Why this country is going to hell

[purveyor of truth]

There was a day when productivity was an honorable thing, more people created, labored over and fixed things we actually needed and used. The car you drove, the house you lived in, the computer you use and the programming in it, the food you eat, the furniture, the clothes etc.

I have watched over the years as the actual workers that produce stuff have been minimized and the leech white collar world of management, finance and manipulation became the good guys. Now we are wildly white collar heavy, everyone that can has fled usefull work. Productive work has been demonized and belittled, sucking the blood out of the system exalted. Capitalism has become a total system of rape.

[timjamz]

You aren't alone in your knowledge. I'm not sure that capitalism is the rapist, but it is the tool of the rapist, for sure.

[Anonymous]

If this is considered going to hell, wouldn't it be most of the world rather than just our country? We aren't really the only ones who are becoming more inefficient with production.

However, I could probably name lots of other reasons on why our country specifically is going to hell.

[purveyor of truth]

However, I could probably name lots of other reasons on why our country specifically is going to hell.

Okay lets hear it.


I'm not sure that capitalism is the rapist, but it is the tool of the rapist, for sure.

Ok, I like that better.

[avolkiteshvara]

Have you been a white-collar worker? You can't objectively speak unless you've seen both sides.

I agree that white-collar work seems to hold more status than blue, even if unionized plumbers, electricians, and carpenters make more $.

Show everyone Office Space and maybe you'll convert some distraught INTPs out there.

Evolution is inevitable. Everyone's job will eventually be obsolete in time.

[Anonymous]

Okay lets hear it.

Ok.

1. We still let the public decide whether or not they get to discriminate against groups (for instance, Alabama only repealed the interracial marriage ban in 2000, and gay marriage is illegal almost everywhere).

2. It's possible (and really quite easy) for someone to die, simply because they didn't have enough money, no matter what their limitations were.

3. Large history of war crimes, and we're keeping the tradition quite alive.

4. A pop culture encouraging rampant and wasteful consumerism, resulting in more and more people finding themselves in massive credit card debt before they're even 20.

5. Increasing levels of corporate waste, inefficiency, exploitation, and plain dead weight all around (kind of what you said).

[purveyor of truth]

Have you been a white-collar worker? You can't objectively speak unless you've seen both sides.

I agree that white-collar work seems to hold more status than blue, even if unionized plumbers, electricians, and carpenters make more $.

Show everyone Office Space and maybe you'll convert some distraught INTPs out there.

Evolution is inevitable. Everyone's job will eventually be obsolete in time.

Maybe half and half, yeah skilled craftsman used to eat low level whites for breakfast on money.

Curious, why is your avatar a black man in a cow suit?


Ok.

1. We still let the public decide whether or not they get to discriminate against groups (for instance, Alabama only repealed the interracial marriage ban in 2000, and gay marriage is illegal almost everywhere).

2. It's possible (and really quite easy) for someone to die, simply because they didn't have enough money, no matter what their limitations were.

3. Large history of war crimes, and we're keeping the tradition quite alive.

4. A pop culture encouraging rampant and wasteful consumerism, resulting in more and more people finding themselves in massive credit card debt before they're even 20.

5. Increasing levels of corporate waste, inefficiency, exploitation, and plain dead weight all around (kind of what you said).

1-3 Are black marks on American society, not reasons for failure.
4 & 5 valid points for what is coming.

[outmywindow]

I think this country's going to hell because people don't use multiquote.

[purveyor of truth]

I think this country's going to hell because people don't use multiquote.

Go fuss at Delilah, she's the one burning up memory.

[Chunes]

Oh boy do I have a lot of observations about this subject. Here are some reasons why I think America is going to hell.

We do not have a sustainable economy. The growth of our economy is exponential. If the implications of this are not immediately clear, consider what it entails. We have to increase the money supply at an exponential rate, which means that we must first increase debt at an exponential rate. This means that the volume of trade must also increase at an exponential rate. This means that more 'stuff' must be harvested from the environment and more 'stuff' ends up in landfills each year than the year before, merely to keep the economy from imploding. All of this with absolutely no regard for the earth's finite resources. That is ridiculous.

Meanwhile, America literally employs economic hitmen to burden target countries with loans from the IMF which we KNOW BEFOREHAND that they CANNOT REPAY. When they cannot repay, we use this to extort resources from their country at a fraction of its worth in recompense, or build a military base there, or whatever. If they refuse the loan, then we send in an operative with a boatload of cash to start a coup or assassinate the leader. If *that* doesn't work, as was the case with Saddam, we send in the military.

We are thugs. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. We run the exact same racket that the mafia did, only on an incomprehensible scale. We are no better than the empires of old. What we are doing is exactly the same thing only more subtle. The cause for outrage is no less, however.

We subvert other countries for our own gain. We are parasites. Our quality of life is made possible only because there are countless sweatshops in countries who employ workers for mere dollars a day who work 12 hour days, 7 days a week in conditions we can scarcely imagine. Countries who are unfortunate enough to reside under the heel of our all-powerful boot. What gives us the goddamn right?

We are also going to hell because there is more money owed than money that exists. The ramifications are downright sickening. For one, this ensures that we keep working despite the fact that we have the GNP to provide life support for every citizen a hundred times over. Secondly, Every dollar in your wallet is owed to somebody by someone. But the thing is, where do they get the money to pay back the INTEREST in addition to the principal? Answer: they don't, because that money DOES NOT EXIST! This means that bankruptcy and foreclosure is MATHEMATICALLY INEVITABLE, even if everyone is 100% studious in repaying their loans.

Fucking sickening bullshit.

Part of me doesn't blame these white-collar leeches who refuse to work. They are only following in the footsteps of our overlords the bankers and hedgefund managers who have clearly demonstrated that fraud is not only overlooked, but fraud on this scale is actually ENDORSED by the government. Why work when you can not only steal money from producers, but manufacture it OUT OF THIN AIR with the endorsement of the government?

[purveyor of truth]

Oh boy do I have a lot of observations about this subject. Here are some reasons why I think America is going to hell.

We do not have a sustainable economy. The growth of our economy is exponential. If the implications of this are not immediately clear, consider what it entails. We have to increase the money supply at an exponential rate, which means that we must first increase debt at an exponential rate. This means that the volume of trade must also increase at an exponential rate. This means that more 'stuff' must be harvested from the environment and more 'stuff' ends up in landfills each year than the year before, merely to keep the economy from imploding. All of this with absolutely no regard for the earth's finite resources. That is ridiculous.

Meanwhile, America literally employs economic hitmen to burden target countries with loans from the IMF which we KNOW BEFOREHAND that they CANNOT REPAY. When they cannot repay, we use this to extort resources from their country at a fraction of its worth in recompense, or build a military base there, or whatever. If they refuse the loan, then we send in an operative with a boatload of cash to start a coup or assassinate the leader. If *that* doesn't work, as was the case with Saddam, we send in the military.

We are thugs. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. We run the exact same racket that the mafia did, only on an incomprehensible scale. We are no better than the empires of old. What we are doing is exactly the same thing only more subtle. The cause for outrage is no less, however.

We subvert other countries for our own gain. We are parasites. Our quality of life is made possible only because there are countless sweatshops in countries who employ workers for mere dollars a day who work 12 hour days, 7 days a week in conditions we can scarcely imagine. Countries who are unfortunate enough to reside under the heel of our all-powerful boot. What gives us the goddamn right?

We are also going to hell because there is more money owed than money that exists. The ramifications are downright sickening. For one, this ensures that we keep working despite the fact that we have the GNP to provide life support for every citizen a hundred times over. Secondly, Every dollar in your wallet is owed to somebody by someone. But the thing is, where do they get the money to pay back the INTEREST in addition to the principal? Answer: they don't, because that money DOES NOT EXIST! This means that bankruptcy and foreclosure is MATHEMATICALLY INEVITABLE, even if everyone is 100% studious in repaying their loans.

Fucking sickening bullshit.

Part of me doesn't blame these white-collar leeches who refuse to work. They are only following in the footsteps of our overlords the bankers and hedgefund managers who have clearly demonstrated that fraud is not only overlooked, but fraud on this scale is actually ENDORSED by the government. Why work when you can not only steal money from producers, but manufacture it OUT OF THIN AIR with the endorsement of the government?

Yep

[purveyor of truth]

I was new in the area so I took a job with a highend company, didnt have a reputation and contacts. $14 hr which I would learn I was "lucky" to get doing highend remodeling. I overheard some stuff, the contractor was charging the homeowner $75 hr. WTF! But this is standard practice. Also where I live its illegal to change a doorknob without a contractors liscense. Jail and fines. This is partly whats wrong with America. I work on my own now as an outlaw but I'll be damned if I work like that. I get raped because of laws, fuck that.

[Chunes]

Ouch. Speaking of such absurdities, does Oregon let people pump their own gas yet?

Good luck as a renegade. You have my 100% endorsement. When the government attempts to subvert creativity and productivity (in other words VALUE) then they are wrong and ought to be disobeyed. I'd post your bail, even, if I had the money at the time (unlikely).

[sandwich]

Ouch. Speaking of such absurdities, does Oregon let people pump their own gas yet?

Good luck as a renegade.

It's best to cut the post right there. Haha, sissies can't pump their own gas. Or do the math for sales tax.

[purveyor of truth]

Ouch. Speaking of such absurdities, does Oregon let people pump their own gas yet?

No, there are two lines of thought on that. Its unsafe to pump your own gas and that it "creates" jobs. Insane.

[Chunes]

Funny thing about sales tax, I worked retail in western Idaho for a couple years and we had an influx of customers from Oregon claiming that we had to waive their sales tax because they were an Oregon resident. It was funny as heck.

(The hilarious part is that I got to reading and there actually is a provision allowing for such a thing. But my managers never believed me. The ultra-hilarious part is that technically, non-Oregon residents are supposed to pay sales tax while shopping in Oregon, but it never works that way unless buying a big-ticket item.)

[purveyor of truth]

Funny thing about sales tax, I worked retail in western Idaho for a couple years and we had an influx of customers from Oregon claiming that we had to waive their sales tax because they were an Oregon resident. It was funny as heck.

(The hilarious part is that I got to reading and there actually is a provision allowing for such a thing. But my managers never believed me. The ultra-hilarious part is that technically, non-Oregon residents are supposed to pay sales tax while shopping in Oregon, but it never works that way unless buying a big-ticket item.)

I've been here two years, Oregon is strange. You'd think it would be old school capitalist but it isnt. Its just weird.

[Pierce]

"Capitalism is the worst economic systems, with the exception of all the others." Actually, the real quote is by Churchill about Democracy, but it's often applied to capitalism as an economic system, and it's broad-brush-true.

I worked as a laborer for several years, then as a manager, then as an owner employing about 100 people, so I've seen the whole range. Truly, there are people in all classes that are a pain. But, it seems to have a lot more to do with "core motivation" than whether someone is white or blue collar or any particular personality type. I've seen people great at labor and terrible, and the same with management. What's really difficult and challenging is what they call "team building," which I don't think INTPs are really cut out for, but it's kinda fun to try it -- as long as your livelihood doesn't totally depend on it (then it's incredibly stressful).

Capitalism is not "bad" -- it's simply an economic system. Capitalism + greedy people, can produce some pretty ugly results, true. Definitely needs regulation (but the right kind, not the stifling, idiot stuff). Actually, if everyone behaved honorably, capitalism would work great -- so would socialism for that matter. The systems aren't the problem, it's the people. So, in judging which system works best, you need to consider the both the government and the culture that the economic system will function in. What's frustrating is that no matter how you tweak and change it, there will always be problems and abuses, and it seems to work about the same whether you're considering the microcosm of a family or the macrocosm of a nation.

Oddly, the USA is drifting toward socialism, while countries that have been steeped in socialism are creeping toward capitalism. My wife and I have owned businesses in US and a communist country, and it's interesting to compare the two.

[01intp]

Bunch of truth.



Great post, couldn't have said it better myself.
It'll sort of be fun watching it all crash and burn...

[ryan_m_parr]

Is it potentially possible, that such a place as China, would be a better place to live in the near future?

[Hexchild]

I think it's partly because Americans tend to say "this country" in an international context and still expect people to know which country the country in question is.

The sad thing about that is I only needed one guess as to which country was being referred to.

[zago]

I'd say there is a difference between producing things and "being productive." Being productive is all the rage these days. Sitting around on your ass in your free time is disapproved of.

[floid]

Actually, if everyone behaved honorably, capitalism would work great -- so would socialism for that matter. The systems aren't the problem, it's the people.

Be nice to yourself and be as nice to your neighbor as you are to yourself resolves the needs of independence and interdependence quite elegantly.

Problem is that people tend to see the two sides of one coin as two completely separate coins when they are not.

Individuals cannot destroy the community without ultimately destroying themselves and communities cannot destroy the innate equality and dignity of individuals without unraveling into chaos.

[MacGuffin]

There was a day when productivity was an honorable thing, more people created, labored over and fixed things we actually needed and used. The car you drove, the house you lived in, the computer you use and the programming in it, the food you eat, the furniture, the clothes etc.

I have watched over the years as the actual workers that produce stuff have been minimized and the leech white collar world of management, finance and manipulation became the good guys. Now we are wildly white collar heavy, everyone that can has fled usefull work. Productive work has been demonized and belittled, sucking the blood out of the system exalted. Capitalism has become a total system of rape.

This is bad only because the SJs and SPs have taken the NT and NF thinking jobs.

I don't like "making" stuff! It bores the shit out of me!

[earwax]

There was a day when productivity was an honorable thing, more people created, labored over and fixed things we actually needed and used. The car you drove, the house you lived in, the computer you use and the programming in it, the food you eat, the furniture, the clothes etc.

I have watched over the years as the actual workers that produce stuff have been minimized and the leech white collar world of management, finance and manipulation became the good guys. Now we are wildly white collar heavy, everyone that can has fled usefull work. Productive work has been demonized and belittled, sucking the blood out of the system exalted. Capitalism has become a total system of rape.
There comes a point in everyone's life when they stand up, look around and say, "What the fuck?"

[NoahFence]

Is it potentially possible, that such a place as China, would be a better place to live in the near future?

No. Maybe for a short time, but they've redlined their engine and it's only a matter of time before it goes P'TOING! and throws a rod. Then they'll have over a billion people who can't afford to purchase a bucket of their own pee. You really do not want to be there when that happens. I give them twenty years, max.

[C.J.Woolf]

The systems aren't the problem, it's the people. So, in judging which system works best, you need to consider the both the government and the culture that the economic system will function in. What's frustrating is that no matter how you tweak and change it, there will always be problems and abuses, and it seems to work about the same whether you're considering the microcosm of a family or the macrocosm of a nation.
I think the system is the problem if it doesn't account for human nature and defend against fraud and abuse. The framers of the Constitution constantly asked themselves "How can the system be abused?" and then wrote in counters to it. Any system can and will be gamed, but the system can always be improved.

One thing that has been bad for the US is free-market capitalism as dogma -- opposition to any regulation, not for pragmatic reasons but for philosophical reasons. This made the system more susceptible to gaming. Come to think of it, perhaps free-market dogma is only a cover for greed. That kind of thing happens when those who own the country also govern it.

Which brings me to another hobby horse of mine. The US Constitution sets up checks and balances between executive, legislative, and judicial power. Well, I believe that political power should check and balance economic power.

[floid]

I think the system is the problem if it doesn't account for human nature and defend against fraud and abuse. The framers of the Constitution constantly asked themselves "How can the system be abused?" and then wrote in counters to it. Any system can and will be gamed, but the system can always be improved.

One thing that has been bad for the US is free-market capitalism as dogma -- opposition to any regulation, not for pragmatic reasons but for philosophical reasons. This made the system more susceptible to gaming. Come to think of it, perhaps free-market dogma is only a cover for greed. That kind of thing happens when those who own the country also govern it.

Which brings me to another hobby horse of mine. The US Constitution sets up checks and balances between executive, legislative, and judicial power. Well, I believe that political power should check and balance economic power.

The system cannot really be separated from the people who design, tweak, and operate on and in it.
The checks and balances of the U. S. Constitution were set up by an elite group of European slave owners for the good of all men they considered to be their peers and they didn't really care about the rest except as economic quanta.
That "founding attitude" is still around today only it has less to do with race and more to do with some profoundly inscrutable system of doling out entitlements to a nebulous good 'ole boy network.
In the old days you could tell which side you were on by what color you were.
Now it's a lot more difficult which makes it easier for them to pull it off undetected for a lot longer.

The point of failure in any system designed to modulate human desire and direct it's path is that someone is always able to co-opt the system and divert it's collective energy to their own ends.

Want to stop computer viruses?
Stop humans from writing code.

Want to have a politcal/economic system that's people proof?
Don't have any people in it.

Neither appeal a great deal to me so I do the best I can and expect the same from my neighbors.

What else is there that will ever really work?

People are the problem and until you focus on the problem, and specifically on the only part of the problem you can change -- yourself -- nothing is going to improve.

This is reality, plain and simple, although I do agree that "systems" are far more interesting to think about.

[walfin]

The reason why everything is screwed up is because the world isn't roboticised.

Populate the world with 3 law robots and there won't be anything wrong with being a leech.

Well, there's the environment and sustainability to think about but if we can turn moon dust into useful stuff or something then that won't be a problem too.

[Etherealsage]

Populate the world with 3 law robots
I pray this never happens. *Forsees many bad things*

[purveyor of truth]

The sad thing about that is I only needed one guess as to which country was being referred to.

LOL, change is coming one way or another. I'm guessing a bunch of fat ass lazy greedy Americans are going to have wakeup calls.

[purveyor of truth]

I don't like "making" stuff! It bores the shit out of me!

Haha I've cheated your profession out of thousands of dollars, in my twenties I was constantly in and out of court on various matters. Always represented myself.:banana:

[pangolin]

Every dollar in your wallet is owed to somebody by someone.

To be sure, this is what make money money. If it did not have this quality, it would not be currency.

[Ferrus]

This is true - but there has always been a middle class of leech-like accountants, lawyers, doctors, teachers, secretaries and clerks (my great grandfathers on my fathers side were an accountant and clerk in the 20s) who don't do materially productive work. Only it has got bigger, and branched into ever more unproductive areas.

I also agree with MacGuffin, but... it was not the SPs and SJs who took those jobs. It was the already somewhat affulent middle-classers who did, regardless of type. There were plenty of NT factory workers.

[tinribz]

The issue your skirting around here is the feminsation of western society. Psychologically and physically.

If you ask me it all started when they invented the pill just take a look at the fish, most of us have been drinking oestrogens all our lives.

Or...it's Natural Capitalism, where an ecomomy grows beyond the constraints of innate natural resources. Into service based.

So the solution is see the country stagnate, or move to a less developed (oestrogen free) one?

[timjamz]

The systems aren't the problem, it's the people.

This summarily summarizes the whole shooting match.

[firch]

But the thing is, where do they get the money to pay back the INTEREST in addition to the principal? Answer: they don't, because that money DOES NOT EXIST! This means that bankruptcy and foreclosure is MATHEMATICALLY INEVITABLE, even if everyone is 100% studious in repaying their loans.
Money is continuously being pumped into the system to make sure that never happens.

[purveyor of truth]

The issue your skirting around here is the feminsation of western society. Psychologically and physically.

I agree completely, I am suprised that you didnt get six different attack threads like i did when I insinuated that a whole lot of guys are pussies nowadays.

[purveyor of truth]

This is true - but there has always been a middle class of leech-like accountants, lawyers, doctors, teachers, secretaries and clerks...... Only it has got bigger, and branched into ever more unproductive areas.

Exactly, and its at a point of nonsubstainable growth.

[MacGuffin]

I agree completely, I am suprised that you didnt get six different attack threads like i did when I insinuated that a whole lot of guys are pussies nowadays.

That wasn't what they were attacking.

[Chunes]

Money is continuously being pumped into the system to make sure that never happens.

In our system, money is literally debt. So no matter how quickly you pump money into the system, debt is always larger.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the reason for this is to maintain a large military and a conspicuous homeless presence.

[SWPIGWANG]

Look like someone has read too much gold standard kool aid.

It doesn't matter. Currency is only a means of exchange and is a running system. One need not worry about when all the debt is returned, because it would never happen.

The "real" economy is what one should be concerned with, not numbers.

[TryIt]

Some of you get it. Chunes gets it. Some of you are still working on it. Without question, we are at a significant turning point in human history.

Some blog entries that can inform you. There are many good youtube videos on the monetary system as well.

The end of a system
http://msncaps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=96751&t=01002463793968972755

Manipulating the Interest Rate: A Recipe for Disaster
http://msncaps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=105179&t=02007302157544552573

Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE

[Chunes]

Look like someone has read too much gold standard kool aid.

It doesn't matter. Currency is only a means of exchange and is a running system. One need not worry about when all the debt is returned, because it would never happen.

The "real" economy is what one should be concerned with, not numbers.

I see that you have not yet understood how pervasive our economic system is in your life and how completely it controls you.

I'll give you time.

And nowhere did I state I support the gold standard. A gold standard would be disastrous for many reasons.

[ryan_m_parr]

3 Trillion dollar war (http://www.good.is/?p=12104&gclid=CLidm-3685YCFQITswodcAczYA)

[Oso Mocoso]

Some of you get it. Chunes gets it. Some of you are still working on it. Without question, we are at a significant turning point in human history.

A significant turning point in human history? I think you're setting the bar really low for a significant turning point in all of human history. This isn't going to be like the invention of stable agriculture, or the germ theory of disease -- vaccinations, antibiotics etc. You know, stuff that significantly changed how most modern people live and die. You strike me as being rather alarmist.

Also ... a quote from an article you posted.


How many trillion of dollars of what we previously have refered to as "wealth" has been completely erased in the last few months? More than I feel up to counting.

More than he feels up to counting? Excuse me? Way to lose all his credibility. This guy is seriously ignorant. Maybe he suffered massive damage to his hands as a young child? That's how most people study the fundamental basics of the number system and arithmetic.

Okay so we lose the entirety of the amount of consumer credit card debt that has been sold in large packages like a commodity. It's a big deal, I'm not minimizing the importance of this issue. But let's assume that NO ONE IN THIS ENTIRE LARGE CATEGORY makes good on their debt. Not one person. How many trillions are we talking? How well does this man need to count in trillions?

One. Fucking one. Don't listen to this guy.

[ryan_m_parr]

Time for Change

Yes. . . Nibiru is approaching :gm:

[purveyor of truth]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/09/19/tent.cities.ap/index.html Most of you here probably dont remember the tent cities of the 80's. Texas had some large ones. So buy your tent now before they're all gone.

[floid]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/09/19/tent.cities.ap/index.html Most of you here probably dont remember the tent cities of the 80's. Texas had some large ones. So buy your tent now before they're all gone.

Or, should they decide to foreclose on your tent or raze your tent city, this (http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-things-you-need-to-survive-the-streets/) might be useful.

[drdolittle]

The system is screwed. People should have more free time but we have less than in the past. Americans work the longest work week in the world. Why should this be? We have machines and robots that have replaced workers. Computers have made us more efficient. We should all be living large. Unfortunately the wealth created has been aggregated in the hands of a few. Real wages have fallen and still people consume stuff like it's not a waste. Seriously, how many of us buy some piece of electronics and then throw it away in less than a year? How many cheap ass plastic toys from China will be given away this holiday season, to be broken and thrown away in less than three months.
Those in charge have encouraged us to buy mcmansions (I know noone did it at the point of a bayonet) by making interest rates artificially low (ie negative) so that the logical choice is to buy the big house with borrowed money, buy on credit and generally consume. Life could be so much better. Third world countries have populations with fewer creature comforts but more time for family and quiet contemplation.
Oh well, my solution. No new debt unless for a business. Don't buy a big house, eventually you'll be too old to take care of it, spend more time with your family-you won't regret that and don't buy so damn much stuff. Some businesses will go bankrupt oh no.

[SWPIGWANG]

The end of a system
http://msncaps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPo...63793968972755


From the link itself:

How many trillion of dollars of what we previously have refered to as "wealth" has been completely erased in the last few months? More than I feel up to counting. However, does the world contain any less resources? Did we run out of metal, sunlight, water, food, or human capital? What has fundamentally changed about the global economic situation this year? Absolutely nothing.

Precisely. As long as the "real" economy of production and resources remain, all those accounting numbers are but IRRELEVANT. Only a dumb Sensor type should consider them as losses.

In reality, it is just a redistribution. If someone goes bankrupt, resource is not lost, it is only the case that a debtor steals money from a creditor. Trillions here and trillions there, its all fine unless you happen to be in the chain. Economic crisis is SO OVERRATED consider it isn't exactly a nuclear bomb going off that result in real destruction, but merely numbers fudging on balance sheets.

The economic system is a system that can be gamed to the advantage of some people. However, as long as production remain, life remains as is.

The capitalist can gain wealth from economic power of money. The government can take the wealth via back taxes. That is the system behind the new deal, the system that saved capitalism. The fundamental principles behind this system remains. There is nothing new in this crisis that hasn't been seen in the past 200 year worth of them. Same old same old.....

Sure, it is a hack that is not elegant but then again so is most of life with all its conflicting forces.

[SWPIGWANG]

Life could be so much better. Third world countries have populations with fewer creature comforts but more time for family and quiet contemplation.
American's sense of entitlement never cease to amaze me. Everyone from the most wealthy man on the planet to the poorest person on the street believes he deserves infinitely more goods and time.

I'm sorry, but Americans are damned rich as it is. For a nation that does not produce much they have consumed far too much.

Sweatshop workers across Asia working for low wages, long hours and horrid conditions deserves far more pay than some random self important American that think his "work" is worth anything. If the world is at all fair than the labor class of United States would be paid the same as labor everywhere else, as opposed to so much higher that Mexicans have to stream across the boarder and instantly get a wage hike by crossing a imaginary line in the sand.

As long as Americans think of the economy only in the context of their infinitely unreasonable greed and entitlement, they deserve whatever they get.
-------------------
To the middle class American, the millionaires are the exploiters. To everyone else in the world, Americans are the exploiters.

Those that don't realize that much of the world have to somehow manage to survive on $2 a day have no right to claim being oppressed.

[Oso Mocoso]

From the link itself:


Precisely. As long as the "real" economy of production and resources remain, all those accounting numbers are but IRRELEVANT. Only a dumb Sensor type should consider them as losses.

Nope. The original link basically admits he has no idea what he's talking about. You think the system of financial accounting is irrelevant. He at least admits that he has no idea what he's talking about. You try to pretend that what you don't understand is unimportant. He's ahead of you in this race.


In reality, it is just a redistribution. If someone goes bankrupt, resource is not lost, it is only the case that a debtor steals money from a creditor.

Yes, but if there are no creditors left, the people who get screwed are the poor and middle class.


Trillions here and trillions there, its all fine unless you happen to be in the chain.

If you're desperately poor, you're not in the chain. If you're in the middle class, you're almost by definition in the chain. If you're in the ranks of the marginally upper class, you're probably still in the chain. If you're among the wealthy and most fortunate few, you can afford to not care.


Economic crisis is SO OVERRATED consider it isn't exactly a nuclear bomb going off that result in real destruction, but merely numbers fudging on balance sheets.

Okay millions of people won't die in a nuclear explosion with many more millions more dying from radiation and cancer. You're right about that. Downplaying the importance of this makes you sound foolish.


The capitalist can gain wealth from economic power of money. The government can take the wealth via back taxes. That is the system behind the new deal, the system that saved capitalism. The fundamental principles behind this system remains. There is nothing new in this crisis that hasn't been seen in the past 200 year worth of them. Same old same old.....

Right. People forced to make soup out of dead rats and grass because they cannot afford better. Old people eating cans of dogfood. Homeless people starving to death in alleys of New York City. Nothing to see here that hasn't happened in the past 200 years. Same old same old.

From my old neck of the woods in western NY: Depression era woman boiling wood in water and ashes to gather fiber.

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/images/photodb/27-0629a.gif

[SWPIGWANG]

Okay millions of people won't die in a nuclear explosion with many more millions more dying from radiation and cancer. You're right about that. Downplaying the importance of this makes you sound foolish.
Oh, it is important alright.

It just isn't "history changing" important. Its like a bad typhoon, bad, but not unimaginable nor impossible to cope with. It has been around, in different degrees, every 10~20 years for the past 200.

Breaking the trust between debtor and creditor could stop the flow of capital, goods and trade that removes all the efficiencies and the advantages of trade and return people to a system more akin to the middle ages than anything.

Smooth flow of the system without flow stopping liquidity crunch or trust breaking inflation and such is desirable to keep the engine of the real economy working. If the system fails into an unbalanced state, it is like the computer of the economy blue screen of death and a long and painful reboot needs to be done.

But such a reboot can indeed be done.


Old people eating cans of dogfood. Homeless people starving to death in alleys of New York City.... Nothing to see here that hasn't happened in the past 200 years. Same old same old.
Hey, life sucks in its default state. Haven't you received a note yet?

Humanity survived hundred of thousand years (and enjoyed it as opposed to collective suicide) on stone tools alone.

The fact that people are complaining about all this with all the dramatic language tell me how much they've forgotten how much the system have given them. Not saying that there is no better systems or that change is never desirable, but do remember what it has done.

------
Perhaps my Ne function is getting me too much me detachment, but it certainly can't figure out the outrage. Looking at things in 50 year blocks as opposed to 5 does that to you, I suppose.

[Oso Mocoso]

Breaking the trust between debtor and creditor could stop the flow of capital, goods and trade that removes all the efficiencies and the advantages of trade and return people to a system more akin to the middle ages than anything.

If that actually happened, many millions of people would die. And you seem to think the people who would suffer the most would be Americans. That's just not true. Most of the people who would die live in tropical places near the equator. Right now, I've been to cities where the urban poor are cared for so little that when the bodies of dead children flow out of the city in storm runoff, no one bothers to identify them. This promises to bring more stuff like that to more places.


Smooth flow of the system without flow stopping liquidity crunch or trust breaking inflation and such is desirable to keep the engine of the real economy working. If the system fails into an unbalanced state, it is like the computer of the economy blue screen of death and a long and painful reboot needs to be done.

Right. Like happened in 1929.


Hey, life sucks in its default state. Haven't you received a note yet?

I believe you have never traveled to a place where a dead child would merely be discarded as garbage.


Humanity could have survive millions of years (and enjoyed it as opposed to collective suicide) on stone tools alone.

Okay, I've seen what enough to give me some concept of what this would look like too and the village elder who greeted us at the perimeter of the reservation was 32 years old. He claimed to be the oldest person in the village. As far as I could tell that was clearly not true, although he did seem to be the oldest male.


The fact that people are complaining about all this with all the dramatic language tell me how much they've forgotten how much the system have given them.

I think you have no concept of what the system could take away.


Perhaps my Ne function is getting me too much me detachment, but it certainly can't figure out the outrage.

You probably just lack life experience. The fact that you suggested that a Mexican factory worker would make more money if he stepped across the border to work in an American factory makes it obvious you've never been to both an American factory and a Mexican factory. They're nothing alike in their per capita productivity or in the skill level needed for workers. They are different by an order of magnitude in production capacity and nimbleness of production.

[!diom]

I don't care.

[SWPIGWANG]

I don't think there is a fundamental conceptual difference in the understanding in the functioning of the economy, but a gulf in the human dimension.

Well, life experience don't come from a forum discussion. Ah well..........


They are different by an order of magnitude in production capacity and nimbleness of production.
Capital and better organization from the bottom level to the highest certain allows for productivity aid ranging from training to automation. That doesn't mean that Americans worker harder than everyone else. It just means they are lucky enough to be born in a land with all those advantages attached. If one replaces an American with someone else with all the same factors, they would do worst.

I don't know if being born an American makes one deserve more, but many seem to think they everyone has the god given right to live like making $250,000 a year if only *insert bogeymen* didn't stop them.


...bodies of dead children flow out of the city in storm runoff, no one bothers to identify them. This promises to bring more stuff like that to more places.
I don't think the "bankers are all screwing us" (and probably should be lined up against the wall) perspective helps them any. Some pain for American tax payers is nothing like rewinding the entire system back into some nebulous one where there are no bankers or something. The bankers played their hand and get burned horribly enough to be toast.

I think that the best way to solve the masses of inequality in the world would be to allow liquid movement of labor so that everyone can benefit from improved government, corporate structure and infrastructure. The monetary system of one national have only a moderate effect on them since it is but one factor in production.

[avolkiteshvara]

Fight, Fight, Fight! Dance monkeys dance.

Anytime someone's economic arguement get too convoluted and hard to understand, its usually cause they have no idea what they are talking about.

[Oso Mocoso]

I don't think there is a fundamental conceptual difference in the understanding in the functioning of the economy, but a gulf in the human dimension.

Right. You can bounce around things the like idea of a % change in the GINI coefficient. Read the wikipedia entry on what that is if you don't know. Here's how it's tracking:

# 1947: 37.6 (estimated)
# 1967: 39.7 (first year reported)
# 1968: 38.6 (lowest index reported)
# 1970: 39.4
# 1980: 40.3
# 1990: 42.8
# 2000: 46.2
# 2005: 46.9
# 2006: 47.0 (highest index reported)
# 2007: 46.3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Do a sort on the countries to list them in order of income equality. You should end up with Denmark being on top as the most equal. Then look at where the U.S. is, and how our numbers are trending. Sorting via the U.N. reported GINI, the most unequal place I've ever traveled was Panama, which is just a little more equal than Brazil. I really wouldn't want to think about what the U.S. would look like with the degree of social inequality that comes from that type of polarization of the rich and poor.


Capital and better organization from the bottom level to the highest certain allows for productivity aid ranging from training to automation. That doesn't mean that Americans worker harder than everyone else. It just means they are lucky enough to be born in a land with all those advantages attached. If one replaces an American with someone else with all the same factors, they would do worst.

Here's what you don't seem to get -- there are precious few people on earth with "all the same factors" and those aren't the people who want to move to the U.S. because they're doing just fine where they are. Americans don't work HARDER than everyone else they work more PRODUCTIVELY. The value created is what fuels the economy, not how hard some schmuck was sweating.


I don't know if being born an American makes one deserve more, but many seem to think they everyone has the god given right to live like making $250,000 a year if only *insert bogeymen* didn't stop them.

Meh, Straw man.


I don't think the "bankers are all screwing us" (and probably should be lined up against the wall) perspective helps them any. Some pain for American tax payers is nothing like rewinding the entire system back into some nebulous one where there are no bankers or something. The bankers played their hand and got burned horribly enough to be toast.

I agree with this.


I think that the best way to solve the masses of inequality in the world would be to allow liquid movement of labor so that everyone can benefit from improved government, corporate structure and infrastructure. The monetary system of one national have only a moderate effect on them since it is but one factor in production.

That wouldn't really help and it would worsen problems due to an excess of global population. I'll recommend you a book called "Planet of Slums" by Mike Davis. If all the people living in favelas around the world were free to move to the United States and Europe, those places would have huge social problems. Davis will give you the "the sky is falling!" Chicken Little version of his message, but the problems he identifies are real whether or not you buy into his hyperbole.

[SWPIGWANG]

That wouldn't really help and it would worsen problems due to an excess of global population. I'll recommend you a book called "Planet of Slums" by Mike Davis.
One thing I haven't worked out is whether poverty is a historical legacy or a modern creation in the general sense. Is slums the result of subsistence farmer moving to city for a (slightly) better life or more comfortable people knocked backwards.

The other question is whether this is a population problem or an organizational one. While nature resources suffer heavily from law of diminishing returns, human resources enjoy the law of increasing returns from network effects, specialization and economy of scale. Without organization, population is only a down side though. In any case, raw population can only be solved by death, which isn't much of a solution.

I have no doubt that the wealthy that has power would unload negative externalities onto the more powerless. I don't think that is an argument for overturning the system, but expanding it.

The idea behind moving those people is so that they can integrate and benefit from working governments, education, more stable economy and access to markets of both goods and capital. This wouldn't be a easy undertaking, but probably a easier one then fighting entrenched forces everywhere. Diluting power structures by adding people with power is easier than smashing one and rebuilding.

The decision making structure (which money plays a role) is probably far more important than the details of each crisis. Like you said, Americans are far from being potentially worst hit. Its government responds and will take some of the heat off. (unequal amounts for each, of course)


I really wouldn't want to think about what the U.S. would look like with the degree of social inequality that comes from that type of polarization of the rich and poor.
If there is something that I really worry about, it is the inequality is actually due to real difference in productivity as opposed to "zomg rich exploit us" which is relatively easy to fix.

In this highly specialized and hierarchical economy, small improvements in critical nodes can have exponential effects. A CEO that runs a $10billion revenue company 1% better deserve just under $100million a year reward. As the layers of economy increase, this wouldn't get better and could get worst.

It is possible that the invention of the so called post-scarcity replicator robots would result in widespread poverty as the vast majority of people that isn't smart enough to work as anything but labor is unemployed and can only live on the forgotten rubbish bins on the margins with 0 nominal income. The market optimizes itself to remove humans in this case.

I don't think trickle up or trickle down has a basis in economic theory but is heavily dependent on the optimal organization of the economy and the solution changes with conditions.

I suppose that is where socialism comes in.

[Ferrus]

I don't know why you singled out Denmark there. All of those Scandanavian countries are centre-left, high taxation economies but they have never been communist - and a brief cursory guide of that list will show that many pre-communist countries have much lower Gini co-efficients for the obvious reason that equality was violently enforced. Some countries (including Russia) are an exception, given the nature of their transition to capitalism, but on the whole such countries have lower co-efficients than the merely socially democratic.

[Dark Razor]

Fight, Fight, Fight! Dance monkeys dance.

Anytime someone's economic arguement get too convoluted and hard to understand, its usually cause they have no idea what they are talking about.

It seems like that would depend on who is trying to do the understanding...

[Oso Mocoso]

I don't know why you singled out Denmark there.

I'm not "singling out Denmark". They simply put, according to the United Nations are the most equal country when measured according to the numbers that make up the GINI coefficient.


All of those Scandanavian countries are centre-left, high taxation economies but they have never been communist - and a brief cursory guide of that list will show that many pre-communist countries have much lower Gini co-efficients for the obvious reason that equality was violently enforced.

Dude! Don't wet the bed. It's just a measurement. It's kind of like saying someone is two meters tall. There's no agenda behind the numbers. All I'm saying is that according to this measurement, the USA is becoming more like Brazil and less like Denmark or if you find Denmark's inclusion on the list objectionable, we could say Sweden if it'll make you more happy.


Some countries (including Russia) are an exception, given the nature of their transition to capitalism, but on the whole such countries have lower co-efficients than the merely socially democratic.

Actually ... that's true but it's also irrelevant. It's like pointing out that people who are well fed as young people tend to be tall. Yeah. So?

If you have a political agenda, the GINI coefficient isn't the only measure to look at because it only measures one thing. There's also the HDI Index.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Complete_list_of_countries

Suddenly those post-Soviet countries don't look so good to live in anymore.

Human Poverty Index (PDF)
http://www.wacra.org/WORLD%20POVERTY%20MAP.pdf

Again.

Here's another measurement called the Theil Index applied to the U.S. on a county by county basis. This map could be called "Where are Americans about to get richer? Look for bright red places."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Theil_USCounties.png

My inclusion of the GINI Index is important because the U.S. culture was founded on the idea that people are equal before the law. In places with extreme GINI coefficients that tends not to be the case at all in practice. There's a sheet showing Transparency International's figures on political corruption. There's a strong correlation between low corruption and low GINI coefficient. If I recall, Denmark isn't the least corrupt country in the world but it's among their neighbors.

I'm not suggesting a solution to this problem, just pointing out numbers that seem to indicate the emergence of a problem.

[avolkiteshvara]

It seems like that would depend on who is trying to do the understanding...

Whenever I see or hear anything from Paul Krugman, Thomas Friedman, or Bob Reich, they seem to be able to succintly sum up complex isssues.

[Oso Mocoso]

Whenever I see or hear anything from Paul Krugman, Thomas Friedman, or Bob Reich, they seem to be able to succintly sum up complex isssues.

Add George Soros to that list.

But they're also deliberately talking down to a pop audience. Soros is a very complex thinker when he's writing for a specialized finance audience. When he's talking about the same issues to a moveon.org audience, he spoons things out simply.

[avolkiteshvara]

Add George Soros to that list.

But they're also deliberately talking down to a pop audience. Soros is a very complex thinker when he's writing for a specialized finance audience. When he's talking about the same issues to a moveon.org audience, he spoons things out simply.

I think I was just saying that it is easy to get so bogged down in the details of trying to prove your point that there is no affective "compiler" to aggregate it all to see who is making progress in the arguement.

Also sometimes people take econ 101 and try to spin intricate stories by cherry picking and only seeing half the equation(Noam Chompsky is guilty of this). That is a different thing though.

[Chunes]

Precisely. As long as the "real" economy of production and resources remain, all those accounting numbers are but IRRELEVANT. Only a dumb Sensor type should consider them as losses.

This facetious viewpoint may sound logical to you, but in a world where every resource is already owned by someone, the only way to gain them back without resorting to "irrelevant" money is theft. I'm not saying theft is wrong in this case; merely that the rich will ensure their continued wealth by having you sent to jail.

[Oso Mocoso]

This facetious viewpoint may sound logical to you, but in a world where every resource is already owned by someone...

Wow. That's breathtakingly weak. Newsflash: you can create new value by MAKING SOMETHING. Or adding value to ingredients by combining them in a new way or performing labor upon them. The fundamental concept would be illustrated by a baker combining ingredients and making a cake which would sell for a higher price than its ingredients. How do you explain the profit margin? Theft? Ridiculous.

So, only if you're a seriously lazy person utterly devoid of any sort of skill or talent, well then your argument holds. Otherwise, not so much.

[Chunes]

I said resource, not worthless trinket.

Examples: oil, lumber, landfill, iron, real estate

Not example: cake, which is not a resource but an amalgamation of resources

[Oso Mocoso]

I said resource, not worthless trinket.

You don't understand the process of value creation, do you? I doubt bakers think of the ability to create value by purchasing ingredients, performing labor upon them, and then selling the product for more money is "worthless". By saying you believe that, you've proven that you have a small child's understanding of economics. According to your thinking, companies like Intel, General Mills or Boeing are simply in the business of "worthless trinket".


Examples: oil, lumber, landfill, iron, real estate

Not example: cake, which is not a resource but an amalgamation of resources

Umm ... nooooooooooo. Not even a little. All possible oil is not in fact owned by someone. Lumber ... have you ever thought you could create some by taking a cutting and growing a new tree? That's essentially the case with any sort of "renewable resource". Landfill? There's no reason someone couldn't make a new one. People could always discover a new deposit of iron. There are still parts of the planet that haven't been well explored. Generally, the ones that are still difficult to get to.

[Chunes]

Umm ... nooooooooooo. Not even a little. All possible oil is not in fact owned by someone. Lumber ... have you ever thought you could create some by taking a cutting and growing a new tree? That's essentially the case with any sort of "renewable resource". Landfill? There's no reason someone couldn't make a new one. People could always discover a new deposit of iron. There are still parts of the planet that haven't been well explored. Generally, the ones that are still difficult to get to.

Everything you just mentioned is impossible unless you own land.

I can't just fucking start drilling for oil wherever I want. That's a great way to find your ass in prison real quick.

[Oso Mocoso]

Everything you just mentioned is impossible unless you own land.

Ha ha in most of the United States, maybe. Definitely not all of it, though. And not true everywhere in the world.


I can't just fucking start drilling for oil wherever I want. That's a great way to find your ass in prison real quick.

That's only one example, and actually people do this pretty commonly in the oil fields of the far north of the globe. That's why there are numerous law suits in international courts disputing boundaries of the countries that want the oil that explorers found there.

And it's not hard to acquire land through producing enough value to purchase it through the process you so naively referred to as "worthless trinket". Possession of STUFF like you seem to be obsessed with does not possess inherent value. The ability to produce "worthless trinket" is inherently of value.

If you just want to know what you don't understand, read "The Wealth of Nations". For a more modern explanation of this process, read "The Machine that Changed the World". That book is a little dated from their recent woes, but it explains why General Motors is going out of business, and why Toyota is doing really well. Also, read about why Spain acquiring huge assets and gold in the New World led to the implosion of their economy. More gold is good according to your way of thinking, right? Why did it fuck their empire in the ass?

[Chunes]

More gold is good according to your way of thinking, right? Why did it fuck their empire in the ass?

Oh please. Of course it'd fuck them in the ass if they were using it for money.

My point is that the people who own stuff (captial owners) fuck the people who make stuff (wage earners) in the ass. That's it.

[!diom]

So, only if you're a seriously lazy person utterly devoid of any sort of skill or talent..

What I'm about to say has nothing to do with the conversation, but.. Sometimes I wonder if the skills and talents that I have would be more beneficial to me if I were a thief. Also, the risk involves losing more than time and money, so perhaps it would be a bit more exciting.

[purveyor of truth]

people who own stuff (captial owners) fuck the people who make stuff (wage earners) in the ass.

As a maker of stuff I can attest to this, but its not only the owners of stuff.
Whole industries (government included) have sprung up and bloated themselves into extrordinary preportions off the backs of makers of stuff. Atlas needs to shrug. Atlas being the worker in this scenario. In truth their are many people that produce, it kills me to see these people taking their fucking like a good capitalist beleiver.

[purveyor of truth]

Wow. That's breathtakingly weak. Newsflash: you can create new value by MAKING SOMETHING.

Newsflash: protectionism and regulations

[Oso Mocoso]

Newsflash: protectionism and regulations

There's not protectionism against "making things", and regulations pertain to everyone equally. Besides which, neither of those really address the point you were responding to.

[Oso Mocoso]

Oh please. Of course it'd fuck them in the ass if they were using it for money.

Do you understand why? And what they could have done differently to prevent that from happening?


My point is that the people who own stuff (captial owners) fuck the people who make stuff (wage earners) in the ass. That's it.

Then you have no understanding of what you are talking about.

Those are not the roles you think they are in the economy. A capital owner is just someone who owns a bunch of stuff. Someone who is capable of *making* stuff is a creator of new value. Neither of them is by necessity a "wage earner", because that is a role which is entirely irrelevant to this concept.

I don't know if you listen to Chris Rock, but he has a sketch where he talks about the difference between being rich and being wealthy. Spain got rich, but the Empire wasn't "wealthy" like Chris Rock talks about.

[purveyor of truth]

There's not protectionism against "making things", and regulations pertain to everyone equally.

Not protectionism against making things? Are you serious?

Regulations pertain to everyone equally? Riiiight. Maybe on paper but not in actual practise.

[Chunes]

Do you understand why?

Because there's no way to control the money supply short of mining and hoarding (unreliable). It's easily thieved (piracy comes to mind). And in modern times, you'd be using a rare resource which has many practical purposes as a means of exchange, a bad idea in itself.

[TryIt]

Manipulating the Interest Rate: A Recipe for Disaster
http://msncaps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=105179&t=02007302157544552573

Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE


Gee, I guess I shouldn't have posted the "End of a System" link first. It's the only one that seemed to get viewed/commentary? I don't necessarily agree with everything by posting a link. I DO however agree that we are at the "end of a system" and a "major turning point," and some other themes (debt-based money) in the blog entry. I have my reasons for believing that this a once in (approximately) 250 year event, so I do consider it a major point in human history. No big deal if you believe that or not. More time will probably be the only convincing factor for you. Regardless, there are other, more relevant, things to discuss and analyze.

Look at the others as well if you enjoy this topic. I wrote the blog entry on manipulation of interest rates. I do appreciate other viewpoints; sometimes you can actually learn something by having a rational discussion. Mostly I do a lot of reading...rational discussions seem rare or often decline into personal attacks.

I also like this one, and I have seen it posted around here before. Maybe the video goes too far in some places (I think so) but the overall viewpoint is very much worth considering. Personally I find it annoying when people cannot get past some particular point when the fundamental topic has tremendous validity and should be discussed and understood by society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8

[Chunes]

Yes, money as debt is an excellent video! I prefer the google video version (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279) though. Plus, it's not cut up in pieces.

[TryIt]

The capitalist can gain wealth from economic power of money. The government can take the wealth via back taxes. That is the system behind the new deal, the system that saved capitalism. The fundamental principles behind this system remains.

I missed this one... How did the New Deal "save capitalism"? In my view it was the end of true capitalism. The government simply gained more and more as percentage of economic activity, ever since. (Pre-New Deal Gov't spending was 12% of the economy, today it is 43%. http://mwhodges.home.att.net/summary.htm) I call that creeping socialism. Lately, it is sprinting socialism. In true capitalism, much larger numbers of US banks and companies would be bankrupt, but instead they are given bailouts from the Central Bank. I suggest you read the Manipulation of Interest Rates blog entry if you enjoy this topic.

[avolkiteshvara]

Yes, money as debt is an excellent video! I prefer the google video version (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279) though. Plus, it's not cut up in pieces.


Cute cartoon. There are some faulty assumptions Paul Grignon makes here.

-If we don't charge interest on loans, how do we differentiate between high risk borowers and low risk.

-The fed buys and sells treasuries, and hence controls the interest rate in an attempt to smooth out economic cycles. Printing money isn't really a good option. Germany did this after the lost WWII. People were literally burning the currency as fuel/fire wood.

-Alot of economic progress of the last 8 years or so has been based on lending. Some people call it a bubble. When the bubble bursts the economy regresses. But that doesn't mean our whole economy is one big bubble. We do produce things of value. Its not just imaginary bullshit.


It kind of reminds of the the LaRushies that are in every college. They convolute some of the facts and don't see the whole picture or how everything interacts together.

People who own stuff do fuck over people who make stuff, that is if they can. Alternatively PurvOfTruth has said he has gouged some of his clients also.
People look out for their own best interest. To be honest, I am not even sure what the last 3 pages of this thread were about or why I am writing a response to it.

COOKIE, COOKIE, COOKIE:gm:

[Chunes]

Printing money isn't really a good option.

We do this every day.

[avolkiteshvara]

We do this every day.

Yes there are mints around the US that print money.

But as a means of managing the economy and stimulating out of a recession, printing is a last choice.

Again I am not sure what point is being argued for or against here.:gm:

[Dark Razor]

Yes there are mints around the US that print money.

But as a means of managing the economy and stimulating out of a recession, printing is a last choice.

Again I am not sure what point is being argued for or against here.:gm:

Maybe it lead to less confusion if people would stop saying that money is "printed", AFAIK only about 2% of all money exists in physical form and has been "printed". Most money is created by banks as a number in a computer, money is created when a bank lends out a loan, there is no printing involved.

[SWPIGWANG]

Let me ask you Randian/Austrian/whatever folks here. What the hell do you want out of this exactly? Different money policy? 100% reserve rates? More stability in economic system? Imaginary equality from changing economic rules? Austrian School "let everything sort itself out" system? A semi-random collection of feeling-based rants towards the existing system?

From what I've been hearing, it is pretty much whining about the ZOMG CAPITALIST EXPLOIT ALL OF US talk that sounds like I came from a chapter of Hegel with semi-coherent rambling about debt debt blah blah blah. Money as debt: What logical inference did it make other than an poorly thought out "zomg its the evil bankers" and "zomg it will collapse coz i say so" by constantly throwing the supposed anti-intuitive concept of bank money at your face. The details and mechanism are left out and left to the imagination, one not dissimilar to the infinite communist wonderland of infinite abundance and equality that is produced via nothing but anarchy and lots of red!

Give me a flow chart of how the supposed "collapse" is suppose to happen and provide the math and the numbers, then we'd be talking. Even the math and the detailed mechanism and evidence on how the supposed ruling class can steal wealth via this system would be a vastly superior alternative than "but it sounds strange so they must be doing something evil." If you can find someone that pockets the wealth as opposed to going bankrupt from their own gaming due to the current "crisis" then there is something to talk about. (note that the bailout is not part of the monetary system) Throwing words at the problem will not provide much understanding, much like throwing adjectives at calculus won't solve a differential equation ever.

I challenge someone here to sort out their position by providing the model of how the economy works now and how it ought to work.

There is certainly lots of space of the existing system to change, but you folks haven't been clear on what the hell you are talking about.

As for manipulation of system to produce boom and busts, that is partially result of the political system as oppose to the monetary one. It would be great to engineer an artificial boom for elections (if only they could do it on demand) and other political purposes, that there is no incentive to change as long as election cycles remain. Stability is only so desirable a feature.

Because there's no way to control the money supply short of mining and hoarding (unreliable). It's easily thieved (piracy comes to mind).
Note: While Spain had lots of gold, other nations used gold too. Spain did screw its own economy with it, zomg that is unpossible!!!1!!!!11 Besides, gold is still harder to work with than a printing press that doesn't even require breaking into anything.

Verdict: There is more to the economy than the currency system. (not that gold helped any, as well)


How did the New Deal "save capitalism"? In my view it was the end of true capitalism. The government simply gained more and more as percentage of economic activity, ever since. I call that creeping socialism.
The new deal allows the biggest whiners in the country to get money from other people, thus averting revolution forever~~~ Anyways, many parts of Europe has managed to get socialism to work (with excellent quality of life for its people), much to the incomprehension to people that have a hard on with "FREEDOM IS SOLUTION" answer to everything.

One of the strangest thing to realize is that different people live fine despite thinking (or not thinking) in different ways, and that societies can work with in a broad spectrum where most are not collapsing at the drop of a pin because they are different.

As for the long run/whatever...in the long run we are all dead.

[bonanza]

I missed this one... How did the New Deal "save capitalism"? In my view it was the end of true capitalism. The government simply gained more and more as percentage of economic activity, ever since. (Pre-New Deal Gov't spending was 12% of the economy, today it is 43%. http://mwhodges.home.att.net/summary.htm) I call that creeping socialism. Lately, it is sprinting socialism. In true capitalism, much larger numbers of US banks and companies would be bankrupt, but instead they are given bailouts from the Central Bank. I suggest you read the Manipulation of Interest Rates blog entry if you enjoy this topic.

That's correct. The New Deal did not save capitalism, it prolonged the the Great Depression.

As far as the notion of companies screwing workers, I frankly don't understand it. Companies have to be profitable to remain in business, i.e., to be able to pay wages.

[Chunes]

Yes there are mints around the US that print money.

But as a means of managing the economy and stimulating out of a recession, printing is a last choice.

Again I am not sure what point is being argued for or against here.:gm:

As Dark Razor pointed out, the mints, as well as physical money, are negligable. My point is that banks increase the money supply without regard for the volume of trade, which should increase correspondingly.

[avolkiteshvara]

As Dark Razor pointed out, the mints, as well as physical money, are negligable. My point is that banks increase the money supply without regard for the volume of trade, which should increase correspondingly.

This is all based on the reserve ratio and and money multiplier as well as other multipliers; which is controlled by the Fed.


If the economy is in the shitter, no one is borrowing money. The Fed lowers reserve ratios requirements, more money is available thus interest rates go down and borrowing is cheaper. Cheaper money incents people to take on investments with lower return, people start spending, and the economy heats up.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "banks increase money supply without regard for the volume of trade". Can you give me an example?

[Oso Mocoso]

Not protectionism against making things? Are you serious?

Yes, I'm serious. Besides which, protectionism generally only succeeds in hurting the economy of the country that is protecting against imports from outside countries.


Regulations pertain to everyone equally? Riiiight. Maybe on paper but not in actual practise.

Yeah, for the most part in actual practice, as long as we're talking about 1st world countries and not really corrupt 3rd world countries. If you want to cite some statistics here I'm pretty sure I can pwn you.


Because there's no way to control the money supply short of mining and hoarding (unreliable).

Nope. It's got to do with supply and demand, as they're thought of in the context of economic thought. Relate this concept to the valuation of currency.


It's easily thieved (piracy comes to mind).

A factor, but a minor one.


And in modern times, you'd be using a rare resource which has many practical purposes as a means of exchange, a bad idea in itself.

We're not talking about modern times.

[purveyor of truth]

Alternatively PurvOfTruth has said he has gouged some of his clients also.

Wow! I said that? I dont think so, my business integrity has cost the shit out of me in passed up "opportunities", my integrity is an actual hindrence [edited by Lurker].

[purveyor of truth]

Yes, I'm serious. Besides which, protectionism generally only succeeds in hurting the economy of the country that is protecting against imports from outside countries.

I've been in and out of small businesses of my own since I was 12 or 13, this is what I notice now. Its grown damn near impossible to get into most things, for a variety of reasons, much of which boils down to regulations and protectionism. Hard for the little man to legally make a buck.

[kendoiwan]

I've been in and out of small businesses of my own since I was 12 or 13, this is what I notice now. Its grown damn near impossible to get into most things, for a variety of reasons, much of which boils down to regulations and protectionism. Hard for the little man to legally make a buck.

:yes: Ask about me:ph34r:


Yeah, for the most part in actual practice, as long as we're talking about 1st world countries and not really corrupt 3rd world countries. If you want to cite some statistics here I'm pretty sure I can pwn you.

He said pwn :joft:

[purveyor of truth]

Ask about me

:no:

[timjamz]

This is all based on the reserve ratio and and money multiplier as well as other multipliers; which is controlled by the Fed.


If the economy is in the shitter, no one is borrowing money. The Fed lowers reserve ratios requirements, more money is available thus interest rates go down and borrowing is cheaper. Cheaper money incents people to take on investments with lower return, people start spending, and the economy heats up.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "banks increase money supply without regard for the volume of trade". Can you give me an example?

Let's see if my economics add up:

I have nothing, so I go to a "bank" who has one thing. I borrow two things from the bank on a promise to repay with three things. Suddenly, the "economy" becomes three, where there used to be one -- except two thirds of the "economy" is actually imaginary.

Right?

[kendoiwan]

Let's see if my economics add up:

I have nothing, so I go to a "bank" who has one thing. I borrow two things from the bank on a promise to repay with three things. Suddenly, the "economy" becomes three, where there used to be one -- except two thirds of the "economy" is actually imaginary.

Right?

:yes:

[Chunes]

Let's see if my economics add up:

I have nothing, so I go to a "bank" who has one thing. I borrow two things from the bank on a promise to repay with three things. Suddenly, the "economy" becomes three, where there used to be one -- except two thirds of the "economy" is actually imaginary.

Right?

Excellent. :theclap:

[avolkiteshvara]

Let's see if my economics add up:



I don't think your economics add up.:gm:

[Chunes]

I'm curious as to what, specifically, you think doesn't add up.

[timjamz]

I don't think your economics add up.:gm:

I'm guessing that you find all the imaginary number juggling to be something tangible and coherent. Unfortunately, if everyone across the globe decided to take a run on the bank, two thirds of them would be "in the shitter."

[avolkiteshvara]

I'm guessing that you find all the imaginary number juggling to be something tangible and coherent. Unfortunately, if everyone across the globe decided to take a run on the bank, two thirds of them would be "in the shitter."

What is your point?

[timjamz]

I don't understand what you mean when you say "banks increase money supply without regard for the volume of trade". Can you give me an example?


What is your point?

The topic is "Why this country is going to hell." My point is that a system largely imaginary ought to have some kind of qualifier for expansion outside of an imaginary need for more imaginary money. I was just offering my view on the statement about banks and trade, since you asked a question - albeit, you didn't ask me. But what's the point in a forum if the discussion is singular?

I don't mean to come off as objectionable, just saying what I think.

[avolkiteshvara]

The topic is "Why this country is going to hell." My point is that a system largely imaginary ought to have some kind of qualifier for expansion outside of an imaginary need for more imaginary money. I was just offering my view on the statement about banks and trade, since you asked a question - albeit, you didn't ask me. But what's the point in a forum if the discussion is singular?

I don't mean to come off as objectionable, just saying what I think.

You are right that if everyone ran-the-bank, there would be a world wide collapse. But that occurs from a lack of confidence in the system.

How SHOULD the economy work? It would be great if we could sprinkle ferry dust on everyone and anyone that thinks a positive thought automatically gets rewarded with a healthy paycheck and good karma.

But reality is that when someone deposits a dollar in the bank, only 3 cents is retained in the bank. The other 97% is loaned out. The guy that got the loan puts his 97 cents in another bank. Now off that $1.00, $1.97 has been created. Is that right or wrong? I don't know it is just the way shit works.

If PurvOfTruth gets a loan and pays it back with interest, it means he had a successful endeavor. Does it matter whether he pays it back with physical dollar bills or income he recieved from someone else's loan. Not really. Something of value was created, a house.

It seems like you guys are trying to tie physcial dollar bills to all financial transactions. Doing might provide more financial stability. The offset is that the economy would come to a grinding halt.


-Banks needs to make sure they have enought deposits on hand to for normal customers to take out $100 for dinner or $1000 for college present or whatever normal expense might occur.
-I think this is where credit standards come into play. Banks can loan "fake" money out to people, but they have to make sure they have good FICO scores.
-There also needs to have good regulatory oversight from bank auditors; the genius Bush administration did away with alot of checks and balances.
-Rational bubbles, like the tech boom in 2000 and the mortgage boom recently also give alot fake money that can hurt the economy. But, this just happens. Shitttt, shit is fucked up(did you catch that, the line from Idiocracy). The central banks can help manage this stuff though.

So at the end of this diatribe, the conclusion I've come to is that the economy works how it works. If we make sure debters have sufficient credit, if banking/financial industry have enough oversight, and if we have objective ethical people in positions of power, it shouldn't matter whether we have physical or digital money.

[purveyor of truth]

Something of value was created, a house.
So at the end of this diatribe, the conclusion I've come to is that the economy works how it works. If we make sure debters have sufficient credit, if banking/financial industry have enough oversight, and if we have objective ethical people in positions of power, it shouldn't matter whether we have physical or digital money.

We are trading too many things of value for things that have no or little value. We can manufacture, we can burn resources and/or we can pillage, this is how we get value. We are not doing enough of this to compensate for what we spend on management* of these resources.

*government, white collar management, gifts to other countries etc

[timjamz]

We are trading too many things of value for things that have no or little value.

I guess that's where my personal stance on it comes from. Tangible goods and resources are a closed system, like matter itself. However, the value we place on it is intangible and flexible, which leads to financial "crises" requiring inflation of the whole value system to cover up the fact that the system really doesn't work.

Eventually, it will implode. Until then, we're just playing an elaborate game (one which I'm losing!).

Donations are accepted. :)

[avolkiteshvara]

We are trading too many things of value for things that have no or little value. We can manufacture, we can burn resources and/or we can pillage, this is how we get value. We are not doing enough of this to compensate for what we spend on management* of these resources.

*government, white collar management, gifts to other countries etc


I guess that's where my personal stance on it comes from. Tangible goods and resources are a closed system, like matter itself. However, the value we place on it is intangible and flexible, which leads to financial "crises" requiring inflation of the whole value system to cover up the fact that the system really doesn't work.

Eventually, it will implode. Until then, we're just playing an elaborate game (one which I'm losing!).

Donations are accepted. :)


I still don't see this amorphus consensus you guys have. We have limited natural resources, e.g. oil. Eventually it will get so expensive that we'll either have to bike to work or invent electric cars or both. Crisis will happen, we'll adjust, new inventions/methods occur, we get back on track. We live in a world limited resources. You are just going to have to deal with it.

[purveyor of truth]

For example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/28/ST2008022803016.html There is a certain amount of jobs (food and housing) etc created by this and some of this is a neccessary evil but its another way we are bleeding, we cant bleed at every god damned thing and expect to have a healthly economy for the masses.

[Zephyrus055]

For example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/28/ST2008022803016.html There is a certain amount of jobs (food and housing) etc created by this and some of this is a neccessary evil but its another way we are bleeding, we cant bleed at every god damned thing and expect to have a healthly economy for the masses.
Or they could start raising more tents.

[SWPIGWANG]

A significant part of America have reach the point of the absurdity of wealth. It is the point where the marginal utility gain from real wealth is less than the utility gain from having more money then the neighbors.

Value is a rather silly thing. When much of physical production is used for display rather than satisfying non-relative demands of the human animal, one wonders about the point.

Its a game, and it won't change as long as people want to play it.


Tangible goods and resources are a closed system, like matter itself. However, the value we place on it is intangible and flexible
The economy exists to serve people's desires, not to serve the job of producing things.


its another way we are bleeding, we cant bleed at every god damned thing and expect to have a healthly economy for the masses.
Whats the bleeding involved? Law enforcement is not a bleed by any conventional though process.

Or do you mean they should all be shot upon capture so we could save on housing costs?

[purveyor of truth]

Whats the bleeding involved? Law enforcement is not a bleed by any conventional though process.

Then lets up it by 500% and see what happens. If what you say is true then this is the economy fix we seek, its jobs right? One job is as good as another right? Value being a silly idea.

[timjamz]

How SHOULD the economy work?

Ask an F a question...

Let's break it down:

eco - Greek (house)
nom - Greek (arrangement, law)
ics - (stuff)

It all started with the concept of ownership. This land is my land, this land is your land. Land has value in its resources and dwelling space. Then some ingenious person convinced some poor sap that shiny rocks or some other such tiny resource were swappable for land! Then some even more ingenious person said, "Hey! I can write all this stuff down for you, so you don't have to carry around all those rocks!"

Someone asked one time if they could "borrow" something, and someone else agreed with the caveat that they'd actually receive more in return for the "favor" of lending it. Whoever was writing the stuff down said, "Wow! I could make a bundle of rocks doing this!" And so it began.

Ideally, trade should work on an equal value basis, but it doesn't - so here we are, "going to hell."

[SWPIGWANG]

Ideally, trade should work on an equal value basis, but it doesn't - so here we are, "going to hell."
If they are all equal value, whats the point in trading!? Its just a waste of time!

Trade happens because things are of unequal value with respect to people.

[kendoiwan]

Vn0_roLpv18

[kendoiwan]

AaUkpDddPDM

[quantumzero]

Ok.

1. We still let the public decide whether or not they get to discriminate against groups (for instance, Alabama only repealed the interracial marriage ban in 2000, and gay marriage is illegal almost everywhere).

2. It's possible (and really quite easy) for someone to die, simply because they didn't have enough money, no matter what their limitations were.

3. Large history of war crimes, and we're keeping the tradition quite alive.

4. A pop culture encouraging rampant and wasteful consumerism, resulting in more and more people finding themselves in massive credit card debt before they're even 20.

5. Increasing levels of corporate waste, inefficiency, exploitation, and plain dead weight all around (kind of what you said).

re item #4
Very well put. I would add corporate greed, planned obsolesence and irresponsable lending.
The masses allow themselves to be seduced by the idea that material things will bring them happiness, love, acceptance, security etc. Very few actually realize that they have become slaves to their posessions. They think they're living the American dream, to persue happiness, when happiness is in fact a decision. As all of you are aware, human nature/behavior is an on going study and its juicy findings have been used to manipulate the masses into feeling they are being rewarded by having buying power. Who dosent like to be rewarded?

[Ferrus]

The masses allow themselves to be seduced by the idea that material things will bring them happiness, love, acceptance, security etc.
Indeed.

Although happiness isn't a purely mental decision, it depends a good deal on how you choose to live your life, your degree of insightfulness and of course, a certain basic level of standard (such as having enough food).

[avolkiteshvara]

AaUkpDddPDM


This guys makes sense until he talks about the dollar devaluing. It has been climbing in value since around June.

[kendoiwan]

re item #4
Very well put. I would add corporate greed, planned obsolesence and irresponsable lending.
The masses allow themselves to be seduced by the idea that material things will bring them happiness, love, acceptance, security etc. Very few actually realize that they have become slaves to their posessions. They think they're living the American dream, to persue happiness, when happiness is in fact a decision. As all of you are aware, human nature/behavior is an on going study and its juicy findings have been used to manipulate the masses into feeling they are being rewarded by having buying power. Who dosent like to be rewarded?


Indeed.

Although happiness isn't a purely mental decision, it depends a good deal on how you choose to live your life, your degree of insightfulness and of course, a certain basic level of standard (such as having enough food).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20081117/bs_bw/0847b4109090693045;_ylt=App6bV4AWfDqNVi9B__acN8azJV4


To the 1 million viewers of Bravo's reality show Flipping Out, Jeff Lewis is the acerbic, demanding, and sometimes petulant face of real estate speculation. In the program's first two seasons (already in reruns), Lewis turned a hefty profit buying and updating homes to sell in Los Angeles' toniest neighborhoods. At the start of the year he sold a 1,900-square-foot house to Lost star Dominic Monaghan for $1.6 million.

But as the cameras stopped shooting seven months ago, the housing market went from slowed to stalled, leaving the 38-year-old speculator, as he says, "paralyzed." Lewis has been mired for months in a dispute over the boundaries of a $2.5 million property. A deal to buy a house fell apart when Countrywide Financial (CFC.) foreclosed on the seller. Until recently, Lewis lived in a 700-square-foot home, tight quarters for an entourage that includes two cats, three dogs, and, during working hours, a housekeeper and two assistants. "These are not great times, and people are suffering," says Lewis, a self-professed "working millionaire" who has flipped more than 40 homes.

[purveyor of truth]

The Dow lost 427 points today, its at 7997. My theory is that if it settles into the 7-8 thousand range and stays there we will see strange and troubling things start to happen.

[starla]

The Dow lost 427 points today, its at 7997. My theory is that if it settles into the 7-8 thousand range and stays there we will see strange and troubling things start to happen.

like?

[purveyor of truth]

like?

All out panic, public service announcements to start with. Shutdown of some national and state non-essential services. People and businesses picking up all their marbles and not playing anymore.

[thod]

My theory is that if it settles into the 7-8 thousand range and stays there we will see strange and troubling things start to happen.

Why?

A company buys things, processes them, and sells them on making a profit margin. The holders of its shares buy and sell between each other according to how much profit they think the company will make. The operations of the company are not effected in any way by its share price, nor the profit or loss it makes. The dot com bubble companies didn't make any money despite having huge share prices. If a company makes a lot of profits then more the fool you for not buying their shares cheaply. I just don't see share prices, let alone the index as being important. The company has received the capital for those shares, it doesn't get any more if they go up or down.

[purveyor of truth]

Why?I just don't see share prices, let alone the index as being important.

Share prices are perceived as a sign of company health I think, and for example, if you own a company and your stock prices drop by 50-75% it would hinder your efforts to raise money by selling more. The dow is the canary in the mine (used to monitor air conditions back in the day), if it falls over dead you're dead.

[Curtis24]

purveyor, its not so much a matter of the evil white collar class taking over as it is a change in our economy. Back in the 50s, 60s, and even 70s, when our country was manufacturing-based, what the Holland system refers to as "Realistic" jobs(i.e., technical work and manual labor) were highly valued.

Then globalization happened. America started moving away from a manufacturing-based economy, and towards an information-based and service-based one. Thus our values changed. Now the most valued people are those who can work with other people(service-oriented), or those who can do computer work(information-oriented).

[purveyor of truth]

purveyor, its not so much a matter of the evil white collar class taking over as it is a change in our economy. Back in the 50s, 60s, and even 70s, when our country was manufacturing-based, what the Holland system refers to as "Realistic" jobs(i.e., technical work and manual labor) were highly valued.

Then globalization happened. America started moving away from a manufacturing-based economy, and towards an information-based and service-based one. Thus our values changed. Now the most valued people are those who can work with other people(service-oriented), or those who can do computer work(information-oriented).


I dont devalue information or service work or neccessary evils work for that matter. I'm just saying the balance of completely non-productive work is too high. If I am right then the economy will recover when this changes.

[purveyor of truth]

Crazy ass Michael Moore on Larry King last night had a good point, the workers at GM are ineffectually employed. Building cars that less and less people want, the fix for that is obvious. Part of the solution then is more effective employment. That would be up to the white collars.

[Curtis24]

I don't think there is a fix. These are all inevitable byproducts of globalization. People in other countries are willing to learn and do realistic work cheaper than Americans. Right now, we can still have an advantage in information-based labor, since the people in the Third World generally don't have enough time or money right now to learn how to do that kind of work. But even that will fade away in time.

I think it was Gore Vidal who said, "in the 21st century America will produce only four things: software, movies, music, and pizza".

[C.J.Woolf]

I don't think there is a fix. These are all inevitable byproducts of globalization. People in other countries are willing to learn and do realistic work cheaper than Americans.
They are willing to work cheaper partly because they are willing -- and able -- to live cheaper. Local cost of living and all that.

It's interesting that foreign labor markets get more expensive over time after workers become accustomed to higher pay and, I suppose, the cost of living goes up accordingly. Then the foreign capital moves on to another, cheaper labor market. Where does it end? Will the capitalists hit a lower limit on countries poor enough to have cheap labor but with education and/or cultural values consistent with Western jobs? Or will we see outsourcing to Africa someday?

For US workers there might be a fix: protectionism in the labor market. A tariff on the wages on foreign employees or contractors of US companies.

[Curtis24]

The idea is that the market is sort of like water shifting around in a water balloon. When one end gets big, the other gets small, then the water moves back. Meaning, as Third World countries like India and China get more prosperous, America gets less prosperous. As the workers of those countries become more educated and able, Americans become less educated, less able, and our standard of living goes down. But as Americans live more cheaply, we're also all of a sudden willing to do all that realistic work for cheap amounts of money. Work starts shifting back to America, etc. The cycle continues. Of course this whole thing could easily take 50 years or more.

As for protectionism... won't happen, for the simple reason that human beings are evolutionarily engineered to prefer short-term advantage to long-term planning. As long as we can get low prices in the supermarket due to work being done overseas, nobody will care about the longer implications of Americans losing more and more jobs. Nobody will care until a majority of Americans can't find good jobs, but by the time that happens, it'll be too late.

[purveyor of truth]

For US workers there might be a fix: protectionism in the labor market. A tariff on the wages on foreign employees or contractors of US companies.

I think it has to come to this. I am very familiar with the nuances of construction, I have seen what has happened over the years with labor. Cheap mexican labor did drop the cost of construction, cheaper houses right? NO. And the decent wages of skilled american workers went to hell. The main people that benifited were contractors and developers. Trickle down? NO.

[kendoiwan]

I think it has to come to this. I am very familiar with the nuances of construction, I have seen what has happened over the years with labor. Cheap mexican labor did drop the cost of construction, cheaper houses right? NO. And the decent wages of skilled american workers went to hell. The main people that benifited were contractors and developers. Trickle down? NO.

That always kills me, no matter how they cut costs the savings never make their way to the consumer. I.E. Gas prices dropped and airlines add MORE fees... :mad:

[purveyor of truth]

That always kills me, no matter how they cut costs the savings never make their way to the consumer.

I was working in Florida 5 years ago, they were building 5 thousand unit (starting at $500,000 and up to $15 million) gated housing communities like wildfire. Places like that were where the raping of America proceeds were going IMO. Ironically the wages for skilled guys like myself werent too hot. Check out the golf course saturation level in central florida, that tells the story. http://www.thegolfcourses.net/golfcourses/FL/Florida.htm

[SWPIGWANG]

Trickle up is first noticed in 1800s when skilled craftman was replaced by cheap labor in factories. Of course, real economy trickle up, trickle down, trickle left and trickle right. The real direction depends on the structure of industries, and this is where the devil lies. (if you ask me, it is mostly trickling into China at this moment)

If trickle up keeps up and can not be stopped while distorting society to breaking fractures, the solution is simple enough and as Marxists would say, the course of history can not be changed! And frankly, none of that would be my personal problem. If a structure fails, it works on its own time table largely independent of people around it. If there is to be a revolution, when it happens the ideas would be self evident.

[Shoot!]

The reasons listed in this thread are why computers, once sentient, will kill all humans.

[purveyor of truth]

The reasons listed in this thread are why computers, once sentient, will kill all humans.


Probably so, it seems they may have helped caused a severe case of trickle up economics.

[nonrandian]

There was a day when productivity was an honorable thing, more people created, labored over and fixed things we actually needed and used. The car you drove, the house you lived in, the computer you use and the programming in it, the food you eat, the furniture, the clothes etc.

I have watched over the years as the actual workers that produce stuff have been minimized and the leech white collar world of management, finance and manipulation became the good guys. Now we are wildly white collar heavy, everyone that can has fled usefull work. Productive work has been demonized and belittled, sucking the blood out of the system exalted. Capitalism has become a total system of rape.

I wont argue that our system needs to be altered in certain ways. However, on the contrary, i have to disagree with your position. It's not just white collar jobs. We're masters of business, technology, and healthcare. I personally believe if we grew those sections even more than we have through eduction, etc... we could become even more successful.

Think about it... most of the largest contributions to the US's financial success was the creation of the light bulb, the automobile, the internet, etc etc. People come from all around the world (who can afford it) to get health treatment at our facilities.

Imagine if we can up with a vastly fuel efficient car that could wipe out worldwide competition so long as the patent(s) lasted. Or what about a cure for cancer? If we had a cure for cancer patented people would flock from the world to give us their money (not to sound too devious, but it's true).

More education and creativity are necessary to do these things and to keep on top. Unfortunately the cost of more education and creativity is usually a cut back on 'general' production (yet, more education and creativity increases technology making production faster and easier and requiring less work anyway). It's worth it though so long as we can still produce inventions because then we hold the key to the future, and thus the power and success.

People claim that the open market make this possible. I tend to disagree... i personally believe open market makes for wealthy people caring more about short run personal profit than long run growth of companies, which is obviously catastrophic. There needs to be ways of enforcing, supporting, or rewarding advancements in technology, healthcare, and other industries of the future (other than just 'open market; competition'). Otherwise, we will indeed fail.

----
btw were one of the worlds top producers of food.

[purveyor of truth]

Imagine if we can up with a vastly fuel efficient car that could wipe out worldwide competition so long as the patent(s) lasted. Or what about a cure for cancer? If we had a cure for cancer patented people would flock from the world to give us their money (not to sound too devious, but it's true). btw were one of the worlds top producers of food.

You cant make a fuel powered car more efficient without making it smaller/lighter.

A cure for cancer has no productive value, sad yes but true.

We are a nation of fat people (myself excluded of course). Food is not the problem.

[CEOofRawness]

Oh boy do I have a lot of observations about this subject. Here are some reasons why I think America is going to hell.

We do not have a sustainable economy. The growth of our economy is exponential. If the implications of this are not immediately clear, consider what it entails. We have to increase the money supply at an exponential rate, which means that we must first increase debt at an exponential rate. This means that the volume of trade must also increase at an exponential rate. This means that more 'stuff' must be harvested from the environment and more 'stuff' ends up in landfills each year than the year before, merely to keep the economy from imploding. All of this with absolutely no regard for the earth's finite resources. That is ridiculous.

Meanwhile, America literally employs economic hitmen to burden target countries with loans from the IMF which we KNOW BEFOREHAND that they CANNOT REPAY. When they cannot repay, we use this to extort resources from their country at a fraction of its worth in recompense, or build a military base there, or whatever. If they refuse the loan, then we send in an operative with a boatload of cash to start a coup or assassinate the leader. If *that* doesn't work, as was the case with Saddam, we send in the military.

We are thugs. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. We run the exact same racket that the mafia did, only on an incomprehensible scale. We are no better than the empires of old. What we are doing is exactly the same thing only more subtle. The cause for outrage is no less, however.

We subvert other countries for our own gain. We are parasites. Our quality of life is made possible only because there are countless sweatshops in countries who employ workers for mere dollars a day who work 12 hour days, 7 days a week in conditions we can scarcely imagine. Countries who are unfortunate enough to reside under the heel of our all-powerful boot. What gives us the goddamn right?

We are also going to hell because there is more money owed than money that exists. The ramifications are downright sickening. For one, this ensures that we keep working despite the fact that we have the GNP to provide life support for every citizen a hundred times over. Secondly, Every dollar in your wallet is owed to somebody by someone. But the thing is, where do they get the money to pay back the INTEREST in addition to the principal? Answer: they don't, because that money DOES NOT EXIST! This means that bankruptcy and foreclosure is MATHEMATICALLY INEVITABLE, even if everyone is 100% studious in repaying their loans.

Fucking sickening bullshit.

Part of me doesn't blame these white-collar leeches who refuse to work. They are only following in the footsteps of our overlords the bankers and hedgefund managers who have clearly demonstrated that fraud is not only overlooked, but fraud on this scale is actually ENDORSED by the government. Why work when you can not only steal money from producers, but manufacture it OUT OF THIN AIR with the endorsement of the government?

Kudos on the post. I'm really just quoting it because everyone should take time to read it (and if so already, read it again!). The sad part is that buying pretty much any product means that you are contributing to human suffering. Course there isn't much one person can do, though.

Economic Despotism at its very best.


...A cure for cancer has no productive value, sad yes but true....

I think this statement shows the true, core reason why this country (the US) is not only going to hell, but is driving the bus there. When you'd rather keep people in a suffering state than help them out in order to reap a profit...

There's nothing more to say, really.

[Ferrus]

If trickle up keeps up and can not be stopped while distorting society to breaking fractures, the solution is simple enough and as Marxists would say, the course of history can not be changed! And frankly, none of that would be my personal problem. If a structure fails, it works on its own time table largely independent of people around it. If there is to be a revolution, when it happens the ideas would be self evident.
The problem is - as the Great Depression admirably prooved - that hegemonic ideas are incredibly potent in keeping people stuck to a model.

[TheFeelingIsFine]

Hopefully the country will not be going to complete hell anytime soon (although I believe many wish it would to prove a point).

[CEOofRawness]

Hopefully the country will not be going to complete hell anytime soon (although I believe many wish it would to prove a point).

Sorry, we deserve nothing less than complete hell.

Besides, what would partial hell look like? :think:

[iksikaksi]

My theory is that nobody trully owns anything so they dont give a damn and they steal or are inefficient. The problem of CEOs and white collar jobs is that they dont give a rats ass about the company they work in. It´s simply one of those jobs where you get a little extra cash with bonds, stocks and benefits. Which means that you lie about the company´s current conditions so as to keep the price of your stock up or you may also lie to keep your job at the expense of the company so nobody trully knows what the fuck is going on. When everything collapses everybody suffers except the CEO because he/she never trully owned the place or never cared and never took any economic liability.

In a company where you have a few owners or a sole proprietor its different, resources are used more carefully and absurd expenditures dimminish. The only problem with sole proprietorship is that resources are limited because you dont have stock money available to grow and dominate more. So throughout time these huge corporations with unusually high and quick growth rates (stock owners want their stocks to increase otherwise theyd sell which means diminishes the companys working capital, and some also have to cover the huge debts)owned by everybody and nobody have been wiping out small liquid businesses with slow but steady growth rates. This has lead to the fact that American corporations have generated a culture dependent of quick and immediate results. If there are no results somebody will get his/her head chopped off because there are about some other 60 people wanting that job which opens space for dishonest actions (Ill pay you if you take the blame and please stay quiet).

When you work in a small company with limited resources you learn the importance of being patient, persistent and humane with your employees (some products may take up to 10 years to enter a market and dominate. A time period that is unacceptable in multinational company standards because somebodys job is on the line if they dont have immediate results)And no you dont need to spend vast amounts of money to market a product (this is one of the reasons this small sole proprietorship company I work in survives with multinational giants like Merk, Glaxo Smith, Bayer and Baxter to name just a few.) By humane I mean people are allowed to make decisions and err once in a while without getting fired which generates a very honest working environment to the extent that the owners know when there is something wrong and they can fix it immediately.

Another problem with the American company system is its beaurocratic system. Decisions cannot be made on time and on the spot when they are needed and instead they need the fucking approval of an endless chain of managers. Paper work, more paper work and even more paper work where eventually the request itself may get lost. Not to mention all the law suits and all the lawyers that take up valuable work time.

The problem is not capitalism, though I hate the word capitalism, because I would rather call it the right to own your own work and your own house. Ownership means power. If you dont own your things that makes you completely dependant on a government, corporation or institution and all the human scum running it (in other words a slave). You may get food and a roof on your head but nonetheless you would be a slave and the only way you could possibly get an extra carrot on your plate is if you kiss ass big time up the beaurocratic ladder.

[floid]

The problem is not capitalism, though I hate the word capitalism, because I would rather call it the right to own your own work and your own house. Ownership means power. If you dont own your things that makes you completely dependant on a government, corporation or institution and all the human scum running it (in other words a slave). You may get food and a roof on your head but nonetheless you would be a slave and the only way you could possibly get an extra carrot on your plate is if you kiss ass big time up the beaurocratic ladder.

And the problem with ownership is that it doesn't really exist except as an arbitrary social contract ultimately enforced by the people with the most guns (or the appearance of the most guns) on their side.

Like so many things to which humans cling as though their very lives truly depended on them, ownership is fundamentally a figment of human imagination with no basis outside of thoughts that swirl around in a human brain.

If you live long enough old age will demonstrate to you that you cannot even "own" your own body --- far less anything else.

But I guess you can dream up to the point where reality finally wakes you up.

[purveyor of truth]

I watched a two hour indepth program on the workings of American Airlines, almost made me proud to be an american! Its a company that has avoided bankruptcy and while they have had their up and downs and faults they have survived.

A key element in their survival is the way management and labor have achieved communications and a more balanced playing field. Some level of mutual treatment and respect exists. The old CEO managed to get union concessions only to give upper management bonuses and such, he was fired and replaced with a CEO with a marked lack of ego and a real concern for fairness and company health. It was refreshing to watch common sense in action.

[CEOofRawness]

I watched a two hour indepth program on the workings of American Airlines, almost made me proud to be an american! Its a company that has avoided bankruptcy and while they have had their up and downs and faults they have survived.

A key element in their survival is the way management and labor have achieved communications and a more balanced playing field. Some level of mutual treatment and respect exists. The old CEO managed to get union concessions only to give upper management bonuses and such, he was fired and replaced with a CEO with a marked lack of ego and a real concern for fairness and company health. It was refreshing to watch common sense in action.
People have common sense, even the CEOs that swindle all the company's money. They know what they are doing, or else they wouldn't have gotten so far. So in reality, everyone has common sense, it's just that some refuse to go down that route because there are more rewards for fucking everyone else over. Then there are people that have common sense but do nothing about all this. The rest are either ignorant or insane.

[TheFeelingIsFine]

Sorry, we deserve nothing less than complete hell.

Point Proven.

[iksikaksi]

And the problem with ownership is that it doesn't really exist except as an arbitrary social contract ultimately enforced by the people with the most guns (or the appearance of the most guns) on their side.

Like so many things to which humans cling as though their very lives truly depended on them, ownership is fundamentally a figment of human imagination with no basis outside of thoughts that swirl around in a human brain.

If you live long enough old age will demonstrate to you that you cannot even "own" your own body --- far less anything else.

But I guess you can dream up to the point where reality finally wakes you up.


Explain how you dont own your own body? Would it be ok for others to abuse me and hit me? Would it be ok for me to abuse and disrespect others simply because they dont own themselves. Our whole system of ethics and morality is based on ownership. When you kill, you steal that beings life (an animal, person or plant). When you cheat on an exam by copying somebody elses paper then you are stealing that person of his/her time studying. If ownership is a social construct then our whole ethics system would also be one. Are you willing to accept that implication?

Ownership is a figment of the human imagination? How about the figment of the imagination of dogs and cats as well considering that they are very keen in marking their territories (ahh the sacred act of peeing). By this I am referring to the fact that ownership is more than just a social construct, it is genetic and we are built to defend our own probability of survival and reproduction. Ever wondered why rape victims commit suicide? Because somebody did not respect that persons ownership to his or her body and the decisions on his and her body and they loose themselves.

Waking up? According to some philosophers we all live in a dream and you are probably in it as well.

What is problematic with humans though, is our belief that we own more than what we actually do. For example some religious zealots believe that earth was created for man to do what they damn please or that people that are hungry and have no means for food own the food of others simply because they are hungry. The lines between what we own and what we dont are not as clear hence our constant conflict with the rest of the members of our specie.

[purveyor of truth]

Lease is probably a better term then ownership, iksikaksi you are taking floids statements in the wrong way, stop and think for a minute, we really dont purely "own" anything in the sense that it is all ours bought and paid for forever.

[iksikaksi]

Lease is probably a better term then ownership, iksikaksi you are taking floids statements in the wrong way, stop and think for a minute, we really dont purely "own" anything in the sense that it is all ours bought and paid for forever.

Who says you need unlimited time to own something? Some things you own simply because they were yours from the start. You never had to pay for them. Like your eyes, your balls, your feelings etc. And though life is brief that doesnt mean you never owned yourself because once you die there is nothing left to own anymore.

[purveyor of truth]

You never had to pay for them. Like your eyes, your balls, your feelings etc.

You have to pay to maintain them, with the balls at least figuratively.

[floid]

Who says you need unlimited time to own something? Some things you own simply because they were yours from the start. You never had to pay for them. Like your eyes, your balls, your feelings etc. And though life is brief that doesnt mean you never owned yourself because once you die there is nothing left to own anymore.

That's the assumption but if someone comes along and takes your eyes or your balls do you own them then?

"Own" really means nothing more than "it's yours while you have it" whether you have it for five seconds or a lifetime.

Own and lease are fairly interchangeable especially in a economic system where, for most people, ownership means paying monthly installments that go way over and above the original value of something just so they can say "I own it" rather than "I'm renting it".

At least in the case of a place to live the renter is free to leave when he likes and the landlord is responsible for upkeep and any property taxes.

Banks and Mortgage companies suck as landlords, they don't pay for upkeep or taxes in spite of the rent you pay them.
But they do give you that pinprick of light at the end of a 30 year tunnel where you can finally say "I own it" without having to pay them for owning it, at which time it is about ready to fall down around your feet unless you want to take out a "home improvement loan" and start up the rent payments again.

Ownership is kind of like English Titles.
Sounds good, looks good, and costs a lot but really doesn't materially benefit anybody other than the people selling them.

[iksikaksi]

That's the assumption but if someone comes along and takes your eyes or your balls do you own them then?

Assuming you are still alive, you still own them they were yours from the start. On the other hand you may not find much use to them now that somebody is currently playing ping pong with them.


"Own" really means nothing more than "it's yours while you have it" whether you have it for five seconds or a lifetime.

Not necessarilly somebody can lend you something and if you have any descency you'd return the object after a period of time but assuming you dont believe in property you'd probably keep the object for yourself. No guilt. No hard feelings.


Own and lease are fairly interchangeable especially in a economic system where, for most people, ownership means paying monthly installments that go way over and above the original value of something just so they can say "I own it" rather than "I'm renting it".

Well that is their problem. Personally Id rather live in a humble area paying a low rent whilst earning enough money to buy my own place in ten years time instead of moving to the place now so as to own it in 30 years time paying it with interest and all the extras.


Banks and Mortgage companies suck as landlords, they don't pay for upkeep or taxes in spite of the rent you pay them.
But they do give you that pinprick of light at the end of a 30 year tunnel where you can finally say "I own it" without having to pay them for owning it, at which time it is about ready to fall down around your feet unless you want to take out a "home improvement loan" and start up the rent payments again.

Ownership is kind of like English Titles.
Sounds good, looks good, and costs a lot but really doesn't materially benefit anybody other than the people selling them.

Well if you studied English instead of say civil engineering or business administration then it is your problem and you have the responsibility of living with your own mistakes. Just because people make lousy decisions doesnt make all sales people on this planet evil. Some goods are actually usefull say deodorant f you want to get laid some time.