What the isn't is any public dialogue on whether the stuff about law, freedom, entrepreneurialism, innovation and the motivation of wealth is the problem.
On Jun 28, 8:32 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > When you look at GDP figures (not that many do) in the US you see real > wage decline over 30 years yet an increase in consumption (and hence > GDP). Questions obviously arise here on how - the answer is debt > spending - but how did the borrowing arise - wouldn't we expect > lending to fall with less money coming in to pay of debt contracted? > Part of the answer lies in greed and a property bubble created by > this. Loans appeared to be secured against property, but the banks > were fueling speculation to inflate property prices to 'earn' > bonuses. I see little difference in what they did and Deng ordering > 'homes' that no one will live in. In a sense we all went into a > command economy. As with the famous Sino-Soviet experiments this was > and still is based on 'elite madness' and false accounting. > > I mention habros because a poisoning feature of luxury seems > involved. It's surely all over - just switch on TV. The way we > normally think about running a household just don't apply, though > politicians mug us with this kind of false analogy. The promise in > the last election in the UK was that frontline services would not be > affected by cuts in waste and all the other lies of this kind - the > usual 5 cents in the dollar stuff pace Bob Dole. This never works and > we know it doesn't. > > I would guess most people have a notion that GDP is a reflection of > effort and this is the problem. GDP goes up when we buy plastic > Chinese crap or TVs we didn't make on money borrowed against what was > supposed to be the ever rising value of our assets like housing. So > GDP goes up when we simply bubble property prices - usually good for > people owning property. What the banks did in this needs long > investigation and description - but in short they began to make money > make money - something that clearly can't be 'real'. The accounting > here involves governments creating electronic money (now QE) and > lending this at low rates to favoured banks (a surplus of capital > never built on effort) who appeared to be making money hand over > fist. This was really the Ponzi scheme and no more than anything > Madoff was doing. Ponzi schemes pay out not on earnings but with the > new money their lies on performance bring in. The lies are supported > by elaborate maths. I teach the maths and they don't work as claimed, > only reducing risk in margins. The key metaphor is to imagine playing > Monopoly against a banker with a couple of spare sets of money in her > back pocket. > > The idea in this is to use capital ore and more effectively (fine) but > it all goes mad when the capital becomes earnings ten years off > treated as though you've made it now. The maths is complicated but > the schemes are not - it's almost like placing bets on all horses and > living it up on the winnings whilst ignoring the losses or inflating > the currency you use to 'account' for them. > > What people can't grab is that economics and accounting is like this > anyway - though supposedly under strict rules. Businesses need to > stay alive until the good times when most profit is made. This is > fine until the madness or crooks get in and the idea ceases to be > about the viable business and becomes just profit. > > I can build the case in figures but the issue is corruption - a > corruption as endemic as that in Soviet performance management. What > they are telling us is stark. We can't have the public services (who > cares who runs them if they do it properly) to educate kids, look > after old and disabled people and the rest even though we have plenty > of labour to do this - labour in some senses earned through massive > productivity rises in agriculture and manufacturing. Looming over us > is a massive and generally parasitic financial services sector that > matches these productivity gains in size - all of which could be > routinised to a fraction. > > When we talk about making an industry efficient we have little problem > with allowing wages to come under international competition and all > the rest, Yet to match this in, say, policing by importing droves of > keen Chinese and sacking our expensive finest - and the very idea of > doing this at the top of banking seems impossible - though all the > skills are comparable. > > I suspect the real issues cannot be addressed because most people > adjust to a view of just being cogs in the wheel and feel their sanity > threatened by thoughts of the criminality that has been going on > around them. They look for homely answers like 'blaming profligate > Greeks' (a hospital doctor in Greece gets under half what a lecturer > gets in the UK) and imagining austerity measures will let us save our > way out of the problems. This is not what history tells us - though, > of course, most people know no real history. > > What is happening now is history. - it may as well be a re-write of > much imperialist history. I hope war is less on the cards, but I'm > not at all sure. Our ignorance is the real issue - and I suspect this > is ignorance about just how unfair the world is and how massively > irrational our systems are.. It's worse than we are thinking and our > public dialogue allows us to say. > > The questions we aren't asking are about what would be left if there > was no more 'international trade' and we got round to making stuff > locally and allowing more global exchange of expertise through virtual > exchange. We aren't broke in such a system and have capital. > > My guess is that most of what we call 'work' in the current system is > no such thing - it's neurosis. > > On Jun 28, 12:58 pm, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > So, bullets=100pts, futures=-100TNpts. ;-) > > > On 6/28/2011 12:07 AM, archytas wrote: > > > > The truth on bullets is you get to eat if you have them and the food > > > holders don't! > > > > On Jun 28, 3:52 am, rigsy03<[email protected]> wrote: > > >> I wonder the number of vacant, distressed properties in the West? > > > >> Well, China was humiliated by the tactics of the West in our forcing > > >> her to open to trade via opium and dynasty overthrow plus the theft of > > >> her national arts and treasures- keeping them "safe" in western > > >> museums, like the rest of our lootings. > > > >> Americans accumulated their own debt with abuse of credit when it was > > >> easy street. The banks/financial institutions were irresponsible and > > >> so were our governments. You can't eat bullets. > > > >> On Jun 27, 4:49 pm, archytas<[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> I don't believe the modern arguments (post 1950) concern communism > > >>> other than as a futile ideal. We seem to have forgotten about habros > > >>> - the polluting quality of luxury. The term arises in a Greek play > > >>> celebrating the victory of the Athenian Democracy over the Persians. > > >>> The warning to the Greeks was that they must never become sissies > > >>> wallowing in emotions and luxury like the defeated Persians. Most of > > >>> us are barely aware of history and have no real clue what the Soviets > > >>> and Chinese were up to. Even in relation to what's going on in China > > >>> now, I find few who know they have built ghost cities and are fueling > > >>> GDP growth with a property bubble. > > >>> The broad brush of western economics is that the ignorant rabble have > > >>> no place in real decision-making and that they must both know this (in > > >>> order not to forget their place) and to deny it in fantasies to > > >>> encourage virtual self-aggrandizement. Thus we are to live in virtual > > >>> meritocracy whilst actually just part of a pack that will not > > >>> challenge the alphas. In a very real way, we do not argue with facts, > > >>> but the stories of literature which bounds our expectations. Video > > >>> games are a warning of what we are, even if we don't play them. > > >>> The debts that are everywhere like a nightmare are not to do with > > >>> money as a means of simple exchange, taken on to be worked off in some > > >>> equation of labour value. They have been manipulated as surely as any > > >>> in past empires. Just as Chinese GDP is floating on 64 million empty > > >>> buildings no one can afford to live in (terms are often half up front, > > >>> the balance over 3 years), our currencies float on deals between > > >>> governments and favoured banks. We have suppressed wages and banks > > >>> hardly even provide working capital for business, instead engaging in > > >>> speculation in giant Ponzi schemes hedged in ever increasing prices > > >>> for assets that no one would eventually be able to buy from a wage, > > >>> and securitised to the tax payer. Wages were collapsed over 30 years > > >>> by exporting manufacturing - but GDP kept rising as we borrowed > > >>> against the asset pile to buy more and more crap and pay welfare to > > >>> those deprived of jobs. > > >>> The rich grew vastly richer in this period. If there are 64 million > > >>> Chinese apartments empty, how many across the world are now holiday > > >>> homes and the rest. None of this is communist or capitalist economics > > >>> - it's more fundamental, possibly the economics of the city in which > > >>> absentee landlords gamble the labour of poor tenants and then replace > > >>> them with more economic sheep. The money that was always making money > > >>> in high finance was never making anything other than the debt. You > > >>> need to understand mark to model and mark to market. The money was > > >>> never being made - banks were allowed to value their own assets to > > >>> models kept secret for reasons of commercial security. Now, if they > > >>> have to really sell any 'assets' they are worth what the market will > > >>> pay. And given the way banks count loans as assets, they are all > > >>> probably bankrupt because most of the loans will be real liabilities. > > >>> None of us borrowed this 'money'. It was pumped in by the Fed, BoE, > > >>> EU Central and so on and stole your hard-earned from underneath you. > > >>> This > > ... > > read more »
