How come that ever since government started deregulating and cutting taxes productivity growth has been falling?

Also also,
Money has been empirically proven to be endogenous. The only people who still cling to exogenous money theories are academic shills who get paid by right-wing think tanks to talk about how DA GUBBERMINT IS PRINTING MONEY!!

Attached: ANNUAL-MONETARY-BASE-GROWTH-AND-INFLATION (1).png (850x528, 41K)

>the american government was still growing in size in the 80s and Ronald Reagan actually increased the size of government
Yeah, by pumping up the military-industrial complex to ensure capitalist blood profits remain high.
This isn't what most people mean when they talk about "big/small government". For average folk all over the world (but especially places like the USA and Israel), government has more or less abandoned them.

>when income taxes were created 90%+ of the population weren't even meant to pay them
Uhhh... Yes, no shit. It was meant for the ultra-rich, placing an effective cap on personal wealth, so that you wouldn't have absurd situations where three people control literally as much wealth as more than half(!!) of their countrymen.

You are shifting the goalpost into complete nonsense and you don't even know what you are talking about.

The 70s is also when we abandoned an effective and long standing trade policy in favor of offshoring labor

The US is currently experiencing the biggest bull run of all time, what are you even talking about?

/thread

>Yeah, by pumping up the military-industrial complex to ensure capitalist blood profits remain high
Military spending as a percentage of GDP barely changed through the 80s.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Defense_Spending_as_a_Percent_of_GDP.png

>ultra-rich
>cap on personal wealth
>absurd situations where three people control literally as much wealth as more than half(!!) of their countrymen.
Never trust a liberal jew. Look at how slimy you are, you tell lies after lies, after being debunked 10 times you continue trying to shift the goalpost to a different lie.

Placing a cap on wealth would completely destroy the economy. How about this, stop living in Israel and in the US. Stop being in those places where men can be as rich as they can. Move to a country that has an actual cap on wealth, move to a country with a 50% tax on stock market transaction profits. See how your wage is in a place where capital growth is prohibited out of envy.

Sage graph stops at 2001 bring us current numbers then we'll debate

>2010

Uh... no I'm not.
You said some standard lolbritarian nonsense about how fiat currency means DA GUBBERMINT (or DA FED) is literally printing all the money in the economy and so somehow "control" the financial sector. That's just not true - private banks are those who set money supply, and never ever actually "search" for funding sources for their expenses they make. They make loan first, and if they can't make their accounting work out (deposits don't match liabilities) they post hoc borrow from other banks or the CB. The central banks dances to the private banks tunes, not the other way around.
Same goes for the government, btw!

I just added that chart as a nice side-dish of Friedmanian nonsense.

How is that relevant? A bull run may simply be insane asset inflation and the creation of a massive new bubble to pop in the next inevitable crisis. And seeing how productivity growth is still historically slow and investment as % of GDP is still falling, that seems to be exactly what's happening.

>Placing a cap on wealth would completely destroy the economy
Except that's effectively been the standard policy throughout capitalism's golden age.

>Never trust a liberal jew
socialist*

>How come that ever since government started deregulating and cutting taxes productivity growth has been falling?
It's about company growth, not necessarily productivity growth. See the lay offs happening after the latest republicans tax cuts.

>DA GUBBERMINT (or DA FED) is literally printing all the money in the economy and so somehow "control" the financial sector. That's just not true
>private banks are those who set money supply
This is why you should never even bother listening to a liberal jew who's pretending to be an economist to trick you.

I can't even believe how much of a bullshitter you are and how hard you try to flip things upside down. You're a fucking vermin.

Attached: ahaahaa.gif (255x255, 170K)

That's how it works in the real world, though.
Reals don't care about your feels.

>deregulation
Where the fuck do you see the government have less influence on the market?

>taking home less money for the same work makes you more productive

Who are you quoting?

In regular human terms, everywhere. Especially in places like education, finances, and (at least here in Israel) housing.

...but if you want me to go all Marxist on ya, nowhere. The state creates, defines and enforces property rights, so your entire economic life is dominated by the rules set by others.

Let's count the goalpost shifts.

>A 20-year rolling average i'm not even specifying somehow debunks everything you say

>Ronald Reagan actually decreased the size of the government (turns out he didn't)

>Money is endogenous!!

>Reagan pumped up the military industrial complex to ensure capitalist blood profits (turns out he didn't)

>The money supply is actually controlled by private banks! (they don't)

>Placing a cap on wealth has been standard in the "golden age" of "capitalism" which I won't even reveal when I think it was nor what policy I'm talking about.

This isn't reddit. People here are not going to fall for your retarded goalpost shifts. Here, people can smell your weakness.

Attached: CT-p0001-ST.jpg (300x344, 13K)

How is any of this "goalpost shifting" you illiterate fuck?

really makes you think

Attached: https_%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Ftimworstall%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F10%2Fwagescompensation-1200x1093. (1280x868, 356K)

go away, rat

Attached: 1530825661632.jpg (400x400, 45K)

Can you show the source of the chart and the years? because I do not understand what years you're considering

>federal reserve and government money socialist
This is why I hate jews. You are not aware of who schizo you are. When you give ten points of false information, people will not trust your eleventh one, but you think otherwise.

Jews are indeed genetically schizos and have a weak grasp on reality. All your beliefs are based on vague factoids, and even if those factoids are disproven, you'll still have the same beliefs. Don't you see a problem here? Don't you think that's a bit irrational?

People who are not in the schizo spectrum would laugh at you for being a socialist trying to debate economics and defending the money printing the federal reserve does, but a jew doesn't even realize how insane that is.

But, just to greentext-war the shit out of you:

>A 20-year rolling average i'm not even specifying somehow debunks everything you say
The chart in is a 20-year rolling average. That means that the values you see at, say, the 60's isn't actually the 60's, but an average of everything from the 40's to the 60's. You can't pinpoint exact events on it like you did. But, if you MUST pinpoint exact events....

>Ronald Reagan actually decreased the size of the government (turns out he didn't)
...how would you explain reaganomics? A supposed boon for the economy is seen on the chart as a major drop.

>The money supply is actually controlled by private banks!
...which is literally what endogenous money means.
And yes, they do.

>Reagan pumped up the military industrial complex to ensure capitalist blood profits (turns out he didn't)
Except the very wikipedia chart you have provided in proves that he did.

>Placing a cap on wealth has been standard in the "golden age" of "capitalism" which I won't even reveal when I think it was nor what policy I'm talking about.
I consider the golden age of capitalism (you can drop the sarcastic quotation marks) to be the immediate postwar period between 1945 (1952 for Israel) and right around the early 1970's (exactly 1973 for Israel).
This period saw unparalleled growth in virtually all positive economical indicators: GDP, productivity, real wages, standards of living, rates of employment etc. etc., all why providing a strong degree of personal economic freedom and security for capitalist societies' members.

(inb4 >economic freedom: I mean what you will insist on calling "positive freedom". y'know, the only type of freedom that actually matters)

I am not "defending" central banks per se. I see them just as much of an undemocratic and unaccountable organization as you do, but I simply don't obsess over them, in part because I know their impact on the economy is mostly stabilizing and status quo-preserving (as mandated in virtually all their charters). This is horrific if you think the status quo is unacceptable, but it's better than the naked class warfare that some capitalist governments wage on ordinary people in places like, say, Britain or the USA.

And please have you and all your libertard friends finally resolve the question of whether CBs are communist or not. One thread I see you yellow memeflag declaring them to be a communist plot (the cleverer ones usually quote from the Communist Manifesto), and now suddenly being a socialist and "defending" them is being schizophrenic?

>is a 20-year rolling average.
Saying "You can't pinpoint events because it's a 20 year averge!" Is fucking retarded because the effect of those policies will obviously have an impact in the 20 year average, it's not like being a 20 year rolling will somehow make economic policy and government growth have no effect on the graph at all. Idiot.

There's literally no point in debating a schizo jew. You don't even give a fuck about what's real and what isn't.

Leave Israel. Leave US. Move away from ethnostates. Go live in negros, go live with socialists, oh wait, you are not going to do that, right? This is the problem with schizo brains, this is the problem with jews. Reality is a secondary concern.

That's almost entirely from technology. Do hourly workers buy new equipment or is that the firms who do that?

>productivity rises thanks to capital investment

>productivity rises thanks to individual workers working harder

Hmmmmm.....

>Reality is a secondary concern
I know right? which is why the governments and central banks print money and directly impact inflation

Weird, I wonder what happened in the mid '60s?
[spoiler]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_suffrage
[/spoiler]

>I merely understand how central banks help today's society and are a necessary evil!
Meanwhile you are a socialist who appeals to nirvana fallacies to pretend that abolishing freedom of property will help the world.

Schizos should be prohibited from having political opinions. Open your little jewish eyes, there's no socialism, it's a false perception of people who have brains poorly grounded on reality. There's no socialist economy, it has never ever existed. Look at video games and simulations, there are virtual capitalist economies entirely within multiplayer video games that function naturally. Socialism can't even be simulated in a video game but you think it can be applied to 100 million people. You can't even give the most basic explanation of how a socialist society should look like in terms of mechanics, and yet you believe in it.

Attached: anononmisesandcommies.jpg (964x403, 80K)

It's a chart showcasing how effective each employee is versus prior generations. This is a measure of tools, laws and environment. The graph peaks in the 1980s because this is when most business were fully built out with digital equipment. The difference in output between 1940s car production line one from the mid 80s which was entirely guided by computer is astonishing. The robots will never tire and never make mistakes. So this one production line has been changed from a few hundred employees to maybe a crew of 5 technicians who maintain the robotic arms. These 5 have a few thousand percentage difference in productivity because the same or more cars are being produced with less people.

I want to clarify, since the 80s the computer technology has become smaller and more precise and even less prone to failure so the gains derived are minimal as opposed to the initial gains of the 80s.

There isn't much connection between the two. I am socialist in my principles, but a social-democrat in my immediate political goals. This means that, in the utopian ideal in my mind, undemocratic institutions like central banks won't have such disproportional power over people's lives, but for the immediate present I just don't find them as egregious as you people do. There are bigger fish to fry.
>that image
Yeah no shit, socialism is hard to define. But so is "liberal", "conservatism", "democracy", "capitalism" or even "libertarianism" for that matter. Any attempt to pinpoint any single one of these concepts or movements will result in excluding people who otherwise identify or define it differently. The only recourse is to rely on very vague base-principles such as "public ownership of the means of production".
I will admit, though, that socialism IS uniquely prone to splintering, especially if you include anarchists under that label.

(btw I miss it when Jow Forums was full of lolbritarians and was all pseudo-intellectual quoting Mises and Hayek and the commies here actually read and pretended to understand Das Kapital. I love you yellow memeflags, never go away)

The US economy exploded in the 50's because literally every other industrial nation on earth was bombed into ash, but still needed shit. By the 70's Europe and Japan had finally gotten back on their feet, and no longer needed american imports.

Attached: 1468105722127.jpg (1443x750, 158K)

This doesn't really explain why almost all other economies boomed in those years, especially in places like France, Sweden, Israel or even Germany.

Because, in the period between 1948 and 1973, we had a high economic growth and the labor force was composed only of men: high demand for work + stable labor supply = high salaries.
In the period 1973-2014 we have had a weaker economic growth and in the labor force have entered women and immigrants: low economic growth + an incredibly high supply of labor force = low wages

>the labor force was composed only of men
You do know that's a myth, right? Women have been participating in the workforce in large numbers since WW1. Even when their participation rate increased, it was a smooth transition and a continuation of previous trends, not something that could create that sort of sharp shock we see in the USA in 1973.

And the very idea that labor is a big lump that can be subjected to such simply supply/demand models is dubious. I'm not saying it doesn't hold a grain of truth in it, but must be more complicated than that.
Immigration raises labor demand as much as it raises labor supply - all those immigrants need food, housing, leisure just like the native people.
On the other hand, even having people enter the workforce who were already living in the domestic economy (e.g. women) shouldn't cause wages to drop. I mean, when employment rates rise, that's literally what's happening: people who weren't working before suddenly work now. That's usually associated with rising wages, not dropping (although we can bicker over which way does the causality go). This was demonstrated in Israel in the 2000's, when hordes of Arabs and Haredim entered the formal economy. Instead of seeing wages drop and unemployment rise, wages generally INCREASED (in spite a neoliberal regime that refused to raise the minimum wage) and GDP (both aggregate AND per capita) grew very rapidly.

Attached: Labor-Force-Participation-of-women-in-the-US-1955-2005.png (3000x1658, 878K)

This Israeli has actually done some research and makes some valid points. Imagine some of these policies without multiculti and intersectional feminism and we have a winner

I remember you. How'd that rape trial go?

Third Position best position

this is now an econ autist thread

Attached: 1514783636911.gif (420x420, 713K)

wrong blue-haired touhou character

Attached: 69457597_p0.jpg (1791x2530, 687K)

>There isn't much connection between the two. I am socialist in my principles, but a social-democrat in my immediate political goals.
You shouldn't openly admit to being a schizo.

>Yeah no shit, socialism is hard to define
No buddy, socialism is not "hard to define", socialism has NEVER BEEN defined. Because it doesn't exist.

>but so is "capitalism"
No buddy, you see, there are actual functional capitalist economies inside video games. Capitalism actually exists, it is actually defined, and actually exists, and can even be simulated. You can't fucking compare that to socialism. You can't compare that to something you yourself admit to be some vague fucking dream inside your head.

Attached: ragnarok-online-huge-population.jpg (1024x768, 234K)

/Thread. Saged.

On to the next, one boys.

My point was that "capitalism" comes in all shapes and sizes. Compare the "capitalist" economy of RuneScape* to 1992 Chile and you'll see they are not the same thing. Like, at all.
Now YOU are the one shifting the goalposts. For real, this time. We were talking about how socialism is or isn't difficult to pin down, now you're suddenly rambling over how it's not even a real thing.
I am glad to see you have joined the Real Socialism Has Never Been Tried club, though!

* if, indeed, RuneScape HAS a "capitalist" economy. Don't conflate a market economy with a capitalist one, as "market socialism" is a real thing (Yugoslavia and 1980's Hungary tried it, insofar as any socialism can exist under a dictatorship). A fundamental principle of a proper capitalist economy is private ownership of the means of production. What ARE the "means of production" in a video game like RuneScape or Ragnarok Online? The ability to kill monsters, collect loot? Those are owned by everyone. There are no wage workers mining coal ore for another player's profit in RuneScape!

Uhh... Shlomo? Did you forget your proxy or memeflag again?

You mean equipment, conditions and such? Yeah.. like they give a shit now.

Turn it sideways and tell me what you see.

FPBP

you are looking at the wrong metric, the point of cutting taxes has nothing to do with economic growth or productivity, it is only about maximizing wealth inequality. graph that instead and you will understand that conservative economics is a pure con and has been for the last 100 years.

it is no accident that it coincides with Reagan's repeal of FDR New Deal

>My point was that "capitalism" comes in all shapes and sizes.
And socialism comes in no shape at all because a socialist economy doesn't actually exist.

>Now YOU are the one shifting the goalposts.
Yeah, because I don't want for us to be in an intangible conversation where facts don't fucking matter like the previous 10 posts. Let's focus on how you admit that you follow socialism even though it's a delusional dream inside of your head.

>Don't conflate a market economy with a capitalist one
That's another rertarded nihilistic socialist trick of destroying meaning and objectivity. All market economies are capitalist economies. "Market Socialism" is not a real thing and is basically how socialists reacted to economists pointing out how delusional they were. Socialism is meant to be moneyless and your retarded free market socialism isn't real socialism.

This just proves everything I said about you. There people who are indeed within a "schizo" spectrum. People who have STRONG opinions while simultaneously care very little about any objectivity or facts. It doesn't matter how impossible and nonsensical socialism is, you'll still defend socialism and push for socialism. It's pointless to talk to you.

Attached: FREEMARKETCOMMUNISM.png (1315x493, 87K)

Thats also the same timespan since nixon ended bretton woods

Suppose we imagine a society where all large businesses are owned by their workers (worker cooperatives). This means that company executives are elected democratically by their underlings, and all profits are more-or-less equally distributed between the workers. These businesses barter between each other just as they do in our economy, give and take loans, sell products for money to customers who are themselves workers-owners of other businesses.

Is that socialism or capitalism?

>Is that socialism or capitalism?
It's just retarded

>Suppose we imagine a society where all large businesses are owned by their workers (worker cooperatives).
Yes, that's called capitalism. Businesses are privately owned. In fact, MOST giant corporations start as a joint effort among workers to form a company. You'll see that they all call themselves "groups" and have multiple founding members.
>This means that company executives are elected democratically by their underlings
Yes, this is how the current corporate model of multiple ownership works. In the current capitalist society.
>and all profits are more-or-less equally distributed between the workers.
Yes, but that already exists. It's called stock option payments and dividends. The bigger of an investor and contributor you are, the more you receive. That way how much of the profits are shared to you depend on your previous devotion to the company.
>sell products for money
Yes, and that, by definition, cannot be socialism. Because socialism is the idea of a moneyless society where you get free shit for existing.

You see, you are not actually dreaming about socialism. You are dreaming about a society with a very high social cohesion. This is achieved through racial homogeneity and low population density, not by enforcing autistic rules on how small businesses should operate.

Fpbp

>socialism is the idea of a moneyless society where you get free shit for existing
Actually that's communism.

I was hoping you'd give me a straight answer instead of desperately pilpul-ing your way into a "a-ha!" moment to rub in my face.
Because my answer to that question would have been "I don't know". That's the problem with arguing labels - they are only useful insofar as they convey mutually-understandable ideas. The moment we start actually arguing what is or isn't socialism or whether "Real Socialism (definition pending)" is even "possible", we get dragged down this retarded greentext wars of trying to out-zing each other with intellectually dishonest bullshit and ad hominems (do you really believe companies distribute their entirety of their profits among their workers? do you actually believe I'm a schizophrenic?).

Note how my thread begun by the virtues (or lack thereof) of tax cuts and deregulation, not just a general Marxist screech over how inhumane capitalism is.

>You are dreaming about a society with a very high social cohesion. This is achieved through racial homogeneity and low population density
Actually I do like this idea and most socialists would call me a reactionary cunt for believing in such culturally-homogeneous localism (although my brand also include a fair bit of anarchism mixed in for shits and giggles). The problem is that you work what you've got - this sort of "small local subsistence farmers" society is impossible to achieve with the sheer number and distribution of population on our planet.

you fucking kikes really do deserve to be gassed

>de-regulating
Bruh... I got news for you.

EPA was established in 1970. Notice any trend beginning then?

Mondragon Corporation
Groupe Caisse D'Epargne
John Lewis Partnership

Many such successful cooperatives. These should be encouraged imho along with credit unions and central government social credit. This would realise "socialist" ideals through free enterprise/capitalist means and with minimal authoritarianism required. As youve said - 3rd position for the win. I assume youve heard of distributism too? Also a useful set of ideas. Developed by catholic thinkers but nothings perfect. I like your line of thinking israelianon. I suspect your type may have been the sort to join the early Italian fascist party.

>Actually that's communism.
>That's the problem with arguing labels they are only useful insofar as they convey mutually-understandable ideas
>The moment we start actually arguing what is or isn't socialism-
>Actually that's communism.
I wrote two paragraphs pointing out how your view of a "socialist" business is almost identical to any business in modern society and your reply is that I'm trying to get "a-ha!" moments. Co-ops are private property, you retarded faggot. Go try steal from a co-op.

>do you actually believe I'm a schizophrenic?
No, I believe that people and populations have brain tendencies and as MRI shows, mental disorders come from brain tendencies that exist even when the disorder is not diagnosed. There are people that care less about facts because of how their brain is formed. It's not a binary, it lays within a continuum. There are people who care so little about reaching a rational conclusion that they might not be worth listening to.

>Co-ops are private property
Who owns them?

Private citizens who protect the co-op utilizing their right to private property.

We don't seem to have the same definition of "private property", then.
I see coops as common property, since no one single "private citizen" can ever hold all the rights to it. It's a different form of property because it's intrinsically collective. You can't on your own barter with your individual share of it. It's owned by all the workers who make use of it, something like the air or the old English village commons.

If the lolbertarian would ease of on the infantile ad homs and if the israelianon would concede the importance of maintaining private property rights this could be the start of a beautiful relationship

>since no one single "private citizen" can ever hold all the rights to it
Except they actually do hold the rights to it.
> it's intrinsically collective
It's not more intrinsically collective than any corporation that can be owned by anyone.

>You can't on your own barter with your individual share of it
Actually, you can. Co-ops sell membership when they want new members. Depending on the co-op they might also allow you to sell back to them. When you are making decisions on whether to accept a new member or not, you are looking at your share of the co-op and seeing whether or not it will benefit you ownership.

Imagine you are a member of the co-op, and they vote and decide to lower your income to almost zero even though you are a member. Do you sit and cry because that was the democratic decision of the workers? Or do you go to a civil court and open a lawsuit against them for violating your private contract of partial ownership?

Yes but the freedom to organise such cooperative enterprises only exists within a broader free enterprise/capitalist/classical liberal framework. Furthermore the historical record on the relationship between tyranny and negation of property rights is abundantly clear

>deregulation.
Fuck off kike.

Nah, the israelly nigger is just a menchevich nigger who got assblasted by the lolibertatiran and refuted in every way possible.

Lolbertarian was factually wrong on some points though.
Mensheviks can be persuaded to become fascists/third position then thats worthwhile

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Ovazza

Your affirmation is wrong OP, other factors are responsible for the productivity growth.
Like the following:
Mechanization, moving the economic manufacture bases for other countries, changes in finance politics of one country, etc.
The deregulation and tax cuts are actually sometimes, the response of this things cited above happening.