I should add criminal to the behavior of some banks and financial cowboys/rustlers. And add some politicians. Like the food supply being contaminated by criminals, they contaminated the money supply.
On Jun 27, 9:52 pm, 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 was done to bring inflation, and as yet it hasn't worked (though > > notice how much more food costs) because we can already see our wages > > and jobs are under threat and won't sell our homes at knockdown. > > > What we should get away from is homily about needing to tighten belts > > after 'our excesses'. GDP all over has been massively inflated pretty > > much as Enron inflated its books. The problem is we can't direct > > capital to the work that needs doing. The hot money is already in > > Swiss vaults or buying up land and evicting the tenant farmers (as in > > the Enclosures). It also wants to buy up our public sectors - with > > the very money we have given to support the bent system. > > > The question has long been how we might direct capital into the work > > that needs doing and fairly distribute in a way that doesn't kill of > > innovation or focus power into an elite that operates like a Politburo > > we can't vote out. The news is that we already have this situation, > > and may even have another massive debtor nation about to hit hyper- > > inflation whilst more armed to the teeth than Nazi Germany. Imagine > > Palin in charge of that! > > > We have all had trouble breaking the ancien regimes. Even the USA is > > a Republik, rather than participative democracy - and democracy itself > > has vile origins. Greece is run by a few rich-bastard families, the > > US by banking interest, the UK is still basically a privateer island > > (though privateers were strictly French) and the EU is still an > > aggrandizement of ideas of stopping war with Germans and maintaining > > coal and steel industries. > > > There is another way if we give up and homilies that barely work for > > individual households let alone economic groups. Much of the debt > > within the EU could be cancelled between countries in a Jubilee. > > Beyond this we could ensure individuals get more control in economics > > through wages and make investment an ethical business. > > > On Jun 27, 8:30 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > But communism (in theory) is about every man contributing to the > > > communal pot, to be distributed by dint of a principle of "equity". > > > > Free markets (or Capitalism, or whatever resonates) is about man > > > pursuing his own ends, for which an emergent, enabling by-product is > > > the economy (as we know it); of course, great disparities of wealth > > > (and power) are an unavoidable (some might argue desirable) feature, > > > as man has an unequal capacity to create value (and we can get into > > > the ethics of the "why's" and the "wherefore's"). (Re)distribution is > > > a political initiative to manage these disparities through taxation. > > > And yes, you're right, wealth will perpetuate "at the top", but really > > > as a consequence of an enhanced capacity to create even greater value; > > > i think that this is what tends to appear as the great "visible hand". > > > > Thing about "growth", rigsy / contemplative, is it's one of the very > > > few mega non-zero sums around; thats what makes it so beguiling and > > > difficult to manage; so we swing from boom to bust to boom to...:) > > > > On Jun 27, 2:49 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I don't agree- unless you are talking about Communism- which flopped. > > > > Man serves the economy and whichever power happens to be in charge who > > > > may then decide to redistribute wealth/products but this is not a > > > > voluntary agreement. But generally, wealth remains at the top for the > > > > prime reason of maintaining power. > > > > > On Jun 25, 3:26 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hmm...fine points all! > > > > > > Lets not forget though, that the economy serves man, not the other way > > > > > round? Just an observation regarding your suspicion of the "growth" > > > > > imperative in contemporary economics. > > > > > > On Jun 24, 9:54 pm, Contemplative <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The key phrase for me is "relative homeostasis". I agree that the > > > > > > encouragement you refer to > > > > > > is desirable. I am unsure of it's possibility. Our belief that > > > > > > growth is > > > > > > mandatory for our economy > > > > > > encourages activities and behaviors that, I think, out-pace the > > > > > > ability of > > > > > > the natural system to > > > > > > balance itself at its natural rate. I am not convinced that we > > > > > > have a solid > > > > > > enough understanding > > > > > > of our own system to allow us to recognize true key indicators of > > > > > > systemic > > > > > > health, rationally process > > > > > > that input, and subsequently make good decisions about the which > > > > > > conditions > > > > > > we should encourage. > > > > > > > To state it bluntly, I think our desire for growth is malignant... > > > > > > > I don't mean to be doom and gloom about this, and actually I think > > > > > > there is > > > > > > reason to be optimistic. > > > > > > But economics seems to me to have that stereotypical characteristic > > > > > > of > > > > > > having 20/20 vision through > > > > > > the rear view mirror. Economic policy decisions that are both long > > > > > > term and > > > > > > aggressive(such as increased > > > > > > home ownership) which use 'tweaks' to the system to achieve the > > > > > > aims are > > > > > > likely destructive and very > > > > > > unpredictable. In a relatively isolated or buffered system, they > > > > > > may be > > > > > > more predictable, but we are not > > > > > > in an economy which is either buffered or isolated. We are > > > > > > comparatively > > > > > > wide open(global), and playing > > > > > > in a much bigger sandbox than we have been, say 25 years ago. > > > > > > ...and from > > > > > > my perspective, we don't > > > > > > know the playing field well enough to be aggressive, though we > > > > > > should be > > > > > > looking long term. ...and by > > > > > > long term, I mean more than two quarters out! > > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to think this through a bit...! :-)- > > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
