figures? That's the bread and circus part, I guess. I'm sure there are
plenty of bridges to nowhere in our economy.
Plenty of people work and some of it is pure nasty. Usually they sweat
and die young.
On Jun 28, 2:32 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When you look at GDP figures (not that many do) in the US you see real
> wage decline over 30 years yet an increase in consumption (and hence
> GDP). Questions obviously arise here on how - the answer is debt
> spending - but how did the borrowing arise - wouldn't we expect
> lending to fall with less money coming in to pay of debt contracted?
> Part of the answer lies in greed and a property bubble created by
> this. Loans appeared to be secured against property, but the banks
> were fueling speculation to inflate property prices to 'earn'
> bonuses. I see little difference in what they did and Deng ordering
> 'homes' that no one will live in. In a sense we all went into a
> command economy. As with the famous Sino-Soviet experiments this was
> and still is based on 'elite madness' and false accounting.
>
> I mention habros because a poisoning feature of luxury seems
> involved. It's surely all over - just switch on TV. The way we
> normally think about running a household just don't apply, though
> politicians mug us with this kind of false analogy. The promise in
> the last election in the UK was that frontline services would not be
> affected by cuts in waste and all the other lies of this kind - the
> usual 5 cents in the dollar stuff pace Bob Dole. This never works and
> we know it doesn't.
>
> I would guess most people have a notion that GDP is a reflection of
> effort and this is the problem. GDP goes up when we buy plastic
> Chinese crap or TVs we didn't make on money borrowed against what was
> supposed to be the ever rising value of our assets like housing. So
> GDP goes up when we simply bubble property prices - usually good for
> people owning property. What the banks did in this needs long
> investigation and description - but in short they began to make money
> make money - something that clearly can't be 'real'. The accounting
> here involves governments creating electronic money (now QE) and
> lending this at low rates to favoured banks (a surplus of capital
> never built on effort) who appeared to be making money hand over
> fist. This was really the Ponzi scheme and no more than anything
> Madoff was doing. Ponzi schemes pay out not on earnings but with the
> new money their lies on performance bring in. The lies are supported
> by elaborate maths. I teach the maths and they don't work as claimed,
> only reducing risk in margins. The key metaphor is to imagine playing
> Monopoly against a banker with a couple of spare sets of money in her
> back pocket.
>
> The idea in this is to use capital ore and more effectively (fine) but
> it all goes mad when the capital becomes earnings ten years off
> treated as though you've made it now. The maths is complicated but
> the schemes are not - it's almost like placing bets on all horses and
> living it up on the winnings whilst ignoring the losses or inflating
> the currency you use to 'account' for them.
>
> What people can't grab is that economics and accounting is like this
> anyway - though supposedly under strict rules. Businesses need to
> stay alive until the good times when most profit is made. This is
> fine until the madness or crooks get in and the idea ceases to be
> about the viable business and becomes just profit.
>
> I can build the case in figures but the issue is corruption - a
> corruption as endemic as that in Soviet performance management. What
> they are telling us is stark. We can't have the public services (who
> cares who runs them if they do it properly) to educate kids, look
> after old and disabled people and the rest even though we have plenty
> of labour to do this - labour in some senses earned through massive
> productivity rises in agriculture and manufacturing. Looming over us
> is a massive and generally parasitic financial services sector that
> matches these productivity gains in size - all of which could be
> routinised to a fraction.
>
> When we talk about making an industry efficient we have little problem
> with allowing wages to come under international competition and all
> the rest, Yet to match this in, say, policing by importing droves of
> keen Chinese and sacking our expensive finest - and the very idea of
> doing this at the top of banking seems impossible - though all the
> skills are comparable.
>
> I suspect the real issues cannot be addressed because most people
> adjust to a view of just being cogs in the wheel and feel their sanity
> threatened by thoughts of the criminality that has been going on
> around them. They look for homely answers like 'blaming profligate
> Greeks' (a hospital doctor in Greece gets under half what a lecturer
> gets in the UK) and imagining austerity measures will let us save our
> way out of the problems. This is not what history tells us - though,
> of course, most people know no real history.
>
> What is happening now is history. - it may as well be a re-write of
> much imperialist history. I hope war is less on the cards, but I'm
> not at all sure. Our ignorance is the real issue - and I suspect this
> is ignorance about just how unfair the world is and how massively
> irrational our systems are.. It's worse than we are thinking and our
> public dialogue allows us to say.
>
> The questions we aren't asking are about what would be left if there
> was no more 'international trade' and we got round to making stuff
> locally and allowing more global exchange of expertise through virtual
> exchange. We aren't broke in such a system and have capital.
>
> My guess is that most of what we call 'work' in the current system is
> no such thing - it's neurosis.
>
> On Jun 28, 12:58 pm, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So, bullets=100pts, futures=-100TNpts. ;-)
>
> > On 6/28/2011 12:07 AM, archytas wrote:
>
> > > The truth on bullets is you get to eat if you have them and the food
> > > holders don't!
>
> > > On Jun 28, 3:52 am, rigsy03<rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> I wonder the number of vacant, distressed properties in the West?
>
> > >> Well, China was humiliated by the tactics of the West in our forcing
> > >> her to open to trade via opium and dynasty overthrow plus the theft of
> > >> her national arts and treasures- keeping them "safe" in western
> > >> museums, like the rest of our lootings.
>
> > >> Americans accumulated their own debt with abuse of credit when it was
> > >> easy street. The banks/financial institutions were irresponsible and
> > >> so were our governments. You can't eat bullets.
>
> > >> On Jun 27, 4:49 pm, archytas<nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> I don't believe the modern arguments (post 1950) concern communism
> > >>> other than as a futile ideal. We seem to have forgotten about habros
> > >>> - the polluting quality of luxury. The term arises in a Greek play
> > >>> celebrating the victory of the Athenian Democracy over the Persians.
> > >>> The warning to the Greeks was that they must never become sissies
> > >>> wallowing in emotions and luxury like the defeated Persians. Most of
> > >>> us are barely aware of history and have no real clue what the Soviets
> > >>> and Chinese were up to. Even in relation to what's going on in China
> > >>> now, I find few who know they have built ghost cities and are fueling
> > >>> GDP growth with a property bubble.
> > >>> The broad brush of western economics is that the ignorant rabble have
> > >>> no place in real decision-making and that they must both know this (in
> > >>> order not to forget their place) and to deny it in fantasies to
> > >>> encourage virtual self-aggrandizement. Thus we are to live in virtual
> > >>> meritocracy whilst actually just part of a pack that will not
> > >>> challenge the alphas. In a very real way, we do not argue with facts,
> > >>> but the stories of literature which bounds our expectations. Video
> > >>> games are a warning of what we are, even if we don't play them.
> > >>> The debts that are everywhere like a nightmare are not to do with
> > >>> money as a means of simple exchange, taken on to be worked off in some
> > >>> equation of labour value. They have been manipulated as surely as any
> > >>> in past empires. Just as Chinese GDP is floating on 64 million empty
> > >>> buildings no one can afford to live in (terms are often half up front,
> > >>> the balance over 3 years), our currencies float on deals between
> > >>> governments and favoured banks. We have suppressed wages and banks
> > >>> hardly even provide working capital for business, instead engaging in
> > >>> speculation in giant Ponzi schemes hedged in ever increasing prices
> > >>> for assets that no one would eventually be able to buy from a wage,
> > >>> and securitised to the tax payer. Wages were collapsed over 30 years
> > >>> by exporting manufacturing - but GDP kept rising as we borrowed
> > >>> against the asset pile to buy more and more crap and pay welfare to
> > >>> those deprived of jobs.
> > >>> The rich grew vastly richer in this period. If there are 64 million
> > >>> Chinese apartments empty, how many across the world are now holiday
> > >>> homes and the rest. None of this is communist or capitalist economics
> > >>> - it's more fundamental, possibly the economics of the city in which
> > >>> absentee landlords gamble the labour of poor tenants and then replace
> > >>> them with more economic sheep. The money that was always making money
> > >>> in high finance was never making anything other than the debt. You
> > >>> need to understand mark to model and mark to market. The money was
> > >>> never being made - banks were allowed to value their own assets to
> > >>> models kept secret for reasons of commercial security. Now, if they
> > >>> have to really sell any 'assets' they are worth what the market will
> > >>> pay. And given the way banks count loans as assets, they are all
> > >>> probably bankrupt because most of the loans will be real liabilities.
> > >>> None of us borrowed this 'money'. It was pumped in by the Fed, BoE,
> > >>> EU Central and so on and stole your hard-earned from underneath you.
> > >>> This
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment