Topic: Capitalism hits the fan - page 2. (Read 5444 times)

Blowing up someone's else's economy doesn't mean yours will do better.  In fact, losing trading partners is detrimental to your economy.  The United States recovered from the Great Depression when all the soldiers came home and started saving and producing.  Once Europe got back on its feet it probably helped us that we were ahead of them because we could sell them all our technological innovations.

Well, he at least doesn't give the stock Keynesian response about creating jobs blowing up stuff etc.  He basically says that we recovered because we flattened Europe and we were the biggest industrial economy remaining.

"What finally lifted us out...was a major change in the society, called World War II."  4:02 - 4:18

This sounds like he credits World War II to me.  Does he elaborate on this later on?

JA37, thanks for posting.  I'll try to listen to more of it later and give you a critique.  So far I agree with some of what he's said: monetary and fiscal policies failed in the 30's and also in present day. 

I really like this interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj-Dq9dHeI4


He never actually says this so I'm not sure what you're responding to here.

I did. I'm certainly not paying to be miseducated, as I would have to be to finish watching this video.

Filtering through the noise in economic theory is quite a challenge.

Rules for evaluating economics:
1. If it's not factual and not systematically logical, it is nonsense.
2. If it looks logical its probably not ;-)

I'm sorry. You have to pay for your own education. 

Some people like wading through crap. I'm not one of them. Maybe if you offered a bounty...

WW2 was not the cause for the recovery of the US economy. You do not put all your efforts into things that go up in smoke and then economically better your standing. You build things that others need and are willing to exchange for the things they built. If those things don't match you use an intermediary liquid item (money) that allows you to trade that which you do need for what others need from you. This is the only way to progress I've heard of.

I did not watch the whole video but he does not seem to go into why wages stagnated in the 70s. While I'm not American and have not done the full analysis, I don't think it is coincidental that full blown worldwide debt based fiat currency started in 1971 and that many, many economic phenomena become apparent from 1971 onward. If I had to venture a guess however it is that the stagnation in wages and the discrepancy in profits is due to taxation provisions that unduly reward "hiding" money in business assets and punishes paying people more. Under unhindered market conditions this would not be possible.

As far as I can tell he is some sort of Neo-Marxist. Marxism is an unethical, envy based belief system with equally flawed economics to explain itself. It ought not be revisited except as a cautionary tale.

Observation; he states a lot of facts but does not connect them to one another in a reliable cause and effect way. He makes flimsy connections like saying that profits are borrowed to workers at interest. The mere fact that one knows facts does not give one insight into the underlying logic, this is something that plagues the economics community.

I would at least like to know why you think it's so bad. At 0:01:45 you have only seen the introduction and 'This is the biggest economic meltdown in my lifetime'. What's so bad about the intro that you dismiss everything else?

It was only necessary to get to 0:01:45 before finding out that it's going to be total shit. You seriously want a critique of bull manure?

You've seen it before, or did you base this analysis on the title? Care to elaborate the critique?

Utter garbage.

If you haven't seen this, it might be interesting for people in this forum. If it's been posted before I apologize.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HTkEBIoxBA