http://www.middleclassforum.org/forum/ Just another bbPress community en-US Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:53:05 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://www.middleclassforum.org/forum/search.php http://www.middleclassforum.org/forum/topic.php?id=8#post-8 Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:53:27 +0000 admin 8@http://www.middleclassforum.org/forum/ <p>What anecdotes or evidence do you have of corporate bias affecting media and/or think tanks? </p> http://www.middleclassforum.org/forum/topic.php?id=7#post-7 Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:21:09 +0000 admin 7@http://www.middleclassforum.org/forum/ <p>Most goods depreciate with use. The cost may go up as a function of inflation, but otherwise a used good does not generate as much wealth in trade as a new good. Antiques are an exception to this, of course, but more interesting is how real estate breaks this rule.</p> <p>I understand the purpose of having real estate appreciate without added productivity (such as subdividing lots or flipping houses), since houses are viewed as investments and lines of credit as much (or more) than "castles." From an ecological/systems perspective I don't understand the sustainability of such a system.</p> <p>Population pressures do not cut it either as an explanation, at least from an ecological perspective. At the point that population pressure causes scarcity in real estate there should be other ecological consequences reacting against this pressure.</p> <p>So what's your explanation? How can an economic system be founded permanently on such an important good appreciating without added productivity? Or can it? </p> http://www.middleclassforum.org/forum/topic.php?id=6#post-6 Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:42:14 +0000 admin 6@http://www.middleclassforum.org/forum/ <p>A person who is not an economist, like myself, gets so easily confused by the things certain types of economists say these days. For example, many an economist from many a "free market libertarian" think tanks are claiming our government has been moving towards socialism. As Andre the Giant might say, do they really know what that word means?</p> <p>I always thought socialism meant 1) command of the economy by government to 2) meet social goals. I can understand that people who believe in free markets oppose this because they believe that the liberty involved in such markets will most efficiently meet everyone's various self-interests. However, it seems that "free market libertarians" are only half right in their cries of socialism.</p> <p>Since the seventies the proportion of welfare benefits by both federal and state governments have decreased as a proportion of GDP. Since the seventies the proportion of health care costs that have been socialized has decreased. Since the seventies wealth disparity has increased. Those are some weird social goals for socialism.</p> <p>On the other hand, the financial sector of banks, stockbrokers, insurance companies and real estate has blossomed since the seventies (we're not talking about just Fannie Mae here). This suggests that government is commanding the economy to the financial sector's advantage. Commanding the economy to the advantage of the financial sector would be, in essence, command capitalism, but I'm not an economic scholar so what must I be missing? </p>