The Logical End to Capitalism?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

melon

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Messages
11,790
Location
Ásgarðr
This is just a random philosophical pondering of mine. I don't necessarily even know if I will even agree with what I write tomorrow, so keep this in mind.

...

Looking at the state of some of America's largest companies today--the near-bankrupt state of the American airlines, movie studios, television, radio, <insert industry here>--is quite shocking really.

Truthfully, where do we go from here? It is difficult to imagine that any of these industries will ever emerge from their debt, just as we cannot imagine K-Mart ever emerging, except perhaps acquired in a merger. Mergers, in themselves, though, are hitting their logical end as well. The merger of AOL and Time Warner, the merger of Vivendi and Seagram / Universal...tough times hit and we see its wounds. Hollywood is as teetering towards destruction itself, as cinema ticket sales no longer cover the costs, and the DVD industry is the only thing propping it up.

Media, of course, has been quick to blame it on illegal internet downloads, but such an excuse is just that--an excuse. DVDs, which are in a similar slump as music sales, are downloaded at only a minute fraction of music downloads, due to the prohibitive download size (often > 500 MB) that even tax broadband connections (which, as found, are even a small fraction compared to modem users in America). Television networks are seeing a similar slump--ratings are at their lowest ever and have no signs of going up.

Airline industries...CDs...DVDs...what, indeed, do they all have in common? In fact, what do all these near-bankrupt industries have in common? They state that the public just isn't buying anymore...but can you blame the public? Statistics according to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1977 and 1989, the after-tax income of the top 1% of families rose 102.2%, the middle 20% of families fell 5.2%, and the bottom 20% fell 10.4%. Average earnings for workers, in 1982 dollars, fell from $8.55 in 1973 to $7.39 in 1993. And, while the official line claims that inflation hasn't gone up much, just think about the prices of things as they were 10-15 years ago and think about prices of things now--if you can't remember, think about "Now and Then" on "The Price Is Right." ;) Think about automobiles. Think about everything that we are *supposed* to buy. And ask yourself where the hell this money is supposed to come from. Of course, you may be saying to yourself, "Hey...I made quite a bit more over the past few years." Well, bravo...but, sorry to burst your bubble, walk around most urban areas, look at most of the people walking around you, and ask yourself: do these people look like they can afford to jump on an airplane at a whim's notice, purchase a new automobile outright, and buy a lot of CDs and DVDs?

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*? Karl Marx theorized about the logical end of capitalism--that it would eventually destroy itself in enough time. Regardless, it is apparent that something has to change. For the economy to correct itself, there must be some stimulus for the average person to buy. Tax cuts have hit their logical end as well. Bush's tax cut proved to be ineffectual in doing anything--except to drive individual states into fiscal crises, forcing many of them to equally raise taxes.

To sit back and expect the economy to "correct itself" is a misnomer. What stimulated the economy in the 1990s was venture capitalism in the internet--in essence, a new market that never really existed (just look at the state of the internet today--swindlers, hackers, and pop-up ads). Our only hopes are currently hinged on far-fetched future technology--hydrogen fuel cell processes and nanotechnology--that are likely decades away. The last logical end is to get money to the working class and have them spend--and since the private sector is unwilling and/or incapable to do such a thing, the system itself is on the verge of self-destruction.

Your thoughts?

Melon
 
This sounds like one long generalization to me. The movie, television and music industries are not near bankrupt at all.

Recently it was reported that NBC's revenue increased 8.5% to $1.99 billion and operating profits rose 11% to $545 million.

CBS Network also had upfront advertising revenues of approximately $1.9bn in primetime for the 2002-2003 season, versus $1.3bn for the 2001-2002 season.

ABC is sluggish, but definitely not bankrupt.

Cinema sales no longer cover costs? Doesn't this depend on the movie? If we look at Waterworld and the Postman (and other Costner movies ;P ) I can see how one would arrive to that conclusion.

If you look at some recent movies like

My Big Fat Greek Wedding:
Production costs: $5 million
Cumulative Gross: $158,954,054 (according to Yahoo)

There are clearly movies like this all the time with huge gross at the box office and low productions costs. Most movies have huge costs when you take into account actor salaries and marketing, but their revenues are equally huge.

Look at some recent blockbusters:

Star Wars: Episode II:
Cumulative Gross: $302,105,585
(this will probably go much higher with DVDs and other sales factored in)

Austin Powers Goldmember
Cumulative Gross: $212,411,686

Signs:
Cumulative Gross: $224,635,135

Harry potter brought in $1 billion in worldwide sales overall!

I'd go on, but you can look at these companies yourself:
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/moviesconameu.html

Fox's revenue came to nearly 9 billion this year surpassing last year and the year before!

Disney's film business improved 2% to $1.6 billion -- but operating income dropped to $27 million from $164 million.
The company said marketing costs from films such as Snow Dogs, The Rookie and Return to Never Land had to be accounted for during this period. But it anticipates these movies, with average production budgets of $30 million, should eventually earn collective net profits of $150 million.

Sony, whose recent releases include Spider-Man, Men in Black II, XXX and Mr Deeds, has now broken the Hollywood record for highest one-year revenue for a single studio. The studio beat the previous record of $1.27bn (?824m), also set by Sony in 1997, when its hits included Men in Black, Air Force One and My Best Friend's Wedding.

Clearly production costs have skyrocketed, but I don't think that the studios are in the red here.

As for the income figures you've mentioned, which are quite dated, I don't see a huge decrease in consumer spending taking place. The economy is sluggish and flat, but most markets aren't exactly taking a dive. Perhaps it'll take time for this dip to occur, but I don't see any of the major economic indicators indicating the economy is dying. The economy has proven to be much like a seesaw and I don't think that a very short period of decreased confidence in the markets is any reason to postulate about the ends of capitalism (esp given the huge jumps in the dow in the last week or so).

Tax cuts take time to affect the economy. Also, it's difficult to ascertain which parts of the economy are aided by the tax cuts and which parts have been unaffected by the tax cut. I don't think you can argue that the tax cuts he pushed through last year have or have not staved off a worse economy than we have now. Remember, the Fed cut rates eleven times in calendar '01 and the Congress put out historic fiscal stimulus as well. We can't rush to judgement as to the eventually effect of all that. Also, the government is not here to bail out state losses with federal dollars so I don't see why the tax cut caused states to raise taxes.

The state of the internet is still strong in my opinion. Sure, it's not an arena of irrational exuberance as it was before, but the major players are still posting large profits (i.e. Cisco, eBay, etc etc). Amazon even posted its first positive earnings! I see increased growth in the internet as broadband becomes much more popular along with wireless infrastructures. The number of users accessing the internet continues to rise steadily.

"the number of people who use the Internet on a regular basis has dramatically increased from fewer than 90,000 in 1993 to more than 304 million in 2000. "
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/09/01/state.of.the.net.01/

Hackers, swindlers and pop-up ads? Ummm....I'm not sure what internet you're surfing, but I still do basically EVERYTHING on the internet. I listen to music, talk to friends, conduct research and buy almost everything on the internet because it's cheaper (except for food and some clothes). The internet is clearly existent and as important as ever. The venture capitalists made a mistake in investing large sums of money in companies that might never be able to turn a profit. Clearly computer sales skyrocketed, ISPs profited, the backbone of the internet (routers, switches, etc) generated profits, etc etc. These are REAL profits. The non-existent part was the companies that had a bad business model surviving off a bunch of hype and irrational investors. Clearly the bubble has burst and these sales have DROPPED, but sales are still being made every day on the net. I just bought a new CPU from Dell!

Technology is still being created everyday. Just because there isn't a huge boom in one sector every 10 years doesn't mean scientists aren't toiling away. I work with biology\biotech and some of the advancements that they're making are HUGE! Hopefully gene therapy will become a reality and drive health care costs down in the long-run. Computer companies are developing faster CPUs and storage systems that are incredibly small opening up the possibility of tiny super PCs! I also know there are a lot of advances in agriculture, fuel technology, etc etc that are in the works.

So, clearly, capitalism is alive and well. People still want to spend money. They want newer and better stuff. We don't need a revolution in technology each week to keep our standard of living and justify our economic model. Viva capitalismo!
 
I've read in an article, that in the last years the US Government gave more money to the industry than they paid taxes.

If that's true the USA has no Capitalsim at all - it's like Socialism just a little difference..
..the money is taken from the poor and given to the wealthy.

Anyway, the idea that capitalsm works out positive for the Society is naive.
If everyone tries to make maximum profit for himself the rich become richer (because they have more power) and the poor will become slaves of their debts
It would only work out if all people would be nice and willing to help each other..
..but in this case every economic model would do it

Klaus
 
Last edited:
melon said:
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*?Your thoughts?

Melon

i agree melon.

as much as i agree with your growing disparity between income and expenditure for the normal individual analysis i will ignore that. do so and what you have described is called the law of relatively constant media expenditures. the law states that household expenditures on media + entertainment products and services are resoundinly elastic. each household has an established level of money income that can be spent on such items and it takes a large income effect to be changed in an upwards direction.

i can't find the resource right now but it has been proven in the canadian market for the eighties and nineties i believe.

as for the end of capitalism...i think we are more likely to see a more dynamic model with no behemoths. just many players, very few of them(if any) across all industries acting as price setters. most will be price takers. this is suggestive of mansell's idealist model vs. the strategic model(where oligopoly or, worse, monopoly rules).

i guess i am agreeing that capitalism is nearing the edge of its existence, as we know it. however it will prosper, and we as a society will hopefully be the better for it.
 
MadelynIris said:


And this is why Russia and China both have turned to capitalism in the last 10 years?

??

Mark

- Not everything governments deciede is done because it was better for their country.
- I didn't say that capitalism was the worst model.
- Also.. i'm sure that some people (with lots of influence) made lots of profit with t his decision - that dosn't result in profit for everyone (when you take a look how many poor people in the former USSR don't earn enough money to live anymore.

Klaus
 
These people aren't poor because the country has turned towards capitalism. They're poor because of their communist history and widespread corruption. The rich might be getting richer in this country and the gap between the rich and poor might be widening, but what matters is the income of the poor relative to the income necessary to meet basic needs (such as those laid on in Mazlow's hierarchy). The middle class is still strong in America and we're not seeing a huge shift of people from the middle class to below the poverty line. They might not be able to afford yachts and caviar, but they can meet their basic needs and will probably never support a revolution against the current system. Sorry to let all of you socialists down. It's only the young rebels and former hippies who talk about a turn to socialism really.

See that staircase? Yes, that's the one, it will lead you away from the ivory tower. Back down to....reality.
 
Hello,
do i get you right that with "communist history" you you're refering to their planned economy?

A better example for the failiure of pure Capitalism might be New Zealand. They changed from social market economy to "pure capitalsim" they did everything you can read in the books, liberal markets, less regulation - and it just got worse for the people living there. Also a few became verry rich - overall the pople there had less then before.

Corruption appears in Capitalism, Communism as well as in social market economy. Corruption leads to wrong politics (Buying laws). *wild conspiracy theory start* Maybe corruption lead to Capitalism in Russia? *wild conspiracy theory end* (okay that was a joke - don't take it serious)

"but what matters is the income of the poor relative to the income necessary to meet basic needs"

100% agree - but that's the problem in the former USSR id didn't work out - just the rich became richer and the poor got less relative to the income necessary to survive.

I read in an article that the middle class is the big looser in the US in the same time where top managers raised their income more than 100% the middle class lost more then 10%. (the costs for housing, food, fuel,.. increased also)

As i said before, there are worse things than Capitalism - but stopping to think about beter alternatives will lead to stagnation (in it's best case).

Just fools can seriousely ask for a change to planned economy but capitalism at it's finest (deregulation) dosn't work out either.
It will lead to abuse of power (as we can see).

Imho Marx work "Das Kapital - Kritik an der Politischen ?konomie" is a interesting but dangerous book - dangerous because it can lead to wrong conclusions. He was a bright observer, throw away his conclusions and make up your own.

If Marx is a political taboo for you take a look at the work of the "Club of Rome" it's less missleading but it shows that our capitalsm dosn't work for long term future.

Klaus
 
garibaldo said:
This sounds like one long generalization to me. The movie, television and music industries are not near bankrupt at all.

You make great points, and I thank you for making them. What is highly interesting is the fact that it is *the media* itself making these statements about its own poverty. The question, hence, is whether the media is lying to garner sympathy--perhaps in the form of government subsidy-- or whether it really is blowing all of its money.

True, there are films like "Harry Potter" and "Lord of the Rings." But then there are many like "The Adventures of Pluto Nash," which cost upwards of $100 million to make and only made about $3 million.

Television has hurt since the expansion of cable broadcasting. In the early 1980s, a TV show that had a 20 rating would be considered for cancellation. The top shows now barely hit a 15 rating. The difference now, though, is the sheer expense of television programming. E.R., for instance, costs well over $1 million an episode before one even factors actor salaries. The rise of "reality shows," hence, have been their saving grace; no real writers, no actors, etc. The question, though, comes as to whether society will accept this form of television programming in the long-term.

Technology is still being created everyday. Just because there isn't a huge boom in one sector every 10 years doesn't mean scientists aren't toiling away. I work with biology\biotech and some of the advancements that they're making are HUGE! Hopefully gene therapy will become a reality and drive health care costs down in the long-run. Computer companies are developing faster CPUs and storage systems that are incredibly small opening up the possibility of tiny super PCs! I also know there are a lot of advances in agriculture, fuel technology, etc etc that are in the works.

I agree with you here. I have confidence that this will, indeed, bring great, concrete prosperity in the future--unlike the false-bottomed prosperity of speculative dot-coms. The question I ultimately pose, in the end, is, first, what are we supposed to do in the 10-20 year interval before this is a reality, and, second, if the general public shall be able to afford it.

And, just to clear confusion for anyone, I don't want capitalism to collapse. I just have clear concern about the manner that capitalism has been conducted over the last 10-20 years. It certainly does not feel like a good sign when you have mega-conglomerates near bankruptcy and whole industries (i.e., the airline industry) in poor health. Combine that with large personal debt, long work hours, and issues of corporate irresponsibility, and I wonder if some degree of re-regulation is warranted.

Anyhow, much appreciation for the detailed response to this topic...

Melon
 
Re: Re: The Logical End to Capitalism?

Klaus said:
IIf that's true the USA has no Capitalsim at all - it's like Socialism just a little difference..
..the money is taken from the poor and given to the wealthy.

Truthfully, complete, unregulated capitalism is what Karl Marx experienced. Capitalism of the late 19th century was a nightmare--long hours, little pay, little workers' rights, child labor, industry monopolies, and wealth concentration like you wouldn't imagine. The likely thought of Marx was that, at this rate, capitalism would eventually consume itself--e.g., all companies would eventually merge into one mega-company that would collapse--and implode on its own.

However, Marx died before the Progressive Era of the first two decades of the 1900s, where the idea of regulated capitalism came into play. Here, we had most of these abuses ended through government legislation. Between the last two decades, however, many of these "protections" have been lifted; and, as expected, upon deregulation, the abuses returned. California's utility deregulation, for instance, returned the power companies to the same chaotic state 100 years ago--private utilities manipulating supply for high prices. Regulation had assured they would be nothing more than non-profit regional monopolies.

So, with the trend of deregulation, the thought of Marx's ominous theory of self-destruction has some relevance. Can capitalism *really* thrive in complete theoretical deregulation, or is regulation required to keep capitalism in check from destroying itself?

Melon
 
MadelynIris said:


And this is why Russia and China both have turned to capitalism in the last 10 years?

??

Communism is a failure, because it assumes that people will be happy being all the same. The idea of advancement--"greed"--is a pivotal part of human nature. However, it is my belief that one is not forced to choose between one extreme--laissez-faire capitalism--and the other--Soviet-style communism. Capitalism is the only current system that satisfies our need for advancement, but it is my view that regulation is needed to temper the potential abuses that such "greed" may cause; and, even with regulation, one still had millionaires and billionaires.

Melon
 
melon said:


You make great points, and I thank you for making them. What is highly interesting is the fact that it is *the media* itself making these statements about its own poverty. The question, hence, is whether the media is lying to garner sympathy--perhaps in the form of government subsidy-- or whether it really is blowing all of its money.

True, there are films like "Harry Potter" and "Lord of the Rings." But then there are many like "The Adventures of Pluto Nash," which cost upwards of $100 million to make and only made about $3 million.

Television has hurt since the expansion of cable broadcasting. In the early 1980s, a TV show that had a 20 rating would be considered for cancellation. The top shows now barely hit a 15 rating. The difference now, though, is the sheer expense of television programming. E.R., for instance, costs well over $1 million an episode before one even factors actor salaries. The rise of "reality shows," hence, have been their saving grace; no real writers, no actors, etc. The question, though, comes as to whether society will accept this form of television programming in the long-term.



I agree with you here. I have confidence that this will, indeed, bring great, concrete prosperity in the future--unlike the false-bottomed prosperity of speculative dot-coms. The question I ultimately pose, in the end, is, first, what are we supposed to do in the 10-20 year interval before this is a reality, and, second, if the general public shall be able to afford it.

And, just to clear confusion for anyone, I don't want capitalism to collapse. I just have clear concern about the manner that capitalism has been conducted over the last 10-20 years. It certainly does not feel like a good sign when you have mega-conglomerates near bankruptcy and whole industries (i.e., the airline industry) in poor health. Combine that with large personal debt, long work hours, and issues of corporate irresponsibility, and I wonder if some degree of re-regulation is warranted.

Anyhow, much appreciation for the detailed response to this topic...

Melon

Actually, the airline industry has been hyping its own demise more than the media because the government appears so willing to bail it out. Also, the airlines know that the American economy will stagnate if they all go bankrupt because so many business travelers depend on airlines.

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 doubt that will take 10-20 years for new technology to present itself. The work being done in university labs is quickly becoming a reality. All technologies have been expensive to start with. VCRs cost several thousands dollars and my first 286 computer cost well over a thousand. It'll take time, but everything eventually becomes affordable (everything within reason). I'm not suggesting a laissez-faire (sp?) model. I agree that some regulation is necessary. I'm sure we'll disagree as to how much regulation is necessary. For example, while some liberals might demand a living wage for third world industrial workers, I would disagree and point out that any government imposing those rules may quickly lose those industries leaving the workers much worse off.

I hoped that cleared up my position.
 
garibaldo said:

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. You?re 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 don?t 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, isn?t 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 wife?s 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 don?t do well in two films they should be fired" is playing into the hands of the suits that don?t 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 knockin? 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.

It?s 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 don?t 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 don?t 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.
 
Re: Re: Re: The Logical End to Capitalism?

melon said:

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
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:


Yes it did. You?re 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 don?t 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, isn?t 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 wife?s 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 don?t do well in two films they should be fired" is playing into the hands of the suits that don?t 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 knockin? 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.

It?s 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 don?t 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 don?t 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! :mad: 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. :censored: :mad: :censored: :mad: :censored: :mad: :drool:
 
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.
 
garibaldo said:


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! :mad: 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 didn?t 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 wouldn?t get the chance to do a second album in the current climate.

Companies don?t 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 don?t earn a penny with the salaries of incompetent A&Rs or CEOs who can?t 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 don?t 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 wasn?t trained or brainwashed by anyone, that?s 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 :evil: :lol: :evil: -
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 don?t see that much, except of beggars on our own streets)."

Final question: what raised you, sucker? A banana?
 
melon said:
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.
 
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. :up:
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:


"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 didn?t 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 wouldn?t get the chance to do a second album in the current climate.

Companies don?t 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 don?t earn a penny with the salaries of incompetent A&Rs or CEOs who can?t 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 don?t 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 wasn?t trained or brainwashed by anyone, that?s 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 :evil: :lol: :evil: -
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 don?t 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!?:lol: :lol: :lol:

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:

USinflunemmisery.gif


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
 
Last edited:
Re: Cool It

Anthony said:

Some people have already crossed the line, I'm asking everyone to cool it.

Ok, Ant. I?ll 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 Thatcher?s and Reagan?s policies.

And lets talk about import-substituting industrialisation. Sorry that I don?t have more time at the moment. Have to go.
 
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.
 
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/ -
 
Back
Top Bottom