About 'gutting the middle class' and financial sector, globalization etc

[coax]

I'm having somewhat of a hard time wrapping my head around this. You see all the time about how the financial sector and the government are conspiring for personal gain and how the middle class is being gutted, but is this in line with the globalization agenda and the growth agenda?

 

Who is responsible for growth? I see time and time again from c-span and various youtube channels (like council on foreign relations and world economic forums) that lack of education is being blamed for lack of growth, and the general consensus is that growth needs capital accumulation in the middle, not less capital accumulation at the top, and this also reflects the free market ideology. If you take from the rich and give to others, you don't really get a bigger economic pie, you just get a reshaping of the pie. At some point, the rich will have exhausted their investment abilities and their capital will have nowhere to flow, since they need a constant inflow of new talent to innovate etc. The general consensus is that most of the capital accumulation at the top was earned in a legal fashion, and thus the lack of capital in the middle is a result of adaptation and growth in the middle.

 

There are several other problems as well. For example we as consumers want high tech stuff, and we use it a lot. This is part of the reason the economy is moving towards a creative need rather than less intellectual labor. As consumers, we shape what the job market is like by what we purchase and what we want, yet I don't see anyone blaming themselves, they only blame the rich and the government. How much power do you think lies with the general population to change the government and the market? For example congress and government in general is supposed to get voted in by the people. The lawmakers STILL have the ability to rewrite anything, but they need the power of the people behind it. Could then democracy be about talking with the general society, and not the government, to get things through? The government and the economy is a reflection of the people, and they have very little control in shaping that society. The media is also shaped by the people, and all of the above will become liars or manipulative if they know the people won't tolerate being talked to in a frank or honest fashion.

 

Even though I think division of labor is important, and thus the general population shouldn't need to know all the innards of capitalism and the government, for times like these, that are highly stressed and dysfunctional, I do think the general population needs more information. We can bring out things like Occupy or other protests as a symbol of an engaged public, but you need to realize that the police have to follow the law, and huge disruptions like this cannot go on forever. The real change has to come in Congress and then the president, and the same is true for any modern democratic country.

 

So then what to do? How to fix what is broken? The first thing is to get a general public that is more in consensus, and then use the laws and system as it was designed to get the right people to write laws by voting them in. Same is true for media, we have to give exposure and support to those who empower and give truthful information.

 

Maybe it's too late for most countries, and technology doesn't really help I feel since it results in way more complexity that is hard to wrap ones head around. But again, this was a choice by consumers as a whole, to financially support and thus make popular. I'm not trying to put the blame on anyone whos not rich or in government, I think they do despicable things as well, but the main point here is that it is about the general public as a WHOLE, it's not just the rich, etc. This notion that all of this was controlled by some big master plan is really bad and confuses people and makes them feel like it's already over.

 

One last thing. You may have heard of this federal reserve conspiracy of centralized money etc. It is not true. The real source of all the debt is congress, who wrote the laws that demand government spending. and since the Fed has certain mandates, all they can do is mediate problems during a private sector collapse. The problem is that congress has a huge set of laws, and the private sector is not able to carry all those costs. So who gets to take the cut? The people should decide... Economic growth of a certain percentage is built into the system, and so the fed is waiting, hoping that the private sector will resume jobs. But we are stuck in a bad spiral. The rich want to invest since it's a better return in the longer run than interest, but right now there aren't enough emerging companies that actually go big, and you can't just reallocate capital from the rich and hope it ends in growth, to get an actual bigger pie you need qualitative innovation and new markets, when the old markets are so saturated, automated and generally a done deal.

 

So these are my general observations, but I'm interested in any comments or other views. I'm trying to get a grasp of the more official story

[Tricone RC]

I'm having somewhat of a hard time wrapping my head around this. You see all the time about how the financial sector and the government are conspiring for personal gain and how the middle class is being gutted, but is this in line with the globalization agenda and the growth agenda?

 

Who is responsible for growth? I see time and time again from c-span and various youtube channels (like council on foreign relations and world economic forums) that lack of education is being blamed for lack of growth, and the general consensus is that growth needs capital accumulation in the middle, not less capital accumulation at the top, and this also reflects the free market ideology. If you take from the rich and give to others, you don't really get a bigger economic pie, you just get a reshaping of the pie. At some point, the rich will have exhausted their investment abilities and their capital will have nowhere to flow, since they need a constant inflow of new talent to innovate etc. The general consensus is that most of the capital accumulation at the top was earned in a legal fashion, and thus the lack of capital in the middle is a result of adaptation and growth in the middle.

I don't really get the mainstream economic line around growth. I don't see any real reason why the economy in a developed society needs to continue to grow in order for it to function. I mean, using myself as an example, the only reason I personally need it to grow is because I might lose my job if it doesn't. The economy already provides me with basically everything I could want. I don't want to buy much more shit than I already own, except to replace old stuff - so it's nothing at all to do with unsatiated demand or inadequate supply of goods/services.

 

To me, the whole thing seems to be a hangover from when we were less developed. Keynesian economic policy in the early 20th century was rigged to encourage investment (thru interest rate manipulation etc), and it's almost like we are just stuck in that rut and don't realise it. We need to grow the economy to keep up with interest rates, which themselves are controlled to encourage growth...

 

Why do we actually need the economy to keep growing?

[eugene]

i guess the growth of economy is highly correlated with technological advancement and stuff which is well idm and pretty much universally desired in the modern world. i mean people still wanna fly and explore space and not die of cancers and shit.

[Perezvon]

 

I'm having somewhat of a hard time wrapping my head around this. You see all the time about how the financial sector and the government are conspiring for personal gain and how the middle class is being gutted, but is this in line with the globalization agenda and the growth agenda?

 

Who is responsible for growth? I see time and time again from c-span and various youtube channels (like council on foreign relations and world economic forums) that lack of education is being blamed for lack of growth, and the general consensus is that growth needs capital accumulation in the middle, not less capital accumulation at the top, and this also reflects the free market ideology. If you take from the rich and give to others, you don't really get a bigger economic pie, you just get a reshaping of the pie. At some point, the rich will have exhausted their investment abilities and their capital will have nowhere to flow, since they need a constant inflow of new talent to innovate etc. The general consensus is that most of the capital accumulation at the top was earned in a legal fashion, and thus the lack of capital in the middle is a result of adaptation and growth in the middle.

I don't really get the mainstream economic line around growth. I don't see any real reason why the economy in a developed society needs to continue to grow in order for it to function. I mean, using myself as an example, the only reason I personally need it to grow is because I might lose my job if it doesn't. The economy already provides me with basically everything I could want. I don't want to buy much more shit than I already own, except to replace old stuff - so it's nothing at all to do with unsatiated demand or inadequate supply of goods/services.

 

To me, the whole thing seems to be a hangover from when we were less developed. Keynesian economic policy in the early 20th century was rigged to encourage investment (thru interest rate manipulation etc), and it's almost like we are just stuck in that rut and don't realise it. We need to grow the economy to keep up with interest rates, which themselves are controlled to encourage growth...

 

Why do we actually need the economy to keep growing?

 

imo because population's growing more and more, the economy somehow has to follow. I don't think it can though, because it's so insane. Especially if the "first world" keeps specializing in tertiary jobs, which are utterly pointless for most people really.

[coax]

^ All of the above yes. Growth is theoretically supposed to bring more wealth, abundance as it were. With technology and abundance you get a larger population, and you also get automation and efficiency in older markets like oil, car manufacturing, food production and now the IT sector is moving towards that as well. There's always an incentive for companies to replace labor with capital, which is in theory better, but when at some point the consumers can't keep up any more, we get a bad spiral like now.

 

The only way I can think of to have a perfectly circular economy without growth is to have a stable population and no innovation. Everyone would have the same stuff and the same jobs all their lives. Even without the Fed, or fiat money, you also get inflation and deflation, due to the dynamic nature of the market. I didn't touch on natural resources, climate change and all of this, but there are obvious problems there as well. The truth is this is not a perfect system, for many reasons, and there may not exist one. Collapse may be extremely hard to avoid for any civilization

[Tricone RC]

^ All of the above yes. Growth is theoretically supposed to bring more wealth, abundance as it were.

It can do anyway, when people invent something innovative. So much government policy seems to be based around encouraging more growth that is decidedly non-innovative, e.g. roadbuilding programs, Cash-For-Clunkers etc.

imo because population's growing more and more, the economy somehow has to follow. I don't think it can though, because it's so insane.

But this gets totally arse-backward when politicians talk about boosting immigration or encouraging people to have more kids - the idea being that boosting the population will likewise boost the economy. It's circular reasoning.

 

I'm increasingly leaning towards more libertarian (or maybe distributist) viewpoints when it comes to economics - e.g. if there's no growth, then that's ultimately how things should be and we should adapt to it - the government shouldn't try to stimulate spending, or bail out struggling industries - against what is ultimately the will of the masses. But adapting to it is made more difficult by central bank policies that gradually sap away your savings (although some component of inflation must also be "natural")

 

On a lighter note I genuinely think the internet is liberalizing the economy hugely. Via the internet we are increasingly able to get what we need, without being dependent on state currencies and state actions.

[delet...]

Mass youth unemployment in Europe means a contracted 'real' economy, because these hands which could have been performing useful work (and so creating real economic gains) are sitting idle at home not mentally developing or building skills or maturity. So instead of bolstering the financial sector to the tune of trillions over the past seven years, that printed money could have realised actual economic gains and put everyone into useful activities, opening small businesses, building infrastructure, researching science things, for less hours per week than those still in employment have now. Then we'd have financial security or whatever the fuck. Instead this printed money goes into parlour games played by the banks and is pushed into inflating asset prices like stocks and housing.

[Perezvon]

But this gets totally arse-backward when politicians talk about boosting immigration or encouraging people to have more kids - the idea being that boosting the population will likewise boost the economy. It's circular reasoning.

Nah that's a terribly bad idea really. We're overcrowded and eat way too much off of our planet.

 

Tbh I don't even get why scientists are working on how to make people live older.

[delet...]

I've had no kids, so I've a perfect right to carry on living, don't owe your multiples of offspring my space on the planet.

[chassis]

 

Tbh I don't even get why scientists are working on how to make people live older.

 

 

My knowledge of economics isn't great, but surely the answer to this obvious.

[coax]

Mass youth unemployment in Europe means a contracted 'real' economy, because these hands which could have been performing useful work (and so creating real economic gains) are sitting idle at home not mentally developing or building skills or maturity. So instead of bolstering the financial sector to the tune of trillions over the past seven years, that printed money could have realised actual economic gains and put everyone into useful activities, opening small businesses, building infrastructure, researching science things, for less hours per week than those still in employment have now. Then we'd have financial security or whatever the fuck. Instead this printed money goes into parlour games played by the banks and is pushed into inflating asset prices like stocks and housing.

 

Well the banks are deemed incredibly important, and so to loan them money to keep them from collapsing is considered good. They have also paid back and have plans to pay back most of it. On the other hand, such a huge taxpayer investment as you talk about, may not give any return and may make the debt held by the public much worse. If you have a population that, as you say "idle at home not mentally developing or building skills", then no amount of government spending will help them, except the constant harping on education. I also think it helps for people to see the bigger picture of things, sort of like I've tried to do with this thread. We all build this world together essentially

[Perezvon]

 

 

Tbh I don't even get why scientists are working on how to make people live older.

 

 

My knowledge of economics isn't great, but surely the answer to this obvious.

 

Yeah there's that... They just don't care much about the big picture it seems.

[delet...]

 

 

Mass youth unemployment in Europe means a contracted 'real' economy, because these hands which could have been performing useful work (and so creating real economic gains) are sitting idle at home not mentally developing or building skills or maturity. So instead of bolstering the financial sector to the tune of trillions over the past seven years, that printed money could have realised actual economic gains and put everyone into useful activities, opening small businesses, building infrastructure, researching science things, for less hours per week than those still in employment have now. Then we'd have financial security or whatever the fuck. Instead this printed money goes into parlour games played by the banks and is pushed into inflating asset prices like stocks and housing.

Well the banks are deemed incredibly important, and so to loan them money to keep them from collapsing is considered good. They have also paid back and have plans to pay back most of it. On the other hand, such a huge taxpayer investment as you talk about, may not give any return and may make the debt held by the public much worse. If you have a population that, as you say "idle at home not mentally developing or building skills", then no amount of government spending will help them, except the constant harping on education. I also think it helps for people to see the bigger picture of things, sort of like I've tried to do with this thread. We all build this world together essentially

Having these ppl working will create money because that's all money is, an acknowledgement for services rendered, a handy accounting of that which becomes means of exchange (of course the banks have corrupted that ledger and now control the money supply, given that money is now generated through debt creation, so to have growth you need ever expanding debt in a vicious cycle that has begotten the last crash (which was resolved by issuance of further debt) and the one to come). These people that you get working generate tax revenue for the government via their incomes and spend their surplus back into the economy thereby multiplying the use of the monies created and with no debt required or added.

 

At this stage in economics, growth, stability and depression are all artificially controlled by the central banks and those key banks that in turn control them. Those banks by the way have inflated the bubble of debt to higher than it was pre the last crash, so I don't know why you would defend those demons. Stockholm syndrome I suppose.

[coax]

 

Having these ppl working will create money because that's all money is, an acknowledgement for services rendered, a handy accounting of that which becomes means of exchange (of course the banks have corrupted that ledger and now control the money supply, given that money is now generated through debt creation, so to have growth you need ever expanding debt in a vicious cycle that has begotten the last crash (which was resolved by issuance of further debt) and the one to come). These people that you get working generate tax revenue for the government via their incomes and spend their surplus back into the economy thereby multiplying the use of the monies created and with no debt required or added.

 

At this stage in economics, growth, stability and depression are all artificially controlled by the central banks and those key banks that in turn control them. Those banks by the way have inflated the bubble of debt to higher than it was pre the last crash, so I don't know why you would defend those demons. Stockholm syndrome I suppose.

 

 

Well look these are the kinds of things I was trying to reframe in my OP. The banks didn't primarily inflate the debt, congress did. Congress did it not just by creating the fed, but also by approving things like the TARP, and other spending. There is implicit or explicit acceptance from the public through congress. But beyond that, the banks themselves can't do much, they just give out loans etc. It is the customer that is the primary economic force, and the voter that is the primary public debtor. Now obviously up till today, many people weren't aware of much of this stuff, and it could have worked well up until innovation stops, or natural resources run out, but now when we are running into ceilings, we need the whole public engaged, and we need to change via our consumption patterns, our information awareness, and where we spend our money, plus where we invest our time and effort, mentally and physically. I do think the government officials and industry leaders have to be even more vocal about things, but the fear of public punishment and scrutiny, and lack of ratings etc, serve as bad incentives. I'm just trying to say that it is everyones responsibility, the rich, the middle class, the government, everyone. But you see how much confusion there is, and now it's all emotional and not very rational a lot of the time

[chassis]

 

 

 

Tbh I don't even get why scientists are working on how to make people live older.

 

 

My knowledge of economics isn't great, but surely the answer to this obvious.

 

Yeah there's that... They just don't care much about the big picture it seems.

 

 

Right so, you sell everyone the "big picture".

[delet...]

 

 

Having these ppl working will create money because that's all money is, an acknowledgement for services rendered, a handy accounting of that which becomes means of exchange (of course the banks have corrupted that ledger and now control the money supply, given that money is now generated through debt creation, so to have growth you need ever expanding debt in a vicious cycle that has begotten the last crash (which was resolved by issuance of further debt) and the one to come). These people that you get working generate tax revenue for the government via their incomes and spend their surplus back into the economy thereby multiplying the use of the monies created and with no debt required or added.

 

At this stage in economics, growth, stability and depression are all artificially controlled by the central banks and those key banks that in turn control them. Those banks by the way have inflated the bubble of debt to higher than it was pre the last crash, so I don't know why you would defend those demons. Stockholm syndrome I suppose.

 

 

Well look these are the kinds of things I was trying to reframe in my OP. The banks didn't primarily inflate the debt, congress did. Congress did it not just by creating the fed, but also by approving things like the TARP, and other spending. There is implicit or explicit acceptance from the public through congress. But beyond that, the banks themselves can't do much, they just give out loans etc. It is the customer that is the primary economic force, and the voter that is the primary public debtor. Now obviously up till today, many people weren't aware of much of this stuff, and it could have worked well up until innovation stops, or natural resources run out, but now when we are running into ceilings, we need the whole public engaged, and we need to change via our consumption patterns, our information awareness, and where we spend our money, plus where we invest our time and effort, mentally and physically. I do think the government officials and industry leaders have to be even more vocal about things, but the fear of public punishment and scrutiny, and lack of ratings etc, serve as bad incentives. I'm just trying to say that it is everyones responsibility, the rich, the middle class, the government, everyone. But you see how much confusion there is, and now it's all emotional and not very rational a lot of the time

 

 

Lets keep things nice and simple, Tarp was passed because congress is owned by the bankers, ergo, the bankers are at fault, not to mention the congressmen were told by paulson that if they didn't pass it the world economy would suffer a catastrophe unlike any before it were the banks not fully funded (to the tune of trillions it turns out). Bankers are cunts and need to be eviscerated. The current system leaves us in hands of these self serving jackals.

[Redruth]

the universal law of sustenance. that which livǝs or operates in physical reality; be it for good or ǝvil - whether it be disease or cure; must have an energy source to survive. take th 'food' from it and it will die.

[prdctvsm]