Federal Reserve Audit
Federal Reserve Audit
Looks like this is becoming mainstream. I am seeing some news. Don't have a good link right now.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
-Alexander Hamilton
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
Certainly the books are cooked, and certainly an audit will reveal no irregularities, but it will entail some scrambling to make everything appear just so.
- Juggernaut Nihilism
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
The Federal Reserve just announced that it would be broadening and extending its quantitative easing program indefinitely, despite the fact that the stock market is only a few points off its RECORD HIGH.
It will be buying $85 billion worth of Treasuries and MBS, none of which will any longer be sterilized after the new year.
I know we are numb to big numbers now, and "illions" don't mean much to us anymore unless it starts with a "T" or higher, but to put it in perspective, $85 billion per month is enough to pay every single one of the 12.5 million unemployed people in the United States and annual salary of $81,600.
It will be buying $85 billion worth of Treasuries and MBS, none of which will any longer be sterilized after the new year.
I know we are numb to big numbers now, and "illions" don't mean much to us anymore unless it starts with a "T" or higher, but to put it in perspective, $85 billion per month is enough to pay every single one of the 12.5 million unemployed people in the United States and annual salary of $81,600.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
Maybe it's time for a Guaranteed Annual Income. They can quantitative ease the population.
I would be willing to completely forego government services if they wanted to cut me a check for $ 75k per year. Then I could purchase my healthcare, my everything.
The real problem here for the poor is a lack of access to capital. The poor people who are too dumb to save and invest will simply blow that money anyway and it will end up in the hands of more responsible people. As Mr. Perfect says, he can get rich in any regulatory regime.
So if they want to quantitative ease, they should do it through the population.
I would be willing to completely forego government services if they wanted to cut me a check for $ 75k per year. Then I could purchase my healthcare, my everything.
The real problem here for the poor is a lack of access to capital. The poor people who are too dumb to save and invest will simply blow that money anyway and it will end up in the hands of more responsible people. As Mr. Perfect says, he can get rich in any regulatory regime.
So if they want to quantitative ease, they should do it through the population.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
-Alexander Hamilton
- Juggernaut Nihilism
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
The time when something like a GAI would have been possible has passed. The welfare state is in its death throes, not a rebirth phase. The era when states are expected, and feel the responsibility, to provide a baseline material standard of living for people is coming to an end, and giving way to a situation in which states are going to be expected to provide an environment that allows people to leverage opportunities in the global market. The state will no longer care much about caring for the poor, but it will be more tolerant of some of the alternative social configurations such as you have described. Since the era of total war, with multi-million man battlefields contesting territory, is likely over (at least as regards war between great powers) as long as all sides possess deliverable WMD, states no longer require that the whole society be standby for the purposes of war, and therefore won't require your total allegiance or your strict participation in a mainstream version of economic activity. In other words, the state is going to continue to be geared more and more for the benefit of transnational corporations and individuals who are able to utilize modern technology as a force multiplier, and less and less toward ensuring that unskilled and semi-skilled laborers can make a comfortable living. Those laborers are going to continue their downward march until they meet the same laborers from China, Bangladesh, and American Samoa somewhere in the middle. And as this occurs, safety net programs will not only fail to increase to account for their decline, they will be taken away.Enki wrote:Maybe it's time for a Guaranteed Annual Income. They can quantitative ease the population.
I would be willing to completely forego government services if they wanted to cut me a check for $ 75k per year. Then I could purchase my healthcare, my everything.
The real problem here for the poor is a lack of access to capital. The poor people who are too dumb to save and invest will simply blow that money anyway and it will end up in the hands of more responsible people. As Mr. Perfect says, he can get rich in any regulatory regime.
So if they want to quantitative ease, they should do it through the population.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
If the welfare state is done away with, it will be replaced by a more complete welfare state down the line. The notion that the vast majority of people will live with the slavelike deprivation of unfettered global capitalism is a fantasy for idiots.Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:The time when something like a GAI would have been possible has passed. The welfare state is in its death throes, not a rebirth phase. The era when states are expected, and feel the responsibility, to provide a baseline material standard of living for people is coming to an end, and giving way to a situation in which states are going to be expected to provide an environment that allows people to leverage opportunities in the global market. The state will no longer care much about caring for the poor, but it will be more tolerant of some of the alternative social configurations such as you have described. Since the era of total war, with multi-million man battlefields contesting territory, is likely over (at least as regards war between great powers) as long as all sides possess deliverable WMD, states no longer require that the whole society be standby for the purposes of war, and therefore won't require your total allegiance or your strict participation in a mainstream version of economic activity. In other words, the state is going to continue to be geared more and more for the benefit of transnational corporations and individuals who are able to utilize modern technology as a force multiplier, and less and less toward ensuring that unskilled and semi-skilled laborers can make a comfortable living. Those laborers are going to continue their downward march until they meet the same laborers from China, Bangladesh, and American Samoa somewhere in the middle. And as this occurs, safety net programs will not only fail to increase to account for their decline, they will be taken away.Enki wrote:Maybe it's time for a Guaranteed Annual Income. They can quantitative ease the population.
I would be willing to completely forego government services if they wanted to cut me a check for $ 75k per year. Then I could purchase my healthcare, my everything.
The real problem here for the poor is a lack of access to capital. The poor people who are too dumb to save and invest will simply blow that money anyway and it will end up in the hands of more responsible people. As Mr. Perfect says, he can get rich in any regulatory regime.
So if they want to quantitative ease, they should do it through the population.
Last time around when we had a gilded age of this type the end result was the great depression, the new deal and world war. We are already seeing the unrest, the populist uprisings, just like we saw worldwide at the beginning of the 20th century. Western society flows on centennial cycles. Every hundred years there is a grand reordering of society. 1688 revolution in England, 1776 revolution in America, 1789 in France, 1917 Bolsehvik revolution, 2011 Arab Spring.
If the Robber Barons win, we'll see a sudden and sharp dive into poverty across the board in America. The wealthy will desperately want us to toe the line in terms of following the rules and such, but as the social contract breaks down, those rules will make less sense, they won't benefit us. We will see that the rule makers don't follow the rules, so why should we? A well armed and suddenly impoverished populace will band together and polish their rifles. They'll take to the streets and clash with police. If a new welfare state is not established then armed militias will be kicking in doors and raping women throughout Beverly Hills. People say it can't happen here, but wait until Grandmas start getting kicked out of their homes and dying in the streets because they cannot get Social Security and Medicaid.
Lack of a safety net and a high degree of wealth disparity leads to mass slaughter, in 100% of cases. I cannot think of any example of where people came to believe that they could not access a better live through honest means where they didn't rise up and kill. Can you?
As the population becomes more and more aware that the Federal Reserve keeps giving free money to the rich, they aren't going to be happy.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
-Alexander Hamilton
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
No it won't look at California.Enki wrote: If the welfare state is done away with, it will be replaced by a more complete welfare state down the line.
California is pulling it off just fine. Lots of other places too, arguably New York.The notion that the vast majority of people will live with the slavelike deprivation of unfettered global capitalism is a fantasy for idiots.
And things were worse 3 times out of 4. The percentages get worse as you include more revolutions. Good luck to you though, watching the NY revolution on TV will be popcorn fest over here.Last time around when we had a gilded age of this type the end result was the great depression, the new deal and world war. We are already seeing the unrest, the populist uprisings, just like we saw worldwide at the beginning of the 20th century. Western society flows on centennial cycles. Every hundred years there is a grand reordering of society. 1688 revolution in England, 1776 revolution in America, 1789 in France, 1917 Bolsehvik revolution, 2011 Arab Spring.
Already done. I guess you were in a hole in the ground that last 4 years? Obama already did all that. your guy. I told you this was going to happen as you worked to help him do it. I can pull up the quotes. You are as much an author of our conditions as anyone.If the Robber Barons win, we'll see a sudden and sharp dive into poverty across the board in America.
And people had a cow when I posted famine pictures. ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha. It's coming, and your fingerprints are all over it. Told you so.
The more the rules get broken the more the wealthy benefit. You really never learn anything.The wealthy will desperately want us to toe the line in terms of following the rules and such, but as the social contract breaks down, those rules will make less sense, they won't benefit us.
I expect in this Democrat states. Sure do. I don't expect anything better from Democrats any more. Even you see them all as potential rapists. If you could think that I imagine everyone does by now.We will see that the rule makers don't follow the rules, so why should we? A well armed and suddenly impoverished populace will band together and polish their rifles. They'll take to the streets and clash with police. If a new welfare state is not established then armed militias will be kicking in doors and raping women throughout Beverly Hills.
Won't have to wait long. Especially if Obams is re-elected, he put that stuff in Obamacare, and you cheered it all along. Your chickens are coming home to roost. Death panels.People say it can't happen here, but wait until Grandmas start getting kicked out of their homes and dying in the streets because they cannot get Social Security and Medicaid.
China under Chairmen Mao. The Soviet Union. I imagine Democrat States will be equally submissive as they starve to death under El Presidente Baramba.Lack of a safety net and a high degree of wealth disparity leads to mass slaughter, in 100% of cases. I cannot think of any example of where people came to believe that they could not access a better live through honest means where they didn't rise up and kill. Can you?
[/quote]As the population becomes more and more aware that the Federal Reserve keeps giving free money to the rich, they aren't going to be happy.
Who didn't know that when Democrats started doing that? You're not saying you didn't know, did you? You can't, I told you that is what would happen. STPN means stuffing your money directly into my pocket, and you applauded as i told you, and as I told you I didn't even need it. What were you thinking?
I honestly don't know how you make rent sometimes.
Censorship isn't necessary
- Juggernaut Nihilism
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
People lived in submission to kings and lords for most of human history and almost never questioned the legitimacy of the arrangment. That's they key word, legitimacy. In recent history, the legitimacy of the state has rested on its claim that it could provide a higher material standard of living for the average person, compared to other arrangements. With the demise of state socialism as an ideoogical competitor and the rise of globalization, with agile capital and open borders, there are many who believe that providing a standard of living to a group of people who happen to be living within certain geographical boundaries is becoming an obsolete goal. I don't know how I feel about it, but if the basis of legitimacy is altered, then people with out up with things you couldn't imagine, and wouldn't even think to call it injustice.Enki wrote:If the welfare state is done away with, it will be replaced by a more complete welfare state down the line. The notion that the vast majority of people will live with the slavelike deprivation of unfettered global capitalism is a fantasy for idiots.Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:The time when something like a GAI would have been possible has passed. The welfare state is in its death throes, not a rebirth phase. The era when states are expected, and feel the responsibility, to provide a baseline material standard of living for people is coming to an end, and giving way to a situation in which states are going to be expected to provide an environment that allows people to leverage opportunities in the global market. The state will no longer care much about caring for the poor, but it will be more tolerant of some of the alternative social configurations such as you have described. Since the era of total war, with multi-million man battlefields contesting territory, is likely over (at least as regards war between great powers) as long as all sides possess deliverable WMD, states no longer require that the whole society be standby for the purposes of war, and therefore won't require your total allegiance or your strict participation in a mainstream version of economic activity. In other words, the state is going to continue to be geared more and more for the benefit of transnational corporations and individuals who are able to utilize modern technology as a force multiplier, and less and less toward ensuring that unskilled and semi-skilled laborers can make a comfortable living. Those laborers are going to continue their downward march until they meet the same laborers from China, Bangladesh, and American Samoa somewhere in the middle. And as this occurs, safety net programs will not only fail to increase to account for their decline, they will be taken away.Enki wrote:Maybe it's time for a Guaranteed Annual Income. They can quantitative ease the population.
I would be willing to completely forego government services if they wanted to cut me a check for $ 75k per year. Then I could purchase my healthcare, my everything.
The real problem here for the poor is a lack of access to capital. The poor people who are too dumb to save and invest will simply blow that money anyway and it will end up in the hands of more responsible people. As Mr. Perfect says, he can get rich in any regulatory regime.
So if they want to quantitative ease, they should do it through the population.
Last time around when we had a gilded age of this type the end result was the great depression, the new deal and world war. We are already seeing the unrest, the populist uprisings, just like we saw worldwide at the beginning of the 20th century. Western society flows on centennial cycles. Every hundred years there is a grand reordering of society. 1688 revolution in England, 1776 revolution in America, 1789 in France, 1917 Bolsehvik revolution, 2011 Arab Spring.
If the Robber Barons win, we'll see a sudden and sharp dive into poverty across the board in America. The wealthy will desperately want us to toe the line in terms of following the rules and such, but as the social contract breaks down, those rules will make less sense, they won't benefit us. We will see that the rule makers don't follow the rules, so why should we? A well armed and suddenly impoverished populace will band together and polish their rifles. They'll take to the streets and clash with police. If a new welfare state is not established then armed militias will be kicking in doors and raping women throughout Beverly Hills. People say it can't happen here, but wait until Grandmas start getting kicked out of their homes and dying in the streets because they cannot get Social Security and Medicaid.
Lack of a safety net and a high degree of wealth disparity leads to mass slaughter, in 100% of cases. I cannot think of any example of where people came to believe that they could not access a better live through honest means where they didn't rise up and kill. Can you?
As the population becomes more and more aware that the Federal Reserve keeps giving free money to the rich, they aren't going to be happy.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
They actually questioned it daily. When they had the power to revolt against particular lords they did. There was a reciprocal service relationship there. The high lords would conscript people to fight in their armies, they would expect peasants to grow food and work in their castles. In return the Lord was to protect them from raids, provide a keep/castle in the case of wartime, and make the area safe for trade, settle disputes, all that. There has never in all of history been a government where the service relationship worked in only one direction.Juggernaut Nihilism wrote: People lived in submission to kings and lords for most of human history and almost never questioned the legitimacy of the arrangment.
When that changes the idea of the state's legitimacy will be called into question.That's they key word, legitimacy. In recent history, the legitimacy of the state has rested on its claim that it could provide a higher material standard of living for the average person, compared to other arrangements.
Sure, I understand that, but if it becomes an obsolete goal and the social contract breaks down then you can expect more resistance from the local population. Imagine a technologically educated people like Americans with no safety net. The insurgencies you see would make Muslim rock throwers look tame by comparison. If you think that the state can devolve to 'every man for himself' and order be maintained, you're nuts. You'll have wealthy people suffering home invasions by armed gangs.With the demise of state socialism as an ideoogical competitor and the rise of globalization, with agile capital and open borders, there are many who believe that providing a standard of living to a group of people who happen to be living within certain geographical boundaries is becoming an obsolete goal. I don't know how I feel about it, but if the basis of legitimacy is altered, then people with out up with things you couldn't imagine, and wouldn't even think to call it injustice.
If the wealthy of America want to live everywhere like it's Mexico, then that's their prerogative, but when their daughters are raped and their houses looted, that's how it's going to be.
Feudalism was brutal when it was bows and arrows. Imagine how it will be with Mac 10s and Core i7 Pentiums.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
-Alexander Hamilton
- Juggernaut Nihilism
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
I think you're employing a short historical memory. It is only a recent development that people began to expect wealth redistribution by the state, or to entertain the idea that it was a function of the state to even concern itself with the concentration of wealth. I disagree, therefore, that the state cannot exist except as a provider of material welfare. It did, for a long time, and it will again.
And, yes, there will be armed gangs, but there will also be a corresponding rise in private security. But I am not saying it will be some oppressive and extractive arrangement in which 99% of the people feel put upon by an elite, but are physically unable to revolt. The majority of the people will accept the legitimacy of the arrangement, for the state will perform many functions... providing a material standard of living will just not be one of them. I should say, I do not respect the state to abandon the safety net altogether. It will not let people starve, and may still care for the sick or injured... it may even provide higher education and health care, if it is decided that those services, provided publicly, are:
a) essential to ensuring our market participants are competitive globally
b) important to the new basis of state legitimacy, namely, ensuring that the average citizen's opportunity to participate in the global market and leverage technology is maximized
In an era when American workers are competing directly with Chinese slave laborers, it may be that people no longer see it as a realistic goal of the state to ensure that the average working wage provides a high standard of living. Instead of ensuring a high standard of living for unskilled labor, people may instead see the proper role of the state as ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to become highly skilled labor, or to leverage technology to ensure that instead of competing with Chinese slave labor, you are putting them to work for you. If this seems unrealistic, consider that Republican rhetoric is not far from this even today, with millions of dependent boomers still hanging around. In the near future, social welfare programs are going to catch most of the blame for bankrupting us, and this discussion of whether the state ought to be involved with material welfare will become even more mainstream.
And, yes, there will be armed gangs, but there will also be a corresponding rise in private security. But I am not saying it will be some oppressive and extractive arrangement in which 99% of the people feel put upon by an elite, but are physically unable to revolt. The majority of the people will accept the legitimacy of the arrangement, for the state will perform many functions... providing a material standard of living will just not be one of them. I should say, I do not respect the state to abandon the safety net altogether. It will not let people starve, and may still care for the sick or injured... it may even provide higher education and health care, if it is decided that those services, provided publicly, are:
a) essential to ensuring our market participants are competitive globally
b) important to the new basis of state legitimacy, namely, ensuring that the average citizen's opportunity to participate in the global market and leverage technology is maximized
In an era when American workers are competing directly with Chinese slave laborers, it may be that people no longer see it as a realistic goal of the state to ensure that the average working wage provides a high standard of living. Instead of ensuring a high standard of living for unskilled labor, people may instead see the proper role of the state as ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to become highly skilled labor, or to leverage technology to ensure that instead of competing with Chinese slave labor, you are putting them to work for you. If this seems unrealistic, consider that Republican rhetoric is not far from this even today, with millions of dependent boomers still hanging around. In the near future, social welfare programs are going to catch most of the blame for bankrupting us, and this discussion of whether the state ought to be involved with material welfare will become even more mainstream.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
Yeah, short period of time, only for as long as most everyone who is currently alive. And this country was FOUNDED ON resisting the concentration of wealth. Our revolution was sparked by an act of civil disobedience aimed at a corporate monopoly.Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:I think you're employing a short historical memory. It is only a recent development that people began to expect wealth redistribution by the state, or to entertain the idea that it was a function of the state to even concern itself with the concentration of wealth. I disagree, therefore, that the state cannot exist except as a provider of material welfare. It did, for a long time, and it will again.
Jobs are going away, automation is about to gut the job market apocalyptically in about twenty years. And you are telling me that people who cannot get a job and have no option for benefits are not going to revolt? That's naive as genuflect dude.And, yes, there will be armed gangs, but there will also be a corresponding rise in private security. But I am not saying it will be some oppressive and extractive arrangement in which 99% of the people feel put upon by an elite, but are physically unable to revolt. The majority of the people will accept the legitimacy of the arrangement, for the state will perform many functions... providing a material standard of living will just not be one of them. I should say, I do not respect the state to abandon the safety net altogether. It will not let people starve, and may still care for the sick or injured... it may even provide higher education and health care, if it is decided that those services, provided publicly, are:
a) essential to ensuring our market participants are competitive globally
b) important to the new basis of state legitimacy, namely, ensuring that the average citizen's opportunity to participate in the global market and leverage technology is maximized
Your contradicting yourself. "The welfare state is going away but the state will still provide all of the services that fall under the category, 'welfare'."
And China puts down citizen revolts every single day. Is that the future we have to look forward to? Shut up and starve! The ENTIRE POINT of the welfare state is to allow for that higher level of earnings potential. People who are not desperately trying to live hand to mouth have the free time to take courses that will allow them to learn a highly skilled productive trade. That is why we have unemployment insurance, so that a skilled biologist doesn't take a job at Pizza Hut.In an era when American workers are competing directly with Chinese slave laborers, it may be that people no longer see it as a realistic goal of the state to ensure that the average working wage provides a high standard of living. Instead of ensuring a high standard of living for unskilled labor, people may instead see the proper role of the state as ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to become highly skilled labor, or to leverage technology to ensure that instead of competing with Chinese slave labor, you are putting them to work for you. If this seems unrealistic, consider that Republican rhetoric is not far from this even today, with millions of dependent boomers still hanging around. In the near future, social welfare programs are going to catch most of the blame for bankrupting us, and this discussion of whether the state ought to be involved with material welfare will become even more mainstream.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
-Alexander Hamilton
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
Yeah, on that, couldn't find anything on corporate monopoly, lots and lots of anti-government stuff though.Enki wrote: Yeah, short period of time, only for as long as most everyone who is currently alive. And this country was FOUNDED ON resisting the concentration of wealth. Our revolution was sparked by an act of civil disobedience aimed at a corporate monopoly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... dependence
Nah, people like that will just starve to death. As a friendly warning it may apply to you.Jobs are going away, automation is about to gut the job market apocalyptically in about twenty years. And you are telling me that people who cannot get a job and have no option for benefits are not going to revolt? That's naive as genuflect dude.
How come it isn't working?And China puts down citizen revolts every single day. Is that the future we have to look forward to? Shut up and starve! The ENTIRE POINT of the welfare state is to allow for that higher level of earnings potential.
Why are Harvard Graduates being outearned by miners these days?People who are not desperately trying to live hand to mouth have the free time to take courses that will allow them to learn a highly skilled productive trade.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-1 ... ities.html
Why doesn't it ever work out that way?That is why we have unemployment insurance, so that a skilled biologist doesn't take a job at Pizza Hut.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
A bridge too far, Tinker.Enki wrote:. . this country was FOUNDED ON resisting the concentration of wealth. Our revolution was sparked by an act of civil disobedience aimed at a corporate monopoly. . .
What ARE you smoking . .
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
- Juggernaut Nihilism
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
Dude, it's not like I'm advocating or looking forward to it.Enki wrote:And China puts down citizen revolts every single day. Is that the future we have to look forward to? Shut up and starve!
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
- Juggernaut Nihilism
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
No, he's correct. America was founded largely as a revolt against the chartered corporate system, in which the colonies were used for raw materials extraction, but were required to purchase finished goods from the core, using currency mandated by the crown. It is the colonial model that is still largely operative in many places today in many parts of the world.Marcus wrote:A bridge too far, Tinker.Enki wrote:. . this country was FOUNDED ON resisting the concentration of wealth. Our revolution was sparked by an act of civil disobedience aimed at a corporate monopoly. . .
What ARE you smoking . .
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
- Juggernaut Nihilism
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
As you say, the globalist philosophy of "low wages at all costs" will continue to its absurd end, at which low and non-existent wages will finally kill the demand for the products the robots are building. In fact, this is happening now, and we are seeing the response to it: replace lost consumer demand with government spending and loose monetary policy, which gives money to the already-wealthy in the absurd hope that they will lend it to an over-leveraged public, but which they instead just stuff into lower risk assets and commodities, driving up prices for the consumer and further crushing demand. That pending train wreck will run off the tracks soon enough, but I don't think the philosophy behind it will: higher wages are inimical to corporate profits in the short-term, and thus to asset prices, and thus to the global financial system.Enki wrote:Jobs are going away, automation is about to gut the job market apocalyptically in about twenty years. And you are telling me that people who cannot get a job and have no option for benefits are not going to revolt? That's naive as genuflect dude.
And I do think there will be revolts over it, and probably a third world war, when it's all said and done, between the countries that say "genuflect the global financial system" and those who are fully committed to it. I just don't think it will be the kind of revolt you expect, where 99% of the population rises up against the 1% who are really benefiting... I think that it will be 10% of the population rising up, with 30% sympathetic but not participating at first, and 50% actively hostile to them despite the fact that they are being screwed over by the same system. Almost no matter what the circumstances, you can count on about half the population defending the status quo, any status quo, merely as a side effect of human nature's tendency to rationalize and then fetishize a prevailing state of affairs. Most people would rather endure suffering, even if they have to make up a morality to validate it, than go through the uncertainty of revolution.
If I'm saying both things, there are two options. One is that I'm contradicting myself in an obvious way, the other is that I mean something else. In this case, I mean something else. My point is not that the state will cease all services that could fall under the category of "welfare", but that the goal of the state, as expected by the majority of people, will no longer be to ensure a high baseline standard of living for ALL people, but to ensure that those who wish to climb have the resources and leverage to do so. What that means is that many of the benefits and services we see now will shrink or go away or become less permanent, but many will still exist, albeit with a different philosophy behind them, and probably a different set of conditions for their receipt.Enki wrote:Your contradicting yourself. "The welfare state is going away but the state will still provide all of the services that fall under the category, 'welfare'."
That is not the entire point of the welfare state, although it is skewed that way in the US a bit. In Europe, it is not the point of the welfare state at all. In Europe, it is accepted that many policies, such as the power of labor on corporate boards, for example, ensures 10% or higher unemployment, and the purpose of the welfare state is to still provide a high standard of living for the more or less permanently un- or under-employed. But all the states of Europe are about to go bankrupt, and the grumbling over benefits paid to the loafers is already reaching a fever pitch, despite the fact that nothing bad has really even happened yet. I do think there will be benefits like you just mentioned: unemployment benefits with conditions, such as completing coursework or training and maintaining a certain performance standard, passing drug tests (something people cry about today as being a violation of basic civil rights, which I cannot understand AT ALL), etc. possibly even with certain requirements after completion, such at community service or for a particular sponsor agency part-time to repay the funds.Enki wrote:And China puts down citizen revolts every single day. Is that the future we have to look forward to? Shut up and starve! The ENTIRE POINT of the welfare state is to allow for that higher level of earnings potential. People who are not desperately trying to live hand to mouth have the free time to take courses that will allow them to learn a highly skilled productive trade. That is why we have unemployment insurance, so that a skilled biologist doesn't take a job at Pizza Hut.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
Ok, we are in agreement here.Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:As you say, the globalist philosophy of "low wages at all costs" will continue to its absurd end, at which low and non-existent wages will finally kill the demand for the products the robots are building. In fact, this is happening now, and we are seeing the response to it: replace lost consumer demand with government spending and loose monetary policy, which gives money to the already-wealthy in the absurd hope that they will lend it to an over-leveraged public, but which they instead just stuff into lower risk assets and commodities, driving up prices for the consumer and further crushing demand. That pending train wreck will run off the tracks soon enough, but I don't think the philosophy behind it will: higher wages are inimical to corporate profits in the short-term, and thus to asset prices, and thus to the global financial system.
I don't think it will even be 10%, I never thought it would be more than 1%, but a revolt by 1% of the dissatisfied is more than enough to change the global order. Believe me, when I say that we are in the midst of a revolution, I think it is entirely possible that the final outcome is a dystopian slave state. Who the actors are in the firefight will ultimately be based upon who is desperate enough and who benefits from resources brought about by the different factions. The warring revolutionaries will be elites in their own right and have methods of distributing goods and services. From what I understand Baader-Meinhof had some celebrity status amongst the people with a lot of people willing to hide them from authorities. And those guys were a bunch of self-serving nihilists.And I do think there will be revolts over it, and probably a third world war, when it's all said and done, between the countries that say "genuflect the global financial system" and those who are fully committed to it. I just don't think it will be the kind of revolt you expect, where 99% of the population rises up against the 1% who are really benefiting... I think that it will be 10% of the population rising up, with 30% sympathetic but not participating at first, and 50% actively hostile to them despite the fact that they are being screwed over by the same system. Almost no matter what the circumstances, you can count on about half the population defending the status quo, any status quo, merely as a side effect of human nature's tendency to rationalize and then fetishize a prevailing state of affairs. Most people would rather endure suffering, even if they have to make up a morality to validate it, than go through the uncertainty of revolution.
As far as the status quo goes, I might remind you that both sides believe the status quo is not serving them. Both Occupy and the Tea Party have very similar rhetoric about more or less the same things. When the state's cultural mandate of 'left/right' breaks down and people stop filing themselves in the proper cabinet, you'll see alliances that will be difficult to predict from our vantage point now.
It would have to alter significantly. This country could do much better if the quantitative easing strategies went through the people rather than through the banks. Why should a bank get to purchase me and my labor for free? If they gave it to me, I'd spend it, put it in the bank, invest it, either way, the banks would get it anyway.Enki wrote:If I'm saying both things, there are two options. One is that I'm contradicting myself in an obvious way, the other is that I mean something else. In this case, I mean something else. My point is not that the state will cease all services that could fall under the category of "welfare", but that the goal of the state, as expected by the majority of people, will no longer be to ensure a high baseline standard of living for ALL people, but to ensure that those who wish to climb have the resources and leverage to do so. What that means is that many of the benefits and services we see now will shrink or go away or become less permanent, but many will still exist, albeit with a different philosophy behind them, and probably a different set of conditions for their receipt.
We shall see.Enki wrote:That is not the entire point of the welfare state, although it is skewed that way in the US a bit. In Europe, it is not the point of the welfare state at all. In Europe, it is accepted that many policies, such as the power of labor on corporate boards, for example, ensures 10% or higher unemployment, and the purpose of the welfare state is to still provide a high standard of living for the more or less permanently un- or under-employed. But all the states of Europe are about to go bankrupt, and the grumbling over benefits paid to the loafers is already reaching a fever pitch, despite the fact that nothing bad has really even happened yet. I do think there will be benefits like you just mentioned: unemployment benefits with conditions, such as completing coursework or training and maintaining a certain performance standard, passing drug tests (something people cry about today as being a violation of basic civil rights, which I cannot understand AT ALL), etc. possibly even with certain requirements after completion, such at community service or for a particular sponsor agency part-time to repay the funds.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
-Alexander Hamilton
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
It's not a philosophy, it's enduring and unalterable human behavior.Juggernaut Nihilism wrote: As you say, the globalist philosophy of "low wages at all costs" will continue to its absurd end,
You kids are so amusing. When I was kid there was a bunch of movies about how computers were supposed to put everyone out of work and of course over the next 30 years all the good jobs were working on computers.at which low and non-existent wages will finally kill the demand for the products the robots are building.
Trickle down economics, Democrat style.In fact, this is happening now, and we are seeing the response to it: replace lost consumer demand with government spending and loose monetary policy, which gives money to the already-wealthy in the absurd hope that they will lend it to an over-leveraged public, but which they instead just stuff into lower risk assets and commodities, driving up prices for the consumer and further crushing demand.
It won't work out like this at all. Most people going out will go out in a whimper as is often the case in societal collapse. There are loads of people going out with a whimper right now.That pending train wreck will run off the tracks soon enough, but I don't think the philosophy behind it will: higher wages are inimical to corporate profits in the short-term, and thus to asset prices, and thus to the global financial system.
And I do think there will be revolts over it, and probably a third world war, when it's all said and done, between the countries that say "genuflect the global financial system" and those who are fully committed to it. I just don't think it will be the kind of revolt you expect, where 99% of the population rises up against the 1% who are really benefiting... I think that it will be 10% of the population rising up, with 30% sympathetic but not participating at first, and 50% actively hostile to them despite the fact that they are being screwed over by the same system. Almost no matter what the circumstances, you can count on about half the population defending the status quo, any status quo, merely as a side effect of human nature's tendency to rationalize and then fetishize a prevailing state of affairs. Most people would rather endure suffering, even if they have to make up a morality to validate it, than go through the uncertainty of revolution.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
And 30 years later, we have high unemployment all across the first world. Imagine that.Mr. Perfect wrote: You kids are so amusing. When I was kid there was a bunch of movies about how computers were supposed to put everyone out of work and of course over the next 30 years all the good jobs were working on computers.
Most people are not relevant. 'Most people' have not been the fighters in any war. 'Most people' did not fight in the Civil War, did not fight in the World Wars. Wars affect everyone but are fought by a sliver of the population.It won't work out like this at all. Most people going out will go out in a whimper as is often the case in societal collapse. There are loads of people going out with a whimper right now.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
-Alexander Hamilton
- Juggernaut Nihilism
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
And modern technology has empowered the revolutionary in a way never seen before. A few dozen people calling themselves al Qaeda spent a few thousand dollars on flying lessons and they have forced the prevailing system of states, led by the US, to spend trillions of dollars trying to hunt them down and defend from speculative future attacks, and to kill hundreds of thousands of people in the process. And al Qaeda are rank amateurs. When people in the first world start to get pissed off, like Tinker mentioned, when a dissatisfied first world version of al Qaeda brings together a few chemical engineers, computer scientists, systems analysts, etc... then it will on like genuflecting Donkey Kong.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
- Juggernaut Nihilism
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
Mr. P, stop with the "whatever comes after the Fed' generalities. You enjoy telling other people their economic views are too stupid to merit a response, then refraining from offering concrete proposals of your own so as not to expose them to scrutiny, and calling that a debate victory. Which it might be if everyone here wasn't completely familiar with the tired old tactic. So what comes after the Fed, in Mr Perfect's perfect world? Floating interest rates? Gold standard?
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
Gotta disagree, JN. America was founded on and independence gained as an escape from the religious, social, and economic tyranny of the old world. The American experiment is the Reformation writ politically.Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:No, he's correct. America was founded largely as a revolt against the chartered corporate system, in which the colonies were used for raw materials extraction, but were required to purchase finished goods from the core, using currency mandated by the crown. It is the colonial model that is still largely operative in many places today in many parts of the world.Marcus wrote:A bridge too far, Tinker.Enki wrote:. . this country was FOUNDED ON resisting the concentration of wealth. Our revolution was sparked by an act of civil disobedience aimed at a corporate monopoly. . .
What ARE you smoking . .
Trying to reduce the American experiment to purely economic discontent is entirely too simplistic.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
- Juggernaut Nihilism
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:55 pm
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
I certainly agree with this, and didn't mean to imply such a reductionism. I also actually agree with your assessment of the American Revolution's roots in the Reformation, although I think that the relationship is more subtle than, say, the relationship of Islam to the Iranian revolution. In other words, the values of the Reformation informed and structured many of the values that led to the American Revolution.Marcus wrote:Trying to reduce the American experiment to purely economic discontent is entirely too simplistic.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
We are in substantial agreement. I'd add only that in addition to your points, the Reformation unleashed a social dynamic heretofore unknown.Juggernaut Nihilism wrote:I certainly agree with this, and didn't mean to imply such a reductionism. I also actually agree with your assessment of the American Revolution's roots in the Reformation, although I think that the relationship is more subtle than, say, the relationship of Islam to the Iranian revolution. In other words, the values of the Reformation informed and structured many of the values that led to the American Revolution.Marcus wrote:Trying to reduce the American experiment to purely economic discontent is entirely too simplistic.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Federal Reserve Audit
Yes. Democrats built this thing called the subprime mortgage market and it destroyed the economy. In the meantime computer jobs are still a significant portion of the economy. I may have misunderstood you however, maybe you are under the impression that computers created the subprime mortgage market?Enki wrote: And 30 years later, we have high unemployment all across the first world. Imagine that.
I guess. Wars are also fought by people with guns. Democrats don't like or have guns. So if there is going to be a war the Republicans are going to win it easily. I'm not saying this would be bad.Most people are not relevant. 'Most people' have not been the fighters in any war. 'Most people' did not fight in the Civil War, did not fight in the World Wars. Wars affect everyone but are fought by a sliver of the population.
Censorship isn't necessary