Bitcoin Forum

"A further examination of the 39-year period extending from the end of the Nixon administration until 2008 shows the Swedish economy, known for its high taxes and heavy regulation, growing at a significantly higher rate than the US."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/stocks-socialized-us-countries-reagan_n_882270.html





They have a good Justice Dragon.

It's not surprising that Nixon's removal of gold backing from US dollars harmed our economy.  But replacing it with a social service economy backed by government force is not really "growth".

Is that your reason for describing the difference in share-market rates of growth?

And the Swedish haven't been fighting multiple wars half-way across the world since Nixon administration.  And the Swedish are relatively cultural homogeneous.  SO what?

Because the Swedish aren't stupid.

Non sequitur.

ignoratio elenchi

Wrong.  It's entirely relevant, among other issues not mentioned.  Basically the Swedish economy hasn't been drained by the massive costs of war.

The onus of proof is upon you to show that war is the reason why the U.S. stock-market has under-performed.

No.  Neither this nor your original thesis can be proven.

So you are saying there is a causality between government and stock-market returns?

I have no idea where this is going.  Seems like you are going in circles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning).  I must, reluctantly, assume you are a troll at this point.

Okay now that I've read the article I'm not sure what this is trying to prove.  Stock price is based on thousands of factors most of which have nothing to do with real economic growth.

So your saying that the growth of a company's value is in no way related to the economic growth of a country? Did I misunderstand?

This isn't news to anyone that doesn't have their head up their ass (so it'll be news to a lot of people on this board). Properly, centrally planned economies have been outpacing the growth of more "capitalist" economies like the US for... ever.


Interesting note:  These wars all over the world that the US is involved in, those ARE results of the capitalist economy.  The big, greedy defense contractors are big and greedy and want more money, so they set their cronies up in government positions and off to war we go.

Yeah, Sweden.


In other words, Sweden has had no actual growth in the private sector since 1950 and is living off of past prosperity caused by no wars and low government spending.

Yeah, great example of success.

no.

Defense companies make a product, same as anybody else.  They advertise to those who want to buy it, and convince them to hand over money.  The bad guy here is not the defense contractor, but the government because the government is unique as a customer in that it can take money by force or make it at will.  Nobody else can do that.

The only way to prevent this pattern is to completely change human nature (NOT GONNA HAPPEN) or strip the government of its power (more likely)

LOLOLOL

Don't you think it's ironic that a staunch supporter of central planning is supporting a currency that aims to dislodge central planning?

I like this. I think I'm going to start responding to others' posts with nothing more than the name of the logical fallacy they are committing. Let's all do this - let's make this the next big meme and pound some logic through those thick skulls out there... WHO'S WITH ME?!?!

No, because Bitcoin will never dislodge central planning.  It's a great suppliment and has many advantages over traditional currencies, but I think it'd be delusional to think it'll ever change the world in the way you're hoping.  I think e-currencies will someday be normal and accepted, but they will not replace physical currency.

Why would I want a physical currency whose value that is subject to the whims of a higher power, when I can have sound money that doesn't lose value everyday?

Where can I find this sound money that doesn't lose value?

Although I can't think off the top of my head of any form of money that is guaranteed to *never* loose value, I would say that gold and precious metals have proven themselves historically to not loose value over the long run.

Funny, but it isn't fair to generalize the context of his statement. He said "that doesn't lose value everyday;" this is an expression, and not to be taken literally. If I interpret him correctly, he is asserting the strength of Bitcoin in its evasion (or rather, structural immunity) to the powers of centralized authority.

It's a cool experiment thusfar. Release a currency at a constant rate in a relatively 'equal' system of distribution, and see how long it takes for inequality to root itself. Bitcoin may not be defined as centralized, but I'm sure we can all agree that it certainly has the potential to be (with large quantities of Bitcoin vested in the hands of the few)

http://www.stewartpartners.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/q420097.png

http://www.stewartpartners.com.au/governmentroleq4

Private  sector is not doing to well?? I guess they made this up then.

So basically his statement is incorrect, misleading, and completely worthless.  EVERYTHING is subject to value fluctuations in an open market.  I'd take a currency that doesn't lose value over one that does anyday... but that's irrelevant because that currency doesn't exist and never will.

Ahh someone with intelligence! I am glad to see that there those who are still able to critically think about a system and deduce its unavoidable flaws. :)

Look, the United States sucks ass. It's a corporatist, fascist state that's just too big.

Tell us something we don't know.

Oh, also please don't pretend the US is the pinnacle of voluntary trade.

-Incorrect: Literally, of course. But it isn't meant to be interpreted that way; I certainly can't speak for Atlas but I'm sure he is not saying a Bitcoin does not fluctuate in value.
-Misleading: Perhaps, we all interpret things differently. If someone fails to see the expression for what it is, it could be interpreted literally, meaning his message could be conveyed in a different way than it was intended. That's misleading. Sure.
-Completely worthless: Meh, if it's helped you understand the English language better, perhaps. Unfortunately I fear that is not the case.

Yeah basically.  But I'm from the US, so I'm willing to accept that my perspective may be skewed in this regard.  All things being equal, it may be true, but all things are not equal and there are too many variables.

I mean, consider a country that just outright steals 90% of everyone's income and uses it to buy stocks.  Does that sound like the best economy ever?

If you attempted to acquire the majority of bitcoins, you would drive the price up to the point where you couldn't afford to buy more. Due to the law of marginal utility, you would progressively pay more and more for coins worth less and less to you personally until the price would be greater than the utility.  At this point you would either act rationally and stop purchasing or continue and lose progressively more and more wealth, ultimately reaching the level of insolvency.

I don't know why the OP thinks that stock market prices, apparently adjusted for inflation, that have increased the most means a lot to something that person wants or to the point that the person is trying to make.

Only on the Internet can people like smellybobby and AyeYo roam around these forums making the most fallacious arguments  and speak so arrogantly about it. Look guys, you are not fooling anyone. You just dismiss the points made without tackling them because you cannot.

No one ever said that gold, silver, btc, sea shells or whatever "never lose value". That's incorrect and you know it. You are being intellectually dishonest. It is fact that with gov fiat money anywhere in the world you are at the mercy of the whims of Central Banksters. Have a look at my avatar. I had a nice time using Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe notes that were debased to enrich Mugabe and his cronies. Regardless of ideology, this is a fact. Central bankers have historically robbed populations the world over. That was fact before this thread and will continue to be so regardless of what anyone says here. This shit has been going on for a long long time. Fact is, sound money hold value over time and the only thing that fiat money does over time is return to it's intrinsic value, ZERO.

The original post is not even worth addressing. Your basic logic is govt A is better than govt B therefore ALL govt is good. Then you go on to count paper as wealth. What an idiot *facepalm*

EDIT: Oh and by the way, the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange experienced GIGANTIC gains at the height of hyperinflation while people died of cholera because this "prosperous country" couldn't afford water treatment chemicals to purify drinking water.

Go back and read the thread, I have never made any assertions about the data posted. All I have done is pointed out incorrect assertions.

Learn to read before you write.

You do realize this isn't measuring anything except STOCK RETURNS, right?

As the article I provided pointed out, Sweden's existing corporations were not harmed due to the nature of Sweden's reforms (they didn't attack corporations directly the way the US often does), but exactly ONE new large corporation has been added to the top fifty largest Swedish corporations, which is an indication of stagnancy.

I would have mentioned it, but I didn't think you were aiming to justify Sweden from the ideal of an all-encompassing corporate state that would make any Italian fascist squee with joy. Just a tip: when government is able to intervene in the economy significantly, stock market returns are meaningless in terms of economic prosperity. By all rights, the world economy should be crashing and going through severe corrections right now, but instead it is stagnating because of the government's ability to pump easy credit into the system and keep the large banks functioning.

I'm with you. (bandwagon fallacy)

Does the article take stocks from the stock exchanges in each country or the companies in each country wherever they are listed?