The Most Elementary Question Must Not Be Asked
- This topic has 25 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Arthur Rothstein Interior of migratory fruit worker’s tent, Yakima, Washington Jul 1936 We’re in dire need of fresh blood and smart new ideas to clean
[See the full post at: The Most Elementary Question Must Not Be Asked]“Because the past 10, 20 or even 40 years have not actually delivered any growth, once you look beyond the propaganda, and the added debt. ”
Yes we are identical to where we were 40 years back. Absolutely zero growth. GDP is the same, advancement of health care, technology, is all the same. You know, I can recommend a good psychiatrist friend of mine. He can hook you up with some strong anti-depressants for whatever ails your brain to make such stupid statements.Arthur Rothstein: Interior of migratory fruit worker’s tent, Yakima, Washington Jul 1936
Since that picture, The fruit workers have been living in “macmansions”.
Times up!
Everyone will move back to living under the overpass.
One step forward 2 steps back.
(huck is not allowed to live under “our” overpass) 😉
The Australian treasurer has just asked us to “spend for Father Christmas, and spend for Australia” despite having just announced huge cuts to government jobs, support for industry and the signing of international agreements that will threaten still more jobs. People are already afraid. The exhortation to spend, spend, spend is almost unbelievable, but I heard it myself!
Yep, I’ve never understood the growth mantra either.
I wonder how many know what its like to live a self directed existence?
Consumerism is a form of insanity…Economics itself is an ideology. Before there was Economics, capital E, a stand alone social science there was a more wide ranging study of what was called the political economy which by its very name embraced the idea that economic outcomes were heavily determined by politics and government. Pre big E economics the only pure market based study of economics was relegated to agricultural economics the study of which entailed supply, demand, credit and importantly the earth itself and the vagaries of weather and soil.
The first job of capital E economics was to absolutely reject, by ignoring, the above fact that government is a primary determinate of economic outcomes, winners and losers. The second job was to reject, by ignoring, that natural resources, the earth itself, made any contribution to economic outcomes. For capital E economics there were only two major forces that determined economic outcomes, those being capital and labor. Thus the profound alteration of the entire biosphere is to this day not considered a cost at all. Nor by extension is growth itself in question. Any questioning of the purpose of growth cannot possibly be considered by big E economics since nothing outside economics is deemed worthy of question which comes back to economics being an ideology. We live in the age of economics. Big E’s victory is total so then too is its destruction. Nothing humans can do is perfectible for all can and will be corrupted and so it is with economics.
Huckleberry – Most of those “magical” advancements you list are nothing more than attempts at solving past problems generated by prior “advancements”.
That and these latest rounds of advancements have mostly only succeeded in making many more problems and we are begining to enter into the realm of the solutions being worse than the problems.
“We May Have Reached The ‘Apocalyptic Scenario’ With Antibiotics”
@Ilargi: More fine work, sir.
@Huckleberryfinn: Something is eating you, amigo, eating you from inside.
You will know no peace as long as you keep pointing the finger at others.
Peace, Brother.Oil demand and supply have never strayed more than 3% since before WW1.
Economics is a fancy word for hoping thing don’t change more than 3% per year.While aware of the insanity of endless growth, I think the author should have mentioned that to maintain an average “standard of living” growth is necessary to accomodate a growing population. Unfortunately we seem to have in the US a growing population, growing GDP and shrinking median income and shrinking median wealth.
I think this explains a lot of the hysteria about cabals of bankers and CEOs gobbling up all the new “wealth”. Whereas is seems they are only consuming the benefits of public and private debt.
“@Huckleberryfinn: Something is eating you, amigo, eating you from inside.
You will know no peace as long as you keep pointing the finger at others.
Peace, Brother.”
That is riot coming from a blog that spends its entire time criticizing everything and everyone except those that believe we are all eventually completely doomed and begs for donations while at it. Yes out of Illargi and I, I am the one that is more despondent and “spends time pointing fingers”.
Kudos on having a firm grasp of reality.huckleberryfinn, get a life. It’s not like TAE is the only blog out there that accepts donations. Take a look at all of the highly rated financial blogs and you will discover that virtually ALL of them accept donations. Virtually ALL of them. Let that sink in. You might not like the message on this site, but don’t complain that the blog accepts donations. Next point: you bitch and moan that TAE believes that “we are all eventually completely doomed.” I don’t think that any of the regulars around here understand that to be the take home message. But I think most of us accept the premise that the global financial system is on an unsustainable course, that there has not been enough organic growth to sustain the course, and that the system has relied on debt for decades to make up for the shortfall. Eventually something has to give, and on that point the world generally divides into the deflationist camp and the hyperinflationist camp. Ilargi is a deflationist and I am a hyperinflationist. But do I think the systemic collapse is going to be the end of the world? Of course not. Just a stormy transition to a new system.
You can dismiss this out of hand and say we’re all nuts and we do not know anything about finance. Fine, go about your business and take your venom and personal insults with you. If you think that everything is just great, the economy is fine, the BLS numbers prove we’ve turned the corner, real estate can never go down, the world will continue to get better and better, the markets are well regulated (or need no regulation), the Fed has masterfully managed the economy, wealth will trickle down from the overclass . . . if you believe all that, then why are you here vandalizing the message board? Go back to your MSM sources, keep drinking the kool aid, and remember to say a prayer for all of us lost souls.
Presumably the people who insist upon growth do so because they realise that if they didn’t, they’d have to talk about redistribution, and that would make them feel *really* unfashionable.
Growth itself is not a bad goal. The problem is that we’re seeking growth in the <i>wrong variables.</i>
Corporations aim solely to grow share value, which leads to crime and destruction. Before 1980 when corporations were trying to maximize <i>profit</i> instead of share value, their behavior was less atrocious. You have to keep real customers and real employees happy to maximize profit.
Governments aim solely to grow GDP, which leads to crime and destruction. If they were seeking instead to grow <i>stored value</i>, their behavior would be less evil. By stored value I mean stored resources, stored money, preserved culture, and above all human capital (healthy and well-trained workers). When you maximize these stored values, you are attracting decent employers and insuring that you can survive tough times.
Just an opinion, but I was always under the assumption we need growth to provide goods, food, clothing, shelter, jobs, for an ever expanding population.
It always seemed reasonable to me.
When I was born there were 3 billion people or so in the world, now there are over 7, i’m guessing.
How else do you provide a living standard for all those additional folks with stagnating economies?
Perhaps that is the root of Japan’s seemingly severe problems. a shrinking population might require shrinking growth, same with Italy. I am so confused at the current financial system that these are both questions and answers simultaneously.
Of course it is not my wish to close this posting by not acknowledging we hardly need 5 TVS and 5 cars in every home, swimming pools in a great many of them, A WallMt and three fast food joints on every corner. That is not the slow steady productive type of growth I am talking about.
@ Everyone,
I recommend you NOT feed the trolls (i.e. talk to them, flame them, acknowledge their existence). Ignore them and let them starve to death – with the social skills / manners they present here, it’s quite likely that’s what will happen to them anyways in a post-collapse world where social capital is once again something of true value.
Oh, and on an unrelated note, to continue on my (trolling?) plight against those horrible, horrible Greeks:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-06/drivers-40-billion-uber-face-death-threats-greece
I wonder how long before North American unions start threatening violence? I was at an Ontario government union rally a few months back and the leader of OPSEU, Smokey Thomas, made a tongue-in-cheek joke about how dangerous it would be for everyone if government employees went on strike and that Premier Wynn should be careful, as of course everyone would hate to see someone get hurt because the union folks were on strike…
Not threatening direct violence of course, but I found it tasteless none the less.Cheers,
GBV@ Variable81
Even Ghandi didn’t eschew violence. As distasteful as it is, there are times when it’s unavoidable. It’s never the best outcome.
The violence against the citizens of America, Britain, Spain, Greece, Canada, and on and on and on, in the name of austerity by those respective governments and the IMF is just overwhelming and criminal.
Violence back at that is not unreasonable, IMO.
It may be “our” only effective reply…
That last sentence may be a bit disingenuous given I left more than 11 years ago…GO2, jjhman et al, no confusion on the usefulness of economic growth vs population growth, but we haven’t had any of the former other than the borrowed hence virtual kind for along time. You can’t buy growth, let alone with money borrowed from your kids. And in that light it would be wise to at least have the discussion of what to do in the absence of growth, instead of exclusively pretending we must, will and can find our way back growth. We haven’t grown in ages, and it matters little whether you link that back to the 60’s or early 80s – there are arguments for both -. That in all these years no-one has been permitted to even ask the simple question, other than Bartlett from a pure physics point of view, is as ridiculous as persecuting people for claiming the earth is round.
@ V,
I’m not opposed to violence, just against overpaid/overcompensated government unions and their leaders hinting at violence (even jokingly) to extort more compensation from the government, which of course comes from taxing the citizenry.
I say this as a public-service unionized individual myself; any attempt to raise these sorts of discussions with my union brethren was met with either a lack of comprehension as to what I was suggesting, or strange looks of distrust which suggested (to me) they were questioning my loyalty to the union/collective and whether or not I actually belonged there in the first place.
The politicians/law makers are, without a doubt, corrupt as well. If (when?) the people stand up to government through the use of violence as a last resort, I won’t condemn them – but I’m sure by that point the unions of the bureaucratic public sector will likely have been gutted, and rightfully so.
Before I’m accused of disliking unions as much as I (apparently?) dislike the Greeks, let me add that I would support a unionized work environment – but one where members could join or leave at their own accord. Basically (as a Canadian example, where I live), a “Canadian Workers Union” that works to protect/uphold the rights of all workers and to push for higher wages and less income inequity across the nation. No union seniority or complex hierarchies either – those just allow the unions to be captured/compromised and results in the older/senior members sacrificing the younger members at the alter of wage/benefit increases when economic downturns strike.
Unfortunately, that might actually result in better working conditions/wages for the majority of people in a society, so it’s like a pipe-dream that will never be realized…
“You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one”Cheers,
-GBV“Take a look at all of the highly rated financial blogs and you will discover that virtually ALL of them accept donations. Virtually ALL of them. Let that sink in.”
I dont know where you get your blog ratings, is it doomerporn.com, or bastardizationoffinance.org?
Here I will prove your bullshit is just that.
What is the total global debt, the one your batshit crazy apes harp about?Please don’t be too hard on ol Huck. As a true friend he never failed, tho it was his want to see life from a fairly pragmatic point of view.
That said, it would seem important to value the relationship between life as we know it and a Dutch auction. As I sit here, a short walk from the mighty Mississippi, it occurs that so much of what we all say and feel is lost in the vagaries of terms. Animals don’t use money. In the wild, somehow they survive. Animals don’t fight wars, but a lot of killing goes on. In any discussion the three terms 1) humans 2) money 3) war can’t be separated. They are intertwined like dna. Any examination of economics that leaves one or two of these necessaries out is purely academic (unrealistic).
In America we have learned to outsource war and money (the Civil War taught us that much).
Money doesn’t change! The number of buyers at the dutch auction changes.
War (the killing) doesn’t change! The theater of operations and technical armaments change.
Humans don’t change! Any in depth study of history will show the common themes: Murder, mayhem, rape, pillage, rinse and repeat.
When it becomes apparent (as it is for Ilargi, Nicole and others) that this isn’t a game (We are playing for keeps) you can begin to see how far down the rabbit hole we have yet to climb. My grandparents had a good life in downtown St.Louis in 1926. New car, nice place. In 1934 they lived in a shack on the bank of a small creek in North Missouri when my grandmother gave birth to my father. It wasn’t the end of the world. As my grandmother said ‘they never went hungry’. More than many could say. As Bob Duvall’s charachter said in ‘Second Hand Lions’ “you could just learn to do without”.
From a former car man’s perspective, I watch the bubble being blow in subprime auto lending. At $40,000 per vehicle it only takes a few cars to equal a mortgage, but from the financial wizard’s perspective it equates to shorter length of term and much easier to repossess (all the good without the problems inherent in mortgage bubbles) Watch the government and big banks next push to ‘nationalize’ the banking business (steal the assets of small banks). Yeah, a ‘single payer’ system for banking, if you will. A ‘New Deal’ if you will, a’la FDR.Ilargi:
The reason we desire growth is because there is theft.
That’s THE answer to your question, and it is “elegant.”
You can’t realistically expect to change people’s motives, much less the world, by shouting down growth. You can have a profound effect on both, though, if you join those who earnestly seek an end to the Ponzi schemes via vigorous and thorough criminal prosecutions.
To be clear, taxes, price-fixing, front-running (HFT), fraud, extortion, blackmail, false-flag events, wars, and national debts to banks are all forms of theft. An exhaustive list of the different forms of theft running rampant in the world today would stretch to the moon and back several times. (Note: That lie didn’t constitute a theft — a robbery of the truth – – because we all recognize it to be hyperbole. In reality, the list would only stretch from Brussels to Tel Aviv.)
And speaking of growth that I’m sure even TAE would embrace, you presently have TWO articles posted on page one of ZeroHedge, and even sport a bitter-sounding troll on this comment thread (!) Bullish TAE!
The reason we desire growth is because we have a debt-based monetary system. There is not enough money in existence to repay all of the existing debt with interest. For that reason every year the economy must expand to cover the existing interest payments — it’s part of the architecture of the system. Otherwise we enter into a deflationary cycle of cascading defaults. There is no avoiding it.
When growth is insufficient, we can mask it with debt. But when the debt grows too large, the choice is either debt collapse or monetary collapse. I am betting on the latter, but right up to the very end I think it will look a lot more like the former.
Boogaloo:
Please endure my restatement of what you wrote, but with a little embellishment:
“EVENTUALLY we enter into a deflationary cycle of cascading defaults because over time, exponential debt ALWAYS outruns exponential growth. There is no avoiding it.”
But we’re not talking about the inevitability of deflationary collapse at the moment. We’re talking about the desirability of growth. I insist we in the 99% need growth to help compensate for all the theft going on. Bank-issued currencies are intrinsically the most lucrative forms of theft ever perpetrated, followed closely by taxes (or is it the other way around?) The parasites are doing everything in their power to render YOUR property rights (but not their own) obsolete.
We need to demand harsh justice, an end to the long-entrenched systems of theft, but not an end to growth. We are not facing the last barrels of oil, the last few tons of phosphorus, or the exhaustion of timber at this point. We still have a little time – – with a waning abundance of resources – – to rectify the systems that have brought us to this cliff-edge. With harsh justice, the thriving systems of theft and murder could be stopped. We’d all rapidly become much more affluent – – surprisingly so – – and wouldn’t need to assume debt for purposes of consumption. And wouldn’t feel so desperate for growth!
If others can legally steal well more than half of what we produce, complaining about growth isn’t going to improve our lot. But if we end the thievery, I assure you, the clouds will part.
Not saying any of this to be adversarial. Just trying to enlarge on your points.
After reading this article; “..Elementary Question…”, a couple of new questions spring to mind instantly! Why do we call it the “national debt” when if FACT there is NO debt at all? You mention the psychopaths but maintain the fiction we owe them when in FACT we owe them nothing for the counterfeit “money” they conjure up out of thin air. It’s ALL a scam right along with the completely illegal personal income tax which we absolutely do not need for financing government activities but is simply used to keep the Sheeple in line. How can you fail to make note of that? I believe we need to recognize we have no debt and start over.
The other oft; and incorrectly, stated issue regarding the necessity of making “hard choices” about social spending is disgusting. Once again we need only return to the global central banking cabal and tell them we are not going to continue to enrich them with trillions of dollars by funding endless wars of conquest and profiteering. There is PLENTY of money to fund our social obligations to each other voluntarily. Don’t get me wrong. I want tiny government, sound money backed by gold, free markets and honest price discovery based upon supply and demand. I could never support taking the earnings of one person by force and having a politician take those earnings and give them to someone else in order to buy a vote. Such a system has never failed to fail.
I believe your article, while making a good point in questioning what we’re doing to ourselves, is fundamentally wrong or perhaps simply vague and indirect. In addition to what I have already said, socialism has always failed not only because you eventually run out of other people’s money to steal but MOST importantly because it goes against human nature. There is no utopia and there never will be. Humans want things and need goals. To suggest we should stop wanting is impossible. The real question would be to define what it is we REALLY want and how to achieve that goal. To undertake this endeavor, we would need a well informed public, therefore I believe this to be a very unlikely proposition because the general public has been made both deeply ignorant and dependent. I have heard several people complain they did not know what to do because the “experts” offered contradictory “advice”… as they are paid to do…. by whom? Ah, back to the bankers. People are generally no longer able to figure very much out for themselves and common sense has become singularly uncommon indeed. You might want to focus on the MOST fundamental of all human problems. How to rid ourselves of the subhuman psychopaths among us? Before we can even ask that question however, we must educate the public about the existence of this deadly subspecies that looks human but is not fully so. I think this is a very tall order, don’t you? But probably an imperative is humanity is to survive….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.