Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Darkpriest

  1. 5 minutes ago, Elerond said:

    It isn't inflation in case of insulin. It is unregulated market of product which has no alternatives, which means that people who need it have two choices, pay what drug companies ask or die. 

    It is just pure robbery supported by US federal government, considering that insulin is 100 old drug that was never parented, but still only couple companies have right to sell it in US and there is no regulations for how much those couple companies can ask for dose which cost them less than one dollar to make.

    The more people demand it, the more valuable it gets. 


    Hence, reduce the demand. It will also work miracles on the general healthcare costs, if less people will be fat slobs. 

  2. 24 minutes ago, Raithe said:

    Well maybe not strictly political per se but at a tangent..



    Inflation is a bitch.


    You may thank Gov and FED for free money coming in large batches from 2008.


    If you will cap the prices by a gov mandate, producers might just not produce something. However, what could work, is looking at capping marigin % and having some refund programme for those with lowest income levels.

    Alternatively, lower the demand by reducing the number of fat people. Stop promoting fatness as a beauty standard.... 


    • Haha 1
  3. I wonder if this idea will latch on. 

    It would be intersting to see how central banks would deal with it. 


    Housing prices are becoming ridiculous in relation to average income, so are some other assets. 

    @Zoraptor - i wonder how is the local NZ press on this and consensus among regular bread eaters. 



  4. 6 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

    Their is a massive difference in the definition of the words " looting " and "modernize " 

    But saying all that if a USA oil company decides to invest in the Syrian  oil resources thats their choice. I cant see that happening considering the fact Syria is a complete economic disaster with most of the country destroyed by Assads refusal to give all his citizens equal economic rights and opportunities

    So why would any private sector company want to invest now in Syria ? But good luck to them if they want to :thumbsup:

    Not sure how credible this source is, but my guess would be, that it is quite low. I'd filter carefully through the spin in this piece, and try to limit it to verification of cited incidents. 


    I wonder if @Zoraptor would have some more credible pieces of information on this area (as he shown in the past)



  5. 19 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

    The  USA is the worlds biggest producer of oil  nowadays due to fracking and has been for several years, so it doesnt need to bomb any country because of oil. Back to the drawing board my friend because this is no longer a valid reason for the USA to intervene militarily in any country :p






    Some of past pratices:

    Some random quote quickly googled


    The US looting of Syrian oil was fist confirmed during a Senate hearing exchange between South Carolina Republican Senenator Lindsey Graham and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in late July.

    Graham said Mazloum Abdi, general commander of the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), had informed him that a deal had been signed with an American firm to "modernize the oil fields in northeastern Syria,” and asked Pompeo whether the US administration was supportive of it.

    "We are," the top US diplomat replied, according to Press TV. "The deal took a little longer ... than we had hoped, and now we're in implementation."

  6. So when is the current US admin about to bomb the hell out of Iraq? 



    I wonder if this will be at a time when Iraq will eventually tell US forces to GTFO, closing in the route with pillaged Syrian oil

    • Gasp! 1
  7. 2 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

    You've just described every oil sheikdom in the middle east. Except, maybe, Oman.

    OTOH, Norway has a trillion dollar sovereign wealth fund thanks to its oil that means that the whole country could go on holiday for literally years if it wanted to. If there's one country that cannot be accused of squandering its oil wealth it's Norway.

    Yes, however, I wonder how resilient that fund is, especially, when there is a political pressure to its investment strategy. 

  8. 7 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

    Countries that had very low wages more recently are dubious examples.

    To take an example I'm more familiar with, Purchasing power in Portugal increased immensely following the end of the dictatorship in 1974, but it still increased relatively little given how very low purchasing power was to begin with. To take an extreme hypothetical if you begin with making 5 bucks a month and after a year you are making 20 bucks a month, your purchasing power increased 300%, but your purchasing power is still horrible.


    So people from the Baltic states have had excellent purchasing power increases since the end of the USSR, but they still would have better real wages in Sweden, where purchasing power has stagnated in recent years. A doctor in Lithuania makes a lot less money there than in Sweden.



    So in other words, they adopted policies, which allowed them to grow from that poorer state and are at a velocity, where they already got past some of the older EU members, yet not there, where there are some of thre richest members? 

    We can check in 15-20 more years at this velocity? 

  9. 2 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

    Swedes treat whales very well.


    For myself, I can say that I, unfortunately, do not own any whales, but my single income family makes about the same money as my parent's double income family. The caveat is that I am Portuguese, and Portugal is a country with very low wages, although my parents had quite high wages by Portuguese standards.

    As for real wages and purchase power that is a global problem that nowadays affects pretty much every single developed country in the world. Social welfare policies are one of the methods to alleviate the problem. If you want to read more about it, the essential work is Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty.

    I'd like to hear from people from Estonia or Slovakia, to see if they have the same amount of issues on their purchasing power relative to ones prior and in the same magnitude like the long time walefare or outright socialist countries. 



  10. 32 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

    Actually Norway appears to be saving money hand over fist.

    Also, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Germany if you want other examples. Actually, while some countries are better managed than others, the entirety of Western Europe has robust social welfare policies. Most of them do not have oil

    Lets look at Sweden. 

    Debt to GDP seems fairly stable

    However real GDP is not that impressive (GDP minus inflation) 

    So how does the standard of living improves? Can you afford more than your parents at the same age or less? How's that walefare dream going? 


    Note: Not everything sweden does is bad, for example how they approached a solution to get this company lock in there. 

    If they'd have an IPO I'd jump on board right away as early as possible 


    Even if most of the production is located outside of Sweden, because of. (drum rolls) taxes and social security fees

  11. 1 hour ago, Maedhros said:

    No one wants to implement socialism though. No one except loonies on the fringes. Wanting a government that cares for its people (cheap education/healthcare) is what most left-leaning people want. That's not socialism, that's just common sense.

    How do you want to achieve that? Cap prices for companies providing those services? Incresing taxes? More debt? Perhaps stop listening and paying so much to ass twerking or ball catching performers and make all that money be directed at your baseline education and trade/craftmanship schools? 

    • Haha 1
  12. 3 minutes ago, Pidesco said:


    You fail to grasp, that Norway moved from a country of poor fishermen to a rich country due to oil industry? 

    They've had years of budgetary surplus due to oil revenue, so like a spoiled rich child, they have some money to squander, but with a certain lifestyle and dwindling resources, that won't last forever. 

    It's like saying, lets take example from UAE or Kuwait. 

  13. 7 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

    Interesting questions, I have no idea how valid they are so it will be interesting to get comments from our Nordic members

    But do you have an issue with any country restricting immigration? I dont because I live in a  country where illegal immigration has reach a crisis and our government has failed to do anything meaningful about it and it is has hurt our economy and created unnecessary tension on the ground between SA citizens and illegal foreigners. SA is now seen as a " Xenophobic and Afriphobic " country by certain other African countries and its not 

    Also I have no  issue with the banning of foreign funding for mosques, I support the domestic funding  of mosques but the issue with foreign funding is that it can lead to ideological influence that is not aligned to the culture and value system of the country where the actual funding is directed


    Personally, I don't and I was voicing this approach a decade ago. I'm also a fan of a symmetrical treatment in aspects of tolerance, otherwise, like in a bad marriage, one side gets abused. 

  14. 9 hours ago, Pidesco said:

    Supply side economics, Reaganomics and the Laffer curve are not based on empirical evidence. 





    Well, we have had ample examples that socializm does not work, yet there we are each time there is a bit more of stable and prosperous time, people wanting to implement it saying "this time it is different, because xyz is taking care of that" 

    I'd rather rely on a reason, that people with brains, means and assets will make every effort not to get screwed over by government policies. After all, it's their skill that got them there. 

    There is a bit of a difference when it comes to geberational wealth, but should you punish someone, just because his/her granparents created business that brought value to them and to the economy? 


    BTW - Is Argentina looking to default again (shocking...)? 


  15. A bit different, but perhaps some of our Danish residents can clarify. 

    Seems there has been a series of actions this year in Denmark:

    1) Limiting number of asylum seekers

    2) Banning foreign funding of mosques

    3) Rellocation policies, and housing policies changes to force integration by attempt to remove as they called it "paralel societies" 


    I wonder what's the view of that and do you think such a central planning can work in Denmark? 


  16. 29 minutes ago, Elerond said:

    tax cuts that are funded with debt will eventually worsen deficit, as increasing spending and decreasing income has habit to do. But Lala land dream where tax cut not only increases state income more than lost tax revenue and increased interest, but it increases state income in such extend that state can take even more debt to pay public projects lives strong among modern politicians. 

    I'd look at this more like tax cuts and savings on the spending side. Remove some of the ineffective redistribution and trim down the fat on the state aparatus, which is non-productive. 


    You need a certain level of tax, which can fulfill a specific 'contract' (mostly infrastructure, security and education based, plus some BASIC safety nets in income and healthcare - this includes promoting healthy lifestyle and not accepting fatness as a beauty standard). However, the more you put the tax on those, who put a lot of effort, time and investment, including perosonal lifestyle and delayed gratification, the more likely they will feel screwed over and will look into a ways of getting out of the system, which punishes them for their smart choices. Obviously criminal behavior should be punished so hard, including claims of assets, that people would not see a value in risking it against a fair work and paying fair taxes. 

  17. 1 hour ago, Pidesco said:

    The problem isn't so much the spending, I guess, but the tax cuts. Decades of them.

    Not the taax cuts itswlf, but a combination of tax cuts, which allowed making investments into off shore locations to drive production costs down, and allowed for a stocks buy backs, which with combination of cheap money from FED, made a sharp increase in value of wall street assets, and made top 1% even richer. 


    However, I'd say that increasing taxes would not make this ratio better. You'd just incentivize corporations and rich people to relocate the operations, dampening the growth part, while having only a short term effect for lower deficit, andbthen it bursting up higher (as you see in the examples of failed municipalities, like Chicago) 

  18. 13 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

    Also Putin only took his own Russian vaccine a few days ago, in this  time of vaccine hesitancy it doesnt say much when the president of your own country wont take his own vaccine that is being distributed towards other countries and you expecting countries in the EU  to accept 


    I remember a Pfizer president not taking its own vaccine and selling stocks after a spike in valuation, yet no one is questioning that vaccine. 


    There are some gray areas around AZ vaccine, efficiency, testing etc, yet you still have it promoted. 


    Sure, it would be great to have Putin or Xi having their shots done on camera, but is it neccessary? 


    Even Fauci said, that data on Sputnik looks like its effective


  • Create New...