The Logical End to Capitalism? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-21-2002, 09:37 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 05:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by garibaldo

The trend in the 90's has been for top actors to demand $20 million a flick. Chris Tucker got $20 million for Rush Hour 2! Clearly this is a huge problem with costs. Also, I suggest getting rid of actors after two failed movies (i.e. Kevin Costner, Eddie Murphy, etc).

I hoped that cleared up my position.
Yes it did. Youīre actually ignoring that those are actors that the film industry needs desperately because they are expected to turn in profits - unlike many other factors. When films fail, its maybe not for the actor, but for the flicks production company... or hundreds of other reasons.

However, I am not able to provide info on the film industry, but on the music industry. Serious crisis there. Not the system itself, but because CD prices stay high, and because artists donīt have any time to develop their style over a few albums like f.e. U2 did.

When we are talking about profit in music, we nurture the idea that music is entertainment. Pop music has nothing to do with art those days. In fact, music is entertainment. It is sad though, and it is very sad that nearly everyone is getting controlled by those bips and bleeps and new handy tones.

Think about it when you download the next one. Think how primitive the "capitalist" part of society in this world is to let their ears get trained (and poisoned) with the most simple tones creatable, like sine tones; not only on handys. Bleep when you open your car, bleep when you deal with your bank account, bleep. Its kind of slipping into a command, the ever audible bleep, isnīt it?

You might call me exaggerating, but I know there is a system behind that. No one can tell me it would cost that much to use your fav U2 song on 44.1 kHz/16 bit as a ringtone for your handy or greez from your car (when actually those are machines trying to communicate with you while real communication suffers - its kinda easier to take a bleep than your ranting wifeīs evening sermon).

Apart from that, mergers meant big deal in music industry. Tom/ WB are doing their job pretty well, selling properties ,cutting expenditures, firing half a&r departments, cutting artists budgets. The industry got a serious crisis, not for of the internet, but for their own damn stupidity, extensive marketing/ promo costs and a few other reasons.

Sorry for that rant, but your assumption of "If artists donīt do well in two films they should be fired" is playing into the hands of the suits that donīt give a flying fuck about artist development, which would really be important in the long run. But they only focus on quick time big cash. Just like every other capitalist those days.

Well... so be it, you know. Hope they wake up shrieking in horror when the trouble and pain they inflicted upon other human beings comes knockinī on their back door.

You would disagree and point out that any governments imposing "those rules" (which ones exactly?) may quickly lose those industries leaving the workers much worse off?

This sounds more like a threat, you know. Whilst you maybe intended to "point it out", this is a threat by capitalists that are soooo afraid of losing those incredibly low sums.

Itīs just ridiculous and disgusting, you know? I think regulations on people who are threatening and disrespecting lives and the idea of living - because this is what your idols do everyday, while chuckling about corruption in third world countries - should be the strictest possible ones. I think they should be forced by laws to return every penny they stole in the last thousand years plus high interest rates.

I donīt differ between a street gangster that takes away your credit card, garibaldo, and a top elite capitalist deciding they will have a new factory in a tradefree zone around China (which they created by corrupting smartass politicians) where women and children are kept in a new form of slavery. They are both criminals.

I know I am spitting pretty much hate in the last lines, sorry for that, but I am trying to make a point clear. Just take it as 0,00000001 percent of the hate that poor people must NATURALLY feel - against capitalism in all its rude suppressive outcomings (of which we donīt see that much, except of beggars on our own streets). I just hope that some day those beggars will rise and hand out a paycheck. You know, it would be fun to see the capitalist throat bleeding - and if the betrayed U.S. consumer could laugh about that too, it would be double fun.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 10-21-2002, 02:30 PM   #17
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:05 AM
Re: Re: Re: The Logical End to Capitalism?

Quote:
Originally posted by melon

Can capitalism *really* thrive in complete theoretical deregulation, or is regulation required to keep capitalism in check from destroying itself?

Melon
Regulation in economy is required - like laws in a vilage are required to make sure peple can live together in peace.

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-21-2002, 03:32 PM   #18
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


Yes it did. Youīre actually ignoring that those are actors that the film industry needs desperately because they are expected to turn in profits - unlike many other factors. When films fail, its maybe not for the actor, but for the flicks production company... or hundreds of other reasons.

However, I am not able to provide info on the film industry, but on the music industry. Serious crisis there. Not the system itself, but because CD prices stay high, and because artists donīt have any time to develop their style over a few albums like f.e. U2 did.

When we are talking about profit in music, we nurture the idea that music is entertainment. Pop music has nothing to do with art those days. In fact, music is entertainment. It is sad though, and it is very sad that nearly everyone is getting controlled by those bips and bleeps and new handy tones.

Think about it when you download the next one. Think how primitive the "capitalist" part of society in this world is to let their ears get trained (and poisoned) with the most simple tones creatable, like sine tones; not only on handys. Bleep when you open your car, bleep when you deal with your bank account, bleep. Its kind of slipping into a command, the ever audible bleep, isnīt it?

You might call me exaggerating, but I know there is a system behind that. No one can tell me it would cost that much to use your fav U2 song on 44.1 kHz/16 bit as a ringtone for your handy or greez from your car (when actually those are machines trying to communicate with you while real communication suffers - its kinda easier to take a bleep than your ranting wifeīs evening sermon).

Apart from that, mergers meant big deal in music industry. Tom/ WB are doing their job pretty well, selling properties ,cutting expenditures, firing half a&r departments, cutting artists budgets. The industry got a serious crisis, not for of the internet, but for their own damn stupidity, extensive marketing/ promo costs and a few other reasons.

Sorry for that rant, but your assumption of "If artists donīt do well in two films they should be fired" is playing into the hands of the suits that donīt give a flying fuck about artist development, which would really be important in the long run. But they only focus on quick time big cash. Just like every other capitalist those days.

Well... so be it, you know. Hope they wake up shrieking in horror when the trouble and pain they inflicted upon other human beings comes knockinī on their back door.

You would disagree and point out that any governments imposing "those rules" (which ones exactly?) may quickly lose those industries leaving the workers much worse off?

This sounds more like a threat, you know. Whilst you maybe intended to "point it out", this is a threat by capitalists that are soooo afraid of losing those incredibly low sums.

Itīs just ridiculous and disgusting, you know? I think regulations on people who are threatening and disrespecting lives and the idea of living - because this is what your idols do everyday, while chuckling about corruption in third world countries - should be the strictest possible ones. I think they should be forced by laws to return every penny they stole in the last thousand years plus high interest rates.

I donīt differ between a street gangster that takes away your credit card, garibaldo, and a top elite capitalist deciding they will have a new factory in a tradefree zone around China (which they created by corrupting smartass politicians) where women and children are kept in a new form of slavery. They are both criminals.

I know I am spitting pretty much hate in the last lines, sorry for that, but I am trying to make a point clear. Just take it as 0,00000001 percent of the hate that poor people must NATURALLY feel - against capitalism in all its rude suppressive outcomings (of which we donīt see that much, except of beggars on our own streets). I just hope that some day those beggars will rise and hand out a paycheck. You know, it would be fun to see the capitalist throat bleeding - and if the betrayed U.S. consumer could laugh about that too, it would be double fun.
Wow, I don't know what the say to this disgusting and confusing rant about capitalism. Surely you realize that your standard of living is based on the profits generated by businesses that lead to taxes, yet you pretend like you are separate from all this. ATTENTION ULTRA-LIBERAL TRASH: Please get a fucking clue! You are, imo, the worst form of socialist trash.

Artists SHOULD be fired for not doing well. This is the basis of business and REALITY. Why should companies spend millions on production and advertising just to make this person feel better? So they can continue to spend millions buying worthless luxury items for themselves? Is it the responsibility of business to make sure everyone does well?

Don't tell me that my "idols" are raping the poor for what they're worth. You're an ignorant socialist pig and if you had any clue what it takes to run a business you wouldn't open your mouth.

Listen to all the little liberal phrases you've been trained to use: Primitive capitalism, top elite capitalist, women and children kept in a new form of slavery, fun to see the capitalist throat bleeding, play into the hands of the suits, jibberish about beeps and the hope that capitalists wake up in shrieking horror from all the pain and misery they've caused! HAHAHA

Who (or what) raised you? Were you raised in the midst of a lifelong WTO strike or by a pack of communist wolves? You sound like the embodiment of a gut-wrenchingly bad Radiohead song. You sound like you've taken your entire political philosophy from an amalgam of activist signs, communist propaganda, and just pure, grade A bullshit! Why don't you go give Che Guevara a handy and read a book on business and reality 101. Meanwhile, I'm going to throw up and beat the nearest liberal with a bat.

P.S.
__________________
garibaldo is offline  
Old 10-21-2002, 10:14 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:05 AM
I'm going to post some very cold impersonal data on the US economy over the past few decades. It might be interesting and provide some perspective.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 11:12 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 05:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by garibaldo


Wow, I don't know what the say to this disgusting and confusing rant about capitalism. Surely you realize that your standard of living is based on the profits generated by businesses that lead to taxes, yet you pretend like you are separate from all this. ATTENTION ULTRA-LIBERAL TRASH: Please get a fucking clue! You are, imo, the worst form of socialist trash.

Artists SHOULD be fired for not doing well. This is the basis of business and REALITY. Why should companies spend millions on production and advertising just to make this person feel better? So they can continue to spend millions buying worthless luxury items for themselves? Is it the responsibility of business to make sure everyone does well?

Don't tell me that my "idols" are raping the poor for what they're worth. You're an ignorant socialist pig and if you had any clue what it takes to run a business you wouldn't open your mouth.

Listen to all the little liberal phrases you've been trained to use: Primitive capitalism, top elite capitalist, women and children kept in a new form of slavery, fun to see the capitalist throat bleeding, play into the hands of the suits, jibberish about beeps and the hope that capitalists wake up in shrieking horror from all the pain and misery they've caused! HAHAHA

Who (or what) raised you? Were you raised in the midst of a lifelong WTO strike or by a pack of communist wolves? You sound like the embodiment of a gut-wrenchingly bad Radiohead song. You sound like you've taken your entire political philosophy from an amalgam of activist signs, communist propaganda, and just pure, grade A bullshit! Why don't you go give Che Guevara a handy and read a book on business and reality 101. Meanwhile, I'm going to throw up and beat the nearest liberal with a bat.
"Surely you realize that your standard of living is based on the profits generated by businesses that lead to taxes, yet you pretend like you are separate from all this."

My standard of living is based on my work. We all pay huge taxes.

"Artists SHOULD be fired for not doing well. This is the basis of business and REALITY. Why should companies spend millions on production and advertising just to make this person feel better? So they can continue to spend millions buying worthless luxury items for themselves? Is it the responsibility of business to make sure everyone does well?"

Should they. You know, a record company decides very clearly when to put artists out of contracts. But we were talking about artist development.

First, you totally ignored that success is not defined by the artist mainly. Take Michael Jackson: 30 mil $ to produce his last album, sold practically nothing in compare to what it cost. Huge flop. Is he fired? Nope. A few quarrels with Sony and The Firm, whatever, he is going to stay in business. Take hundreds of artists who just put their first album out: maybe they didnīt do that bad, sold 100,000 to 700,000 copies, but are they allowed to make a second album w that contract? Probably not. Artist development, which would be important to fight the crisis of the industry, has gone to oblivion. You better bet U2 wouldnīt get the chance to do a second album in the current climate.

Companies donīt spend mils on promo or ads to make artists feel better, but to move more copies. Fact is that the standard recording contract charges all those expenses back on the artists behalf. Thats called recoupable expenses. The money is lended, its charged to the artist, deduced from his royalties. Everytime song is played on the radio, it costs about 1000 $, you know, and its not the artist to decide when what is played on air or if there is a music video made or how much it costs, etc, etc, etc.

If you really want to discuss about millions spent on luxury items by artists, you better compare the 95% of artists with a record deal out of which they donīt earn a penny with the salaries of incompetent A&Rs or CEOs who canīt tell the difference between Nirvana and their ass.

Take a musicindustry101class, idiot.

"You're an ignorant socialist pig and if you had any clue what it takes to run a business you wouldn't open your mouth."

My business is my business, sucker. If you really have your own, (which I heavily doubt looking at your IQ of a banana) why donīt you tell me a few of your latest tricks?

I said: "Think how primitive the "capitalist" part of society in this world is to let their ears get trained", not "primitive capitalists". (Clearly visible to anyone with an IQ higher than a banana), I used the word "primitive" with lots of cynical joy, taking into account that us Europeans were always calling all other cultures other than our Roman, Greek, Occidential or Western culture primitive. In fact, the sounds we use more and more often in our culture are primitive. And thats kind of strange, you know, to watch the people giving so much importance to their new handy tune. Could make you wonder what else they could spend their energy on.

Capitalist elites and trade free zones w forms of work comparable to slavery are simple facts. Take your globalisation101class or ignore it - your level of ignorance is, thanks to God, not my problem.

I wasnīt trained or brainwashed by anyone, thatīs rubbish. Just a minute ago I had a telephone conversation with the World Bank who wanted to reach one of the companies I work for, if you really want to know what I do everyday while wasting my time with you. Go ahead and put those communist or socialist anologies right up where they belong: in your ass. Like I said before: I am eclectic, I take every point of every system I like and make up my own. I admit though that the throat bleeding and shrieking was a little personal, but I am really happy that I provoked you so fruitfully -
and , as I said,

"Just take it as 0,00000001 percent of the hate that poor people must NATURALLY feel - against capitalism in all its rude suppressive outcomings (of which we donīt see that much, except of beggars on our own streets)."

Final question: what raised you, sucker? A banana?
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 11:39 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 05:05 AM
Re: The Logical End to Capitalism?

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
They state that the public just isn't buying anymore...but can you blame the public.

Think about everything that we are *supposed* to buy. And ask yourself where the hell this money is supposed to come from.

Herein lies the logical problem that is always avoided: how can you expect the public to continually spend *more,* but, at the same time, compete to keep wages *low*?

To sit back and expect the economy to "correct itself" is a misnomer.
To bring the topic of Melon back to discussion.

Hope your hard facts will include answers to the questions above, STING2. I was fascinated by what I sometimes could learn from your data.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 11:40 AM   #22
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I'm going to post some very cold impersonal data on the US economy over the past few decades. It might be interesting and provide some perspective.
Thanks Sting!

I hope the others join again the hard-headed discussion and stop their hate driven flames

Klasu
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 01:41 PM   #23
The Fly
 
UltravioletU2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 222
Local Time: 10:05 PM
Interesting topic, Melon.

I'm not sure what I think. I do think that if the film industry is starving, perhaps the actors don't need to make quite so much money ($20M is excessive- it's not even about money, it's about "oh, So-and-So is one of the highest paid Hollywood stars!)

But I'm just beating the same dead horse.

I am interested in seeing Sting's stats. While I know the airlines are near broke, I was not aware of the film industry or record labels being in any financial distress. I've never heard that before.

Good post, tho.
__________________
UltravioletU2 is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 03:21 PM   #24
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


"Surely you realize that your standard of living is based on the profits generated by businesses that lead to taxes, yet you pretend like you are separate from all this."

My standard of living is based on my work. We all pay huge taxes.

"Artists SHOULD be fired for not doing well. This is the basis of business and REALITY. Why should companies spend millions on production and advertising just to make this person feel better? So they can continue to spend millions buying worthless luxury items for themselves? Is it the responsibility of business to make sure everyone does well?"

Should they. You know, a record company decides very clearly when to put artists out of contracts. But we were talking about artist development.

First, you totally ignored that success is not defined by the artist mainly. Take Michael Jackson: 30 mil $ to produce his last album, sold practically nothing in compare to what it cost. Huge flop. Is he fired? Nope. A few quarrels with Sony and The Firm, whatever, he is going to stay in business. Take hundreds of artists who just put their first album out: maybe they didnīt do that bad, sold 100,000 to 700,000 copies, but are they allowed to make a second album w that contract? Probably not. Artist development, which would be important to fight the crisis of the industry, has gone to oblivion. You better bet U2 wouldnīt get the chance to do a second album in the current climate.

Companies donīt spend mils on promo or ads to make artists feel better, but to move more copies. Fact is that the standard recording contract charges all those expenses back on the artists behalf. Thats called recoupable expenses. The money is lended, its charged to the artist, deduced from his royalties. Everytime song is played on the radio, it costs about 1000 $, you know, and its not the artist to decide when what is played on air or if there is a music video made or how much it costs, etc, etc, etc.

If you really want to discuss about millions spent on luxury items by artists, you better compare the 95% of artists with a record deal out of which they donīt earn a penny with the salaries of incompetent A&Rs or CEOs who canīt tell the difference between Nirvana and their ass.

Take a musicindustry101class, idiot.

"You're an ignorant socialist pig and if you had any clue what it takes to run a business you wouldn't open your mouth."

My business is my business, sucker. If you really have your own, (which I heavily doubt looking at your IQ of a banana) why donīt you tell me a few of your latest tricks?

I said: "Think how primitive the "capitalist" part of society in this world is to let their ears get trained", not "primitive capitalists". (Clearly visible to anyone with an IQ higher than a banana), I used the word "primitive" with lots of cynical joy, taking into account that us Europeans were always calling all other cultures other than our Roman, Greek, Occidential or Western culture primitive. In fact, the sounds we use more and more often in our culture are primitive. And thats kind of strange, you know, to watch the people giving so much importance to their new handy tune. Could make you wonder what else they could spend their energy on.

Capitalist elites and trade free zones w forms of work comparable to slavery are simple facts. Take your globalisation101class or ignore it - your level of ignorance is, thanks to God, not my problem.

I wasnīt trained or brainwashed by anyone, thatīs rubbish. Just a minute ago I had a telephone conversation with the World Bank who wanted to reach one of the companies I work for, if you really want to know what I do everyday while wasting my time with you. Go ahead and put those communist or socialist anologies right up where they belong: in your ass. Like I said before: I am eclectic, I take every point of every system I like and make up my own. I admit though that the throat bleeding and shrieking was a little personal, but I am really happy that I provoked you so fruitfully -
and , as I said,

"Just take it as 0,00000001 percent of the hate that poor people must NATURALLY feel - against capitalism in all its rude suppressive outcomings (of which we donīt see that much, except of beggars on our own streets)."

Final question: what raised you, sucker? A banana?

"My standard of living is based on my work. We all pay huge taxes. "

This is complete bullshit. Do you think that the government makes most of its taxes off the working classes or business profits? Where do you think all of the roads and schools come from? Do you think the majority of it comes from personal taxes in AMERICA? NO! Is this a tax-free environment for businesses? Think about it before you open your mouth.

Why do you keep babbling about handy tones? Is this what they do in Europe now? Is this a big trend? I don't know anyone here concerned about getting new tones.

Yes, why don't you tell us what you do, because if it has anything to do with business and capitalism, I'm going to rip you a new one, asswipe. Success is MOST DEFINITELY driven by the artists. If you put aside Britney Spears and her crap crowd, which I'm sure you love, success can't exist without a good sound. That's why they're called ARTISTS if you've forgotten. They've got to make a good set of song and market it. Perhaps that's changing with the britney spears generation, but I don't consider them artists to begin with. High salaries and extravagant lifestyles SHOULD justify the high pressure to put out good material. It's a selection process, which is necessary. Everyone wants to be a rockstar and I'm sure with enough money and "Artist development", most of us would put out something decent EVENTUALLY. Why do business have to front the costs and eventually bankrupt themselves and their employees to see each artist become a success?

The idea of firing Michael Jackson is a ridiculous comparison. He might not be fired after one flop, but if it happens TWICE, why should Sony continue to pay for new albums? Artist development for Michael Jackson? Hahaha..fucking socialist fruitcake. He's filthy rich already. I don't see the harm in cutting off Michael Jackson. MJ and U2 can afford to produce their own albums, so I'm pretty sure they can make as many flops as they want.

I'll bet you're awash in contradictions. Please, enlighten us as to what you do.

You said "Think how primitive the "capitalist" part of society in this world is to let their ears get trained". I don't see how this is far from saying capitalists are primitive, because you make no distinctions within the capitalist system. You just say "capitalists", which basically refers to all of us and not a subset of us who allow this to happen and you're specifically pointing to our "primitiveness" as a reason why this happens. Get a fucking clue!

You're associating capitalism itself with slavery and sweatshops. It's corruption that leads to these conditions. I guess you're assuming that your socialist system is superior. Let's not pretend that the Europeans don't have problems. Corruption is rampant in their BIG GOVERNMENT systems. I'll be happy to list corruption scandals if you'd like. I think I could spend an hour on corruption scandals in just the French government alone! How are you enjoying near double-digit unemployment? Huge taxes? Haha.. Wait, your fucking dystopian system of corrupt politicians and wide executive powers is subject to corruption?! OMG! How can this be!?

At least Americans are smart enough to realize that ALL politicians are corrupt (or become corrupted) and giving them MORE power is retarded.

Why can't you be a man and just admit that you're either a socialist or a full blown communist? You're not eclectic. Nobody with an unbiased, open mind could ever post that ignorant list of generalizations. Why don't you tell us what country you come from, what salary you make and what exactly it is that you do? Try to be honest, I know it's hard for someone like you.
__________________
garibaldo is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 07:40 PM   #25
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Cool It

Interesting thread, some interesting replies.

However, I request that anybody who's tone has been less than courteous during the course of these events and is ABOUT to be less than courteous to think and not start a flame-war.

Some people have already crossed the line, I'm asking everyone to cool it. For those who don't know what that means, it means no personal remarks, no uneccessary profanity and certainly no generalisations about anybody and what they do for a living, no matter where your opinion lies.

Thank you.

Ant.

PS - Though I have nothing to contribute, it is my opinion that Capitalism will never end, unless Human nature alters itself. Should it end? That is up for debate. Will it end? Never.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'ResumÃĐ'
Anthony is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 10:18 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Well the statistics I'm about to put out here are not a big revelation or anything and may not be directly tied to some questions asked here. Yet they are a reflection of the economic health of the country as a whole over the past 70 years. From 1929 to today, I have many of the years unemployment and inflation figures. I combine both for each year in what is called the misery index: unemployment percentage plus inflation percentage equals misery index number. Obviously the higher that number is, the worse the state of the economy. It should provide a another way of comparing how good or bad things have been over the years. It does not give the whole picture, but its still relevant to look at. So lets go:

Year/unemployment %/inflation%/misery index#

1929/ 3.2%/ 0.0%/ 3.2
1933/ 24.9%/ -5.1%/ 19.8
1939/ 17.2%/ -1.4%/ 15.8
1940/ 14.6%/ .7%/ 15.3
1942/ 4.7%/ 10.9%/ 15.6
1944/ 1.2%/ 1.7%/ 2.9
1946/ 3.9%/ 8.3%/ 12.2
1948/ 3.8%/ 8.1%/ 11.9
1950/ 5.3%/ 1.3%/ 6.6
1952/ 3.0%/ 1.9%/ 4.9
1954/ 5.5%/ 0.7%/ 6.2
1956/ 4.1%/ 1.5%/ 5.6
1958/ 6.8%/ 2.8%/ 9.6
1959/ 5.5%/ 0.7%/ 6.2
1960/ 5.5%/ 1.7%/ 7.2
1961/ 6.7%/ 1.0%/ 7.7
1962/ 5.5%/ 1.0%/ 6.5
1963/ 5.7%/ 1.3%/ 7.0
1964/ 5.2%/ 1.3%/ 6.5
1965/ 4.5%/ 1.6%/ 6.1
1966/ 3.8%/ 2.9%/ 6.7
1967/ 3.8%/ 3.1%/ 6.9
1968/ 3.6%/ 4.2%/ 7.8
1969/ 3.5%/ 5.5%/ 9.0
1970/ 4.9%/ 5.7%/ 10.6
1971/ 5.9%/ 4.4%/ 10.3
1972/ 5.6%/ 3.2%/ 8.8
1973/ 4.9%/ 6.2%/ 11.1
1974/ 5.6%/ 11.0%/ 16.6
1975/ 8.5%/ 9.1%/ 17.6
1976/ 7.7%/ 5.8%/ 13.5
1977/ 7.1%/ 6.5%/ 13.6
1978/ 6.1%/ 7.6%/ 13.7
1979/ 5.8%/ 11.3%/ 17.1
1980/ 7.1%/ 13.5%/ 20.6
1981/ 7.6%/ 10.3%/ 17.9
1982/ 9.7%/ 6.2%/ 15.9
1983/ 9.6%/ 3.2%/ 12.8
1984/ 7.5%/ 4.3%/ 11.8
1985/ 7.2%/ 3.6%/ 10.8
1986/ 7.0%/ 1.9%/ 8.9
1987/ 6.2%/ 3.6%/ 9.8
1988/ 5.5%/ 4.1%/ 9.6
1989/ 5.3%/ 4.8%/ 10.1
1990/ 5.5%/ 5.4%/ 10.9
1991/ 6.7%/ 4.2%/ 10.9
1992/ 7.4%/ 3.0%/ 10.4
1993/ 6.8%/ 3.0%/ 9.8
1994/ 6.1%/ 2.6%/ 8.7
1995/ 5.6%/ 2.7%/ 8.3
1996/ 5.4%/ 3.0%/ 8.4
1997/ 4.9%/ 2.4%/ 7.3
1998/ 4.6%/ 1.6%/ 6.2
1999/ 4.3%/ 2.2%/ 6.5
2000/ 4.0%/ 3.4%/ 7.4
2001/ 4.8%/ 3.1%/ 7.9
2002/ 5.6%/ 1.8%/ 7.4


Note the year 1933 had -5.1% inflation which is actually deflation which is the opposite of inflation. I went ahead and added the figure to the 24.9% unemployment producing a misery index of only 19.8. Deflation may have a temporary good effect, but falling prices could eventually impact the economy in a negative way IF there is a change in total output.

Notice the last time that the USA suffered double digit unemployment, like Europe often currently has, was all the way back in 1940.

Important: The 2002 year figures for unemployment and inflation will not be out until early next year. The unemployment figure I used in place of this was for the month of September 2002. Inflation figure was for the month of August 2002.

If 5.6% unemployment does become the average for all of 2002, its exactly the same as 1995. Inflation is only half of the 1995 figure. Of course, real GDP growth in 2002 is only a fraction of 1995. Bottom line, its much harder to find a job right now if your out of work than in 1995, but the number of people actually out of work is about the same percentage wise. The lack of GDP growth this year is helping to keep inflation low.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-23-2002, 07:20 AM   #27
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:05 AM
Hello Sting,

thanks for sharing this data with us!
As we can see since the earily 80's inflation went down drastically. That's great work! I'm not sure who's responsible for that but in Europe it would be the work of the "bank of issue". It's much easier to controll the inflation than other economy data (for example simply by in- or decreasing the no. of Dollars which are availible.

Unemployment is a verry seriouse number - really important!
Maybe that shows the advantage of the US economy model.
But Unemployment grew in the last 2 years to the value of 1995 that's pretty dramatic for just 2 years. Off course i don't want to blame the current government for that. Imho it's the (not only) result of the dot-com bubble and wrong balance sheets of the past.

But i don't know how to hanndle the number that just adds these two effects - i'm not used to this "misery index" and i don't like this index, because i think you can't compensate higher unemployment with lower inflation for example.

However, not everybody loves "raw data" so i created a chart for those who prefer visualisations:



Note: because 2002 is speculative it should be handled with care - that's why i changed the 2002 color to red.

Deflation (1933) is verry dangerous for a economy because people tend to wait with there consume if they can - their money gets worth more just by not spending it. (Same for companies and investment)
The effects can be seen in the Japanese economy. That's why Inflation should not go too close to zero (and another reason why i dislike the idea of a simple addition of inflation and unemployment - because high unemployment and high deflation is fatal for the economic system but the "misery index" would be good)

Also it's neccessary for Economy that there is a reliable curency to work with i'm missing some other indicators:

Nasdaq index over the same time (how are the chances of companies to get money from the market)
also verry interesting:
GDP : Gross Domestic Product
GNP : gross national product
Import and Export
The No. of new founded Companies and the no. of Companies who have gone bankrupt
and the No. of people who don't get enough money to live.

I'd be courious to get that data too - is there a Statistical website from the US-Government which could provide that data?

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-23-2002, 01:28 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 05:05 AM
Re: Cool It

Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony

Some people have already crossed the line, I'm asking everyone to cool it.
Ok, Ant. Iīll take this as a chance to not waste my time with useless answers at garibaldo.

What would interest me much more on this thread (than what I am currently doing at my work, anyone who is interested may PM me as well) is a definition of the different stages of capitalism.

I would be especially fond to discuss the example of Chile 1973, the political changes, and that (theory!) Pinochet was installed as an example to see how neoliberal concepts would work under control of a dictatorship. An example for Thatcherīs and Reaganīs policies.

And lets talk about import-substituting industrialisation. Sorry that I donīt have more time at the moment. Have to go.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 10-23-2002, 04:52 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Klaus,

I have the other statistics you mentioned except for the Nasdaq Index. My statistics come primarily from my Macroeconomics textbook while the rest, current info, comes from the annual year book for "The World Book Encyclopedia". I love the graph you made, that looks great! In this post I'll give the Real GDP(in 1987 dollars)/ percent change in adjusted(1987) GDP/ and Net Exports; for the years 1929 to 1994. After 1994, I only have GDP in current dollars and should have international trade balance or net exports. Here goes:

Note: GDP from 1929 to 1994 is adjusted for inflation to 1987 dollars in order to give a proper comparison. All GDP figures are in BILLIONS of dollars. So 1,300.0 is 1,300 Billion, or 1 Trillion 300 Billion. Net exports(Imports subtracted from Exports) are NOT adjusted for inflation and are given in Billions of dollars. NOTE: percent change in real GDP is change from previous year. The early years in this chart have many GAP years so you will not be able to see it reflected in say GDP numbers from 1929 to 1933. Percent Change in GDP in 1939 is from 1938, not 1933. Yearly Statistics are given for everything from 1958 to 1994.


Year/ Real GDP in 1987 Dollars/ % change in real GDP/ Net Exports

1929/ 821.8/ - / 0.2
1933/ 587.1/ -2.1/ -0.1
1939/ 840.7/ 7.9/ 0.7
1940/ 906.0/ 7.8/ 1.4
1942/ 1,284.9/ 20.0/ -0.3
1944/ 1,670.0/ 8.4/ -2.0
1946/ 1,272.1/ -20.6/ 7.4
1948/ 1,300.0/ 3.8/ 5.7
1950/ 1,418.5/ 8.7/ 1.0
1952/ 1,624.9/ 4.3/ 1.3
1954/ 1,673.8/ -0.7/ 1.0
1956/ 1,803.6/ 2.0/ 3.3
1958/ 1,829.1/ -0.5/ 1.2
1959/ 1,928.8/ 5.5/ -1.7
1960/ 1,970.8/ 2.2/ 2.4
1961/ 2,023.8/ 2.7/ 3.4
1962/ 2,128.1/ 5.2/ 2.4
1963/ 2,215.6/ 4.1/ 3.3
1964/ 2,340.6/ 5.6/ 5.5
1965/ 2,470.5/ 5.5/ 3.9
1966/ 2,616.2/ 5.9/ 1.9
1967/ 2,796.9/ 2.6/ 1.4
1968/ 2,796.9/ 4.2/ -1.3
1969/ 2,873.0/ 2.7/ -1.2
1970/ 2,875.9/ 0.0/ 1.2
1971/ 2,955.9/ 3.1/ -3.0
1972/ 3,071.1/ 4.8/ -8.0
1973/ 3,268.6/ 5.2/ 0.6
1974/ 3,248.1/ -0.6/ -3.1
1975/ 3,221.7/ -0.8/ 13.6
1976/ 3,380.8/ 4.9/ -2.3
1977/ 3,533.2/ 4.5/ -23.7
1978/ 3,703.5/ 4.8/ -26.1
1979/ 3,796.8/ 2.5/ -23.8
1980/ 3,776.3/ -0.5/ -14.7
1981/ 3,843.1/ 1.8/ -14.7
1982/ 3,760.3/ -2.2/ -20.6
1983/ 3,906.6/ 3.9/ -51.4
1984/ 4,148.5/ 6.2/ -102.7
1985/ 4,279.8/ 3.2/ -115.6
1986/ 4,404.5/ 2.9/ -132.5
1987/ 4,540.0/ 3.1/ -143.1
1988/ 4,718.6/ 3.9/ -108.0
1989/ 4,838.0/ 2.5/ -79.7
1990/ 4,897.3/ 1.2/ -71.4
1991/ 4,867.6/ -0.6/ -19.9
1992/ 4,979.3/ 2.3/ -30.3
1993/ 5,134.5/ 3.1/ -65.3
1994/ 5,342.3/ 4.0/ -102.1

1995/ 7,500.0/ - / -
1996/ 7,900.0/ - / -
1997/ 8,300.0/ - / -
1998/ 8,900.0/ - / -167.0
1999/ 9,250.0/ - / -265.0
2000/ 9,900.0/ - / -270.0
2001/ 10,200.0/ - / -
2002/ - / - / -

NOTE: GDP figures from 1995 on are in CURRENT dollars. 1929 to 1994 are in 1987 dollars to adjust for inflation. I do not have the figures for percent increase from 1995 on in GDP, but I think everyone can do the math if they want to find out. I'm also missing a few years for net exports after 1995.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-23-2002, 05:38 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:05 AM
Klaus:

Here are three more statistics that you asked for, New Business incorporations(thousands)/ Business failures(thousands)/ Poverty rate (% of population). I only have figures from 1947 to 1994. Here goes:

Year/ New Business inc./ Business failures/ % poverty rate

1947/ 113.0/ 3.0/ -
1949/ 86.0/ 9.0/ -
1951/ 84.0/ 8.0/ -
1953/ 103.0/ 9.0/ -
1955/ 140.0/ 11.0/ -
1957/ 137.0/ 14.0/ -
1959/ 193.0/ 14.0/ 22.4
1960/ 183.0/ 15.0/ 22.2
1961/ 182.0/ 17.0/ 21.9
1962/ 182.0/ 16.0/ 21.0
1963/ 186.0/ 14.0/ 19.5
1964/ 198.0/ 14.0/ 19.0
1965/ 204.0/ 14.0/ 17.3
1966/ 200.0/ 13.0/ 14.7
1967/ 207.0/ 12.0/ 14.2
1968/ 234.0/ 10.0/ 12.8
1969/ 274.0/ 9.0/ 12.1
1970/ 264.0/ 11.0/ 12.6
1971/ 288.0/ 10.0/ 12.5
1972/ 317.0/ 9.0/ 11.9
1973/ 329.0/ 9.0/ 11.1
1974/ 319.0/ 10.0/ 11.2
1975/ 326.0/ 11.0/ 12.3
1976/ 376.0/ 10.0/ 11.8
1977/ 436.0/ 8.0/ 11.6
1978/ 478.0/ 7.0/ 11.4
1979/ 525.0/ 8.0/ 11.7
1980/ 534.0/ 12.0/ 13.0
1981/ 581.0/ 17.0/ 14.0
1982/ 567.0/ 25.0/ 15.0
1983/ 600.0/ 31.0/ 15.2
1984/ 635.0/ 52.0/ 14.4
1985/ 662.0/ 57.0/ 14.0
1986/ 703.0/ 62.0/ 13.6
1987/ 686.0/ 62.0/ 13.4
1988/ 685.0/ 57.0/ 13.0
1989/ 677.0/ 50.0/ 12.8
1990/ 647.0/ 61.0/ 13.5
1991/ 629.0/ 88.0/ 14.2
1992/ 667.0/ 97.0/ 14.8
1993/ 707.0/ 86.0/ 15.1
1994/ 739.0/ 71.0/ -
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ÂĐ Interference.com