The rich have been trying to take over the US govt to reduce their tax
burden for over 100 years.

Every time they have succeeded the result has been an economic crash
usually followed by war.

That happened in 1857 after a decade of prosperity and then the crash was
followed by the Civil War within a decade.

Crash and Clash was repeated in 1893->WWI,

and again in the real estate crash of 1926 and the Wall Street crash of

In each case the very rich accumulated so much wealth that they caused
investment/debt bubbles resulting a crash. After the real estate crash of
1926, rich investors then switched to stocks and caused the 1929 crash.  We
have already experienced a real estate crash in 2008. and today we see the
stock exchange reaching never before heights.

So we again are ripe for a crash which and if the lessons of the 1920s are

the crash will be much more severe than the 2008 Great Recession.

The roaring 20s prosperity came about when the top tax rate was reduced to
25% along with finance deregulation. Since WWII and up to Reagan, the top
tax rates were between 90% and 70%, and at those rates the rich tended to
turn profits back into their companies and the recessions were rather mild.
But after Reagan reduced the top rates to 28%, the incentive to accumulate
wealth was strong resulting in a series of investment bubbles. Recall the
internet bubble at the turn of the century. And deregulation resulted in
the invention of derivatives.

So I think, and many bankers do as they are hoarding cash, that we are
headed for a serious stock market crash, and apparently just because the
very rich are making so much money, especially in derivatives which
continue to exist despite being the cause of the real estate crash. It is
said that the value of the derivative debt is orders of magnitude bigger
than the value of the entire world.

That sounds like a form of comp (;<)


On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:

> On 21 Nov 2013, at 13:41, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>  On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <>
>> wrote:
>>> On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> If nobody complains on his local decentralized power, the central power
>>> should have nothing to say, but if the locals complain about their local
>>> powers, the central power can be used as an arbiter.
>> I agree that this is a risk. I don't claim that there is any system
>> that could be implemented and would solve all the problems, that's the
>> danger with ideologies.
> I agree.
>> My belief is that "human evolution" -> "better forms of governance",
>> not the other way around. So democracy, with all its flaws, was made
>> possible by a new level of human development. Here I mean evolution
>> and development in the broad sense, not the biological sense. This is
>> made clear by the attempts to force democracy on less developed
>> societies.
> OK.
>  My point is that, as we evolve further, maybe the
>> decentralized system can exist without incurring so much on the risks
>> that you mention, and at the same time being much more resilient to
>> sociopathic manipulations.
> About this I am not sure. With local powers you augment the risk of the
> "little bureaucratic sort of bosses".
> With some level of "spiritual maturity", I can conceive that you are
> right, but since sometimes I am not sure such spiritual maturity exists,
> nor even that it is on a near horizon.
>>>>  The deeper problem relies in the fact that most humans are unwilling to
>>>>> think by themselves, and they confuse "p -> q" and "q -> p" all the
>>>>> times.
>>>>> The (human, but not only) sciences are still driven by the appeal to
>>>>> authority. We have never been "modern".
>>>> I'm happy to read this. I thought this confusion was a central problem
>>>> in society for a long time, without being an expert in logic.
>>> The problem is that "p <-> q" is far better than nothing, in the short
>>> run,
>>> so our brains are hardwired to "reason" by association, instead, of
>>> logical
>>> validity. Logic is by essence counter-intuitive (which explains the
>>> logician's sense of humor).
>>> The short term/long term conflict is unavoidable. Humans face it all the
>>> time, like when hesitating to stop smoking, or to stop producing CO2,
>>> etc.
>>> It is even more complex today due to globalization. With the 20th
>>> century,
>>> earth has become a finite space, and this has to be taken into account,
>>> and
>>> it is not a simple task, as we have to change habits that we have since a
>>> very long time. In the long run, we will have to escape the planet and
>>> continue to run forward. But meanwhile, we have to accommodate with the
>>> finite resourcing, with or without global warming. That's a reason more
>>> to
>>> fight against corporatism, special private interests, international white
>>> collar criminality, etc.
>> Right, but the hope of some people who propose a radically free market
>> is that it would work more like the immune system, and that it would
>> allocate resources in a more efficient way than central control.
> I am for a free market. The market should be independent of the (central)
> power, except for the modalities of the contracts, the selling technic, etc.
>  The
>> long term view is not foreign to markets. This is precisely what
>> investments are. Warren Buffet became extremely rich by taking a long
>> view on investments, not by doing high-frequency trading. But again, I
>> say this with the human evolution caveat in mind.
> Local powers can easily design laws against foreigners, and develop
> selfish local profits method. In the UD this could enlarge the gap between
> black and white, or between middle class and lower classes.
> I would favor a stable central power, which would enforce few but basic
> important laws and rules, on which everyone agrees. Then the local powers
> can implement special politics and experiences.
> Somehow I do believe that the Americans were close to this, but they
> failed to prevent prohibition, and that remains a bit of a mystery for me.
> I am open to the idea that there has been a real well prepared conspiracy,
> not by "illuminati" but by by a collusion of special interests (paper, oil,
> pharma, military, jails, and the black market, etc.).
>> I'm also strongly in favour of experiments. For example, and this
>> would certainly annoy most libertarians, I am very excited by the
>> Swiss plan to provide a base level of income to all citizens.
> I have always defended that idea.
>  I like
>> it because it's so simple and non-intrusive. You just give everyone
>> the same base income, no matter how poor or rich they are.
> Yes. That is what the communist never grasped. It makes no sense to
> distribute the money from the rich to the poor, this makes the richer less
> rich, and very quickly the poor even much less rich. As long as people
> don't use lies and dishonest methods, people should be able to enrich
> themselves as much as they want. But we must find a way to prevent the bad
> use of money to enrich oneself. And this asks for very special laws against
> the fake speculation. The problem is that with enough money, you can
> multiplied your richness easily by dishonest means, and this perverts the
> system.
>  Hopefully
>> it will remove unnecessary and even counter-productive jobs, free more
>> people from meaningless lives and attack the entire "job mentality".
>> One can hope...
> I agree. I believe that it will be more easy to avoid counter-productive
> jobs if there is a minimal salary. It would stabilize the little markets,
> and would annoy only those who are addicted to "more money at all price".
> For the "job mentality", I'm afraid we will need a coming back to
> seriousness in the human sciences, but this will take time, and some
> catastrophes. The "job mentality" is not unrelated to the current
> institutionalized religions, and the current conception of reality.
> Bruno
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to
> To post to this group, send email to
> Visit this group at
> For more options, visit

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to