Guest Post: Why Our Current Way of Living Has No Future [image: Tyler Durden's picture]<http://www.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden> Submitted by Tyler Durden <http://www.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden> on 03/06/2013 22:33 -0400
I read the article.... found it sound in reasoning, at least as to the economic math, the parts about the projected societal consequences are always sketchy to predict, I think... but they would seem to be dire. The part about the "hypertrophic unnatural enlargement of the financial sector from about 5 percent of the economy to 40 percent today." is undeniable, as is the observation that.... "There was a correlation between abundant cheap oil and the creation of abundant credit. That relationship is now broken and there are more paper (or computer) claims against wealth than there is wealth, which is no longer growing, to pay back the debt. Hence, the interventions of governments and central banks to offset this ruinous new dynamic and artificially prop up the price of assets, i.e. collateral subject to liquidation at bargain prices by insolvent debtors.The unintended consequences of this monkey business beats a path straight to currency wars, inflation, loss of legitimacy, political uproar, and knock-on effects easily more disastrous." The banks have built a figurative house of cards (or money paper bills) that have no true economic substance (no "trade" value) that is set to collapse... I agree. As to the "oil" or energy question, I think that it has gotten to the point if irrelevance in its own right. What I mean by this is that even if the U.S. (or Britain / E.U.) were energy solvent... i.e., that even if there were cheap energy everywhere right now.... there would still be the same basic economic problems to deal with.... cheap energy will not open up the manufacturing plants or "grow" jobs.....(I do not think).....the jobs themselves have disappeared, gone elsewhere... Do you agree? Archytas?.... for example, how many automobiles, large appliances (big ticket items) or consumer electronics, etc are actually built or manufactured in Britain, etc..... not many here in the States, anymore.....the corporations have all gone oversees in search of "cheap labor"..... that's an issue that "cheap energy" doesn't touch.... this is the issue I try to get at when I talk about corporate citizenship......if any corporation wants to sell in the country market, the good or service (in all its parts) should be predominantly made in-country (or have an Ironclad Trade agreement of equal-value exchange with the foreign country of origin) ....that is the mechanism whereby everyone loses... corporations look for a trade advantage and pocket the difference for themselves....I think On Thursday, March 7, 2013 7:27:22 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > > http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-06/guest-post-why-our-current-way-living-has-no-future > > > > http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-06/guest-post-30-facts-coming-water-crisis-will-change-everything > > > We are trapped in bullshit notions of what it is to be human - all of > us could have decent lives without billionaires and other arses. > On 7 Mar, 16:19, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello stephenk..... you can be contrarian... I don't object.... you can > > speak your mind in any way, it's your (everyone's) right that I never > > contest.... besides, you seem to be a "good" person, too..... > > I guess, in one sense, it gets to be a matter of semantics or > > definition.... "entrepreneur".... as distinguished from, say...maybe.... > > venture capitalist....I don't mind the actual "creator" of something, > > object (product) or business (service), etc...but those that just "game" > > the system.... they are just parasites that often wind up killing the > > host.... I opine... > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneur > > > > http://anthillonline.com/the-entrepreneur-vs-venture-capitalist-2/ > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 7, 2013 10:49:23 AM UTC-5, stephenk wrote: > > > > > On 3/7/2013 10:30 AM, nominal9 wrote: > > > > I go with the "sequestrate their assets" part... but the letting > them > > > > go part I'm against... As "entrepreneurs", such people would just > > > > "steal" their way back up to wealth, without actually creating > > > > anything beneficial for any economy, like jobs or even "products" to > > > > speak of..... > > > > > Hi Nom, > > > > > Not to be merely contrarian, but how is *wealth* created in your > > > theory of the world? Does "risk" exist in any positive sense in your > > > model? I would like to understand your thoughts. If there is a way to > > > define wealth creation that is not, in some way, a form of > exploitation > > > of one entity of another, please explain. > > > Can entrepreneurship be a mutually beneficial process of wealth > > > generation to and for all involved in a way that does not require > > > top-down controls? I think it can... > > > > > -- > > > Onward! > > > > > Stephen > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
