I don't know where Teeri is, is he banned? Teeri is the Lion of Ogaden Son of Wiilal Kingdom of Absame lol, what the hell, surely he can't be banned?
Teeri is a no-nonsense free market advocate and believes in a minimal govt intervention and low taxes. He has made it clear he is 'pro business' but hasn't pointed out what his positions are around many areas and it's time Teeri comes out and answers this. I am assuming he believes in a market place that is controlled by supply/demand or basically production vs consumption and throughly believes in business competiton to ensure products and goods are based on the best market rates and not inflated due to 'monopoly'.
There is 3 market philsophies. Communism/Socialism/Capitalism, most of the time there is mix of all three in most nations. Communist has many benefits but has been so 'demonized' by the 'capitalist' on grounds of 'greed' and not it's benefits for the 'public'. In a communist market, ownership of production is the 'govt' and so is 'land'. Land/Production/Consumption/Wages are all strictly controlled thru 'govt intervention'.
This leads to no private ownership of anything in the state. So basically everything is owned by public. The benefits of this is if run correctly, it can create a more 'equal' society in terms of 'wealth'. It can be 'adjusted' to create a 'heirachy' of wealth among citizens but generally speaking, it's purpose is to ensure majority of citizens become a 'middle class' and eliminates the need for 'capitalist class' or a 'poor class'. How it does that is thru simply owning everything in the state and pricing the market based itself.
For example if your a poor person, you maybe given a 'concession card' or something like that to purchase a house, food, clothes, medical care. If your in the middle class then you pay more taxes to ensure more poor people enter the 'middle' since the community is at the 'core' of the philosophy not the individual. Wealthy class if it does exist will also be told to 'redistribute' more back in taxes so the middle and lower class grow according the 'govt vision'. Is it perfect? well not if fully implemented but neither is 'capitalism' if fully implemented a perfect solution. This is where socialism comes in and borrows many of the capitalist and communist ideas and combines it to create a 'socialism'.
Socialism calls for govt and private ownership combined for example usually most socialists prefer to ensure that 'key infrastructure' like ports/airports/electricity/water/roads/communication facilities are in the hands of govt and not a business due to fear of an ogligarch developing. It promotes a free market but also has ' govt interventions' in the market around identified areas such as 'housing' or 'health' being the big ones since they believe all citizens should have a home and medical care as a basic 'human right' and therefore thru their interference they can create 'schemes' for poor people or middle class to ensure that is seen through.
Like 'easier access to mortgage' or 'wage manipulation' or 'subsidized housing plots'. It does the same around 'health-care' interfering to ensure 'cheap hospital, surgery, and medicine prices which they make the people pay for it thru higher taxes'. They don't tend to interfere how-ever in private ownership of business and land nor areas of products/goods/services and consumption unless of course it's an area they identify as a 'right' for all. As their motto says 'needs' are 'rights' and 'wants' are choices lol.
Anywhere it's just a 'want' like a car, laptop, tv, massage' they consider it's under the domain of 'market' and it's your choice how u find your way to pay for it. However areas they consider as 'needs' like water,food, housing, medicine will all be 'regulated' by the govt or 'controlled' by the govt. If it's regulated then they don't run it but they ensure who-ever is running it they have to work within certain 'guidelines'. They believe in workers unions using 'numbers' in 'strength' theory to 'negiotate' with capitalist 'worker rights, conditions, and pay' or they may encourage 'govt' creates the conditions, rights, and wages themselves to eliminate exploitation.
Finally you got the 'capitalist' market theory, they hold onto the view that the market will regulate itself thru production being aligned to consumption and they argue if more businesses are created it will lead to competition between businesses and therefore creating 'market' rates. They argue low taxation is 'paramount' to increase businesses into the market as it provides an 'incentive' to capitalist that they're earnings will be larger then when it's taxed highly.
They also argue the 'tax break' they get will result in further job growth thru investments(which lots disagree with this and believe they just offshore the excess they get thru less taxes) which I agree with also because in their philosophy if u understand carefully they say 'production is linked to demand' so it makes no sense they will re-invest the excess from tax break into more businesses when the 'demand' hasn't changed lol and therefore it's more believable they will 'offshore' the tax breaks.
Capitalist argue that workers should also come under the supply/demand philosophy and that workers should compete and set their own 'labour rate' like businesses set their on product rate based on market competition. They fear if govt gets involved in this area it can lead to them paying more then what the worker is worth due to 'laws' in place. They believe to get best value out of money is thru competition and all workers should compete and set their rates to companies. They also argue the chances of 'exploitation' are minimal in capitalism because no-one will work below market rates and they argue production vs demand is what determine market rates. If the demand increases, production increases, people get more jobs as a result they say. They argue no-one will work for a company that pays anything below 'cost of living' indexes which they argue is also a result of 'market forces' at play.
Anyways I hope I gave u a guys a run-down of all the various economic philosophies in a simplified way without being bias towards one over the other and listing their pros/cons and being honest that most nations adopt 'mix' of capitalist/communist/socialist policies to form a home-grown adapted market system.
I do believe in the philosophy a 'strong middle' class should the 'vision' of any govt and a middle class is defined as someone that has an 'asset' such as a property, spending power to generate services/goods/products to be consumed more and thus generating more production which creates jobs as a side effect. I think there has to be an 'intervention' of the govt to 'price' housing based on local salaries or else it will be impossible to create a middle class or at least subsidize land plots for 'different income capacities'.
I think infrastructure should be controlled by govt and not private ownership so the community needs to pay it's taxes and grab these lifelines, it's better this in the people's hand then a private individual who can develop so much wealth it will be impossible to 'regulate' as he will buy law makers that go against this interest. It could lead to a monopoly where businesses do not start up because they can't compete anymore and thus less jobs all around. I don't mind that 'wealth' has no restriction untill it becomes 'unproductive'. For example when it becomes where 1 man has 100 million yet he doesn't create '100 million dollars of consumption' this is when I champion 'redistribution' policies to bring out more ppl from poverty into the middle class as I am more 'demand' focused and want to ensure there is consumption before we even call in investors to do the 'production'.
I am very anti one man having 100 million yet millions have 2 dollars, that is why there is no jobs in Somalia, their is simply no demand and therefore production ceases to exist and you end up with a weak market and weak country. It's better having 50k income for 10 million people, then 1 man having 100 million. I will always hold onto this philosophy because that one man will not 'generate' the same demand like 10 million people on 50k will, I hold onto this philosophy because it encourages investors to respond to new consumers. Businesses respond when there is a consuming society not when there is just 100 million dollar guy who only 'consumes' once and that's it when they could go to a country where 10 million people are consuming. Plus it leads to a ceiling in the wealth of a nation when demand stops, u can get only get richer if there is more demand but when it becomes like somalia, it no longer worthwhile as demand has stopped at the 'bulk' and only exists at the 'top' which is 'thin market' to operate within.
Teeri is a no-nonsense free market advocate and believes in a minimal govt intervention and low taxes. He has made it clear he is 'pro business' but hasn't pointed out what his positions are around many areas and it's time Teeri comes out and answers this. I am assuming he believes in a market place that is controlled by supply/demand or basically production vs consumption and throughly believes in business competiton to ensure products and goods are based on the best market rates and not inflated due to 'monopoly'.
There is 3 market philsophies. Communism/Socialism/Capitalism, most of the time there is mix of all three in most nations. Communist has many benefits but has been so 'demonized' by the 'capitalist' on grounds of 'greed' and not it's benefits for the 'public'. In a communist market, ownership of production is the 'govt' and so is 'land'. Land/Production/Consumption/Wages are all strictly controlled thru 'govt intervention'.
This leads to no private ownership of anything in the state. So basically everything is owned by public. The benefits of this is if run correctly, it can create a more 'equal' society in terms of 'wealth'. It can be 'adjusted' to create a 'heirachy' of wealth among citizens but generally speaking, it's purpose is to ensure majority of citizens become a 'middle class' and eliminates the need for 'capitalist class' or a 'poor class'. How it does that is thru simply owning everything in the state and pricing the market based itself.
For example if your a poor person, you maybe given a 'concession card' or something like that to purchase a house, food, clothes, medical care. If your in the middle class then you pay more taxes to ensure more poor people enter the 'middle' since the community is at the 'core' of the philosophy not the individual. Wealthy class if it does exist will also be told to 'redistribute' more back in taxes so the middle and lower class grow according the 'govt vision'. Is it perfect? well not if fully implemented but neither is 'capitalism' if fully implemented a perfect solution. This is where socialism comes in and borrows many of the capitalist and communist ideas and combines it to create a 'socialism'.
Socialism calls for govt and private ownership combined for example usually most socialists prefer to ensure that 'key infrastructure' like ports/airports/electricity/water/roads/communication facilities are in the hands of govt and not a business due to fear of an ogligarch developing. It promotes a free market but also has ' govt interventions' in the market around identified areas such as 'housing' or 'health' being the big ones since they believe all citizens should have a home and medical care as a basic 'human right' and therefore thru their interference they can create 'schemes' for poor people or middle class to ensure that is seen through.
Like 'easier access to mortgage' or 'wage manipulation' or 'subsidized housing plots'. It does the same around 'health-care' interfering to ensure 'cheap hospital, surgery, and medicine prices which they make the people pay for it thru higher taxes'. They don't tend to interfere how-ever in private ownership of business and land nor areas of products/goods/services and consumption unless of course it's an area they identify as a 'right' for all. As their motto says 'needs' are 'rights' and 'wants' are choices lol.
Anywhere it's just a 'want' like a car, laptop, tv, massage' they consider it's under the domain of 'market' and it's your choice how u find your way to pay for it. However areas they consider as 'needs' like water,food, housing, medicine will all be 'regulated' by the govt or 'controlled' by the govt. If it's regulated then they don't run it but they ensure who-ever is running it they have to work within certain 'guidelines'. They believe in workers unions using 'numbers' in 'strength' theory to 'negiotate' with capitalist 'worker rights, conditions, and pay' or they may encourage 'govt' creates the conditions, rights, and wages themselves to eliminate exploitation.
Finally you got the 'capitalist' market theory, they hold onto the view that the market will regulate itself thru production being aligned to consumption and they argue if more businesses are created it will lead to competition between businesses and therefore creating 'market' rates. They argue low taxation is 'paramount' to increase businesses into the market as it provides an 'incentive' to capitalist that they're earnings will be larger then when it's taxed highly.
They also argue the 'tax break' they get will result in further job growth thru investments(which lots disagree with this and believe they just offshore the excess they get thru less taxes) which I agree with also because in their philosophy if u understand carefully they say 'production is linked to demand' so it makes no sense they will re-invest the excess from tax break into more businesses when the 'demand' hasn't changed lol and therefore it's more believable they will 'offshore' the tax breaks.
Capitalist argue that workers should also come under the supply/demand philosophy and that workers should compete and set their own 'labour rate' like businesses set their on product rate based on market competition. They fear if govt gets involved in this area it can lead to them paying more then what the worker is worth due to 'laws' in place. They believe to get best value out of money is thru competition and all workers should compete and set their rates to companies. They also argue the chances of 'exploitation' are minimal in capitalism because no-one will work below market rates and they argue production vs demand is what determine market rates. If the demand increases, production increases, people get more jobs as a result they say. They argue no-one will work for a company that pays anything below 'cost of living' indexes which they argue is also a result of 'market forces' at play.
Anyways I hope I gave u a guys a run-down of all the various economic philosophies in a simplified way without being bias towards one over the other and listing their pros/cons and being honest that most nations adopt 'mix' of capitalist/communist/socialist policies to form a home-grown adapted market system.
I do believe in the philosophy a 'strong middle' class should the 'vision' of any govt and a middle class is defined as someone that has an 'asset' such as a property, spending power to generate services/goods/products to be consumed more and thus generating more production which creates jobs as a side effect. I think there has to be an 'intervention' of the govt to 'price' housing based on local salaries or else it will be impossible to create a middle class or at least subsidize land plots for 'different income capacities'.
I think infrastructure should be controlled by govt and not private ownership so the community needs to pay it's taxes and grab these lifelines, it's better this in the people's hand then a private individual who can develop so much wealth it will be impossible to 'regulate' as he will buy law makers that go against this interest. It could lead to a monopoly where businesses do not start up because they can't compete anymore and thus less jobs all around. I don't mind that 'wealth' has no restriction untill it becomes 'unproductive'. For example when it becomes where 1 man has 100 million yet he doesn't create '100 million dollars of consumption' this is when I champion 'redistribution' policies to bring out more ppl from poverty into the middle class as I am more 'demand' focused and want to ensure there is consumption before we even call in investors to do the 'production'.
I am very anti one man having 100 million yet millions have 2 dollars, that is why there is no jobs in Somalia, their is simply no demand and therefore production ceases to exist and you end up with a weak market and weak country. It's better having 50k income for 10 million people, then 1 man having 100 million. I will always hold onto this philosophy because that one man will not 'generate' the same demand like 10 million people on 50k will, I hold onto this philosophy because it encourages investors to respond to new consumers. Businesses respond when there is a consuming society not when there is just 100 million dollar guy who only 'consumes' once and that's it when they could go to a country where 10 million people are consuming. Plus it leads to a ceiling in the wealth of a nation when demand stops, u can get only get richer if there is more demand but when it becomes like somalia, it no longer worthwhile as demand has stopped at the 'bulk' and only exists at the 'top' which is 'thin market' to operate within.
