but the 0% interest rates were an important tool during the recession

by who and in what?

ah my bad, I should've been more specific

yeah I understand your idea, I just wanted some specific examples

maybe some individual names or specific investment banks and what they did with the money they borrowed from the fed

right the fed sets the interest rates on the money that they give out

but im asking for specific examples of individuals or banks that pulled money from the fed because of the 0% interest rate and invested it in a bad way

well yeah individual investing is a decent chunk, but most investment is done by large banks such as vanguard, boa, merrill lynch

these big banks are the primary "customers" of the fed

you may be surprised but its really banks who do the majority of investing in the economy

ordinary people just don't match up to the 5 trillion of assets that vanguard has alone, even when you collect the people in large groups

well i'm not really sure how to show you how institutions trade more than individuals, no real research on that

but i think the best way is to look at the ownership of top companies

apple is a bit over 60%, amazon, is around 60%, alphabet is 70, netflix is over 70, facebook is over 70

the vast majority of companies are owned by institutions such as those banks i mentioned before, individuals are usually only a few percent of total holders

where's kasich

huh, weren't you in the fn beta server? @Colonel Sanders™

long time

well again, I wasn't referring to individual ownership of stock

most companies are owned by institutions who take money from the fed

it's this investment that allows these companies to grow

yeah of course i mean borrow

the 0% interest rates enourages this lending practice

sometimes it can be hurtful

but during the end of obama's tenure I don't think it was

there was good growth and there still is

well at a 0% interest rate, they are basically giving them money for free lol

state banks are smaller than federal banks

I think what sideisnothere is trying to say is that feudalism is a form of authoritarianism

which gets confused with socialism because of countries in the past like USSR and nazi germany

who combined the two

and the US to a certain extent as well

yeah but the first one isn't really possible on any real scale of people and thats where the control of the government comes in

so i'd say both of you were right

i think he was talking about realistic socialism such as was implemented in countries and you were talking about the theoretical one as per the definition you gave

yeah the abortion issue is very interesting

on one hand, you don't want to potentially end someone's life

but on the other, you don't want to limit the rights of the mother

the baby or the mother?

yeah, it's definitely bad if people stop giving a shit about consequences because they can just abort it

honestly trump is very smart

i'm not sure how he plays and manipulates the country so well

but looking at the government shutdown for example

his supporters don't really care, the majority of federal employees are democrats who donate to democrats

the majority of people on foodstamps and other government assistance are democrats

it doesn't really hurt him to continue the shutdown

I would also like to abolish min wage, but I know that can't happen

if it were abolished, then yes the free market would determine the wage, but for low skill labor such as being a stocker at a grocery store, you wouldn't be paid well at all

most people don't have the skills to find well paying jobs, and if they did, there would be mass shortages

paid well for stocking shelves?

how much would you pay someone to do that

but for a low skill job, you don't need to pay competitive wages

a lot of people can replace the guy going out because you don't need a skill

well those people who reject the opportunity to work, what happens to them? they can't live off 0 income

`You do or you won't get employees`

are you saying that if a firm were to pay non competetive wages, that they would not get employees?

well where would those people don't want to work at that firm due its low wages go?

in a perfectly competitive market, without government intervention, collusion between firms would prevent that sort of competetion

but the firms are the market, if they cut their variable costs by colluding and all setting a similar low wage, why wouldnt they?

there's no government to stop them, only other firms who would lose profit by doing that

where?

but what if that other market also wants to seek higher profit margins and does the same thing

hm but those shortages can't last indefinitely, people need money, so they will eventually settle for the low paying job because thats all they have

thats what happened in China over a decade ago

people work for cents per day

okay what about all the other countries that have cheap labor

cambodia

free market, but low wages

oh in their data hong kong is #1

but plenty of cheap products come from there that are made with low wages

yes the min wage is 32.5 HKD

which is roughly 4 USD

scaling for differences in cost of living

thats less money comparatively

according to numbeo, hong kong experiences a higher cost of living compared to the US

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=Hong+Kong

with lower wages

but the people there have to accept the min wage work to survive

well it's the freest in the world according to that site you linked

so it would be fair to compare hk to manhattan, also high rent prices

similar population

government mail isn't good

you pay for stamps and to send packages

yeah, fedex's rates aren't that high either

but before fedex came, the usps had no reason to improve

it took longer to ship packages

but because there's now competition, we have stuff like 2 day shipping and overnight

fedex

UPS

amazon has sort of their own

the USPS isn't profitable, but other types are

well, you pay them indirectly via taxes

and directly through stamps and other costs

but when the USPS was a monopoly, they had no reason to offer better service because they had no competitor

but when other shipping companies came about like fedex who started to offer very fast delivery for not that much more, they needed to change and do the same

if there was only the usps, I don't think companies like amazon could be offering 2 day delivery for prime members as they do now

well they probably would've eventually, but it would've taken longer

and amazon would have to lobby for changes

I don't think recovery was delayed until after WW2