Which system of economics offers unfettered freedom for personal gain?

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 52
#31
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
It is blatantly obvious that having 100% of the population live an above average lifestyle is impossible.
And my point is a question: Why is it impossible? Give me a good reason why it is impossible. A GOOD reason.
Take the GDP of a country and divide it by that country's population. That is how averaging works. Take any number that is more than that averaged number (in other words any number that is 'above average') and multiply it by that country's population (in other words apply an above average lifestyle to 100% of the population). You will see that the number you end with is greater than the GDP, in other words the GDP is not able to support what you requested. The GDP is the total produced value of a country, therefore what this tells us is the country physically does not produce enough to sustain your request (that 100% be above average)

You will notice I did not use any example numbers of my own. That is because this applies to ANY numbers that you might plug in yourself, not just some specific time and place. It is a universal.

Now you know that it is impossible to have 100% of a population be above average.  Welcome to grade school maths. If you require a second lesson let me know at any time.
#32
Trent0405
Trent0405's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 471
3
9
11
Trent0405's avatar
Trent0405
3
9
11
-->
@RationalMadman
Wouldn't you say that most social democracies are leaning much more toward capitalism than socialism? There are two very clear indexes(1 and 2) demonstrating how free the markets and economies of western Europe are.
#33
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Trent0405
In the sense that they allow provate ownership of things, yes. In the sense that they let thw poor rot, it's a dangerous balance but they are closer to fairness than any other political system in action today.
#34
Trent0405
Trent0405's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 471
3
9
11
Trent0405's avatar
Trent0405
3
9
11
-->
@RationalMadman
Isn't there ability to assist the poor merely a result of their wealth? This seems like the nations of sub Saharan Africa can be written off as capitalistic purely because they lack the means to support their poor.
If we look at competitiveness which is very different to fairness, we see Western Europe and western offshoots ranking pretty high up on the list. (check page 15 on the link)
#35
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@fauxlaw
If you increase money supply by the forces of a free-market economy, the money supply adds value.
There are three things that a nation's economy is based on: natural resources, manufacturing (and the infrastructure that supports it), and domestic and international services. The first is limited by the amount of stuff there is in a country's territory.

The second and third are limited by two things: the total possible manpower that a nation has, and the demand (domestic or international) for the goods/services. True, innovation can increase the maximum production capability and the services available, but there is ultimately a limit to how many goods/services can be provided. People can only make/be so many things at a time, and even with automation, producing stuff and servicing others still takes time. Even if a nation were able to produce an extreme surplus of goods/services, the demand for those things would be limited, thus making those things cheaper. Even if a nation were able to produce a surplus of them, the wealth generated from it would be limited by demand.

That's why investment works. It was my father's advice, and many others who undestand how the market is supposed to work by ambition, planning, and execution. It works. My dad was a mild investor. I am more agressive. He was never a millionaire. Close, but no. I am several times over. I'm not just selling a line: I KNOW it works. 
Ah yes, invest and you will get richer. This was what everyone thought in the 1920s.

Topic's author
#36
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
Invest: if you don't do it, don't knock it. I did and do. My results speak for themselves. We are no longer in the 20s. We've learne4d a few things since then. 
#37
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@fauxlaw
Invest: if you don't do it, don't knock it. I did and do. My results speak for themselves. We are no longer in the 20s. We've learne4d a few things since then. 
But still, investment isn't an infinite wealth generator. Long-term stock market prices are very unpredictable and fluctuate a lot.

Investing is like Russian Roulette. The more aggressively you invest, the higher your payout but the more bullets you put into the chamber. 

The Dotcom Bubble Burst, the Great Recession, the current economic crisis we're facing due to COVID-19. The wealth you accumulate through aggressive investing could be wiped out through Bear markets and crashes such as these.

Enron, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae. They all seemed to be good investments... until they weren't.
Topic's author
#38
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@PressF4Respect
As long as you look at the market as a quick-fix wealth generator, you're going to be disappointed by fluctuation. Look, I've been invested in Apple since 1985. In Amazon since 1995. They represent my two biggest stock investments, and I DO NOT SELL. Apple: 35 YEARS. Amazon: 25 YEARS. Not six months. I own three properties and rent out two if them, and wholly own the third. No mortgages. Minimal monthly management fees. Only, I really don't own any of them. My living trust does. AS I profit from my rentals, they continue to increase in value because both are in prime neighborhoods. At this point in time, I don't invest in high-risk, aggressive investing; your bugaboo. What current economic crisis? I'm not in Enron, Freddie and Fannie.  I've been at this since I was 22. 48 YEARS. It takes time, my friend, and it's wasting while you complain instead of doing it.
#39
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@fauxlaw
As long as you look at the market as a quick-fix wealth generator, you're going to be disappointed by fluctuation.
I agree that long-term investments are less prone to immediate fluctuation than short-term ones, but there can still be a lot of volatility. 

Look, I've been invested in Apple since 1985. In Amazon since 1995. They represent my two biggest stock investments, and I DO NOT SELL. Apple: 35 YEARS. Amazon: 25 YEARS. Not six months.
True, long-term investments in start-ups can pay off big time if the company succeeds. But if they don't, then...

I own three properties and rent out two if them, and wholly own the third. Minimal monthly management fees. Only, I really don't own any of them. My living trust does. AS I profit from my rentals, they continue to increase in value because both are in prime neighborhoods.
You must be quite well off if you can afford to wholly purchase 3 houses in prime real estate.

At this point in time, I don't invest in high-risk, aggressive investing; your bugaboo.
Even if you don't aggressively invest in high-risk stocks, there's still some risk. In fact, you'd be extremely hard-pressed to find a risk-free investment that gives you a semi-decent ROI.

What current economic crisis? I'm not in Enron, Freddie and Fannie.
The one caused by people not being able to work due to the pandemic, where the Dow Jones plunged 1861.82 points in a single day.

I've been at this since I was 22. 48 YEARS. It takes time, my friend, and it's wasting while you complain instead of doing it.
Right now I can't, considering I'm a minor (and my parents aren't too keen on investing in the stock market).

#40
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Once upon a time there were two people that owned stock in a company. The value of that stock was increasing.

The first person thought to themselves "I wonder what causes the value increase that is happening." They looked into it and discovered that it was because the company was performing activities that interacted with the economy to generate profit. This inevitably lead to the realization that investment doesn't generate wealth, it merely transfers it from one agent to another.

The second person thought to themselves "Wow the value is increasing that means I have more money now than I did before that is so cool I bet it can go all the way to INFINITY! hahaha ZOOOOM!!!"

You can probably guess which one went on to be a more successful investor.
#41
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Is it possible to go all the way to infinity?


#42
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Realistically? No.

In theory? Also no.
#43
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
No idea why I was tagged but anyone could figure out the second one became a more successful investor. But, I mean, these guys are investors right? Yet somehow don't know the basics of economics? Isn't that like the type of thing you look into before you invest.
#44
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You can probably guess which one went on to be a more successful investor.
#45
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@WaterPhoenix
No idea why I was tagged
I was originally going to tag everyone that was recently in the thread but decided not to and I thought I erased everyone from the tag list but I guess I missed you somehow.
#46
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I wasn't in the thread, but eh.
#47
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Huh I guess not. You can blame supa for making everyone's profile pics the same.
Topic's author
#48
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
This inevitably lead to the realization that investment doesn't generate wealth
Absolutely the wrong conclusion. Investment in a company provides capital for that company to increase R&D, production, marketing and sales. Otherwise, you would not have venture capitalists. And they do re-invest. So, both your examples, continuing as they are doing, are potentially successful. What's to stop an infinite increase? Your skepticism? Nope.
#49
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
What's to stop an infinite increase?
Debate Resolution: It is Possible for Someone to Have Infinite Money in a Normal Economy.

Go ahead and tell everyone whether you are pro or con on this one.
Topic's author
#50
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
In a normal free-market economy, yes, it is possible. That qualification must be a given, because a normal socialist economy will never achieve it.
#51
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
yes, it is possible
I'll be sending you a debate challenge to that effect in an hour or two. You may take that time to explain to everyone why you are going to decline the challenge when I do send it.
Topic's author
#52
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Thanks for allowing me my choice. So generous you are. Thanks, but no. I do not jump to your hoops, and to few others. Propose it openly if that is your buttered slice of bread.