Hot Money Creating Havoc in Global Economy

Economy | Information | History | Online | Facts | World | Global | Money

1. @dangerouslytalented Ahh the "if government is weak more powerful forces will take it over." I'm afraid that's always a threat. And right now they have. The most stable way you can do things is to have a very simple set of unbending rules that everyone knows. Simple enough that everyone can know all of them. That way at least if something is changed or added there is an uproar, and if actually changed for good the people know they've been usurped. Which usually leads to rebellion.
2. @sirellyn If there is no or minimised government, then those who are already powerful will BECOME the government. They will simply take over. AND it will be completely beside the point whether it is illegal or not.
3. @dangerouslytalented Force for profit is not right. It never is. Neither is fraud. It always should be illegal to FORCE someone to do something that profits you and not them. This is a human thing not a capitalist or socialist thing though. People who can't get what they want via communication or situation often resort to force or fraud. Social circles do it just as much. Councils or tribunals influence each other via situation, threat politics and force all the time. Sadly it's human.
4. @dangerouslytalented No not everything. But a whole lot more than you realize. "Private industry" means you and me. And "profit" doesn't mean cash. It means there's a net gain out of the transaction. Like with the flowers, both got better results than working alone. So yes, when you are talking about using up resources and not getting as much back (loss) vs both gain (profit) yes everything should be profitable, as you can't sustain a loss indefinitely. And you get wealth via interaction.
5. @sirellyn You seem to think that private industry will take care of EVERYTHING. Can't happen. Some things just can't (or should not) be run on a for profit basis.
6. @dangerouslytalented I think I stated it here before, the Chinese government owns less business (as a percent of government) than the US does now. In nearly every case it's been the business that created the infrastructure after prodding (and possibly bribing) the government. I'm a little amazed you think the government just builds roads and transit and a town springs up.
7. @sirellyn Actually, most of the corporations in China are government owned entities.
8. @dangerouslytalented You are arguing the premise of indirect benefit thus people should have to pay. I'm saying people who need things trade with each other anyway, and allowing that trade gives indirect benefit for everyone. Transit appears in a city because the people who really need them (usually a business) makes them. Look at some cities that were nothing 15 years ago in China. In communist China did the government make all the new roads? No they only recently took over after it rose.
9. @sirellyn Daffodils are different from an essential public service. If there is no public transport in a city the whole fucking system breaks down.
10. @dangerouslytalented If I trade you a bag of fertilizer for a bag of flower seeds and we both grow beautiful flowers because we decided to trade. And people come to visit because the area is so nice now. Does that mean we have to charge them money? They didn't need or want the seeds or fertilizer but they benefited indirectly from the exchange. Now do they have to pay?
11. @sirellyn Except the benefits are felt far beyond the commuters who use that system, things like reduced commuting time for those with cars, more customers for businesses, less pollution, etc... And because everybody benefits, it is only fair that those who benefit from the system help pay for some of it through taxes.
12. @dangerouslytalented Compared to what? Is the transit authority losing money? Nearly all are. In other words they should tax or charge you more for what you are getting or go into debt. Well a system that continually goes into debt is not a good thing. I could live like a millionaire if I have a 100 million dollar credit card I never have to pay back. So it becomes invisible to you. And it seems nice and new, but you forget it costs, and now that debts are coming due, this is the result.
13. @sirellyn Public transport around my area is subsidised. It is working fine, in fact it is working so well that people are using it more and more.It depends on how the subsidisation is implemented.
14. @dangerouslytalented Again, best of luck with that. Every time someone has asked for something to be subsidized, nothing was taken away from the other side, and in the end the other side actually got subsidization as well. Subsidization is bad. It relies on people thinking "they know better". And although I want clean energy motors and will invest in them, I would not get the gov to confiscate others money (tax) to get what I think is best.
15. @sirellyn Not necessarily. If you subsidise the manufacturers of the cars based on fuel efficiency ALONE, then the ethanol will only get a look in if they find ways to make it very very efficient. Like those VWs they have in Europe that go 1000 km or more on a single tank
16. @dangerouslytalented I understand that's what you'd prefer. I'm just saying you are in danger of the same pitfall that a lot subsidization runs into. Both sides get it for different reasons. Fuel may get it for ethonol or it may be needed for a state who has major employment with fossil fuels. So you'll subsidize and then tax them, so more subsidization may be asked for. Going down this road means you'd likely not get what you want and everyone would lose more money.
17. @sirellyn I did not say to subsidise both sides. I said to put a tax on fuel, which would go towards subsidies for reseasrch into getting extremely fuel efficient vehicles, (whatever the motive power) which will both increase government revenue, and reduce fuel consumption.
18. @dangerouslytalented There's technology some EV (electric vehicle) owners already use to make charging times down to an hour or less. Also the NiMH EV1 had an EPA certified range of 140 miles on a charge. You are over complicating with more taxes and subsidies. What sense is it to subsidize both sides? And then tax both sides? How about first stripping taxes and subsidies from both sides (along with regulations) then from a zero base build things up again if you have to.
19. @Eraser7622 thanks.Thank goodness for the web.
20. @sirellyn I think you have to discuss morals and ethics along with law.