That’s for sure. Never. Because it was a boom. We will finally get back to making things. š
Theme: Productivity
-
The Financial Sector And Related White Collar Jobs Will Never Recover
That’s for sure. Never. Because it was a boom. We will finally get back to making things. š
-
A Reply To Paul Craig Roberts: Weāre Not Exporting Democracy. Weāre Exporting Co
A Reply To Paul Craig Roberts: Weāre Not Exporting Democracy. Weāre Exporting Consumer Capitalism. http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/02/17/a-reply-to-paul-craig-roberts-were-not-exporting-democracy-were-exporting-consumer-capitalism/
Source date (UTC): 2012-02-17 20:09:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/170600778493472768
-
We’re Not Exporting Democracy. We’re Exporting Consumer Capitalism. And Our Military Is Very A Profitable Investment. (Really)
USEFUL IDEAS FOR DEFENSE OF CONSERVATIVE IDEAS On [online magazine] Counterpunch today, Paul Craig Roberts asks Is Western Democracy Real or a Facade? He starts with:
The United States government and its NATO puppets have been killing Muslim men, women and children for a decade in the name of bringing them democracy. But is the West itself a bastion of democracy?
He then goes on to list a number of American sins that broadcast to the world our hypocrisy. Itās a straw man argument that seeks to reframe historical American strategic policy into current populist jargon for what must be purely political reasons. I have only met Paul once, quite a few years ago, and only for a few minutes of discusion at a conference, but he appears to be an honest man, and I can only attribute this article to the effects of accumulated frustration. Which I can understand. But a questionable portrayal of events hinging upon a specious moral argument does nothing to improve matters at all. Itās much more helpful to deal with the facts and determine where we go from there: GEOPOLITICAL STRATEGY REGARDING THE MUSLIM WORLD1) The United states government has been attempting to contain the Muslim world since the fall of the British Empire for the following reasons:
Americans are pragmatic. They ally with successful states and not with failed or failing states. The determine failed or failing by the level of internal conflict. As the worldās policemen Americans see conflict as requiring their involvement, and at great cost. So they are simply pragmatic in seeking to support āsuccessfulā states: those without violent conflict. THE WORLD’S POLICEMEN America has assumed the role of the worldās policemen for two reasons:
Both the assumption of the system of trade, and the the desire to provide an alternative to world communism, are pragmatic choices, not ideological choices. For some reason americans are comfortable criticizing a political ideology like communism that is little more than a religion wrapped in pseudo economic dogma, than they are in criticizing a religion that is little more than a political movement. If americans would correct this error in their ātalking pointsā the battle against Islam would be much easier. Islam is not a religion. It is a political system, and a religion in name only. AMERICAN STRATEGIC ERRORS American errors over the past decades have been the following:
Historian Oswald Spengler called western civilization Faustian: westerners keep pursuing this ideological view of human nature despite the obvious fact that we are making a deal with the devil in order to achieve the impossible. The west is exceptional. Our culture can never be universal. Criticisms of the NeoCons are correct in that they assume human consensus with western values and where they attempt nation building. Criticisms of the NeoConās are wrong where they seek to contain islamic civilization by military means. Islam is far worse a threat than marxism. At least marxism was subject to rational criticism. Muslims appear entirely happy to think themselves self righteous and holy as they descend into permanent ignorant illiterate abject poverty and vent their failure outward as terrorism. THE COMMERCIAL SOCIETY2) The US does not support Democracy. It supports success. Americans are a commercial people. Much more commercial even than Europeans (which is why they donāt understand Americans at times.) In fact, the only thing Americans have in common is their commercial sentiments. CONSUMER CAPITALISM NOT DEMOCRACY3) The US advances āConsumer Capitalismā not Democracy. Democracy is a code word for āConsumer Capitalismā.
POLITICAL COMPATIBILITY OF CONSUMER CAPITALISM4) Consumer Capitalism is not incompatible with what we popularly call Social Democracy: Redistributive Social Democracy. Under Redistributive Social Democracy, profits are captured through taxation and redistributed, allowing the market system to function using both incentives and the information embodied in prices. Consumer capitalism is incompatible with Socialism and Communism, both of which destroy incentives and the information embodied in prices. Consumer capitalism is compatible with libertarianism, conservative classical liberalism, and progressive social democracy ā all of which interfere in the economy to varying degrees. Consumer Capitalism is just not compatible with a managed economy. Americans are exporting social democracy and consumer capitalism. But theyāll take consumer capitalism alone if they can get it. Why? Because it decreases the cost of policing and decreases the risk to the average American (Canadian, Brit, German, Belgian, Italian, Australian.) WE’RE A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY5) Technically speaking, the USA is not a democracy. Itās a representative republic. Thatās why we have the Senate and the Electoral College: to inhibit the dangers of democracy. In particular, our political system is organized to prevent democratic āfashionabilityā with a hard constitution (that the progressives have effectively ruined via the commerce clause, and through judicial activism rather than calling for a constitutional convention) a high-turnover house, and a longer turnover senate (that was originally appointed not directly elected). So technically, weāre exporting āSocial Democratic Republican Consumer Capitalism.ā ECONOMIC IMPACT AND ANALYSIS6) If America loses its military power, its control over oil, or the dollarās status as a reserve currency, then the āaverageā American, if there even is such a thing, will experience a drastic reduction in standard of living. We complain about our national debt and our military expense. But really, this is how it all works out: We spend a lot of money policing the world. We export debt to pay for it. The debt encourages the world to support our policing activities. We inflate the debt away. And we obtain economic advantage that directly benefits the average American raising his or her economic class by something on the order of 50%. If you travel the world, and then come back to the states,its blatantly obvious the average person can consume vastly more as an American than anyone else on earth: more living space, more heat and air conditioning, more varieties of food, more kinds of entertainment, more information, and more air travel, more car travel, more free time. More everything. So, the pure COST of our military activity is a cheap return. It costs $700B this year, and our entire interest burden is $227B. Over the next three years alone, the American government will inflate 30% of that debt away. We do not directly bill the world for our services, but we DO INDIRECTLY charge them for it, and it is our MOST PROFITABLE export. There is a difference between wasting money and putting it to good use. Our military is not a poor use of funds. BUT the cost of nation building is impossible to bear. If we must bomb a country into submission thatās one thing. In many cases ā preventing communism, preventing a nuclear Iran ā its the lesser of two evils. But we cannot transform its culture or its economy. We canāt. That cost is infinite. And itās futile. Thanks Curt Doolittle


-
A Hobby Can’t Be A Market Failure
On economics help, we get to see a how political failure is cast as market failure.
Agriculture often appears to be one of the most difficult industries, frequently leading to some form of market failure. In the EU, agriculture is the most heavily subsidised industry, yet despite the cost of the subsidy, it fails to address issues relating to agriculture.
Then the author compounds the error by stating that the volatility of weather creates a volatility in prices:
The problem of volatile prices is that: 1. A sharp drop in price leads to a fall in revenue for farmers. Farmers could easily go out of business if their is a glut in supply because prices can plummet below cost. 2. Cobweb Theory. The cobweb theory suggests prices can become stuck in a cycle of ever-increasing volatility. E.g. if prices fall like in the above example. Many farmers will go out of business. Next year supply will fall. This causes price to increase. However, this higher price acts as incentive for greater supply. Therefore, next year supply increases and prices plummet again!. 3. Consumers can be faced with rapid increase in food prices which reduces their disposable income.
To which I replied: Fascinating. Fascinating that you would consider any of these properties a market failure. 1) Farming has declined as an employer of people since 1900 to the point where it is now little more than a subsidized hobby industry that we support for purely aesthetic reasons. For that reason alone, it cannot experience āmarket failureā. Itās a commoditized industry. Farming is an industrial occupation for conglomerates. Everyone else in the business is in it out of love or habit not profit. 2) The US western expansion was created in an era of farming, and the land settled by farmers (and ranchers). The era of industrial expansion was created to support the expansion of farming. Now that farming has become mechanized and industrialized, people are leaving the breadbasket for the commercial and technological centers ā thatās why those parts of the country are being depopulated. 3) It is impossible for farming to experience āmarket failureā. It is only possible for people to cling to an unproductive means of production, and to fail to develop alternative careers. The problem is political failure. Not market failure. Markets canāt fail. They can be insufficient to solve certain problems of capital concentration that only governments can accomplish. The political failure of attempting to persist farming is a failure because the market is telling us that farming is no longer valuable as an occupation. The political system is failing because it cannot develop alternatives to farming fast enough. Itās a problem of political failure not market failure. And itās human failure. The romantic and luddite desire for antiquated means of production.
-
A Hobby Can’t Be A Market Failure
On economics help, we get to see a how political failure is cast as market failure.
Agriculture often appears to be one of the most difficult industries, frequently leading to some form of market failure. In the EU, agriculture is the most heavily subsidised industry, yet despite the cost of the subsidy, it fails to address issues relating to agriculture.
Then the author compounds the error by stating that the volatility of weather creates a volatility in prices:
The problem of volatile prices is that: 1. A sharp drop in price leads to a fall in revenue for farmers. Farmers could easily go out of business if their is a glut in supply because prices can plummet below cost. 2. Cobweb Theory. The cobweb theory suggests prices can become stuck in a cycle of ever-increasing volatility. E.g. if prices fall like in the above example. Many farmers will go out of business. Next year supply will fall. This causes price to increase. However, this higher price acts as incentive for greater supply. Therefore, next year supply increases and prices plummet again!. 3. Consumers can be faced with rapid increase in food prices which reduces their disposable income.
To which I replied: Fascinating. Fascinating that you would consider any of these properties a market failure. 1) Farming has declined as an employer of people since 1900 to the point where it is now little more than a subsidized hobby industry that we support for purely aesthetic reasons. For that reason alone, it cannot experience āmarket failureā. Itās a commoditized industry. Farming is an industrial occupation for conglomerates. Everyone else in the business is in it out of love or habit not profit. 2) The US western expansion was created in an era of farming, and the land settled by farmers (and ranchers). The era of industrial expansion was created to support the expansion of farming. Now that farming has become mechanized and industrialized, people are leaving the breadbasket for the commercial and technological centers ā thatās why those parts of the country are being depopulated. 3) It is impossible for farming to experience āmarket failureā. It is only possible for people to cling to an unproductive means of production, and to fail to develop alternative careers. The problem is political failure. Not market failure. Markets canāt fail. They can be insufficient to solve certain problems of capital concentration that only governments can accomplish. The political failure of attempting to persist farming is a failure because the market is telling us that farming is no longer valuable as an occupation. The political system is failing because it cannot develop alternatives to farming fast enough. Itās a problem of political failure not market failure. And itās human failure. The romantic and luddite desire for antiquated means of production.
-
Classifying People By Their Government Rather Than Occupation Simply Justifies The Expansion Of State Power
Today, Krugman yet again argues that there is a lack of demand. Yes, there is a lack of demand, I agree. There is a lack of demand because our lower classes are unproductive in comparison to their peers in the world. There is a lack of demand for their labor. Since there is a lack of demand for their labor, there is a lack of money for them to spend. A state is merely one means of classifying people, and it’s a convenient one for statists, whose only purpose is to justify expansion of the state. In a world of relatively free trade, people are citizens of their occupational sector. The American upper classes have moved ahead with the rest of the world economy, and the American lower classes have not. And the reason for that failure is state policy, and in particular, state policy on education. State policy on education is more concerned with achieving political unity between disparate races and cultures than it is in creating productive citizens who can compete in the world market, and therefore create demand. Harrison Bergeron writes for TheTimes.
-
Defining ‘Rich’. It’s Easy: Whomever Can Exit Participation In The Market
On Economix at the NYT, Bruce Bartlett writes that it’s difficult to count who’s ‘rich’.
The first thing to know is that there is no formal definition of who is rich, middle class or poor. Of course, there is an official definition for the poverty rate, but that figure is just a back of the envelope calculation that has simply been increased by the inflation rate since the 1960s. There are many other ways of calculating the poverty rate that could either raise the poverty threshold or reduce it. Another problem is that oneās social class is a function of both income and wealth. There are many among the elderly who have little income but may have fairly substantial wealth by, for example, owning a home free and clear. At the other end, there are those with high incomes who are, nevertheless, deeply in debt, perhaps even having a negative net worth.
It is certainly possible to calculate who is ‘rich’. The goal of every individual is to exit the market. Whether that individual studies hard to get a good (protected) job in big company, or works for the government which by definition is extra-market (and protected), or seeks a (protected) union job, or whether that person does none of that rent-seeking, and instead, exits the market through saving or investment. “Rich” means ‘exiting the market’. To exit the market one needs roughly on hundred times the median income, or about 4.5-5M today. It used to be that a million dollars meant something meaningful, but it doesn’t. You can easily burn through it if you’re the kind of person that can make it in the first place. Rich is a balance sheet calculation, not an income calculation. If a person’s balance sheet exceeds about one hundred times the median income (which is by definition, the 1%) then realistically, it doesn’t matter how much of their income you tax. I suspect that the various means of calculating maximum utility taxation is closer to 60 or 65% based upon what I can find. But if you tax the income of a small business person who is trying to exit the market, then we certainly have the right to wipe out social security, wipe out pension programs, fire federal workers and wipe out their savings. Because unless those assets are counted, the definition of ‘rich’ is asymmetrically used to punish people who participate in the market.
-
Defining ‘Rich’. It’s Easy: Whomever Can Exit Participation In The Market
On Economix at the NYT, Bruce Bartlett writes that it’s difficult to count who’s ‘rich’.
The first thing to know is that there is no formal definition of who is rich, middle class or poor. Of course, there is an official definition for the poverty rate, but that figure is just a back of the envelope calculation that has simply been increased by the inflation rate since the 1960s. There are many other ways of calculating the poverty rate that could either raise the poverty threshold or reduce it. Another problem is that oneās social class is a function of both income and wealth. There are many among the elderly who have little income but may have fairly substantial wealth by, for example, owning a home free and clear. At the other end, there are those with high incomes who are, nevertheless, deeply in debt, perhaps even having a negative net worth.
It is certainly possible to calculate who is ‘rich’. The goal of every individual is to exit the market. Whether that individual studies hard to get a good (protected) job in big company, or works for the government which by definition is extra-market (and protected), or seeks a (protected) union job, or whether that person does none of that rent-seeking, and instead, exits the market through saving or investment. “Rich” means ‘exiting the market’. To exit the market one needs roughly on hundred times the median income, or about 4.5-5M today. It used to be that a million dollars meant something meaningful, but it doesn’t. You can easily burn through it if you’re the kind of person that can make it in the first place. Rich is a balance sheet calculation, not an income calculation. If a person’s balance sheet exceeds about one hundred times the median income (which is by definition, the 1%) then realistically, it doesn’t matter how much of their income you tax. I suspect that the various means of calculating maximum utility taxation is closer to 60 or 65% based upon what I can find. But if you tax the income of a small business person who is trying to exit the market, then we certainly have the right to wipe out social security, wipe out pension programs, fire federal workers and wipe out their savings. Because unless those assets are counted, the definition of ‘rich’ is asymmetrically used to punish people who participate in the market.
-
created more jobs than Reid ever has. And probably paid more taxes
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/12/reid_millionaire_job_creators_are_like_unicorns_because_they_dont_exist.html#.TuakAVgFvgw.facebookI’ve created more jobs than Reid ever has. And probably paid more taxes.
Source date (UTC): 2011-12-12 20:02:00 UTC