Global capitalism is failing

[seezachswim]

First off I would like to say that I voted, "I Disagree". Let me say that Socialism is a perfect system. A world where there is no war, poverty, starvation or any real problems in it. A world where everyone works together in peace and harmony for the common good.

Now for reality. Humans have an instinct of survival of the fittest and of competition. Socialism does not work because of this. If we all try to work together then we take away any competition that capitalism gives us. When humans are not continually challenged by other humans then they get lazy. In a society where no one is challenged by one another then it would begin to stagnate.

Take the example of family dog. In the wild, dogs are killing machines. They have to work for their food, they have to survive attacks from predators, they have to survive inclement weather. Now take a dog that has been domesticated his whole life and lives with a family of 4. He is fed every day whether or not he does anything. He is given shelter from predators and inclement weather. As a result this dog could not survive one week in the wild. The dogs motives for staying in top competive form has been taken away and as a result it loses productivity.

In the same way a society that has no competition will grow lazy because its citizens will have no motives to be productive. The reason that a capitalist society will work is the greed of citizens. In the same way the reason that a socialist society will not work is because of the greed of citizens. When humans are given the opportunity to abuse any system they will always do so. It is in our nature.

Capitalism may be evil but it is the only system that works within the human nature.

 

[Verbose]

First off I would like to say that I voted, "I Disagree". Let me say that Socialism is a perfect system. A world where there is no war, poverty, starvation or any real problems in it. A world where everyone works together in peace and harmony for the common good.

Now for reality. Humans have an instinct of survival of the fittest and of competition. Socialism does not work because of this. If we all try to work together then we take away any competition that capitalism gives us. When humans are not continually challenged by other humans then they get lazy. In a society where no one is challenged by one another then it would begin to stagnate.

Humans also have an instinct for cooperation. Focusing on competition is just as much an ideological choice as focusing on cooperation when trying to understand how human soceities work. Neither is proof either way. Neither is more or less "real" than the alternative. "Nature" tells us nothing specific about this.

Take the example of family dog. In the wild, dogs are killing machines. They have to work for their food, they have to survive attacks from predators, they have to survive inclement weather. Now take a dog that has been domesticated his whole life and lives with a family of 4. He is fed every day whether or not he does anything. He is given shelter from predators and inclement weather. As a result this dog could not survive one week in the wild. The dogs motives for staying in top competive form has been taken away and as a result it loses productivity.

A wild dog in it's own will die just as well. Cooperation is the key to doggy success. And if the family pet dog succumbs sooner we should look to selective human breeding of dogs. Afghans is one of the most archaic domestic breeds of dog. Fat chance you can make an Afghan play dead, sit or any other doggy trick. But they will hunt very well as a pack. But an Afghan on it's own won't hack it. So wild dogs rely on cooperation, not competition.

In the same way a society that has no competition will grow lazy because its citizens will have no motives to be productive. The reason that a capitalist society will work is the greed of citizens. In the same way the reason that a socialist society will not work is because of the greed of citizens. When humans are given the opportunity to abuse any system they will always do so. It is in our nature.

Capitalism may be evil but it is the only system that works within the human nature.

Clearly you've never looked into "stone age economics". Capitalism works because human nature is extremely adaptable. Other systems will work, but not the same way, or produce exactly the same things in similar proportions.

Humans have relied on redistributive economies far longer than they have on capitalism, and those systems weren't "unnatural".

It's weird; regarding capitalism as not just the latest and most "advanced" form of human society, but at the same time the most "orignal" and "natural" one? Humans before our time were living under "unnatural conditions" because they had other agendas and problems than we do?

We really are very far removed in our modern societies from the original problems of humanity, which is surviving in a not altogether friendly world, where cooperation is the key to success.

The US in particular seems to have a major ideological investment in viewing interpersonal competition as the defining characteristic of its society. But you can only maintain that as long as the environment you live in has been tamed to the degree that it doesn't pose a challenge under normal circumstances.

 

[Xenocrates]

There are people that Capitalism will never motivate, such as myself. And there are people that Socialism will never motivate, such as most of you probably.

Believe it or not there are people that will engage more with a good cause and only get frustrated by the aimlessness of working to make/sell a product, which will earn $ for us but perform no other useful function. In history some of the most motivated people have been those that thought they were called by God, glory, art or knowledge and not by the $.

It's not a case of which system is better, but a case of how long we can stomach one sytem before changing to another. No system suits everyone and it's wrong for people to go their whole life in the wilderness, so I'd say that every half a generation, there should be a change.

 

[Verbose]

Actually our societies work because we are quite good a making up separate spheres.

There's the economic sphere where things are assumed to work according to Fundamental Principles of Economics. (Which is where the whole "capitalism is the only system that could wirk, and it's Natural and Human Nature"-idea tends to be presented.)

There's a Political Sphere which, in democracies at least, is assumed should never be sullied by the base interests of the economic sphere. (I.e. you shouldn't be allowed to buy politicians... While politicians tend to assume because they are the elected representatives if they can't decide how something is to be done it is inherently "undemocratic".)

There's the Academic Sphere were neither politics or economics should be allowed to intrude (not overly much at least) as people there go after Truth. ("Yes we want that research grant from private enterprise, and yes we're Building A Better Mousetrap on tax-payers money, but don't you dare have any ideas about how we should go about this!")

There are others as well (legal system, art etc.)

And in actual fact they are hoplessly intertwined and we're always tinkering with them, trying to push all kinds of agendas which sphere should be allowed a greater influence on the others depending on all kinds vested interests (or just habits of thought).

 

[Xenocrates]

Yes I'd like to see a weakening of emphasis on economics at the moment. economists wield far too much power and their subject is, at best, a pretty poor account of human behaviour. I wrote this before:

economics does not exist alone in the World. there are other systems, social, religious, linguistic, scientific, cultural and poltical etc. that interact with each other.

It's the interaction between these systems that characterises the world in which we live and not the economic system alone. The world is very complex.

This is a good quote:

"Economists have become a plague as dangerous as rabbits, prickly pear or cane toads. Economists have become the cultural cane toads of Canberra, oozing over the landscape and endangering myriad indigenous species. Not only the economy but also mental health would be greatly improved if we could lift the fog of obfuscation on things economic. The first step is to take economists from their pedestal and to see them as the curiosities they are. The first step to reducing their power is to reduce their legitimacy. How is this to be achieved? First, economists' outpourings should, as a matter of principle, be met with laughter, derision, benign paternalism. They should cease to be employed as media commentators. In the long term they should cease to be hired. Let them be pensioned off and die out. Extinction is a worthy end for a profession whose brief is rotten to the core."

Dr. Evan Jones, Economics Department, University of Sydney quoted on
http://dieoff.org/page242.htm

Economists usually think that the answer to every question is the market, as fundamentalist Christians think that the bible also holds all of the answers. Economics is a religion of faith!

 

[JerichoHill]

So we're a plague?

Ha!

If you think economics is just subject on the study of markets, then you're wrong. I am primarily in the field of the economic study of religion. We collaborate with sociologists, psychologist, anthropomologists, on and on and on.

Economics is a much bigger field than what people normally percieve.

Nice quote. I can also find a whole lot of quotes that would show many other different sides.

Sigh. How is economics a poor account. Have you looked at the track record? Are you aware of what we actually think? Do you read our journals? Do you know what we've done in the last 10 years?

As an economist, if I knew enough about you, let's say, information that is readily available in a match.com profile, and lets stay I had a couple thousand profiles, I could tell you general patterns of behavior amongst those people, and be generally right.



We use math. And good math. Math is not faith.

 

[Xenocrates]

I think that the reason why evolution is still hotly debated is beacuse there's no maths in it. Other potentially controversial physics gets by the religious unmentioned beause they can't argue about a subject full of maths. Hence economics 'debates' here always turn into unphilosophical slugfests.

I only posted the plague quote to add balance. In fact I like Evan Davies, the BBC's economics analyst, and JHill's not far behind. Economics should be discussed with a smile!

PS - JS Mill also thought that with suffiient data, he could predict behaviour. Perhaps if they cut the first year BS out of University economics courses, more progress could be made?

 

[Gelion]

• Half the world — nearly three billion people — live on less than two dollars a day.
• The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined.
• Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.
• Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn't happen.
• 51 percent of the world’s 100 hundred wealthiest bodies are corporations. source
• The wealthiest nation on Earth has the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation.
• The poorer the country, the more likely it is that debt repayments are being extracted directly from people who neither contracted the loans nor received any of the money.
• 20% of the population in the developed nations, consume 86% of the world’s goods.
• The top fifth of the world’s people in the richest countries enjoy 82% of the expanding export trade and 68% of foreign direct investment — the bottom fifth, barely more than 1%.
• In 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% — in 1997, 74 times as much.

These facts can be validated at:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp


This is the charge sheet. In addition to this I would add the opinion that the current world system of integrated, essentially capitalist world framework is ill equiped to deal with environmental problems, principaly global warming.

And that only a international democratic socialist order transcending national identities can overcome these injustices and problems facing humanity.

I guess it is time for me to throw in my opinion on this. I do not care much if someone has 1000's times more money than me. As long as I can meet my expences and live a relatively comfortable life I don't count money of billionaires. What worries me is that millions of people DONT live the sort of life I live where food comes from shops, PC is a fact of life and one does sport for pleasure.
I obly recently began to realise the educational gap between me and average man on the street. I am talking about the general Human population. Most of the people dont have the education to realise what is happening around the world and how they are/or are not being manipulated (sorry for this "typical" american word). By "manipulation" I mean projecting the "official" or "common" point of view in order to make the masses agree with the government or organisation. Few people have access to real information and can analyse the facts. This is part of the problem when most people just dont know and dont think.
Now to the problem. I dont care much as well what political system the world should have. "Any system is as good as the people who run it".
My requirements to a government are extensive, but as long as they aer satisfied I am happy. These include requirements to have a normal life (right to earn, give birth, educate and be educated, right to express as long as one is responsible). Whatever system can answer these requirements IMHO has the right to be there under one condition:
"It plans for the future of mankind". Not in the Orwellian way, but in a quite pragmatic survivalist attitude.
Resources of the planet are diminishing. Only fools and pro-governemnt conservatives dont accept the fact that Global Warming is happening and happening fast. Those who are not convinced just recall the weather news of the past few years. Millions of people are in poverty, uneducated, dying of hunger by 1000's every day. Few people who get a nice life like I do give a damn. How many of you wake up in the morning thinking "thank God I live in a nice place, get food every day. Thank God I can read, thank God I got all my limbs and have sufficient rights". I know I dont do it enough.
The problems of poverty, education and non-renewable resources will not go away. Under current global system most of the worlds goods and services are destined for under a billion of lucky Westerners who's levels of consumption are far above anyone else on the planet. Look at China. They got 1 billion people and a lot of people are scared how their resource-hungry economy is growing. Imagine if Chinese start to live as good as westerners..... Earth would not support such a resource-hungry population. Plastic bottles on the street, projects done to impress and to forget, appliances that need to be replaced every year (people DID produce fridges and VCR players that still last!!!! They rarely do it anymore) this all adds up to inefficient consumption of worlds resources. Basically every bottle you dont recycle and every player that lasts for 6 months is some time of life taken away from your children. or your childrens children. These are not liberal propaganda facts if you think about it..... time to fix this mess is running out.
Why should we bother? Our futures are secure!
There can be a few answers. One is that if you got a little bit of morals you would not feel good that with every piece of bread in your mouth someone else dies of hunger. If you ate half a piece both would be alive.
For those who dont have morals or feelings of compassion I can only say that the end would be horrible and fighting for resources would turn you into Nazi racists united in your struggle to deny the last piece of bread for hordes of hungry, dirty and uneducated "underhumans".
I think this is a ling enough post to stop now. Last point I want to make is that there are only two possible scenarios of development for this world under current conditions:
I. Semi-Nazi separation of the world into 2 halves: resource consuming, educated and fashist "good guys" who try to exterminate the rest of the population {there are not enough of resources to sustain more than 1 billion of "developed" people under current levels of western consmption}
Possibility II - a world united by its human compassion, and struggle for each other. This world will be resource-rational, moral with regard to human dignity and life and this world might extend the chances of human population surviving significantly longer.
Dixi

 

[Odin2006]

You can't work smarter if your pig-tired from a long day down the pit and your boss won't allow you to try out new methods. For most people there's no way off the treadmill, except death.

QFT!
..........

 

[happy_Alex]

Phew! Great posts, very educational thread, still getting my head round some of it.

@Odin2006, QFT?

@JerichoHill. Okay, "Dude I'm an economist". (have you thought about that as your signature ? There's a couple of things I need to take issue with.

Firstly, you lump communism and socialism together, when they are two different and contrasting philosophies. I assume you do this for convenience, but I would appreciate some discernment here.

Second, you are wrong when you say socialism has failed and is an 'ivory tower' doctrine. Socialism has provided very substantial improvements in the quality of life for many poeople. For example the Labour movement in the UK fought for and won universal healthcare and education. In the 20th century life expectancy doubled in th UK from 40 years to 80 years and I regard this as tangible evidence as to the effectiveness of socialism. Again, Socialist goverment in the Uk replaced slums with affordable social housing, eliminating many of the dieseases and hygiene problems associated with poor housing.

Socialism which has fought for and won improvements in health care, education and housing actually makes for a more efficient, educated and effective nation.

I would invite examples from other countries.

Socialism does not wholly exclude capitalism from society but supplements it to the needs of society as a whole and egalitarian outcomes.




I predict one of your responses to this will be that capitalism provides the economic resources to make such advances possible, but without socialism capitalist systems will let people rot without proper healthcare, housing or education. Capitalism will provide these services but only on the basis of ability to pay.

I suspect,as Zamecnik points out, your economics to be an intellectual front which justifies the continued us of a system which perpetuates poverty and exploitation.

The problems of poverty, education and non-renewable resources will not go away. Under current global system most of the worlds goods and services are destined for under a billion of lucky Westerners who's levels of consumption are far above anyone else on the planet. Look at China. They got 1 billion people and a lot of people are scared how their resource-hungry economy is growing. Imagine if Chinese start to live as good as westerners..... Earth would not support such a resource-hungry population. Plastic bottles on the street, projects done to impress and to forget, appliances that need to be replaced every year (people DID produce fridges and VCR players that still last!!!! They rarely do it anymore) this all adds up to inefficient consumption of worlds resources. Basically every bottle you dont recycle and every player that lasts for 6 months is some time of life taken away from your children. or your childrens children.


I. Semi-Nazi separation of the world into 2 halves: resource consuming, educated and fashist "good guys" who try to exterminate the rest of the population {there are not enough of resources to sustain more than 1 billion of "developed" people under current levels of western consmption}
Possibility II - a world united by its human compassion, and struggle for each other. This world will be resource-rational, moral with regard to human dignity and life and this world might extend the chances of human population surviving significantly longer.
Dixi

The first is a distopia that we are fast heading to under the present system of Global Capitalism, the second is a world that we may all aspire to but I firmly believe can only be astablished by a democratic transnationalism that is primarliy socialist in outlook.

 

[ComradeDavo]

To start with, I didn't vote in the poll because it's not a yes/no thing.

Right, well i've scanned through this thread and read a fair few 'intresting' points. I have to say that alot of people only seem concerned with their own country and are naive about the rest of the world, and have little udnerstanding of econonomic systems other than the one they live in. Also alot of people seem to attach themsleves to either one system or the other, which I think leads to narrowmindness and unwillingness to explore new ideas.

My personal opinion is that the welfare state is important and must be kept strong and secure. Workers should always have decent rights and people should pay fair taxes and in return have acess to free healthcare, education and a good system should be in place to help those unemployed to financially survive with emphasis on finding them and helping them into a new job.

So yes, that is socalist. However, I do not agree with the socialist notion that all industry should be state controlled, because I find that can stifle creativity and make the means of production complacant. The economy needs capitalist ideas such as tax breaks and incentives to keep itself going and to constantly elvolve. Peoples desire to make more money often leads to new ideas that ultimutely make the world better, so whilst I do believe people should pay taxes I do not think that they should be prevented from making a profit.

However, it's all very well and good saying this for rich western countries but an important question that the op raises is how to get the rest fo the world to a better standard. To acheive this I think we need a mix of socialist and capitalist methods, we need to give peope in developing/third world countries incentives to develop their economy and help them to create wealth whilst building up a good education system and healthcare system so that they can teach their children to make something for themselves. All this needs to be done with a mind to the environment. I think that all debt should be dropped (with conditions) and that corruption really needs to be stamped on, these are the 2 key things which are standing in the way of progress.

I think that the richer Wetsern nations should give a helping hand to poorer countries in terms of more fair trade, ensuring that the money for products such as coca or sugar actually goes into the hands of the growers. This would help stimulate the economy more as obviosuly people spend the money they get, so by paying the growers more we are then inputting more money into these countries economies. It would be good to see more schemes which see's Western Nations helping these ecountries to educate themselves, after all education leads to creativity which leads to a better economy. Give people the means to think about more than just survival and soon things will start to improve.

 

[blackheart]

You can't work smarter if your pig-tired from a long day down the pit and your boss won't allow you to try out new methods. For most people there's no way off the treadmill, except death.

Are you talking about workers in a western nation or developing country? Because you make it seem like we're still in the 19th century with 80 hour work weeks in roden-infested factories.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Okay.

You sir, have an ivory tower problem.

No I don't. I have seen enough of harsh life conditions. I am not the one defending a parasitical system because it is good for me, myself and I.
On a side-note; I think that people could be so creative as not only copying my expressions.

It seems that many delight in point out the flaws inherent in today's society, yet an actual analysis, with a counter-factual example of how a system could be designed that works better, aside from (socialism would!) seems mysteriously absent.

Criticism can on many an occasion be valuable in itself, as a problem must be properly identified before it is solved.
This thread is about the failure of capitalism. I see no reason why anybody should have to deviate from that except for general remarks. I have many an times presented alternatives (as in my sig), but I can't be bothered to dish out lectures for free which few people care to read anyway.

Now, you finish with concluding that I've never had to wait for his dinner. That's fine and dandy, except for the fact that I

1) Grew up next door to some Atlanta Housing Projects
2) Funded my own way through school via 3 jobs
3) Parents had little to no college education

Thanks for sharing. Now, learn to read more carefully. The post I commended did not address any of yours, unless you are Zardnaar.

Please, never assume you know the lifestory of someone on a messageboard, just from their posts. It's frankly insulting. Yes, I'm upper middle class now, but its because I worked my proverbial butt off to escape where I came from.

I never assumed anything, I even did not mention any names. But this sort of talk is and has been, like it or not, typical for privileged classes or their toadies. That other people with less reasons for it also adopt it, is all the more regrettable.

I would not have had this chance in many other countries, or in many other eras of civilization.

I don't disagree on that, but it is hardly relevant in the context. You see, if we regard capitalism as a global system, we must see outside our ivory tower. Apart from that, I do think that it is easier for people from unprivileged backgrounds in say my country.
You might also want to ask yourself why some countries are wealthy. Is it only due to their merits?

Communism - Failed

Never been tried. Except if one is so politically illiterate that one thinks that the old Eastern Bloc or China has anything to do with communism.

Socialism - Failed

Far from it. Except for the trivial fact that it has never been tried in any advanced country, there is no doubt that socialism, being the main ideology of organised labour has played a great part in gaining political, economical and social rights for common people.

Mercantilism - Failed

That would be a great point if somebody from the early 18th century had been on this board.

So yes, I will defend vociferously the system that allowed me to a way of life that otherwise I could not have enjoyed in another system, or another country.

Bolding is mine, and the ivory tower stands firm. Or as I used on another occasion, the bubble.
And this is why this sort of discussion is so difficult and tedious.
Again one of my points are reinforced. Again it is forgotten that capitalism is a global system, and that you happen to live in the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, which again is due to different circumstances. A courtier in Versailles at the time of Louis XIV might as well has said the same and with the same right.
But the whole world did not evolve around him, and it does not, which you might find surprising, evolve around you.

I won't be arrogant and say it is without flaws.

Oh how generous of you. Thank you, sir.

Let's me put it simply. In France, you had youth rioting because they a) didn't want their boss to be able to fire them and b) didn't want to work more than 35 hours. After massive protests, rioting, and looting, they got their way.

In America, we are having protests also about labor. Legal and Illegal immigrants are protesting (and much more peacfully than the French protestors, as of today) for the right TO WORK in this country.

Now tell me, sir, how you, in your esteemed knowledge of how the economy works, tell me which country's system is most problematic...

Let me put it simply too.

And since you are so fond of credentials, here are mine. I am a historian, specialising in labour history and the early modern epoch. I have additional education in philosophy and sociology. I come from a poor labour family.I am also married to an economist.
So.
First of all, I don't understand why you bring this up at all.
Might I assume that you still think France is socialistic. In that case, read a primer on political ideologies.
Secondly, the conflict in France was not about that at all. It was about people being, finally, fed up with catering for business, demanding their rights. You know as well as me that the protest was about not being fired just for any reason, and one doesn't have to be a professor to see the difference.
But perhaps one needs to get out a bit more for being able to see a conflict from the other perspective.
About 35 hours. During the last decades, labour has been screwed. Capital has gained power and wealth while the tab has been left to labour. This is true in France, in my country and in your country.
So for the right to work. Yes, immigrants from less favoured countries want the right to work in your. They are in a less favourable situation than the French and can hardly be expected to stand up for their rights in the same way. I must admit that the whole comparison makes no sense to me whatsoever.
So for which country has the biggest problems.
Difficult to say, but I think I would pick yours.
Leaving the budget deficit out, a country swimming in wealth and still having appalling amounts of poverty, poor public services (universal healthcare, anyone?) and staggering inequality is a troubled one inded. I think that France, even if they also have their worries, will cope better because people there seems to still think they have rights apart from what is granted by the divine market.
And just for the challenged ones, there is indeed a lot of good things to say about your country, but the plutocratic culture is not one of those good things.

At least people in my country protest because they WANT to work.

Actually what you wrote is that immigrants want to work.
But I have high opinions both about the US and the French workers, I think most people everywhere are willing to work. A key issue though, is who should reap the fruits of this work...

I do not care much if someone has 1000's times more money than me. As long as I can meet my expences and live a relatively comfortable life I don't count money of billionaires. What worries me is that millions of people DONT live the sort of life I live where food comes from shops, PC is a fact of life and one does sport for pleasure.

While I agree on your general reasoning, I think it is a political problem if there is too great economical inequality.
Just think of the power of corporate media. Or the fact that the presidental election in the world's most powerful country is usually contested between to millionaires representing two wings of a business party.
In capitalism, money=power.

 

[Gelion]

When I agree with your reasoning under the "new" system having more money would mean having more "human" responsibility and thus it would not affect the worlds affairs in the typical bad self-centered greedy way.

 

[JerichoHill]

I should know better than to try and win a messageboard debate.

 

[happy_Alex]

Giving up so soon?

 

[JerichoHill]

I can throw fact after fact about how socialism failed, and how capitalism still works. I can concede capitalism's flaws even, but nothing will convince someone who's mind is already made up.

So I'm not going to. I'll share my opinion (and experience/expertise) on the subject of economy and law, but im no longer going to attempt to convince someone who doesnt want to be convinced.

global capitalism has not failed. But it is not without its problems

socialism has failed

 

[happy_Alex]

The are two themes to this thread. The first is to say global capitalism has failed or is failing. This has been backed up by evidence which is entirely verifiable. As a self proclaimed proponent of capitalism you have failed to establish that the current system of global capitalism is at fault.

The second chunk of the thread is whether to replace what we have now with democratic transnational socialism. For some reason you don't accept democratic socialism has made a profound difference in the quality of peoples lives on a national level, despite evidence I and others have given.

What happened to 'dude I'm an economist' and 'I work for the American government?'

 

[JerichoHill]

The are two themes to this thread. The first is to say global capitalism has failed or is failing. This has been backed up by evidence which is entirely verifiable. As a self proclaimed proponent of capitalism you have failed to establish that the current system of global capitalism is at fault.
-WHAT evidence? I've seen nothing but your opinion. Cite me articles in research journals. Cite me facts that use cold hard numbers that are DIRECTLY related.

The second chunk of the thread is whether to replace what we have now with democratic transnational socialism. For some reason you don't accept democratic socialism has made a profound difference in the quality of peoples lives on a national level, despite evidence I and others have given.
--WHERE has democractic socialism been successful. Name some countries? Point out how that the change in system, and not changes in other variables, is responsible.

Yeah bud. I'm an economist. So what? I would hope that would make you read my posts twice, click on a few of the links that I posted, and possibly consider an alternative viewpoint. But you don't.

So again, why should I bother trying to convince someone who is already convinced? It's like trying to convince Jesus that he doesn't exist.

Here. Research Journals can be found at www.jstor.org. If you'd like a password, just ask.

 

[happy_Alex]

I don'k know how you sleep at night, perpetuating a system that sends people to their deaths.

FYI I did read your posts more than once, some a few times to get my head round them, its been an education.

You are as opinionated as I but you are hiding behind the concept that politics should be excluded from economics. Curiously, such economics corresponds with your apparent world view.