Enemies of What State?
Dan Clore
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
http://c4ss.org/content/211
Enemies of What State?
by Kevin Carson
Mar 19, 2009
Commentary
There are all too many people in American politics whose real concern,
concealed behind all the “free market” rhetoric, is not so much
“statism” per se as statism that benefits the wrong class of people. A
good example: it was quite amusing to hear some Republicans, during
yesterday’s Congressional hearings on the AIG bonuses, wringing their
hands over the prospect of “interfering with the management of private
business” and “altering the terms of contracts.” Last night Rachel
Maddow ran clips of some of the very same people, last December, crowing
about how they were forcing the UAW to renegotiate it’s contract and
accept lower wages in return for bailout loans to the auto industry.
Another example: I don’t advocate Social Credit or greenbackism, but I
don’t understand the reasoning of those who object to either as an
increase in statism over the present system.
By way of background, Social Credit is a proposal to remedy corporate
capitalism’s chronic tendency toward overinvestment and overproduction
by periodically depositing a sum of interest-free new money, equivalent
in aggregate to the demand shortfall, in the citizenry’s bank accounts.
Greenbackism is a proposal that countercyclical deficit spending,
rather than being financed by interest-bearing debt in the form of
government bonds, should simply take the form of directly spending money
into existence by the Treasury.
It seems to me the sticking point, if there is one, should be at the
idea of government as regulator of the money supply by creating fiat
money, or of deficit spending to meet demand shortfalls, in the first
place. But these things are overwhelmingly accepted in principle by the
mainstream public. So the sticking point about Social Credit and
greenbackism can only be the sacred principle that the fiat money must
be specifically lent into existence at interest, and that deficit
spending must be financed by government bonds.
The problem is not the function itself, but only carrying it out in a
way that doesn’t enable a class of coupon-clippers to skim the cream off
the top.
It also seems to me, on the other hand, that if these basic functions
are accepted in principle, it makes it more statist -- not less -- to
compound the injury by doing it through private accomplices, and
empowering them to charge interest for the function, rather than simply
doing so directly.
It’s just another instance of a broader phenomenon, what the Libertarian
Alliance’s Sean Gabb calls “economic fascism.” Economic fascism is his
term for the phony regime of “privatization” advocated by such
organizations as the Adam Smith Institute. It doesn’t get government
out of the business of performing particular functions. It just
delegates the function to nominally “private” corporations that perform
the function with public money, with government protection from free
market competition, and with a guaranteed profit for performing the
function (on the regulated utility’s “cost-plus” model).
Under this vulgar libertarian model of “free market reform,” the only
thing that matters is the comparative percentages of functions which are
carried out by nominally “private” and nominally “public” organizations
-- not the substance of things. But it seems to me that if a
corporation receives its revenue from the government, is protected from
competition by the government, and is guaranteed a profit by the
government, it IS the government. The only significance of the entity’s
profit is to increase the overall cost of performing the function, and
thus increase the total injury to the taxpayer.
And while we’re at it, let’s be honest about something. Given the
existence of a corporate economy on the present model, countercyclical
government spending is absolutely essential to prevent its collapse.
Those who advocate a return to the Reaganism and Thatcherism of the
’80s, or the cowboy capitalism of the ’90s, absent high government
spending, are either delusional or disingenuous. Reagan was the biggest
Keynesian of them all.
There are only two alternatives: to eliminate the existing–statist–
structural causes of overinvestment and underconsumption, or to continue
adding new layers of statism to counter the chronic crisis tendencies.
Either more and more statism, or forward to anarchy.
The American corporate economy has been statist to its core since its
beginnings in the late 19th century. There wouldn’t even be a national
market at all, or national corporations serving it, had it not been for
the land grant railroads and other subsidies to long-distance shipping
that made possible artificially large firms and market areas. There
wouldn’t be stable oligopoly markets had it not been for the cartelizing
effect of patents, or the stabilizing effects of the Clayton and FTC
Acts’ restrictions on price warfare.
To repeat, the system was statist from its beginnings. There are all
too many on the Right who like to refer to a mythical “free market”
system that prevailed before 1932, and to pretend that the “statism”
only began when government started intervening on behalf of workers and
consumers. But in fact, all the “progressive” interventions of
government under the New Deal were secondary, aimed at ameliorating the
side-effects of the prior interventions that created corporate
capitalism in the first place. Had it not been for the secondary,
ameliorative interventions, corporate capitalism as we know it would
have collapsed in the 1930s.
Returning to my earlier point: if we are to have statism at all, and we
are reduced to quibbling between Democrats and Republicans over what
kind of statism it is to be, I make no secret of the fact that I prefer
the kind of statism that weighs less heavily on my own neck.
If phony “free market” Republicans accept NLRB certification of unions
in principle, and only want to quibble over the Employee Free Choice Act
because it makes it easier to certify unions without harassment,
intimidation and punitive firing of organizers -- well, why would I, a
worker, prefer a system of certification that suits the bosses’ interest?
If we’re going to talk about a genuine free market labor regime, then
let’s eliminate the Wagner Act -- and with it Taft-Hartley’s
prohibitions on sympathy and boycott strikes, and its mandatory
arbitration and cooling off periods. Let’s eliminate the Railroad Labor
Relation Act’s provisions that prevent transport workers turning local
and regional disputes into general strikes. In short, let’s eliminate
all the legal prohbitions on the tactics that unions were using to win
before Wagner was ever passed.
But if we’re going to have government certification of unions, let’s
have a form of certification that fulfills its stated purpose --
determining the intention of workers -- as accurately and automatically
as possible.
Likewise, if we’re going to have a welfare state, let’s eliminate the
costly and intrusive welfare bureaucracies and spend the same amount of
money on a guaranteed income. If we’re going to have a regulatory
state, let’s eliminate all the agencies and replace their functions with
pigovian taxation of negative externalities.
My goal is the abolition of the state. I would welcome all these things
tomorrow, if I thought they were genuine steps toward the abolition of
the state altogether the day after tomorrow. They certainly wouldn’t be
net increases in statism.
C4SS Research Associate Kevin Carson is a contemporary mutualist author
and individualist anarchist whose written work includes Studies in
Mutualist Political Economy [http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html ] and
Organization Theory: An Individualist Anarchist Perspective
[http://mutualist.org/id114.html ], both of which are freely available
online. Carson has also written for a variety of internet-based journals
and blogs, including Just Things, The Art of the Possible, the P2P
Foundation and his own Mutualist Blog
[http://c4ss.org/content/mutualist.blogspot.com ].
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Day Brown
> My goal is the abolition of the state.
warlords. Rule by the most ruthless.
Its instructive to consider the Silk Road, the world's first and freest
market which flourished beyond the hegemony of Roman, Byzantine,
Persian, & Chinese empires until finally over run by the Mongols. Whose
hegemony destroyed competition and ruined profits.
But the Silk Road was actually at least 3, often dozens, or more or less
parallel routes in capitalist competition with each other. Warlords were
bad for business; greedy, arrogant, and unreliable- deals would not be
kept and the violence drove merchants away.
Competent artisans, businessmen, and scholars voted with their feet to
whatever city state offered the least interference and taxes. Most of
the time, the preference was Kucha. Democracies have moral values that
must be given lip service, but Kucha was run by a line of Gautamid
queens, and she owned the brothels. Which made so much money there were
no taxes.
She also paid the Longsword posses that deal with bandits with pussy. I
think this kind of thing is coming around again, with sluts organizing
communal housing and then motivating geeks or whoever they find useful
in their business enterprises.
Its a no brainer, with so many men laid off, there just isnt the cash in
prostitution like there usta be. But the alternative business plan is
seen in ancient Kucha. When the Kuchi coo by the brothel door, the men
come running; and when they leave, they pay with the curious Kuchan coin
that had a hole like a washer so it could be strung on a necklace and
not get lost on the Silk Road. The Kuchan name for the coin:"Cash".
The "state" may still exist, but has no discernable impact on local life
and business. All the outward forms of the Republic will remain, but
they are being, as they have been, gutted. The FTC under Bush failed to
prosecute illegal market manipulation in order to enrich his friends.
The FCC is now a paper tiger unable to control the proliferation of FM
bootleg or other transmissions. The FDA has been bought by trasnational
pharma and is no longer trusted. The CIA said the wars in Afghanistan &
Iraq would be a snap, and they are still snapping.
Intelligence Agency is an oxymoron. The Mexican druglords are shipping
workers north now to plant marijuana and will be sending armed thugs to
shoot down the choppers. They've also begun kidnapping young white women
to ship down to their brothels in Mexico. No more dead heading south
what with the girls and guns they bring back. BATF, the Border Patrol,
and the DEA have all been geared to trying to what came in, not what
went back to Mexico, and they cant stop it even if they understood what
was really going on.
The government cant tax the rich cause of all the tax shelters, and they
cant tax everyone else cause we are all already broke. The state is its
own enemy.
jdkki
> Refreshing to see a presentation outside of partisan group think.
You wouldnt know what real partisan group think was if it bit you on your lard arse.
>> My goal is the abolition of the state.
> Yeah, well it looks like Mexico is about to try that,
Nope.
> and whatcha get is warlords. Rule by the most ruthless.
> Its instructive to consider the Silk Road, the world's first and
> freest market which flourished beyond the hegemony of Roman,
> Byzantine, Persian, & Chinese empires until finally over run by the
> Mongols. Whose hegemony destroyed competition and ruined profits.
Nope, it wont work today.
> But the Silk Road was actually at least 3, often dozens, or more or less parallel routes in capitalist competition
> with each other.
> Warlords were bad for business; greedy, arrogant, and unreliable-
> deals would not be kept and the violence drove merchants away.
> Competent artisans, businessmen, and scholars voted with their feet to whatever city state offered the least
> interference and taxes. Most of
> the time, the preference was Kucha. Democracies have moral values that
> must be given lip service, but Kucha was run by a line of Gautamid queens, and she owned the brothels. Which made so
> much money there were no taxes.
> She also paid the Longsword posses that deal with bandits with pussy.
You dont know that.
> I think this kind of thing is coming around again, with sluts
> organizing communal housing and then motivating geeks or whoever they find useful in their business enterprises.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> Its a no brainer, with so many men laid off,
Nothing like what we saw during the great depression.
> there just isnt the cash in prostitution like there usta be.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
> But the alternative business plan is seen in ancient Kucha.
Nope.
> When the Kuchi coo by the brothel door, the men come running; and when they leave, they pay with the curious Kuchan
> coin that had a hole like a washer so it could be strung on a necklace and not get lost on the Silk Road. The Kuchan
> name for the coin:"Cash".
And then the world moved on, just like it always does.
> The "state" may still exist, but has no discernable impact on local life and business.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> All the outward forms of the Republic will remain,
> but they are being, as they have been, gutted.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> The FTC under Bush failed to prosecute illegal market manipulation in order to enrich his friends.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> The FCC is now a paper tiger unable to control the
> proliferation of FM bootleg or other transmissions.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> The FDA has been bought by trasnational pharma and is no longer trusted.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> The CIA said the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq would be a snap,
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> and they are still snapping.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> Intelligence Agency is an oxymoron.
You are an oxymoron.
> The Mexican druglords are shipping workers north now to plant marijuana and will be sending armed thugs to shoot down
> the choppers.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> They've also begun kidnapping young white
> women to ship down to their brothels in Mexico.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> No more dead heading south what with the girls and guns they bring back.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> BATF, the Border Patrol, and the DEA have all been geared to trying to what came in, not what went back to Mexico, and
> they cant stop it even if they understood what was really going on.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> The government cant tax the rich cause of all the tax shelters, and they cant tax everyone else cause we are all
> already broke. The state is its own enemy.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
You really need to get off those magic mushrooms, BAD.
Fred
> Refreshing to see a presentation outside of partisan group think.
>> My goal is the abolition of the state.
> Yeah, well it looks like Mexico is about to try that, and whatcha
> get is warlords. Rule by the most ruthless.
>
> Its instructive to consider the Silk Road, the world's first and
> freest market which flourished beyond the hegemony of Roman,
> Byzantine, Persian, & Chinese empires until finally over run by the
> Mongols. Whose hegemony destroyed competition and ruined profits.
>
Capitalism always destroys itself.
> But the Silk Road was actually at least 3, often dozens, or more or
> less parallel routes in capitalist competition with each other.
> Warlords were bad for business; greedy, arrogant, and unreliable-
> deals would not be kept and the violence drove merchants away.
>
Capitalism always gives rise to warlords. It is a system of pure
competition, and nobody competes like the mob.
--
Peace,
Fred
(Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).
Rod Speed
> Day Brown wrote:
>
>> Refreshing to see a presentation outside of partisan group think.
>>> My goal is the abolition of the state.
>> Yeah, well it looks like Mexico is about to try that, and whatcha
>> get is warlords. Rule by the most ruthless.
>>
>> Its instructive to consider the Silk Road, the world's first and
>> freest market which flourished beyond the hegemony of Roman,
>> Byzantine, Persian, & Chinese empires until finally over run by the
>> Mongols. Whose hegemony destroyed competition and ruined profits.
> Capitalism always destroys itself.
Odd, could have SWORN that its actually the alternatives that have ALWAYS destroyed themselves.
>> But the Silk Road was actually at least 3, often dozens, or more or
>> less parallel routes in capitalist competition with each other.
>> Warlords were bad for business; greedy, arrogant, and unreliable-
>> deals would not be kept and the violence drove merchants away.
> Capitalism always gives rise to warlords. It is a system
> of pure competition, and nobody competes like the mob.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
(David P.)
> Fred wrote:
>
> > Capitalism always gives rise to warlords. It is a system
> > of pure competition, and nobody competes like the mob.
>
> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
Rod Speed
> http://www.fredwilliams.ca/thesecretofmoney.html
Just another utterly silly steaming turd.
Fred
> Fred wrote:
>> Day Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Refreshing to see a presentation outside of partisan group think.
>>>> My goal is the abolition of the state.
>>> Yeah, well it looks like Mexico is about to try that, and whatcha
>>> get is warlords. Rule by the most ruthless.
>>>
>>> Its instructive to consider the Silk Road, the world's first and
>>> freest market which flourished beyond the hegemony of Roman,
>>> Byzantine, Persian, & Chinese empires until finally over run by
>>> the Mongols. Whose hegemony destroyed competition and ruined
>>> profits.
>
>> Capitalism always destroys itself.
>
> Odd, could have SWORN that its actually the alternatives that have
> ALWAYS destroyed themselves.
>
Check your evening news.
>>> But the Silk Road was actually at least 3, often dozens, or more
>>> or less parallel routes in capitalist competition with each other.
>>> Warlords were bad for business; greedy, arrogant, and unreliable-
>>> deals would not be kept and the violence drove merchants away.
>
>> Capitalism always gives rise to warlords. It is a system
>> of pure competition, and nobody competes like the mob.
>
> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant
> fantasys.
A nice line to use when you run out of arguements, but it's
meaningless as always.
Fred
Oh dear! I must be so defeated with your logic. You might also want
to take a look at
<http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/lieofthecentury.html>
It's a simplified version of the first part of The Secret of Money.
I made it shorter to accommodate your attention span.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Fred wrote:
>>> Day Brown wrote
>>>> Refreshing to see a presentation outside of partisan group think.
>>>>> My goal is the abolition of the state.
>>>> Yeah, well it looks like Mexico is about to try that, and
>>>> whatcha get is warlords. Rule by the most ruthless.
>>>> Its instructive to consider the Silk Road, the world's first and
>>>> freest market which flourished beyond the hegemony of Roman,
>>>> Byzantine, Persian, & Chinese empires until finally over run by the
>>>> Mongols. Whose hegemony destroyed competition and ruined profits.
>>> Capitalism always destroys itself.
>> Odd, could have SWORN that its actually the alternatives
>> that have ALWAYS destroyed themselves.
> Check your evening news.
The same stupid claim was made during the great depression.
What we actually saw was the alternatives to capitalism destroying themselves.
>>>> But the Silk Road was actually at least 3, often dozens, or more
>>>> or less parallel routes in capitalist competition with each other.
>>>> Warlords were bad for business; greedy, arrogant, and unreliable-
>>>> deals would not be kept and the violence drove merchants away.
>>> Capitalism always gives rise to warlords. It is a system
>>> of pure competition, and nobody competes like the mob.
>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
> A nice line to use when you run out of arguements,
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
> but it's meaningless as always.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
Les Cargill
Fred: Nice paper. But! deceit is a legitimate tool of statecraft. And
second - it isn't possible to hold intelligence information to the same
standards as the data used in criminal prosecutions.
I submit that this implies that "mens rea" cannot be applied in
his case. Hierarchies of power require asymmetries in
accountability at the top level. This may be a defect of
history - our traditions in Western Civilization include the
Mandate of Heaven, and while that's deprecated, its DNA
is still in how our politics work. Locke et al simply
substituted "the will of the people" for "the will of
God." To my knowledge, there has not been any "keepable"
improvement on that since. Er, there's really one - that
of judicial review. So unless somebody carries this
to the Supreme Court, it's likely not to have teeth - and
there does not seem to be any political will to do that.
One of the best arguments I have seen is that Colin Powell
should have been held to the standards of a serving military
officer while he was SecState. But he wasn't a serving military
officer, so...
Your paper summarizes the whole thing very nicely, and is
extremely well-written. Yes, I am sure there would be benefits if
our leaders were less Machievellian, but ... they can hardly be
that.
At least I think so, now. Government is a blunt instrument,
inherently. It is not a scalpel.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> Day Brown wrote:
>
>> Refreshing to see a presentation outside of partisan group think.
>>> My goal is the abolition of the state.
>> Yeah, well it looks like Mexico is about to try that, and whatcha
>> get is warlords. Rule by the most ruthless.
>>
>> Its instructive to consider the Silk Road, the world's first and
>> freest market which flourished beyond the hegemony of Roman,
>> Byzantine, Persian, & Chinese empires until finally over run by the
>> Mongols. Whose hegemony destroyed competition and ruined profits.
>>
> Capitalism always destroys itself.
>
We have no way to know that. We do know that some features
of how capitalism is now practiced lead to boom-bust cycles.
>> But the Silk Road was actually at least 3, often dozens, or more or
>> less parallel routes in capitalist competition with each other.
>> Warlords were bad for business; greedy, arrogant, and unreliable-
>> deals would not be kept and the violence drove merchants away.
>>
> Capitalism always gives rise to warlords. It is a system of pure
> competition, and nobody competes like the mob.
>
>
The Dutch and English have been deeply capitalist for centuries
( and have evolved out of Mercantilism to capitalism to
survive).
Capitalism needs a strong and consistent legal system, and the
sort of Republics we see there seem to be the best for this.
Warlordism is for when that breaks down. Ankgor Wat and the
Pyramids of Central America stand as monuments to the fallibility
of civilization itself.
--
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
>>>>> Capitalism always gives rise to warlords. It is a system
>>>>> of pure competition, and nobody competes like the mob.
>>>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
>>> http://www.fredwilliams.ca/thesecretofmoney.html
>> Just another utterly silly steaming turd.
> Oh dear! I must be so defeated with your logic.
You wouldnt know what real logic was if it bit you on your lard arse, comrade.
You're the clown that denys that there ever were gulags.
> You might also want to take a look at
> http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/lieofthecentury.html
Just another utterly silly steaming turd.
> It's a simplified version of the first part of The Secret of Money.
Just another utterly silly steaming turd.
> I made it shorter to accommodate your attention span.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Fred
> Fred wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> (David P.) wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Fred wrote
>
>>>>>> Capitalism always gives rise to warlords. It is a system
>>>>>> of pure competition, and nobody competes like the mob.
>
>>>>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant
>>>>> fantasys.
>
>>>> http://www.fredwilliams.ca/thesecretofmoney.html
>
>>> Just another utterly silly steaming turd.
>
>> Oh dear! I must be so defeated with your logic.
>
> You wouldnt know what real logic was if it bit you on your lard
> arse, comrade.
>
> You're the clown that denys that there ever were gulags.
>
Well there weren't and communist gulags, by definition. It'sagainst
Communist philosophy.
Fred
> Fred wrote:
> One of the best arguments I have seen is that Colin Powell
> should have been held to the standards of a serving military
> officer while he was SecState. But he wasn't a serving military
> officer, so...
Oh Powell. Sorry no sympathy. I'm talking about my opinion of him.
Not very high, I'm afraid. His lies led to the war and helped cause
all the horrors and deaths that have followed... and continue to this
day. He should be tried for war crimes. I'm not saying he's really
guilty, but he should be tried.
>
> Your paper summarizes the whole thing very nicely, and is
> extremely well-written. Yes, I am sure there would be benefits if
> our leaders were less Machievellian, but ... they can hardly be
> that.
>
It will take some education first. People are so conditioned to
money as a scarce commodity that it's hard for them to imagine
anything else. The thing is that if we keep going with that system
it will destroy the planet and ourselves along with it.
> At least I think so, now. Government is a blunt instrument,
> inherently. It is not a scalpel.
Granted, But blunt or sharp, the problem remains. People might even
take us out of trouble by starting local, alternative economies, like
the LETS, (Local Employment and Trading System). They can also start
egalitarian Worker's Cooperatives. All this helps democratise
finance and that's the start of a better world.
There are more small papers coming.
Fred
> Fred wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Fred wrote:
>>>> Day Brown wrote
>
>>>>> Refreshing to see a presentation outside of partisan group
>>>>> think.
>
>>>>>> My goal is the abolition of the state.
>
>>>>> Yeah, well it looks like Mexico is about to try that, and
>>>>> whatcha get is warlords. Rule by the most ruthless.
>
>>>>> Its instructive to consider the Silk Road, the world's first and
>>>>> freest market which flourished beyond the hegemony of Roman,
>>>>> Byzantine, Persian, & Chinese empires until finally over run by
>>>>> the Mongols. Whose hegemony destroyed competition and ruined
>>>>> profits.
>
>>>> Capitalism always destroys itself.
>
>>> Odd, could have SWORN that its actually the alternatives
>>> that have ALWAYS destroyed themselves.
>
>> Check your evening news.
>
> The same stupid claim was made during the great depression.
>
> What we actually saw was the alternatives to capitalism destroying
> themselves.
>
Well, "Plentiful Money" hasnever really been tried, so you haven't
seen it do anything.
>>>>> But the Silk Road was actually at least 3, often dozens, or more
>>>>> or less parallel routes in capitalist competition with each
>>>>> other. Warlords were bad for business; greedy, arrogant, and
>>>>> unreliable- deals would not be kept and the violence drove
>>>>> merchants away.
>
>>>> Capitalism always gives rise to warlords. It is a system
>>>> of pure competition, and nobody competes like the mob.
>
>>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant
>>> fantasys.
>
>> A nice line to use when you run out of arguements,
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
>
No evidence though, eh?
>> but it's meaningless as always.
>
> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant
> fantasys.
name calling is a pretty weak arguement, or actually no arguement at
all.
Fred
> Fred wrote:
>> Day Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Refreshing to see a presentation outside of partisan group think.
>>>> My goal is the abolition of the state.
>>> Yeah, well it looks like Mexico is about to try that, and whatcha
>>> get is warlords. Rule by the most ruthless.
>>>
>>> Its instructive to consider the Silk Road, the world's first and
>>> freest market which flourished beyond the hegemony of Roman,
>>> Byzantine, Persian, & Chinese empires until finally over run by
>>> the Mongols. Whose hegemony destroyed competition and ruined
>>> profits.
>>>
>> Capitalism always destroys itself.
>>
>
> We have no way to know that. We do know that some features
> of how capitalism is now practiced lead to boom-bust cycles.
>
You have evidence from every empire that has ever existed in the
world. They all fell eventually. Rome was a good example.
> The Dutch and English have been deeply capitalist for centuries
> ( and have evolved out of Mercantilism to capitalism to
> survive).
These Empires both fell. The U.S. is falling now as we talk about
it.
> Capitalism needs a strong and consistent legal system, and the
> sort of Republics we see there seem to be the best for this.
>
The money accumulates with the rich, and less is left for the poor to
but the goods that are produced. Eventually the rich have nothing
left to buy and the poor have nothing left to buy anything with. We
notice the problems with drops in sales of the big ticket items,
houses and cars. The rich have trouble finding qualified borrowers,
because the poor are going so far in debt they can never pay back the
money borrowed,... like the government.
> Warlordism is for when that breaks down. Ankgor Wat and the
> Pyramids of Central America stand as monuments to the fallibility
> of civilization itself.
>
Not civilisation, the economy. Although Ankgor Wat may be an
exception. They may have deswtroyed them,selves by other means
before their economuy collapsed, OR, they might not have been using
scarce money. I don't know what they used for currency, if anyting.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Fred wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> (David P.) wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Fred wrote
>>>>>>> Capitalism always gives rise to warlords. It is a system
>>>>>>> of pure competition, and nobody competes like the mob.
>>>>>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
>>>>> http://www.fredwilliams.ca/thesecretofmoney.html
>>>> Just another utterly silly steaming turd.
>>> Oh dear! I must be so defeated with your logic.
>> You wouldnt know what real logic was if it bit you on your lard arse, comrade.
>> You're the clown that denys that there ever were gulags.
> Well there weren't
Even you cant actually be THAT stupid.
> and communist gulags, by definition. It's against Communist philosophy.
So are dictators. They had those anyway, fuckwit.
Rod Speed
Wont even be worth wiping your arse with.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Fred wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>>> Day Brown wrote
>>>>>> Refreshing to see a presentation outside of partisan group think.
>>>>>>> My goal is the abolition of the state.
>>>>>> Yeah, well it looks like Mexico is about to try that, and
>>>>>> whatcha get is warlords. Rule by the most ruthless.
>>>>>> Its instructive to consider the Silk Road, the world's first and
>>>>>> freest market which flourished beyond the hegemony of Roman,
>>>>>> Byzantine, Persian, & Chinese empires until finally over run by the
>>>>>> Mongols. Whose hegemony destroyed competition and ruined profits.
>>>>> Capitalism always destroys itself.
>>>> Odd, could have SWORN that its actually the alternatives
>>>> that have ALWAYS destroyed themselves.
>>> Check your evening news.
>> The same stupid claim was made during the great depression.
>> What we actually saw was the alternatives to capitalism destroying themselves.
> Well, "Plentiful Money" hasnever really been tried,
Because it isnt even possible, stupid.
> so you haven't seen it do anything.
We have seen EVERY other hare brained scheme destroy themselves.
>>>>>> But the Silk Road was actually at least 3, often dozens, or more
>>>>>> or less parallel routes in capitalist competition with each
>>>>>> other. Warlords were bad for business; greedy, arrogant, and
>>>>>> unreliable- deals would not be kept and the violence drove
>>>>>> merchants away.
>>>>> Capitalism always gives rise to warlords. It is a system
>>>>> of pure competition, and nobody competes like the mob.
>>>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
>>> A nice line to use when you run out of arguements,
>> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
> No evidence though, eh?
Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.
>>> but it's meaningless as always.
>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
> name calling is a pretty weak arguement, or actually no arguement at all.
Then why do you do it, comrade ?
Rod Speed
> Les Cargill wrote
>> Fred wrote
>>> Day Brown wrote
>>>> Refreshing to see a presentation outside of partisan group think.
>>>>> My goal is the abolition of the state.
>>>> Yeah, well it looks like Mexico is about to try that, and whatcha
>>>> get is warlords. Rule by the most ruthless.
>>>> Its instructive to consider the Silk Road, the world's first and
>>>> freest market which flourished beyond the hegemony of Roman,
>>>> Byzantine, Persian, & Chinese empires until finally over run by the
>>>> Mongols. Whose hegemony destroyed competition and ruined profits.
>>> Capitalism always destroys itself.
>> We have no way to know that. We do know that some features
>> of how capitalism is now practiced lead to boom-bust cycles.
> You have evidence from every empire that has ever existed in the world. They all fell eventually.
So has everything EXCEPT capitalism, fool.
> Rome was a good example.
>> The Dutch and English have been deeply capitalist for centuries
>> ( and have evolved out of Mercantilism to capitalism to survive).
> These Empires both fell.
Nope, both just faded aways. And their capitalism carried on regardless too.
> The U.S. is falling now as we talk about it.
The same stupid claim was made during the great depression by clowns like you and your ilk.
What we ACTUALLY saw was the US completely dominate the entire fucking world in WW2 instead.
>> Capitalism needs a strong and consistent legal system, and the
>> sort of Republics we see there seem to be the best for this.
> The money accumulates with the rich,
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Money actuallly accumulates in pension and mutual funds now, fool.
> and less is left for the poor to but the goods that are produced.
How odd that the real standard of living keeps increasing significantly anyway.
> Eventually the rich have nothing left to buy and
> the poor have nothing left to buy anything with.
How odd that the real standard of living of 'the poor' keeps increasing significantly anyway.
Pity about the hordes of those who arent either rich or poor, fool.
> We notice the problems with drops in sales of the big ticket items,
> houses and cars. The rich have trouble finding qualified borrowers,
> because the poor are going so far in debt they can never pay back
> the money borrowed,... like the government.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>> Warlordism is for when that breaks down. Ankgor Wat and the Pyramids
>> of Central America stand as monuments to the fallibility of civilization itself.
> Not civilisation, the economy. Although Ankgor Wat may be an
> exception. They may have deswtroyed them,selves by other means
> before their economuy collapsed, OR, they might not have been using
> scarce money. I don't know what they used for currency, if anyting.
Or anything else at all, either.
Les Cargill
> Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> Fred wrote:
>>> Day Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> Refreshing to see a presentation outside of partisan group think.
>>>>> My goal is the abolition of the state.
>>>> Yeah, well it looks like Mexico is about to try that, and whatcha
>>>> get is warlords. Rule by the most ruthless.
>>>>
>>>> Its instructive to consider the Silk Road, the world's first and
>>>> freest market which flourished beyond the hegemony of Roman,
>>>> Byzantine, Persian, & Chinese empires until finally over run by
>>>> the Mongols. Whose hegemony destroyed competition and ruined
>>>> profits.
>>>>
>>> Capitalism always destroys itself.
>>>
>> We have no way to know that. We do know that some features
>> of how capitalism is now practiced lead to boom-bust cycles.
>>
> You have evidence from every empire that has ever existed in the
> world. They all fell eventually. Rome was a good example.
>
Rome was a fairly crappy empire :) Compared to the Mongols, it was
almost ludicrous. if pressed, I'd say the Mongols were simply
more efficient.
>> The Dutch and English have been deeply capitalist for centuries
>> ( and have evolved out of Mercantilism to capitalism to
>> survive).
>
> These Empires both fell. The U.S. is falling now as we talk about
> it.
>
They seem just fine right now. What you call "empire falling", I
would call moving towards Capitalism in a Scottish Enlightenment
way.
>> Capitalism needs a strong and consistent legal system, and the
>> sort of Republics we see there seem to be the best for this.
>>
> The money accumulates with the rich, and less is left for the poor to
> but the goods that are produced. Eventually the rich have nothing
> left to buy and the poor have nothing left to buy anything with. We
> notice the problems with drops in sales of the big ticket items,
> houses and cars. The rich have trouble finding qualified borrowers,
> because the poor are going so far in debt they can never pay back the
> money borrowed,... like the government.
>
And that's fine - if it truly happens. What really happens is
we get the odd downturn, then a recovery. Since these are
artifacts of human psychology and not so much of "systems"...
we'll still have them.
>> Warlordism is for when that breaks down. Ankgor Wat and the
>> Pyramids of Central America stand as monuments to the fallibility
>> of civilization itself.
>>
> Not civilisation, the economy. Although Ankgor Wat may be an
> exception. They may have deswtroyed them,selves by other means
> before their economuy collapsed, OR, they might not have been using
> scarce money. I don't know what they used for currency, if anyting.
>
I'm not up on how Angkor Wat fell. But economic instability is a
phase in the failure of civilizations.
--
Les Cargill
Mason C
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0903.galbraith.html
The youths who did not experience the first Great Depression seem not
able to grasp what happened. This is understandable. As a brief
reminder: the country was on the verge of real rebellion, possibly
a Communist success, at least in New York city. Capitalism was
in danger. FDR may have saved us. We can't know what would
have happened without him, that's true -- the nature of time moving
only forward.
Please do read Jamie Galbreath's article. Line-by-line he has it
right. And it's not encouraging. Obama may fail -- for a variety
of reasons -- not all his fault.
Mason Clark
*Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*
http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
-- many excerpts you can see --
Rod Speed
> For a really good analysis of the economic crisis, read this. All of it.
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0903.galbraith.html
> The youths who did not experience the first Great Depression
> seem not able to grasp what happened. This is understandable.
> As a brief reminder: the country was on the verge of real rebellion,
> possibly a Communist success, at least in New York city.
Like hell it was.
> Capitalism was in danger.
Nope. Have fun explaining why it didnt get eliminated ANYWHERE.
> FDR may have saved us.
Nope, the US may have got a quicker recovery without him.
> We can't know what would have happened without him,
> that's true -- the nature of time moving only forward.
We do however do know that all the first world survived the great
depression, so its just a tad unlikely that the US wouldnt have without him.
> Please do read Jamie Galbreath's article. Line-by-line he has it right. And it's
> not encouraging. Obama may fail -- for a variety of reasons -- not all his fault.
And plenty believe that FDR failed too.
It is clear that it was actually WW2 that fixed the great depression.
(David P.)
I can tell by the smell!
.
.
--
Fred
> Fred wrote
>> Les Cargill wrote
>>> Fred wrote
>>>> Day Brown wrote
>
>>>>> Refreshing to see a presentation outside of partisan group
>>>>> think.
>
>>>>>> My goal is the abolition of the state.
>
>>>>> Yeah, well it looks like Mexico is about to try that, and
>>>>> whatcha get is warlords. Rule by the most ruthless.
>
>>>>> Its instructive to consider the Silk Road, the world's first and
>>>>> freest market which flourished beyond the hegemony of Roman,
>>>>> Byzantine, Persian, & Chinese empires until finally over run by
>>>>> the Mongols. Whose hegemony destroyed competition and ruined
>>>>> profits.
>
>>>> Capitalism always destroys itself.
>
>>> We have no way to know that. We do know that some features
>>> of how capitalism is now practiced lead to boom-bust cycles.
>
>> You have evidence from every empire that has ever existed in the
>> world. They all fell eventually.
>
> So has everything EXCEPT capitalism, fool.
>
Every system that uses scarce money, in fact.
Fred
When you restart the system with the same parameters you get the same
result. We have always seen advancement, because there were new
lands to occupy and new resources to exploit. Now the whole planet
has been conquered and major resources plundered. The next empire
won't rise to quite such heights and the ones after that will be less
successful, simply because the real economy of our environment and
resources won't be there to the extent that they have been in the
past.
If we don't leave behind the concept of scarce money, the human race
will die out, and take much of the rest of the life on the planet
with it. We have to switch to plentiful money, or cease to exist.
>>> Capitalism needs a strong and consistent legal system, and the
>>> sort of Republics we see there seem to be the best for this.
>>>
>> The money accumulates with the rich, and less is left for
>> the poor to
>> but the goods that are produced. Eventually the rich have nothing
>> left to buy and the poor have nothing left to buy anything with.
>> We notice the problems with drops in sales of the big ticket items,
>> houses and cars. The rich have trouble finding qualified
>> borrowers, because the poor are going so far in debt they can never
>> pay back the money borrowed,... like the government.
>>
>
> And that's fine - if it truly happens. What really happens is
> we get the odd downturn, then a recovery. Since these are
> artifacts of human psychology and not so much of "systems"...
> we'll still have them.
>
The downturns kill millions of people. This downturn coming will
kill possibly billions of people. It's not an artifact of human
psychology. It is an artifact of the particular economic system we
have chosen. It doesn't have to be like that!
>>> Warlordism is for when that breaks down. Ankgor Wat and the
>>> Pyramids of Central America stand as monuments to the fallibility
>>> of civilization itself.
>>>
>> Not civilisation, the economy. Although Ankgor Wat may be
>> an
>> exception. They may have deswtroyed them,selves by other means
>> before their economuy collapsed, OR, they might not have been using
>> scarce money. I don't know what they used for currency, if
>> anyting.
>>
>
> I'm not up on how Angkor Wat fell. But economic instability is a
> phase in the failure of civilizations.
>
Yet they don't have to fail. We can change the dynamic of the
economy so that we have a stable system, or at least a system that
doesn't come with it's own built-in instability.
Fred
> For a really good analysis of the economic crisis, read this. All
> of it.
>
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0903.galbraith.html
>
It's very conventional and of no value whatsoever. It only
re-inforces existing misconceptions.
> The youths who did not experience the first Great Depression seem
> not
> able to grasp what happened.
You'd have to be pretty old to remember it.
> This is understandable. As a brief
> reminder: the country was on the verge of real rebellion, possibly
> a Communist success, at least in New York city. Capitalism was
> in danger. FDR may have saved us. We can't know what would
> have happened without him, that's true -- the nature of time moving
> only forward.
>
> Please do read Jamie Galbreath's article. Line-by-line he has it
> right. And it's not encouraging. Obama may fail -- for a variety
> of reasons -- not all his fault.
>
Obama will fail, because he has no idea what he's doing, and
unfortunately he's got a lot of company in that.
The problem is created because the wealth is distributed among too
few people, (the rich, bu definition). Over 50% of the world's
wealth is concentrated in the hands of 250 people. The rest of us,
about six and three quarter billion people have to make do with the
other half.
The poor are so numerous that they can't buy anything and they have
no economic power and less organisation. The rich have nothing left
to buy. The economy therefore stagnates. Clearly throwing money at
the rich is *not* a leftist policy. Nor will it improve the
situation in the long term. It may provide the illusion of keeping
the old game alive for a while, (a few months, maybe a year), and
they the same problem will present itself again, but with bigger
numbers. Many people will die in the interim.
Han de Bruijn
Though I wouldn't be surprised if you are quite right, could you please
underpin these numbers with some decent references ?
> The poor are so numerous that they can't buy anything and they have
> no economic power and less organisation. The rich have nothing left
> to buy. The economy therefore stagnates. Clearly throwing money at
> the rich is *not* a leftist policy. Nor will it improve the
> situation in the long term. It may provide the illusion of keeping
> the old game alive for a while, (a few months, maybe a year), and
> they the same problem will present itself again, but with bigger
> numbers. Many people will die in the interim.
Sounds much like Ravi Batra's theory about the crisis:
http://www.ravibatra.com/
http://www.ravibatra.com/globalfinancialcrisis.htm
But actually, it's much older. Crises by overproduction-underconsumption
are already described in "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx.
Han de Bruijn
Mason C
>Mason C wrote:
>
>> For a really good analysis of the economic crisis, read this. All
>> of it.
>>
>> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0903.galbraith.html
>>
> It's very conventional and of no value whatsoever. It only
>re-inforces existing misconceptions.
From your perspective, true. read on....
>
>> The youths who did not experience the first Great Depression seem
>> not
>> able to grasp what happened.
>
> You'd have to be pretty old to remember it.
87 is enough There are some of us. And a few, like Galbraith who
can read history, not just economics.
>
>> This is understandable. As a brief
>> reminder: the country was on the verge of real rebellion, possibly
>> a Communist success, at least in New York city. Capitalism was
>> in danger. FDR may have saved us. We can't know what would
>> have happened without him, that's true -- the nature of time moving
>> only forward.
>>
>> Please do read Jamie Galbreath's article. Line-by-line he has it
>> right. And it's not encouraging. Obama may fail -- for a variety
>> of reasons -- not all his fault.
>>
> Obama will fail, because he has no idea what he's doing, and
>unfortunately he's got a lot of company in that.
"No idea" is a bit strong. But, as Galbreath points out, his advisors and
therefore he, do not show a good grasp of the problem.
> The problem is created because the wealth is distributed among too
>few people, (the rich, by definition).
The *immediate, short-term* problem is the collapse of economies, but...
> Over 50% of the world's
>wealth is concentrated in the hands of 250 people. The rest of us,
>about six and three quarter billion people have to make do with the
>other half.
> The poor are so numerous that they can't buy anything and they have
>no economic power and less organisation. The rich have nothing left
>to buy. The economy therefore stagnates. Clearly throwing money at
>the rich is *not* a leftist policy. Nor will it improve the
>situation in the long term. It may provide the illusion of keeping
>the old game alive for a while, (a few months, maybe a year), and
>they the same problem will present itself again, but with bigger
>numbers. Many people will die in the interim.
Fred, you will like:
http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
and tap on "Inequality-p74-80"
Note book title: ".... the Age of Rebellion"
Mason C
Fred has rightly pointed out bigger problems than the current crisis.
There are *real* economists who agree.
Paul Davidson is the father of post-keynsian economic theory.
see his pdf article: "Are We Making Progress Toward a Civilized Society?"
at http://econ.bus.utk.edu/faculty/davidson/harvardtalk3.pdf
His book is:
*Economics for a Civilized Society* by Paul Davidson and son
Jamie Galbraith's has these books:
*The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why
Liberals Should Too* (2008).
*Balancing Acts: Technology, Finance and the American Future* (1989)
*Created Unequal: The Crisis in American Pay* (1998).
*Inequality and Industrial Change: A Global View* 2001),
However, "money" is not a simple problem. Simply having lots
of money means the money has less value. Money is a means
of exchange and a store of value. The existing "value" must be
sufficient to make the money claim valid. If there is not, there is
inflation, i.e. loss of value of the money.
Pertinent here, perhaps, is my essay on "The Moral Minimum Income"
but it's a bit tricky to read: http://frontal-lobe.info/moralinc.html
Rod Speed
>>>>> Capitalism always destroys itself.
Even the ones that didnt bother with money like the Incas, fool.
Rod Speed
> Mason C wrote
>> For a really good analysis of the economic crisis, read this. All of it.
>> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0903.galbraith.html
> It's very conventional and of no value whatsoever.
> It only re-inforces existing misconceptions.
>> The youths who did not experience the first Great
>> Depression seem not able to grasp what happened.
> You'd have to be pretty old to remember it.
>> This is understandable. As a brief reminder: the country was
>> on the verge of real rebellion, possibly a Communist success,
>> at least in New York city. Capitalism was in danger. FDR
>> may have saved us. We can't know what would have happened
>> without him, that's true -- the nature of time moving only forward.
>> Please do read Jamie Galbreath's article. Line-by-line he has it
>> right. And it's not encouraging. Obama may fail -- for a variety
>> of reasons -- not all his fault.
> Obama will fail,
Nope, the economy will recover, just like it always does.
> because he has no idea what he's doing,
Thats never stopped plenty before him, like Truman and FDR.
> and unfortunately he's got a lot of company in that.
Yep, but the system works anyway.
> The problem is created because the wealth is distributed
> among too few people, (the rich, bu definition).
Nope, not anymore.
> Over 50% of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of 250 people.
What matters is that the rest of us have a very decent
standard of living apart from the absolute dregs.
> The rest of us, about six and three quarter billion people have to make do with the other half.
And that produces a very decent standard of living for something
like a billion or two of us, particularly those in the first world.
> The poor are so numerous that they can't buy anything
> and they have no economic power and less organisation.
Their problem. They're mostly so stupid that they cant
even manage to work out what is a viable number of kids.
> The rich have nothing left to buy. The economy therefore stagnates.
Odd, could have SWORN that we have just seen the longest boom in world history.
> Clearly throwing money at the rich is *not* a leftist policy.
Sure, but throwing money at the poor clearly is and that achieves absolutely nothing while
ever they keep having FAR more kids than their circumstances can possibly support.
> Nor will it improve the situation in the long term. It may provide the illusion
> of keeping the old game alive for a while, (a few months, maybe a year),
It has in fact lasted for centurys, unlike ALL the alternatives.
> and they the same problem will present itself again, but
> with bigger numbers. Many people will die in the interim.
That last is pure fantasy. We have now worked out how to avoid people dying except when the 'country'
has ended up in civil chaos and that doesnt happen much anymore, not at all in the first world.
Rod Speed
> http://www.ravibatra.com/
> http://www.ravibatra.com/globalfinancialcrisis.htm
Yes, but he got that just plain wrong. That wasnt in fact what
produced the complete implosion of the world financial system.
> But actually, it's much older. Crises by
> overproduction-underconsumption are already described in "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx.
And it never actually happened the way that fool proclaimed was guaranteed either.
That wasnt what produced the great depression, or the current fiasco either.
Rod Speed
Wrong again.
> We have always seen advancement, because there were new
> lands to occupy and new resources to exploit. Now the whole
> planet has been conquered and major resources plundered.
Wrong again.
> The next empire won't rise to quite such heights
The same stupid claim was made when the british empire was at its height.
Then the US left it for dead.
> and the ones after that will be less successful, simply because the real economy of our
> environment and resources won't be there to the extent that they have been in the past.
The same stupid pig ignorant claim was made at the height of the european empires.
> If we don't leave behind the concept of scarce money, the human race will die out,
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
> and take much of the rest of the life on the planet with it.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
> We have to switch to plentiful money, or cease to exist.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
>>>> Capitalism needs a strong and consistent legal system, and the
>>>> sort of Republics we see there seem to be the best for this.
>>>>
>>> The money accumulates with the rich, and less is left for
>>> the poor to
>>> but the goods that are produced. Eventually the rich have nothing
>>> left to buy and the poor have nothing left to buy anything with.
>>> We notice the problems with drops in sales of the big ticket items,
>>> houses and cars. The rich have trouble finding qualified
>>> borrowers, because the poor are going so far in debt they can never
>>> pay back the money borrowed,... like the government.
>>>
>>
>> And that's fine - if it truly happens. What really happens is
>> we get the odd downturn, then a recovery. Since these are
>> artifacts of human psychology and not so much of "systems"...
>> we'll still have them.
> The downturns kill millions of people.
87 didnt.
> This downturn coming will kill possibly billions of people.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
> It's not an artifact of human psychology. It is an artifact
> of the particular economic system we have chosen.
How odd that communism killed a hell of a lot more than capitalism ever did.
> It doesn't have to be like that!
Yes, we have now worked out how to avoid famine except where some
fools have let the country degenerate into obscene levels of civil chaos.
AND it was capitalism that achieved that.
>>>> Warlordism is for when that breaks down. Ankgor Wat and the
>>>> Pyramids of Central America stand as monuments to the fallibility
>>>> of civilization itself.
>>>>
>>> Not civilisation, the economy. Although Ankgor Wat may be
>>> an
>>> exception. They may have deswtroyed them,selves by other means
>>> before their economuy collapsed, OR, they might not have been using
>>> scarce money. I don't know what they used for currency, if
>>> anyting.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not up on how Angkor Wat fell. But economic instability is a
>> phase in the failure of civilizations.
> Yet they don't have to fail. We can change the dynamic
> of the economy so that we have a stable system, or at least
> a system that doesn't come with it's own built-in instability.
How odd that we havent been able to do that.
Fred
Did they not bother with money? Do you know?
Fred
Interesting. Do you have a quote to cite on this, something
verifiable?
>> and the ones after that will be less successful, simply because the
>> real economy of our environment and resources won't be there to the
>> extent that they have been in the past.
>
> The same stupid pig ignorant claim was made at the height of the
> european empires.
>
Again, it will take more than you saying it to make it so. You need
to quote something historically accurate.
>> If we don't leave behind the concept of scarce money, the human
>> race will die out,
>
--
Fred
> Fred wrote
>> Mason C wrote
>
>>> For a really good analysis of the economic crisis, read this. All
>>> of it.
>
>>>
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0903.galbraith.html
>
>> It's very conventional and of no value whatsoever.
>> It only re-inforces existing misconceptions.
>
>>> The youths who did not experience the first Great
>>> Depression seem not able to grasp what happened.
>
>> You'd have to be pretty old to remember it.
>
>>> This is understandable. As a brief reminder: the country was
>>> on the verge of real rebellion, possibly a Communist success,
>>> at least in New York city. Capitalism was in danger. FDR
>>> may have saved us. We can't know what would have happened
>>> without him, that's true -- the nature of time moving only
>>> forward.
>
>>> Please do read Jamie Galbreath's article. Line-by-line he has it
>>> right. And it's not encouraging. Obama may fail -- for a
>>> variety of reasons -- not all his fault.
>
>> Obama will fail,
>
> Nope, the economy will recover, just like it always does.
>
This is different. Even Right wing economists are noting that it's
different. What they need to realise is that forthe first time in
history we have all but exhausted resources worldwide. There are
hardly any fish left in the oceans, we've passed peak oil, the
forests are almost all gone. The ecosystem of the planet is heavily
stressed and the global economoic system is going into arrest. They
will pump more borrowed cash into it and prop it up a bit longer, but
then the crash will come back stronger than ever.
>> because he has no idea what he's doing,
>
> Thats never stopped plenty before him, like Truman and FDR.
>
Fair enough, but they weren't facing the numbers Obama is facing.
>> and unfortunately he's got a lot of company in that.
>
> Yep, but the system works anyway.
>
This must be some new crazy definition of "works." With so many new
homeless people and banks failing and car companies needing handouts.
Like I've told you before, take a look at the evening news once in a
while.
>> The problem is created because the wealth is distributed
>> among too few people, (the rich, bu definition).
>
> Nope, not anymore.
>
More than ever. It's a growth function and therefore exponential.
>> Over 50% of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of 250
>> people.
>
> What matters is that the rest of us have a very decent
> standard of living apart from the absolute dregs.
>
No we don't. Hundreds of millions of people go to bed hungry every
night, perhaps even more than a billion. They are not "dregs."
That's racist talk. We live in a system where "Nice guys finish
last."
>> The rest of us, about six and three quarter billion people have to
>> make do with the other half.
>
> And that produces a very decent standard of living for something
> like a billion or two of us, particularly those in the first world.
>
No it doesn't look at the streets of cities even in the U.S., but in
places like Haiti it's worse. It's not honourable to be rich, it
just means you've taken more out of the system than you put in.
>> The poor are so numerous that they can't buy anything
>> and they have no economic power and less organisation.
>
> Their problem. They're mostly so stupid that they cant
> even manage to work out what is a viable number of kids.
>
That's not stupidity. Just bad luck and a refusal to screw the next
guy, which is the winning strategy under capitalism, or even any
system using scarce money. People who care about their neighbours
will be punished for it, not by nature but by the economy.
>> The rich have nothing left to buy. The economy therefore
>> stagnates.
>
> Odd, could have SWORN that we have just seen the longest boom in
> world history.
>
At the expense of the poor, the rich have become rich, certainly, but
it's all a house of cards and it's collapsing around us.
>> Clearly throwing money at the rich is *not* a leftist policy.
>
> Sure, but throwing money at the poor clearly is and that achieves
> absolutely nothing while ever they keep having FAR more kids than
> their circumstances can possibly support.
>
Population reduction is a necessity. If we don't find a way to do it
voluntarily, the economic collapse will do it for us.
>> Nor will it improve the situation in the long term. It may provide
>> the illusion of keeping the old game alive for a while, (a few
>> months, maybe a year),
>
> It has in fact lasted for centurys, unlike ALL the alternatives.
>
No it hasn't. It has failed time and time again. People restart the
same insane economic disaster and it fails again, every time.
>> and they the same problem will present itself again, but
>> with bigger numbers. Many people will die in the interim.
>
> That last is pure fantasy. We have now worked out how to avoid
> people dying except when the 'country' has ended up in civil chaos
> and that doesnt happen much anymore, not at all in the first world.
Keep watching. You'll see history in the making.
Rod Speed
>>>>>>> Capitalism always destroys itself.
Yep.
> Do you know?
Yep.
Fred
> Fred wrote:
>
>> Obama will fail, because he has no idea what he's doing,
>> and
>> unfortunately he's got a lot of company in that.
>> The problem is created because the wealth is distributed
>> among too
>> few people, (the rich, bu definition). Over 50% of the world's
>> wealth is concentrated in the hands of 250 people. The rest of us,
>> about six and three quarter billion people have to make do with the
>> other half.
>
> Though I wouldn't be surprised if you are quite right, could you
> please underpin these numbers with some decent references ?
>
There have been successive United Nations Papers on the state of the
world economy. The first that I saw was in the late 1980s. It was
reported on the evening news that 50% of the world's wealth was
controlled by 365 people. They commented that they could all fit on
a jumbo jetliner.
A few years later, I saw another and they were saying it was about
300 people. The last one I heard about was 3 or 4 years ago and they
were down to 250 people. This is consistent with the rich getting
richer, which we know must happen because it takes money to make
money. I think the U.N. comes out with these every year, but I'm not
sure. I've had trouble getting to them on-line myself. I think that
is because they are being blocked.
I had a friend tell me today that they are having trouble getting to
pages on my site saying my friend were told my pages are "sensitive."
Please try these links and let me know if you have any trouble.
<http://www.fredwilliams.ca/>
<http://www.fredwilliams.ca/thesecretofmoney>
<http://www.fredwilliams.ca/articles/economy_one>
<http://www.fredwilliams.ca/articles/economy_two>
These last two are mostly in question. Feel free to poke around at
other things on the site. I have some great photos of cats on the
photography page. I'm proud of those.
>> The poor are so numerous that they can't buy anything and
>> they have
>> no economic power and less organisation. The rich have nothing
>> left
>> to buy. The economy therefore stagnates. Clearly throwing money
>> at
>> the rich is *not* a leftist policy. Nor will it improve the
>> situation in the long term. It may provide the illusion of keeping
>> the old game alive for a while, (a few months, maybe a year), and
>> they the same problem will present itself again, but with bigger
>> numbers. Many people will die in the interim.
>
> Sounds much like Ravi Batra's theory about the crisis:
>
> http://www.ravibatra.com/
> http://www.ravibatra.com/globalfinancialcrisis.htm
>
I'll look into those.
> But actually, it's much older. Crises by
> overproduction-underconsumption are already described in "Das
> Kapital" by Karl Marx.
>
There are other analyses, but I've tried to collect them together and
update them for this time. The main paper was written in the 90s. I
didn't know then when anything was going to collapse, but I knew it
would within 30 or 40 years. It's taken less than 20 years. We're
in it now. It will be held off for a few months or a year with huge
injections of cash, (given not to those who need it, but to the rich
who are not starving nor without homes), but in the end the collapse
will be back stronger than ever.
Rod Speed
>>>>>>> Capitalism always destroys itself.
>> Wrong again.
>> Wrong again.
Yep,
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=4DMS3r_BxOYC
>>> and the ones after that will be less successful, simply because the
>>> real economy of our environment and resources won't be there to the
>>> extent that they have been in the past.
>> The same stupid pig ignorant claim was made at the height of the european empires.
> Again, it will take more than you saying it to make it so.
> You need to quote something historically accurate.
See above.
Les Cargill
Meh. Not so much, no. Each time I try to make us
resource-bound, it doesn't work out very well.
> The next empire
> won't rise to quite such heights and the ones after that will be less
> successful, simply because the real economy of our environment and
> resources won't be there to the extent that they have been in the
> past.
But we also have declines in the number of people in certain
parts of the world.
> If we don't leave behind the concept of scarce money, the human race
> will die out, and take much of the rest of the life on the planet
> with it. We have to switch to plentiful money, or cease to exist.
>
Plentiful money won't slow down the consumption of resources. Scarce
money is more likely going to slow that down.
>>>> Capitalism needs a strong and consistent legal system, and the
>>>> sort of Republics we see there seem to be the best for this.
>>>>
>>> The money accumulates with the rich, and less is left for
>>> the poor to
>>> but the goods that are produced. Eventually the rich have nothing
>>> left to buy and the poor have nothing left to buy anything with.
>>> We notice the problems with drops in sales of the big ticket items,
>>> houses and cars. The rich have trouble finding qualified
>>> borrowers, because the poor are going so far in debt they can never
>>> pay back the money borrowed,... like the government.
>>>
>> And that's fine - if it truly happens. What really happens is
>> we get the odd downturn, then a recovery. Since these are
>> artifacts of human psychology and not so much of "systems"...
>> we'll still have them.
>>
> The downturns kill millions of people. This downturn coming will
> kill possibly billions of people. It's not an artifact of human
> psychology.
I respectfully disagree. It's caused directly by willing
suspension of disbelief, followed by the failure of that
willing suspension of disbelief. "The road
goes on forever, and the party never ends." And
then it does...
> It is an artifact of the particular economic system we
> have chosen. It doesn't have to be like that!
>
But it's transcended various monetary and economic systems.
>>>> Warlordism is for when that breaks down. Ankgor Wat and the
>>>> Pyramids of Central America stand as monuments to the fallibility
>>>> of civilization itself.
>>>>
>>> Not civilisation, the economy. Although Ankgor Wat may be
>>> an
>>> exception. They may have deswtroyed them,selves by other means
>>> before their economuy collapsed, OR, they might not have been using
>>> scarce money. I don't know what they used for currency, if
>>> anyting.
>>>
>> I'm not up on how Angkor Wat fell. But economic instability is a
>> phase in the failure of civilizations.
>>
> Yet they don't have to fail. We can change the dynamic of the
> economy so that we have a stable system, or at least a system that
> doesn't come with it's own built-in instability.
>
We'll see - I expect that the element of instability is human in
nature, and therefore, it matters less what the system is. The problem
is that if you "even out" the cycles, you probably get much lower
long-line growth rates.
Maybe there is such a system, but I think it is what
Greenspan says here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=102970&title=alan-greenspan
I mean - paging Hari Seldon....
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
I have seen people speculate that the origins of the Jubilee Year in
Hebraic traditions was from a recognition of the same fact. That makes
it very old indeed. Babylon had similar edicts, although not
periodic.
Is this interpretation correct? I do not know.
--
Les Cargill
Mason C
> I had a friend tell me today that they are having trouble getting to
>pages on my site saying my friend were told my pages are "sensitive."
>Please try these links and let me know if you have any trouble.
><http://www.fredwilliams.ca/>
><http://www.fredwilliams.ca/thesecretofmoney>
><http://www.fredwilliams.ca/articles/economy_one>
><http://www.fredwilliams.ca/articles/economy_two>
>
> These last two are mostly in question. Feel free to poke around at
>other things on the site. I have some great photos of cats on the
>photography page. I'm proud of those.
No problem at all. But, then, I use the world's best browser: Opera.
Nice cats. Good photos. Cinnamon looks like my Norwegian Forest cat.
Good web site. I've only had time to glance but I see: "So money is not real,
yet our economy seems totally oriented around the manipulation of money. What is
the "Real Economy?"
Good question. I've fantasized writing a book: "Economics Without Money" to
separate money from the real things. Problem is that so many things are
measured in money. It would be a lot of work to express everything without
using "dollars." May try it though.
Thanks for the links.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Fred wrote
>>> Mason C wrote
>>>> For a really good analysis of the economic crisis, read this. All of it.
>>>> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0903.galbraith.html
>>> It's very conventional and of no value whatsoever.
>>> It only re-inforces existing misconceptions.
>>>> The youths who did not experience the first Great
>>>> Depression seem not able to grasp what happened.
>>> You'd have to be pretty old to remember it.
>>>> This is understandable. As a brief reminder: the country was
>>>> on the verge of real rebellion, possibly a Communist success,
>>>> at least in New York city. Capitalism was in danger. FDR
>>>> may have saved us. We can't know what would have happened
>>>> without him, that's true -- the nature of time moving only forward.
>>>> Please do read Jamie Galbreath's article. Line-by-line
>>>> he has it right. And it's not encouraging. Obama may
>>>> fail -- for a variety of reasons -- not all his fault.
>>> Obama will fail,
>> Nope, the economy will recover, just like it always does.
> This is different.
Nope.
> Even Right wing economists are noting that it's different.
Separate matter entirely to whether Obummer will fail.
> What they need to realise is that forthe first time in
> history we have all but exhausted resources worldwide.
Mindlessly silly. We havent even got to peak oil yet.
In spades with iron ore, alumina, uranium,
nickel, chromium, coal, natural gas etc etc etc.
> There are hardly any fish left in the oceans,
Is that right ? How odd that the harvest rate is higher than its ever been.
> we've passed peak oil,
No we havent.
> the forests are almost all gone.
Even someone as stupid as should have noticed that its quite easy to plant new trees.
> The ecosystem of the planet is heavily stressed
Much less than it used to be, actually, particularly in the first world.
> and the global economoic system is going into arrest.
Like hell it is. Even the IMF is only predicting a small decline in global GDP.
> They will pump more borrowed cash into it and prop it up a bit
> longer, but then the crash will come back stronger than ever.
The same stupid claim was made during the great depression.
>>> because he has no idea what he's doing,
>> Thats never stopped plenty before him, like Truman and FDR.
> Fair enough, but they weren't facing the numbers Obama is facing.
FDR did with WW2, MUCH worse. The US economy survived that fine.
>>> and unfortunately he's got a lot of company in that.
>> Yep, but the system works anyway.
> This must be some new crazy definition of "works."
Nope, same one we have always had, the GDP, the number unemployed, etc etc etc.
> With so many new homeless people
Nothing like what happened during the great depression.
> and banks failing
Nothing like what happened during the great depression.
> and car companies needing handouts.
Nothing like what happened during the great depression.
> Like I've told you before, take a look at the evening news once in a while.
I do every evening thanks child.
>>> The problem is created because the wealth is distributed
>>> among too few people, (the rich, bu definition).
>> Nope, not anymore.
> More than ever.
Nope. The absolute vast bulk of a nations wealth isnt held by the rich anymore.
> It's a growth function and therefore exponential.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>>> Over 50% of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of 250 people.
>> What matters is that the rest of us have a very decent
>> standard of living apart from the absolute dregs.
> No we don't.
Yes we do.
> Hundreds of millions of people go to bed hungry
> every night, perhaps even more than a billion.
Their problem. Most of us in the west have the opposite problem,
we shove more into our mouths than we burn so we end up obese.
> They are not "dregs."
Corse they are. They are too stupid to even work out how many kids their circumstances can support.
> That's racist talk.
Nope, because there are fools like that in every race.
> We live in a system where "Nice guys finish last."
We live in a system where if you end up with more kids than
your circumstances can support, you may well go to bed
hungry if your country doesnt have a decent welfare
system or you are stupid enough to be a drug addict.
>>> The rest of us, about six and three quarter billion
>>> people have to make do with the other half.
>> And that produces a very decent standard of living for something
>> like a billion or two of us, particularly those in the first world.
> No it doesn't
Yes it does.
> look at the streets of cities even in the U.S.,
Those are the fools that we either used to keep in locked wards or pathetic drug addicts.
And even those end up with a MUCH better standard of living than the dregs in India end up with.
> but in places like Haiti it's worse.
Those fools couldnt organise a pissup in a brewery.
> It's not honourable to be rich, it just means you've
> taken more out of the system than you put in.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>>> The poor are so numerous that they can't buy anything
>>> and they have no economic power and less organisation.
>> Their problem. They're mostly so stupid that they cant
>> even manage to work out what is a viable number of kids.
> That's not stupidity.
Corse it is.
> Just bad luck
Like hell it is. No luck involved whatever.
> and a refusal to screw the next guy,
They clearly didnt refuse to screw the wife without decent contraception.
> which is the winning strategy under capitalism,
> or even any system using scarce money.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> People who care about their neighbours will be
> punished for it, not by nature but by the economy.
Odd, I care about my neighbours and havent been screwed by either.
Its just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
>>> The rich have nothing left to buy. The economy therefore stagnates.
>> Odd, could have SWORN that we have just seen the longest boom in world history.
> At the expense of the poor,
Nope, they've done better than they used to too.
> the rich have become rich, certainly,
And those who arent either have much better living standards than they did 100 or 200 years ago.
> but it's all a house of cards and it's collapsing around us.
The same stupid pig ignorant claim was made by fools like you during the great depression.
>>> Clearly throwing money at the rich is *not* a leftist policy.
>> Sure, but throwing money at the poor clearly is and that
>> achieves absolutely nothing while ever they keep having
>> FAR more kids than their circumstances can possibly support.
> Population reduction is a necessity.
Not it the first world it aint. Not one modern first world country is even
self replacing on population if you take out immigration. NOT ONE.
> If we don't find a way to do it voluntarily, the economic collapse will do it for us.
How odd that its actually the country with the
highest birth rates that are economic basket cases.
>>> Nor will it improve the situation in the long term.
>>> It may provide the illusion of keeping the old game
>>> alive for a while, (a few months, maybe a year),
>> It has in fact lasted for centurys, unlike ALL the alternatives.
> No it hasn't.
Yes it has.
> It has failed time and time again.
Some failure when it produced by far the most important
economic and military power in the entire fucking world.
> People restart the same insane economic disaster and it fails again, every time.
Some failure when it produced by far the most important
economic and military power in the entire fucking world.
>>> and they the same problem will present itself again, but
>>> with bigger numbers. Many people will die in the interim.
>> That last is pure fantasy. We have now worked out how to avoid
>> people dying except when the 'country' has ended up in civil chaos
>> and that doesnt happen much anymore, not at all in the first world.
> Keep watching. You'll see history in the making.
The same stupid pig ignorant claim was made by fools like you during the great depression.
Rod Speed
> Han de Bruijn wrote
>> Fred wrote
>>> Obama will fail, because he has no idea what he's doing,
>>> and unfortunately he's got a lot of company in that.
>>> The problem is created because the wealth is distributed
>>> among too few people, (the rich, bu definition). Over 50%
>>> of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of 250
>>> people. The rest of us, about six and three quarter billion
>>> people have to make do with the other half.
>> Though I wouldn't be surprised if you are quite right, could you
>> please underpin these numbers with some decent references ?
> There have been successive United Nations
> Papers on the state of the world economy.
> The first that I saw was in the late 1980s.
Not one of which has ever said anything like that.
> It was reported on the evening news that 50% of the
> world's wealth was controlled by 365 people. They
> commented that they could all fit on a jumbo jetliner.
Wota stunningly impeccible source.
> A few years later, I saw another and they were saying it
> was about 300 people. The last one I heard about was
> 3 or 4 years ago and they were down to 250 people.
Clearly someone must have his dick in his hand big time.
None of the official stats say anything like that.
> This is consistent with the rich getting richer, which we know
> must happen because it takes money to make money.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
That aint how Gates got stinking rich. Or Brin either.
> I think the U.N. comes out with these every year, but I'm
> not sure. I've had trouble getting to them on-line myself.
> I think that is because they are being blocked.
More fool you.
> I had a friend tell me today that they are having trouble getting to
> pages on my site saying my friend were told my pages are "sensitive."
If they were blocking them, they wouldnt say that, stupid.
> Please try these links and let me know if you have any trouble.
> <http://www.fredwilliams.ca/>
> <http://www.fredwilliams.ca/thesecretofmoney>
> <http://www.fredwilliams.ca/articles/economy_one>
> <http://www.fredwilliams.ca/articles/economy_two>
They all work fine. Some block.
> These last two are mostly in question.
They're all steaming turds.
> Feel free to poke around at other things on the site. I have some
> great photos of cats on the photography page. I'm proud of those.
Mostly too dark you need lighter backgrounds with those color cats.
>>> The poor are so numerous that they can't buy anything and they have
>>> no economic power and less organisation. The rich have nothing left
>>> to buy. The economy therefore stagnates. Clearly throwing money
>>> at the rich is *not* a leftist policy. Nor will it improve the
>>> situation in the long term. It may provide the illusion of keeping
>>> the old game alive for a while, (a few months, maybe a year), and
>>> they the same problem will present itself again, but with bigger
>>> numbers. Many people will die in the interim.
>> Sounds much like Ravi Batra's theory about the crisis:
>> http://www.ravibatra.com/
>> http://www.ravibatra.com/globalfinancialcrisis.htm
> I'll look into those.
>> But actually, it's much older. Crises by
>> overproduction-underconsumption are already described in "Das
>> Kapital" by Karl Marx.
> There are other analyses, but I've tried to collect them together
> and update them for this time. The main paper was written in the
> 90s. I didn't know then when anything was going to collapse, but
> I knew it would within 30 or 40 years. It's taken less than 20 years.
It aint collapsed.
> We're in it now.
Nope.
> It will be held off for a few months or a year with huge injections of cash,
> (given not to those who need it, but to the rich who are not starving nor
> without homes), but in the end the collapse will be back stronger than ever.
So it aint a collapse, just another recession, stupid.
Fred
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:58:24 -0300, Fred <fr...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca>
> wrote:
>
> Fred has rightly pointed out bigger problems than the current
> crisis.
>
> There are *real* economists who agree.
>
> Paul Davidson is the father of post-keynsian economic theory.
>
> see his pdf article: "Are We Making Progress Toward a Civilized
> Society?"
>
> at http://econ.bus.utk.edu/faculty/davidson/harvardtalk3.pdf
>
These are well intentioned people, Galbraith and Keynes, apparently,
but they saw possibilities within the framework of the existing
economy. They worked with the tools of the rich GDP and
import-export ratios and such. These indicators show how well
corporations and governments are doing, but neglect issues such
as "real poverty." They have to acknowledge that over time the rich
get richer and unless there's a lot of force involved the money
doesn't get recycled back to the poor.
As intelligent, caring human beings I have to salute Galbraith and
Keynes, but as economists, they were perhaps caught up in the
classical myths too much. Marx and Engels were better suited to
observe and report the problems associated with our economy, but they
too were short sighted. All work that has been done to date, (well,
almost all), has been within the framework of scarce money. It's a
very conventional approach and the conclusions reached are quite
correct within that framework. But the very essence of scarce money
is the problem! To think outside that box is so difficult for any of
us, because we are so indoctrinated into the system. We've never
known anything else, and higher education in economics drills it into
us further, along with some barefaced lies added by the capitalists.
Yet only the alternative framework of plentiful money will
appropriately address and solve the problems with which we are faced.
Only then will we democratise economic power the way we have
democratised political power over the centuries. It will take a long
struggle, and time is working against us. We stand to loose so much
of the environment and existing species to rampant overpopulation and
artificial economic measures. The horror of what is about to befall
the planet is like what has not seen for 65 million years.
We have to star with *egalitarian worker's cooperatives* We have to
start looking at plentiful money systems, even if it's only as local
alternative economic pockets of prosperity. The can grow and form
networks of cooperative effort that will build trust and hope for the
future. That is what we have to do.
Rod Speed
> Mason C wrote
>> Fred has rightly pointed out bigger problems than the current crisis.
>> There are *real* economists who agree.
None that matter that agree with his stupid claim that capitalism wont survive.
>> Paul Davidson is the father of post-keynsian economic theory.
>> see his pdf article: "Are We Making Progress Toward a Civilized Society?"
>> at http://econ.bus.utk.edu/faculty/davidson/harvardtalk3.pdf
> These are well intentioned people, Galbraith and Keynes, apparently,
> but they saw possibilities within the framework of the existing economy.
Because thats what works.
> They worked with the tools of the rich GDP and import-export
> ratios and such. These indicators show how well corporations and
> governments are doing, but neglect issues such as "real poverty."
You only see that today when fools have far more kids than
their circumstances can support, and even then, you only get
real poverty in first world countrys with the loonys we used to
keep in locked wards and now no longer do, and pathetic addicts.
> They have to acknowledge that over time the rich get richer
Like that or lump it.
> and unless there's a lot of force involved the
> money doesn't get recycled back to the poor.
Because the only real poor in first world countrys are the loonys we used
to keep in locked wards and now no longer do, and pathetic addicts,
and it makes no sense to be pouring lots of money on either group.
> As intelligent, caring human beings I have to salute
> Galbraith and Keynes, but as economists, they were
> perhaps caught up in the classical myths too much.
You are in spades.
> Marx and Engels were better suited to observe and report the problems
> associated with our economy, but they too were short sighted.
They couldnt even get the basics right, that its capitalism that
has outlasted ALL the alternatives and will continue to do that.
> All work that has been done to date, (well, almost all),
> has been within the framework of scarce money. It's
> a very conventional approach and the conclusions
> reached are quite correct within that framework.
> But the very essence of scarce money is the problem!
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim!!!
> To think outside that box is so difficult for any of us,
There is no box.
> because we are so indoctrinated into the system.
Its what has outlasted every other alternative.
> We've never known anything else, and higher education in economics drills
> it into us further, along with some barefaced lies added by the capitalists.
Whereas you are some genius that has seen the light, eh ?
Yeah, right.
> Yet only the alternative framework of plentiful money will appropriately
> address and solve the problems with which we are faced.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> Only then will we democratise economic power the way we have
> democratised political power over the centuries. It will take a long
> struggle, and time is working against us. We stand to loose so
> much of the environment and existing species to rampant overpopulation
Wrong. The modern first world isnt even self replacing
on population now if you take out immigration.
> and artificial economic measures.
Corse 'plentiful money' is nothing like that, eh ?
> The horror of what is about to befall the planet is like what has not seen for 65 million years.
That fool Malthus ran the same line.
> We have to star with *egalitarian worker's cooperatives*
Not one of those has lasted very long every time they have been tried.
> We have to start looking at plentiful money systems,
No such animal.
> even if it's only as local alternative economic pockets of prosperity.
No such animal.
> The can grow and form networks of cooperative
> effort that will build trust and hope for the future.
Plenty of fools have tried that for centurys now. NOT ONE has ever lasted very long.
> That is what we have to do.
Wrong, as always.
Mason C
> Yet only the alternative framework of plentiful money will
>appropriately address and solve the problems with which we are faced.
>start looking at plentiful money systems, even if it's only as local
Money, as I hope we both define it is:
1. A means of exchange, a tool to assist in conducting trade.
2. A means of storing a demand for goods and services, i.e. a
means of saving. (not necessarily safely, but that's another story).
If the quantity of money, say dollars, exceeds the supply of
good and services the value of the money simply declines, i.e.
there is inflation. Adding money to the system simply increases
the amount of money in use. The extreme case is the hyper-inflation
suffered by Germany in the Weimar Republic of the 1930 ca. This
adds nothing to the social well-being and the instability makes
trade more difficult. The economy fails.
What is needed is more goods and services, equitably distributed.
Rod Speed
> Fred fr...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca wrote
>> Yet only the alternative framework of plentiful money will appropriately
>> address and solve the problems with which we are faced.
>> start looking at plentiful money systems, even if it's only as local
> Money, as I hope we both define it is:
> 1. A means of exchange, a tool to assist in conducting trade.
> 2. A means of storing a demand for goods and services, i.e. a
> means of saving. (not necessarily safely, but that's another story).
> If the quantity of money, say dollars, exceeds the supply of
> good and services the value of the money simply declines, i.e.
> there is inflation. Adding money to the system simply increases
> the amount of money in use. The extreme case is the hyper-inflation
> suffered by Germany in the Weimar Republic of the 1930 ca.
> This adds nothing to the social well-being and the instability
> makes trade more difficult. The economy fails.
> What is needed is more goods and services,
Thats arguable in the modern first world.
> equitably distributed.
And that in spades.
And in the third world, its arguable if that can ever happen while they keep
pumping out more kids than their circumstances can possibly support.
Fred
That's a valid point. Scarce money is not a limit on the exchange of
goods and services. In fact it makes virtually unlimited exchange
possible and in itself it could be said to speed up consumption of
resources. Not a good thing when trying to conserve the environment.
But the other effect of scarce money is to shift the decision making
process on two fronts, First it moves the process from
the "artificial economy" into the "real economy." People are not
tied to making profits in terms of currency, so decisions about what
to do can be based on the best needs of the community and decisions
can be taken about how to best preserve the environment as well. The
second shift in the decision making process is to take it out of the
hands of the obscenely wealthy and put it in the hands of the wider
community.
With the monetary limits gone from the process, people will have a
need to become more responsible in their decision making process.
They should also come together in community meetings and review such
decisions. I think it requires education in the process, and that
has to be fundamental. We have to understand how nature operates and
devise plans to work with those natural processes. When we are freed
from economic necessity, we are allowed to do that, but we need to
know how to do that.
It's like we've been flying in a plane of auto-pilot, but the
autopilot is flying us directly at the ground. Plentiful money is
like taking the plane off auto-pilot and everybody is going to have
input as to what to do. However, it would be a good idea to have
everybody take pilot training so that we all have some idea of how to
fly the plane. If we're all going to have input, it will be in the
best interests of each one of us that all our neighbours have the
best training they can get, and ourselves too. That's how the system
is egalitarian and democratic. It encourages cooperation, rather
than competition! The whole dynamics of the economy changes and new
strategies for success are introduced. Everyone succeeds together
rather than each one trying to succeed on the backs of others.
>>>>> Capitalism needs a strong and consistent legal system, and the
>>>>> sort of Republics we see there seem to be the best for this.
>>>>>
>>>> The money accumulates with the rich, and less is left for
>>>> the poor to
>>>> but the goods that are produced. Eventually the rich have
>>>> nothing left to buy and the poor have nothing left to buy
>>>> anything with. We notice the problems with drops in sales of the
>>>> big ticket items,
>>>> houses and cars. The rich have trouble finding qualified
>>>> borrowers, because the poor are going so far in debt they can
>>>> never pay back the money borrowed,... like the government.
>>>>
>>> And that's fine - if it truly happens. What really happens is
>>> we get the odd downturn, then a recovery. Since these are
>>> artifacts of human psychology and not so much of "systems"...
>>> we'll still have them.
>>>
>> The downturns kill millions of people. This downturn
>> coming will
>> kill possibly billions of people. It's not an artifact of human
>> psychology.
>
> I respectfully disagree. It's caused directly by willing
> suspension of disbelief, followed by the failure of that
> willing suspension of disbelief. "The road
> goes on forever, and the party never ends." And
> then it does...
>
I don't quite follow what you're saying here. Can you give me a
better understanding of what you mean by "suspension of disbelief."
>> It is an artifact of the particular economic system we
>> have chosen. It doesn't have to be like that!
>>
>
> But it's transcended various monetary and economic systems.
>
There are many systems that use scarce money and I can believe it
transcends them, but plentiful money is an entirely different game.
It's a truly democratic economy and it's stable rather than self
destructive. I don't believe that the cycle of boom and bust still
applies in what is really a new family of economic systems. The
phrase, "This changes everything." applies.
>>>>> Warlordism is for when that breaks down. Ankgor Wat and the
>>>>> Pyramids of Central America stand as monuments to the
>>>>> fallibility of civilization itself.
>>>>>
>>>> Not civilisation, the economy. Although Ankgor Wat may be
>>>> an
>>>> exception. They may have deswtroyed them,selves by other means
>>>> before their economuy collapsed, OR, they might not have been
>>>> using
>>>> scarce money. I don't know what they used for currency, if
>>>> anyting.
>>>>
>>> I'm not up on how Angkor Wat fell. But economic instability is a
>>> phase in the failure of civilizations.
>>>
>> Yet they don't have to fail. We can change the dynamic of
>> the
>> economy so that we have a stable system, or at least a system that
>> doesn't come with it's own built-in instability.
>>
>
> We'll see - I expect that the element of instability is human in
> nature, and therefore, it matters less what the system is. The
> problem is that if you "even out" the cycles, you probably get much
> lower long-line growth rates.
>
Yes, possibly, but we could stand that if it also brings the benefits
of eliminating class boundaries, and poverty, and it stops rewarding
the psychopaths for screwing everybody around. It may also eliminate
war, at least some of them.
We have made great advances in science and technology, but done very
little in morality and ethics, not to mention economics. We need to
catch up.
> Maybe there is such a system, but I think it is what
> Greenspan says here:
>
>
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=102970&title=alan-greenspan
>
> I mean - paging Hari Seldon....
>
The video is not there. It says something about "The Comedy Network"
and there are too many videos to sift through.
Fred
My pleasure. It's what I do.
The description of the "Real Economy" is not too far into "The Secret
of Money" document. It's the resources we need to live, the land,
the trees, the fish in the ocean, clean water, clean air, and so on:
The *environment* really, and you can add ourselves and our ability
to understand and the work that we can do. All that is real.
Fred
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:11:56 -0300, Fred <fr...@fredwilliamsFFFf.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> Yet only the alternative framework of plentiful money will
>>appropriately address and solve the problems with which we are
>>faced.
>
>>start looking at plentiful money systems, even if it's only as local
>
> Money, as I hope we both define it is:
>
> 1. A means of exchange, a tool to assist in conducting trade.
A medium of exchange; yes. Michael Linton, who copyrighted the term
LETSystem, calls it "a measure" of goods and services... of "takes"
and "puts."
> 2. A means of storing a demand for goods and services, i.e. a
> means of saving. (not necessarily safely, but that's another
> story).
>
If you have 1., (above), you don't really need this second function.
In fact I submit that we're better off without it. Plentiful money
doesn't carry the "value" of goods and services, it merely records
the transactions without representing the value, (which is only in
our minds anyway).
It's like feet and inches, (or meters and centimetres, if you like).
They measure a board, for instance and tell you how much there is,
but you don't hear that you can't build your house because all the
feet and inches are in use building a large office tower downtown.
Everybody has their own measuring tape.
In a plentiful money economy, there is one currency, but *everybody*
has the *right* to issue it; as much as they need. The LETSystem is
a limited form of a plentiful money system.
> If the quantity of money, say dollars, exceeds the supply of
> good and services the value of the money simply declines, i.e.
> there is inflation. Adding money to the system simply increases
> the amount of money in use. The extreme case is the hyper-inflation
> suffered by Germany in the Weimar Republic of the 1930 ca. This
> adds nothing to the social well-being and the instability makes
> trade more difficult. The economy fails.
>
> What is needed is more goods and services, equitably distributed.
>
What you say is true of all scarce money systems. When you switch to
plentiful money, it changes everything. Since the money is only a
measure of goods and services and *not a representation* of the
wealth, (as I describe above), The money has no value in and of
itself. Hence the "market" cannot set the value of the money. If
the market isn't setting the value of the money in terms of goods and
services, "inflation" becomes as meaningless as the temperature of a
vacuum. It's just undefined.
With plentiful money, people have to set the value of their goods and
services, but with little to gain or loose, they are under no
financial pressure to make profits or horde the money. So people are
actually free to set a fair price. The system doesn't *require* that
they set a fair price, but at least it *allows* it, and it removes
the pressure that we have under scarce money systems to set an unfair
price.
Yes, people have to learn new strategies and skills to operate such a
system, but the up side is that people *get* to operate such a
system. It puts the power into the hands of the common people. This
changes everything!
Rod Speed
>>>>>>> Capitalism always destroys itself.
Nope, even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that its just produced the sub prime fiasco.
Thats twice now its completely fucked up the world financial system.
Corse it also bailed out the the west twice now in two world
wars too and both your two main 'workers paradises' too.
>>>> They seem just fine right now. What you call "empire falling", I would
>>>> call moving towards Capitalism in a Scottish Enlightenment way.
>>> When you restart the system with the same parameters you get the
>>> same result. We have always seen advancement, because there
>>> were new lands to occupy and new resources to exploit. Now the
>>> whole planet has been conquered and major resources plundered.
>> Meh. Not so much, no. Each time I try to make us
>> resource-bound, it doesn't work out very well.
>>> The next empire won't rise to quite such heights and the ones after that will
>>> be less successful, simply because the real economy of our environment
>>> and resources won't be there to the extent that they have been in the past.
>> But we also have declines in the number of people in certain parts of the world.
>>> If we don't leave behind the concept of scarce money, the human
>>> race will die out, and take much of the rest of the life on the planet
>>> with it. We have to switch to plentiful money, or cease to exist.
>> Plentiful money won't slow down the consumption of resources.
>> Scarce money is more likely going to slow that down.
> That's a valid point. Scarce money is not a limit on the exchange
> of goods and services. In fact it makes virtually unlimited exchange
> possible and in itself it could be said to speed up consumption of
> resources. Not a good thing when trying to conserve the environment.
Fuck the environment.
> But the other effect of scarce money is to shift the decision
> making process on two fronts, First it moves the process
> from the "artificial economy" into the "real economy."
No such animals.
> People are not tied to making profits in terms of currency, so decisions
> about what to do can be based on the best needs of the community and
> decisions can be taken about how to best preserve the environment as well.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> The second shift in the decision making process is to take it out of the hands
> of the obscenely wealthy and put it in the hands of the wider community.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
The modern reality is that its the consumer that determines what happens
trade wise, the obscenely wealthy are completely irrelevant to that.
> With the monetary limits gone from the process,
Not even possible.
> people will have a need to become more responsible in their decision making process.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> They should also come together in community meetings and review such decisions.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> I think it requires education in the process, and that has to be fundamental.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> We have to understand how nature operates and
> devise plans to work with those natural processes.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> When we are freed from economic necessity,
The first world has been for a hell of a long time now.
> we are allowed to do that, but we need to know how to do that.
Not even possible.
> It's like we've been flying in a plane of auto-pilot,
> but the autopilot is flying us directly at the ground.
Nope, nothing like.
> Plentiful money is like taking the plane off auto-pilot
> and everybody is going to have input as to what to do.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> However, it would be a good idea to have everybody take pilot
> training so that we all have some idea of how to fly the plane.
Not even possible with economics.
Most economists dont even know that.
> If we're all going to have input, it will be in the best
> interests of each one of us that all our neighbours
> have the best training they can get, and ourselves too.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed silly little fantasys.
> That's how the system is egalitarian and democratic.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed silly little fantasys.
> It encourages cooperation, rather than competition!
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed silly little fantasys!!
> The whole dynamics of the economy changes and new strategies
> for success are introduced. Everyone succeeds together rather
> than each one trying to succeed on the backs of others.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed silly little fantasys.
>>>>>> Capitalism needs a strong and consistent legal system, and the
>>>>>> sort of Republics we see there seem to be the best for this.
>>>>> The money accumulates with the rich, and less is left for the poor
>>>>> to but the goods that are produced. Eventually the rich have
>>>>> nothing left to buy and the poor have nothing left to buy
>>>>> anything with. We notice the problems with drops in sales of the
>>>>> big ticket items,
>>>>> houses and cars. The rich have trouble finding qualified
>>>>> borrowers, because the poor are going so far in debt they can
>>>>> never pay back the money borrowed,... like the government.
>>>> And that's fine - if it truly happens. What really happens is
>>>> we get the odd downturn, then a recovery. Since these are
>>>> artifacts of human psychology and not so much of "systems"...
>>>> we'll still have them.
>>> The downturns kill millions of people. This downturn coming will
>>> kill possibly billions of people. It's not an artifact of human psychology.
>> I respectfully disagree. It's caused directly by willing suspension of
>> disbelief, followed by the failure of that willing suspension of disbelief.
>> "The road goes on forever, and the party never ends." And then it does...
> I don't quite follow what you're saying here.
He's saying that you dont have a clue. He's right.
> Can you give me a better understanding of what you mean by "suspension of disbelief."
He just did in the last sentence.
>>> It is an artifact of the particular economic system
>>> we have chosen. It doesn't have to be like that!
>> But it's transcended various monetary and economic systems.
> There are many systems that use scarce money and I can believe
> it transcends them, but plentiful money is an entirely different game.
No such animal.
> It's a truly democratic economy
No such animal.
> and it's stable rather than self destructive.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> I don't believe that the cycle of boom and bust still applies
> in what is really a new family of economic systems.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> The phrase, "This changes everything." applies.
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
>>>>>> Warlordism is for when that breaks down. Ankgor Wat and the
>>>>>> Pyramids of Central America stand as monuments to the
>>>>>> fallibility of civilization itself.
>>>>> Not civilisation, the economy. Although Ankgor Wat may be an
>>>>> exception. They may have deswtroyed them,selves by other means
>>>>> before their economuy collapsed, OR, they might not have been using
>>>>> scarce money. I don't know what they used for currency, if anyting.
>>>> I'm not up on how Angkor Wat fell. But economic instability is a
>>>> phase in the failure of civilizations.
>>> Yet they don't have to fail. We can change the dynamic of the
>>> economy so that we have a stable system, or at least a system that
>>> doesn't come with it's own built-in instability.
>> We'll see - I expect that the element of instability is human in
>> nature, and therefore, it matters less what the system is. The
>> problem is that if you "even out" the cycles, you probably get
>> much lower long-line growth rates.
> Yes, possibly, but we could stand that if it also brings
> the benefits of eliminating class boundaries, and poverty,
Nothing has ever done that.
> and it stops rewarding the psychopaths for screwing everybody around.
And that in spades.
> It may also eliminate war, at least some of them.
We've already done that.
> We have made great advances in science and technology, but
> done very little in morality and ethics, not to mention economics.
Wrong. Even the stupid western europeans have given up on world wars.
> We need to catch up.
You need to.
(David P.)
> Fred wrote
>
> > Only then will we democratise economic power the way we have
> > democratised political power over the centuries. It will take a long
> > struggle, and time is working against us. We stand to loose so
> > much of the environment and existing species to rampant overpopulation
>
> on population now if you take out immigration.
The TOTAL GLOBAL population is much more than
self-replacing! If you pick and choose, you can
paint any kind of a picture you want!
.
.
--
Han de Bruijn
No, I dind't have any trouble. "The Secret of Money" IMO is an EXCELLENT
writeup. (It seems that the other parts are more or less copies from it;
you should correct a few typos to make it almost perfect) Here comes the
picture of _any_ Economy in a Nutshell. ( Think we're close together : )
http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/jaar2009/economie.jpg
> These last two are mostly in question. Feel free to poke around at
> other things on the site. I have some great photos of cats on the
> photography page. I'm proud of those.
>
>>> The poor are so numerous that they can't buy anything and
>>> they have
>>>no economic power and less organisation. The rich have nothing
>>>left
>>>to buy. The economy therefore stagnates. Clearly throwing money
>>>at
>>>the rich is *not* a leftist policy. Nor will it improve the
>>>situation in the long term. It may provide the illusion of keeping
>>>the old game alive for a while, (a few months, maybe a year), and
>>>they the same problem will present itself again, but with bigger
>>>numbers. Many people will die in the interim.
>>
>>Sounds much like Ravi Batra's theory about the crisis:
>>
>>http://www.ravibatra.com/
>>http://www.ravibatra.com/globalfinancialcrisis.ht
>
> I'll look into those.
I've read your theories _and_ Batra's and it's obvious these are quite
compatible with each other.
>>But actually, it's much older. Crises by
>>overproduction-underconsumption are already described in "Das
>>Kapital" by Karl Marx.
>
> There are other analyses, but I've tried to collect them together and
> update them for this time. The main paper was written in the 90s. I
> didn't know then when anything was going to collapse, but I knew it
> would within 30 or 40 years. It's taken less than 20 years. We're
> in it now. It will be held off for a few months or a year with huge
> injections of cash, (given not to those who need it, but to the rich
> who are not starving nor without homes), but in the end the collapse
> will be back stronger than ever.
Ravi Batra's book "The Great Depression of 1990" has _only_ be wrong in
its time stamp. The rest of the text is amazing in its predicting power.
It also pinpoints the _cause_ of the current crisis explicitly, which is
the extreme disparity in wealth. In "Bonuses and compensation reform" I
have defended the stand that NO HUMAN BEING IS FIVE OR SIX TIMES BETTER
THAN THE AVERAGE HUMAN BEING. Hence anybody's work shouldn't be rewarded
more than 5 or 6 times worth the work of an average person. (Ravi Batra
himself finds a factor 10 between the highest and the lowest wage)
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
Wrong. He got the cause wrong too. It wasnt the discrepency between the rich and the poor at all,
it was due to something else entirely. AND we havent seen anything like a great depression yet either.
> The rest of the text is amazing in its predicting power.
Like hell it is.
> It also pinpoints the _cause_ of the current crisis explicitly,
No it doesnt.
> which is the extreme disparity in wealth.
That wasnt the cause of the sub prime fiasco.
In fact if anything the real estate bubble was the exact opposite of that.
> In "Bonuses and compensation reform" I have defended the stand that NO HUMAN BEING IS FIVE OR SIX
> TIMES BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE HUMAN BEING.
And that those numbers are straight from your arse, we can tell from the smell.
> Hence anybody's work shouldn't be rewarded more than 5 or 6 times worth the work of an average person.
And that those numbers are straight from your arse, we can tell from the smell.
> (Ravi Batra himself finds a factor 10 between the highest and the lowest wage)
He doesnt 'find' anything, he just proclaims it, a different matter entirely.
Rod Speed
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Fred wrote
>>
>>> Only then will we democratise economic power the way we have
>>> democratised political power over the centuries. It will take a long
>>> struggle, and time is working against us. We stand to loose so
>>> much of the environment and existing species to rampant
>>> overpopulation
>>
>> Wrong. The modern first world isnt evenself replacing
>> on population now if you take out immigration.
> The TOTAL GLOBAL population is much more than self-replacing!
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist drunks ?
> If you pick and choose, you can paint any kind of a picture you want!
Mindlessly silly. Just what you'd expect from a drunk.
Stray Dog
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Rod Speed wrote:
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:05:21 +1100
> From: Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, alt.society.labor-unions,
> alt.politics.socialism.libertarian
> Subject: Re: Enemies of What State?
>
> Han de Bruijn wrote:
>> Fred wrote:
>>
>>> Han de Bruijn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fred wrote:
>>>
>>> <http://www.fredwilliams.ca/thesecretofmoney>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ravibatra.com/
>>>> http://www.ravibatra.com/globalfinancialcrisis.ht
>>>
>>> I'll look into those.
>>
>> I've read your theories _and_ Batra's and it's obvious these are quite
>> compatible with each other.
>>
>>>> But actually, it's much older. Crises by
>>>> overproduction-underconsumption are already described in "Das
>>>> Kapital" by Karl Marx.
>>>
>>> There are other analyses, but I've tried to collect them together and
>>> update them for this time. The main paper was written in the 90s. I
>>> didn't know then when anything was going to collapse, but I knew it
>>> would within 30 or 40 years. It's taken less than 20 years. We're
>>> in it now. It will be held off for a few months or a year with huge
>>> injections of cash, (given not to those who need it, but to the rich
>>> who are not starving nor without homes), but in the end the collapse
>>> will be back stronger than ever.
>
>> Ravi Batra's book "The Great Depression of 1990" has _only_ be wrong in its time stamp.
>
> Wrong. He got the cause wrong too. It wasnt the discrepency between the rich and the poor at all,
> it was due to something else entirely. AND we havent seen anything
like a great depression yet either.
We're in it, right now, fool.
>> The rest of the text is amazing in its predicting power.
>
> Like hell it is.
Like hell it isn't.
>> It also pinpoints the _cause_ of the current crisis explicitly,
>
> No it doesnt.
You didn't read it, he did.
>> In "Bonuses and compensation reform" I have defended the stand that NO HUMAN BEING IS FIVE OR SIX
>> TIMES BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE HUMAN BEING.
>
> And that those numbers are straight from your arse, we can tell from the smell.
Your arse isn't any better. And, you have body odor, too.
>> Hence anybody's work shouldn't be rewarded more than 5 or 6 times worth the work of an average person.
>
> And that those numbers are straight from your arse, we can tell from the smell.
More from your arse, and you have bad breath, too.
>> (Ravi Batra himself finds a factor 10 between the highest and the lowest wage)
>
> He doesnt 'find' anything, he just proclaims it, a different matter entirely.
Same difference.
Stray Dog
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Rod Speed wrote:
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:06:31 +1100
> From: Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, alt.society.labor-unions,
> alt.politics.socialism.libertarian
> Subject: Re: Enemies of What State?
>
> (David P.) wrote:
>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Fred wrote
>>>
>>>> Only then will we democratise economic power the way we have
>>>> democratised political power over the centuries. It will take a long
>>>> struggle, and time is working against us. We stand to loose so
>>>> much of the environment and existing species to rampant
>>>> overpopulation
>>>
>>> Wrong. The modern first world isnt evenself replacing
>>> on population now if you take out immigration.
>
>> The TOTAL GLOBAL population is much more than self-replacing!
>
> You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist drunks ?
I'm quite sure that Rod Speed thinks that he, himself, is a rocket
scientist, only he, Rod Speed is drunk, but without the alcohol.
>> If you pick and choose, you can paint any kind of a picture you want!
>
> Mindlessly silly. Just what you'd expect from a drunk.
Rod Speed has a lot of recyclable-reusable sentences to copy and paste
from. Here are a few....
Nope. Wrong. Wota terminal fuckwit. Go and fuck yourself.
Yep, bullet in the back of the neck for drunks and all other
addicts, and send the bill for the bullet to their relos like China does.
That kills fuck all now. Wrong, as always. Wota surprise. Funny that.
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
Your problem is that you dont have anything viable between your ears to
apply to what you find using google.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about what actually happens.
You dont have a fucking clue.
Mindlessly silly.
You are just plain wrong.
Pig ignorant lie.
Like hell it is.
Bare faced pig ignorant lie.
Rod Speed
> Mason C wrote
>>> Yet only the alternative framework of plentiful money will appropriately
>>> address and solve the problems with which we are faced.
>>> start looking at plentiful money systems, even if it's only as local
>> Money, as I hope we both define it is:
>> 1. A means of exchange, a tool to assist in conducting trade.
> A medium of exchange; yes. Michael Linton, who copyrighted
> the term LETSystem, calls it "a measure" of goods and services...
More fool Linton, its nothing like that last.
> of "takes" and "puts."
Even sillier.
>> 2. A means of storing a demand for goods and services, i.e. a
>> means of saving. (not necessarily safely, but that's another story).
> If you have 1., (above), you don't really need this second function.
Wrong. Without it there is no way to accumulate decent savings for your retirement etc.
> In fact I submit that we're better off without it.
More fool you.
> Plentiful money
No such animal.
> doesn't carry the "value" of goods and services, it merely records the transactions
> without representing the value, (which is only in our minds anyway).
Mindlessly silly.
> It's like feet and inches, (or meters and centimetres, if you like).
Nothing like, actually.
> They measure a board, for instance and tell you how much there is,
> but you don't hear that you can't build your house because all the
> feet and inches are in use building a large office tower downtown.
Get sillier by the minute.
> Everybody has their own measuring tape.
> In a plentiful money economy,
No such animal.
> there is one currency, but *everybody* has the *right* to issue it; as much as they need.
Mindlessly silly.
> The LETSystem is a limited form of a plentiful money system.
Like hell it is. Its a system that doesnt use money at all.
>> If the quantity of money, say dollars, exceeds the supply of
>> good and services the value of the money simply declines, i.e.
>> there is inflation. Adding money to the system simply increases
>> the amount of money in use. The extreme case is the hyper-inflation
>> suffered by Germany in the Weimar Republic of the 1930 ca. This
>> adds nothing to the social well-being and the instability makes
>> trade more difficult. The economy fails.
>> What is needed is more goods and services, equitably distributed.
> What you say is true of all scarce money systems.
Its true of all money systems.
> When you switch to plentiful money,
No such animal.
> it changes everything.
Nope, because there is no such animal.
> Since the money is only a measure of goods and services
It isnt even that if everyone can produce as much money as they like.
> and *not a representation* of the wealth, (as I describe above),
> The money has no value in and of itself.
In fact its pointless. So there is on 'plentiful money', there's no viable money at all.
> Hence the "market" cannot set the value of the money.
So you are left with the fucked alternative of barter, stupid.
> If the market isn't setting the value of the money in terms
> of goods and services, "inflation" becomes as meaningless
> as the temperature of a vacuum. It's just undefined.
So you are left with the fucked alternative of barter, stupid.
> With plentiful money,
No such animal.
> people have to set the value of their goods and services,
> but with little to gain or loose, they are under no
> financial pressure to make profits or horde the money.
Even sillier. They still horde what they barter, stupid.
> So people are actually free to set a fair price.
There is no 'price' if anyone can produce as much money as they like, fool.
> The system doesn't *require* that they set a fair price, but at least it *allows* it,
Pure fantasy.
> and it removes the pressure that we have under scarce money systems to set an unfair price.
Pure fantasy.
> Yes, people have to learn new strategies and skills to operate such a system,
Yeah, like how to store the shit they barter instead of the money.
> but the up side is that people *get* to operate such a system.
Like hell they do.
> It puts the power into the hands of the common people.
Like hell it does.
> This changes everything!
Like hell it does.
Its a completely unworkable wank for the entire world.
Rod Speed
delusions about being a dog, desperately cowering behind
Stray Dog desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out
of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
No surprise that it got the bums rush, right out the door, onto its lard arse.
No surprise that its so pathetically bitter and twisted about it.
Rod Speed
Stray Dog
Rod Speed, the gutless fuckwit psychopath with pathetic psychotic
delusions about being a human being, desperately cowering behind
his over-inflated ego and desperately attempting to bullshit and lie his way
out of his predicament and fooled only himself, as always.
No surprise that gives himself the bums rush, right out the door, onto his
own lard arse, by almost everyone on the newsgroups.
No surprise that he is so pathetically bitter and twisted about it that he
posts these "copy and paste," knee-jerk, brain-fart, repetitious-neurotic,
"come-backs" as if he thinks he is accomplishing anything purposeful outside
of Rambo-style pulling the trigger on a machine gun.
Too bad he can't tell the difference between his mouth and a machine gun;
hot air comes out of one, bullets or blanks the other.
Rod Speed
delusions about being a dog, desperately cowering behind
Stray Dog desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out
of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
No surprise that it got the bums rush, right out the door, onto its lard arse.
No surprise that its so pathetically bitter and twisted about it.
Fred
Very likely. Yes the last two are summaries of sections of the
Secret of Money document, for those who want bite sized reading
material. I think people were getting bogged down in the larger
document. Yes, I should look after the typos, but things have been
busy around here. Guess I need a secretary.(;-))
Certainly, I would like to add that we don't really have well
defined standards for what someone is "worth." We might set some
standards for the value of a particular job, but I like the concept
of equal pay for equal hours, or egalitarian workers cooperatives
where every member of the coop has an equal stake in the profits and
an equal vote in the decision making process. Naturally there isn't
a vote on every little issue, but there are models for how that all
works.
Really busy right now. Catch you later. Thanks for commenting on
the site.
(David P.)
People -- World
Population: 6,706,993,152 (July '08 est.)
Population growth rate: 1.188% ('09 est.)
Birth rate: 20.18 births/1,000 ('08 est.)
Death rate: 8.23 deaths/1,000 ('08 est.)
Economy -- World
Global output rose by 3.8% in 2008, down from
5.2% in 2007. Among major economies, growth
was led by China(9.8%), Russia(7.4%), and
India(7.3%). Worldwide, nations varied widely
in their growth results, with Macau(16.6%),
Azerbaijan(15.6%), & Angola(15.1%), registering
the highest. Growth rates slowed in all the
major industrial countries and most developing
countries, because of uncertainties in the
financial markets & lowered consumer confidence.
Externally, the nation-state, as a bedrock
economic-political institution, is steadily
losing control over international flows of people,
goods, funds, and technology. Internally, the
central government often finds its control over
resources slipping as separatist regional
movements - typically based on ethnicity -
gain momentum, e.g., in many of the successor
states of the former Soviet Union, in the former
Yugoslavia, in India, in Iraq, in Indonesia,
and in Canada. Externally, the central gov't is
losing decisionmaking powers to international
bodies, notably the EU. In Western Europe, govts
face the difficult political problem of channeling
resources away from welfare programs in order
to increase investment and strengthen incentives
to seek employment. The addition of 80 million
people each year to an already overcrowded globe
is exacerbating the problems of pollution,
desertification, underemployment, epidemics,
and famine. Because of their own internal
problems and priorities, the industrialized
countries devote insufficient resources to deal
effectively with the poorer areas of the world,
which, at least from an economic point of view,
are becoming further marginalized. The intro-
duction of the euro as the common currency of
much of Western Europe in January 1999, while
paving the way for an integrated economic power-
house, poses economic risks because of varying
levels of income and cultural and political
differences among the participating nations.
The terrorist attacks on the US on 11 September
2001 accentuated a growing risk to global
prosperity, illustrated, for example, by the
reallocation of resources away from investment
to anti-terrorist programs. The opening of war
in March 2003 between a US-led coalition and
Iraq added new uncertainties to global economic
prospects. The complex political difficulties
and the high economic cost of establishing
domestic order in Iraq became major global
problems that continued through 2008.
.
.
--
Rod Speed
> On Mar 24, 1:06 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> (David P.) wrote:
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Fred wrote
>>
>>>>> Only then will we democratise economic power the way we have
>>>>> democratised political power over the centuries. It will take a
>>>>> long struggle, and time is working against us. We stand to loose
>>>>> so
>>>>> much of the environment and existing species to rampant
>>>>> overpopulation
>>
>>>> Wrong. The modern first world isnt evenself replacing
>>>> on population now if you take out immigration.
>>> The TOTAL GLOBAL population is much more than self-replacing!
>>
>> You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist drunks ?
>>
>>> If you pick and choose, you can paint any kind of a picture you want!
>> Mindlessly silly. Just what you'd expect from a drunk.
This stuff below is completely irrelevant to that stupid claim you made in your sentence just above, drunk.
(David P.)
> (David P.) wrote:
> > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> (David P.) wrote:
> >>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Fred wrote
> >>>>
> >>>> existing species to rampant overpopulation
> >>>>
> >>>> Wrong. The modern first world isnt evenself replacing
> >>>> on population now if you take out immigration.
> >>>
> >>> The TOTAL GLOBAL population is much more than self-replacing!
> >>
> >> Mindlessly silly. Just what you'd expect from a drunk.
>
> This stuff below is completely irrelevant to that stupid claim
> you made in your sentence just above, drunk.
[...] The addition of 80 million people each year to
an already overcrowded globe is exacerbating the
problems of pollution, desertification,
underemployment, epidemics, and famine. [...]
.
.
--
Han de Bruijn
> Han de Bruijn wrote:
>
>>Ravi Batra's book "The Great Depression of 1990" has _only_ be wrong in its time stamp.
>
> Wrong. He got the cause wrong too. It wasnt the discrepency between the rich and the poor at all,
> it was due to something else entirely. AND we havent seen anything like a great depression yet either.
Wrong. The products (e.g. houses) are there, so the money to buy them
(consuming power) must be there as well. So, in principle, there's no
reason why most of the houses should be payed with debt. The money must
be accumulated in some place where it cannot be spent. And the lack of
money is accumulated in some other place, so that there is no spending
there as well. And THIS causes the crisis. The sub prime fiasco is only
a symptom of the underlying cause: a mis-match between under-consumption
and over-production, due to an extremely wrong allocation of wealth.
>>The rest of the text is amazing in its predicting power.
>
> Like hell it is.
>
>>It also pinpoints the _cause_ of the current crisis explicitly,
>
> No it doesnt.
It does. See above.
>>which is the extreme disparity in wealth.
>
> That wasnt the cause of the sub prime fiasco.
It was the cause. The sub prime fiasco is only the symptom.
> In fact if anything the real estate bubble was the exact opposite of that.
>
>>In "Bonuses and compensation reform" I have defended the stand that NO HUMAN BEING IS FIVE OR SIX
>>TIMES BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE HUMAN BEING.
>
> And that those numbers are straight from your arse, we can tell from the smell.
Rod Speed style. Can you never be kind to anyone ?
>>Hence anybody's work shouldn't be rewarded more than 5 or 6 times worth the work of an average person.
>
> And that those numbers are straight from your arse, we can tell from the smell.
Can you never _stay_ kind to anyone ?
>>(Ravi Batra himself finds a factor 10 between the highest and the lowest wage)
>
> He doesnt 'find' anything, he just proclaims it, a different matter entirely.
You have a point with this last line.
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Han de Bruijn wrote
>>> Ravi Batra's book "The Great Depression of 1990" has _only_ be wrong in its time stamp.
>> Wrong. He got the cause wrong too. It wasnt the discrepency between
>> the rich and the poor at all, it was due to something else entirely. AND we havent seen anything like a great
>> depression yet either.
> Wrong. The products (e.g. houses) are there, so the money to buy them (consuming power) must be there as well.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never
ever had a fucking clue about what modern economys are about.
> So, in principle, there's no reason why most of the houses should be payed with debt. The money must be accumulated in
> some place where it cannot be spent.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never
ever had a fucking clue about what modern economys are about.
We have seen an IMMENSE destruction of value in the last year.
Even you should have noticed what has happened to the DOW and the S&P 500.
> And the lack of money is accumulated in some other place, so that there is no spending there as well. And THIS causes
> the crisis.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never
ever had a fucking clue about what modern economys are about.
> The sub prime fiasco is only a symptom of the underlying cause: a mis-match between under-consumption and
> over-production, due to an extremely wrong allocation of wealth.
How odd that its taken 80 years for that symptom to bite us on the bum again.
How odd that so much of western europe, which has attempted
to minimise the difference between the rich and the poor is in an
EVEN WORSE economic situation than the US is.
>>> The rest of the text is amazing in its predicting power.
>> Like hell it is.
>>> It also pinpoints the _cause_ of the current crisis explicitly,
>> No it doesnt.
> It does.
Like hell it does.
> See above.
Completely useless, as always with your mindless pig ignorant shit.
>>> which is the extreme disparity in wealth.
>> That wasnt the cause of the sub prime fiasco.
> It was the cause. The sub prime fiasco is only the symptom.
How odd that it took 80 years to happen again and happened in western europe in spades.
>> In fact if anything the real estate bubble was the exact opposite of that.
>>> In "Bonuses and compensation reform" I have defended the stand that
>>> NO HUMAN BEING IS FIVE OR SIX TIMES BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE HUMAN BEING.
>> And that those numbers are straight from your arse, we can tell from the smell.
> Rod Speed style. Can you never be kind to anyone ?
Yep, and even someone as stupid as you should be able to find plenty of examples of that using groups.google.
>>> Hence anybody's work shouldn't be rewarded more than 5 or 6 times worth the work of an average person.
>> And that those numbers are straight from your arse, we can tell from the smell.
> Can you never _stay_ kind to anyone ?
Yep, and even someone as stupid as you should be able to find plenty of examples of that using groups.google.
>>> (Ravi Batra himself finds a factor 10 between the highest and the lowest wage)
>> He doesnt 'find' anything, he just proclaims it, a different matter entirely.
> You have a point with this last line.
I do with all the other lines too.
Rod Speed
Completely irrelevant to that stupid claim you made that includes the words pick & choose, drunk.
(David P.)
Nope, Fred was talking about the whole shebang, and
you answered back, like you always do, with the "modern
first world" piece only. You're pickin' & choosin' just the
good bits, to paint a rosy picture, 'cause you can't
deal with the complete package.
.
.
--
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> (David P.) wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> (David P.) wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> (David P.) wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Fred wrote
>>>>>>>> We stand to lose so much of the environment
>>>>>>>> and existing species to rampant overpopulation
>>>>>>>> Wrong. The modern first world isnt evenself replacing
>>>>>>>> on population now if you take out immigration.
>>>>>>> The TOTAL GLOBAL population is much more than self-replacing!
>>>>>>> If you pick & choose, you can paint any kind of a picture you want!
>>>>>> Mindlessly silly. Just what you'd expect from a drunk.
>>>> This stuff below is completely irrelevant to that stupid
>>>> claim you made in your sentence just above, drunk.
>>> www.cia.gov
>>> [...] The addition of 80 million people each year to
>>> an already overcrowded globe is exacerbating the
>>> problems of pollution, desertification,
>>> underemployment, epidemics, and famine. [...]
>> Completely irrelevant to that stupid claim you made
>> that includes the words pick & choose, drunk.
> Nope,
Yep, everyone can see for themselves that it is.
> Fred was talking about the whole shebang,
And I commented separately on that, drunk.
> and> you answered back, like you always
> do, with the "modern first world" piece only.
You're lying, as always, drunk.
> You're pickin' & choosin' just the good bits, to paint a rosy
> picture, 'cause you can't deal with the complete package.
You're lying, as always, drunk.
Han de Bruijn
> Han de Bruijn wrote:
>
>>The sub prime fiasco is only a symptom of the underlying cause: a mis-match between under-consumption and
>>over-production, due to an extremely wrong allocation of wealth.
>
> How odd that its taken 80 years for that symptom to bite us on the bum again.
How odd that the extreme wrong allocation of wealth has been developing
ito the extreme only over, say, the last say 20 years.
> How odd that so much of western europe, which has attempted
> to minimise the difference between the rich and the poor is in an
> EVEN WORSE economic situation than the US is.
Not even remotely true, at least not in the Netherlands.
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Han de Bruijn wrote
>>> The sub prime fiasco is only a symptom of the underlying cause: a mis-match between under-consumption and
>>> over-production, due to an extremely wrong allocation of wealth.
>> How odd that its taken 80 years for that symptom to bite us on the bum again.
> How odd that the extreme wrong allocation of wealth has been
> developing ito the extreme only over, say, the last say 20 years.
Pig ignorant lie. It was much worse in the first few years of the last century, fool.
>> How odd that so much of western europe, which has attempted
>> to minimise the difference between the rich and the poor is in an
>> EVEN WORSE economic situation than the US is.
> Not even remotely true,
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> at least not in the Netherlands.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Han de Bruijn
> Han de Bruijn wrote
>
>>Rod Speed wrote
>>
>>>Han de Bruijn wrote
>
>>>>The sub prime fiasco is only a symptom of the underlying cause: a mis-match between under-consumption and
>>>>over-production, due to an extremely wrong allocation of wealth.
>
>>>How odd that its taken 80 years for that symptom to bite us on the bum again.
>
>>How odd that the extreme wrong allocation of wealth has been
>>developing ito the extreme only over, say, the last say 20 years.
>
> Pig ignorant lie. It was much worse in the first few years of the last century, fool.
That's _more_ than 80 years ago, clown.
>>>How odd that so much of western europe, which has attempted
>>>to minimise the difference between the rich and the poor is in an
>>>EVEN WORSE economic situation than the US is.
>
>>Not even remotely true,
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>
>>at least not in the Netherlands.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Abort, Retry, Ignore ?
Han de Bruijn
Han de Bruijn
> Fred wrote:
>
>>Day Brown wrote:
>>
>>>Refreshing to see a presentation outside of partisan group think.
>>>
>>>>My goal is the abolition of the state.
>>>
>>>Yeah, well it looks like Mexico is about to try that, and whatcha
>>>get is warlords. Rule by the most ruthless.
>>>
>>>Its instructive to consider the Silk Road, the world's first and
>>>freest market which flourished beyond the hegemony of Roman,
>>>Byzantine, Persian, & Chinese empires until finally over run by the
>>>Mongols. Whose hegemony destroyed competition and ruined profits.
>
>>Capitalism always destroys itself.
>
> Odd, could have SWORN that its actually the alternatives that have ALWAYS destroyed themselves.
Some of the above alternatives have survived for more than a thousand
years, while capitalism is only a FEW <RS>centurys</RS> old. Right?
>>>But the Silk Road was actually at least 3, often dozens, or more or
>>>less parallel routes in capitalist competition with each other.
>>>Warlords were bad for business; greedy, arrogant, and unreliable-
>>>deals would not be kept and the violence drove merchants away.
>
>>Capitalism always gives rise to warlords. It is a system
>>of pure competition, and nobody competes like the mob.
>
> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
Han de Bruijn
Fred
> (David P.) wrote
>> Fred was talking about the whole shebang,
>
> And I commented separately on that, drunk.
>
You commented on a lot of things, not with the truth however.
>> and> you answered back, like you always
>> do, with the "modern first world" piece only.
>
> You're lying, as always, drunk.
>
No he's got it right. The economy of the first world is not at all
isolated and what "conventional wealth" they/we may have comes at the
sacrifice of people in the third world who grow the food and make the
shoes and clothing in sweatshop, often with child labour.
If we are going to have global industry, we need global unions and
safety standards as well.
>> You're pickin' & choosin' just the good bits, to paint a rosy
>> picture, 'cause you can't deal with the complete package.
>
> You're lying, as always, drunk.
It takes more than your saying it to make it so.
Fred
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Fred wrote:
>>
>>>Day Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>>Refreshing to see a presentation outside of partisan group think.
>>>>
>>>>>My goal is the abolition of the state.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, well it looks like Mexico is about to try that, and whatcha
>>>>get is warlords. Rule by the most ruthless.
>>>>
>>>>Its instructive to consider the Silk Road, the world's first and
>>>>freest market which flourished beyond the hegemony of Roman,
>>>>Byzantine, Persian, & Chinese empires until finally over run by
>>>>the Mongols. Whose hegemony destroyed competition and ruined
>>>>profits.
>>
>>>Capitalism always destroys itself.
>>
>> Odd, could have SWORN that its actually the alternatives that have
>> ALWAYS destroyed themselves.
>
> Some of the above alternatives have survived for more than a
> thousand years, while capitalism is only a FEW <RS>centurys</RS>
> old. Right?
It's an illusion spread by capitalists. The term capitalism may be
very recent, but as long as you have money as a scarce commodity, you
will have a strong economic pressure towards capitalism. The
communist and socialist traditions work against that pressure to try
to even out the playing field, but to do so they have to invoke force
and in many cases a huge bureaucracy. This creates difficulty for
them. Switching to a plentiful money system would change the whole
dynamics of the economy and no "force" would be necessary. The
general people would soon realise the benefits and security they
would get from a stable economic system.
>
>>>>But the Silk Road was actually at least 3, often dozens, or more
>>>>or less parallel routes in capitalist competition with each other.
>>>>Warlords were bad for business; greedy, arrogant, and unreliable-
>>>>deals would not be kept and the violence drove merchants away.
>>
>>>Capitalism always gives rise to warlords. It is a system
>>>of pure competition, and nobody competes like the mob.
>>
>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant
>> fantasys.
Again, there's no valid, (or even invalid), argument in what you say.
You're only spouting empty insults, Rod, if that's your real name.
Han de Bruijn
Didn't you forget, with your "plentiful money system", that people, in
general, as soon as they get the chance, by their very nature, are just
_lazy_, i.e. do not want to do the hard and dirty work from themselves ?
Guess _that's_ why the "scarce money" was invented ? Because you have to
_work_ for it, against your will ? Just to be sure that you think of it.
>>>>>But the Silk Road was actually at least 3, often dozens, or more
>>>>>or less parallel routes in capitalist competition with each other.
>>>>>Warlords were bad for business; greedy, arrogant, and unreliable-
>>>>>deals would not be kept and the violence drove merchants away.
>>>
>>>>Capitalism always gives rise to warlords. It is a system
>>>>of pure competition, and nobody competes like the mob.
>>>
>>>Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant
>>>fantasys.
>
> Again, there's no valid, (or even invalid), argument in what you say.
> You're only spouting empty insults, Rod, if that's your real name.
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Fred wrote
>>> Day Brown wrote
>>>> Refreshing to see a presentation outside of partisan group think.
>>>>> My goal is the abolition of the state.
Wota terminal fuckwit.
>>>> Yeah, well it looks like Mexico is about to try that, and whatcha get is warlords. Rule by the most ruthless.
>>>> Its instructive to consider the Silk Road, the world's first and
>>>> freest market which flourished beyond the hegemony of Roman,
>>>> Byzantine, Persian, & Chinese empires until finally over run by the
>>>> Mongols. Whose hegemony destroyed competition and ruined profits.
>>> Capitalism always destroys itself.
>> Odd, could have SWORN that its actually the alternatives that have ALWAYS destroyed themselves.
> Some of the above alternatives have survived for more than a thousand years,
Yes.
> while capitalism is only a FEW centurys old. Right?
Wrong, as always. The word is relatively new, but what it describes has been around for millennia now.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Han de Bruijn wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Han de Bruijn wrote
>>>>> The sub prime fiasco is only a symptom of the underlying cause: a mis-match between under-consumption and
>>>>> over-production, due to an extremely wrong allocation of wealth.
>>>> How odd that its taken 80 years for that symptom to bite us on the bum again.
>>> How odd that the extreme wrong allocation of wealth has been
>>> developing ito the extreme only over, say, the last say 20 years.
>> Pig ignorant lie. It was much worse in the first few years of the last century, fool.
> That's _more_ than 80 years ago
That was since it bit us on the bum the last time, fuckwit.
>>>> How odd that so much of western europe, which has attempted
>>>> to minimise the difference between the rich and the poor is in an
>>>> EVEN WORSE economic situation than the US is.
>>> Not even remotely true,
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>>> at least not in the Netherlands.
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> Abort, Retry, Ignore ?
Never ever could bullshit way out of a wet paper bag.
Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed what most
of western europe got up to post WW2 in an attempt to strip
away the wealth of the richest, particularly with death dutys etc,
and even someone as stupid as you should have noticed what
the netherlands got up to welfare wise for those out of work etc,
so that they didnt get all that much less standard of living than
the same individual would have got if it had not lost its job.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> (David P.) wrote
>>> Fred was talking about the whole shebang,
>> And I commented separately on that, drunk.
> You commented on a lot of things, not with the truth however.
Irrelevant to his lie about commenting on ONLY the modern first
world not being self replacing on population if you take out immigration.
>>> and you answered back, like you always
>>> do, with the "modern first world" piece only.
>> You're lying, as always, drunk.
> No he's got it right.
Like hell he did. Have a look at
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.econ/msg/da9d67fac594af50?hl=en
and then have a look at his use of the word ONLY just above.
> The economy of the first world is not at all isolated
No one ever said it was. What was being discussed there was whether
the first world has a problem with POPULATION INCREASE.
> and what "conventional wealth" they/we may have comes at
> the sacrifice of people in the third world who grow the food
Fuck all of them do. The absolute vast bulk of the food consumed in the
first world is produced in the first world with industrialised agriculture.
> and make the shoes and clothing in sweatshop,
Which is a hell of a lot better than working in the fields.
> often with child labour.
Hardly ever, actually. The absolute vast bulk of shoes and clothing
comes from china and they dont use much child labor at all.
> If we are going to have global industry, we need global unions and safety standards as well.
No thanks, unions are what has fucked up the bulk of industry in the first world very comprehensively indeed.
You cant impose safety standards on places like china.
>>> You're pickin' & choosin' just the good bits, to paint a rosy
>>> picture, 'cause you can't deal with the complete package.
>> You're lying, as always, drunk.
> It takes more than your saying it to make it so.
Check the cite, fool.
Fred
People are not lazy by their nature. It's a fallacy promoted by
those who use "scarce money" as a weapon. People like to be proud of
their contribution to society. If there are those of us who feel
that we'd not work as hard given the chance, well, that's fine. Most
of us are overworked right now, because greedy rich people control us
and they want to make more money. They don't care if others are
overworked. They're frightened of becoming poor themselves and that
fear drives them to economic violence.
People need not work as hard as they do now for us to get by as a
planet, and yes, many of us could use a vacation! In the long run,
people like to be active and productive and there are many people out
there willing to do the hard and dirty jobs, especially if the stigma
of low wages is removed.
Rod Speed
>>>>>> Capitalism always destroys itself.
Plenty are just that, particularly when what they get from
the system doesnt vary with what they put into the system.
Thats essentially why none of the modern alternatives to capitalism work for
long, particularly communism as actually implemented, kibbutz and communes.
Not one of those has ever lasted for anything like as long as capitalism has.
> It's a fallacy
It aint a fallacy.
> promoted by those who use "scarce money" as a weapon.
There is no other money. Your hare brained scheme of
'plentiful money' is pure fantasy that isnt even possible.
> People like to be proud of their contribution to society.
Plenty arent, particularly when what they get from the
system doesnt vary with what they put into the system.
> If there are those of us who feel that we'd not
> work as hard given the chance, well, that's fine.
Trouble is that its those that prevent communism as actually implemented,
kibbutz and communes working as well as capitalism over the long haul.
> Most of us are overworked right now,
Like hell they are.
> because greedy rich people control us
Dont control me, fool.
> and they want to make more money.
Nothing to stop you setting up a commune or a kibbutz and watching it fail, comrade.
> They don't care if others are overworked.
They work pretty hard themselves, comrade.
> They're frightened of becoming poor themselves
Just another of your silly little fantasys. They actually enjoy
what they are doing more than any of the alternatives.
> and that fear drives them to economic violence.
Just another of your silly little drug crazed fantasys, comrade.
Nothing to stop you setting up a commune or a kibbutz and watching it fail, comrade.
> People need not work as hard as they do now for us to get by as a planet,
Correct, and hordes of them dont, most obviously those who
have retired, quite a few of them well before those who dont
make adequate provision for their time past working do.
> and yes, many of us could use a vacation!
Nothing to stop you setting up a commune or a kibbutz and watching it fail, comrade.
You can have that vacation when it does.
> In the long run, people like to be active and productive
Plenty dont, particularly when what they get from the
system doesnt vary with what they put into the system.
> and there are many people out there willing to do the hard and
> dirty jobs, especially if the stigma of low wages is removed.
But plenty more arent, particularly when what they get from
the system doesnt vary with what they put into the system.
Thats essentially why none of the modern alternatives to capitalism work for
long, particularly communism as actually implemented, kibbutz and communes.
Not one of those has ever lasted for anything like as long as capitalism has.