EPTThe Free World Charter - Page 31
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
googolplex
United States280 Posts
| ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On May 07 2012 11:28 sam!zdat wrote: Because what it means to "grow" changes. Simply increasing gnp doesn't cut it. We're not really growing, we're just fooling ourselves into believing that so we can keep producing. edit: look, I'm not anti capitalism. Just the form of it we have now is obsolescent. GNP isn't really what I'm getting at. More people are able to get an education, do what they want, start stable families, etc, etc. Obviously they are some gaping flaws, but I think if you compared flaws from now and a few generations back, the gap is staggering. Maybe if society stagnates as a whole...but I don't really see that happening anytime soon. Okay then, what exactly are you referring to when you say it's obselete? | ||
|
DeliCiousVP
Sweden343 Posts
 http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/sustainability-base/index.html ![[image loading]](http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/524348_301713609911301_106680532747944_685477_174017267_n.jpg) | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On May 07 2012 11:42 1Eris1 wrote: More people are able to get an education, do what they want, start stable families, etc, etc. I'm don't have statistics at my fingertips, but I don't really think this is true. The SOL for most of society has stagnated since the rise of neoliberalism in the 80s. I don't have footnotes but thinkers I respect have argued this and they have plenty of them. How old are you, out of curiosity? Are you trying to get out of school and do what you want right now? Our society is highly stagnant. It is obsolescent because the complexity of the world economy is growing too large for any individual actor in the market to price the things he is buying, and the market is mostly noise and gut-feeling rather than real information about value. How convincing an act the head of the Federal Reserve can put on about the economy has more effect than anything in the real world that economy is supposedly measuring. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
I'm don't have statistics at my fingertips, but I don't really think this is true. The SOL for most of society has stagnated since the rise of neoliberalism in the 80s. I don't have footnotes but thinkers I respect have argued this and they have plenty of them. The standard of living has not stagnated since the 1980s. Cell phones, personal computers, microwave ovens, central heating and air conditioning, cable television, automobile ownership, the internet, a larger and larger percentage of the population have come into possession of them. The positive changes have been even more marked for the lower class than the middle class or upper class. They had farther to rise in material wealth, and they have. Your thinkers must not be arguing in material terms. Our society is highly stagnant. No it isn't. How can you be saying this in a world of iPhones, for example, and the astounding advances in medical science, for another one, begs the question of which society you're living in. It is obsolescent because the complexity of the world economy is growing too large for any individual actor in the market to price the things he is buying, and the market is mostly noise and gut-feeling rather than real information about value. That's been one of the arguments against capitalism all along, it's not true. How convincing an act the head of the Federal Reserve can put on about the economy has more effect than anything in the real world that economy is supposedly measuring. How convincing an act the head of the Fed can put on has nothing to do with it, except in that the act he puts on sends signals about what the Fed is going to do about the money supply and interest rates, which are among the top 5 if not the top 2 critical parts of the economy. What the Fed actually does is far more important and is something that the economy is measuring in the real world. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On May 07 2012 12:03 DeepElemBlues wrote: How convincing an act the head of the Fed can put on has nothing to do with it, except in that the act he puts on sends signals about what the Fed is going to do about the money supply and interest rates, which are among the top 5 if not the top 2 critical parts of the economy. What the Fed actually does is far more important and is something that the economy is measuring in the real world. I'm drawing a lot of my analysis of current financial events from this book: http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Capitalist-Democracy-Honorable-Richard/dp/0674062191/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1336359920&sr=8-2 Don't really want to argue all this stuff about SOL, as it's hard to quantify. I do think that thinking purely materially (i.e. SOL = the bundle of commodities) is a big mistake. We have a really degraded and stagnant culture, and this has a lot to do with consumer capitalism. Your iphone does not make you as happy as you think it does. edit: I'm personally most interested in culture. Capitalism leads to some really terrible culture. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On May 07 2012 12:07 Offhand wrote: It's funny watching people going back and forth debating this like there's no end to natural resources, no limit to economic growth, and no limit to debt or wealth. A moneyless society is hard thing to talk about in a room full of consumers. Yes, the culture of consumption must change before anything else changes. Stuff like the op is just consumerist fantasy land. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On May 07 2012 11:51 sam!zdat wrote: I'm don't have statistics at my fingertips, but I don't really think this is true. The SOL for most of society has stagnated since the rise of neoliberalism in the 80s. I don't have footnotes but thinkers I respect have argued this and they have plenty of them. How old are you, out of curiosity? Are you trying to get out of school and do what you want right now? Our society is highly stagnant. It is obsolescent because the complexity of the world economy is growing too large for any individual actor in the market to price the things he is buying, and the market is mostly noise and gut-feeling rather than real information about value. How convincing an act the head of the Federal Reserve can put on about the economy has more effect than anything in the real world that economy is supposedly measuring. Can you make an arguement based on one generation though? (Technically not even one generation if it's the 80s) You might be right there, but how does one actually say we are stagnant? I'll try and find some comparisons between the 80s and now, but I'm not really they'd even be relevant. edit: Saw your response above. How do measure happiness then? 80% of people might have identified as happy or whatever in the 1900s, where as today almost none would identify that sort of living as "happy", but does that mean someone can/can't be happy? I don't necesesarily think that's a problem though. Do we want it so that one person can control the market? Is that not a "market failure" of sorts? As for the speculation/futures/etc, I feel like thats necessary in a global market, but yeah I agree it might be overdone Are you against the Fed then, or am I misinterpreting you here? I'll wait on my response. and I'm 18 btw | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On May 07 2012 12:10 1Eris1 wrote: Can you make an arguement based on one generation though? (Technically not even one generation if it's the 80s) You might be right there, but how does one actually say we are stagnant? I'll try and find some comparisons between the 80s and now, but I'm not really they'd even be relevant. My field is literature, so I am a scholar of culture. It's my professional opinion that our culture is very decadent. Mainstream culture is totally degraded and basically illiterate (there are some exceptions, of course). This is a bit tangential, though, and this is not a thesis I'm going to try to argue here. What's more important is the effect of our economic organization on our society, which is crumbling. Again, I'm not going to get into an analysis of this, so feel free to call bs or w/e. I don't necesesarily think that's a problem though. Do we want it so that one person can control the market? Is that not a "market failure" of sorts? As for the speculation/futures/etc, I feel like thats necessary in a global market, but yeah I agree it might be overdone Not sure where the idea of "one person" comes in, that seems much less efficient than what we have now. The fundamental problem is the idea that "growth" is in and of itself the point of economic policy. Are you against the Fed then, or am I misinterpreting you here? I'll wait on my response. You definitely need a central bank, so idk how I could be "against" it. From Posner's analysis in the book above, both Greenspan and Geithner fucked up badly. and I'm 18 btw Well, contact me in five years and tell me if you still believe all that stuff about how nice everything is.  | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On May 07 2012 12:16 sam!zdat wrote: My field is literature, so I am a scholar of culture. It's my professional opinion that our culture is very decadent. Mainstream culture is totally degraded and basically illiterate (there are some exceptions, of course). This is a bit tangential, though, and this is not a thesis I'm going to try to argue here. What's more important is the effect of our economic organization on our society, which is crumbling. Again, I'm not going to get into an analysis of this, so feel free to call bs or w/e. I think decadent is not necessarily an awful thing so. Some people do actually find enjoyment in those kind of things. Personally I enjoy a vast variety of things, and have probably read more "finer reading" (I'm assuming that's what you're getting at when you say illiterate; because otherwise I'm sure our literacy rates are the highest they've even been) then most people around my age, but I do not necessarily consider myself superior (unless we are discussing said reading) or happier to them. But fair enough. I'm not really following you here I guess. On May 07 2012 12:16 sam!zdat wrote: Not sure where the idea of "one person" comes in, that seems much less efficient than what we have now. The fundamental problem is the idea that "growth" is in and of itself the point of economic policy. My bad, you said individual actor, so I assumed you meant a signle person/entity/whatever. I don't see how we aren't growing though? On May 07 2012 12:16 sam!zdat wrote: You definitely need a central bank, so idk how I could be "against" it. From Posner's analysis in the book above, both Greenspan and Geithner fucked up badly. Well I definetely agree with you here. As to your original point though, should the central bank of the most powerful nation not have a greater impact on the economy then anything else though? (Besides maybe the IMF or whatever) On May 07 2012 12:16 sam!zdat wrote: Well, contact me in five years and tell me if you still believe all that stuff about how nice everything is. Meh, I stopped my high school partying a while back and I have been trying to do a lot more research/reading on economics, politics, etc, but I guess it's likely I'm wrong in some areas. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On May 07 2012 12:28 1Eris1 wrote: My bad, you said individual actor, so I assumed you meant a signle person/entity/whatever. I don't see how we aren't growing though? Miscommunication. My point is that no individual actor in the market has any clue about most things, so the information you get from aggregating all of their individual opinions (market price) is mostly just noise. this is complicated by things like securitized debt, which confuses things further. Also, individual actors aren't trying to build a better society, they're trying to get richer. So market information tells us how to get aggregately richer, but it doesn't tell us how to build a better society. since our politics is totally corrupted by capital, all we have is getting "richer," but not building a richer culture. As to your original point though, should the central bank of the most powerful nation not have a greater impact on the economy then anything else though? (Besides maybe the IMF or whatever) The problem is that the Fed assumes the risk of investments by bailing out financial firms when they go bankrupt, which means that the risk is public and the upside is private. The fed bailing out firms just encourages risky behavior. I am out of my area of expertise here, although I'm learning about it. I highly recommend the Posner book. Meh, I stopped my high school partying a while back and I have been trying to do a lot more research/reading on economics, politics, etc, but I guess it's likely I'm wrong in some areas. Yes, well, research is one thing. Keep in mind that most things you are reading about economics are probably written by neoliberals - there is a lot of ideology in economics. I'm talking about when you actually go and try to get a job and live in the market economy, although things may be different by the time you get there. Fundamentally, the entire thing is really degrading and dehumanizing. Our culture should be better than this; we have so much. | ||
|
DarkwindHK
Hong Kong343 Posts
This cannot even work for one day: The world has 5 cars and 10 people. Everyone want a car, but there are only 5. Hence they chop the cars into 2 and each person get half a car. This kind of idea will only works when the society is so advance that it can create more than enough resources for EVERYTHING. I guess this can work when you can simply put people into dreams and then they all get to have their perfect world in their dreams, no more money no more war. That is more "realistic" than this idea. | ||
|
midftw
Canada170 Posts
| ||
|
DeliCiousVP
Sweden343 Posts
That being said what 1enis1 said and how he reacted in certain situations what his emotions. i would say hes a normal eighteen year old. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On May 07 2012 12:39 DeliCiousVP wrote: Some people are as mature as 30 year olds when their 18 and others as mature as 18 year olds when their 30. The value of what a person say should always be recognized. That being said what 1enis1 said and how he reacted in certain situations what his emotions were i would say hes a perfectly normal 18 year old. The world seems much more fair when you are 18, as strange as that sounds. edit: I guess when I was that age I thought that for anything that seemed off to me, or didn't make sense, somebody out there must have an answer because if it's the way it is, it must be the right way for things to be. Now I'm not so sure. | ||
|
DeliCiousVP
Sweden343 Posts
On May 07 2012 12:43 sam!zdat wrote: The world seems much more fair when you are 18, as strange as that sounds. When he is 24 he will be the greatest advocate of Free world charter you will see Lol i found him in the future handing out Free world charter fliers. ![[image loading]](http://files.brobible.com/archive/sites/default/files/18072/handingoutflyers.jpg) And look here is his dad helping him | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On May 07 2012 12:35 sam!zdat wrote: Miscommunication. My point is that no individual actor in the market has any clue about most things, so the information you get from aggregating all of their individual opinions (market price) is mostly just noise. this is complicated by things like securitized debt, which confuses things further. Also, individual actors aren't trying to build a better society, they're trying to get richer. So market information tells us how to get aggregately richer, but it doesn't tell us how to build a better society. since our politics is totally corrupted by capital, all we have is getting "richer," but not building a richer culture. Hmm, fair enough. Ideally then we would want to intertwine the two, no? Generally that's how it's been done. You design something that increases SOL/saves lives/whatever, you get a lot of money. You work hard and contribute to society, you get money. (Usually not as much.) I assume here your referencing the manipulation of money? I certainly agree it's a bit ridiculous, but the only real solutions I see is either 1. greatly increasing awareness of the average consumer (which I can't see happening) 2. government takeover of banks On May 07 2012 12:35 sam!zdat wrote: The problem is that the Fed assumes the risk of investments by bailing out financial firms when they go bankrupt, which means that the risk is public and the upside is private. The fed bailing out firms just encourages risky behavior. I am out of my area of expertise here, although I'm learning about it. I highly recommend the Posner book. See below On May 07 2012 12:35 sam!zdat wrote: Yes, well, research is one thing. Keep in mind that most things you are reading about economics are probably written by neoliberals - there is a lot of ideology in economics. I'm talking about when you actually go and try to get a job and live in the market economy, although things may be different by the time you get there. Fundamentally, the entire thing is really degrading and dehumanizing. Our culture should be better than this; we have so much. Actually, I'm currently focusing on the Chicago and/ Austrian perspective of Economics. (Having already gotten a basic look at Neo-Classical and Keynesian in school obviously) And I completely agree regarding the Fed. Going out on a limb here and saying I don't think CDO's would have even existed had the banks not been backed, but that's a different tale. Degrading/dehumanizing? Probably. I think we also have really high standards. On May 07 2012 12:39 DeliCiousVP wrote: Some people are as mature as 30 year olds when their 18 and others as mature as 18 year olds when their 30. The value of what a person say should always be recognized. That being said what 1enis1 said and how he reacted in certain situations what his emotions. i would say hes a normal eighteen year old. Several people of an obviously elder age reacted in very similar fashions, so I'm not sure I'm the problem here. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
its more than just incentives and means to buy. you all forget the primary purpose of money as an exchange value. how else are people going to negotiate exchange without this. the video does not even state anything about that except to say the without money there is no problem. this is just a ridiculous idea. So well put, dude. It's exchange value and nothing about what it really is will change anything for the better with its removal. Thank you, googolplex. | ||
| ||
