|
On October 09 2008 13:28 gor56 wrote:
Oh, and the claim that money = debt has PLENTY of validity.
It should be plain for you to see with my example there... this is no big secret as the video makes it seem, its econ 101.
In a stable economy, most people are content with keeping their money in the bank. But when people lose confidence in the system and start withdrawing their money... well, its obvious that there's not enough to go around if everyone wanted their money back.
The entire system is based on everyone owing everybody else, or, debt backing debt, aka money = debt.
In a way, it provides a ton of liquidity for free enterprise, but when free enterprise overextends itself... blammo, subprime crisis 2008!
of course some money is borrowed money, in fact, being a credit based economy maybe most of it is borrowed money. that doesn't mean that we have to go all crazy claiming perpetual debt with little to no hard evidence aside from broad conceptual summaries.
|
On October 09 2008 13:32 gor56 wrote:
One more key point, just to clarify what i believe is the core of the subprime crisis:
i've explained how money is created, and i've explained how it can be destroyed.
money is created when a loan is taken out, money is destroyed when a loan is paid back.
when alot of people cant pay back their loans... like right now.... then the money supply never shrinks, everyone's just poorer because of it.
i mean, the system is already designed to be inflationary, but when loans dont get paid back, its so much worse.
while everything else about this is quite complicated, that much should be clear and simple to understand.
you still haven't
|
On October 09 2008 13:31 mahnini wrote:
that's just it though it's not really what people would say "out of thin air". that is it's not random or arbitrary with no records or repercussions. a liability account still exists to record this money the banks just don't make money for no reason whenever they please. also, i don't think what you explained was the full extent of how money supply is increased or "created".
no, you're absolutely right, it's not "out of thin air". Or at least, it's not "money out of thin air"
it's CREDIT out of thin air, but in my previous post, i elaborated on the consequences of people not paying back their loans. Although its not exactly "money out of thin air", it has the same effect of increasing the money supply.
If people don't pay back their credit, which was conjured out of thin air, then you still have the same problem of an inflated money supply, money or no money.
just to illustrate how bad things truly are: the derivatives market is estimated to be valued at $1 quadrillion while all the total assets in the world amount to only about $100 trillion.... there's clearly a problem here.
|
On October 09 2008 13:32 ahrara_ wrote:
edit:
To confuse federal reserve banking with "printing money arbitrarily" (a rhetorical device the creaters of this video use to the detriment of your intellect) is just about the most ignorant thing you can say in this discussion. Please don't do it again. It makes you look ridiculous.
edit2:
I appreciate your posts gor.
I wasn't confusing the two, and I did point out that the film made errors. However, I find these to be technical details that only slightly detract from their main points.
Although printing money and fractional reserve banking are two different things, they both have the similar effects on increasing the money supply. Physical money isn't what we're talking about here when I say money supply btw...
|
Ah I was referring to other people who have. Sorry!
|
As for my review of the movie....
I can see why people would dismiss it as "conspiracy theory", and I agree it does seem like one.
However, alot of the points raised in the movie aren't new, nor are they part of some grand scheme by a group of shadowy conspirators.
Rather, one can study the history of political thought and all sorts of "Grand Theories" of politics/economics and piece together what this zeitgeist guy is trying to represent as a "Grand Conspiracy". Grand Conspiracy it is NOT though...
If you actually take the time to learn the economics and political theory behind all this, you will begin to understand these things as parts of a natural systemic processing of history driven by the forces of various systems... ie, the free market, the realist view of an anarchic international system, the rational actor model, mercantilism, liberalism, marxism,... they are all subjective interpretations of the same objectivity. Each emphasize different aspects of our systemic reality, but if you learn them all, you will realize that none are mutually exclusive.
What this movie presented was essentially a marxist critique of society... and while it is very powerful and highlights many truths, Marxism's weakest point has always been its focus on 'class struggle' which leads to theories of a conspiring superclass, when really, an expanded knowledge of econ and political theory can provide a much more convincing systemic explanation.
|
ps. in other words, what im trying to say is that the corruption of our current system is a reflection of humanity's own corrupted nature. The world isn't so black and white as *some* (ahem, bush administration) try to make it seem.
Free markets can be a force of liberation OR oppression, depending on how markets are applied.
Fractional banking can provide liquidity and thus a vibrant economy OR it could lead to inflation and thus destruction of wealth of everyday people
Just like guns could be used to attack or defend....
OH and one thing to the guy who brought up comparative advantage:
Yes everybody has a comparative advantage but focusing on your comparative advantage isnt always the best thing.
Take Japan for example, before modernization. Their comparative advantage? Fish. Now according to your argument, they should stick to fishing right? But where would they be now?
What Japan did was it used protectionist policies to nurture infant industries in manufacturing etc. These protectionist policies allowed these infant industries to grow into strong industries that could finally compete on the global free market. To sum it up: Japan created its own comparative advantage.
If Japan had depended on fish, it would have never diversified its economy and instead would've been dependent on a commodity. That's bad, 'cause it's vulnerable to price changes and also problems of sustainability. Japanese should be happy they diversified their economy by protecting against free trade.
How can free trade be used as a form of oppression? Just take a look at Nigeria... big oil companies come in and "help" Nigerians make use of their "comparative advantage"... but in the process they've destroyed an entire culture of self-sustaining agriculture and has created a lucrative economy in the short-term based on oil, but has in effect destabilized the economy by making it dependent in the long run. Some would even argue that the oil companies have more power than the Nigerian government.
hope that clears some things up
|
in sum: comparative advantage is good for the short term
but for long-term resilience, an economy should "manufacture" its own comparative advantage by diversifying and nurturing infant industries.
|
On October 09 2008 14:12 gor56 wrote:
in sum: comparative advantage is good for the short term
but for long-term resilience, an economy should "manufacture" its own comparative advantage by diversifying and nurturing infant industries.
That is what i tried to explain. But you did it better  .
|
On October 09 2008 16:01 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2008 14:12 gor56 wrote:
in sum: comparative advantage is good for the short term
but for long-term resilience, an economy should "manufacture" its own comparative advantage by diversifying and nurturing infant industries. That is what i tried to explain. But you did it better .
Yeah, all I'm trying to do is show that the arguments of liberalism (free market), mercantalism (state intervention/protectionism), and marxism (distribution) aren't mutually exclusive ideologies of economy, but rather are 3 subjective interpretations of 1 objective economic reality.
For developed states with strong economies, of course it's in their best interest to pursue freer markets.
For developing states, mercantalism makes alot of sense when you're considering the survival of a nation-state and its political independence/sovereignty.
Marxist critique of capitalist society keeps capitalism in check and is a watch-dog perspective promoting fairer distribution.
The way I see capitalism and free markets is that markets are like a powerful beast... wild, it can create lots but also destroy lots, but when tamed, its productive powers can be harnessed for benefit of all rather than the polarization of society.
The worse thing you could ever do to yourself intellectually is confine yourself to a narrow paradigm like many do with these economic perspectives. Recognize that they are all powerful arguments for very different reasons and you will see the tensions that drive political and economic history.
|
gor56
thats alot of text
and your completely missing the point
|
On October 09 2008 17:02 brambolius wrote:
gor56
thats alot of text
and your completely missing the point
wat.
he's right. you can only have a free market to an extent much like you can only have democracy to an extent or shit just tends to get out of hand.
|
On October 09 2008 16:40 gor56 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2008 16:01 Boblion wrote:On October 09 2008 14:12 gor56 wrote:
in sum: comparative advantage is good for the short term
but for long-term resilience, an economy should "manufacture" its own comparative advantage by diversifying and nurturing infant industries. That is what i tried to explain. But you did it better . Yeah, all I'm trying to do is show that the arguments of liberalism (free market), mercantalism (state intervention/protectionism), and marxism (distribution) aren't mutually exclusive ideologies of economy, but rather are 3 subjective interpretations of 1 objective economic reality. For developed states with strong economies, of course it's in their best interest to pursue freer markets. For developing states, mercantalism makes alot of sense when you're considering the survival of a nation-state and its political independence/sovereignty. Marxist critique of capitalist society keeps capitalism in check and is a watch-dog perspective promoting fairer distribution. The way I see capitalism and free markets is that markets are like a powerful beast... wild, it can create lots but also destroy lots, but when tamed, its productive powers can be harnessed for benefit of all rather than the polarization of society. The worse thing you could ever do to yourself intellectually is confine yourself to a narrow paradigm like many do with these economic perspectives. Recognize that they are all powerful arguments for very different reasons and you will see the tensions that drive political and economic history.
This is true. It is a terrible thing really how so many economists in powerful positions fail to realize that every economic policy has its uses, sometimes the free market is appropriate but this is a wild beat and betterment for the people is only achieved by harnessing its energy. 'mercantalism' in my opinion should always be the base upon which liberalism should come in place when and only when appropriate. In this way you achieve strategic objectives which exist beyond the purview of the free market whilst also harnessing as much free market efficiency as possible. Marxism I think its largely useful as a crisis tool. When stuff is goes really badly total state intervention can be the only alternative and it should never be disregarded.
Much of the reason this tragedy has happened because for short sighted political benefit they create this impression that there is socialism which is evil and bad and there is capitalism which is competent and moral effectively demonizing any economic policy which does not benefit corporate profits in the short run. The McCarthy trails are perhaps the most profound evidence of this in western cases, to even suggest that state intervention may be appropriate was criminal.
Such ideological considerations are irrelevant and undermine the capacity of management bodies to actually dictate policy effective policy. We would not have gotten into this economic mess if we never had ideology over ride what is appropriate in terms of pure economics which actually does inherently involve benefiting the people as any policy which only benefits the few is unsustainable in my opinion and the better the people is to better the health of the very fabric of your economic system.
|
On October 09 2008 13:34 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2008 13:28 gor56 wrote:
Oh, and the claim that money = debt has PLENTY of validity.
It should be plain for you to see with my example there... this is no big secret as the video makes it seem, its econ 101.
In a stable economy, most people are content with keeping their money in the bank. But when people lose confidence in the system and start withdrawing their money... well, its obvious that there's not enough to go around if everyone wanted their money back.
The entire system is based on everyone owing everybody else, or, debt backing debt, aka money = debt.
In a way, it provides a ton of liquidity for free enterprise, but when free enterprise overextends itself... blammo, subprime crisis 2008! of course some money is borrowed money, in fact, being a credit based economy maybe most of it is borrowed money. that doesn't mean that we have to go all crazy claiming perpetual debt with little to no hard evidence aside from broad conceptual summaries.
Perpetual debt is guaranteed so long as your rely upon expansionary monetary policy to sustain the level of demand in your economy. Debt has become unsustainable and like it or not, whether through concerted action or dragged kicking and screaming our debt levels must be reduced and there is nothing we can physically do to prevent that from occuring.
|
On October 09 2008 14:00 gor56 wrote:
As for my review of the movie....
I can see why people would dismiss it as "conspiracy theory", and I agree it does seem like one.
However, alot of the points raised in the movie aren't new, nor are they part of some grand scheme by a group of shadowy conspirators.
Rather, one can study the history of political thought and all sorts of "Grand Theories" of politics/economics and piece together what this zeitgeist guy is trying to represent as a "Grand Conspiracy". Grand Conspiracy it is NOT though...
If you actually take the time to learn the economics and political theory behind all this, you will begin to understand these things as parts of a natural systemic processing of history driven by the forces of various systems... ie, the free market, the realist view of an anarchic international system, the rational actor model, mercantilism, liberalism, marxism,... they are all subjective interpretations of the same objectivity. Each emphasize different aspects of our systemic reality, but if you learn them all, you will realize that none are mutually exclusive.
What this movie presented was essentially a marxist critique of society... and while it is very powerful and highlights many truths, Marxism's weakest point has always been its focus on 'class struggle' which leads to theories of a conspiring superclass, when really, an expanded knowledge of econ and political theory can provide a much more convincing systemic explanation.
When I talk on rare occasion with the radical socialists at university I come to the same conclusion; they are very good at pointing out our problems but not so good at dealing with them. I would reform the system, they would throw the entire system out the window and build something from scratch.
Grand Conspiracy this MAY BE in my opinion. There are shadowy organizations which exist beyond the jurisdiction of state and whose interests know no international boundary I THINK the Carlyle group may be one I'm not sure there are plenty of this 'conspiracy theories' easily accessible who go into detail about all this I couldn't be bothered finding it myself at the moment. The incentive exists for such a conspiracy to be a reality when entities have sufficient power to make it so incredible profits can be gained. It is un-deniable such organisations exist the only question is what exactly do they get up too and this is basically speculation. The existence of these groups is not by definition a bad thing but if they are driven purely by greed (which i do not actually think is the case) then it almost certainly is.
You comment that our system is essentially a slow development through history. This is true ofcourse and it may be that there are nothing driving toward a 'bad' outcome behind the scenes but it would appear in my opinion that there are shadowy elements who do try to casually and gradually shape events. They do this by providing support to political parties who support their economic agenda for example. This has made a situation develop today where the Republican party ignores economic policies which are appropriate and instead promise vast tax cuts to corporations and suck funding out of the real economy to pay for it. The United States political system is openly corrupt. It is public knowledge corporations provide campaign funds to candidates, profit maximising entities only make contributions expecting a return.
That this is effectively a grand conspiracy is unlikely, rather a system relatively isolated in direct intervention but grand in the extreme in implication. This outcome is a very real prospect and it is a reality in my opinion. One can trace various players in all this like for example Friedman economics which provide the basic justification for these economic policies whilst stifling debate by saying 'I am an economist, economics is a science, you do this and this will happen you do that that will happen' and they throw in economic mumbo jumbo to make themselves seem smarter than they are. A CEO says you workers have to accept lower wages and its sus, an economist says the same thing with said mumbo jumbo and it gives it a whole new air of authority.
Corporations lach onto these economists and ensure their voices are the ones heard and followed.
The fact that the Bush administration made it law that you can arrest an American citizen without evidence or trial and hold them for life in an offshore torture camp, plus the very real economic policies which has forced wealth out of the hands of the many and into the few casts a whole new light on an already very sus environment. There is now a 150,000 man mercenary army funded by the United States called 'Blackwater', a paramilitary organization who will fight for corporations in the further proliferation and maintenance of corporate objectives which is profit with a total disregard for social and economic impacts if it ever comes to that.
On that note ill say thank god for the right to bear arms as these 150,000 cannot control hundreds of millions with military grade weapons. The United States may have to fight for their freedom once more.
The Liberty and Freedom of the American people is at risk and their democracy has been stolen in the dead of night, the September 11 conspiracy again takes on new meaning in this context.
At the end of the day it is hard for anyone to say for sure whats really going down, but there is very good reason for genuine alarm. These forces act in many spheres, the social, the economic, and the geopolitical and domestic politics also. There is much blurring between the lines. I think ultimately the implications of all this are that we live in interesting times, and for better or for worse this systems days are numbered. Whether good or bad will triumph cannot be predicted but likely it will be a bit of both.
|
First off, let me just say that after reading everyone's posts, it is obvious that many of you are more well-versed in some economic areas than I am, and I enjoy your discussion on these very basic ideas I am presenting.
On October 09 2008 17:27 Choros wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2008 13:34 mahnini wrote:On October 09 2008 13:28 gor56 wrote:
Oh, and the claim that money = debt has PLENTY of validity.
It should be plain for you to see with my example there... this is no big secret as the video makes it seem, its econ 101.
In a stable economy, most people are content with keeping their money in the bank. But when people lose confidence in the system and start withdrawing their money... well, its obvious that there's not enough to go around if everyone wanted their money back.
The entire system is based on everyone owing everybody else, or, debt backing debt, aka money = debt.
In a way, it provides a ton of liquidity for free enterprise, but when free enterprise overextends itself... blammo, subprime crisis 2008! of course some money is borrowed money, in fact, being a credit based economy maybe most of it is borrowed money. that doesn't mean that we have to go all crazy claiming perpetual debt with little to no hard evidence aside from broad conceptual summaries. Perpetual debt is guaranteed so long as your rely upon expansionary monetary policy to sustain the level of demand in your economy. Debt has become unsustainable and like it or not, whether through concerted action or dragged kicking and screaming our debt levels must be reduced and there is nothing we can physically do to prevent that from occuring.
True, I don't even see how you can even present "hard evidence" for something as self evident as this. What about a historical graph of the components of the money supply? The debt is not only perpetual, but perpetually increasing...
The sub-prime lenders which everyone disdains are simply the ones who got caught on the losing end of this thing. They were one of the last debt-sinks which allowed the money supply to increase, and they happen to be the weakest link right now. There is not enough money for everyone to pay of their loans, so they are the first to go.
mahnini, you have been asking about how money is created out of thin air. You mistake the structured process of this money creation with the validity of it. Essentially, however much debt we can sustain determines how much money can be created out of thin air by the banking system as a whole.
For a clear explanation, refer to the graph below which I keep posting:
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/95/Components_of_the_United_States_money_supply2.svg/570px-Components_of_the_United_States_money_supply2.svg.png)
Now, observe something. All of the green is actual, real money. All of the gray represents real, physical collateral which is owed to banks. They are houses, hotels, farms, schools, companies, and much more. Literally trillions of dollars worth of assets. All of which are owed to banks. In fact, the amount of stuff owed to banks far exceeds the amount of physical money out there.
The only way this is possible is if the banks obtained the rights to that collateral without actually putting up valid consideration. You see, you sign your property over to the bank and they give you money which they don't actually have. Remember, the gray on that graph only exists as digits on a computer.
So essentially, the "thin air" part comes from the fact that you trade something physical for the bank writing something on a balance sheet. Yes, it is a structured procedure. But the very fact that more can be owed, orders of magnitude more, than there is money in the economy shows that something is being created out of thin air, or else you would need an equal amount of value for the value of the collateral being offered.
|
I think we can all agree that our actual system essentially benefits greed over any kind of ethic or altruistic behavior and that's basically the core of the problem, granted that this greed is already within our nature. There's no need for a concrete conspiracy ("the men behind the curtain" for instance) for this system to be so corrupted; the sole rule of the maximum profit is enough for these inhumane acts to be perpetrated by anyone who's got the power (money) to do so, and who's of course willing to do anything to keep the establishment. Expecting corporations to act ethically is essentially wrong, because we can be sure that anything they claim to do ethically will only be a mask to hide their true brutality and lack of ethic.
So, if we concur that greed is within our nature and that being in a system that rewards avarice just feeds and corrupts that part of our nature then there's only two ways of solving that problem in my opinion:
a) Having a strong education that helps people realize this and act consequently, and teaches us how to think by ourselves and not be another brainless guy following the established system like a sheep. But that doesn't really solve much since we all know the importance of education and yet it is how it is today...
b) Building a system that prevent those things from happening which I guess it's the most difficult part to accomplish. There are so many political views and perspectives that being able to find the one that more or less suits us all is practically impossible.
Given the nihilistic indifference the majority of people have towards our social and political problems, all of this more of an utopian dream than a possible future reality.
As for what I think would be our best system, Bakunin already said:
"Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality".
|
On October 09 2008 17:02 brambolius wrote:
gor56
thats alot of text
and your completely missing the point
What point am I missing?
Choros: I agree with most of what you're saying. The short response is that, when I say that nothing is a "grand conspiracy", I'm not dismissing the fact that a few shadowy groups do exist that are quite powerful. I can name a few myself (Olin foundation anyone?) However, they are not so powerful that they control everything... they do what they can to 'nudge' things in their favor.
I'm saying that these shadow groups, along with governments, corporations, and everyday people... are all just acting out their rational self-interests, much in the same way a consumer acts in rational self-interest, even Stalin, Hitler, Mugabe... the great thing about the rational actor model is that we can apply it to almost anything
While it is possible that this could all be a grand conspiracy, the conspirators would have to be much more cohesive to convince me that it is"grand" at all. My paradigm places class at the center of the picture, where the elites all share common interests and the majority of us...well, most of us just work, consume, and die. Through that perspective, it does seem like there's a grand conspiracy as it paints a neat "us vs them" picture. However, I'm pretty sure the elites are not as monolithic as these conspiracy videos make them sound. I applaud the videos for revealing the extent of their connections and powers, but clearly, they are not omnipotent.
That being said, what IS most omnipotent is quantified logic which dominates our world. The video mentions this briefly but I wish they could've expanded on it, I'll go into it more later.
|
On October 09 2008 19:00 kemoryan wrote:
a) Having a strong education that helps people realize this and act consequently, and teaches us how to think by ourselves and not be another brainless guy following the established system like a sheep. But that doesn't really solve much since we all know the importance of education and yet it is how it is today...
Thus the importance of the education system. There have throughout a very long period of time i.e thousands of years, educational systems which have attempted to infiltrate ideological beliefs upon young people to shape their long terms beliefs as well ofcourse with attempting to convert the older but this is less important. A contemporary example are the schools sprouting up by the thousand in the tribal regions of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan, schools which teach there students to fight and die for Allah and schools which indoctrinate their students to follow a belief system which tells its students that their women are little better than cattle who cannot be trusted to go out on their own without male supervision. Another clear example is the Japanese education system which led to the fanaticism in world war two by teaching students to fight to the death for the emperor etc. The power of the education system cannot be under exaggerated.
The poor funding of the American education system appears to be part of a concerted effort to control the masses (this is not necessarily the case and may be the product of happenstance but i am inclined to believe that atleast to some extent there are other hands at work). You have a bad education system combined with a ridiculously poor media, the people don't know what the fuck is going on and often will actively support policies which go against their interest. Its as simple as that. Then you distort both these mediums and you can effectively manipulate the perceptions of whats going on to your own benefit. Individuals however understand the true state of their economic system and this can only be disguised so far. If the situation degenerates considerably a frightening prospect of absolute chaos and bloodshed exists due to the extent of armaments along with the fractionalisation of American society, you have got the Mexicans (who still refer to California, New Mexico etc as the occupied states, recalling the agressive American invasion and annexation of these regions) along with the blacks the hicks etc. If it all goes to hell it may be bloody in the extreme but at the end of the day the founding fathers were revolutionaries and this may be the appropriate response once more.
During the French revolution the French basically rounded up all their rich people and cut off their heads. They have had one of the highest standards of living on the planet ever since, and all neighboring nations increased the quality of lives of their people out of fear that there people would revolt, it is in the capacity of the wealthy to increase the standard of living of all its just a matter of making it in their interest this can be achieved, through peaceful methods also. But the lesson the the French revolution should never be forgotten.
The United States has created an ideology which says that the United States is the land of opportunity, if you try hard enough anybody can become incredibility rich. Therefore if you are not rich it is because you are lazy. If you are lazy why should the state help you? It is your own fault. This is clearly not the case, there is a serious distortion which allows the perpetuation of a system which creates enormous income inequality. A system which allows the rich provide less assistance to the populous than any western nation since the French revolution.
The best thing however is that the armament of the population alongside with the indoctrinational belief in freedom and liberty means that you can say to a soldier that your fighting in Iraq for freedom and they will fight with their lives, but can you ask them to shoot American civilians in the name of freedom? It's not going to work it is as simple as that, the Black Water private army simply is not enough to be able to control an armed population.
The diabolical forces behind all this are not stupid. They have been deceived in terms of economics just like so many others have. It is not in there interest to destroy the global economy, but some economists appear to be clinically insane yet they sound reasonable and they enjoy comfortable support.
b) Building a system that prevent those things from happening which I guess it's the most difficult part to accomplish. There are so many political views and perspectives that being able to find the one that more or less suits us all is practically impossible.
On this point I completely disagree. I believe that competent policies will by definition itself benefit all and they thus should enjoy bipartisan support. The problem is not the capacity nor the knowledge to actually create a decent system, and then improve it once more and time and again until that ultimate economic system is a reality. The problem is the fact is politicians are not economists (not that being an economist will help much of the time), They exist is a situation where you are incredibly constrained in the real actions that you can take. We must reform our economic system yet there seems to be no one with the authority to do so, and the fact that all western states agree allows complacency in domestic politics.
Given the nihilistic indifference the majority of people have towards our social and political problems, all of this more of an utopian dream than a possible future reality.
In my opinion the indifference is caused by two factors. 1) The lack of competent alternatives. People look at politics, see a bunch of idiots and give up. 2) The lack of incentive.
If the situation deteriorates then people will suddenly ask why, and what can be done. People will suddenly demand the changes which are necessary and hopefully we will be in a good enough state to make this a reality.
As for what I think would be our best system, Bakunin already said:
"Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality".
And any system without liberty is unsustainable. It involves sucking wealth out of your economy without replacement, and it involves the wealth of your nation existing primarily in a fantasy realm alongside perpetually increasing debt to create the illusion of subsistence. 3% of American money is actually real. The economic solution inherently involves liberty and justice for all and a good standard of living which reaches to even the lowest of society. The key is freeing politics and economic management from ideological arguments which defy true logic and ignore genuine debate.
We should never forget Thomas Jefferson who said that "The greatest threat to liberty are the money lenders who pose a far greater threat than any standing army". Debt cannot be ignored and we must reduce it now lest we condemn ourselves to becoming little more than slaves.
|
the great thing about the rational actor model is that we can apply it to almost anything
While it is possible that this could all be a grand conspiracy, the conspirators would have to be much more cohesive to convince me that it is"grand" at all.
Yes it is most likely that it is not a grand conspiracy yet the combined effort of powerful entities perusing greed focused ambition is grand in implication, and grand in solution. Although the policies themselves may seem rather non-radical.
My paradigm places class at the center of the picture, where the elites all share common interests and the majority of us...well, most of us just work, consume, and die. Through that perspective, it does seem like there's a grand conspiracy as it paints a neat "us vs them" picture.
This type of picture is basically the norm in any type of conflict. The Buddhists say that in conflict you will inevitably adopt that which you hate in your enemy. For example the slaughter of civilians by strategic bombings in world war two by the western powers. The 'bad guys' will not hesitate to to enleash pure propaganda, so what if the 'good guys' are a bit propagandist in turn?
However, I'm pretty sure the elites are not as monolithic as these conspiracy videos make them sound. I applaud the videos for revealing the extent of their connections and powers, but clearly, they are not omnipotent.
I think their power is actually quite fragile. It exists within the media and as this quiet influence but it is highly lacking in terms of physical power. Their brazenness of late defies logic, assuming they don't know something we aren't aware of. But again I believe this is because they have been deceived just like everyone else about the sustainability of this system.
That being said, what IS most omnipotent is quantified logic which dominates our world. The video mentions this briefly but I wish they could've expanded on it, I'll go into it more later.
Qualified logic is almost omnipotent in potential, but its omnipotence does not translate by definition into actually being followed. So often our actions defy logic, it is possible for us even under bad case (worst case involves everyone spontaneously rolling over dieing in effect) circumstances to achieve a society the likes of which we have only seen in science fiction yet now it is a scientific and theoretical reality. It even exceeds the dreams of those science fiction writes of decades past.
We must separate ourselves from these oil companies and others who actively prevent development. We should be happy that this is actually happening. For example general motors are releasing an electric car. The rising cost of oil has applied pressure on the car firms are created innovation so congrats to the free market, but we cannot achieve what we really want without strategic direction which only the government can provide. Those at the top must realize that change is inevitable and thus will support it. The fact is that there have been great civilizations before and they haven't survived under similar circumstances, concerted action must be taken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
