The coming economic crisis

[-O-]

Wealth is not a zero-sum game. This is easy to see from first principles. If wealth were a zero-sum game the total would have to BE zero because mankind began with zero wealth so it would have to remain at zero forever. Instead, wealth is created by the hard work and mind intent of individuals endeavoring to improve their own situation & surroundings. Man borrows from his environment, adds his own energy and produces increased value. Or man steals from his environment and diminishes the value of that which was stolen. That choice is up to the individual...

 

 

Not saying it is a zero sum game - like the example I gave earlier where a company begins production in a different market - then years later finds the market they have been selling to is no longer strong.... then turn around a find a new market elsewhere without realizing that it was their inital reaction which caused the shift in wealth.

[Brian]

...

[-O-]

The problem, vortex, is that such a place has never existed on this planet, which is why it has never worked and logically cannot work. It is based on the unstated & fallacious premise that greed & laziness will somehow magically cease to exist. It is like a virus that attacks the immune system -- introducing it in small quantity & under controlled conditions only means the deleterious effects are slower to become apparent and death of the host may take longer than if it is introduced in large quantity.

 

 

[-O-]

<snip>

 

As to the boom & bust vs. regulated slow burn question -- if I have a pimple on my nose, I'd rather have it come to a head and then go away rather than have it linger for an extended period. In mathematical terms, the area under the curve may be the same but greater gradient means shorter tails which, in my opinion, means less long-term distruption to the economy in general as well as to the lives of the population at large.

 

 

I think we agreed on a fair amount. The extreme tails of the last burst was the issue. There is this idea that boom&bust is a occasional anomaly and that the market has some sort of norm in there that the booms & bust disrupt. Its not. The B&B's are part of the norm so it becomes a matter of dampening what is can quickly become a positive feedback system creating more and more instablility with each iteration. I do get what you mean and occasionally wonder what it would be like if there was no bail-outs for the banks and co. ... just let them fend for themselves. It would be interesting that is for sure.

 

Anyway it really has been fun (and educational) fencing with ya - thanks by the way.... now I need to get back to my own business

Edited July 9, 2010 by -O-

[Brian]

...

[Brian]

...

[Brian]

...

[Brian]

...

[joeblast]

[gendao]

We recently bought into stock options in the company she works for. To do so we had to go onto a payment program. So no, not anyone anywhere can get a piece of the action... we might like to think as consumers we are all created equally, but this is just not so. You need to have the money on hand to get in on the game.

Down here, you can online trade for $5-$20 per trade (depending on your broker). Stock prices of course vary from pennies to hundreds of dollars apiece. And there is no "payment program" involved. Anyone can start an account and just start trading...

The problem, vortex, is that such a place has never existed on this planet, which is why it has never worked and logically cannot work. It is based on the unstated & fallacious premise that greed & laziness will somehow magically cease to exist. It is like a virus that attacks the immune system -- introducing it in small quantity & under controlled conditions only means the deleterious effects are slower to become apparent and death of the host may take longer than if it is introduced in large quantity.

Agreed. Evolution is driven by biodiversity and natural selection. Nature is Darwinian...by nature. So, the best forms of government would work with, rather than against, such natural conditions.

 

Capitalism assumes that greed & laziness are NATURAL - and thus tries to channel greed productively and discourage laziness - rather than pretend they magically don't exist.

 

Socialism works better the more homogeneous and productive the population is. IT IS ONLY AS GOOD AS ITS LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR. So, the more diverse it is, the more inequities develop as the individual inputs & ouputs vary more widely and thus the highest producers get punished and the laziest get rewarded. Which quickly motivates everyone to become lazy. Which is how liberals plan to destroy this country (removing self-determination) and force it to become dependent on a global banker-run welfare state.

Edited July 9, 2010 by vortex

[-O-]

Down here, you can online trade for $5-$20 per trade (depending on your broker). Stock prices of course vary from pennies to hundreds of dollars apiece. And there is no "payment program" involved. Anyone can start an account and just start trading...Agreed. Evolution is driven by biodiversity and natural selection. Nature is Darwinian...by nature. So, the best forms of government would work with, rather than against, such natural conditions.

 

Capitalism assumes that greed & laziness are NATURAL - and thus tries to channel greed productively and discourage laziness - rather than pretend they magically don't exist.

 

Socialism works better the more homogeneous and productive the population is. IT IS ONLY AS GOOD AS ITS LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR. So, the more diverse it is, the more inequities develop as the individual inputs & ouputs vary more widely and thus the highest producers get punished and the laziest get rewarded. Which quickly motivates everyone to become lazy. Which is how liberals plan to destroy this country (removing self-determination) and force it to become dependent on a global banker-run welfare state.

 

 

(I knew I shouldn't have peaked in here 'cause it will probably gobble up my afternoon)

 

There are some flaws in you approach. Survival of the fittest in Darwinian sense has a high value on adaptability. The people you are referring too as th fittest in a society are largly NOT adaptable but rather conformist. And as the numbers of conformist grow more social systems are put in place to encourage and reward the conformity. Humans of 30,000 years ago are no different in potential or physiology then we are today. The potential to learn, adapt, assimilate language create tools etc is, in this barbaric sense identical.

 

We have "evolved" greatly in the last say 10,000 years not because of a change in our basic, individual potential but rather by pooling our skills and resource. Then later create organizational systems that allowed this pooling of resource to be more and more effecient. Our recent evolution has not been on an individual level but rather a social level. When this social evolution becomes the basis for a species survival, then the "fittest" state of the individual becomes increasingly less relevant, or even irrelevant. It is because at that point it is the strength of the collective population which wins out...

 

which comes to your next point about being only as strong as your weakest link. Not true IMHO, a society is only as strong as its mainstream mean of its population. For example the weakest demographic in a society would be infants. And we are obviously able to be more productive then that.... ah but you said productive members didn't you. If your logic was sound then the a society would not produce more than its base wage workers... and we know this is not true either. It is the mean across the population which holds the strength - or its mainstream. If you dump a tonne of non-productive persons into the population or lay off a large portion of you mean population than yes you weaken but this is because the "weight" of your average population is now less - or by god if the unproductive becomes the average then - you are only that strong. This impact on a society is not exclusive to socialist countries - it effects EVERY country the same way. So with any country the more homogeneous the population... etc.

 

Back to survival of the fittest. The people best able to "survive" or "thrive" in our society are not nessesarily the fittest people in from a survival stand point but the most able to funciton within the conformist norm. If you removed the social structure which sets this norm or move that individual to a society where that norm is different you would see something I believe to be less thant successfull. Stick some of the most successfull people I know into a tuk-tuk in india, or the backwoods of NWT and you will see people completly lost regarding how to survive. However, the weakest people by your definition can exhibit greater adaptablity and resourcfulness regarding resources etc simply because of their "poor" lifestyles nessecitate it (the best example would proably be the criminal population).... I know these are generalizations but the point being, a person's financial success is not indicative of the "Fittest"-ness as members of our species but rather how well they have socialized. And in fact allot of socialized behaviour is counter to "survival" and evolution from an individual stand point.

 

That being said all of this (and I think you will probably agree) is a numbers game where the "fittest" by your definition is over looked in capitalist culture as well. There have been more than a few times that I have witnesses (and done it) where the best, brightest, most productive employee was overlooked for a better position for two reasons - people good at execution are generally not good "talkers" and become ineffecient in leaderdship roles (because they try to do everything themself), and two they are too valuable to the organization in their current role. If they are rewarded - then somebody else has to fill thier shoes (and somtimes it requires more than one person). The highest earners I see and know on Bay street (directors through to senior VP's) are not high producers - they are high sellers and generally do not stay in positions longer than 2-3 years. At the 2-3 year mark thier shortcommings start to become apparent - so they consciously will shop around for a different, better position before the "honeymoon" period with their current one ends - because in the long run it makes more sense for them to do so.. these are not good examples of "producers" in my mind - but are the highest earners.

Edited July 9, 2010 by -O-

[gendao]

There are some flaws in you approach. Survival of the fittest in Darwinian sense has a high value on adaptability.

As does capitalism. Only those companies that continually adapt will remain profitable in capitalism. And capitalism doesn't reward evolutionary failures with bailouts, either. Only the fittest are rewarded with profits and survival. Just like in Nature.

 

As opposed to Socialism - which imposes a far more bureacratic structure that does not respond in real time to market conditions. It's well-known that private industry is faaarrrr more competitive, adaptable and reactive than government contracts.

which comes to your next point about being only as strong as your weakest link. Not true IMHO, a society is only as strong as its mainstream mean of its population. For example the weakest demographic in a society would be infants.

I meant that more figuratively, but you are technically correct. It will not technically drop down to THE lowest common denominator, but Socialism does average all the product out so knuckle-draggers will drag the average down. This does include infants too - as seen in Africa where the average woman has 5-7 children - one of the root causes of their perpetual poverty.

 

As a result, producers have nothing to gain and everything to lose by being forced into Socialism. Whereas the opposite is true for slackers.

Back to survival of the fittest. The people best able to "survive" or "thrive" in our society are not nessesarily the fittest people in from a survival stand point but the most able to funciton within the conformist norm. If you removed the social structure which sets this norm or move that individual to a society where that norm is different you would see something I believe to be less thant successfull.

Sure, but it's this way in Nature too. Every organism only competes in its local environment.

 

And if you transplant it elsewhere - it might either die...or thrive as an invasive species...

That being said all of this (and I think you will probably agree) is a numbers game where the "fittest" by your definition is over looked in capitalist culture as well. There have been more than a few times that I have witnesses (and done it) where the best, brightest, most productive employee was overlooked for a better position for two reasons - people good at execution are generally not good "talkers" and become ineffecient in leaderdship roles (because they try to do everything themself), and two they are too valuable to the organization in their current role. If they are rewarded - then somebody else has to fill thier shoes (and somtimes it requires more than one person). The highest earners I see and know on Bay street (directors through to senior VP's) are not high producers - they are high sellers and generally do not stay in positions longer than 2-3 years. At the 2-3 year mark thier shortcommings start to become apparent - so they consciously will shop around for a different, better position before the "honeymoon" period with their current one ends - because in the long run it makes more sense for them to do so.. these are not good examples of "producers" in my mind - but are the highest earners.

Agree - the "fittest" are not necessarily the most productive. It is this way in Nature too.

 

A lion just sleeps all day while his harem hunts and brings him back meat. That's why I said beta males are generally the most productive (like worker bees), but alpha thugs are often like the hood ornaments on cars. They get all the prestige, but often actually contribute the least to society. What happens then when you subsidize alphas at the expense of betas (like in Socialism) is that you are actively inducing the collapse of your society.

Edited July 9, 2010 by vortex

[-O-]

As does capitalism. Only those companies that continually adapt will remain profitable in capitalism. And capitalism doesn't reward evolutionary failures with bailouts, either. Only the fittest are rewarded with profits and survival. Just like in Nature.

 

Well the corrupt are too. And there is coruption which is legal.

 

As opposed to Socialism - which imposes a far more bureacratic structure that does not respond in real time to market conditions. It's well-known that private industry is faaarrrr more competitive, adaptable and reactive than government contracts....

 

agreed.

 

As a result, producers have nothing to gain and everything to lose by being forced into Socialism. Whereas the opposite is true for slackers.Sure, but it's this way in Nature too. Every organism only competes in its local environment.

 

Yes, organisms compete in their local envirounment - but survival of the fittest has the winnings going to the species that can adapt best when that envirounment changes. Beavers survied when temperatures plummented

but their four foot high cousins met a quick demise.

And if you transplant it elsewhere - it might either die...or thrive as an invasive species...Agree - the "fittest" are not necessarily the most productive. It is this way in Nature too.

 

A lion just sleeps all day while his harem hunts and brings him back meat. That's why I said beta males are generally the most productive (like worker bees), but alpha thugs are often like the hood ornaments on cars. They get all the prestige, but often actually contribute the least to society. What happens then when you subsidize alphas at the expense of betas (like in Socialism) is that you are actively inducing the collapse of your society.

 

 

 

This is a good example of how a social evolution outweighing an individual evolution. Pack animals are early social structures.

 

 

I also think the example of corporate kanagroo hoping is an example of alphas being rewarded regardless of production. And also the high divide of wealth.

 

But a thought comes to mind now... perhaps both this individual evolution and social evolution is what the real debate is. Social structure inherently protect a larger protion of the population by protecting the weak and what we see as flaws in socialism and flaws in capitalism relly has nothing to do with economic philosophy but rather different aspects of nature or of evolution. Socialism reflects an exagerated priority on evolution by population, capitalism refelcts evolution by individual effectivness.... oh but wait this is just looping around to mixed economies again....

 

And maybe we're right back to the begining - some mentioned anarchist-primitivism - so when the society collapses who is going to survive?

Edited July 9, 2010 by -O-

[Brian]

...

[-O-]

I am trying to resist the temptation to compose a lengthy post to step through communist/socialist/anarcho-syndicalism/Marxism/whateveruwannacallit theory point-by-point in order to logically detail (with plenty of historical references and analysis) that it is truly a cult mentality that preys on the naive & illogical by offering Utopian visions which are self-contradictory & utterly unworkable and that has as its root objective a return to deindustrialized feudalism.

 

I'll refrain, however, and just go do the ba duan jin. Cultivating qi should help in an anarcho-primitive setting, right?

 

 

 

Here-here. I think I'll stick with Joe's mini 14.

[ralis]

This is an excellent video showing the power of corporations to bully and control, using cops. Fascism is here in the U.S.

 

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x482859

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

This is an excellent video showing the power of corporations to bully and control, using cops. Fascism is here in the U.S.

 

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x482859

 

 

ralis

 

You're definitely smart when it comes to this sort of paradigm. I read your posts here with attention and see the virtue in your views.

 

EDIT: by the way, I think many posts here in this thread even in contention with the views of each other have relevance to relative+ truths.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

This is going to be a real problem as BP attempts to cut it's losses. These corporations are not serving the public good! Only the bottom line!

 

http://blog.al.com/live/2010/07/bp_buys_up_gulf_scientists_for.html

 

 

ralis

[joeblast]

I can understand BP hunting around for scientists that might be able to help their position, but the data requirements and silence just makes them look all the more nefarious! What's the significance of 3 years silence?

[de_paradise]

The stage is set for a pretty big economic shock in July/August.

 

If you are wondering why the curtains get drawn to reveal the ugliness now, it has to do with the financial operators, who in good time help the economy expand and everyone makes money, but in economic contractions become canabalistic.

 

Who has the most lunch money? Retirees are sitting on pots of money, unprotected, in long-only funds, and they are enjoying their motorhomes and summer vacations. Those that wont act until its too late and fallen into the trap.

 

Neat trick Wall Street learned in 2009: If they push the market down by shorting it to oblivion, they make money on the way down. And when the government runs to the aid of the people, they beg the banks to take free money to help the economy recover. The same people, yes the ones who pay themselves mulimillion dollar bonuses and got away with it. Goldman, MStanley, JPM, Citi--banks that also speculate.

[island]

There are some real concerns here on this thread. Having too much money to the point of only spending time managing and making money, reduces the time to improve your personal potential. Taoism teaches money and attachments are symptoms of ego that distract and prevent a person from finding enlightenment. Instead of worrying about what you may lose, try looking at it in a different way! I reckon you should give all your spare cash away now while you've still got it! Do this and you will profit with a sense of worthiness that money can't buy, Just think how good you'd feel? Better than losing it all in the possible oncoming financial meltdown, Surely. My perspective. Take with a pinch of salt!

[Encephalon]

I too would recommend giving away all your spare cash, but ONLY after you've acquired the means for you and your loved ones to live independently when SHTF. Buy that piece of rural property, get CERT certified, buy that shotgun, get your medical chi kung up to speed, take some classes in permaculture, and make sure everyone else does too. Ancient Taoist communities were radically self-sufficient and resilient, so the more we approximate their modus operandi, the greater likelihood that Taoism will survive the 21st century, and maybe make it into the 22nd through our children and grandchildren.

[forestofclarity]

Why does everyone think that society will simply collapse? Humans are social beings--- the more likely result is that we'd return to a less technological society. I blame Zombie movies personally. I guess high prices causing less cheap goods is far more boring to fantasize about that the whole world going up in flames, except for the elite few who are smarter than everyone else who take to the hills.

[Encephalon]

Why does everyone think that society will simply collapse? Humans are social beings--- the more likely result is that we'd return to a less technological society. I blame Zombie movies personally. I guess high prices causing less cheap goods is far more boring to fantasize about that the whole world going up in flames, except for the elite few who are smarter than everyone else who take to the hills.

 

I would only ask you to consider some of the most basic ramifications of living with 7-8 billion people on a planet that can sustainably support perhaps no more than 2 billion once our fossil fuels and topsoils begin to disappear. These conditions will be forced upon us soon, certainly by mid-century. The subject is huge and interdisciplinary, and has received elaborate coverage in the literature of Buddhist environmentalism. The Buddhist scholars I've met, David Loy and Stephen Batchelor, are quite familiar with James Lovelock's works.

 

Eastern philosophies remind us of the impermanence of all phenomena. Kissing civilization goodbye won't be easy, but denial is no enlightened strategy either.

 

Cheers!

[joeblast]

I would only ask you to consider some of the most basic ramifications of living with 7-8 billion people on a planet that can sustainably support perhaps no more than 2 billion

If you want my honest estimate, this planet will easily support 250+ Billion before the game's done here. Sure its prudent to be cautious, but people throughout history have constantly looked around them and dreamed nothing more grandiose than the glass ceiling immediately above them would be feasible.

 

I guess I have a little more faith in human creativity, ingenuity, and the technical possibilities the tao contains