzword).

>>8574 Cure mantra, did you hear that on TV from one of those CEOs that tells stories about you you just have to run that hamster wheel a little harder, and then wealth will come to you? Who the fuck are you trying to fool here, you absolute fucking clown?

>>8616 I don't watch TV. It's not about working harder either, it's about getting a better job. You can flip as many burgers as you like but that won't make you rich.

>>8617 Sure you aren't, faggot, that's why you repeat the PR CEO mantras from there about "working harder", "saving every dime" and "getting a better job". Who the fuck are you trying to fool here, retarded faggot? Answer the question, scum.

>>8617 There aren't enough "better jobs" for everyone. Guess whose choice that is? Why does flipping burgers make you poor? Who decides how much to pay to the person who has no choice but to flip burgers? The rich. They become rich by paying other people so little that they become poor, and charging people for their products as much as possible so the rich person becomes richer and other people become poorer. The rich don't need their billions. No human needs that amount of money. They could pay their employees more and charge less but out of their greed they choose to make other people poor.

>>8619 That's the nature of things, somebody is always going to have to flip the burgers. The Market decides how much the burger flipper makes, either that or the government with minimum wage laws. This is one of the reasons why taxes are important, somebody is always going to have to do bad jobs so that person may as well be compensated by the state so that they can live a somewhat comfortable life. The Labour market is a market like any other, employers want to pay as little as possible and employees want to get paid as much as possible.

>>8621 That's the nature of rich people, not of things.

>>8624 No, it's the nature of things in general. If there were two hamburger places that sold the exact same hamburger but one costs twice as much you would go to the cheaper one. Why do you think it would be cheaper?

>>8621 No, here's the nature of things.

>>8626 >If there were two hamburger places that sold the exact same hamburger but one costs twice as much There wouldn't be if there wasn't a rich greedy asshole selling hamburgers for cheap by abusing people.

>>8630 That's the point. Humans are greedy, I want to spend as little as possible but business want to make as much from me as they can. But even if a business owner does wnat to pay his staff more, there is a limit to how much he can as if he does pay his staff more and makes his product more expensive as a result he will just get out competed by others and go out of business. That's why Governments need to step in and enforce minimum wages and other such things.

>>8621 >The Labour market is a market like any other No, it's not. It's extremely inelastic. Most people need around 100% employment. I cannot work two full-time jobs in case there's a labour shortage. I cannot simply not work for a while just because the labour market is looking grim. I have rent bills to pay.

>>8632 The housing market is like that too, not all markets are the same but they are still markets. You are right, you can't not work but business also can't function without you. Using the hamburger store example again. If one business pays his staff half as much as another store people are going to work at the higher paying one and not the lower paying one.

>>8633 Yes, the housing market is also not free. A family of four cannot rent four studio apartments and live like that. They also won't rent a 7-room apartment just because it's a market with a surplus. Also, most people won't opt to be homeless, unlike some goods like chocolate where you could easily wait out a deficit.

>>8633 >If one business pays his staff half as much as another store people are going to work at the higher paying one and not the lower paying one. What if that well-paying restaurant already has all the burger flippers they need? Maybe they're not hiring?

>>8633 This subhuman cunt is unironically trying to pretend like the price of burgers and the employee's wages are related, LMAO All CEOs must be flayed alive

>>8634 That's why house prices have been rising so much. As you say, people can't just not consume it like with chocolate so in low supply high demand situations like this they don't have a choice but to pay up. >>8635 That's where the unemployment rate comes into things. In a high unemployment situation everybody is competing to get a job and the employer can pick whoever offers to work for the least. But in low unemployment situations that is flipped. If pretty much everybody has a job already then the only way a business can get new workers is to offer more than they already earn.

>>8422 doctors used to get paid in food in rural areas and were paid less than masons or roofers. now builders cant afford the house they make and we have hospital complexes filled with fat minority nurses pushing paper, waiting room full of shitskins on welfare checking in on their sniffles bullshitting killing time

>>8637 Both the housing and the labour markets have some characteristics of markets, but like you said, they're not free, so it's utterly pointless to pretend they are. Any overly liberal (as in the freer the market the freer the people) opinion on them can be disregarded as that person is either trying to push an agenda or is clueless.

>>8638 Healthcare is another great example of an even less free labour market. Garbagemen can go on strike and let the garbage pile up in the streets until they get a raise. Doctors won't do that. And if a doctor is willing to let the corpses pile up, he shouldn't be a doctor in the first place.

>>8639 I think maybe the language barrier has got in the way here. By free market what they mean is that people are free to buy and sell with no government intervention in things like prices. What you are talking about is how liquid something is.

>>8640 Doctors have skills that are much higher in demand and take longer to attain.

>>8641 I don't think it's a language barrier, it's economics. A free market implies more than just the absence of taxes. It implies perfect competition (a monopoly or oligopoly destroys a free market) and perfect elasticity of supply and demand. If a resource is limited, it's not a free market. An example is the oil production that's limited by OPEC to control the prices, but there are also natural limits. Ultimately, a free market assumes a market in which the price is only determined by the (elastic) supply and demand. Maybe a side note: elasticity means that supply and demand depend on the price (in this case, the actual definition is a little more general). If food becomes twice as expensive, will you eat half as much? No? Then the market with just "food" is not free. The market for butter is a little more free, since you can consume less, you have competition (margarine) etc.

>>8642 Their skillset or training doesn't affect the willingness to go on strike. It's the nature of their job. If pilots go on strike, their employers (airlines) lose money. If doctors go on strike, their patients die.

>>8643 OPEC is a cartel not a free market actor(though with the US shale boom their ability to act in that way has been diminished). There is never perfect competition as their will always be advantages and disadvantages between nations and businesses. What you are talking about is the difference between discretionary spending and essential spending. But anyway. >If food becomes twice as expensive, will you eat half as much? No? Then the market with just "food" is not free. That's not what free market means. If food becomes twice as expensive then you will be forced to pay twice as much(or actually you could eat less as well but I will answer in the spirit of what you said) and if you can't afford to pay twice as much then you'll just die. >>8644 It affects the willingness of other clinics and even other nations to hire them. They can't go on strike(they can and do actually but again I will answer in the spirit of your post) so they will just work for somebody that pays more or in a country that pays more.

>>8644 healthcare is a massively subsidized and regulated industry. doctors dont have to go on strike but on a mass scale engage in underworking, because they feel like it, through not accepting new patients and long wait times. I remember covid when all the boomers clogged everything up to inspect their sniffles, and today here there is still months long waits to access healthcare because doctors didn't work overtime like a sandblaster when there was more demand, they just made people wait longer

>>8402 This entire discussion about 3 months ago would have went completely over my head. But because I am autistic and like repeating myself, I've become at the very least three times as educated on the subject that is being discussed here. I'd just like to first of all say that there is no such thing as ''money printing''. It literally does not even exist. There's something central banks can do which commonly gets confused with money printing that has to do with a central bank buying government bonds through normal banks that people sometimes confuse with ''money printing'' (which does not exist, by the way) that injects liquidity into the economy. It increases the reserves of banks, and what people misunderstand is that once a central bank buys these government bonds from different financial institutions, it's not actually circulating within the economy. So, with that said, there is a type of injection of reserves of banks which causes the price of specific assets to inflate such as stocks and real estate, but generally, aside from that, the money does not actually circulate in the economy. The additional reserves made are digital money, and for the most part, these reserves are not even printed into actual money, and does not actually cause inflation due to this. The only thing that happens once this central bank decides to buy government bonds is that the demand for these same bonds increase, and as they are subject to supply and demand as with just about any other product that exists in a market, government bonds are then sold at higher prices and lower yields due to the demand for it. This is still something I am not a pro in, but I hope it made enough sense to you guys as it did for me typing it. For the record, this concept is known among pros as ''quantitative easing'', but don't get too caught up in jargons, it is essentially meaningless.

>>8649 >there is no such thing as ''money printing'' Ahuehuehuehuehu

>>8652 >federal reserve listed as a source You could skim my post and you'd come to the conclusion that despite additional reserves being made, that they don't actually circulate in the economy. Essentially meaning that the money doesn't actually exist. If it did, then the US, and specifically, the federal reserve and its dual mandate, one of them being keeping unemployment as low as possible, and the other being stable prices, would have been experiencing a complete economic meltdown. You are actually literally retarded if you think that the federal reserve would actually do something as stupid as that. And that's not even mentioning the fact that the USD has not been subject to inflation that would be correspondent to the chart you posted. Which according to you and your understanding would be a complete mystery, correct?

>>8649 you are just being dazzled by the sophistry of the description of the process. this 100% does cause inflation by their own admittance...furthermore there is corruption in this. the federal reserve bought toxic and worthless housing securities in 2008 essentially giving money to some rich people at above market rates, in exchange for inflation which an invisible tax every one pays

>>8649 "Money printing" and fiscal policies are an entirely different subject than market theories.

>>8657 Money printing and fiscal policies are entirely related as there is something commonly referred to as ''monetizing debt'' which is what the federal reserve often gets accused of.

>>8661 (Money printing and fiscal politics) are not (market theories).

>>8655 >M2

>>8631 >Humans are greedy No. Not all humans are greedy. Most humans are not greedy. Only the greedy ones are greedy. You're constantly trying to project your bad qualities to the whole species and saying "it's just how it is" as if you had no choice but to be a greedy asshole. You do have a choice.

>>8662 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

>>8665 if you really wanted wealth distribution the bottom 50% wouldn't pay taxes and get a check in the mail from the top 20% paying taxes. instead every one pays taxes which goes to very mysterious things like private businesses, subsidies, government paper pushers, well to do government bureaucrats, NGOs, UN, transgender migrant studies, roads that take 20 years to build

>>8649 >these reserves are not even printed into actual money, and does not actually cause inflation due to this. How are you comming to the thought that inflation only can be caused through real cotton printed money?

>>8676 >people refer to money printing >I'm wrong for assuming it means literal money printing Use another word, then, not my fault.

>>8681 Still not getting your point. Why do sums (of whatever kinds of money) that just float around in the derivate sphere not also can causing inflation?

>>8665 If that wasn't the case the situation wouldn't be what it was. There wouldn't be poorly paid workers in poorly paid positions because nobody would shop at a place where a worker was poorly paid or poorly treated and nobody would buy goods produced by poorly paid and poorly treated workers. That's not what happens though. >>8669 That's basically what happens, look at the OP Image. The Bottom 50% basically pay nothing and the top are the ones paying the bulk. But Really I don't think wealth distribution is important.

>>8684 Because in order for money to have an impact in an economy in any way whatsoever it has to be either borrowed or spent somehow. If banks are introduced to any given amount of money that comes from a central bank through purchase of assets from that bank, it doesn't actually mean much since it's literally digital reserves. The only thing it affects is the bank's ability to lend money, and even then, the impact is only gradual.

>>8686 Why do you think that derivates have no impact on economy? They can influence stock exchange prizes, that then can have impacts on economy.

>>8690 I've acknowledged that fact in my first post, it does affect very few aspects of the economy. But it doesn't automatically correlate with inflation, as the other Bernd pointed out. Specific assets increase in value, housing bubbles exist, but the matter of the fact is that money supply increase through quantitative easing is not exclusively related to inflation. It can happen, but it is not exclusively due to the increase in money supply. What I'm trying to say is that if there's no circulation of digital reserves, then it doesn't actually affect the economy as broadly as one would assume.

>>8685 Everybody doesn't need to be greedy for the current situation to exist. Only the few greedy need to be greedy. You keep making excuses.

>>8723 Not everybody does but the majority do.