Thinking the Unthinkable
Scott Erb
got through. If it makes it through later as sometimes happens,
I apologize in advance for the duplication).
The Nikkei stock exchange in Tokyo closed yesterday at the
lowest levels since January 7, 1985 -- the lowest in over
sixteen years. Taiwan's index is its low since 1993, Hong Kong
is down 18% for the year, and the Asian economic duldrums
continue. European growth has stagnated, and many believe that
revised GDP figures could put the US into negative Q1 growth
down the line, and we could be entering into a real recession.
Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
Depression, as global stagnation could feed on itself,
especially if energy prices go back up. Ironically, the
optimists of globalization (such as Thomas Friedman) view the
process of global capitalism in much the same light as scholars
like Karl Marx did back in the 19th century. The difference is
that Friedman and current proponents see it as a path to
prosperity and peace, with Marx and modern thinkers on the Left
see a danger of capitalist crisis. How will the public and
various states deal with a deep slow down, if it happens? This
could be a test of whether the optimistic view of liberal
capitalism is accurate, or if the dangers of capitalism as
espoused by leftists are more on the mark. We live in
interesting times.
Martin McPhillips
>
> (Again, I posted something like this earlier today, but it never
> got through. If it makes it through later as sometimes happens,
> I apologize in advance for the duplication).
>
> The Nikkei stock exchange in Tokyo closed yesterday at the
> lowest levels since January 7, 1985 -- the lowest in over
> sixteen years. Taiwan's index is its low since 1993, Hong Kong
> is down 18% for the year, and the Asian economic duldrums
> continue. European growth has stagnated, and many believe that
> revised GDP figures could put the US into negative Q1 growth
> down the line, and we could be entering into a real recession.
>
> Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
> entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
> Depression, as global stagnation could feed on itself,
> especially if energy prices go back up. Ironically, the
> optimists of globalization (such as Thomas Friedman) view the
Cue apologetics for Marx:
> in much the same light as scholars
> like Karl Marx did back in the 19th century.
Adolph Hitler was about as accurate in his predictions
as was Karl Marx. Does that make Adolph Hiter a "scholar"
in your mind, Scott? (Of course, you consider Kurt Lochner
a "scholar," so...)
> The difference is
> that Friedman and current proponents see it as a path to
> prosperity and peace,...
Cue second instance of Marx apologetics:
> with Marx and modern thinkers on the Left
> see a danger of capitalist crisis.
Marx was a modern thinker? That's a very low standard
for modern thinking.
> How will the public and
> various states deal with a deep slow down, if it happens? This
> could be a test of whether the optimistic view of liberal
> capitalism is accurate, or if the dangers of capitalism as
> espoused by leftists are more on the mark. We live in
> interesting times.
You sound intoxicated by the prospect of world economic
collapse, Scott. Do you think that Marxism will rise again
and you'll be able to let yourself out of the closet?
Gandalf Grey
Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3B5C8D2E...@verizon.net...
Don't worry, Scott. If the worse imaginings of the anarcho-capitalist
shiites come true, they'll just lay it off on rampant Clintonian socialist
sabotage. With the paranoid imagination that the righties have, they can't
ever be wrong.
Omnes Ignatum Pro Magnifico Est
Scott Erb
BlackWater wrote:
>
> Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
> >entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
> >Depression ...
>
> Yea, that bastard Clinton really left us with
> a hell of a mess.
I thought Republicans said Reagan was the cause for the economy
to be as it was in 2000....aahhh, I get it. To the GOP all good
economic news is credited to the policies of a current or former
GOP President, while all bad economic news is blamed on the
policies of a past Democratic President.
How convenient.
Alas, the possible crisis is so widespread and global that it
really is outside the control of any American leader.
Gandalf Grey
BlackWater <b...@barrk.net> wrote in message
news:25NcO4VsNh8p8F=Cd0=Oijv...@4ax.com...
> Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
> >entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
>
> Yea, that bastard Clinton really left us with
> a hell of a mess.
Sorry, chuckles. The minute the Bushbaby signed that tax bill he became
officially responsible for the economy.
>
Martin McPhillips
Scott, economic downturns are a natural, necessary, and healthy
part of the business cycle. Hoping, as you are, that it will turn
into a world economic *crisis* just demonstrates how unhappy you
are with prosperity. You're anxious to see it sacrificed for
your fantasies about "what might come."
Scott Erb
Practically, it's really outside anyone's control, though a
President can screw it up or help it out in the short term.
Bush has set himself up to, rightly or wrongly, take the fall if
the economy isn't heating back up in 2002 or even 2004. That's
reality. As I said last November, this might be a good election
for the Democrats to lose.
Gandalf Grey
Regardless, a journalist recently made a telling point. The moment Bush
signed that tax bill, he became officially responsible for the economy.
Never mind the fact that the Reptilicans have been harping on the ploy that
"if it happens during Bill's watch, it's Bill's fault" for something like
nine years.
No, no. This is Smir's baby.
"Crappy Days Are Here Again."
Gandalf Grey
Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3B5C9678...@nyc.rr.com...
Woah! Martin's doing his mind reading trick again. I wonder why it is that
right wing hacks like Martin can never win an argument without using facts
not in evidence.
Could it be.....?
Scott Erb
Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
> Woah! Martin's doing his mind reading trick again. I wonder why it is that
> right wing hacks like Martin can never win an argument without using facts
> not in evidence.
>
> Could it be.....?
I've stopped reading Martin's posts. I thought at one point he
was simply a conservative with strong opinions but who could put
together interesting arguments. But he's simply trying to
provoke and play games -- not worth the time, in my opinion.
Martin McPhillips
Scott Erb wrote:
>
> I've stopped reading Martin's posts. I thought at one point he
> was simply a conservative with strong opinions but who could put
> together interesting arguments. But he's simply trying to
> provoke and play games -- not worth the time, in my opinion.
I'm perfectly happy that you've stopped reading my posts, Scott.
This way I can just correct your muddled reasoning and your
constant errors without having it turn into a long winding
episode of your evasions, where you eventually find a way to
take my positions in the argument (you're very good at taking
all positions in a discussion) and then insisting it's what
you were saying all along.
This way is much simpler. You just make the mistakes. I note
them. And move onto your next example of faulty reasoning and
factual errors. And I don't have to waste any more time than
that.
Gandalf Grey
You're very right. Martin is really just an extremely long-winded flamer.
He's never "discussed" an issue with anyone. His goal is to attack and
attack personally. His invitations to discussion are just requests for
personal ammunition.
Gandalf Grey
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> > I've stopped reading Martin's posts. I thought at one point he
> > was simply a conservative with strong opinions but who could put
> > together interesting arguments. But he's simply trying to
> > provoke and play games -- not worth the time, in my opinion.
>
> I'm perfectly happy that you've stopped reading my posts, Scott.
[sniff, sob]
>
> This way I can just correct your muddled reasoning and your
> constant errors without having it turn into a long winding
> episode of your evasions.
Translation: That way I can ridicule you without an argument, and since
ridiculing you is my only real goal, I can flame away without obstacle.
That's our Martin: Ever hopeful that every thinking American will killfile
him.
LOL!
Jack Dawes
Scott Erb wrote:
OF course it was, you idiot. All elections are good for the Democrats
to lose.
Jack
Kurt Nicklas
news:9ji64u$jbu$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net:
>
> Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3B5C9A9F...@verizon.net...
>>
>>
>> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>> >
>> > Woah! Martin's doing his mind reading trick again. I wonder why it
>> > is that right wing hacks like Martin can never win an argument
>> > without using facts not in evidence.
>> >
>> > Could it be.....?
>>
>> I've stopped reading Martin's posts.
Just a rough estimate, but I'd say Scotti-Marti has said this and similar
things about 5000 times.
What a hoot!
--
Kurt Nicklas
-----------------------
'Oderint dum metuant'
Scott Erb
Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
> > I've stopped reading Martin's posts. I thought at one point he
> > was simply a conservative with strong opinions but who could put
> > together interesting arguments. But he's simply trying to
> > provoke and play games -- not worth the time, in my opinion.
>
> You're very right. Martin is really just an extremely long-winded flamer.
> He's never "discussed" an issue with anyone. His goal is to attack and
> attack personally. His invitations to discussion are just requests for
> personal ammunition.
Yeah, you get all kinds on the internet.
Well, I've been online for over four hours, downloading and
printing documents from German parties and press sources, and
then now and then as a break zipping over here to see how the
"debates" are going. Now, however, I'm off for an evening golf
game. Have fun!
Martin McPhillips
>
> Yeah, you get all kinds on the internet.
Well, dissembling college perfessers who don't know
their own field is certainly one of those kinds.
> Well, I've been online for over four hours, downloading and
> printing documents from German parties and press sources,
You're so *very* special, Scott.
> and
> then now and then as a break zipping over here to see how the
> "debates" are going. Now, however, I'm off for an evening golf
> game. Have fun!
Yes, these discussions are so meaningless to you that you devote
hours to them, sometimes rattling on for hundreds of words with
nothing to say.
Gandalf Grey
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, you get all kinds on the internet.
>
> Well, dissembling college perfessers who don't know
> their own field is certainly one of those kinds.
>
> > Well, I've been online for over four hours, downloading and
> > printing documents from German parties and press sources,
>
> You're so *very* special, Scott.
So are you, Martin. The scientists at the genetic anomolies center all said
so!
Garrett
> Scott Erb wrote:
> > Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
> > entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
> > Depression, as global stagnation could feed on itself,
> > especially if energy prices go back up. Ironically, the
> > optimists of globalization (such as Thomas Friedman) view the
> > process of global capitalism...
>
> Cue apologetics for Marx:
>
> > in much the same light as scholars
> > like Karl Marx did back in the 19th century.
>
> Adolph Hitler was about as accurate in his predictions
> as was Karl Marx. Does that make Adolph Hiter a "scholar"
> in your mind, Scott? (Of course, you consider Kurt Lochner
> a "scholar," so...)
Actually Hitler was brilliant. Evil brilliant, but brilliant
nonetheless.
You are a making a big mistake confusing intelligence with
your own version of political correctness.
Just because you don't agree with someone, or more to
the point, don't like someone, doesn't mean they aren't
very smart and don't have things worthy of hearing.
For instance, Hitler was a genius when it came to
swaying public opinion. It may have been for evil purposes,
but it was nonetheless brilliantly executed. As for Marx,
he failed to foresee things like common ownership of
companies through stocks (something that hardly
existed at the time), to give an example, so his view of
economics became obsolete rather quickly. However, he
was also the first to explain what is now commonly
accepted concepts like the business cycle, which is
just one example.
The fact is that if you only listen to one side of the issue
you will always get caught by surprise when things blow up.
If you only listen to people that are pro-capitalist then you
will never see the failings of it (hint: nothing created by man
is perfect. There will always be flaws).
> > How will the public and
> > various states deal with a deep slow down, if it happens? This
> > could be a test of whether the optimistic view of liberal
> > capitalism is accurate, or if the dangers of capitalism as
> > espoused by leftists are more on the mark. We live in
> > interesting times.
>
> You sound intoxicated by the prospect of world economic
> collapse, Scott.
Some people are interested when history reaches turning
points. Some people don't want to see it. You are the
latter.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
I think it was David Ignatius, a surprisingly good writer on business
at the W Post, who recently wondered whether we are setting up as in
The Perfect Storm.
But then I suppose such comments are appropriate pretty frequently.
And pan out pretty infrequently.
Just as in weather.
Bill Bonde
Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> > (Again, I posted something like this earlier today, but it never
> > got through. If it makes it through later as sometimes happens,
> > I apologize in advance for the duplication).
> >
> > The Nikkei stock exchange in Tokyo closed yesterday at the
> > lowest levels since January 7, 1985 -- the lowest in over
> > sixteen years. Taiwan's index is its low since 1993, Hong Kong
> > is down 18% for the year, and the Asian economic duldrums
> > continue. European growth has stagnated, and many believe that
> > revised GDP figures could put the US into negative Q1 growth
> > down the line, and we could be entering into a real recession.
> >
> > Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
> > entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
> > Depression, as global stagnation could feed on itself,
> > especially if energy prices go back up. Ironically, the
> > optimists of globalization (such as Thomas Friedman) view the
> > process of global capitalism...
>
> Cue apologetics for Marx:
>
Erb forgets that the Arabs have no reason to bring about a world
financial collapse and won't raise the price of oil without limit.
Furthermore, they know that high oil prices encourage the US and other
countries to find alternatives. This cuts into their bottom line.
And even if they did want to raise prices on oil too high, they couldn't
because the global slowdown would decrease the amount of oil needed and
lower prices.
> > in much the same light as scholars
> > like Karl Marx did back in the 19th century.
>
> Adolph Hitler was about as accurate in his predictions
> as was Karl Marx. Does that make Adolph Hiter a "scholar"
> in your mind, Scott? (Of course, you consider Kurt Lochner
> a "scholar," so...)
>
And Lochner thinks that GDY is a scholar so it goes downhill.
Garrett
> Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
> >entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
> >Depression ...
>
> Yea, that bastard Clinton really left us with
> a hell of a mess.
So the guy that Republicans have been telling is that
had nothing to do with the economy over the last 5
years, not only managed to mess up America, but the
entire world?
You just don't get it, do you?
Garrett
> Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3B5C9AC5...@nyc.rr.com...
> > I'm perfectly happy that you've stopped reading my posts, Scott.
> [sniff, sob]
> > This way I can just correct your muddled reasoning and your
> > constant errors without having it turn into a long winding
> > episode of your evasions.
>
> Translation: That way I can ridicule you without an argument, and since
> ridiculing you is my only real goal, I can flame away without obstacle.
> That's our Martin: Ever hopeful that every thinking American will killfile
> him.
He may be right. He certainly hasn't added anything to this thread
worth reading.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Gandalf Grey
Garrett <midt...@deja.com> wrote in message
news:3B5CAF25...@deja.com...
The right wing has always needed to have it both ways. Since the Gingrich
congress was a flop and resulted in nothing but continued GOP losses in
Congress since 1994, they've never been able to point to a success,
Clinton's success HAD to be downplayed...hence, Clinton has nothing to do
with a strong economy.
Now that Bush is officially in charge of the economy and it looks more bleak
daily, Clinton HAS to be responsible for the economy.
That's the right wing....a never ending excuse factory.
Garrett
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
> > Scott Erb wrote:
> > > Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
> > > entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
> > > Depression, as global stagnation could feed on itself,
> > > especially if energy prices go back up. Ironically, the
> > > optimists of globalization (such as Thomas Friedman) view the
> > > process of global capitalism...
> >
> > Cue apologetics for Marx:
> >
> Erb forgets that the Arabs have no reason to bring about a world
> financial collapse and won't raise the price of oil without limit.
Erb never said they would or wanted to.
> Furthermore, they know that high oil prices encourage the US and other
> countries to find alternatives. This cuts into their bottom line.
No country has yet found an alternative.
> And even if they did want to raise prices on oil too high, they couldn't
> because the global slowdown would decrease the amount of oil needed and
> lower prices.
You've made the assumption that they will only cut production once.
They've already cut it once in response to a global slowdown and now
they are about to cut it again because the slowdown was more than
they (anyone) expected.
Bill Bonde
Garrett wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > Martin McPhillips wrote:
> > > Scott Erb wrote:
> > > > Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
> > > > entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
> > > > Depression, as global stagnation could feed on itself,
> > > > especially if energy prices go back up. Ironically, the
> > > > optimists of globalization (such as Thomas Friedman) view the
> > > > process of global capitalism...
> > >
> > > Cue apologetics for Marx:
> > >
> > Erb forgets that the Arabs have no reason to bring about a world
> > financial collapse and won't raise the price of oil without limit.
>
> Erb never said they would or wanted to.
>
He didn't have to. He said something about it being worse if oil prices
continue to go up. Why do oil prices go up? Constrained supply, usually
on the world market this is intentional. OPEC is usually involved. But
how do they cut back into a depression? They'd have to cut their exports
massively. And why do that anyway?
> > Furthermore, they know that high oil prices encourage the US and other
> > countries to find alternatives. This cuts into their bottom line.
>
> No country has yet found an alternative.
>
If oil prices were ten bucks higher than they were at their recent
highest and they stayed that way, we'd be doing more wind generators
(these have a fixed cost that doesn't change with the price of fossil
fuels and therefore can make their owners great profits in high cost
energy times)
> > And even if they did want to raise prices on oil too high, they couldn't
> > because the global slowdown would decrease the amount of oil needed and
> > lower prices.
>
> You've made the assumption that they will only cut production once.
> They've already cut it once in response to a global slowdown and now
> they are about to cut it again because the slowdown was more than
> they (anyone) expected.
>
They are trying to keep the price in a band. They don't want it way up
there.
Eagle Eye
Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>Scott Erb wrote:
>> Yeah, you get all kinds on the internet.
>Well, dissembling college perfessers who don't know
>their own field is certainly one of those kinds.
"Insults carry no sting on the internet..."
>> Well, I've been online for over four hours, downloading and
>> printing documents from German parties and press sources,
>You're so *very* special, Scott.
>
>> and then now and then as a break zipping over here to see how
>> the "debates" are going. Now, however, I'm off for an evening
>> golf game. Have fun!
>Yes, these discussions are so meaningless to you that you devote
>hours to them, sometimes rattling on for hundreds of words with
>nothing to say.
That's how he got the moniker of "Disingenuous Fraud." His
actions and his words are, once again, at odds.
=====
EE
Take from no man what he hasn't agreed to give you.
Rob Robertson
Nah, you're just a gutless coward, Erb. Martin exposes you as
the stumbling clown you are every time you run your Marxist
apologetics routine, and now you're trying to pretend that his
arguments don't exist as long as you don't read them.
I think someone has his ideological blinders screwed on right
down to the bone, Scotti (and if you're really interested in when
the economic downturn got its push, look back to Clinton's
last year in office when Greenspan was raising rates, instead
of cutting them as he is now).
_
RR
Gandalf Grey
Rob Robertson <rob...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0j777.11639$Xn.13...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3B5C9A9F...@verizon.net...
> >
> > Gandalf Grey wrote:
> > >
> > > Woah! Martin's doing his mind reading trick again. I wonder why it
is that
> > > right wing hacks like Martin can never win an argument without using
facts
> > > not in evidence.
> > >
> > > Could it be.....?
> >
> > I've stopped reading Martin's posts. I thought at one point he
> > was simply a conservative with strong opinions but who could put
> > together interesting arguments. But he's simply trying to
> > provoke and play games -- not worth the time, in my opinion.
>
> Nah, you're just a gutless coward, Erb. Martin exposes you as
> the stumbling clown you are
Nah, he's just a discriminating reader. The only thing Martin has ever
exposed is his own stupidity and malice.
Scott D. Erb
Bill Bonde wrote:
> Erb forgets that the Arabs have no reason to bring about a world
> financial collapse and won't raise the price of oil without limit.
Not on purpose. If you've ever studied the economics of oil it's a tricky
balance -- keep the price as high as possible without damaging the economies
of your client states and without creating a backlash desire for alternative
energy resources. At the same time, you need to figure out how long
supplies will last and maximize profit over time. The threat comes less
from any kind of Arab desire to raise oil prices dramatically, but from some
kind of crisis like another war, a terrorist strike, etc.
> Furthermore, they know that high oil prices encourage the US and other
> countries to find alternatives. This cuts into their bottom line.
>
> And even if they did want to raise prices on oil too high, they couldn't
> because the global slowdown would decrease the amount of oil needed and
> lower prices.
But note: I only said that higher energy prices could make the problem
worse. I see this as a time where two major theories will be tested: a)
capitalism leads to universal prosperity and peace as it spreads, slowly but
surely vs. b) capitalism is prone to major crisis and potential collapse.
The depression gave evidence for 'b', the long boom of the last fifty years
for 'a'. Those on the side of hypothesis "a" have had the most evidence in
their favor, but the current downturn and structural problems in the system
suggest that those arguing "b" still may be right. We don't know, we can
only watch now as things unfold.
Martin McPhillips
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > Erb forgets that the Arabs have no reason to bring about a world
> > financial collapse and won't raise the price of oil without limit.
>
> Not on purpose. If you've ever studied the economics of oil it's a tricky
> balance -- keep the price as high as possible without damaging the economies
> of your client states and without creating a backlash desire for alternative
> energy resources. At the same time, you need to figure out how long
> supplies will last and maximize profit over time. The threat comes less
> from any kind of Arab desire to raise oil prices dramatically, but from some
> kind of crisis like another war, a terrorist strike, etc.
Well, Scott, you certainly can hope that things go really bad, but
that's a strange reaction. Are you hoping that history is ready now?
coolpapa
>
> The Nikkei stock exchange in Tokyo closed yesterday at the
> lowest levels since January 7, 1985 -- the lowest in over
> sixteen years.
In Yen/gold (i.e., *real*) terms, the Nikkei is up 7% this year. This is in
now way, shape, or form a "capitalist crisis". The problem is deflation
which is a direct result of government mismanagement of monetary policy.
The illiquidity trap that the world economy is in right now stems from the
Fed arbitrarily *raising* interest rates in the late '90's.
Come on, Erb. Sing us that favorite tune of yours, "Government Sorta Like
Facilitated All This Unprecedented Growth in the Last Fifty Years".
Scott D. Erb
coolpapa wrote:
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3B5C8D2E...@verizon.net...
> >
> > The Nikkei stock exchange in Tokyo closed yesterday at the
> > lowest levels since January 7, 1985 -- the lowest in over
> > sixteen years.
>
> In Yen/gold (i.e., *real*) terms, the Nikkei is up 7% this year.
Gold is a commodity which is exchanged like other commodities, and it hasn't
done all that well. Real terms refers to inflation as measured by the cost of
living index, not commodity prices. Anyone who denies that Japan is in a long
term economic crisis or that the Nikkei has been stagnant for well over a decade
is very out of touch with reality.
> This is in
> now way, shape, or form a "capitalist crisis". The problem is deflation
> which is a direct result of government mismanagement of monetary policy.
> The illiquidity trap that the world economy is in right now stems from the
> Fed arbitrarily *raising* interest rates in the late '90's.
That dog won't hunt. It's funny how the hard core capitalist apologists will
try to find anything upon which to blame structural problems, including a few
short lived interest rate increases! But if the economy does go into crisis,
you will see the Bush Administration bearing the brunt of the blame if their
reaction doesn't fix things, and a resurgence of the Left. You have to deal
with reality, as much as you don't like it.
Bill Bonde
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> That dog won't hunt. It's funny how the hard core capitalist apologists will
> try to find anything upon which to blame structural problems, including a few
> short lived interest rate increases! But if the economy does go into crisis,
> you will see the Bush Administration bearing the brunt of the blame if their
> reaction doesn't fix things, and a resurgence of the Left. You have to deal
> with reality, as much as you don't like it.
>
You are hoping and praying for a resurgence of the Left.
Martin McPhillips
In other words, Scott, you're cheerleading for economic collapse because
it will bring a resurgence of the Left. Do you think history is ready, Scott,
for the *real* Marxist revolution? And would you come out of the closet
and support it if a global recession hits?
What would you do if, for instance, the response to such a recession was
to simply wait it out and not have the government intervene? Will you
call for more socialist control of the world economy? You know, the stuff
you lie awake at night dreaming about.
silverback
>(Again, I posted something like this earlier today, but it never
>got through. If it makes it through later as sometimes happens,
>I apologize in advance for the duplication).
>
>The Nikkei stock exchange in Tokyo closed yesterday at the
>lowest levels since January 7, 1985 -- the lowest in over
>sixteen years. Taiwan's index is its low since 1993, Hong Kong
>is down 18% for the year, and the Asian economic duldrums
>continue. European growth has stagnated, and many believe that
>revised GDP figures could put the US into negative Q1 growth
>down the line, and we could be entering into a real recession.
>
>Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
>entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
>Depression, as global stagnation could feed on itself,
>especially if energy prices go back up. Ironically, the
>optimists of globalization (such as Thomas Friedman) view the
>process of global capitalism in much the same light as scholars
>like Karl Marx did back in the 19th century. The difference is
>that Friedman and current proponents see it as a path to
>prosperity and peace, with Marx and modern thinkers on the Left
>see a danger of capitalist crisis. How will the public and
>various states deal with a deep slow down, if it happens? This
Watch it come back and bite the damn republiCONs on the ass. If the
Texas blowmonkey lets us slide into another recession its going to be
a race to the bottom. For one thing there is no longer a safety net
that can cope with the present numbers of poor. As soon as
unemployment runs out for the newly laid off its going to be a
downward spiral with no bottom.
Most states simply don't have the reserves or means to plug the
hole.
>could be a test of whether the optimistic view of liberal
>capitalism is accurate, or if the dangers of capitalism as
>espoused by leftists are more on the mark. We live in
>interesting times.
***********************************************
GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
*********************************************
silverback
<jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>Scott Erb wrote:
>>
>> BlackWater wrote:
>> >
>> > Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Despite the optimism of those on wall street, we could be
>> > >entering the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great
>> > >Depression ...
>> >
>> > Yea, that bastard Clinton really left us with
>> > a hell of a mess.
>>
>> I thought Republicans said Reagan was the cause for the economy
>> to be as it was in 2000....aahhh, I get it. To the GOP all good
>> economic news is credited to the policies of a current or former
>> GOP President, while all bad economic news is blamed on the
>> policies of a past Democratic President.
>>
>> How convenient.
>>
>> Alas, the possible crisis is so widespread and global that it
>> really is outside the control of any American leader.
>
>Scott, economic downturns are a natural, necessary, and healthy
>part of the business cycle. Hoping, as you are, that it will turn
except this time we have a Texas blowmonkey bad mouthing the economy
like some raped ape. And to top that off he stole the election, the
people will be looking for leadership in times of crisis not a drunken
coke snorting frat boy with no brains.
>into a world economic *crisis* just demonstrates how unhappy you
>are with prosperity. You're anxious to see it sacrificed for
>your fantasies about "what might come."
silverback
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>In article <3B5CA0B0...@nyc.rr.com>
>Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>Scott Erb wrote:
>>> Yeah, you get all kinds on the internet.
>>Well, dissembling college perfessers who don't know
>>their own field is certainly one of those kinds.
>
>"Insults carry no sting on the internet..."
didcha just figure that out plucked chicken. Considering how you like
to insult people I find the above statement ironic. Go ahead and try
to deny it and I'll kick yer damn fool ass until yer nose bleeds.
>
>>> Well, I've been online for over four hours, downloading and
>>> printing documents from German parties and press sources,
>>You're so *very* special, Scott.
>>
>>> and then now and then as a break zipping over here to see how
>>> the "debates" are going. Now, however, I'm off for an evening
>>> golf game. Have fun!
>>Yes, these discussions are so meaningless to you that you devote
>>hours to them, sometimes rattling on for hundreds of words with
>>nothing to say.
>
>That's how he got the moniker of "Disingenuous Fraud." His
>actions and his words are, once again, at odds.
>
> =====
> EE
>
> Take from no man what he hasn't agreed to give you.
>
***********************************************
Bill Bonde
coolpapa wrote:
>
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3B5C8D2E...@verizon.net...
> >
> > The Nikkei stock exchange in Tokyo closed yesterday at the
> > lowest levels since January 7, 1985 -- the lowest in over
> > sixteen years.
>
> In Yen/gold (i.e., *real*) terms, the Nikkei is up 7% this year. This is in
> now way, shape, or form a "capitalist crisis". The problem is deflation
> which is a direct result of government mismanagement of monetary policy.
> The illiquidity trap that the world economy is in right now stems from the
> Fed arbitrarily *raising* interest rates in the late '90's.
>
The real test that we are having is whether a slowing US economy (and
world economy) can be reignited by lowering interest rates. Greenspan
taking a hot bath and wondering. We shall see.
Bill Bonde
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > Erb forgets that the Arabs have no reason to bring about a world
> > financial collapse and won't raise the price of oil without limit.
>
> Not on purpose. If you've ever studied the economics of oil it's a tricky
> balance -- keep the price as high as possible without damaging the economies
> of your client states and without creating a backlash desire for alternative
> energy resources. At the same time, you need to figure out how long
> supplies will last and maximize profit over time. The threat comes less
> from any kind of Arab desire to raise oil prices dramatically, but from some
> kind of crisis like another war, a terrorist strike, etc.
>
The war might do it but supplies during the Gulf war still allowed
reasonable prices. A terrorist event isn't likely to cut the flow of oil
too much. Perhaps if they attacked a major pipeline.
> > Furthermore, they know that high oil prices encourage the US and other
> > countries to find alternatives. This cuts into their bottom line.
> >
> > And even if they did want to raise prices on oil too high, they couldn't
> > because the global slowdown would decrease the amount of oil needed and
> > lower prices.
>
> But note: I only said that higher energy prices could make the problem
> worse. I see this as a time where two major theories will be tested: a)
> capitalism leads to universal prosperity and peace as it spreads, slowly but
> surely vs. b) capitalism is prone to major crisis and potential collapse.
> The depression gave evidence for 'b', the long boom of the last fifty years
> for 'a'. Those on the side of hypothesis "a" have had the most evidence in
> their favor, but the current downturn and structural problems in the system
> suggest that those arguing "b" still may be right. We don't know, we can
> only watch now as things unfold.
>
That you are considering the theory that capitalism sucks suggests that
you are really a loony nut. Capitalism is the economic equivalent of
democracy. It is something called 'freedom'. It has all sorts of
problems but it is morally the right thing to do. It's rather sad that
you can't see that.
Scott D. Erb
Bill Bonde wrote:
> >
> That you are considering the theory that capitalism sucks suggests that
> you are really a loony nut. Capitalism is the economic equivalent of
> democracy. It is something called 'freedom'. It has all sorts of
> problems but it is morally the right thing to do. It's rather sad that
> you can't see that.
Your opinion is noted. Do you even know what you're talking about, though? No
one but the looney fringe argues for pure capitalism, every system is mixed in
some way. Almost everyone on the Left as well as the Right argues that markets
are necessary, as are wage differentials and private property. But how such a
system operates can vary. The complexities are where the interesting questions
lie.
cheers, scott
msoja
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
>Your opinion is noted. Do you even know what you're talking about, though? No
>one but the looney fringe argues for pure capitalism, every system is mixed in
>some way. Almost everyone on the Left as well as the Right argues that markets
>are necessary, as are wage differentials and private property. But how such a
>system operates can vary. The complexities are where the interesting questions
>lie.
Why do you think you can control people, Scoti, and why, really, do
you want to?
Mike
Garrett
> Bill Bonde wrote:
> > That you are considering the theory that capitalism sucks suggests that
> > you are really a loony nut. Capitalism is the economic equivalent of
> > democracy. It is something called 'freedom'. It has all sorts of
> > problems but it is morally the right thing to do. It's rather sad that
> > you can't see that.
>
> Your opinion is noted. Do you even know what you're talking about, though? No
> one but the looney fringe argues for pure capitalism, every system is mixed in
> some way.
There is a very large "looney fringe" representation on usenet.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Garrett
You've totally missed Scott's point.
--
"One is punished most for one's virtues."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Eagle Eye
silverback <gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com> wrote:
>On 24 Jul 2001 04:37:51 -0000, Eagle Eye
><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>In article <3B5CA0B0...@nyc.rr.com>
>>Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>Scott Erb wrote:
>>>> Yeah, you get all kinds on the internet.
>>>Well, dissembling college perfessers who don't know
>>>their own field is certainly one of those kinds.
>>"Insults carry no sting on the internet..."
>didcha just figure that out plucked chicken. Considering how you like
>to insult people I find the above statement ironic. Go ahead and try
>to deny it and I'll kick yer damn fool ass until yer nose bleeds.
You're a self-parody, Glen. I suppose I shouldn't expect you to
recognize when someone lampoons Scottie (disingenuous fraud) by
quoting his own words. After all, you are a drunken retard.
In your case, Mercury's remark may be true, since you're too stupid
to figure out when you've been insulted.
msoja
posted:
> There is a very large "looney fringe" representation on usenet.
Let's not make fun of Zippy the Zepp Pinhead's weight problem. The
government is working hard at expropriating some low-cal cheese for
him . . .
Developing . . .
Mike
Bill Bonde
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > >
> > That you are considering the theory that capitalism sucks suggests that
> > you are really a loony nut. Capitalism is the economic equivalent of
> > democracy. It is something called 'freedom'. It has all sorts of
> > problems but it is morally the right thing to do. It's rather sad that
> > you can't see that.
>
> Your opinion is noted. Do you even know what you're talking about, though?
>
Yes, I do.
> No
> one but the looney fringe argues for pure capitalism, every system is mixed in
> some way.
>
Mixed in the sense that there are some government safeguards, rules and
the like.
> Almost everyone on the Left as well as the Right argues that markets
> are necessary, as are wage differentials and private property. But how such a
> system operates can vary. The complexities are where the interesting questions
> lie.
>
You are the person who was arguing that capitalism could fail. Now you
are taking a 'balanced approach'?
Scott D. Erb
Bill Bonde wrote:
-snip-
> You are the person who was arguing that capitalism could fail. Now you
> are taking a 'balanced approach'?
Where did I argue that? I said this could be a real crisis in capitalism, like the
crisis back in the thirties. I believe it may force us to rethink how our economies
are structured. But markets must be a part of any system for it to function in a
manner that can bring prosperity and create incentives for innovation.
Bill Bonde
Garrett wrote:
>
> msoja wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:55:00 GMT, "Scott D. Erb"
> > <scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
> > >Your opinion is noted. Do you even know what you're talking about, though? No
> > >one but the looney fringe argues for pure capitalism, every system is mixed in
> > >some way. Almost everyone on the Left as well as the Right argues that markets
> > >are necessary, as are wage differentials and private property. But how such a
> > >system operates can vary. The complexities are where the interesting questions
> > >lie.
> >
> > Why do you think you can control people, Scoti, and why, really, do
> > you want to?
>
> You've totally missed Scott's point.
>
I guess I missed his point too. He had said that 'capitalism' could be
on the way out. Now he's talking a moderate tone about some mixed
system. We already have, as he noted, a mixed system. So it isn't really
clear what he means, in my opinion.
Scott D. Erb
Bill Bonde wrote:
> I guess I missed his point too. He had said that 'capitalism' could be
> on the way out. Now he's talking a moderate tone about some mixed
> system. We already have, as he noted, a mixed system. So it isn't really
> clear what he means, in my opinion.
I must not have been clear in my statement. A capitalist crisis is expected from
theorists on the left who believe that the centralization of wealth and power that is
growing with globalization leads to a number of contradictions that can cause systemic
collapse (they would argue this happened once in the Great Depression). I noted that the
current downturn is possibly in line with those arguments, and could be seen as a test of
the two views of modern capitalism -- one very bullish on markets, one who believes the
system is built on weak foundations.
However, if there is a crisis, that likely will benefit the left (I disagree with Garrett
that the US would move towards fascism, but I see his point too), but I would totally
oppose the kind of controlled planned economy totalitarianism of the old left. Markets
are necessary, democracy essential, and individual liberties of primary value. Perhaps a
crisis, if it comes, would break us out of the dichotomous view that ignores the
multidimensionality of political/economic life.
I don't think a major crisis is coming, rather, I think there is going to be a deeper
than expected recession. The point of the post was when I look at the long term
stagnation in Asia, and general weakness of the global economy overall, it is possible to
"think the unthinkable," that we could be on the verge of a major economic crisis.
For me, this is fascinating to live through -- I don't know what theory is best, people
tend to interpret the world to fit into what they believe. But the evidence and data
that the next few years will provide will, I suspect, enhance our understanding of what
globalization and the technology revolution means.
cheers, scott
msoja
posted:
>msoja wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:55:00 GMT, "Scott D. Erb"
>> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
>> >Your opinion is noted. Do you even know what you're talking about, though? No
>> >one but the looney fringe argues for pure capitalism, every system is mixed in
>> >some way. Almost everyone on the Left as well as the Right argues that markets
>> >are necessary, as are wage differentials and private property. But how such a
>> >system operates can vary. The complexities are where the interesting questions
>> >lie.
>> Why do you think you can control people, Scoti, and why, really, do
>> you want to?
> You've totally missed Scott's point.
And I think you missed mine. All Scoti's preaching about how complex
the markets are is just the charlatan's stock-in-trade sales pitch for
gulling people into thinking a select elite is capable of
"manipulating" the market for the public good. He decries what he
calls the looney fringe capitalists because they stand for the least
control, the least manipulation. And, of course, the UN-stated
presumption behind the attempted manipulation of markets, the really
nasty fact that comes before one can muster the gall to try and beat
supply and demand at its own game, is the presumption that Scoti
actually know's what is best for people, that he (or an even bigger
moron like Al Gore, for instance) should decide what is best for
people and with his other great abilities then coerce the market into
providing or denying appropriately. That is the control I spoke of,
and it's been sought by dictators and despots throughout history.
Mike
Bill Bonde
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> > You are the person who was arguing that capitalism could fail. Now you
> > are taking a 'balanced approach'?
>
> Where did I argue that? I said this could be a real crisis in capitalism, like the
> crisis back in the thirties.
>
On the one hand, you say it is a possible real crisis in 'capitalism'
and then on the other, you claim that our system is 'mixed'. Sounds like
you want to blame a possible crisis in our mixed system on capitalism.
How do you know it isn't because of the other parts?
Scott D. Erb
Bill Bonde wrote:
> > Where did I argue that? I said this could be a real crisis in capitalism, like the
> > crisis back in the thirties.
> >
> On the one hand, you say it is a possible real crisis in 'capitalism'
> and then on the other, you claim that our system is 'mixed'. Sounds like
> you want to blame a possible crisis in our mixed system on capitalism.
> How do you know it isn't because of the other parts?
Oh, I see. I'm using the term "capitalist world system" following the theoretical
approach of Immanuel Wallerstein and others who talk about the world system as
essentially capitalist, with a systemic logic. When I talked about domestic economies, I
noted they were mixed systems, and not pure capitalist. You are right to point out the
contradictory way it sounds when mixing that terminology.
Partially, I think the term "capitalist" is a tough one to define. Some people say the
US has "socialist" tendencies because of government programs, but others say it is a
successful "capitalist" system. For Wallerstein and others, capitalism is defined as a
world system with a particular logic, even encompassing countries less capitalist. I
talked about the system using his terminology, but used conventional notions of mixed
economy to define domestic systems.
I think my point (that markets, etc., are necessary components of any system, as well as
democracy and individual liberties) is still legit, but I will be more careful in how I
use the term 'capitalist' in this discussion so as to avoid that kind of
misunderstanding. My fault. Sorry.
Scott D. Erb
from my own. That's what happens when you don't actually discuss something with someone
else, but imagine what they must think based on perconceived images of what someone of a
different perspective is proposing. I won't even try to go through and correct all your
falsehoods about my beliefs (I won't call them lies, you probably really think I believe
those things), except to tell you that you are WAY off!
Martin McPhillips
>
> Partially, I think the term "capitalist" is a tough one to define.
Could it possibly be harder for you to define it than "socialism"
was?
> Some people say the
> US has "socialist" tendencies because of government programs,
It does. It runs a Ponzi scheme pension program and a socialized
healthcare program for the elderly. Between the two programs they
eat up much of the federal budget.
> but others say it is a
> successful "capitalist" system.
It is a successful capitalist system, and that's why socialists
are able to feed off of it. Maine is a successful state government,
but weasels are able to feed off of its university system. See the
similarity?
Martin McPhillips
>
> Wow. All I can say, Mike, is that the opinions you assign to me are very different
> from my own. That's what happens when you don't actually discuss something with someone
> else, but imagine what they must think based on perconceived images of what someone of a
> different perspective is proposing. I won't even try to go through and correct all your
> falsehoods about my beliefs (I won't call them lies, you probably really think I believe
> those things), except to tell you that you are WAY off!
What? He has you down exactly. What he says applies directly not
only to your national socialist ideas, expressed today, about
what kind of health care system you'd like to see in the U.S.,
it also applies to the kind of things you say to David Friedman
in the exchanges with him that *you* posted, Scott.
Bill Bonde
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > > Where did I argue that? I said this could be a real crisis in capitalism, like the
> > > crisis back in the thirties.
> > >
> > On the one hand, you say it is a possible real crisis in 'capitalism'
> > and then on the other, you claim that our system is 'mixed'. Sounds like
> > you want to blame a possible crisis in our mixed system on capitalism.
> > How do you know it isn't because of the other parts?
>
> Oh, I see. I'm using the term "capitalist world system" following the theoretical
> approach of Immanuel Wallerstein and others who talk about the world system as
> essentially capitalist, with a systemic logic. When I talked about domestic economies, I
> noted they were mixed systems, and not pure capitalist. You are right to point out the
> contradictory way it sounds when mixing that terminology.
>
> Partially, I think the term "capitalist" is a tough one to define. Some people say the
> US has "socialist" tendencies because of government programs, but others say it is a
> successful "capitalist" system. For Wallerstein and others, capitalism is defined as a
> world system with a particular logic, even encompassing countries less capitalist. I
> talked about the system using his terminology, but used conventional notions of mixed
> economy to define domestic systems.
>
OK, so maybe we are getting somewhere. So then you said that there was a
possible crisis in the capitalist system. Did you mean just in the
internal capitalist (mixed, you used there, I believe) system(s) or do
you mean the world capitalist system? If you mean the latter, what would
you replace it with?
Scott D. Erb
Bill Bonde wrote:
I'm not sure. The old communist notion of capitalism being replaced by some kind of utopian
socialism is bogus, if there is a crisis we'll be in for a resurgence of nationalism, extremism
on the Left and Right, and a general inability to decide just what to do.
I look at it this way: the rise of the computer and the general technological revolution has
altered the very meaning of time and space in politics and social life. Things move faster and
distance isn't as relevant. This has eroded sovereignty, made non-state actors (both
intergovernmental organizations and NGOs, including corporations) more powerful, and may
ultimately have the same kind of impact that the printing press and gunpowder had on the old
European order when it was destroyed with the wars of reformation and replaced by the
Westphalian system. As long as things are good, people will ride with the changes. If things
start deteriorating, with no set way to understand how to respond, you could get social
instability.
The Left argues that capitalism has built in contradictions and a propensity to collapse (the
capitalist world system). If they are right, that suggests a much more serious challenge to
our political and social systems than if the pro-market globalization forces are right that
we're entering a period of enhanced prosperity and peace (Thomas Friedman's 'golden arches'
theory -- two countries with McDonalds don't fight each other in most cases -- a restatement of
the old theory that liberal democracies don't wage war with each other).
Whatever will emerge will probably not be something like what we have now. I suspect it will
be more decentralized, cooperative, and focused less on territorial borders than the present
system. Maybe even Left and Right as we now understand the terms will be obsolete.
That's why I called the thread 'thinking the unthinkable.' We're all so optimistic, and even
those who think the recession will be bad are looking for a recovery in late 2002...but what if
the downturns in Japan, Asia, Europe, and Latin America are part of a trend that hits the US as
well...that idea is intriguing if unsettling, hence my post.
Martin McPhillips
>
>
> I'm not sure. The old communist notion of capitalism being replaced by some kind of utopian
> socialism is bogus,
Not that it wouldn't be desireable if it only worked, right Scott?
But you've seen the error of the "Communist" way, and so you've simply
opted for Fabian socialism.
> if there is a crisis we'll be in for a resurgence of nationalism, extremism
> on the Left and Right, and a general inability to decide just what to do.
You're so spiritual, Scott. You cheerlead for economic crisis because it
will be a great test. And you can only hope that the Left prevails.
Garrett
> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> > I won't even try to go through and correct all your
> > falsehoods about my beliefs (I won't call them lies, you probably really think I believe
> > those things), except to tell you that you are WAY off!
>
> What? He has you down exactly. What he says applies directly not
> only to your national socialist ideas, expressed today, about
> what kind of health care system you'd like to see in the U.S.,
> it also applies to the kind of things you say to David Friedman
> in the exchanges with him that *you* posted, Scott.
You really have a hard-on for Scott, Martin.
He must really excite you. I hope I don't live anywhere
near you.
Garrett
> Wow. All I can say, Mike, is that the opinions you assign to me are very different
> from my own. That's what happens when you don't actually discuss something with someone
> else, but imagine what they must think based on perconceived images of what someone of a
> different perspective is proposing. I won't even try to go through and correct all your
> falsehoods about my beliefs (I won't call them lies, you probably really think I believe
> those things), except to tell you that you are WAY off!
That seems to be the biggest problem of usenet:
people assigning you their own stereotype and denouncing you for it.
There's no point in debating those people.
msoja
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
This:
>But markets must be a part of any system for it to function in a
>manner that can bring prosperity and create incentives for innovation.
is beautiful truthspeak, no? And has no doubt been approved by the
committee.
Do these slogans of yours repeat often inside your skull, Scoti?
Swing the sickle. BANG the hammer.
... "that can bring prosperity and create incentives for innovation "
BANG!!
Have you EVER created an incentive for innovation, Scoti?
Mike
Martin McPhillips
From the way you rub up against him, you seem to be the one with
the hard-on.
Scott's a sort of official liar. He cranks out the lies, the
Marxist apologetics, the socialist agenda, and I correct the
lies and note the Marxist apologetics and the socialist agenda,
not to mention the ever-present anti-American propaganda.
You seem to be just rubbing yourself all over in his presence.
Get a tube of something and make yourself happy.
Jack Dawes
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> Wow. All I can say, Mike, is that the opinions you assign to me are very different
> from my own.
Since your opinion on any particular subject changes from day to day how can you
know which day and which opinion he is referring to.
Jack
Martin McPhillips
He's denying Mike's characterization in the very same day that he is
expressing precisely the viewpoint that Mike describes.
It's a good thing that Scott doesn't care much for that old-fashioned
totalitarian socialism because it would definitely put him off wanting
the government to involve itself in all aspects of economic life.
Scott's just for a just world, not heaven on earth. He realizes that
the latter will have to wait awhile.
Garrett
> From the way you rub up against him, you seem to be the one with
> the hard-on.
>
> You seem to be just rubbing yourself all over in his presence.
>
> Get a tube of something and make yourself happy.
That would require me to find room between your groin and
the image of him on your computer screen and it's obvious
that no body part can fit in a space that close.
So it looks like I'll just leave you to your "fun".
Bill Bonde
So if you don't know what the answer is, why are you licking your lips
in anticipation for the perhaps coming calamity? It seems like you just
hate the world or something.
> I look at it this way: the rise of the computer and the general technological revolution has
> altered the very meaning of time and space in politics and social life. Things move faster and
> distance isn't as relevant. This has eroded sovereignty, made non-state actors (both
> intergovernmental organizations and NGOs, including corporations) more powerful, and may
> ultimately have the same kind of impact that the printing press and gunpowder had on the old
> European order when it was destroyed with the wars of reformation and replaced by the
> Westphalian system. As long as things are good, people will ride with the changes. If things
> start deteriorating, with no set way to understand how to respond, you could get social
> instability.
>
What is 'social instability'? Riots at every WTO and G8 meeting? We
survived the 60s, why is this time so special?
> The Left argues that capitalism has built in contradictions and a propensity to collapse (the
> capitalist world system).
>
So this is, I get from what you are saying, a collapse into some sort of
anarchy? And the increased power of corporations would allow them to
setup of little fiefdoms from which to rule their industries and
ultimately beyond? So what you are really saying is that you are a
closeted anarcho-capitalist.
> If they are right, that suggests a much more serious challenge to
> our political and social systems than if the pro-market globalization forces are right that
> we're entering a period of enhanced prosperity and peace (Thomas Friedman's 'golden arches'
> theory -- two countries with McDonalds don't fight each other in most cases -- a restatement of
> the old theory that liberal democracies don't wage war with each other).
>
> Whatever will emerge will probably not be something like what we have now. I suspect it will
> be more decentralized, cooperative, and focused less on territorial borders than the present
> system. Maybe even Left and Right as we now understand the terms will be obsolete.
>
Borders are vital to preserve redundancy. It is supremely ironic that
Germany is taking the lead in European unification. All we need to see
is for a European Union to elect a Hitler like nut and then we have
Hitler back again. But you are right that a lot of people don't see the
value in borders and think they are the cause of war.
> That's why I called the thread 'thinking the unthinkable.' We're all so optimistic, and even
> those who think the recession will be bad are looking for a recovery in late 2002...but what if
> the downturns in Japan, Asia, Europe, and Latin America are part of a trend that hits the US as
> well...that idea is intriguing if unsettling, hence my post.
>
I still don't see why this specific time in capitalist history would be
more likely to bring that about.
silverback
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>In article <3b5e0f07...@news.spiritone.com>
>silverback <gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com> wrote:
>>On 24 Jul 2001 04:37:51 -0000, Eagle Eye
>><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>>In article <3B5CA0B0...@nyc.rr.com>
>>>Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>Scott Erb wrote:
>>>>> Yeah, you get all kinds on the internet.
>>>>Well, dissembling college perfessers who don't know
>>>>their own field is certainly one of those kinds.
>>>"Insults carry no sting on the internet..."
>>didcha just figure that out plucked chicken. Considering how you like
>>to insult people I find the above statement ironic. Go ahead and try
>>to deny it and I'll kick yer damn fool ass until yer nose bleeds.
>
>You're a self-parody, Glen. I suppose I shouldn't expect you to
oh lookie the little dumb plucked chicken shows up and starts whining
he didn't mean it.
>recognize when someone lampoons Scottie (disingenuous fraud) by
>quoting his own words. After all, you are a drunken retard.
no that would be you retard.
>
>In your case, Mercury's remark may be true, since you're too stupid
>to figure out when you've been insulted.
Too bad you can't come up with anything better than that plucked
chicken or is it chicken shit now days?
>
>>>>> Well, I've been online for over four hours, downloading and
>>>>> printing documents from German parties and press sources,
>>>>You're so *very* special, Scott.
>>>>
>>>>> and then now and then as a break zipping over here to see how
>>>>> the "debates" are going. Now, however, I'm off for an evening
>>>>> golf game. Have fun!
>>>>Yes, these discussions are so meaningless to you that you devote
>>>>hours to them, sometimes rattling on for hundreds of words with
>>>>nothing to say.
>>>That's how he got the moniker of "Disingenuous Fraud." His
>>>actions and his words are, once again, at odds.
>
> =====
> EE
>
> Take from no man what he hasn't agreed to give you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
***********************************************
GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
*********************************************
silverback
he was talking about you, pussball.
>
>Developing . . .
>
>Mike
>
>
***********************************************
silverback
<jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>>
>> Partially, I think the term "capitalist" is a tough one to define.
>
>Could it possibly be harder for you to define it than "socialism"
>was?
>
>> Some people say the
>> US has "socialist" tendencies because of government programs,
>
>It does. It runs a Ponzi scheme pension program and a socialized
>healthcare program for the elderly. Between the two programs they
>eat up much of the federal budget.
solid until 2038 with no changes. Unless the Texas blowmonkey and the
rpeubliCONs rob the trust fund.
And thems the facts folks.
>
>> but others say it is a
>> successful "capitalist" system.
>
>It is a successful capitalist system, and that's why socialists
>are able to feed off of it. Maine is a successful state government,
>but weasels are able to feed off of its university system. See the
>similarity?
***********************************************
Martin McPhillips
>
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> > From the way you rub up against him, you seem to be the one with
> > the hard-on.
> >
> > You seem to be just rubbing yourself all over in his presence.
> >
> > Get a tube of something and make yourself happy.
>
> That would require me to find room between your groin and
> the image of him on your computer screen and it's obvious
> that no body part can fit in a space that close.
> So it looks like I'll just leave you to your "fun".
Like I said, get a tube of something and make yourself happy.
Wayne Mann
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>Bill Bonde wrote:
>
>> >
>> That you are considering the theory that capitalism sucks suggests that
>> you are really a loony nut. Capitalism is the economic equivalent of
>> democracy. It is something called 'freedom'. It has all sorts of
>> problems but it is morally the right thing to do. It's rather sad that
>> you can't see that.
>
>Your opinion is noted. Do you even know what you're talking about, though? No
>one but the looney fringe argues for pure capitalism, every system is mixed in
>some way. Almost everyone on the Left as well as the Right argues that markets
>are necessary, as are wage differentials and private property. But how such a
>system operates can vary. The complexities are where the interesting questions
>lie.
>cheers, scott
>
We know, you want Communism, but forget it! No amount of
ignorant posting like you do, will convince a single person to join
with you and your silly, proven failure of Communism. WHy don;t you
at least be honest enough to admit what you believe instead of
pretending you're something you are not. We know you bragged about
stealing from your employer, so why not be honest about this. WHen
are you going to repay your employer for all you stole from him?
Wayne Mann
> You've totally missed Scott's point.
>
Erb doesn't have a point!
silverback
wrote:
right after you post proof that you have paid the government yer full
share of taxes after lying on yer forms.
Scott D. Erb
Bill Bonde wrote:
> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> >
> > > OK, so maybe we are getting somewhere. So then you said that there was a
> > > possible crisis in the capitalist system. Did you mean just in the
> > > internal capitalist (mixed, you used there, I believe) system(s) or do
> > > you mean the world capitalist system? If you mean the latter, what would
> > > you replace it with?
> >
> > I'm not sure. The old communist notion of capitalism being replaced by some kind of utopian
> > socialism is bogus, if there is a crisis we'll be in for a resurgence of nationalism, extremism
> > on the Left and Right, and a general inability to decide just what to do.
>
> So if you don't know what the answer is, why are you licking your lips
> in anticipation for the perhaps coming calamity? It seems like you just
> hate the world or something.
Licking my chops? Don't read things into posts which aren't there. After all, this isn't something
you or I alone are going to change or alter whether we welcome or dread either a major crisis or a
sudden renewed economic boom. I'm trying to understand it and figure out where we're going.
> > I look at it this way: the rise of the computer and the general technological revolution has
> > altered the very meaning of time and space in politics and social life. Things move faster and
> > distance isn't as relevant. This has eroded sovereignty, made non-state actors (both
> > intergovernmental organizations and NGOs, including corporations) more powerful, and may
> > ultimately have the same kind of impact that the printing press and gunpowder had on the old
> > European order when it was destroyed with the wars of reformation and replaced by the
> > Westphalian system. As long as things are good, people will ride with the changes. If things
> > start deteriorating, with no set way to understand how to respond, you could get social
> > instability.
>
> What is 'social instability'? Riots at every WTO and G8 meeting? We
> survived the 60s, why is this time so special?
We survived the thirties too -- but the world drifted into major war, the ideologies of Communism and
Fascism arose when it appeared capitalism had failed, and, well, I think you get the picture. Also
the systemic change I brought up during the time of the reformation is evidence that challenges to
the system can be very destabilizing. Here it's a world wide problem due to globalization (which is
a reality, no matter what anti-globalizers may wish). This includes the resurgence of militant
Islam, the ease of terrorism, especially biological, chemical and cyberwarfare weapons, potential
famines, and, yes, environmental problems added to the mix. It could also be a technological fantasy
world where we solve all these problems. In any event, the evidence suggests we may be living in one
of those fascinating periods of history, during a change in the major parameters of the system (one
view of this can be seen in James Rosenau's "Post International Politics" theory, but other ways of
conceptualizing this issue exist, I'm not the only one noting that when you have technological and
information revolutions, political structures are often forced to adapt, and not always easily).
> > The Left argues that capitalism has built in contradictions and a propensity to collapse (the
> > capitalist world system).
>
> So this is, I get from what you are saying, a collapse into some sort of
> anarchy? And the increased power of corporations would allow them to
> setup of little fiefdoms from which to rule their industries and
> ultimately beyond? So what you are really saying is that you are a
> closeted anarcho-capitalist.
You seem to read a lot into posts that aren't there. I suspect more likely you'll see the return of
politics with a vengeance. Look at how fundamentalist religious movements world wide, and
nationalism, develop in the mass population as a reaction to globalization. This isn't always
reflected in elite activity, and as long as the economy is doing OK, the masses are willing to go
along. Go to a crisis, and you've got populist politicians world wide able to be more active, and
states will find that the institutions of the old era, as well as the ways of thinking about
politics, won't work like they did before. Some think this will lead to a corporate controlled
world, but I find that unlikely. If so, corporations would probably work with the WTO to create some
kind of defacto government authority, but that would require elites to effectively control masses of
unsatisfied people and I don't think that will be possible.
> > If they are right, that suggests a much more serious challenge to
> > our political and social systems than if the pro-market globalization forces are right that
> > we're entering a period of enhanced prosperity and peace (Thomas Friedman's 'golden arches'
> > theory -- two countries with McDonalds don't fight each other in most cases -- a restatement of
> > the old theory that liberal democracies don't wage war with each other).
> >
> > Whatever will emerge will probably not be something like what we have now. I suspect it will
> > be more decentralized, cooperative, and focused less on territorial borders than the present
> > system. Maybe even Left and Right as we now understand the terms will be obsolete.
>
> Borders are vital to preserve redundancy. It is supremely ironic that
> Germany is taking the lead in European unification. All we need to see
> is for a European Union to elect a Hitler like nut and then we have
> Hitler back again. But you are right that a lot of people don't see the
> value in borders and think they are the cause of war.
The EU is a cooperative venture, and so far has been a very successful one. Given continued German
cuts in military spending and general European antipathy to large military buildups, I doubt there is
a social or cultural set of conditions that could support the rise of a Hitler. The borders there
have virtually disappeared. The Franco-German border in the summer of '99 is an example. We'd
watched the total eclipse of the sun in Saarbruecken (Germany), and then a group of about nine of us
piled into two cars and headed to Metz (France) for a festival. On the way back on a country road we
saw the sign "Willkommen in Deutschland." We stopped the car, saw a sign on the otherside "Bienvenue
en France." The border was unguaraded and bland, reminding me of the South Dakota/Minnesota border
or any state border in the US. It used to have border checks and a whole complex, now it was
nothing. With a common currency now in place legally (and starting Jan 1, people will turn in old
money for new), the moves are amazing. And guess what -- even as Yugoslavs still have the old
thinking of tribal wars, and Europeans now find war between themselves, the stuff of the first two
world wars, unthinkable. That is perhaps the most positive model of what globalization can bring --
prosperity and peace. But Europe, which was the birth place of the nation state, has a strong set of
cultural traditions and modern development. I don't think that model can simply be adapted by
everyone else in the world.
> > That's why I called the thread 'thinking the unthinkable.' We're all so optimistic, and even
> > those who think the recession will be bad are looking for a recovery in late 2002...but what if
> > the downturns in Japan, Asia, Europe, and Latin America are part of a trend that hits the US as
> > well...that idea is intriguing if unsettling, hence my post.
> >
> I still don't see why this specific time in capitalist history would be
> more likely to bring that about.
You might find Immanuel Wallerstein's work interesting, he's been predicting capitalist crisis for
years. Some of the arguments from the Left on the issue are pretty strong, but also very abstract
and hard to test. So I'm just going to watch and see what unfolds, trying to understand. We live
in interesting times, I like to go through life with a sense of history, recognizing that we're in an
historical era that someday people will be fascinated by.
coolpapa
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B5DC0F1...@worldnet.att.net...
>
> Gold is a commodity which is exchanged like other commodities...
Only since the government arbitrarily "decided" so in 1971.
> ... and it hasn't done all that well.
Monetary deflation has a tendency to do that.
> Real terms refers to inflation as measured by the cost of living index,
not commodity prices.
What?!?! Riddle me this, Mr. Wizard: What index is currently used to
measure inflation?
> Anyone who denies that Japan is in a long
> term economic crisis or that the Nikkei has been stagnant for well over a
decade
> is very out of touch with reality.
I don't know who you're referring to with "anyone", but *I* never said
anything like that. Listen, I don't care if the government in Japan is too
stupid to solve their "long term economic crisis" or if the people of Japan
are so stupid to think a government even could. All I know is that money
has been made in Japan despite the fact that it "has been stagnant for well
over a decade". And *that* is reality.
> coolpapa wrote:
>
> > This is in no way, shape, or form a "capitalist crisis". The problem is
deflation
> > which is a direct result of government mismanagement of monetary policy.
> > The illiquidity trap that the world economy is in right now stems from
the
> > Fed arbitrarily *raising* interest rates in the late '90's.
>
> That dog won't hunt. It's funny how the hard core capitalist apologists
will
> try to find anything upon which to blame structural problems, including a
few
> short lived interest rate increases!
Good God, man! You really don't know anything about economics, do you? Why
don't you march down the coast to Wall Street with your "Structural Power
Relations" Dog & Pony Show, and try it out on people who actually get *paid*
to manage investments. Tell them to ignore "a few short lived interest rate
increases", but concentrate instead on the "structural problems" of
Capitalism. They'll laugh your narrow ass into the East River or Bellevue
Hosp.
> But if the economy does go into crisis,
> you will see the Bush Administration bearing the brunt of the blame if
their
> reaction doesn't fix things, and a resurgence of the Left. You have to
deal
> with reality, as much as you don't like it.
That may turn out to be true because that's not an economic issue, despite
your use of the word "economy". As for "dealing with reality", I always do,
and with my own money. If there is "a resurgence of the Left" as you say,
I'll shift all my investments into Arms & Munitions.
Jack Dawes
coolpapa wrote:
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3B5DC0F1...@worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > Gold is a commodity which is exchanged like other commodities...
>
> Only since the government arbitrarily "decided" so in 1971.
>
> > ... and it hasn't done all that well.
>
> Monetary deflation has a tendency to do that.
>
> > Real terms refers to inflation as measured by the cost of living index,
> not commodity prices.
>
> What?!?! Riddle me this, Mr. Wizard: What index is currently used to
> measure inflation?
>
> > Anyone who denies that Japan is in a long
> > term economic crisis or that the Nikkei has been stagnant for well over a
> decade
> > is very out of touch with reality.
>
> I don't know who you're referring to with "anyone", but *I* never said
> anything like that. Listen, I don't care if the government in Japan is too
> stupid to solve their "long term economic crisis" or if the people of Japan
> are so stupid to think a government even could. All I know is that money
> has been made in Japan despite the fact that it "has been stagnant for well
> over a decade". And *that* is reality.
Part of their stagnation is due to their high taxes. But they need those
high taxes in order to retire people at 55 and pay them a fairly
high percentage of their salary plus inflation at retirement .. When they were
booming
in the 80's no one ever thought that their economy would stagnate like
it did. They were caught with their pants down by the " computer revolution".
Their business structure with banks at the head of many corporations
wiped out a lot of banks when the economy went south.
A lot of bank problems was also caused by runaway inflation in the real
estate markets but that is another story.
Jack
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<cool...@go-concepts.com> wrote:
>
>That may turn out to be true because that's not an economic issue, despite
>your use of the word "economy". As for "dealing with reality", I always do,
>and with my own money. If there is "a resurgence of the Left" as you say,
>I'll shift all my investments into Arms & Munitions.
Money managers get paid a lot of money to make decisions like that,
but the evidence that such decisions pay off is weak.
You referred to the other poster as not knowing economics in the real
world, as money managers know it.
Yet you seem to be a big fan of a grossly overbought superstition -
that switching around pays off.
>
>
Scott D. Erb
coolpapa wrote:
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3B5DC0F1...@worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > Gold is a commodity which is exchanged like other commodities...
>
> Only since the government arbitrarily "decided" so in 1971.
So gold shouldn't be a commodity? The only reason gold was something more
before was because the government arbitrarily decided to tie the value of it's
currency to that particular commodity. That turned out to be foolish because
the US didn't have enough gold to back up dollars, and the fixed exchange rate
system led to an overvalued dollar which hurt the US economy. Economists
argued that the market should determine the value of money, not connection to a
commodity, especially one found mostly in the Soviet Union (at the time) and
South Africa.
> > ... and it hasn't done all that well.
>
> Monetary deflation has a tendency to do that.
Inflation rates have been low, but it's hard to argue that in most of the world
we've had deflation.
> > Real terms refers to inflation as measured by the cost of living index,
> not commodity prices.
>
> What?!?! Riddle me this, Mr. Wizard: What index is currently used to
> measure inflation?
>
> > Anyone who denies that Japan is in a long
> > term economic crisis or that the Nikkei has been stagnant for well over a
> decade
> > is very out of touch with reality.
>
> I don't know who you're referring to with "anyone", but *I* never said
> anything like that. Listen, I don't care if the government in Japan is too
> stupid to solve their "long term economic crisis" or if the people of Japan
> are so stupid to think a government even could. All I know is that money
> has been made in Japan despite the fact that it "has been stagnant for well
> over a decade". And *that* is reality.
Money is being made. Well of course, even during the Great Depression money was
being made, and Japan isn't in those conditions. I'm not sure what your point
is for your posts here.
> Good God, man! You really don't know anything about economics, do you? Why
> don't you march down the coast to Wall Street with your "Structural Power
> Relations" Dog & Pony Show, and try it out on people who actually get *paid*
> to manage investments. Tell them to ignore "a few short lived interest rate
> increases", but concentrate instead on the "structural problems" of
> Capitalism. They'll laugh your narrow ass into the East River or Bellevue
> Hosp.
Irrelevant. I understand very well the "wall street logic" (besides studying
economics I read the Wall Street Journal and the Economist consistently, and my
TV is tuned into CNN FN more than any other station -- including right now as
they talk about fashion and hollywood). But they are part of the cause for
structural power differences, and understanding their logic and world view is
important to get a sense of how the economy operates. To think that only their
view and way of thinking matters would be very, very, naive.
> > But if the economy does go into crisis,
> > you will see the Bush Administration bearing the brunt of the blame if
> their
> > reaction doesn't fix things, and a resurgence of the Left. You have to
> deal
> > with reality, as much as you don't like it.
>
> That may turn out to be true because that's not an economic issue, despite
> your use of the word "economy". As for "dealing with reality", I always do,
> and with my own money.
As do I.
> If there is "a resurgence of the Left" as you say,
> I'll shift all my investments into Arms & Munitions.
I suspect that will be a poor investment.
Scott D. Erb
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 09:37:44 -0400, "coolpapa"
> <cool...@go-concepts.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >That may turn out to be true because that's not an economic issue, despite
> >your use of the word "economy". As for "dealing with reality", I always do,
> >and with my own money. If there is "a resurgence of the Left" as you say,
> >I'll shift all my investments into Arms & Munitions.
>
> Money managers get paid a lot of money to make decisions like that,
> but the evidence that such decisions pay off is weak.
I remember during the days of the Nasdaq tech bubble being amazed at the kind of
statements being made on CNN FN and by those whose income and livelihood relied
on stock market performance. At that time I re-read J.K. Galbraith's "The Great
Crash of 1929." One can quibble with his analysis, but his description of the
psychology of early to mid 1929 was eerily similar to the psychology during the
latter days of the tech bubble. Even on this newsgroup I posted a fact I got
from Galbraith, namely how even though the Automobile would revolutionize
economics, there were over 700 car companies early on, and most would go under --
I predicted the same would be true for the dotcoms and other new technology
companies. I got a snide response that I knew nothing about economics, and that
it was obvious these countries would simply get bought up by bigger companies,
for a good price. It was easy for money managers to look good in the nineties, a
dart board was enough. Now it's not so easy.
Still the "bulls" are confident, saying interest rate cuts inevitably will bring
a boom in the economy, hoping for a summer rally, taking as faith that Q4 will
see an economic rebound (earlier it was Q3, and some analysts are now saying
it'll be 2002). It's as much wishful thinking and putting the best face on the
evidence as real analysis. I don't think it's usually intentional, it's a mix of
being used to stock markets always rising and a conventional wisdom that this
downturn will be short and Greenspan will cure it. They may be right, but many
(like CNN FN's Myron Kandel) seem very puzzled by the fact that stocks aren't
rising yet.
> You referred to the other poster as not knowing economics in the real
> world, as money managers know it.
>
> Yet you seem to be a big fan of a grossly overbought superstition -
> that switching around pays off.
And money managers and Wall street analysts disagree. There were many who did
see the Nasdaq decline coming, who see a bear market for quite some time, and who
buck the conventional wisdom.
After all, if these guys were really so smart, they'd all be very, very wealthy.
Most aren't. And most got burned the last couple years.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
And many on the other side.
The best prediction of the success of a mutual fund manager seems to
be how low he can get his costs to the owners of the fund.
I have seen some evidence of a very slight ability of managers to do
better than chance, to a small fraction of one percent a year. But
that might be a fluke, too, based on some odd time frame in which the
things managers like do better for nonrecurring reasons.
I have not seen evidence that the cost of switching around, to normal
folks, is worth it.
>
>After all, if these guys were really so smart, they'd all be very, very wealthy.
>Most aren't. And most got burned the last couple years.
Oh, you can make a lot of money managing stocks. Fees add up.
And I am not saying that investing isn't productive.
But it seems pretty clear that the idea "I am really smart, so I can
outsmart the market" is vastly overbought.
People delude themselves, and think they are beating averages when
really they aren't, or are doing so with risk that will likely flip
someday.
At least, I have seen little evidence to the contrary. Managers, taken
together rather than picking just the lucky ones have a shade of
advantage was the last I saw, over the S and P 500, not enough to
suggest that others can beat the costs of switching.
I did know a lady, retired from Colgate, who could regularly beat the
horses though - I saw her tax retruns, and saw that she paid tax on
it, year in, year out. Less than five grand a year, on average. With a
lot of variation.
I would have found that unlikely, but I was wrong.
But again, where is the evidence that switching is likely, other than
by chance, to pay off?
>
Billy Beck
tyrebi...@workmail.com (George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>"coolpapa" <cool...@go-concepts.com> wrote:
>>That may turn out to be true because that's not an economic issue, despite
>>your use of the word "economy". As for "dealing with reality", I always do,
>>and with my own money. If there is "a resurgence of the Left" as you say,
>>I'll shift all my investments into Arms & Munitions.
>
>Money managers get paid a lot of money to make decisions like that,...
And they can be summarily *fired* by their clients, which is a
lot more than you can say about Washington.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
Scott D. Erb
Billy Beck wrote:
>
> And they can be summarily *fired* by their clients, which is a
> lot more than you can say about Washington.
Ever hear of elections, Billy?
Rick Pasotto
So I have to get my neighbor's permission to fire *my* advisor? Is that
what you're talking about?
--
If each man has the right to defend, even by force, his person,
his liberty, and his property, several men have the right to get
together, come to an understanding, and organize a collective
force to provide regularly for this defense.
-- Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
Rick Pasotto ri...@telocity.com http://www.niof.net
Scott D. Erb
Rick Pasotto wrote:
> So I have to get my neighbor's permission to fire *my* advisor? Is that
> what you're talking about?
It's the same way it works if you're a stockholder in a company. A
stockholder can't vote out a CEO. You also usually can't really "fire" a
financial advisor. Fire means to remove them from their job. If their job
is a financial advisor for, say, Merrill Lynch, you only take your business
elsewhere. I suppose one could say they are "firing" McDonalds when they
decide to buy their fast food at KFC (or even more bizarre, they are firing
the person who makes the burger), but that isn't really the way the word is
to be used.
But hey, my challenge still stands: if you don't like a democratic republic,
offer an alternative, and defend your alternative when questions are raised
and possible disadvantages pointed out. So far, people seem unable to do
that.
Scott D. Erb
Garrett wrote:
> Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> > "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> > > As long as things are good, people will ride with the changes. If things
> > > start deteriorating, with no set way to understand how to respond, you could get social
> > > instability.
> > >
> > What is 'social instability'? Riots at every WTO and G8 meeting?
>
> If that is all you can think of when someone says "social instability" then
> you really havent' paid attention to what other countries go through.
> Social instability caused by economic stress would be like what
> Indonesia is going through right now (scapegoating: in this case Chinese,
> Racial/Social tensions: fighting on several islands, Government turnover, etc.).
By the way, China and India are also states worth watching. China has liberalized its economy and the
super high growth rates now have people satisfied -- you used to have to be poor and obey, now you can
be rich, but still have to obey. Historically that satisfies only a generation, once you get an
emerging middle class, they demand political power. China may have ten to twenty years before the
pressures get extreme, but they can't waste that time doing nothing. I think the olympics will force
them to open up more. India's population explosion isn't slowing. Regardless of what happens in the
western economy, that part of the world is going to go through some difficult times, I think.
> > We
> > survived the 60s, why is this time so special?
>
> The 60's was something entirely different.
> Think the 30's with the Bonus Army, the midwest farm crises,
> and violent labor strikes.
Exactly. Still, only two states really were strong enough in democratic transitions and political
culture not to crumble to totalitarianism or authoritarianism in the thirties, and that was the US and
Great Britain.
> > > The Left argues that capitalism has built in contradictions and a propensity to collapse (the
> > > capitalist world system).
> > >
> > So this is, I get from what you are saying, a collapse into some sort of
> > anarchy?
>
> I don't know exactly what he means, but it's probably no more anarchy than
> the 1930's were for us.
>
> > And the increased power of corporations would allow them to
> > setup of little fiefdoms from which to rule their industries and
> > ultimately beyond?
>
> That probably isn't what he means.
It's not, I'm not sure where he got that.
> > > Whatever will emerge will probably not be something like what we have now. I suspect it will
> > > be more decentralized, cooperative, and focused less on territorial borders than the present
> > > system.
> > >
> > Borders are vital to preserve redundancy.
>
> That's not the value that I see in borders.
I'm not sure what that means even.
> > > That's why I called the thread 'thinking the unthinkable.' We're all so optimistic, and even
> > > those who think the recession will be bad are looking for a recovery in late 2002...but what if
> > > the downturns in Japan, Asia, Europe, and Latin America are part of a trend that hits the US as
> > > well...that idea is intriguing if unsettling, hence my post.
> > >
> > I still don't see why this specific time in capitalist history would be
> > more likely to bring that about.
>
> Which is how Wall Street thinks too, so you are certainly not alone there.
> However, Wall Street is never going to talk poorly about its cash cow, so maybe
> that isn't the best place to go if you want to find out the weaknesses in the
> current system.
> I personally feel that the alarming currency fluctuations around the world
> is a crises that is not being addressed. More importantly, I don't think the
> world's economic leaders are likely to address it. You don't see alarm here
> in America because we've been one of the few countries to benefit from
> the trouble, and not coincidently, we also have nominal control over the
> international institutions that could do something about it (the IMF and World
> Bank).
Something will get done only when it gets so bad it can't be ignored. That seems to be the way we
humans operate.
cheers, scott
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
Billy Beck
>Billy Beck wrote:
You mean the ones that have taking place for decades now, the
whole time socialist insecurity has been ruining peoples' retirement
prospects?
Billy Beck
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Rick Pasotto wrote:
>
>> So I have to get my neighbor's permission to fire *my* advisor? Is that
>> what you're talking about?
>
>It's the same way it works if you're a stockholder in a company. A
>stockholder can't vote out a CEO.
Ever hear of a "sell order", Doktor?
>But hey, my challenge still stands: if you don't like a democratic republic,
>offer an alternative,...
I don't have to do that in order to point out what's wrong with
the government unilaterally forcing people to subscribe its alleged
"retirement plans".
Jack Dawes
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> Rick Pasotto wrote:
>
> > So I have to get my neighbor's permission to fire *my* advisor? Is that
> > what you're talking about?
>
> It's the same way it works if you're a stockholder in a company. A
> stockholder can't vote out a CEO. You also usually can't really "fire" a
> financial advisor. Fire means to remove them from their job. If their job
> is a financial advisor for, say, Merrill Lynch, you only take your business
> elsewhere. I suppose one could say they are "firing" McDonalds when they
> decide to buy their fast food at KFC (or even more bizarre, they are firing
> the person who makes the burger), but that isn't really the way the word is
> to be used.
The person who cooks the pizzas can't fire the boss either but they
sure can bankrupt him broke by stealing all his pizzas can't he, Erb?
You never did pay him back either did you?
Jack
Scott D. Erb
Billy Beck wrote:
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Billy Beck wrote:
>
> >> And they can be summarily *fired* by their clients, which is a
> >> lot more than you can say about Washington.
> >
> >Ever hear of elections, Billy?
>
> You mean the ones that have taking place for decades now, the
> whole time socialist insecurity has been ruining peoples' retirement
> prospects?
People who retire now are better off than anytime in history. Before social
security, things were much worse for the elderly.
Rick Pasotto
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, Scott D. Erb wrote:
>
>
> > So I have to get my neighbor's permission to fire *my* advisor? Is
> > that what you're talking about?
>
> It's the same way it works if you're a stockholder in a company. A
> stockholder can't vote out a CEO. You also usually can't really
> "fire" a financial advisor. Fire means to remove them from their job.
> If their job is a financial advisor for, say, Merrill Lynch, you only
> take your business elsewhere. I suppose one could say they are
> "firing" McDonalds when they decide to buy their fast food at KFC (or
> even more bizarre, they are firing the person who makes the burger),
> but that isn't really the way the word is to be used.
Of course it is. That's *exactly* what it means: to cease paying for the
services of someone. If I cease paying Merrill Lynch for their services
I have *fired* them.
Your desparate attempt to twist words is really pathetic.
> But hey, my challenge still stands: if you don't like a democratic
> republic, offer an alternative, and defend your alternative when
> questions are raised and possible disadvantages pointed out. So far,
> people seem unable to do that.
Either you haven't been paying attention or you have refused to listen.
But that's your choice.
--
If you start with the already absurd assumption that the
government is the morally active force and that the nation is
passive, are you not putting morals, doctrines, opinions, wealth,
everything that makes up the life of the individual at the mercy
of the men who one after another come to power?
Scott D. Erb
Rick Pasotto wrote:
> > But hey, my challenge still stands: if you don't like a democratic
> > republic, offer an alternative, and defend your alternative when
> > questions are raised and possible disadvantages pointed out. So far,
> > people seem unable to do that.
>
> Either you haven't been paying attention or you have refused to listen.
>
> But that's your choice.
In other words, you have no alternative.
Thought so.
Rick Pasotto
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, Scott D. Erb wrote:
>
> social security, things were much worse for the elderly.
As though that were the primary change in the last 70 years.
You might want to look up the logical fallacy of _post hoc ergo propter
hoc_. On the other hand, you seem to be quite adept at using it.
--
How could men dream of blaming themselves for their woes when they
have been persuaded that by nature they are inert, that the source
of all action, and consequently of all responsibility, lies outside
themselves, in the will of the sovereign and of the lawgiver?
Martin McPhillips
They sure were. Life expectancy was about 65 years, so they were generally
dead. And for those who survived, there were 40 people paying into the
Ponzi scheme to cover their benefits.
Now there are, what, three? In a few more years it will be one
person paying for every one retired.
So by that time SS taxes will either be through the roof or benefits
will be drastically cut, or, better yet, *both* will happen.
Yes, it certainly is a wonderful thing that by running a Ponzi
scheme retirement system and a non-means-tested socialized
medicine scheme for the elderly the government has provided
the most formidable, capable, self-reliant generation that
ever existed with a wonderful present: Their children and
grandchildren will be drained dry to keep grandma and grandpa
dependent on government.
What a brand new day for America inter-generational redistribution
of wealth is. And then liberals can stomp their feet and blame
The Corporations because two incomes are now required to support
a family instead of one. Maybe with a little hard work and progressive
reform they can get it up to three incomes.
Martin McPhillips
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 20:12:57 GMT in
> alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, Scott D. Erb wrote:
> >
> > Rick Pasotto wrote:
> >
> > > So I have to get my neighbor's permission to fire *my* advisor? Is
> > > that what you're talking about?
> >
> > It's the same way it works if you're a stockholder in a company. A
> > stockholder can't vote out a CEO. You also usually can't really
> > "fire" a financial advisor. Fire means to remove them from their job.
> > If their job is a financial advisor for, say, Merrill Lynch, you only
> > take your business elsewhere. I suppose one could say they are
> > "firing" McDonalds when they decide to buy their fast food at KFC (or
> > even more bizarre, they are firing the person who makes the burger),
> > but that isn't really the way the word is to be used.
>
> Of course it is. That's *exactly* what it means: to cease paying for the
> services of someone. If I cease paying Merrill Lynch for their services
> I have *fired* them.
>
> Your desparate attempt to twist words is really pathetic.
Scott is very practiced at deceit.
I've begun to wonder whether or not he's had some training in it.
Scott D. Erb
Rick Pasotto wrote:
>
> You might want to look up the logical fallacy of _post hoc ergo propter
> hoc_. On the other hand, you seem to be quite adept at using it.
*YAWN*
I see no reason to think ditching social security would benefit the elderly
now or in the future. Unless you can convince me and many other people
that it will -- and bravado and insults don't usually convince -- then you
give no reason to accept the claim that somehow it hurts people who retire.
Martin McPhillips
Socialism Uber Alles!
Yes, you "see no reason to think ditching social security would benefit
the elderly now or in the future." Well, how about the fact that there
will be one person working to pay the benefits of one retired person?
Does that sorta get you thinking, Perfesser?
Billy Beck
Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>>
>> Billy Beck wrote:
>> > >> And they can be summarily *fired* by their clients, which is a
>> > >> lot more than you can say about Washington.
>> > >
>> > >Ever hear of elections, Billy?
>> >
>> > You mean the ones that have taking place for decades now, the
>> > whole time socialist insecurity has been ruining peoples' retirement
>> > prospects?
>>
>> People who retire now are better off than anytime in history. Before social
>> security, things were much worse for the elderly.
"Rotting meat is the cause of flies."
>They sure were. Life expectancy was about 65 years, so they were generally
>dead. And for those who survived, there were 40 people paying into the
>Ponzi scheme to cover their benefits.
>
>Now there are, what, three? In a few more years it will be one
>person paying for every one retired.
>So by that time SS taxes will either be through the roof or benefits
>will be drastically cut, or, better yet, *both* will happen.
It'll be worse than that.
Watch what happens to attitudes toward euthanasia.
Then we'll see Scotti's concern for the elderly.
And none of this -- as usual -- addresses the implications of the
force of government.
Billy Beck
Uh, no, you lying shitbag, it's like he said, except that he
dropped the conjunction: you don't pay attention and you also refuse.
Martin McPhillips
>
> Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> >>
> >> Billy Beck wrote:
>
> >> > >> And they can be summarily *fired* by their clients, which is a
> >> > >> lot more than you can say about Washington.
> >> > >
> >> > >Ever hear of elections, Billy?
> >> >
> >> > You mean the ones that have taking place for decades now, the
> >> > whole time socialist insecurity has been ruining peoples' retirement
> >> > prospects?
> >>
> >> People who retire now are better off than anytime in history. Before social
> >> security, things were much worse for the elderly.
>
> "Rotting meat is the cause of flies."
>
> >They sure were. Life expectancy was about 65 years, so they were generally
> >dead. And for those who survived, there were 40 people paying into the
> >Ponzi scheme to cover their benefits.
> >
> >Now there are, what, three? In a few more years it will be one
> >person paying for every one retired.
>
> >So by that time SS taxes will either be through the roof or benefits
> >will be drastically cut, or, better yet, *both* will happen.
>
> It'll be worse than that.
>
> Watch what happens to attitudes toward euthanasia.
>
> Then we'll see Scotti's concern for the elderly.
When euthanasia for the elderly becomes fashionable, Scott will
be there.
> And none of this -- as usual -- addresses the implications of the
> force of government.
That's right. It addresses the implications of a Ponzi retirement scheme
run by the government, with the implicit acknowledgment that no private
entity would get away with it.