|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
You could invite people to discover what occurred in that specific period, or just tell us what your actual point is. Really up to you.
That aside not sure what said graphic says as I don’t even know what it refers to. US wages? Wages in ‘the West’ or what?
|
On January 21 2020 08:11 Wombat_NI wrote:
You could invite people to discover what occurred in that specific period, or just tell us what your actual point is. Really up to you.
That aside not sure what said graphic says as I don’t even know what it refers to. US wages? Wages in ‘the West’ or what?
Yeah sure, I could just lay it out neatly. I prefer to pique interest and let people do their own legwork, it has a more lasting impact and I don't end up sounding like an ideological crusader.
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On January 21 2020 08:19 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 08:11 Wombat_NI wrote:
You could invite people to discover what occurred in that specific period, or just tell us what your actual point is. Really up to you.
That aside not sure what said graphic says as I don’t even know what it refers to. US wages? Wages in ‘the West’ or what? Yeah sure, I could just lay it out neatly. I prefer to pique interest and let people do their own legwork, it has a more lasting impact and I don't end up sounding like an ideological crusader.
Or you could acknowledge what occurred in said period and what your interpretation of said period was and leave responses to deal with that.
I have zero idea of what you’re referring to. Perhaps some trends I could refer to, but they don’t apply globally across even the ‘first world’
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
You’re making a point that is incredibly vague, not expanding upon it and expecting other participants in the thread to somehow respond cogently to the mystery point.
|
Fine, in a few words it means this: Before the wages decoupled, debt couldn't be issued freely and unbacked. Since then, there's more to work for the same wage because there's more debt to be served, and it's served to the top holders of debt, or the famed 1%.
It's not capitalism, it's compounding interest serfdom.
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On January 21 2020 08:28 Vivax wrote:
Fine, in a few words it means this: Before the wages decoupled, debt couldn't be issued freely and unbacked. Since then, there's more to work for the same wage because there's more debt to be served, and it's served to the top holders of debt, or the famed 1%.
It's not capitalism, it's self compounding interest serfdom.
Thanks for the clarification on your point.
Why is ‘interest serfdom’ not a consequence of capitalism as intended though?
Why is freely issued debt and the associated recovery of said debt anything to do with anything outside of capitalistic forces?
|
Vivax is talking about the transition to neoliberalism. Related:
+ Show Spoiler +
(Yes I know it started under Carter but the tweet still makes me laugh, leave me alone^^)
As Wombat does, I would question the idea that this direction is an aberration that happened in capitalism, and not a perfectly logical consequence of the setup that it has for society. It makes perfect sense to me that the former would devolve into the latter over a sufficient period of time.
|
On January 21 2020 08:34 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 08:28 Vivax wrote:
Fine, in a few words it means this: Before the wages decoupled, debt couldn't be issued freely and unbacked. Since then, there's more to work for the same wage because there's more debt to be served, and it's served to the top holders of debt, or the famed 1%.
It's not capitalism, it's self compounding interest serfdom. Thanks for the clarification on your point. Why is ‘interest serfdom’ not a consequence of capitalism as intended though? Why is freely issued debt and the associated recovery of said debt anything to do with anything outside of capitalistic forces?
I'd like to add that the wealthiest probably know better than to take away everything from the population with the wealth they sit on. In their place, you'd rather ensure everyone has decent lives, unless every single one of them is an absolute sociopath which I doubt. But I wouldn't want to have them to fear the population. Presuming the existence of an actual aristocracy of these people who fly to Davos in private jets to save the climate.
My point is that a fairer capitalism without exponential debt has existed, but it failed because it was attached to a finite resource.
If you could design a parameter that limits the states ability to issue debt by backing the currency, you could build another type of capitalism. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a plan being worked on, but I'm not sure that it's going to necessarily be a nice outcome at first.
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On January 21 2020 08:48 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 08:34 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 08:28 Vivax wrote:
Fine, in a few words it means this: Before the wages decoupled, debt couldn't be issued freely and unbacked. Since then, there's more to work for the same wage because there's more debt to be served, and it's served to the top holders of debt, or the famed 1%.
It's not capitalism, it's self compounding interest serfdom. Thanks for the clarification on your point. Why is ‘interest serfdom’ not a consequence of capitalism as intended though? Why is freely issued debt and the associated recovery of said debt anything to do with anything outside of capitalistic forces? I'd like to add that the wealthiest probably know better than to take away everything from the population with the wealth they sit on. In their place, you'd rather ensure everyone has decent lives, unless every single one of them is an absolute sociopath which I doubt. But I wouldn't want to have them to fear the population. Presuming the existence of an actual aristocracy of these people who fly to Davos in private jets to save the climate. My point is that a fairer capitalism without exponential debt has existed, but it failed because it was attached to a finite resource. If you could design a parameter that limits the states ability to issue debt by backing the currency, you could build another type of capitalism. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a plan being worked on, but I'm not sure that it's going to necessarily be a nice outcome at first.
So the problem is how debt is leveraged rather than how people actually live and are remunerated?
|
On January 21 2020 08:56 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 08:48 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 08:34 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 08:28 Vivax wrote:
Fine, in a few words it means this: Before the wages decoupled, debt couldn't be issued freely and unbacked. Since then, there's more to work for the same wage because there's more debt to be served, and it's served to the top holders of debt, or the famed 1%.
It's not capitalism, it's self compounding interest serfdom. Thanks for the clarification on your point. Why is ‘interest serfdom’ not a consequence of capitalism as intended though? Why is freely issued debt and the associated recovery of said debt anything to do with anything outside of capitalistic forces? I'd like to add that the wealthiest probably know better than to take away everything from the population with the wealth they sit on. In their place, you'd rather ensure everyone has decent lives, unless every single one of them is an absolute sociopath which I doubt. But I wouldn't want to have them to fear the population. Presuming the existence of an actual aristocracy of these people who fly to Davos in private jets to save the climate. My point is that a fairer capitalism without exponential debt has existed, but it failed because it was attached to a finite resource. If you could design a parameter that limits the states ability to issue debt by backing the currency, you could build another type of capitalism. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a plan being worked on, but I'm not sure that it's going to necessarily be a nice outcome at first. So the problem is how debt is leveraged rather than how people actually live and are remunerated?
I'm not even sure what problem you are referring to. Besides private property being harder to come by and wealth being harder to amass, we live in pretty comfy times compared to the past, materially speaking. At least in Europe.
The current policy efforts lie in ensuring that money isn't too easy to come by, but also not too hard, and to keep the system afloat for as long as possible.
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On January 21 2020 09:09 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 08:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 08:48 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 08:34 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 08:28 Vivax wrote:
Fine, in a few words it means this: Before the wages decoupled, debt couldn't be issued freely and unbacked. Since then, there's more to work for the same wage because there's more debt to be served, and it's served to the top holders of debt, or the famed 1%.
It's not capitalism, it's self compounding interest serfdom. Thanks for the clarification on your point. Why is ‘interest serfdom’ not a consequence of capitalism as intended though? Why is freely issued debt and the associated recovery of said debt anything to do with anything outside of capitalistic forces? I'd like to add that the wealthiest probably know better than to take away everything from the population with the wealth they sit on. In their place, you'd rather ensure everyone has decent lives, unless every single one of them is an absolute sociopath which I doubt. But I wouldn't want to have them to fear the population. Presuming the existence of an actual aristocracy of these people who fly to Davos in private jets to save the climate. My point is that a fairer capitalism without exponential debt has existed, but it failed because it was attached to a finite resource. If you could design a parameter that limits the states ability to issue debt by backing the currency, you could build another type of capitalism. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a plan being worked on, but I'm not sure that it's going to necessarily be a nice outcome at first. So the problem is how debt is leveraged rather than how people actually live and are remunerated? I'm not even sure what problem you are referring to. Besides private property being harder to come by and wealth being harder to amass, we live in pretty comfy times compared to the past, materially speaking. At least in Europe. The current policy efforts lie in ensuring that money isn't too easy to come by, but also not too hard, and to keep the system afloat for as long as possible.
You don’t see the problem in wealth and property being harder to obtain in a system predicated on obtaining both?
|
On January 21 2020 09:13 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 09:09 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 08:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 08:48 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 08:34 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 08:28 Vivax wrote:
Fine, in a few words it means this: Before the wages decoupled, debt couldn't be issued freely and unbacked. Since then, there's more to work for the same wage because there's more debt to be served, and it's served to the top holders of debt, or the famed 1%.
It's not capitalism, it's self compounding interest serfdom. Thanks for the clarification on your point. Why is ‘interest serfdom’ not a consequence of capitalism as intended though? Why is freely issued debt and the associated recovery of said debt anything to do with anything outside of capitalistic forces? I'd like to add that the wealthiest probably know better than to take away everything from the population with the wealth they sit on. In their place, you'd rather ensure everyone has decent lives, unless every single one of them is an absolute sociopath which I doubt. But I wouldn't want to have them to fear the population. Presuming the existence of an actual aristocracy of these people who fly to Davos in private jets to save the climate. My point is that a fairer capitalism without exponential debt has existed, but it failed because it was attached to a finite resource. If you could design a parameter that limits the states ability to issue debt by backing the currency, you could build another type of capitalism. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a plan being worked on, but I'm not sure that it's going to necessarily be a nice outcome at first. So the problem is how debt is leveraged rather than how people actually live and are remunerated? I'm not even sure what problem you are referring to. Besides private property being harder to come by and wealth being harder to amass, we live in pretty comfy times compared to the past, materially speaking. At least in Europe. The current policy efforts lie in ensuring that money isn't too easy to come by, but also not too hard, and to keep the system afloat for as long as possible. You don’t see the problem in wealth and property being harder to obtain in a system predicated on obtaining both?
Not when I'm not 90 years old and need a nurse that needs to be poor enough to have an incentive to work such a tasking job.
A minimum of working force is always required for a functioning society, unless you think it's just to eliminate unproductive members. The system struggles with finding a solution for that with monetary policy. And at the same time to stop the population from growing to unsustainable levels.
Ironically, the demographics trap can only be escaped with an ever increasing population.
|
On January 21 2020 09:19 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 09:13 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 09:09 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 08:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 08:48 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 08:34 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 08:28 Vivax wrote:
Fine, in a few words it means this: Before the wages decoupled, debt couldn't be issued freely and unbacked. Since then, there's more to work for the same wage because there's more debt to be served, and it's served to the top holders of debt, or the famed 1%.
It's not capitalism, it's self compounding interest serfdom. Thanks for the clarification on your point. Why is ‘interest serfdom’ not a consequence of capitalism as intended though? Why is freely issued debt and the associated recovery of said debt anything to do with anything outside of capitalistic forces? I'd like to add that the wealthiest probably know better than to take away everything from the population with the wealth they sit on. In their place, you'd rather ensure everyone has decent lives, unless every single one of them is an absolute sociopath which I doubt. But I wouldn't want to have them to fear the population. Presuming the existence of an actual aristocracy of these people who fly to Davos in private jets to save the climate. My point is that a fairer capitalism without exponential debt has existed, but it failed because it was attached to a finite resource. If you could design a parameter that limits the states ability to issue debt by backing the currency, you could build another type of capitalism. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a plan being worked on, but I'm not sure that it's going to necessarily be a nice outcome at first. So the problem is how debt is leveraged rather than how people actually live and are remunerated? I'm not even sure what problem you are referring to. Besides private property being harder to come by and wealth being harder to amass, we live in pretty comfy times compared to the past, materially speaking. At least in Europe. The current policy efforts lie in ensuring that money isn't too easy to come by, but also not too hard, and to keep the system afloat for as long as possible. You don’t see the problem in wealth and property being harder to obtain in a system predicated on obtaining both? Not when I'm not 90 years old and need a nurse that needs to be poor enough to have an incentive to work such a tasking job. A minimum of working force is always required for a functioning society, unless you think it's just to eliminate unproductive members. The system struggles with finding a solution for that with monetary policy. And at the same time to stop the population from growing to unsustainable levels. Ironically, the demographics trap can only be escaped with an ever increasing population.
That sounds like a dangerous mentality for both your nurse and you.
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On January 21 2020 09:19 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 09:13 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 09:09 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 08:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 08:48 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 08:34 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 08:28 Vivax wrote:
Fine, in a few words it means this: Before the wages decoupled, debt couldn't be issued freely and unbacked. Since then, there's more to work for the same wage because there's more debt to be served, and it's served to the top holders of debt, or the famed 1%.
It's not capitalism, it's self compounding interest serfdom. Thanks for the clarification on your point. Why is ‘interest serfdom’ not a consequence of capitalism as intended though? Why is freely issued debt and the associated recovery of said debt anything to do with anything outside of capitalistic forces? I'd like to add that the wealthiest probably know better than to take away everything from the population with the wealth they sit on. In their place, you'd rather ensure everyone has decent lives, unless every single one of them is an absolute sociopath which I doubt. But I wouldn't want to have them to fear the population. Presuming the existence of an actual aristocracy of these people who fly to Davos in private jets to save the climate. My point is that a fairer capitalism without exponential debt has existed, but it failed because it was attached to a finite resource. If you could design a parameter that limits the states ability to issue debt by backing the currency, you could build another type of capitalism. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a plan being worked on, but I'm not sure that it's going to necessarily be a nice outcome at first. So the problem is how debt is leveraged rather than how people actually live and are remunerated? I'm not even sure what problem you are referring to. Besides private property being harder to come by and wealth being harder to amass, we live in pretty comfy times compared to the past, materially speaking. At least in Europe. The current policy efforts lie in ensuring that money isn't too easy to come by, but also not too hard, and to keep the system afloat for as long as possible. You don’t see the problem in wealth and property being harder to obtain in a system predicated on obtaining both? Not when I'm not 90 years old and need a nurse that needs to be poor enough to have an incentive to work such a tasking job. A minimum of working force is always required for a functioning society, unless you think it's just to eliminate unproductive members. The system struggles with finding a solution for that with monetary policy. And at the same time to stop the population from growing to unsustainable levels. Ironically, the demographics trap can only be escaped with an ever increasing population.
So the system is good, for some reason despite its ostensible benefits being increasingly denied to participants, so long as said participants are so economically desperate that they can take care of people who are too old to be productive in said system?
You’re not exactly selling it here.
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
If you think nurses should be made to poor to, or kept in such a state to incentivise them to work, when most of them enter the field to help people anyway, makes you a pretty good exemplar form capitalism’s worst aspects being entirely normalised
|
On January 21 2020 09:41 Wombat_NI wrote:
If you think nurses should be made to poor to, or kept in such a state to incentivise them to work, when most of them enter the field to help people anyway, makes you a pretty good exemplar form capitalism’s worst aspects being entirely normalised
If I buy into the line of thinking it just leads me to the conclusion that all billionaires (probably millionaires too) should have 100% of their assets taken to motivate them to have more billion (million) dollar ideas.
Makes more sense than motivating nurses through poverty to me.
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On January 21 2020 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 09:41 Wombat_NI wrote:
If you think nurses should be made to poor to, or kept in such a state to incentivise them to work, when most of them enter the field to help people anyway, makes you a pretty good exemplar form capitalism’s worst aspects being entirely normalised If I buy into the line of thinking it just leads me to the conclusion that all billionaires (probably millionaires too) should have 100% of their assets taken to motivate them to have more billion (million) dollar ideas. Makes more sense than motivating nurses through poverty to me.
Agreeable albeit unrealistic sadly 
|
On January 21 2020 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 09:41 Wombat_NI wrote:
If you think nurses should be made to poor to, or kept in such a state to incentivise them to work, when most of them enter the field to help people anyway, makes you a pretty good exemplar form capitalism’s worst aspects being entirely normalised If I buy into the line of thinking it just leads me to the conclusion that all billionaires (probably millionaires too) should have 100% of their assets taken to motivate them to have more billion (million) dollar ideas. Makes more sense than motivating nurses through poverty to me.
I think you're on to something here
|
On January 21 2020 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 09:19 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 09:13 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 09:09 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 08:56 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 08:48 Vivax wrote:On January 21 2020 08:34 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 21 2020 08:28 Vivax wrote:
Fine, in a few words it means this: Before the wages decoupled, debt couldn't be issued freely and unbacked. Since then, there's more to work for the same wage because there's more debt to be served, and it's served to the top holders of debt, or the famed 1%.
It's not capitalism, it's self compounding interest serfdom. Thanks for the clarification on your point. Why is ‘interest serfdom’ not a consequence of capitalism as intended though? Why is freely issued debt and the associated recovery of said debt anything to do with anything outside of capitalistic forces? I'd like to add that the wealthiest probably know better than to take away everything from the population with the wealth they sit on. In their place, you'd rather ensure everyone has decent lives, unless every single one of them is an absolute sociopath which I doubt. But I wouldn't want to have them to fear the population. Presuming the existence of an actual aristocracy of these people who fly to Davos in private jets to save the climate. My point is that a fairer capitalism without exponential debt has existed, but it failed because it was attached to a finite resource. If you could design a parameter that limits the states ability to issue debt by backing the currency, you could build another type of capitalism. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a plan being worked on, but I'm not sure that it's going to necessarily be a nice outcome at first. So the problem is how debt is leveraged rather than how people actually live and are remunerated? I'm not even sure what problem you are referring to. Besides private property being harder to come by and wealth being harder to amass, we live in pretty comfy times compared to the past, materially speaking. At least in Europe. The current policy efforts lie in ensuring that money isn't too easy to come by, but also not too hard, and to keep the system afloat for as long as possible. You don’t see the problem in wealth and property being harder to obtain in a system predicated on obtaining both? Not when I'm not 90 years old and need a nurse that needs to be poor enough to have an incentive to work such a tasking job. A minimum of working force is always required for a functioning society, unless you think it's just to eliminate unproductive members. The system struggles with finding a solution for that with monetary policy. And at the same time to stop the population from growing to unsustainable levels. Ironically, the demographics trap can only be escaped with an ever increasing population. That sounds like a dangerous mentality for both your nurse and you.
Lol, I'm not 90. It was just an example, because it's one of the biggest problems we face. Expanding debt meets shrinking ageing population and one leads to the other. Actually, that makes the debt system quite useful in controlling our numbers, but is already leading to a lack of workforce, yet only a few companies can afford to pay more to get some, so we need some more debt to replace the missing consumption from the missing workforce.
It's a ponzi cat-chases-tail-thing from an unethical but rational mind. The only thing I care about is how to not draw the short stick at the end of the road and encouraging friends to do the same.
|
On January 21 2020 09:50 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2020 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 21 2020 09:41 Wombat_NI wrote:
If you think nurses should be made to poor to, or kept in such a state to incentivise them to work, when most of them enter the field to help people anyway, makes you a pretty good exemplar form capitalism’s worst aspects being entirely normalised If I buy into the line of thinking it just leads me to the conclusion that all billionaires (probably millionaires too) should have 100% of their assets taken to motivate them to have more billion (million) dollar ideas. Makes more sense than motivating nurses through poverty to me. Agreeable albeit unrealistic sadly
Sad how the normalization of the worst parts of capitalism makes impoverishing nurses as a motivation strategy more realistic than expanding the same "poverty as motivation" concept to include the people that allegedly have the most productive capacity.
One is forced to conclude imo that the belief that poverty motivates people to work at their peak potential, rather than inhibit it, is a deception with ulterior motives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
