Wheels within wheels.

[Galen]

(08-19-2018, 02:11 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(07-11-2018, 01:24 PM)Hintergrund Wrote: Yeah. To hell with marxism, Marx was a yuge fraudster and nothing more.

I would largely say that Marx was a pre-scientific sociologist.  Much like Freud was a pre-scientific psychologist.  Most of his theories have been debunked because new information and developments have made them obsolete.

You are right about Marx.  Given the problems modern psychology has with replicating experimental results I would say most psychologists are pre-scientific even if they aren't quite as crazy as Freud was.  The problem with modern economists is that they use the methods of engineering and physics where they don't apply.  This is why they can't understand why increasing the size of the state impoverishes everyone except those with connections to it.

(08-19-2018, 02:11 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: As for PBR's accusation.  Well I honestly don't think he's even read that book and if he did he clearly didn't understand it.  Like Eric he seems to think himself more intellectually gifted than he actually is.  How much of that is being a Boomer and how much of it is Dunning-Kruger effect I've yet to determine.  But don't take my word for it.  Look around, read his posts.

Understanding is not something that I have come to expect from PBR or Eric the Obtuse.  They are true believers in the American Civic Religion with a few quirks unique to them.  The one belief they have in common above all others is the primacy of the state.  True believers have no questions because they have no doubt and can't be bothered to question anything.

[pbrower2a]

(08-19-2018, 04:11 AM)Galen Wrote:

(08-19-2018, 02:11 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(07-11-2018, 01:24 PM)Hintergrund Wrote: Yeah. To hell with marxism, Marx was a yuge fraudster and nothing more.

I would largely say that Marx was a pre-scientific sociologist.  Much like Freud was a pre-scientific psychologist.  Most of his theories have been debunked because new information and developments have made them obsolete.

You are right about Marx.  Given the problems modern psychology has with replicating experimental results I would say most psychologists are pre-scientific even if they aren't quite as crazy as Freud was.  The problem with modern economists is that they use the methods of engineering and physics where they don't apply.  This is why they can't understand why increasing the size of the state impoverishes everyone except those with connections to it.

(08-19-2018, 02:11 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: As for PBR's accusation.  Well I honestly don't think he's even read that book and if he did he clearly didn't understand it.  Like Eric he seems to think himself more intellectually gifted than he actually is.  How much of that is being a Boomer and how much of it is Dunning-Kruger effect I've yet to determine.  But don't take my word for it.  Look around, read his posts.

Understanding is not something that I have come to expect from PBR or Eric the Obtuse.  They are true believers in the American Civic Religion with a few quirks unique to them.  The one belief they have in common above all others is the primacy of the state.  True believers have no questions because they have no doubt and can't be bothered to question anything.

Marx was a historian (however flawed) and not a good prophet.  He predicted that the countries on the fastest tracks from capitalism to socialism were those then most advanced in capitalism (and hence exploitation). Marxism suggested that capitalists would be so inhuman and so complete in their exploitation as capitalism created both more capital and depravity that workers and their sympathetic leaders would force a revolution, with Marxist socialism accelerating the economic development by cutting out the people who take too much for their tiny contributions. Socialism would bring faster economic development and social progress than could capitalism. Instead, the first country to have a Socialist revolution in Europe was backward Russia, a country just leaving the agricultural era.

Marx failed to recognize that capitalists would find technological innovations that could be sold profitably -- if only they paid the workers well enough that they could buy the cars, telephones, electric lights, refrigerators, radios, and phonographs and gave them the time with which to use them. Capitalism saved itself by turning away from Marx' stereotype of capitalism with the aid of technology.

Primacy of the state? To paraphrase Hayek (I think) about Big Government -- everyone is for Big Government (or socialism) as long as it is his favored form of Big Government (or socialism). Note that Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes were all for Big Government so long as such created a big military build-up. Through his economic blundering, Dubya made some 'receivership socialism' (government picking up failed businesses in order to rescue them) necessary. Trump is a right-wing socialist, someone who wants government to create (at the expense of taxpayers) plenty of opportunities for sweetheart deals with crony capitalists connected to him. Donald Trump is a 'socialist' in the sense that the late Ferdinand Marcos was.

I concur with the privatization of productive assets as done in former 'Socialist' countries that got socialism without social justice. Exchanging Marxist socialism with a welfare state is necessary for the survival of people who could never get anything more than bare survival under Marxist-Leninist rule and could never get a fresh start under unfettered capitalism. American capitalism has gotten much efficiency at the cost of casting off millions. At best, this Crisis will free us of the need for extreme poverty that the Hard Right considers an appropriate incentive for getting people to work as hard and long as possible for as little as possible.  In the last Crisis, the American establishment recognized that people could work forty hours a week to meet needs by a standard of the 1930s. In this Crisis we may have to turn both unemployment and wasted efforts into leisure that creates its own economic boon.

[Eric the Green]

Essentially, Marx was wrong in his predictions for the developed capitalist world, because the revisionists were right and the revolutionists were wrong. Revolution was applied to the developed world, with mixed and generally tragic results. Revisionism was applied to the developed world, and despite the temporary resistance of the nationalist-type "socialists" (largely misnamed), succeeded in creating a working mixed economy.

It has continued to develop in Europe and elsewhere, despite recent setbacks because of the Great Recession and the immigrant crisis. The Great Recession was caused by speculation in the USA, which was the result of Reaganomics deregulation and its compromised imitators among the "New Democrats," which stalled or reversed the revisionist progress in the USA that meanwhile continued in other developed countries.

The immigration crisis was caused, in part, by climate change setting a match to the Arab Spring upheavals, especially in Syria. Climate change is also largely a result of Reaganomic policies, which blocked development of energy alternatives, and also a result of imitation of Western dirty energy development by China and others-- as it continued to be pursued in Reaganoid America.

[Galen]

(08-19-2018, 09:08 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: Essentially, Marx was wrong in his predictions for the developed capitalist world, because the revisionists were right and the revolutionists were wrong. Revolution was applied to the developed world, with mixed and generally tragic results. Revisionism was applied to the developed world, and despite the temporary resistance of the nationalist-type "socialists" (largely misnamed), succeeded in creating a working mixed economy.

Marx was wrong about pretty much everything.  Given the inability of Marxists, such as yourself, to understand the limits and problems surrounding central planning it doesn't surprise me that you are optimistic about the so called working mixed economy.  All western nations have huge debt loads which spells doom for for the mixed economy.  Debt loads going exponential is a key sign that always tells you that the status quo is coming to an end.  It is not clear what will replace it but confidence in the state will take a huge hit simply because it has been the preeminent institution for the last century or so.  This has been the pattern of Western history since the Roman Empire and so it seems unlikely that this pattern will change in the near future.

[pbrower2a]

(08-19-2018, 10:26 PM)Galen Wrote:

(08-19-2018, 09:08 PM)Eric the (Green)_ Wrote: Essentially, Marx was wrong in his predictions for the developed capitalist world, because the revisionists were right and the revolutionists were wrong. Revolution was applied to the developed world, with mixed and generally tragic results. Revisionism was applied to the developed world, and despite the temporary resistance of the nationalist-type "socialists" (largely misnamed), succeeded in creating a working mixed economy.

Marx was wrong about pretty much everything.

He is worth starting a discussion. If he was wrong he was wrong in ways that few could predict at the time of his death.

Quote:  Given the inability of Marxists, such as yourself, to understand the limits and problems surrounding central planning it doesn't surprise me that you are optimistic about the so called working mixed economy.

 
Who advocates central planning anymore?

Quote:All western nations have huge debt loads which spells doom for for the mixed economy.

 
Nobody is willing to return to the inglorious days of the early-industrial economy just to renounce debt. Debt, so long as it is collectible, is an asset for its holder. You are typically paid in some form of government debt (money, whether it is in the form of cash or in some strokes in a bank account).
 

Quote:Debt loads going exponential is a key sign that always tells you that the status quo is coming to an end.  It is not clear what will replace it but confidence in the state will take a huge hit simply because it has been the preeminent institution for the last century or so.  This has been the pattern of Western history since the Roman Empire and so it seems unlikely that this pattern will change in the near future.

Debt loads can grow with the population and with productivity, or both. Metallic currency is unlikely to outpace population growth.

[Galen]

(08-19-2018, 11:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-19-2018, 10:26 PM)Galen Wrote:

(08-19-2018, 09:08 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: Essentially, Marx was wrong in his predictions for the developed capitalist world, because the revisionists were right and the revolutionists were wrong. Revolution was applied to the developed world, with mixed and generally tragic results. Revisionism was applied to the developed world, and despite the temporary resistance of the nationalist-type "socialists" (largely misnamed), succeeded in creating a working mixed economy.

Marx was wrong about pretty much everything.

He is worth starting a discussion. If he was wrong he was wrong in ways that few could predict at the time of his death. 

Ludwig von Mises figured out the inevitable destruction of the Soviet Union and for the most part the means by which the Communist Party would try to prevent it in 1920.  The reason you do not know this is because either you are too stupid to read what he wrote or too stupid to understand what he wrote.  This is a much better track record than any Marxist or socialist has ever had.  In fact Mises had correctly predicted the crash of 1929 when almost everyone else failed to see the crash  coming.  
Consider for a moment how the Skyscraper Index predicts economic crashes which is a mystery to everyone but Austrian School economists who understand Austrain Business Cycle theory.

Those who follow the Skyscraper Index believe that another economic crash is near.  I think that they are right and have configured my investments accordingly.  By the way I have done this many times before and it has always worked out well for me.  Like it or not its hard to argue with results but no doubt you will because the Prophet generation has a nasty tendency to ignore reality which always ends badly.  You and Eric the Obtuse simply can not accept that socialism does not work.

[pbrower2a]

(08-20-2018, 12:35 AM)Galen Wrote:

(08-19-2018, 11:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-19-2018, 10:26 PM)Galen Wrote:

(08-19-2018, 09:08 PM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote: Essentially, Marx was wrong in his predictions for the developed capitalist world, because the revisionists were right and the revolutionists were wrong. Revolution was applied to the developed world, with mixed and generally tragic results. Revisionism was applied to the developed world, and despite the temporary resistance of the nationalist-type "socialists" (largely misnamed), succeeded in creating a working mixed economy.

Marx was wrong about pretty much everything.

He is worth starting a discussion. If he was wrong he was wrong in ways that few could predict at the time of his death. 

Ludwig von Mises figured out the inevitable destruction of the Soviet Union and for the most part the means by which the Communist Party would try to prevent it in 1920.

Obviously that had nothing to do with the core rottenness of the predecessor society (Imperial Russia), the Russian Civil War that pitted two of the nastiest ideologies against each other, and pathological leadership.

Quote:  The reason you do not know this is because either you are too stupid to read what he wrote or too stupid to understand what he wrote.  This is a much better track record than any Marxist or socialist has ever had.  In fact Mises had correctly predicted the crash of 1929 when almost everyone else failed to see the crash  coming.  

I needed only see an article in that Marxist rag Business Week (irony intended) that exposed the rating scandal of the packaging of ill-performing housing loans in 2005 to recognize that America was headed to a great market crash analogous to that of 1929. I did not get the timing right, but I certainly wasn't going to invest in anything other than ultra-safe securities if I had had any money to invest.

Quote:Consider for a moment how the Skyscraper Index predicts economic crashes which is a mystery to everyone but Austrian School economists who understand Austrain Business Cycle theory.

Right for the wrong reasons. Visionary investment in grandiose, pie-in-the-sky projects indicates that investment in such things as plant and equipment isn't profitable enough. Maybe that is because people are not spending on consumer goods as they would if they had good jobs and fair pay because profiteers and executives are taking the fruits of most labor.

Quote:Those who follow the Skyscraper Index believe that another economic crash is near.  I think that they are right and have configured my investments accordingly.  By the way I have done this many times before and it has always worked out well for me.  Like it or not its hard to argue with results but no doubt you will because the Prophet generation has a nasty tendency to ignore reality which always ends badly.  You and Eric the Obtuse simply can not accept that socialism does not work.

Economic crashes work out badly for right-wing politicians and their agendas.

[Ragnarök_62]

(03-16-2017, 12:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Classical liberals maintain that property is a personal and individual liberty.  That it can be obtained by anyone regardless their class, and historically speaking in America they usually can.  As such it is possible for the proletariat to have a stake in the system.  This is why Marxism was completely short-circuited in the US.

In Western Europe, social democracy created governmental programs to give an economic stake to the proletariat.  In short their bourgeoisie adapted.


So by whatever rationalization you make, you have thrown over the Marxism you believed in a few years ago, and now embrace the opposite: classical liberalism.

There are materialist Marxists and idealist Marxists. I would agree most are materialists, but not all. And now you claim they can adapt and be bourgeois classical liberals. Marx apparently means nothing to you anymore.

His meaning for history is that he championed the working class. Although conditions have changed, it's still the case that capitalist bosses oppress and abuse the people, and that politics and unions are needed to counter-act this. And some today advocate employee ownership, which is worker ownership of the means of production. And periodically, Marxist revolutionary movements still happen.

In any case, historically, Marx is still important as a prophet of the realization that capitalist bosses can not be allowed to abuse the people in the name of their own "freedom." By embracing classical liberalism, YOU now think that the common working people should be abused by the capitalist pigs, and you call this "individual freedom." They are still just as much pigs as they ever were, and you now close your eyes and support them fanatically by supporting their leaders and agents. Shame, shame on you.

Quote:Rags: Surprisingly, both Marxists and real capitalists as opposed to oligarchs agree that rent seeking is evil. Rent seeking is a feature, not a bug in the US economy. Eric, it's our shitty assed oligarchs and their whores in government that are part of this problem we have.

Quote:There was no such stupid course at my school. But I studied Marx in my philosophy class in college.

Then you must have learned nothing in that class and therefore wasted your (or someone's) money.  Marx said himself his philosophical works were materialist in nature, it was said about him, indeed the whole of Marxist literature is replete with exhortations against philosophical idealism. 

I know Marx was a materialist in his later life, and many Marxists still are. That's why I put him where I did on my philosophy wheel. But you also claimed that adaptations have been made to Marxism. Some have dropped his materialism too, and gone back to his younger philosophy.





EtINo, physical science proves we are all connected to the environment.

Quote:Physical science only proves that living organisms are dependent upon the environment to which they have evolved to live in. 

Outer space is an environment but should one venture out into without the benefit of a self-contained pressurized vehicle or suit one will die in seconds is not milliseconds.  Conversely there are bacteria that have evolved to live in the hot springs and mud pots of of Yellowstone National Park but put them into water of a temperature we'd find comfortable and of an acidity we'd like and they will die.

No, it's an interdependent relationship. That's what ecology is. As I stated, human beings and living things are not separate beings; science proves it. You deny science.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:If we are connected, we cannot be separate. That's a contradiction.

If we are connected then sending me a telepathic message should require less energy than posting on the forum.  You need merely think the message instead of having to type it out one a key board.  No muscle contractions required so that should save you a few joules of energy.

The way to understand that you are connected to all, is merely to experience it. Take a look at yourself. Telepathy only proves communication.

I sent you a message already.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:If classical liberalism opposes strong or big government, that does not mean it favors big state government. It doesn't.

I'm not the spokesman for Classical Liberalism.  However, the Classical Liberals I know, and the ones that do the most talking think the government needs to be large enough to ensure my neighbor neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. 

In the context of the US that means apart from things that are clearly the province of the Federal Government (IE Enumerated Powers) those things that people may wish for government to do are the province of the States or the Local Governments.  These United States are and always have been a federation of states rather than a unitary republic.

Quote:Eric:
Baloney. The need is clear for government at all levels to keep the greedy bosses from "picking our pockets." That is what the EPA does, protect us from the bosses; which Drump and classical liberals in congress are abolishing. Shame on you for opposing the need to control the bosses, require them to pay living wages, treat their workers fairly, offer safe products, keep from ruining the economy through speculation, and keep them from polluting our world. By being a classical liberal, you wish the bosses to have "freedom" to do these things to us. That is what Drump and the classical liberals in congress are doing to us. You worked for this, you voted for this.

I agree with this. Here's the Democratic party's problem. They like all of those illegal aiens and SJW's. How about tossing those and supporting the working class.  I also wonder to no end how any environmentalist can support immigration.  

1. Population overshoot is the ultimate ponzi scheme.
2. The Democratic Neoliberals [third way].   How stupid. Don't they know that growth for growth's sake is the philosophy is that of a cancer cell. Republicans all like "groaf".

Let's play a mind game.  Let's say some funky virus called the Okie virus exists. It infects only folks in California. Half of the population gets their brains rewired such that they get it in their mind they must move to Oklahoma. Notice that's a Neoliberal result for Oklahoma.  Just look at all of that growth in Oklahoma! I'm sure the chamber of Commerce here would be excited too no end along with developers. The problem of course Oklahoma City would mushroom in size to match Houston and Tulsa would match Dallas.. So there's the downside right there. Lots of infrastructure, schools, police, fire departments, pollution, and most likely a horrible water shortage.
I rather doubt the lifestyle of those of us here would improve at all and we'd have lots of unwanted headaches.
That my friends is what rampant immigration does to the US.  I also have a 2T ideology of course. Zero population growth is a good thing for the environment and lifestyles for those of us here.  Of course ZPG is despised by Neoliberals because it's a no growth ideology.

Quote:In short because one or two people hold office in the 1T and they just happen to be Boomers doesn't mean much.  During the 1T I expect X to hold the Presidency, the House definitely (they already do) and the Senate.  Depending on how many seats open up in the next 8 years they may even be the majority on the SCOTUS bench too.

That's quite an influence. And there's more than one or two Silent Senators today.  The next crop of Idealists will probably have more cranky Xer's than Boomers had Losts. I sorta feel sorry for them   Imagine some young Idealist contending with some old replica of Vandal.

Quote:

EtI Wrote:Your opinion about these leaders has no bearing on that point at all.

Actually those are not just my opinions but rather the power dynamics in the Senate.  I know Dianne Feinstein might seem important to you being a Commiefornian, but she's one voice out of a hundred to everyone else.  She might be a ranking member on a committee somewhere but otherwise her powers as a senator are limited.

John McCain may seem important cause the Fake News Media (CNN, MSNBC and the like) love to talk to him, but even in Arizona he is a joke.  Personally I think they keep re-electing him because he usually runs in off years and turn out is low.

Ugh.  John McStain.  I despise NeoCONS because they promote wars for no damned good reason. Drump needs to get rid of Revolton.  He's an idiot. NeoCONS never learn. They've won 0 wars, killed millions, strewn refugees all over, and spent something like 4 trillion dollars for their "cause". They are a cabal of illogial Boomers. Little wonder Xer's have a thing for Boomers. We need some more in tune Boomers instead of the current set of the blinded by ideology ones we have now.
I also think we need to stop Neoliberalism. It's inconsistent with resilience.  Just think that a natural disaster can offline some part of those long supply chains.  It's also inconsistent with political stability since labor is just another input to minimize cost on. Never mind its insistence on growth for growth's sake.

[Galen]

(08-19-2018, 11:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-19-2018, 10:26 PM)Galen Wrote: Debt loads going exponential is a key sign that always tells you that the status quo is coming to an end.  It is not clear what will replace it but confidence in the state will take a huge hit simply because it has been the preeminent institution for the last century or so.  This has been the pattern of Western history since the Roman Empire and so it seems unlikely that this pattern will change in the near future.

Debt loads can grow with the population and with productivity, or both. Metallic currency is unlikely to outpace population growth.

At every turn you demonstrate your utter lack of knowledge in economics.  Commodity money does not have to outpace population growth.  What you will get as productivity increases will be a 1% to 2% price deflation every year which is what happened in the US through the late nineteenth and into the early twentieth century.  Think for a moment even if wages remained static then purchasing power of money would increase.  Instead of the poor losing ground every year they would be coming out ahead just by saving with out any risk at all.

Did it ever occur to that having the Fed creating money that is then handed to already wealthy politically connected interests is contributing to [url="https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/economic-commentary/2017-economic-commentaries/ec-201701-monetary-policy-and-inequality.aspx]wealth inequality[/url] you libtards keep whining about.  Even the idiots at the Fed are starting to figure this one out.

You are so stupid that someone has to remind you to keep breathing.

[pbrower2a]

(08-25-2018, 04:08 AM)Galen Wrote:

(08-19-2018, 11:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-19-2018, 10:26 PM)Galen Wrote: Debt loads going exponential is a key sign that always tells you that the status quo is coming to an end.  It is not clear what will replace it but confidence in the state will take a huge hit simply because it has been the preeminent institution for the last century or so.  This has been the pattern of Western history since the Roman Empire and so it seems unlikely that this pattern will change in the near future.

Debt loads can grow with the population and with productivity, or both. Metallic currency is unlikely to outpace population growth.

At every turn you demonstrate your utter lack of knowledge in economics.

No, I often show my utter lack of knowledge of other things instead. [/snark]

The same per capita debt with a growing population is not trouble. If it grows faster than the population without concomitant economic growth, then there might be a problem. Currency based on precious metals will  lessen in value with discoveries of the metals and rise in value with an increase in population and no increase in supply.

Gold is desirable as a currency metal because

(1) it is rare
(2) it is inimitable
(3) it is practically non-reactive
(4) it is practically impossible to synthesize

...Debt is one way of getting capital for establishing a profitable activity. Consider the typical electric utility. It typically floats bonds at a low interest rate (let us say 4%) and gets a predictable 7% return on its investment. What would you do with that opportunity? I would borrow as much as I could get away with! Wouldn't you? The utility has a captive market, and its rates are set (one hopes, if one is an investor or manager) by a sympathetic government.

Debt is fine if someone else is paying for it. Suppose that you are a salesman using the A******* E****** card to cover your travel expenses, and your employer expects you to have such expenses as hotels, fuels and repairs for the company card that you drive, reasonable meals, laundry and dry cleaning, etc. while you sell its things. Your expenditures on such things might be higher than your income, so you incur debt that someone else reliably pays. Fine. This is a win-win situation.

This said, there is much debt to be avoided. Reckless consumerism is suspect. Going into debt to meet ordinary living or commuting costs is a bad idea. With a government, debt that goes into show projects and unproductive enterprises is a bad idea.

Quote:  Commodity money does not have to outpace population growth.  What you will get as productivity increases will be a 1% to 2% price deflation every year which is what happened in the US through the late nineteenth and into the early twentieth century.

...an era of destructive booms and busts, culminating in the Great Depression after such portents as the Panic of 1893, the Panic of 1907, and the Crash of 1920.

Quote:  Think for a moment even if wages remained static then purchasing power of money would increase.  Instead of the poor losing ground every year they would be coming out ahead just by saving with out any risk at all.

Deflation hurts debtors.

Quote:Did it ever occur to that having the Fed creating money that is then handed to already wealthy politically connected interests is contributing to [url="https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/economic-commentary/2017-economic-commentaries/ec-201701-monetary-policy-and-inequality.aspx]wealth inequality[/url] you libtards keep whining about.  Even the idiots at the Fed are starting to figure this one out.

Of course it goes through banks, which are far from charitable as institutions.

Quote: gratuitous insult redacted

[David Horn]

(08-25-2018, 04:08 AM)Galen Wrote: At every turn you demonstrate your utter lack of knowledge in economics.  Commodity money does not have to outpace population growth.  What you will get as productivity increases will be a 1% to 2% price deflation every year which is what happened in the US through the late nineteenth and into the early twentieth century.  Think for a moment even if wages remained static then purchasing power of money would increase.  Instead of the poor losing ground every year they would be coming out ahead just by saving with out any risk at all.

Did it ever occur to that having the Fed creating money that is then handed to already wealthy politically connected interests is contributing to [url="https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/economic-commentary/2017-economic-commentaries/ec-201701-monetary-policy-and-inequality.aspx]wealth inequality[/url] you libtards keep whining about.  Even the idiots at the Fed are starting to figure this one out.

You are so stupid that someone has to remind you to keep breathing.

Oh sure!  Why didn't I think of that.  The poor can just save their money … that extra money they never have, living paycheck to paycheck, while the rich just spend all theirs and not save even more than they already do.  Is this a serious comment?  Even more to the point, at what point in history has this ever happened?  Serious: no (I hope).  When: never!

Sometimes I have to wonder just how capable you libertarians are for self-delusion.  It appears boundless.

[Eric the Green]

(08-26-2018, 10:07 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-25-2018, 04:08 AM)Galen Wrote: At every turn you demonstrate your utter lack of knowledge in economics.  Commodity money does not have to outpace population growth.  What you will get as productivity increases will be a 1% to 2% price deflation every year which is what happened in the US through the late nineteenth and into the early twentieth century.  Think for a moment even if wages remained static then purchasing power of money would increase.  Instead of the poor losing ground every year they would be coming out ahead just by saving with out any risk at all.

Did it ever occur to that having the Fed creating money that is then handed to already wealthy politically connected interests is contributing to [url="https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/economic-commentary/2017-economic-commentaries/ec-201701-monetary-policy-and-inequality.aspx]wealth inequality[/url] you libtards keep whining about.  Even the idiots at the Fed are starting to figure this one out.

You are so stupid that someone has to remind you to keep breathing.

Oh sure!  Why didn't I think of that.  The poor can just save their money … that extra money they never have, living paycheck to paycheck, while the rich just spend all theirs and not save even more than they already do.  Is this a serious comment?  Even more to the point, at what point in history has this ever happened?  Serious: no (I hope).  When: never!

Sometimes I have to wonder just how capable you libertarians are for self-delusion.  It appears boundless.

Boundless, and boundlessly stubborn.

It's true that the Fed was handing out money to the wealthy banks during the Great Recession (QE-3), since that was the only stimulus available after the Tea Party takeover. But it is just another form of trickle-down economics. It probably worked better than giving it to "job creaters," but who knows for sure. Gradually the Obama stimulus and the Fed stimulus did create a recovery, but the middle class and poor have not benefitted very much, because the stimulus was cut short and cut back so much after the Tea Party.

Some Greens like me could find some common ground with some libertarians like Galen, but not with Galen himself; not so much because of his ideology, as much as that he is just an ass. That can't be helped, I guess. I accept revisionist Marxism (democratic socialism, etc.) as the necessary second stage in the world revolution, of which Galen's favorite stage is just the first one, to which libertarians cling as tightly as they can. It is necessary to equalize the power and wealth of the people as against the powerful oligarchs who are the real elite today, and who benefit from libertarian free market ideology which liberates them from needed regulations and taxes on them.

But the third stage in the world revolution is green. This implies going beyond the central planning and big depersonalizing institutions of the socialist stage toward more community-based economics, coops, and worker-owned businesses of smaller scale, and reduction in the size of government too when it's less needed to restrain the big bosses and corporations--- which are just as collectivist (without the ideals of equity) as the socialists and communists are. Unlike Libertarians though, Greens are still bleeding heart liberals like me who also want a social welfare protection system, as long as bosses are greedy hogs and cutthroats, and since machines are making work obsolete. And greens are anti-militarist too, of course, like libertarians. But this also means greens have a "globalist" side, in that the world peace we hope for depends on less loyalty to nation states, and on some working global institutions like the UN, which conspiracy theorists of libertarian and nationalist stripes fear and loathe. But real problems like pollution and climate change, with which greens are primarily concerned, transcend the borders that humans put up to divide ourselves from one another. So global solutions are needed, not imposed from above so much as worked out together.

[Eric the Green]

(08-19-2018, 09:08 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Essentially, Marx was wrong in his predictions for the developed capitalist world, because the revisionists were right and the revolutionists were wrong. Revolution was applied to the less-developed world, with mixed and generally tragic results. Revisionism was applied to the developed world, and despite the temporary resistance of the nationalist-type "socialists" (largely misnamed), succeeded in creating a working mixed economy.

It has continued to develop in Europe and elsewhere, despite recent setbacks because of the Great Recession and the immigrant crisis. The Great Recession was caused by speculation in the USA, which was the result of Reaganomics deregulation and its compromised imitators among the "New Democrats," which stalled or reversed the revisionist progress in the USA that meanwhile continued in other developed countries.

The immigration crisis was caused, in part, by climate change setting a match to the Arab Spring upheavals, especially in Syria. Climate change is also largely a result of Reaganomic policies, which blocked development of energy alternatives, and also a result of imitation of Western dirty energy development by China and others-- as it continued to be pursued in Reaganoid America.

corrected post.

[Kinser79]

(08-26-2018, 10:07 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-25-2018, 04:08 AM)Galen Wrote: At every turn you demonstrate your utter lack of knowledge in economics.  Commodity money does not have to outpace population growth.  What you will get as productivity increases will be a 1% to 2% price deflation every year which is what happened in the US through the late nineteenth and into the early twentieth century.  Think for a moment even if wages remained static then purchasing power of money would increase.  Instead of the poor losing ground every year they would be coming out ahead just by saving with out any risk at all.

Did it ever occur to that having the Fed creating money that is then handed to already wealthy politically connected interests is contributing to [url="https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/economic-commentary/2017-economic-commentaries/ec-201701-monetary-policy-and-inequality.aspx]wealth inequality[/url] you libtards keep whining about.  Even the idiots at the Fed are starting to figure this one out.

You are so stupid that someone has to remind you to keep breathing.

Oh sure!  Why didn't I think of that.  The poor can just save their money … that extra money they never have, living paycheck to paycheck, while the rich just spend all theirs and not save even more than they already do.  Is this a serious comment?  Even more to the point, at what point in history has this ever happened?  Serious: no (I hope).  When: never!

Sometimes I have to wonder just how capable you libertarians are for self-delusion.  It appears boundless.

It seems to me the only thing that is boundless is the self-deception participated in by Boomers in general and the so-called "blue" Boomers in particular.

In a generally deflationary cycle of say 1-2% deflation the poor's purchasing power would increase yearly.  Those increases would allow them to save at first small amounts of money, and later larger amounts of money.  Not only has this happened before, but it happened in particular with my grandparents who were GI generation.  Their parents were core Losts whose parents were slaves.  The savings that their parents had managed to get them some starting capital with which they eventually bought assets which lead to more savings and more capital.

That being said, it seems to me that the main thing that determines if one ends up being rich or being poor is determined by a systemic approach to finances and economic activity.  In general, the poor and middle-classes have over time tended to purchase with their purchasing power liabilities.  The rich on the other hand tend to purchase assets.

[pbrower2a]

(08-31-2018, 03:57 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-26-2018, 10:07 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-25-2018, 04:08 AM)Galen Wrote: At every turn you demonstrate your utter lack of knowledge in economics.  Commodity money does not have to outpace population growth.  What you will get as productivity increases will be a 1% to 2% price deflation every year which is what happened in the US through the late nineteenth and into the early twentieth century.  Think for a moment even if wages remained static then purchasing power of money would increase.  Instead of the poor losing ground every year they would be coming out ahead just by saving with out any risk at all.

Did it ever occur to that having the Fed creating money that is then handed to already wealthy politically connected interests is contributing to [url="https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/economic-commentary/2017-economic-commentaries/ec-201701-monetary-policy-and-inequality.aspx]wealth inequality[/url] you libtards keep whining about.  Even the idiots at the Fed are starting to figure this one out.

You are so stupid that someone has to remind you to keep breathing.

Oh sure!  Why didn't I think of that.  The poor can just save their money … that extra money they never have, living paycheck to paycheck, while the rich just spend all theirs and not save even more than they already do.  Is this a serious comment?  Even more to the point, at what point in history has this ever happened?  Serious: no (I hope).  When: never!

Sometimes I have to wonder just how capable you libertarians are for self-delusion.  It appears boundless.

It seems to me the only thing that is boundless is the self-deception participated in by Boomers in general and the so-called "blue" Boomers in particular.

In a generally deflationary cycle of say 1-2% deflation the poor's purchasing power would increase yearly.  Those increases would allow them to save at first small amounts of money, and later larger amounts of money.  Not only has this happened before, but it happened in particular with my grandparents who were GI generation.  Their parents were core Losts whose parents were slaves.  The savings that their parents had managed to get them some starting capital with which they eventually bought assets which lead to more savings and more capital.

That being said, it seems to me that the main thing that determines if one ends up being rich or being poor is determined by a systemic approach to finances and economic activity.  In general, the poor and middle-classes have over time tended to purchase with their purchasing power liabilities.  The rich on the other hand tend to purchase assets.

You missed the sarcasm. It is far easier to save money if one does not live hand-to-mouth. Saving is a luxury in that those who have higher incomes tend to save more of their income.

Deflation reduces consumption and hence the volume of economic transactions -- and hence income. People who have saved in good times and then encounter bad times typically start usuing their prior savings for necessary consumption. Yes, it is possible to economize on everything from food to motor fuels -- but not that much.

[David Horn]

(08-31-2018, 03:57 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: In a generally deflationary cycle of say 1-2% deflation the poor's purchasing power would increase yearly.  Those increases would allow them to save at first small amounts of money, and later larger amounts of money.  Not only has this happened before, but it happened in particular with my grandparents who were GI generation.  Their parents were core Losts whose parents were slaves.  The savings that their parents had managed to get them some starting capital with which they eventually bought assets which lead to more savings and more capital.

That being said, it seems to me that the main thing that determines if one ends up being rich or being poor is determined by a systemic approach to finances and economic activity.  In general, the poor and middle-classes have over time tended to purchase with their purchasing power liabilities.  The rich on the other hand tend to purchase assets.

In case you missed the history of deflation, it is triggered by reduced purchasing power that is then echoed in reduced prices (or nothing gets sold).  Of course, that's also a major problem.  If prices are dropping, then no one spends a dime they can save, which stops the economy in its tracks.  Deflationary depressions are by far the worst.  Even the often cited hyper-inflation in Weimar Germany did limited damage, but the deflation policy followed from 1930-33 (when Hitler took control) finished-off pre-Nazi Germany.

In short, deflation is vastly worse than inflation, and much harder to reverse once it starts.

[pbrower2a]

Kinser, Galen --


Here's the whole book for you to read. You cannot claim any mastery of economics without having read this:

John Milton Keynes: The General Theory...

[Mikebert]

(08-31-2018, 03:57 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: In a generally deflationary cycle of say 1-2% deflation the poor's purchasing power would increase yearly. 

Sigh. No it wouldn't.  A general deflationary cycle means prices of things, INLCUDING LABOR, go down. So, in a generally deflationary cycle of 1-2% deflation, the poor's purchasing power would remain unchanged.

However the purchasing power of dollars (or dollar-denominated financial assets like debt) would rise.  This means the real cost of servicing debt would increase with 1-2% deflation. People like farmers who have to borrow at planting season would find the price they get at harvest less able to retire debt as time goes on. A string of bad years would become increasingly likely to bankrupt them as the deflationary trend continued. This monetary relation was the source of the agrarian anger that fueled the rise of the Populist Party in the 1890's, who promoted bimetallism as a solution. 

For workers, deflation was not a problem, since they did not borrow. Their concern was poor working conditions, job insecurity and poor compensation which they attributed to an imbalance of power between a poor, politically powerless worker and the rich politically-connected employer. Their proposed solution was collective bargain which aggregated labor into a single negotiating unit who by removing their labor, could shut off cash flow needed to service debt and pay managerial staff and creditors. They often adopted Marxist theory as a justification for their right to do that (as collective bargaining was illegal).  Politically they manifested as Labor, Socialist-Labor (e.g. Wobblies), Socialist and the Communist organizatons. During the New Deal era, they allied themselves largely with the Democratic party, which for a brief period of about 30-40 years functioned more or less as an American labor party (or the closest we ever got to one of those).

Because monetary policy was critical for agrarian populists, but not for industrial workers, while socialist/labor issues were critical for industrial workers, but not for farmers it was difficult for these two groups to find common ground.  But they tried mightily. The Minnesota Democratic party is still called the Famer-Labor party as a holdover of these long-ago times. The entire basis of their alliances, when they formed, was "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Both hated corporate America. For the farmers it was the railroads who with their monopoly fucked them royally with high rates. For the workers it was their employers, who fucked them over whenever they wanted to and enjoyed it when they did.  They unified briefly under the Democratic party under the leadership of William Jennings Bryan of "cross of gold" fame in 1896. Thirty-seven tears later, FDR made a bid for their support by taking the country off the gold standard, which immediately halted the deflationary spiral and allowed a recovery to begin.

Although not complete the change in direction was enough for FDR to add to his Congressional majority in 1934 and 1936 so that it became so large that even after he was hammered worse than Obama in 2010 in 1938, Democrats still held a majority. His victory in 1940 and his decade-long Congressional majority made FDR the unquestioned commander in chief going into WW II. The result was a degree of political domination for 48 years after 1932 than was similar to what Lincoln had achieved for his party.

[David Horn]

(12-05-2018, 03:55 PM)Mikebert Wrote: ... Although not complete the change in direction was enough for FDR to add to his Congressional majority in 1934 and 1936 so that it became so large that even after he was hammered worse than Obama in 2010 in 1938, Democrats still held a majority. His victory in 1940 and his decade-long Congressional majority made FDR the unquestioned commander in chief going into WW II. The result was a degree of political domination for 48 years after 1932 than was similar to what Lincoln had achieved for his party.

This is not and most probably will not happen this 4T.  Add the unbridled effect of money due to Citizens United, and a rising aspirational majority in the larger cities, stalemate seems most likely.  Yet things are degrading though neither side seems to have a solution that will swing the supporters of the other side to their cause.  Assuming I'm right here, what will lit take to break the stalemate, and what will it look like when it does?  The aspiring urbanites are not going to accept a retrenchment, and the rural opposition seems to be in the foulest mood I've seen.  

Assuming the T4T theory still applies, then we should be a lot further along the crisis path than we are.

[pbrower2a]

(12-06-2018, 11:14 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-05-2018, 03:55 PM)Mikebert Wrote: ... Although not complete the change in direction was enough for FDR to add to his Congressional majority in 1934 and 1936 so that it became so large that even after he was hammered worse than Obama in 2010 in 1938, Democrats still held a majority. His victory in 1940 and his decade-long Congressional majority made FDR the unquestioned commander in chief going into WW II. The result was a degree of political domination for 48 years after 1932 than was similar to what Lincoln had achieved for his party.

This is not and most probably will not happen this 4T.  Add the unbridled effect of money due to Citizens United, and a rising aspirational majority in the larger cities, stalemate seems most likely.  Yet things are degrading though neither side seems to have a solution that will swing the supporters of the other side to their cause.  Assuming I'm right here, what will lit take to break the stalemate, and what will it look like when it does?  The aspiring urbanites are not going to accept a retrenchment, and the rural opposition seems to be in the foulest mood I've seen.  

Assuming the T4T theory still applies, then we should be a lot further along the crisis path than we are.

Who says that the resolution of a Crisis will be positive? The barbarians are not at the gate; they are inside. I can imagine America resolving problems that it let fester during the 3T by excising the rot of institutional graft, corrupt politics that endorses the graft, and a mass culture that diverts people from the harsh reality of political consequences.

America can become a corrupt, inequitable, hierarchical, and repressive society. What matters most is that many of the richest Americans want it that way, and not that such is good for most people . Money shouts!

It may have taken the Great Depression to humanize our political culture. Such is a high price, but nothing like the shameful defeat that Germany endured and eminently deserved in 1945.