Moderator: Community Team
DoomYoshi wrote:The small amount of Japanese land devoted to agriculture would be better suited as Shrines to War Criminals (just to piss off the Chinese).
...
Build a better military. It's time to retake Manchuria.
DoomYoshi wrote:1) Stimulus packages: the idea is for the government to spend money to at least keep people employed. Usually applied towards infrastructure projects (as is the case with Japan's plan). In Ontario during the Great Depression, we built tons of highways. The reason this failed then (as well as every other infrastructure-oriented stimulus) is that it creates long-term cost on the government (and therefore society) in exchange for a miniscule (although measurable) increase in economy.
The other third of this "stimulus package" (I hate the name, it really should be money-wasting package) is a sort of subsidy program for clean energy companies. Government subsidies ruin every industry they touch. India has finally admitted it is losing billions subsidizing rice, as well as every other country that has subsidy programs (except for a few with strict anti-defamation laws in which you are not allowed to talk about subsidies).
If everyone got along fine last year, why does the national GDP need to rise?
The second major one is that even if you wanted growth (which no sane person does)
When the best and brightest in the United States all became bankers,
they also became leeches. They weren't creating wealth - they were creating numbers on spreadsheets. Only a banker will tell you that if you borrow at 3% and lend at 5%, you have created wealth.
Metsfanmax wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:1) Stimulus packages: the idea is for the government to spend money to at least keep people employed. Usually applied towards infrastructure projects (as is the case with Japan's plan). In Ontario during the Great Depression, we built tons of highways. The reason this failed then (as well as every other infrastructure-oriented stimulus) is that it creates long-term cost on the government (and therefore society) in exchange for a miniscule (although measurable) increase in economy.
Why are you confident that the effect on the economy is miniscule? Roads have demonstrable public worth independent of the short-term jobs program that building roads requires. They stimulate people to buy automobiles and it enables transportation of goods and people more easily between markets. I don't think you could just assert without evidence that the net economic effect is negative when measured over the long term.
When asphalt road construction first wave (the 20s and 30s; even into the 60s); it was connecting lots of towns too small to warrant railroads so that would have had huge impact. Now the idea behind building more roads is so that more houses can be built. It's sort of a growth spurring tactic that is a Ponzi scheme. You get people involved in these construction projects so they have a job. People move into the houses. Where are these people going to work? Building more houses! It's an impractical idea. We get away with it in Canada because we still have like 90% crown land or something. Japan is smaller than Montana, but fits half the US population.The other third of this "stimulus package" (I hate the name, it really should be money-wasting package) is a sort of subsidy program for clean energy companies. Government subsidies ruin every industry they touch. India has finally admitted it is losing billions subsidizing rice, as well as every other country that has subsidy programs (except for a few with strict anti-defamation laws in which you are not allowed to talk about subsidies).
Government subsidies may often be bad but there are some counterexamples. The DOE loan programs office has invested in a number of clean energy firms and their loss of capital is 4%, meaning they'll easily make back more from interest than they lost from the couple of firms that ended up failing. I have heard it said that this is a much better success rate than most venture capitalists achieve.
Meh. I'm a biologist, so counterexamples don't disprove my theories. I realize I'm a bit out of my league here; and still in they hypothesis stating period, but everything is based on observations.If everyone got along fine last year, why does the national GDP need to rise?
What is your definition of "everyone got along fine" last year? Did everyone in your country get along fine? I cannot speak for Canada but there are plenty of people here in America for whom a little more money would be a very welcome thing and would substantially improve their quality of life. We don't live in a utopia where everyone has what they needs, and if progress/growth gets us closer to that utopia, then aiming for it is not "sick" but actually admirable.
The problem is that it doesn't. Growth always creates inequality, as the return on capital is always greater than the rate of economic growth. Quality of life, measured around here, is in how fast your "Phone" is, how many facelifts you can get, how many artisanal hamburgers you can eat. A subsistence farmer could live fine - even more so with modern technology. Imagine a company owned by a man who made exactly $50 million last year. If he only makes $49 million, he considers it a loss. If I made $49 million, I would consider it a gain. It is a sick mentality to think that $49 million in the black equates $1 million in the red. Yet this is the philosophy that is dominating the elites of the business world.
The working class is going hand-in-hand down this path, so they can't be excused either, but I think the top needs to change.The second major one is that even if you wanted growth (which no sane person does)
Are you stating that the people who believe in growth are literally insane? What is your evidence for this?
Yes. The arbitrary measures of growth don't create real products. As TVs become cheaper to make (the whole first tv off the assembly line is the most expensive argument); the profit of the TV company, and therefore the GDP, shrinks. So the TV company has to come up with new products which are more expensive, just to maintain "growth". If there was a law stating that everyone had 1 television (or 6 televisions, or 50) and that they couldn't buy more then "the economy would shrink". How does that have any bearing on anything?When the best and brightest in the United States all became bankers,
There's a very palpable reason for why many PhDs leave academia for finance -- there aren't many jobs in academia compared to the number of academic PhDs. If you want to increase the number of people doing science, you have to create more science jobs, not take away more finance jobs. Of course, we could do that with government investment in basic scientific research at universities, which I am sure meshes well with the above economic philosophy you've espoused
Thinking of "many jobs" is part of the problem. I think the best and brightest have a moral responsibility to actually create jobs; by becoming entrepreneurs. I understand this is a probable point of contention.they also became leeches. They weren't creating wealth - they were creating numbers on spreadsheets. Only a banker will tell you that if you borrow at 3% and lend at 5%, you have created wealth.
It is true that most of the people who argue that modern finance is socially beneficial are bankers, but that doesn't mean their argument (something about improving liquidity and increasing the accuracy of prices) is incorrect.
Improving liquidity isn't a great thing. It creates more imaginary money, and less real wealth. There is a reason societies around the world for thousands of years had debtor's prisons, and banned usury. What do you think that reason is?
nietzsche wrote:distract yourself from what's really important to you with theories and ideas that your brain has learned to crave.
_sabotage_ wrote:Good post DY, but what's this about debtor prisons?
_sabotage_ wrote:Ok, I mean, can you elaborate on the point you are trying to get at?
Debtor's prisons come from the government's ability to tax, and their ability to enforce the tax with forced servitude/conscription. As the nations became more capitalistic, the power was passed to the people, but through and for the government.
But I don't get the relation to usury laws, or your overall message.
DoomYoshi wrote:_sabotage_ wrote:Ok, I mean, can you elaborate on the point you are trying to get at?
Debtor's prisons come from the government's ability to tax, and their ability to enforce the tax with forced servitude/conscription. As the nations became more capitalistic, the power was passed to the people, but through and for the government.
But I don't get the relation to usury laws, or your overall message.
We live in this fantasy world where fantasy dollars are acceptable parts of currency. This could mean many things, such as valuations in stock instead of cash, fiat currency etc.
I prefer to attack the most fundamental part of this fantasy - our acceptance of it. Part of this is that we live in a world where liability (and multi-million dollar insurance corporations) have replaced personal responsibility.
The larger part of this fantasy is that growth comes not through people earning more money and buying more things. Rather, it comes from people borrowing more money and buying more things. I look at countries which have federal budgets as %100+ of GDP and for the longest time I couldn't understand how anyone thought that was anywhere close to sane. Then I realized that consumers have the same debt-to-profit ratio. The debt trap is designed so that not only can you not escape, you also shouldn't want to. I would like to change the debt trap into a more defensible thing.
Here are a few steps I recommend:
1) End insurance companies
2) Eliminate credit cards, but still allow charge cards
3) Tie currency back to Gold; Publicly make any honor of any of the presidents who perpetuated this a hate crime No more FDR libraries or WW NGOs
4) Define growth as "Profit from Jan 1st" instead of "Profit from Jan 1st compared to last year's profit from Jan 1st"
5) Stop buying shit
DoomYoshi wrote:What's the kernel in this case?
DoomYoshi wrote:It's an island... only clowns think it should be an agricultural powerhouse.
Lootifer wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:It's an island... only clowns think it should be an agricultural powerhouse.
Urghh, *polite cough*
Users browsing this forum: No registered users