available. One might say the same of oil, for instance. The solution
you present is plunder. Trade exists.
On Jun 27, 11:07 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 was done to bring inflation, and as yet it hasn't worked (though
> > > notice how much more food costs) because we can already see our wages
> > > and jobs are under threat and won't sell our homes at knockdown.
>
> > > What we should get away from is homily about needing to tighten belts
> > > after 'our excesses'. GDP all over has been massively inflated pretty
> > > much as Enron inflated its books. The problem is we can't direct
> > > capital to the work that needs doing. The hot money is already in
> > > Swiss vaults or buying up land and evicting the tenant farmers (as in
> > > the Enclosures). It also wants to buy up our public sectors - with
> > > the very money we have given to support the bent system.
>
> > > The question has long been how we might direct capital into the work
> > > that needs doing and fairly distribute in a way that doesn't kill of
> > > innovation or focus power into an elite that operates like a Politburo
> > > we can't vote out. The news is that we already have this situation,
> > > and may even have another massive debtor nation about to hit hyper-
> > > inflation whilst more armed to the teeth than Nazi Germany. Imagine
> > > Palin in charge of that!
>
> > > We have all had trouble breaking the ancien regimes. Even the USA is
> > > a Republik, rather than participative democracy - and democracy itself
> > > has vile origins. Greece is run by a few rich-bastard families, the
> > > US by banking interest, the UK is still basically a privateer island
> > > (though privateers were strictly French) and the EU is still an
> > > aggrandizement of ideas of stopping war with Germans and maintaining
> > > coal and steel industries.
>
> > > There is another way if we give up and homilies that barely work for
> > > individual households let alone economic groups. Much of the debt
> > > within the EU could be cancelled between countries in a Jubilee.
> > > Beyond this we could ensure individuals get more control in economics
> > > through wages and make investment an ethical business.
>
> > > On Jun 27, 8:30 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > But communism (in theory) is about every man contributing to the
> > > > communal pot, to be distributed by dint of a principle of "equity".
>
> > > > Free markets (or Capitalism, or whatever resonates) is about man
> > > > pursuing his own ends, for which an emergent, enabling by-product is
> > > > the economy (as we know it); of course, great disparities of wealth
> > > > (and power) are an unavoidable (some might argue desirable) feature,
> > > > as man has an unequal capacity to create value (and we can get into
> > > > the ethics of the "why's" and the "wherefore's"). (Re)distribution is
> > > > a political initiative to manage these disparities through taxation.
> > > > And yes, you're right, wealth will perpetuate "at the top", but really
> > > > as a consequence of an enhanced capacity to create even greater value;
> > > > i think that this is what tends to appear as the great "visible hand".
>
> > > > Thing about "growth", rigsy / contemplative, is it's one of the very
> > > > few mega non-zero sums around; thats what makes it so beguiling and
> > > > difficult to manage; so we swing from boom to bust to boom to...:)
>
> > > > On Jun 27, 2:49 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I don't agree- unless you are talking about Communism- which flopped.
> > > > > Man serves the economy and whichever power happens to be in charge who
> > > > > may then decide to redistribute wealth/products but this is not a
> > > > > voluntary agreement. But generally, wealth remains at the top for the
> > > > > prime reason of maintaining power.
>
> > > > > On Jun 25, 3:26 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hmm...fine points all!
>
> > > > > > Lets not forget though, that the economy serves man, not the other way
> > > > > > round? Just an observation regarding your suspicion of the "growth"
> > > > > > imperative in contemporary economics.
>
> > > > > > On Jun 24, 9:54 pm, Contemplative <wjwiel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > The key phrase for me is "relative homeostasis". I agree that the
> > > > > > > encouragement you refer to
> > > > > > > is desirable. I am unsure of it's possibility. Our belief that growth is
> > > > > > > mandatory for our economy
> > > > > > > encourages activities and behaviors that, I think, out-pace the ability of
> > > > > > > the natural system to
> > > > > > > balance itself at its natural rate. I am not convinced that we have a solid
> > > > > > > enough understanding
> > > > > > > of our own system to allow us to recognize true key indicators of systemic
> > > > > > > health, rationally process
> > > > > > > that input, and subsequently make good decisions about the which conditions
> > > > > > > we should encourage.
>
> > > > > > > To state it bluntly, I think our desire for growth is malignant...
>
> > > > > > > I don't mean to be doom and gloom about this, and actually I think there is
> > > > > > > reason to be optimistic.
> > > > > > > But economics seems to me to have that stereotypical characteristic of
> > > > > > > having 20/20 vision through
> > > > > > > the rear view mirror. Economic policy decisions that are both long term and
> > > > > > > aggressive(such as increased
> > > > > > > home ownership) which use 'tweaks' to the system to achieve the aims are
> > > > > > > likely destructive and very
> > > > > > > unpredictable. In a relatively isolated or buffered system, they may be
> > > > > > > more predictable, but we are not
> > > > > > > in an economy which is either buffered or isolated. We are comparatively
> > > > > > > wide open(global), and playing
> > > > > > > in a much bigger sandbox than we have been, say 25 years ago. ...and from
> > > > > > > my perspective, we don't
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment