Communism and National Socialism

Monopolies exist everywhere and they do little to promote capitalism; they control the so-called "free" market to an extent most clearly shown by Microsoft. Arguably they don't have a monopoly, but there is little to be chosen for one who goes to a store to buy a new PC. And so Microsoft can seel at whatever price they want, and hire whoever they want at whatever wage they want'because there is little alternative.

The Corporation is even worse in this respect, as it works to annihilate competition. "Corporations" in the sense of cooperating large companies have every possibility to control wages and prices because competition, which should in a working capitalist system provide the check to every wrong in the producing world, is removed by the competiting companies cooperating with each other. In the Netherlands for one, the formation of corporations is forbidden and this is controlled by a state organization; thus, while being supervised in this respect by the state, capitalism does become more "fair".

These, as far as I know, are the only inherent "wrongs" of capitalism and I wouldn't overthrow the whole system to get them out of the way. This is why you can't consider me a communist but rather a socialist. Your definition of those terms is correct for the era before 1919 but since that year the definition has changed entirely (this process was started as ealry as 1898).

Communism is essentially to strive for revolution on hte Russian model of 1917. In the Third International of 1919 all political parties considering themselves "communist" agreed to see the Communist party of the SSSR as their supreme leader. They favor Marxism-Leninism and the revolution, and the old Marxist ideals of overthrowing the capitalist bourgeois class.

"Socialism" is no longer the socialism described by Marx, but something also known as revisionist Marxism, or trade unionism. Basically, those that call themselves distinctly socialist after 1919 do not strive to overthrow the bourgeois class but rather wish to use the democratic governments in existence to achieve political goals through legal ways. These goals do not include the revolution Marx foresaw, but rather legislation in protection of the labourer, such as minimal wages, pension fees, working time limitations, government control over working conditions and such. In short, modern Socialism strives for the welfare state. It does not threaten the capitalist system, and it does not wish to make all means of production state property - if they can function along their lines. That they do wish for a large and strong state does not mean they wish a communist system in the end.

And yes, I do maintain that a welfare state creates a rise in production and wealth, simply because consumption is spread among a greater group of people. In other words, less is saved up by the rich who can't think of where to spend it and more is used by the poor who need it.

 

I wouldn't say microsft provide value, Bill Gates gave away his operating system to all new computers. Then once people had it and found bugs he released the patches and/or upgrades cheaply so people wouldn't buy other operating systems. Eventually he had such a large market share that he could do whatever he likes. This is why hackers attack microsft all the time.

 

Monopoly not the point of Capitalism?
Ok... in Capitalism, you are aiming for maximum profit, yes?
What is the best way to acheve this?

Secondly, my examples - no, neither are monopolies - true monopolies do not yet exist in may areas. However, both are well on their way.
And while the proces of becoming a monopoly is very beneficial to consumers (good product at low price, to edge out the competition) after a monopoly is achieved the consumer takes a hit.
On a small scale -
In my home town, we had 1 cinema. It charged a reasonable price for entry (around £4-6, depending). Then another cinema opened up, part of a chain of cinemas. There was a price war between the two, and eventually you could go to the cinema - peak time - for only £2 (less than half normal price). This was a good time. Then the original cinema closed down, because it was independant, and could not afford to run at a loss. Since then the new cinema has steadily raised prices, to the point that the cheapest possible ticket is now over £6 (off-peak, on 'cheap Tuesday', with student discount).
And prices keep rising.

or simply gain a monopoly on the market, or even a very dominant share of the market. The US, for example, does not monitor monopolies (thought it has set a minimum wage), so the State really has no impact. I'm prepared to bet that the US government uses Microsoft software...

No, please credit me with some brain! It was just an example, and really should have been better phrased.
But it is a portion of your tax. Try refusing to pay a certain percentage!

The 'poverty line' has been set at an international level. Basically it is a certain wage (which is the theoretical minimum needed for adequate amounts of food and shelter). Any 'poverty line' set by the US government for the US is inadmissable, as the standard of living i the US is rather higher than in Botswana.

In this context - an abstract. But overall, probably government. After al, their job is to make sure that the country (and ultimately the world) runs smoothly, and that their population is happy & provided for. And so it must have money, and so we must have taxes...

No, fair play, that is a good point.
However, try this angle:
"We are now rich. We know how to get richer, and we almost certainly will.
So why not get slightly less richer, and help out those who are not?"
(we = those who are rich, and relatively speaking that includes me at the lower end, as somebody who has an adequate income plus a little bit extra)

As a slight digression...
(and not a comment on any member here or on any nationality)

I have noticed in debates on this (on this forum, which is not an ideal sample size! ) that Americans tend to like Capitalism without restriction, and Europeans tend to like a more 'Welfare State / Socialist" system. Similarly, Americans tend to be in favour of unlimited gun ownership by the public, and Europeans tend to be in favour of no / restricted gun ownership by the public.
Essentially, what you are used to is what you will back.

In the 1950s, The German government banned Capital Punishment, and discovered that Public Opinion at the time in Germany was very pro Capital Punishment. in the 1990s, They raised the issue again, and discovered that Public Opinion was very against Capital Punishment.
As I say, what you are used to is what you like!

(Generally. And note the extravagent use of 'tend to'!)

 

I'm looking for the logical thread in this post. You say he gave away Windows(not true), then he gave away the upgrades and patches(not true for upgrades) all so that he could gain a large market share and " do whatever he likes"? What do you think he would like to do with a dominant market share (and zero revenue by your estimation)?
How did this translate into one of the most profitable companies in the world? i.e. At what point did he start wielding this monopoly power, and in what way in order to unfairly gouge the consumer?
I'm asking these questions already knowing the answers. I would like your take on it though.

PS As this board is somewhat..er..Eurocentic..shall we say, i cannot address all the posts at once as I have limited time to devote to this endeavor, thus I started with yours and will try to get to the other more detailed posts later.

 

I would like some examples of these monopolies that "exist everywhere"
and "control the so-called free market".
Unless one wishes to debate by resorting to hyperbole, of course, one should stick to examples that meet the accepted definition of the term monopoly. e.g. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

So when Microsoft (a corporation) and Oracle (a corporation) market competing software you maintain that the fact that they are corporations means that they somehow collude in order to stifle competition? Aside from the fact, which I assume you know, that such actions would be illegal in the U.S. can you explain to me functionally how they go about this price fixing?

Could you perhaps provide a source supporting your definition of Socialism? I don't say that it is incorrect however I haven't encountered many others who would define Socialism in that way. What you describe is a Capitalist economic system with a strong welfare state. Perhaps we cannot choose between competing definitions unless we know the context. Certainly the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics official view of Socialism would differ (even after 1919) as would most any state that does or has in the past labelled itself as Socialist. North Korea, China, Cuba etc. I have read much written by numerous organizations calling themselves Socialist as well and they also do not sem to share your definition of Socialism. However I asked yu for a source and haven't provided mine yet so I wll research this further so that I can provide credible sources before pursuing this tack again.

So you maintain that spreading consumption among a larger group of people is all that is needed to create wealth and increase production?
These rich people you refer to..how did they get rich if not by selling to consumers? In this welfare state you describe goods and services are confiscated from the producers and given to those who only consume..and this is the secret to creating wealth? Capitalists/Producers will have incentive to invest and take risks, innovate, improve and increase production? All so that the state can take the fruits of their labor and redistribute it as they see fit..and this will create more production and greater wealth?
Something seems to be missing here.

This is a common misconception, that the rich acquire money and put in in their basement so that they can take it out and count it occassionally.
On the contrary the affluent know that inflation will erode wealth if you stick in a vault and horde it. It's the reason that wealthy people invest.
They invest in companies that provide jobs and produce goods and services that consumers desire. In many cases they originate companies with their riches that hire workers, design and build products, market these products, which must also be packaged and transported and advertised etc.etc...which creates more jobs a(and opportunities for other entrepreneurs...such as suppliers and subcontractors)and thus is wealth created and production increased. The state does none of these things. It produces nothing and when it tries to get into production it is invariably inefficient and must create true monopoly power in order to maintain it's status..thus killing competion not merely stifling it. Only the state has the power to create true monopolies and maintain them.

 

Monopolies by that definition only exist locally, like those Ricky described (known as monopolitic competition). So I cannot give you any examples of existing monopolies other than that of corporations.

A corporation (or cartel, which is the meaning I am pointing at here), by definition, is not a large company but a cooperating union of large companies. Thus they may compete amongst each other, but within itself they have cancelled out all competition. To the outside world they may present themselves as several different companies, but in reality they are all under the same management or at least under managements with agreements among each other. This type of cartel exists almost everywhere though it is illegal in most places. Examples in the Netherlands are construction companies, mobile phone companies, food suppliers... They regulate prices and wages to make maximum profit; it's sort of natural for a capitalist system to move in this direction.

This definition is what is used by all political parties calling themselves Social Democrats. The US doesn't have one of these but just about every European country does, and over the past century they have established the lion's share of the welfare state almost everywhere. Communists won't call this socialism but rather "a betrayal of Marxism by conspiring with the oppressive bourgeois". However, it still originated from the same movement and uses the name Socialism or Social Democracy. Most of my information about the movement I learned from Palmer, Colton and Kramer's "A history of the modern world", but I wouldn't recommend the work.

It does this, of course it is not all that is needed but it definitely does create wealth and increase production.

Either they sell to consumers, and so they profit from systems of welfare state because there are more consumers, or they've assembled their wealth through other means, such as salaries, inheritance (great source of wealth in long-rich countries), speculation and anything else you can think of.

If you want to call levying somewhat higher taxes "confiscation", then yes. It is taken from those who have wealth, aqcuired by whatever means, and given to those who cannot produce for whatever reason, the most common of which are sickness and old age.

The state, in a welfare state, doesn't take it all. That would be the same as communism, which I already said it wasn't. This system works, while communism does not. The government, through direct and indirect taxes, takes away a larger share in the profits and in the added value of production to use it for state purposes such as social security fees.

What is missing? Those who produce, gain money from profit. The state takes a share. A share of this share goes to those who would otherwise barely be able to consume, enabling them to consume. And so the producers invest and innovate; the government invests and encourages the economy; and the poor stimulate the economy by producing. I can't see many a flaw in this.

The state is well able to influence the economy and even to create wealth. It does so by adapting its policy of taking money from the production process and investing it elsewhere, because the government is simply the largest consumer in a country. Consumption, not just production, produces wealth by encouraging more production. Neither is the only factor; after all, innovation and improvement of production can't go on forever without changes in consumption.

A government is also able to run business if it takes the monopoly. In fact, by recent policies of privatization in the Netherlands, for example the railways have been moved from a government monopoly to a field of private investment and public competition; what ensued was a disastrous attempt to de-monopolize the railroads after which the monopoly simply landed in the hands of the greatest company. Now this company is being complained about constantly because its drive for profit instead of coverage of expenses makes prices rise and quality of transportation drop. This is not a theory but actual events.

 

He gave me windows on my first computer, you may say the price of the computer was included in the price, however, I asked for another operating system on it but was told I would have to pay extra. So It came with windows included, however, to have another system was extra.

As you would say don't put words in my mouth I said 'Then once people had it and found bugs he released the patches and/or upgrades cheaply so people wouldn't buy other operating systems', not free. As for the zero revenue Microsft don not only sell operating systems and not that there is only a few about (and most have windows he charges high prices for what he produces. In Britain Microsoft office pro retails at about 400 GBP, I believe, However, on a student license it is about 100 GBP, is he giving it away to students or charging over the odds to normal people.

 

A corporation is not a cartel. They are distinctly diiferent. Until we define our terms correctly we are debating different issues. Cartels such as you describe are illegal in the US.

Again there seems to be a problem with defining terms of the debate. Under the most commonly accepted definitions of the word Socialism, what you are describing doesn't qualify.

Here are a few sources:

Let's start with the Socialist party of Great Britain and see how they define it.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/spe(1975).pdf


or

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html

interesting reading...now some dictionary definitions

so·cial·ism (
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.


Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

From Merriam Webster Online






The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.

socialism


general term for the political and economic theory that advocates a system of collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods. Because of the collective nature of socialism, it is to be contrasted to the doctrine of the sanctity of private property that characterizes capitalism. Where capitalism stresses competition and profit, socialism calls for cooperation and social service. 1
In a broader sense, the term socialism is often used loosely to describe economic theories ranging from those that hold that only certain public utilities and natural resources should be owned by the state to those holding that the state should assume responsibility for all economic planning and direction. In the past 150 years there have been innumerable differing socialist programs. For this reason socialism as a doctrine is ill defined, although its main purpose, the establishment of cooperation in place of competition remains fixed.

This is a novel concept in economics. Can you go into a little more detail on the mechanism of creating wealth by taking it from one segment of society and distributing it to another. This is called transferring wealth rather than creating it.

When goods/services are taken from one group and transferred to another this is not a sale and does not create profit for the producer.
These consumers you refer to under the welfare states are parasitic consumers. They contribute nothing to the system. Transferring wealth to them that was confiscated from others does not create wealth.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could eat our cake and have it too?

More novel concepts in Economic theory. Taking goods/services from point A and transferring them to point B actually "creates wealth" ?
Consumption "encouraging" production is called potential demand and demand is the counterpoint to supply. Demand does not "create" supply. If it did then think of the supplies of cancer cures, immortality pills, beauty and love potions we would presently enjoy. There is a great potential demand for all these items yet the supply is zero.

One example. Without more facts one cannot make any useful conclusions from this example however even if one could it wouldn't mean much. There are plentiful examples where government has bungled attempts to manage operations. I personally cannot think of a single example where the state has run an operation more efficiently than private enterprise.

 

No he (Microsoft) didn't. Microsoft doesn't manufacture and sell computers. Microsoft sold the operating system to the computer manufacturer who installed in on your computer. They got a better deal from Microsoft than from other OS manufacturers and that is why you would have had to pay more..because the computer manufacturer had to pay more and he would pass along that cost to you.

Sounds like a sound business practice. What is wrong with that? If there is a flaw in your automobile and the manufacturer offers to fix it for free or offers you a significant discount on a nwer model do you consider that somehow sinister?

High prices? Do you know of any competing similar products that are much cheaper? I have Windows OS on all three of my home computers but by no means do I have to purchase other software manufactured by Microsoft. I imagine 80% of the software I have purchased and loaded on my computer is non-Microsoft. When I have a choice between a Microsoft product and a competing product all other things being equal I would probably prefer the MS product because of the positive experiences I have had with MS products in general. Notice we are speaking of choices; choices that I, or the computer manufacturer makes. When choices are available we are not discussing monopolies are we? I'm puzzled why I have to continue to point out the obvious; Microsoft does not have a monopoly according to the defintion of the term.
Some people may have been confused by certain, shall we say, innovative legal proceeding wherein lawyers (who could potentially reap millions in fees) created legal "theories" that attempted to equate certain business practices with monopolies i.e. achieving a dominant market share is prima facie evidence that a monopoly exists. Nonsense, of course but then our (US) lawyers have no shame when they smell money.

There is also a Gates foundation that donates computers to schools and other learning institutions. Isn't that even more sinister?

 

As far as the consumer is concerned the software id free because if you want different software then you have to buy it.

Sounds like a sound business practice. What is wrong with that? If there is a flaw in your automobile and the manufacturer offers to fix it for free or offers you a significant discount on a nwer model do you consider that somehow sinister?
[/quote]

If Ford built cars that crashed like windows they would be out of business in a week. A good company doesn't push out a bad product (windows has so many flaws) and rely on people telling you how bad it is so they can fix it. They can only do this as they have such a large share of the market that it is almost a monopoly.

High prices? Do you know of any competing similar products that are much cheaper? I have Windows OS on all three of my home computers but by no means do I have to purchase other software manufactured by Microsoft. I imagine 80% of the software I have purchased and loaded on my computer is non-Microsoft. When I have a choice between a Microsoft product and a competing product all other things being equal I would probably prefer the MS product because of the positive experiences I have had with MS products in general. Notice we are speaking of choices; choices that I, or the computer manufacturer makes. When choices are available we are not discussing monopolies are we? I'm puzzled why I have to continue to point out the obvious; Microsoft does not have a monopoly according to the defintion of the term.
Some people may have been confused by certain, shall we say, innovative legal proceeding wherein lawyers (who could potentially reap millions in fees) created legal "theories" that attempted to equate certain business practices with monopolies i.e. achieving a dominant market share is prima facie evidence that a monopoly exists. Nonsense, of course but then our (US) lawyers have no shame when they smell money.

There is also a Gates foundation that donates computers to schools and other learning institutions. Isn't that even more sinister?[/quote]

That is good.

 

Right. What I mean is a cartel. These are natural facts within capitalism and exist everywhere even though they are illegal. My using the word 'corporation' for them was apparently an unfortunate translation error (one of my teachers at Uni used corporation as a "more suitable English word" for cartel, possibly because of private views! )

The definitions you give of socialism are all true for the original political doctrine, and even for the ideals of Socialist and Social Democratic parties. However, they've never been brought into reality. What you call a strong welfare state is actually the result of the work of social democrats over the past 100-150 years though it is not socialism by rigorous doctrinal terminology. Fair enough. If you wish to stick to such terms then I am not a socialist, because I don't believe in collectivization of labour. However, in modern politics of Western countries only fringe groups actually stand for such ideals and in practice even they (for example the Socialist Party of the Netherlands) wouldn't make them reality if they were in power simply because they know they are elected purely for their short-term goals. This is why I freely use the word "Socialist" to describe those who support the welfare state.

It is not novel, in fact it is older than the Second World War. The concept of protecting the weak and/or poor in a society did not emerge purely out of humanist ideals; in doing so, the government allows millions of people at the very bottom end of the financial ladder to enter consumption on a regular basis instead of living under subsistence levels. They do not produce, but they encourage production; how can you suppose that a rise in demand does not encourage production? Your statement that it doesn't applies only to those products that don't exist yet, but innovation's purpose is to create demand which could also be seen as to foresee demand and provide supply. The producing people in a society will produce and sell more if the consuming people consume more; thus wealth will be created.

On the other hand we have a system in which, as you describe it, the wealthy will reinvest and produce all their money. Thus letting the rich keep all their money encourages the economy. I think this is as far from the truth as the idea that in a welfare state the government pours money into a class that does nothing with it, basically throwing it away. In both cases we are dealing only with the extremes; no doubt, there are as many people among the rich who sit around doing nothing with their money as there are among those who get government fees because they can't work. However, more money is "silent" in the hands of those who have a lot of it than in the hands of those who have practically nothing. Taking some of this silent money from the rich will aid the economy just as well. Money is not the same as investment unless it is used as such.

I don't understand what it is you can't see here. If it is true that you think that the government simply takes all the profit from a company in a welfare state to redistribute it, this is a wild distortion of the truth. It's all really simple.

A Company produces and sells to consumers. They make profit. The Government, by levying taxes, takes a share from this profit (no one wants to live without a state so taxes will always exist). For example, 70% remains in the hands of the producers to reinvest or consume with. 30%, then, is taken by the government, of which in a full welfare state a large share (sometimes more than 50%) goes to those who do not produce, therefore do not gain any regular income and therefore cannot consume. With this money provided to them by the government, they can support themselves. How does one do that in a capitalist system? You consume, from companies whom thus get the same money they lost to the government back in extra revenues. The only difference is that now it's been through some more hands who have thankfully used it to exist off of.

I'm sorry but this is beyond me. What do you mean by this?

I just gave you one, the Dutch railroads. Other examples are the Dutch electricity network, the Dutch sickness insurance... Privatization had caused much trouble to the average consumer here because of rising prices and complicating new companies (they aren't meeting the requirements stated by the government as prerequisites for lasting privatization) without any notable change in quality. I don't see how these things are better off under private enterprise, since private enterprise with its instable nature and search for profit should have nothing to do with services people depend on in their daily lives. What if they go broke? Under competition this is perfectly possible. Who will ride the trains, supply the power, insure you against sickness?

How does the transfer of wealth create wealth? What do you think the whole capitalist system is based upon? Production? No! It is based upon creating more wealth off of transfering wealth! The whole emergence of capitalism as a succesful system depends on the development of banking and lending - making money off of transferring money! Demand, as much a drive behind the economy as supply, means transferring wealth! Capitalism is transferring wealth in such a way that it creates more wealth! Government investments do this as much as private investments do, by supplying demand to private companies (demand, for example, for the construction of bridges or the manufacturing of paper).

 

'To have your cake and eat it' is a phrase meaning you have the best of both worlds.

As a relevant example, a government who claims to be able to cut taxes, but increase public spending (as our current government claims) can invite the comment:
You can't have your cake and eat it.

Or the ARVN commanders in Vietnam who wanted the USMC to take the rather formidable Citadel in Hue, but without the use of any artillery or airstrikes to help them, in case they damaged any historical/cultural artifacts.
IIRC they caved in and allowed the walls to be breached, because they quickly discovered that they couldn't have their cake and eat it.

 

You can add the Norwegian electricity network to that list as well ( and I even know a similar example from the US, I just can´t remember which state ). It was privatized a few years ago. The problem with privatizasion is that when you transfer a non/low-profit enterprise to private hands, the shareholders expect to make money from it. The result is that the consumer, in addition to paying for the product, administration and maintenace etc., now also have to pay the shareholders outcome. It´s a myth that privatization increases effiency and gives the consumer lower prices because of the expected competition between different companies. I now pay more than twice as much for electricity than I did just 6 or 7 years ago.

 

Or the British Railway Network.

Although the butt of jokes when it was 'BR', after privatization it was discovered that it makes no sense to have competing companies when their services do not cover the same areas! And the quests for profit have so far led to the increasing of ticket prices and the lack of proper maintenance...

 

Especially when the maintenance contractors were payed a flat rate per year to maintain the Railway, it didn't take long to work out that they could save money by not doing work that wasn't absolutely 100% necessary, or make even more money by doing practically nothing at all.

Basically those first couple of post BR years have ended up costing some people their lives.

 

I wish to phrase this as delicately as possible so as not to give offense.
As much as I love a healthy and spirited debate there are certain prerequistes IMO to such a debate. The first is that one must have invested some time and intellectual energy studying the issue that is being contested. It has become apparent to me that were are making no headway in this debate because we are approaching it from different perspectives.
Again, not meaning to offend by pointing out the obvious conclusion that you have not studied economics either formally or by self study.
I won't address all the basic errors in your posts by contrasting each with established economic theory as that would be belaboring the issue.
Suffice it to say that money and wealth are not the same thing in economics and the creation of wealth has a significantly narrower definition that what you are esposing.
Were one attempting to forge new concepts in the discipline rather than displaying ignorance of the established ones I would be willing to entertain any idea no matter how revolutionary however I have no desire to rehash the issues that first semester economics students must wrestle with before beginning to grasp the subject matter.
As it happens there was essentially no way to speak the truth (as I perceive it) without being (in some people's estimation) to some degree condescending, if not insulting. If this gets me banned from this forum, so be it. I felt it needed to be said. I have no doubt your are a bright fellow Roel and I bear you no personal animosity. I just have no further inclination to debate economic issues with you. All the budding Euro- Socialists will no doubt sally forth now to pummel the arrogant American for his boorish comments but that's okay. If any of you have mastered the rudiments of economic theory and wish to set me straight on some things you can PM me as I doubt this debate will continue in this thread.

 

Hi Grieg,

No problem. That is part of a debate, after all. It is good that you are able to put such an opinion down in a polite manner rather than simply being insulting. I confess that I have not really been following the arguments of late, so cannot really comment on their economic validity...

Hmmm, I doubt that any of us budding Euro-Socialists ( ) consider you an arrogant (or even boorish) American - you have a different opinion and can argue it well. Did you study economics at all? It reads like you probably did...

P.S:

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that if you want to be banned!

 

Grieg, I do not take offense at your post because I know I'm not exactly a star in economics, but I have studied it for three years in secondary school and I did get a good grade in economics for my finals. Personally I feel I have the stuff fairly in order, so I'm afraid the problem here is not my ignorance of basic economics but rather my ignorance of the correct terms used for basic economics in a tongue that is not native to me. I would need the aid of someone who knows both Dutch and English well enough to help me get what I wish to say out properly.

Until then I am content to go by your judgment that we're not getting anywhere with this, so we'd better stop altogether.

And certainly I won't deride you for ignorance, arrogance or impoliteness since you've handled this disagreement quite according to the forum guidelines so far.

 

Glad to hear it Ricky because I do so enjoy lively debate( as long as we are defining our terms and debating the same issues). I will continue to be a pain in the arse on other threads but as Roel stated it's probably best to let this one wither.
p.s.
In US Universities one has a Major (field of study) and can have a Minor as well. My Major was Business and my Minor was in Economics with post graduate studies in Law. (although as you might have detected I do not hold the practice of Law as often practiced in the US in high regard)
Despite my education I made a mid life career change and now work (happily) in the medical field diagnosing Vascular disease using Ultrasound.

 

Good!