REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Why is the world in such dire economic straits, and what can we do about it?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, October 14, 2022 19:23
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5651
PAGE 2 of 2

Sunday, November 13, 2011 12:50 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Telephone - Philipp Reis (German)
A/C current - Nikola Tesla (Austrian) while in Paris
D/C current - no one 'invented' the D/C current, but Alessandro Volta (Italian) invented the battery
Refrigerator - William Cullen (Scottish)

No, your claims aren't clear at all.

What many famous American 'inventors' did was file US Patents. It doesn't make them the inventor, merely the US patent holder.


"Cause sometimes, just sometimes, (capitalism) is useful without hurting anyone."

So despite your previous denial you really ARE arguing for capitalism. Just so we're clear on that.

Capitalism is a currently successful economic strategy. But what it is without exception is resource wasteful and environmentally destructive. Ultimately it's non-survivable. That makes it not at all useful, not even a little bit, IMO.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 13, 2011 3:59 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Telephone - Philipp Reis (German)
A/C current - Nikola Tesla (Austrian) while in Paris
D/C current - no one 'invented' the D/C current, but Alessandro Volta (Italian) invented the battery
Refrigerator - William Cullen (Scottish)

No, your claims aren't clear at all.

What many famous American 'inventors' did was file US Patents. It doesn't make them the inventor, merely the US patent holder.


"Cause sometimes, just sometimes, (capitalism) is useful without hurting anyone."

So despite your previous denial you really ARE arguing for capitalism. Just so we're clear on that.

Capitalism is a currently successful economic strategy. But what it is without exception is resource wasteful and environmentally destructive. Ultimately it's non-survivable. That makes it not at all useful, not even a little bit, IMO.


I think there's a middle ground between you and Sky.
I would make the case that Americans improved upon European fundamental discoveries, improved them, found new ways to utilize them. Often many Americans contributed individual small modifications to a product or process, with the cumulative result that the product evolved very quickly-- the steam railroads are a good example.
Dozens of American railroads innovated individual changes during the 19th century, leading to hundreds of locomotive and car designs, each an improvement on the state of the art, each specialized for its own situation.
The simple, large number of people working to improve the product led to rapid improvement by trial and error, each little improvement being adopted by others, further modified to fit a particular circumstance, caused an overall improvement.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 13, 2011 5:17 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
A/C current - Nikola Tesla

Tesla's Serbian-American (eye rolling). You couldn't even get his original nationality right. And he invented A/C while he was in America. Yes, he proposed the idea first in Paris, but he made it work in America.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 13, 2011 5:39 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"It's obvious to a 5th grader."

Hello,

This is why no one can have a conversation with you.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 13, 2011 6:36 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Dozens of American railroads innovated individual changes during the 19th century, leading to hundreds of locomotive and car designs, each an improvement on the state of the art, each specialized for its own situation."

The railroads were the exact opposite of what you describe, according to this article.

"For this reason, Railroaded, Richard White’s trenchant history of the political economy of the first Gilded Age, told through a close examination of the transcontinental railroad corporations, could not be more timely. Parts of the book read like a Matt Taibbi exposé of fraudulent high finance and venal politics, but the bulk of it resembles a Vanity Fair article that gasps even as it sympathizes with insiders divulging the details of how things went terribly wrong. ... By 1890 six companies had completed seven separate lines in Kansas, overlaying the state with more miles of track than New York had and for a population less than one-third the size. Even the inveterate Kansas booster (and crooked US senator) J.J. Ingalls had to admit that “empty railroad trains ran across deserted prairies to vacant towns.” The overbuilding of track, like the overbuilding of housing today, was not spurred by demand. It was the handiwork of insiders looking to get rich through chicanery and government largesse. “The entrepreneurship so apparent in the 1880s involved innovations that combined financial manipulation, the waste of capital and labor, and the construction of railroad lines that fulfilled little or no discernible need except the enrichment of the promoter...” "


http://www.thenation.com/article/163050/trains-vain-richard-white

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 13, 2011 6:41 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Tesla's Serbian-American (eye rolling)."

Whatever. Have some facts to go with your eye-rolling -

"Born an ETHNIC SERB in the village of Smiljan (now part of Gospić), in the Croatian Military Frontier[1] of the Austrian Empire (modern-day Croatia), TESLA WAS A SUBJECT OF THE AUSTRIAN EMPIRE BY BIRTH and later became an American citizen.[2]"


Ethnic Serbian, citizen of the Austrian Empire.


Oh, one more correction to your sloppy reading.

http://books.google.com/books?id=--giwZy0FpkC& pg=PA109&lpg=PA109& dq=%22For+the+first+time+in+history, +the+living+ standards+of+the+ masses+of+ordinary+people+have+begun+ to+undergo+sustained+growth&source=bl&ots=LPutGXA_PV&sig= TEdNtbaYEI6r2eZuQwbnVksAYvs &hl=en&ei=wFq_ To3iGZPViALyu4WNAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8& ved=0CFUQ6AEwBw#v=onepage& q=%22For%20the%20first%20time%20in%20history %2C%20the%20living%20standards%20 of%20the%20masses%20of%20ordinary%20people%20 have%20begun%20to%20undergo%20sustained %20growth&f=false

"In the words of Nobel Prize winner Robert E. Lucas, Jr., "For the first time in history, the living standards of the masses of ordinary people have begun to undergo sustained growth ... Nothing remotely like this economic behavior has happened before"."

But reading an actual selection from his book (not that I expect you to, but one can always hope), Lucas doesn't attribute the improvement to capitalism. It's still best attributed to technology and the large-scale exploitation of non-biological energy.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 13, 2011 8:03 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Sig,

It's obvious to a 5th grader. Why would I waste my time debating it here? I have actual stuff to do.

So go away and do it, then.

Oh, wait, you DO want to debate it!...
Quote:

Look again at europe's taxation rate, and their degree of govt. control, corporate-govt. ties and their stack of long term liabilities, not to mention their labor situation. I haven't met a european on either side of the political spectrum who hasn't thought it was a serious problem at any point in the last decade, maybe two.


Hmm... OK. Germany's total tax, about 45% of GDP. Public debt, about 80% of GDP. Real growth rate, abut 4%. Unemployment, about 6%.

USA, total tax revenues about 17% GDP. Public debt, 95%. Real growth rate... eh, maybe 2%. Unemployment, about 9%.

Yes, I see how terrible it is!

www.indexmundi.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 13, 2011 8:05 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh, and let's not forget that Paris had electric lighting long before the light bulb was ever "invented".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2011 2:43 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I'm surprised at how interesting this thread was, normally I find talk about money andthe economy boring and hard to understand, but this was actually interesting.

I like the marbles and donkies stories. CTS, the idea of the 11th marble being slavery is really interesting and I'll have to consider it further.

Magon's, my little brother went through a marbles phase when he was six or seven, we made marks on the basement carpet with tape so he and my stepdad could play. He's nine now but I think he'd still like it, he probably forgot about it after the tape got pulled when we painted that room and got a new couch.

Sure there were things that got notably better for many people in the 19th century, as well as things that got worse for other people. That being said I'd not like to go back there thank you.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 15, 2011 4:52 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Lucas doesn't attribute the improvement to capitalism.

Neither do I.

Quote:

It's still best attributed to technology...
Which was precisely my point. Unfettered technology development.

Read my lips. Unfettered technology development. Do you see the word capitalism in there?

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 15, 2011 5:54 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Just saw this chart.

http://www.getinthehotspot.com/10-richest-countries-in-world/

Haven't looked at how accurate it is, but it seems most of the countries listed as the richest are in Europe.

List is compiled by the Swiss, so maybe it is biased. But interesting.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 15, 2011 6:06 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Except you think capitalism is necessary to the "unfettered" part - and it isn't.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 15, 2011 7:04 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, and let's not forget that Paris had electric lighting long before the light bulb was ever "invented".

Which was why I didn't not have electric lighting on my list as a mostly American invention.

Look, you guys are really hung up on this. Lemme explain the whole invention thing again.

Invention is a continuous process that moves from person to person, country to country. Everything stands on the shoulders of the people who came before them. It's a chain, right? Some links in the chain influence the final product (the one WE know) more than others. But which ones? There is some subjectivity in deciding this link was the "father" link. Blah blah blah.

Take refrigeration. According to Wikipedia (and some other sources), this is what the chain looks like.

11th century: Avicenna, Iran, refrigerated coils
1748: William Cullen, Scotland, produced a small amount of ice artificially.
1805: Oliver Evans, America, vapor compression refrigeration cycle, key to refrigeration. No refrigerator unit though.
1834: Jacob Perkins, America, first patent to use vapor compression cycles in a refrigerator unit. Patent filed also in Scotland.
1841: John Gorrie, America, patent for mechanical refrigeration
1853: Alexander Twinning, America, vapor compression unit that produced large amounts of ice
1856: James Harrison, Australia, ammonia and ether compressor unit
1859: Ferdinand Carre, France, ammonia compressor unit
1867: JB Sutherland, America, refrigerated railroad cars
1876: Carl von Linden, Germany, gas liquification process critical to refrigeration
1913: Fred Wolf, America, refrigerators for domestic use
1916: Alfred Mellowes, America, self-contained refrigerators, bought out for first mass production of refrigerators at the Frigidaire Co.
1922: Baltzar von Platen, Carl Munters, Sweden, Electrolux refrigerators.

Etc. I am sure there are others I've missed, but you get the picture. I look at the links I consider to be critical, and I look at the number of links overall. I consider Oliver Evans to be the "father" link in the chain. Considering also that most of those links were American, I think it is safe to summarize that refrigerators were mostly invented in America.

The same type of chain can be constructed for all other inventions. Perhaps you will pick a different "father" link than I would, and we can nitpick and bicker about where things were invented ad infinitum.

Whatever. I stand by my position that most of the new technology during the Gilded Age was developed in America. You don't agree. Fine.

My central point is not whether Americans invented this or that. My central point is that unfettered development of new technology played a big role in allowing 1) money to move from Europe's nobility to the nouveau riche, 2) a creation of a middle class, and 3) improved living standards for industrialized nations. To me, these 3 results indicate that unfettered new tech development (even though it had a relatively short window) has promise as an anti-"gravity" mechanism.

Bickering doesn't address these points.




-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2011 4:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


CTS, stripped of surrounding arguments you said:

Quote:

unfettered development of new technology played a big role in allowing 1) money to move from Europe's nobility to the nouveau riche, 2) a creation of a middle class, and 3) improved living standards for industrialized nations. To me, these 3 results indicate that unfettered new tech development (even though it had a relatively short window) has promise as an anti-"gravity" mechanism.


My first thought was that the development of steam power was certainly unfettered ... in fact, it was rampant. And it DID transfer wealth from the nobility to the nouveau riche. But it lead to impoverishment for whole swaths of populations, the previous agricultural peasant class who were forcibly displaced off their small holdings, and who filled the new factories, slums, poorhouses and streets with starving wage-slaves.

So what is the main difference between THAT implementation of technology, and one that you would consider to be "anti-gravity"? Because it seems to me, from many historical examples, that not every technological advance is anti-gravity.

Also, I would say that the first xfer of wealth from the nobility occurred during the formation of the merchant class, which began (I think) around 1500.

I agree that advanced technology CAN lead to better quality of life, for some. OTOH, in this highly advanced technological world, the entire continent of Africa is poorer than ever before. So the creation of prosperity for all is a complex process. IMHO the creation of a middle class (which BTW occurred in both Europe and the USA) had more to do with labor unions than any beneficent, automatic effect of technological advance. So I think this point deserves more discussion about how technology can be anti-gravity, and when it might not be, and how to ensure that future advances will fill the role.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2011 4:57 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Unfettered technology has improved the overall standard of living ... for us. But not for everyone, not indefinitely, and currently as a crutch for capitalism.

Consider all the really important technologies a short list of which I gave above - language, stone tools, the baby sling, the bowl, fire, clothing, agriculture, even binding with sinew or rope, rafts, sails and rudders, and the alphabet, and all prehistoric discoveries great and small. Not only did they improve the standard of living, they made it possible for humans to expand from their very small, very particular and generous origin to which they were uniquely adapted to survive - their 'Eden' - to areas around the globe which otherwise would have been beyond their physical survival.

These technologies had important consequences for human society as well, consequences we are still trying to deal with to this day. They created excess, which, like Goodall's pile of fruit in front of the chimps, nearly always gave rise to hierarchies - more specifically male territorial (warlike) parasitic hierarchies - which lived off the excess generated by the people, and without apparently contributing anything in return except bs stories about the gods and their (the male hierarchies') divine right to be where they were, doing what they were doing, and getting what they were getting. A consequence which continues to this day, I might add.

So technology can improve the overall standard of living, but at a social cost.

Do we WANT unfettered technology? And do we WANT to enable capitalism?

Anyway, I have to get going. I hope to add more later.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2011 11:25 AM

BYTEMITE


Well, I stopped following this a while ago, but it sounds to me that the frontier alleviating the poverty problems created by the industrial revolution and subsequent urbanization suggests that if each person/family unit doesn't has enough productive lands or resources that they can grow or trade for a living, bad things happen.

Similarly, bad things happen if an economic system relies primarily on projected assets and not real-world assets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2011 11:29 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

But, uhm, as was pointed out above, it wasn't Americans who came up with the new technologies. So the Gilded Age doesn't meet your criteria either.


They didn't come up with coal power or steam-engines, no, but there was plenty in the time period Americans did come up with or improve upon, for better or for worse.

There are periods of invention and growth and even optimism in human history. This appears to usually be caused by some kind of paradigm shift.

Quote:

These technologies had important consequences for human society as well, consequences we are still trying to deal with to this day. They created excess, which, like Goodall's pile of fruit in front of the chimps, nearly always gave rise to hierarchies - more specifically male territorial (warlike) parasitic hierarchies - which lived off the excess generated by the people, and without apparently contributing anything in return except bs stories about the gods and their (the male hierarchies') divine right to be where they were, doing what they were doing, and getting what they were getting. A consequence which continues to this day, I might add.


Nearly always. Not always. Obviously, the less centralized any society or community is, the more self-sufficient and stable it is, and the less parasitic.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2011 11:52 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Why does it in any way matter exactly who came up with what, when - if the technology is of benefit ?

Caring more ABOUT that, than the effect, is what lead fools down the road to the DMCA and worse.

You do not forment technological improvement by strangling it in the crib.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2011 12:03 PM

BYTEMITE


A good point, Frem. I think none of us are against technology itself. Perhaps that's the salient argument here.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2011 7:13 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
But it lead to impoverishment for whole swaths of populations, the previous agricultural peasant class who were forcibly displaced off their small holdings, and who filled the new factories, slums, poorhouses and streets with starving wage-slaves.

See, I am not sure that the "nouveau pauvre" were that much poorer than the agricultural peasants. I think the poor and starving simply moved, from the country to the city, where they were more visible. I am also not sure that the technology itself was what caused the migration. If you'd like to make a case for that, I'd like to hear it.

Quote:

not every technological advance is anti-gravity.
Agreed.

Quote:

OTOH, in this highly advanced technological world, the entire continent of Africa is poorer than ever before.
Yes, because people with advanced tech/weapons used the tech to oppress people in Africa. You might say that is how the Indians got robbed of an entire continent: advanced weaponry.

Quote:

So the creation of prosperity for all is a complex process.
Well, I am not that ambitious. Right now, I'd just like to see prosperity for more.

Quote:

IMHO the creation of a middle class (which BTW occurred in both Europe and the USA) had more to do with labor unions than any beneficent, automatic effect of technological advance.
I think they both played a role.

Quote:

So I think this point deserves more discussion about how technology can be anti-gravity, and when it might not be, and how to ensure that future advances will fill the role.
Agreed.

So maybe my premise is overly simplistic and naive. But here is how I see it.

The rich got rich by doing X. All their resources are invested in X. If someone else, anyone else, invents Y which makes X obsolete, all the future wealth becomes rerouted and goes now to the guy with Y. Instead of continuing to accumulate more and more, Mr. X's assets become devaluated; his gravity shrinks. Mr. Y, who may have been a peasant yesterday, suddenly has gravity of his own. The world now revolves around Planet Y instead of Planet X, which fades into a has-been.

Broadly speaking, when kerosene replaced whale oil, the whaling tycoons were replaced by coal tycoons. Then the petroleum tycoons displaced the coal tycoons a couple of notches down. I would imagine, should someone invent cold or warm fusion, fusion tycoons would displace the petroleum ones. I call it "evolution," as if each new technology were a mutation.

Now mutations are not always good, and do not always lead to a better life. In fact, most of the time, they cause many undesirable effects. But they are also the main, natural mechanism for long-term, large changes whereby the old die off, and the new begin. You want something that will break the unending and entrenched accumulation of power/wealth of the old? I think evolution, via mutation and natural selection, is the best answer.

No, not all mutations will lead to evolution. But evolution doesn't occur without mutations. So we just gotta put up with a lot of bad mutations until we get the ones that take. Maybe we can help it along in just the right way.


-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 3, 2011 5:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I wanted to get back to this. I haven't forgotten, but this is a complicated topic. Let me recap:

There is a difference between finance and the economy, although the two are tied in today's world. The economy has to do with production and consumption. Finance has to do with money.

"Goods" tend not to collect in a few hands, and "services"... well, there are as many providers of services as there are competent labor-ready hands. It is very difficult to hoard enough of anything to make a difference in the everyday comings and goings of an economy... if vital commodities like lithium [batteries] or tantalum [capacitors] or oil are severely restricted, in the short run this will shock production, but in the long run alternative sources or materials will be found. Because a hoard of goods tends not to lend itself (so to speak) into collecting more of itself, it is fairly easy to break a monopoly on goods and commodities.

Money OTOH is a different story. To the extent that money eases the exchange of goods and services, it is a good thing. The problem with money is that, once it is a "thing" it can be hoarded, lent, and used to gather even more. Money behaves gravitationally, while goods do not. And depressions seem to occur when money collects in the gravity well of the very wealthy. Because money only functions to promote production and consumption when it is flowing, once it is collected, it stops flowing, and once it stops flowing the economy collapses.

The two antipodes that are presented over and over (and over and over) are Keynes and Hayeck... increase the money supply, or austerity. But neither really works, as Keynesianism tends to merely delay the inevitable and the Austrian school merely crucifies the vast majority (on a cross of gold, even!).

We need to think of money as a resource, albeit a very special one: Who gets it? How does it move? What are the alternatives? Can we do away with it?

We could redistribute money, but keep the same pro-corporate mode of production. However, the wealthy will eventually use their wealth to undo the system of wealth redistribution.

We could control how money is used... particularly, how money is created... but we've been there and done that when we were on the gold standard and it didn't do a single thing to prevent depressions.

We could go to a cooperative mode of production ... and although I think this would be a good interim step... there is nothing to prevent a cooperative from becoming as monopolistic as any corporation.

Money being used to buy and sell things isn't a problem. The ultimate conundrum revolves around "savings", "investment", and "debt".

One can control the use of savings and debt creation... simply require that money be saved and loaned at zero interest. But even in the ideal world of cooperatives, with zero-interest financing, there is still the issue of concentration of power through successive reinvestment in a particular cooperative.

So, ultimately, NOBODY should be allowed to "own" the means of production... not even cooperatives. Theoretically, that is the only solution that puts an end to all of these problems of money concentration and debt creation and irrational over-investment.

I've thought about how that might work, but run out of time, so I'll have to get back to this later.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 3, 2011 8:29 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Actually, it occurs to me that there is really one one thing in human society that behaves in "gravitational" manner (besides gravity, of course) and that is human cooperation.

That is why the media is gravitational, money is gravitational, soldiers are gravitational, and religion is gravitational... but "goods" are not.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 3, 2011 4:27 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


This is a lot to think about. I'm trying to think about is it gravitational or positive feedback.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 3, 2011 10:35 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


It's positive feedback. I just used gravity as an example of positive feedback that everyone in familiar with.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 15, 2015 6:24 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


Former US Comptroller General Dave Walker says the US debt is actually three times more than the $18 trillion we see in the media


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 17, 2015 3:00 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:

While Wall St. is going through the roof, Main St. is paying all the bills.




Check this one, thanks to Kwicko



FY End / Debt Outstanding / President


09/30/2015 18,150,604,277,750.63
09/30/2014 17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79 Obama

09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75 W. Bush
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 Clinton
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38 HW Bush
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32 Reagan
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 1,142,034,000,000.00

09/30/1981 997,855,000,000.00 Carter
09/30/1980 907,701,000,000.00
09/30/1979 826,519,000,000.00
09/30/1978 771,544,000,000.00

09/30/1977 698,840,000,000.00 Ford
06/30/1976 620,433,000,000.00
06/30/1975 533,189,000,000.00 Nixon
06/30/1974 475,059,815,731.55
06/30/1973 458,141,605,312.09
06/30/1972 427,260,460,940.50
06/30/1971 398,129,744,455.54
06/30/1970 370,918,706,949.93

06/30/1969 353,720,253,841.41 Johnson
06/30/1968 347,578,406,425.88
06/30/1967 326,220,937,794.54
06/30/1966 319,907,087,795.48
06/30/1965 317,273,898,983.64
06/30/1964 311,712,899,257.30 Kennedy
06/30/1963 305,859,632,996.41
06/30/1962 298,200,822,720.87
06/30/1961 288,970,938,610.05

06/30/1960 286,330,760,848.37 Eisenhower
06/30/1959 284,705,907,078.22
06/30/1958 276,343,217,745.81
06/30/1957 270,527,171,896.43
06/30/1956 272,750,813,649.32
06/30/1955 274,374,222,802.62
06/30/1954 271,259,599,108.46
06/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57

06/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43 Truman
06/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93
06/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 18, 2015 1:15 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


This was an interesting discussion, and still relevant.

I hope that KPO and THUGR and G read it, if nothing else to

1) Serve as an example of an actual discussion.
2) Demonstrate that there is life beyond their obsession with Russia
3) Show that I'm not ALWAYS talking about Russia or criticizing The West, I DO actually think about theoretical things, and have criticisms of socialism (should socialism ever come about) because I can see that it would create its own conundrums

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 18, 2015 11:15 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


another flaw for me in the US system is how open its scientific property is, I mean imagine you have an American company, it got support, tax cuts, grants whatever help and they invest in research....a better machine on how to freeze ice, or a better offroad motorbike or a new computer chip for a phone or something...whatever the item. For me this 'item' is a product of America, yet outsourcing and crony capital globalism should not mean that an American physics product or artistic chemical product or scientific product ends up in Japan or China or Italy or India or S.Korea two weeks later...so many times have I seen and heard of America simply giving away its best technology for a few bucks it just makes me shake my head. If America invents a new engine, a new computer or new aqua vehicle or a new chemical prodict I feel the United States should have intellectual access to its products for at least 4-5 years in a controlled enviornment inside America, if it is sold then it must be sold for a high price then after 4 or 5 years of course it should be sold or give out to the rest of the world. It's ridiculous how quick America gives away items it has taken years to have studied and researched.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 18, 2015 11:37 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Why is it that positive feedback SYSTEMS persist? Not any one particular system, but the whole process? What might be negative feedback besides an alternative super-competing positive feedback system?




SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 19, 2015 11:06 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I suppose we can look at black holes as the ultimate positive feedback system: A heavy star attracts matter, which creates a greater gravitational field which attracts more matter, which collapses to a black hole, which continues to behave in the same gravitational way .... I don't know if physicists or astronomers and mathematicians have ever imagined what "the end" of a black hole looks like. It seems that what happens in a black hole is beyond our observations and our math.

Fortunately, it's easier to observe other positive feedback systems, and they definitely have an "end" of one sort or another. In some cases .... like amplifiers ... they result in destructive oscillations which burn out the circuits. In nuclear fission, they result in an explosion which scatters the elements and slows down the reaction. In the case of lofting greenhouse gases into the atmo, they result in a new equilibrium - a la Venus. In the case of money concentration, they result in repeated depressions when too much money is concentrated in the hands of too few, and there aren't enough customers to drive production (another oscillation) which leads to revolt.

For those destructive positive feedback systems which we create ourselves ... like cyclic economic/ financial depressions ... you would think that we'd be 100% on top of that: Able and willing to predict the consequences of the systems that we ourselves had created, or at least allowed to develop.

Among them, scholars and researchers have sussed out what some of the underlying drivers are. The only reason why we don't make further progress on this, IMHO, is the fact that TPTB have a vested interest in things STAYING JUST AS THEY ARE: In this case, where they have all of the money and influence. So they will spend significant amounts of money on think tanks and endowments and commercials and campaign contributions to blunt and confuse our collective understanding of what is happening and what is happening next, and what might be done about it.

I personally think that since wealth seem to always behave gravitationally because it eventually sifts into the hands of a few sociopaths who are able and willing to take advantage of its ability to concentrate MORE wealth and power - we are fully capable of understanding the problem and devising solutions to this underlying driver, instead of being caught in an endless cycle of decay, collapse, and regrowth.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 19, 2015 11:15 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
another flaw for me in the US system is how open its scientific property is, I mean imagine you have an American company, it got support, tax cuts, grants whatever help and they invest in research....a better machine on how to freeze ice, or a better offroad motorbike or a new computer chip for a phone or something...whatever the item. For me this 'item' is a product of America, yet outsourcing and crony capital globalism should not mean that an American physics product or artistic chemical product or scientific product ends up in Japan or China or Italy or India or S.Korea two weeks later...so many times have I seen and heard of America simply giving away its best technology for a few bucks it just makes me shake my head. If America invents a new engine, a new computer or new aqua vehicle or a new chemical prodict I feel the United States should have intellectual access to its products for at least 4-5 years in a controlled enviornment inside America, if it is sold then it must be sold for a high price then after 4 or 5 years of course it should be sold or give out to the rest of the world. It's ridiculous how quick America gives away items it has taken years to have studied and researched.



Ummm... Americans .... American corporations, specifically, don't "give away" valuable technology, and they sure don't sell it for cheap. Usually, they "license" the patent for a cut of the profits. Another reason to transfer technology is for overseas production ... if you're a chip-maker and you've just invented a process to create dies with incredibly tiny etches, but you want to make a lot of profit on it, you might invest in a chip-fab elsewhere ... say, South Korea. I think what you're really saying is that there are no more "American" companies ... no corporations with loyalty to the nation which nurtured them. Only internationals chasing the almighty dollar. (?)

Valuable technology which winds up overseas without making a profit for SOMEbody is stolen via corporate or foreign-government espionage. Our inventions are officially well-protected by a system of patents, copyrights, and trade secrets.

OTOH, what chaps my ass is how basic research- funded by the American taxpayer through research grants - is "monetized" by corporations - turned into a source of profit, with no recompense to the taxpayer for the use of the information.

Universities are getting wise to all that: they're now patenting everything, even the littlest paper, in case it turns into a money-maker some day. But IMHO, research is done best in a milieu of free-flow information. All of this patenting and copyrighting and registering simply slows down discovery. After all, can you imagine how slow progress would have been if someone had to pay the inventors of the alphabet every time they wrote something, or the inventors of the steam machine had to pay the discoverers of fire?

I think "monetizing" discovery is an internally contradicted concept. Most of the major discoveries (fire, agriculture, animal domestication, alphabet, the nature of gravity and the solar system, microscopic life) were NOT made in order to "make money" under capitalism. Trying to "make money" on knowledge just kills the process of development. The two processes don't play well together.



--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 19, 2015 8:06 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"In the case of money concentration, they result in repeated depressions when too much money is concentrated in the hands of too few, and there aren't enough customers to drive production (another oscillation) which leads to revolt."

I was wondering if there's a negative feedback before it all blows up. But I don't see one.

Small differences in wealth/ power lead to larger differences in wealth/ power until you have a minuscule but powerful minority which not only runs the economy (whatever it is - feudal, mercantile, capitalist ...) but also the religion/ social ethic.

On the flip side you have the vast majority of people. The things that people fear I think are pain and death, and the pain and death of people they love. So long as the systems allows them (and/ or their family) to live, and they (and/ or their family) aren't in TOO much pain for TOO long, they'll hew to the trodden path - rather than risk disturbing a system that has preserved life and some comfort to date. In fact, the less they have to lose, the harder they'll cling to what little they have. *

It takes a lot to drive the populace to a revolution against the powerful. Either they have nothing left to lose, or they have enough of a cushion to risk going for more, or they see the powerful as relatively weak. (I see the last two as operative in the American revolution, which was fomented by a large number of wealthy men, who saw England as a distant force. OTOH I think the French in the French revolution, and the Russians in the Russian revolution were starving masses who had just about nothing to lose.)

So, unless your society specifically makes wealth be divested to avoid concentrations, I don't see a way out of the rise then crash-and-burn cycle.

* And, I believe this happens because even though we like to credit ourselves with being intelligent, we're not logic-driven, we're program-driven. We have both biological and social programs that run us, that we're not even aware of.




SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 8, 2022 11:55 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


Serbian Strong!?

Serbia says Australia Is Treating Our Star Tennis Player Like a Terrorist

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2022/01/07/serbia-australias-treating-
our-star-tennis-player-like-a-terrorist-n439923



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 14, 2022 4:58 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


'Who Gets to Build the Next Software Stack of Civilization?'
https://www.wired.com/story/who-gets-to-build-the-next-software-stack-
of-civilization
/

Blake Masters Is the Most Dangerous Candidate in America
https://www.aol.com/news/blake-masters-most-dangerous-candidate-000107
726.html

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 14, 2022 7:22 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Wow, we used to have great conversations before everyone got tied up in RUSSIA!RUSSIA! and red-pilling!

Thanks for bringing this back from the past. These ideas are still worth pursuing, and I will pursue them, and try to fold in my "society as an organism" and "robustness v efficiency" thoughts.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 14, 2022 7:23 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


This was the original thought...

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all, why are so many nations in such trouble? It seems like every nation's cause is a little bit different from every other nation's:

The USA has a significant wealth gap, and personal consumption fueled by credit.
The USA and Britain had massive real estate bubbles.
The Greek government overspent its budget.
Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain (PIGS) didn't have personal over-consumption and a high personal debt load, but were the recipients of over-investment from other EU nations.
Despite a lot of “socialist spending” and redistributive policies, the Icelandic government ran in the black. Iceland was brought down when it's three major banks engaged in out-and-out commercial bank fraud.
Italy, which is a large exporting economy, got caught by rising interest.

If we are to prevent this all from happening again, what are we to make of all of these disparate causes? Each nation seems to belie whatever cause we want to attribute to another nation. So we can rule out Fannie and Freddie because they don't apply to Europe. We can rule out socialist spending that doesn't apply to the USA. We can rule out government deficits and the wealth gap because those don't apply to Iceland, and we can rule out personal debt because that doesn't apply to the PIGS. There is a lot they DON'T have in common!

But, the one thing they DID have in common was “investment” in projects or sectors which were not about to generate a return, even in the medium-term. In the USA and Britain, the over-investment was in homes. In the PIGS, it was in large infrastructural projects; in Greece it was also in government bonds, in Iceland it was actually in fraudulent self-dealt bank loans for commercial projects.

The other thing to realize is that this has happened before: In the 1970's, due to a huge increase in oil prices, the Middle East nations (Saudi Arabia particularly) became the holders of a mountain of cash, specifically the USA dollar, and invested in huge infrastructural projects in Brazil, Chile, and Argentina- projects which could not be supported on a cash basis due to lack of either internal or external demand. This led to the Latam debt crisis of 1982. The same thing happened to the Asian "tiger" economies of 1997: over-investment by outside money created a "bubble" which led to an ephemeral rise in GDP, leading to the illusion of growth, which sucked in more money, until the illusion of growth could no longer be sustained. The same problem started the Great Depression.

-----------
It seems there are epidemics of horrible investments, rash investments, possibly even desperate investments, not just now but throughout history. Rich people who have bought all of the yachts, mansions and jets that one can possibly buy and are now looking to make money with their money.

So why do the investments go sour?

Well, I think in a way it's the eternal mismatch of production and consumption under capitalism. Think of it this way: If the world produces a trillion dollars worth of goods and services, but the small fraction of ppl who own the companies only pays their workers $900 billion, the companies can only sell $900 billion dollars worth. That's $100 billion worth of goods and services that's not about to be sold, and $100 billion in the hands of a few who are NOT going to “spend” all of that money, they are going to “invest” a certain amount. Now, that investment can either go to loans (to increase consumption – which won't be ultimately affordable), or to increase production (which can't be sold to ppl who can't afford the goods), or to consolidate ownership, or to increase automation (which throws even more ppl out of work,who will not be able to buy much), or to speculation (diamonds, artwork, tulip bulbs) ... Each time money goes through the production-consumption cycle, more money goes up into the stratosphere... there is a bigger and bigger bundle of money looking for a home... but there is also less and less money available to buy stuff, and sooner or later the consumption-engine runs out of steam, making all investments problematic.

So, it seems that the real problem is somewhat manifold: the concentration of wealth, the withdrawal of money from the consumption end of things and the buildup of money on the investment side.

Anyway, if you're still with me, I'll try and wrap up with what to do about it later.





-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 14:12 - 3411 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL