Forum Replies Created
“How wrong can this go?”
Well, I’ve been following along from the beginning of TAE, and maybe that question about a natural event is an indication that this site has outlived its usefulness, at least for me. Adios, Ilargi. Best wishes.
Ilargi, there’s only “money in” anything because we choose it to be that way. I’d prefer we chose differently. How about you? Would it be worth saving those species from extinction? How about the suffering of the Greeks? How about the refugee children drowning? How about… [the list goes on and on, as you know]?
“Not only are the president’s personal credibility and capability diminished; such an investigation discourages talented people from serving in an administration, further undermining good governance.”
“talented”? “good”? McCarthy misspelled “corrupt” twice.
“What’s best for me is best for all.” In what context? In that of exchange-belief-based culture? Then, no, it’s not best for all. In life, as for all other species, without such a global dysfunctional belief? Then, yes (with some lingering caveats), because “Do what thou will” when thou can’t leverage the profit motive for oppression, exploitation, manipulation, and fear mongering.
Money can’t be separated (or eliminated) from politics short of ending its use altogether, and that could (only?) be accomplished through the simple (though not necessarily easy) abandonment of a single belief–and a lie, at that: that all “exchanges” must be balanced. Debt forgiveness isn’t a reversal, it’s a partial reset of the game. And changing from debt-based to production-based economics wouldn’t end the profit motive, Chris, which is the driver of the societal dysfunction.
“75% of insects are gone in France and Germany and they make this only about the bees?”
Of course: there’s no (so-obvious-anyone-could-see-it) profit in other insects.
As for the Fukushima article, that alone is clear evidence that “the economy” is fatally flawed. Can we please put it out of our misery now?
Eventually utilities will figure out that they need to charge progressively, based on usage.
“But rest assured, if the Fed can help Trump keep the stock market buoyant for a while by letting money stay cheap for Wall Street speculation and the dollar competitive for a trade war, it will.”
Except that it can’t, as we’re about to see. Nomi hasn’t read (or believed?) Prechter, apparently.
Rooftop solar just isn’t worth mentioning, apparently. That would spoil the whole image.
“Beijing is perfecting Orwellian mechanisms to monitor its citizens’ activities and squash political dissent.”
Pots and kettles everywhere.
“Germany, Japan, China.”
… the US.
“Tragic species, mankind.”
Nope. Confused culture. Were the rainforest tribes tragic? How about the African ones? Not now, but before exchange belief and its inevitable dysfunctional effects overran them.
“What is this whole imbalance based on?”
It’s based on our cultural belief in the concept of exchange. Always has been, regardless of the lack of awareness of that fact.
You’re posing the ‘wrong’ question, Dr. D. It’s not “why this time?”, it’s “why so quickly this time?”.
“Should we instead ask why we don’t?”
All the same reasons that Johnstone points to in her piece. It’s all enabled and promoted–if not ensured–by our cultural belief in the concept of exchange.
Only one solution that I’m aware of, sumac.carol: culture change by mass choice.
Science is irrelevant within this system/culture. Government is irrelevant. Individuals are irrelevant. Population numbers are irrelevant. The culture is a one-way, insidious, pervasive, ubiquitous consumption march driven by exchange belief. End the belief, end the march. It’s that simple. But do continue to hand-wring over the bugs and all as if that weren’t also irrelevant. (FYI, irrelevant=powerless)
“Burn baby burn.”
“So how do you fix it when even fair market value would destroy an economy built on lies?”
You end it (fix it, if you prefer), Dr. D, by ending markets and economies, and therefore the motivation for the lies. To do that requires ending the cultural belief in the concept of exchange (or so it continues to seem). Ask again and the answer will be the same.
“something is badly wrong with our societies and our economies”
What’s wrong with our society is our economy. The ‘deceit’ is merely the carrier; the concept of exchange is the ‘bug’. It’s why *all* of this is “invevitable”, Ilargi, not just some minor disconnect between speculation and commodities values.
Meanwhile, Prechter long ago noted that epidemics spread in the depths of bear markets, the deepest of which is dead ahead of our now-hull-breached ocean liner. I’ve been telling locals here that our community (and university) is way overbuilt for the coming decades, and that’s without any major hit to population along the lines of a plague. (They still have ‘faith’ in growth.) Household consolidation has been underway for years and continued right through the supposed recovery. Now, US population, no longer bolstered by immigration (mostly from Mexico–no comment), has begun a permanent decline (to join Europe and China among others). This delusion isn’t all money-think, it’s just leveraged by it to a point of tragic degree.
So, four institutions (‘rings’)? No, only one.
Two thoughts: 1) of mice and men, 2) social mood–which just peaked at century-long scale–trumps all.
Why have money at all, Ken? Why have exchange? Both are demonstrably the basis of a majority of societal dysfunction. Why continue with them? Because it’s all we know? That’s not a reason, that’s a rationalization (and I don’t intend to put that on you, except to the extent that you’re one of billions, including me, who are complicit–knowingly or not–in this cultural confusion). All else is deck chair management in this context.
V Arnold, the concept of exchange is that something of value given to another *must* (with exceptions that we mostly ignore) be “balanced” or reciprocated with the receipt of something of “equivalent value” [sic]. The belief is multi-layered. It begins with the above and extends to a complex web or subsidiary beliefs about supposed value, timing, penalties for failure to comply, INCENTIVES TO EXPLOIT AND CHEAT, and much more. The key to having insight is to ask “Why?” (I recently saw reference to the 5 “Why”s on Wikipedia. Haven’t checked it out yet, but I suspect it’s relevant.) The answer I found is that the belief is just a belief, not human nature, not required by anything other than belief, not an unavoidable physical (as in “physics”) limitation, but A CHOICE. Individual choice? No, it’s a group choice. Not something we’re particularly adept or familiar with, aside from various charades like voting. Nevertheless, that’s what it is. So if we see it for what it is and understand it’s implications (so obvious once we look for the connection), then we can DISCUSS WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT. Proposal: end the belief. Discuss. (I won’t hold my breath. No doubt there’s something else that’s much easier to complain or argue about instead.)
First, cheers on 10 years! I wouldn’t have guessed it would be so long (in multiple ways).
Next, please, enough with the “tragic species” fallacy. It’s our culture that’s (fatally?) flawed. That we’re a species capable of believing is coincidental, not causative. If you truly believe that the narrative matters, stop perpetuating the false one. Are the dying refugee children (to throw out just one of many potential heart string tuggers) worthy of our at least DISCUSSING the true nature of our culture–in particular, its basis–such that we might actually act in a way that truly demonstrates concern for their wellbeing and destiny rather than CONTINUING TO MAWKISHLY LAMENT WHAT’S UNDENIABLY WITHIN OUR CONTROL? Probably not. Not so far, not yet, not at all. Yet I’ll keep trying.
How did we get here, Ilargi? I keep telling you: the inevitable result of a global culture based on belief in the concept of exchange. Can you ‘hear’ that now? Or will you continue to repeat the same question? And the “Either we stop this” bluster too? How are we going to “stop this”? Would it help for me to repeat it for you? Or shall we distract ourselves with bubbles and central banks and rumors and … ? Or maybe just ‘enjoy’ the ride.
Good one! Typo or intentional?
So “shale” is the new term for leveraged debt??
Groundhog Day 2018 will be interesting. When Wile E. emerges from his lair and runs off the cliff, will he see his reflection when he looks at the camera?
The implicit message to poachers: We’re all playing this game with you and we don’t want to stop, we just want you to stop cheating. Good luck with that. Bye-bye megafauna. It’s all in the game.
Thanks for another year of shining a light, Ilargi. May you and your readers have a safe and sane 2018.
“Man happened.” Translation (for accuracy): a belief was chosen and indoctrinated ruthlessly and ubiquitously.
Good for society? I think you mean less bad, Ilargi. Pay, jobs, work, profits (or not) have nothing to do with education, health care and the like. They’re at odds with those things. As are the profit-seeking activities that would continue outside the scope of your (everyone’s?) view. The only way? No. It’s not a way at all. It’s the same path we’re on with prettier billboards–for a while until they rust. The way is to end the game.
There is and never has been balance in the economy. As for balance being needed, that’s a fantasy as well. You speak of greed as if it hasn’t always been present, causing a persistent list in a particular direction. What is it that so many people are truly blind to? Might it be that inherent nature of “economies”?
“Globalization automatically leads to Misallocation.”
And exchange belief automatically (i.e., inevitably) leads to globalization (and misallocation).
Money systems are part of human culture (this one in particular), not part of human nature. We misconstrue that to our detriment.
I’ll chime in on that with my usual: the cultural belief in the concept of exchange is at the root, not agriculture or hierarchy or property or anything else. As V noted, it’s the profit motive that’s so insidious, and that doesn’t arise out of farming. To beat you over the heads with it: MASSIVE SURPLUSES MAKE NO SENSE UNLESS YOU CAN SELL THEM! Small surpluses (think squirrels burying nuts) are sane, non-leverageable aspects of living across species. Money use (based in exchange belief culture–again, not in agriculture) facilitates leverage. PROFIT INCENTIVE+LEVERAGE=INEVITABLE SOCIETAL DYSFUNCTION (think slavery, pollution, and finance, among a long list). Is it sinking in yet?
“meddling for profit”–great phrase, Prof.
Yes, for as long as we allow it–choose it, actually. Here we go with more hand wringing over what ‘they’ are doing and will do as though we have no part, no say, no CHOICE. Apparently the shock has worked. We’re brain-dead zombies.
“a monetized racket” is an inevitable result of a global exchange-based culture, V.
“an informed, critically thinking, brain” is what it takes to understand that.
So? Will we continue to lament what we have wrought through our repeated (daily! constant!) choice to continue that belief and still choose to maintain it, or will we take the obvious corrective step?
Any thoughts or plans at this point (now that the pre-TSHTF, preparation-period window is closing) on shifting the focus of this site to some form of positive action–or at least direction/suggestion for action, Ilargi? Maybe some targeted revisiting of the Primer piece(s)?
Money’s not needed or necessary (redundant, but I’ll go with it).
Flailing within the system (taxing) isn’t a solution. Ending the system is a solution.
It’s not “genius”, it’s just the result of an infinite number of monkeys banging away on an infinite number of typewriters–in other words, it’s inevitable (in an exchange-based culture).
“An end to Australia’s property boom will be welcome news for first-time buyers, who have struggled to break into the market…”
If that were the reality, the bubble wouldn’t be over. It doesn’t work that way. If there are deals to be had, first-time (wanna be) buyers–if they could actually afford it–will be outbid and beaten to the punch by another round of late-to-the-party corporate buyers.
“could theoretically”=haven’t yet while it would have been easier financially. It’ll only get harder–i.e., virtually impossible in the face of exchange belief.