OT: Our Economy (US)

[wr8th]

Yes Chapter 11. The one that the legislators now wring their hands over the effect of unintentional provisoes. Companies that bring forth suits are not even heard in court but in closed proceedings not open to the public.

No use blaming Republicans or Democrats on this gaff back in '92. They were both for it!

Given that when I occasionally tune into CSPAN to watch a vote being taken in a half-empty chamber, I doubt that the nimrods who voted for NAFTA even read the provisions, much less understood them. Another shining example of a successful lobbying effort.

Damn, and I came here to get away from these types of discussions on other Boards.

[Wardad]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cyrien:
... You can look at the numbers and see that exactly one thing and one thing only ended that 80's depression. OIL. ... it isn't just Gasoline. Think of all the ways oil is used and how the prices of all those are affected. Oil for lubrication. Oil based paints. Oil based pLastics. And of course oil fules... Transporting the Goods. ...

---

Check out http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/

I hit the job market in 73. Laid off shortly after during the embargo. It was tough and made me aware of the importance of OIL.
This Last recesion started with higher oil prices. Of course the overblown Internet Tech Rush and other foolish house of cards were the first victims.

Our global economy is built on cheap transportation. Taking advantage of Economy-of-Scale manufacturing and cheap labor. Double the transport costs and maybe we will make shoes all over the US again.

------------------------------------

UPGRADES HAPPEN!!!

[wr8th]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kinboat:

Didn't upset me, I personally agree with you here. One symptom of the current system is seeing people more as consumers instead of producers. Unemployment is a prime example... When in an agrarian society would there be unemployment? There wouldn't be much because everyone has their own land farming for their own food. It's only when you get into mass-production that you start making so much junk you don't need more producers, just more consumers. Unemployment and social castes (rich, richer, and poor) result. Don't know if I even understand that one sentence. Anyway I'd just like to say, excellent arguments all around.

---

Whereas the emphasis on conspicuous consumption as a mark of success has, IMO, helped to eliminate the general health of the family institution, consumption itself also drives the push for technology.

Make no mistake, returning to an agrarian society of gentlemen farmers would not be a turn in the right direction. It's one thing to keep a family plot to augment your caloric intake, quite another to farm for a living in this day and age (unless you're Amish). No unemployment? How about starvation or losing your farm when there's too little or not enough rain. Can anyone say "sharecropper", or worse yet, "serf". Not too many true Jeffersonians left, except for the re-enactors.

On the contrary, it's mass production and the economies of scale that have made this hemisphere the breadbasket of the world.

Social castes will always exist to an extent or other because not all people are cut from the same cloth. Unlike what a Socialism Purist would have you believe, Capitalism, or the hybrid of Capitalism and Socialism that we labor under exists as a hybrid because purism requires another "ism" for it to work: fanaticism. For the average Joe/Jane busy going about their lives seeking to better their lot in life and that of their kin, capitalism, with it's emphasis on incentive and reward is more attractive than socialism and it's attention to the lowest common denominator which rewards stagnation and sloth.

Sorry for the rant.

[ 08 April 2002: Message edited by: wr8th ]

[Instar]

"It has been proven that economic growth is obtained by free market, and that having a free market, without the chains of government regulation, promotes economic growth and expansion. "
Well, except in the Great Depression, of course, which was caused by a lack of regulations, among other things, and partly cured by a large public spending program.
As for Reagan, he spent billions and billions of dollars (most of which ended up as government debt) on the military. A fine example of less Republican government spending.
If you Subscribe to Keynesian economics, then you have the government spend money during recessions, and then less during expansions.
"I have faith that Bush " Ha! What about Bush Sr.'s economic troubles? He's a Republican, so he should have had us rolling in the fricking money. But he didn't.
The President largely has no major impact on the economy. In all honesty, how can he? He propagates legislation, that historically has been too late to affect it anyhow.

[Wardad]

just a little OT:

The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the
British or Americans.

On the other hand, the French eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer heart
attacks than the British or Americans.

The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than
the British or Americans.

The Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and also suffer fewer heart
attacks than the British or Americans.

Conclusion:

Eat & drink what you like. It's speaking English that kills you.

[Kinboat]

wr8th said: "Make no mistake, returning to an agrarian society of gentlemen farmers would not be a turn in the right direction. It's one thing to keep a family plot to augment your caloric intake, quite another to farm for a living in this day and age (unless you're Amish). No unemployment? How about starvation or losing your farm when there's too little or not enough rain. Can anyone say "sharecropper", or worse yet, "serf". Not too many true Jeffersonians left, except for the re-enactors.

On the contrary, it's mass production and the economies of scale that have made this hemisphere the breadbasket of the world."

I'm not saying that pre-industrial life was a rosy wonderland, but in some of my darker moments I think the Amish might have the right idea (toss out this bLasted computer and go back to my family farm). But I do believe we could at least make it available as an option, but in today's world an independant samll scale farmer cannot compete with the mass-production farming of today. But the farming practices of today don't yeild any more food per acre then those methods of yester-year. They may do it with less man power (and they use 4 times more water) and therefore cheaper for those that can afford massive expensive Combines and the like.

"For the average Joe/Jane busy going about their lives seeking to better their lot in life and that of their kin, capitalism, with it's emphasis on incentive and reward is more attractive than socialism and it's attention to the lowest common denominator which rewards stagnation and sloth."

But Capitalism really doesn't reward the average Joe/Jane, it only appears to... It rewards the large businessman who can produce items cheaper than any small scale operator. Thus money tends to flow upwards towards to richest people who control all their many conglomerates buying out the common man. Sure some people get lucky and provide just the right service at the right time and make it rich. They then go on to buy up competetor's and form another conglomerate. And Socialism in practice is a different creature than Socialism in theory. I believe that a true Communist or Socialist government doesn't reward 'sloth' it gives everyone a fair deal, an even playing field and lets everyone stop worrying about whether the steel plant is cutting back. Now keep in mind that I don't agree with the Communism that has actually been put in practice because they have been Dictatorships claiming Communism. Every attempt at true Communism on a large scale (can't speak for any small tries, Kibbutz, Communes etc) has been ruined by the greed of those in power, similar to what is happening now. To really work you need people willing to sacrifice that second car so the Jones' down the street can afford to pay their gas bill... and sadly that seems to be lacking in America. Can you really argue with Health Care for everyone, food for everyone? I believe these to be a part of our human rights (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness) And somewhat as a responsiblity we have to help all human beings. All the current system does is deprive the majority of people in the world of the products of their labor so a few can live in luxury. It has been estimated that if everyone in the world lived in the same style as American's are accustomed to, we would need 4 planet Earths to provide the resources.

Wardad... I guess I'm going to have to start brushing up on my Japanese if I wanna live longer huh...

[wr8th]

I'm not saying that pre-industrial life was a rosy wonderland, but in some of my darker moments I think the Amish might have the right idea (toss out this bLasted computer and go back to my family farm). But I do believe we could at least make it available as an option, but in today's world an independant samll scale farmer cannot compete with the mass-production farming of today. But the farming practices of today don't yeild any more food per acre then those methods of yester-year. They may do it with less man power (and they use 4 times more water) and therefore cheaper for those that can afford massive expensive Combines and the like.

I like the bucolic backgound of where I live compared to the slum I grew up in. I'll take the smell of manure over a garbage strewn street anyday. I'm also happy I don't have to live off the land like my forbears did back in the "old country" and that a sytem of combines and distribution systems allow me to take the fruits of my labor (paycheck) and trade it in for a decent life (no mini-mansion or Lexus' for me, thanks). Anecdotal info: the Amish produce more food per acre than any modern mechanized farming process. I've visited them and I prefer electricity and the computer I play SE4 on.


But Capitalism really doesn't reward the average Joe/Jane, it only appears to... It rewards the large businessman who can produce items cheaper than any small scale operator. Thus money tends to flow upwards towards to richest people who control all their many conglomerates buying out the common man. Sure some people get lucky and provide just the right service at the right time and make it rich. They then go on to buy up competetor's and form another conglomerate. And Socialism in practice is a different creature than Socialism in theory. I believe that a true Communist or Socialist government doesn't reward 'sloth' it gives everyone a fair deal, an even playing field and lets everyone stop worrying about whether the steel plant is cutting back.

Except that Socialism and communism in theory is just that.. theory, just like pure capitalism. Human "frailties" (human nature) will prevent that proposed ideal from ever becoming reality. In even the most stringent Marxist construct, hierarchies will arise complete with elites calling themselves the "proletarian intelligentsia" or the "politburo". When it does level the playing field, the net effect is to appeal to the dullard which eventually becomes the supportable standard which over time deteriorates from the weight of the masses the state is to support at a roughly equal level. Capitalism is not fair as it will not transfer that which those who work diligently have attained to those who are not as diligent, thus eliminating any incentive to achieve. Obviously we don't live in a purely capitalistic constuct any more than we do in caves.

Now keep in mind that I don't agree with the Communism that has actually been put in practice because they have been Dictatorships claiming Communism. Every attempt at true Communism on a large scale (can't speak for any small tries, Kibbutz, Communes etc) has been ruined by the greed of those in power, similar to what is happening now. To really work you need people willing to sacrifice that second car so the Jones' down the street can afford to pay their gas bill... and sadly that seems to be lacking in America. Can you really argue with Health Care for everyone, food for everyone?

It depends on why they can't pay the gas bill. Is it because they lost their job? Or didn't have one? Were they living beyond their means and fell on bad times? Did they gamble and lose?
Yes I can argue it when it's viewed as an entitlement that everyone has a god-given right too without the reasonable expectation that they contribute positively to society themselves. Personally, my family and I tend to live frugally and have passed up opportunities for more money, bigger house etc. in favor of a more fiscal security. And yet I'd have to pay more to support someone who didn't care enough to plan responsibly.... and that's where the crux of the matter is: accountability for one's actions, seemingly an anachronism.

I believe these to be a part of our human rights (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness) And somewhat as a responsiblity we have to help all human beings. All the current system does is deprive the majority of people in the world of the products of their labor so a few can live in luxury. It has been estimated that if everyone in the world lived in the same style as American's are accustomed to, we would need 4 planet Earths to provide the resources.

Provide a good example for the rest of us to follow and surrender the technological gizmos you're using to type your response on and play SE4...
Rather than receding towards the level of those whom we blithely "steal" from, perhaps the evolution of technology spurred by consumerism will eventually provide the resources of those 4 earths of your example so that eventually everyone will be as well fed and educated as they'd like to be. The metaphor is there everytime you play SE4. Do you honestly believe that doling out resources evenly to all we'd ever have a hope of getting off this rock in less than a millenium?

Can you tell I didn't have my coffee?

[ 09 April 2002: Message edited by: wr8th ]