29 replies to this topic

[Major Legend]

Perhaps in the near future, significant advances in biotechnology and specifically "brain enhancements" ( that are already appearing in stages of human testing, and looks like substances that could be easily synthesised) - mean that in the future talent or genius will become a lot more common than it is now, because it could easily be artificially induced. Thus anyone can be a top professional, or talented artist.

If the society becomes like that, wouldn't it mean that wealth accumulated up to that point will be the biggest denominating factor, as the only difference between all of us, would be our social value, remaining and inherited wealth. In a way we are already seeing this, where the new millennial have significantly less wealth building power compared to the previous generation, due to the fact that high education is becoming more common, and there is a lot more competition for the good jobs.

With wealth also comes the power to invest in medical technology to leverage and make the rich physically and mentally better than everyone else. At the moment if somebody was smart or unique they could have social mobility, but what if in the future everyone could be smart easily. That would mean a world where money is the only thing that is important.

Ironically the system of capitalism is meant to reward the smartest individual. I really believe that we will see, less and less movement of wealth in the future as the world becomes a flatter place. Instead peoples lives will be about preserving or increasing the value of their wealth they already have or inherited, and the people who don't have wealth will be royally screwed in the future. Better get onto it now before its too late.

Random thoughts, feel free to tear this apart.

Edited by Major Legend, 31 March 2013 - 08:01 PM.

[niner]

If capitalism rewarded the smartest people, I think things would look a little different. Capitalism rewards persistence, drive, social skill, luck, aggression (to a point), ruthlessness... all kinds of things. You have to be "smart enough", but geniuses don't seem to do all that well. In the US, we used to have a society where the differences between rich and poor were not as acute as today. Today it's about as bad as it ever was, although that has more to do with tax policy and the financialization of our economy than it does with widespread education leading to reduced wealth-building power. If wealth will give people an extra couple decades of healthy lifespan that the non-wealthy don't have access to, that could make a significant difference in their ability to build wealth. We might well see such a state for a while, if costly organ replacement is the only game in town. Eventually, I anticipate that rejuvenation biotechnology will be relatively cheap compared to the conventional medical care that it would reduce the need for, so governments will give it to everyone as a way to save money and increase the economic competitiveness of their society.

[Bron]

The answer to your thread title is yes. I fail to see how any government program would be able to cover any sort of actual life extension, neuroprosthetic, or medically unnecessary biomechanical enhancements.

At least with our current system. If we have WWIII, the majority of the population dies off, and we have a one world government rise up in its ashes then all bets are off, I would imagine. Too many variables, I don't see how anyone could predict what would come of it.

My point is, these types of things will be paid for out of pocket. Just like cosmetic surgery is today.

And the people without the wealth have always been screwed, at least going back to beginnings of recorded human history.

One more thing before I go: "Ironically the system of capitalism is meant to reward the smartest individual", this is simply not true. Capitalism is a system that provides capital to innovation. Hence why South Korea is one of the most innovative countries on earth, and North Korea is an absolute fucking hell hole.

Edited by Bron, 01 April 2013 - 01:27 PM.

[Maecenas]

I think future robots or whoever will live in communist world. Greed is the human weakness that shouldn't exist.

Edited by Maecenas, 01 April 2013 - 05:29 PM.

[Mind]

I think future robots or whoever will live in communist world. Greed is the human weakness that shouldn't exist.

"Real communism" - yes (a sharing economy, gradually moving toward a more collective consciousness) not the tyranny promoted by past leaders who called themselves communists, or the aristocrat/oligarch model so aggressively pursued by the Obama administration and many other advanced nations.

[Major Legend]

Think I should clarify - by smartest I also mean social skill, drive, aggression and energy levels - these things are all pre mediated by our genetics and brain chemistry to an extent.

Capitalism only generates innovation based on what people are willing to pay and can afford, this is why bill gates said more money is spent on baldness research than curing malaria, simply because there is money in it. Capitalism by its nature is not driven by innovation, it is driven by competition and that means the most savy, effecient and sometimes ruthless gets moved to the top.

Whilst I'm a big fan of Gattaca, I do not think it was realistic for Ethan Hawk to beat the odds the way he did. Without enhancement he would have no chance against a genetically modified human being, the film assume that aspects such as social skill, aggression, motivation, determination cannot be modified, but science will probably prove these things are to some extent genetic temperaments. Early successes often reinforce winning feelings and confidence. The problem with starting off with bad genetics is your psychological profile will probably be negatively impacted by your early results, such as bad health, failures in social situations. This is why success builds on success.

And unlike the idealistic nature of film where in Batman, "why do we fall, so we can get back up" , when people start of falling as time goes by the odds against them grows in a compounded/cumulative way.

The easiest way to understand it in our current world is "privilege", the scary thing is its seemingly invisible. Its very hard to point fingers at stuff like privilege, such as somebody being "white" or "very pretty", its an unspoken thing thats very scary.

Wealth correlates to privilege, but it cannot buy dreams, ambition, imagination, social skills and more. It cannot buy back life, it cannot buy physical superiority. Not yet anyways, what i'm saying when that starts happening rapidly - it would secure wealth as the only denominator that would matter. Genes will become cheap.

[Elus]

If capitalism rewarded the smartest people, I think things would look a little different. Capitalism rewards persistence, drive, social skill, luck, aggression (to a point), ruthlessness... all kinds of things. You have to be "smart enough", but geniuses don't seem to do all that well. In the US, we used to have a society where the differences between rich and poor were not as acute as today. Today it's about as bad as it ever was, although that has more to do with tax policy and the financialization of our economy than it does with widespread education leading to reduced wealth-building power. If wealth will give people an extra couple decades of healthy lifespan that the non-wealthy don't have access to, that could make a significant difference in their ability to build wealth. We might well see such a state for a while, if costly organ replacement is the only game in town. Eventually, I anticipate that rejuvenation biotechnology will be relatively cheap compared to the conventional medical care that it would reduce the need for, so governments will give it to everyone as a way to save money and increase the economic competitiveness of their society.

I think there's an even deeper reason for the disparity in wealth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMF-Z74C1QE


Source: http://andrewmcafee....the-us-economy/

[Maecenas]

I think future robots or whoever will live in communist world. Greed is the human weakness that shouldn't exist.

"Real communism" - yes (a sharing economy, gradually moving toward a more collective consciousness) not the tyranny promoted by past leaders who called themselves communists, or the aristocrat/oligarch model so aggressively pursued by the Obama administration and many other advanced nations.

Yes, that's what I mean. I don't believe in global revolution, but in microrevolutions which will have place in every field of life. And I also believe that science is the only way to better future. But rich people who can make the greatest improvements often don't want to change anything, they are satisfied by their power, and even use that power to hinder the progress of humanity.
I think that social models of Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark are the examples of what can be achieved in our modern world. But technological progress and high quality of education - our gratest wealth are local phenomenons nowadays. If spread to the third world they can create wonders. The main difficulty of our time is the difficulty of consolidation of actions, because we already have the resources to solve the greatest problems.
5 or so years ago I was astonished to read in some newspaper that 3 richest persons in the world have the amount of money equal to GDP of 48 poorest countries, and you can be considered rich on a global scale if you have more than 2000 dollars, because 2.5 billions of people live on less than 1 dollar a day per person. Then I checked official UN statistics and it proved that facts, moreover there was another terrible number - every day more than 15000 children die of hunger mainly in Asia and Africa. And this happens in the world where many people, who could change the situation prefer to buy a watch or a plane for several millions dollars.

Edited by Maecenas, 01 April 2013 - 07:20 PM.

[Major Legend]

Yes its pretty sad that the entire world's wealth is concentrated on some 1000 or so individuals who most of them save for a few, are complete assholes, spread all the way throughout their family. Wealth seems to breed ignorance and self importance, and a general disconnect from the rest of the world. Also you do not become rich without either 1) inheriting it, 2)taking it aggressively so the whole system only promotes bad people to get to the top.

They attend charity events where they wine and dine and give back very little of what they have taken. Yes there is a lack of a delivery system for wealth distribution, even if the wealthy gave up their money it would actually amount to little change to the poor, however these people clearly show zero regard to everyone else and next to no initiative to helping the world move forward - whose lives they are destroying on a daily basis, all for their excess privilegees, private islands, private jets, castles and in the future custom made augmentation/medical technologies. I'm not talking about Bill Gates, i'm talking about the aristocrats, the oil people, the finance people, these people contribute nothing, yet they are accumulating vast reserves of wealth which will secure themselves and their families for much of the future.

[niner]

or the aristocrat/oligarch model so aggressively pursued by the Obama administration and many other advanced nations.

aristocrat/oligarch model? aggressively pursued? Could you explain what you mean here, because this sounds completely unhinged from reality based on my understanding of the words aristocrat and oligarch. If anything, the Obama administration and most of the advanced world are anti-oligarch. The pro-oligarchs are those whose policies favor the wealthy to the detriment of the majority. In America, that would be the party that opposes Obama at every turn.

[niner]

I fail to see how any government program would be able to cover any sort of actual life extension, neuroprosthetic, or medically unnecessary biomechanical enhancements.

At some point, rejuvenation biotech is likely to be cheaper than the conventional medicine it will reduce the need for, and will increase the productivity and wealth of a society that employs it. Governments won't be able to afford NOT to provide it. They might even tell people that if they don't want rejuvenation, they'll have to pay for their own death care. They will probably also raise the retirement age substantially, or if rejuvenation is good enough, eliminate the concept of universal retirement altogether.

[Mind]

or the aristocrat/oligarch model so aggressively pursued by the Obama administration and many other advanced nations.

aristocrat/oligarch model? aggressively pursued? Could you explain what you mean here, because this sounds completely unhinged from reality based on my understanding of the words aristocrat and oligarch. If anything, the Obama administration and most of the advanced world are anti-oligarch. The pro-oligarchs are those whose policies favor the wealthy to the detriment of the majority. In America, that would be the party that opposes Obama at every turn.

I know you will ignore this and/or rationalize it away, but here goes anyway: http://www.washingto...of-freedom.html

[niner]

or the aristocrat/oligarch model so aggressively pursued by the Obama administration and many other advanced nations.

aristocrat/oligarch model? aggressively pursued? Could you explain what you mean here, because this sounds completely unhinged from reality based on my understanding of the words aristocrat and oligarch. If anything, the Obama administration and most of the advanced world are anti-oligarch. The pro-oligarchs are those whose policies favor the wealthy to the detriment of the majority. In America, that would be the party that opposes Obama at every turn.

I know you will ignore this and/or rationalize it away, but here goes anyway: http://www.washingto...of-freedom.html

No, I'm not going to ignore it. The guy's analysis is specious. Income inequality got worse under Obama? He sounds like one of those wide-eyed college kids who thought that everything was going to be daffodils and unicorns once Obama was elected, and now he's pissed because Obama turned out to be the centrist everyone with a clue knew he would be. Income inequality got worse under Obama because the stock market went up. Would everyone be happier if the economy was still in the toilet and the market was at 6500? Income inequality got worse because rich people own most of the stocks, not because of anything Obama did. (Other than to say that if he'd followed the policies of austerity that the Right wanted, we'd be in a depression now.) He's continuing to vigorously prosecute the "War on Terror", which probably doesn't need as much vigor as it's getting, but what would his opponents be saying if he didn't? They'd be screaming that he was "soft on terror". Obama didn't create Too Big To Fail banks, he inherited them. Obama may be Republican Lite with regards to foreign policy, but his domestic policies are the exact opposite of oligarchy. He is trying to help the middle and lower classes, and is not the choice of the super-wealthy.

[Mind]

Don't kill the messenger. I am not an evil Republican, in case you forgot. Results matter. Numbers matter. 5 years and Obama's legacy is woeful. It just is. He isn't helping the middle or lower classes unless you count soul-crushing dependency on welfare as helping (which a lot of people say "counts", I know) . He is an expert at giving people a hand-out, not a hand up - that is what I see, but I know a lot of others would disagree. In Obama's America, big time financial criminals like Jon Corzine (oligarch and Obama campaign financier/bundler) walk free (Huffpo) while organic farmers who sell raw milk are raided by swat teams (Huffpo).

[Bron]

I fail to see how any government program would be able to cover any sort of actual life extension, neuroprosthetic, or medically unnecessary biomechanical enhancements.

At some point, rejuvenation biotech is likely to be cheaper than the conventional medicine it will reduce the need for, and will increase the productivity and wealth of a society that employs it. Governments won't be able to afford NOT to provide it. They might even tell people that if they don't want rejuvenation, they'll have to pay for their own death care. They will probably also raise the retirement age substantially, or if rejuvenation is good enough, eliminate the concept of universal retirement altogether.

Sounds like paradise! Sign me up.

And you are right I would imagine, I don't understand why I would be so myopic to think these procedures would never come down in price. Genome mapping being a prime example. Ten years ago, what was it, 20k USD? Now you can sign up at 23andme and get a fairly elaborate DNA mapping for 99 bucks.

And yes, retirement would have to be rethought.

But then again, this is really going to be "at some point".

I also fail to see how there would not have to be some sort of control over procreation. At some point, even with stellar leaps in technology, an army of immortal
Duggars, Octomoms, John and Kate plus 8s are just not going to be sustainable.

I tend to be pessimistic, in attempts to call myself realistic. I truly do hope for the best, and I try to think about the implications that come with it. But I don't fear 'immortality', as a reductive materialist I truly do want to extend my existence indefinitely.

[Bron]

or the aristocrat/oligarch model so aggressively pursued by the Obama administration and many other advanced nations.

aristocrat/oligarch model? aggressively pursued? Could you explain what you mean here, because this sounds completely unhinged from reality based on my understanding of the words aristocrat and oligarch. If anything, the Obama administration and most of the advanced world are anti-oligarch. The pro-oligarchs are those whose policies favor the wealthy to the detriment of the majority. In America, that would be the party that opposes Obama at every turn.

I know you will ignore this and/or rationalize it away, but here goes anyway: http://www.washingto...of-freedom.html

True story, I am a 'life-long' republican (7 years lulz), and I voted for McCain in '08 and Romney in '12 (only elections I was eligible to vote in), both times I later regretted that I did not vote for Obama...

That could be interpreted countless ways... comes down to the fact I am so strongly capitalist with such an American exceptionalist mentality that I tend to define myself as a republican and pull for the party. However, I am no social conservative, and republicans tend to aggravate me so often that I am constantly telling myself I am going to register democrat and just be a "blue dog democrat" on fiscal issues and an ultra liberal on social.

Obama seems to be the greatest anti-communist/fiscal republican I have ever seen. Corporate profits are through the roof. He could go more to the left on the whole capitalism vs socialism spiel and he would be more in line with me... and foreign policy I tend to be a hawk, and Obama seems to be right in line with me. The juxtaposition of my fiscal and foreign policy beliefs would baffle the Ron Paul/Gary Johsnon crew, but once you start to understand that our hegemony allows us to maintain our world reserve currency status, which gives us an inherent advantage and create enormous amounts of wealth, it starts to cease to be a contradiction...

And speaking of foreign policy: Obama's foreign policy is > any republican's ever (unless you consider Lincoln's war against the Confederacy and foreign policy issue and not a domestic (I would imagine the states rights guys would think it was a war against two separate countries, I don't). In fact, the two presidents that oversaw our greatest foreign policy decisions were FDR, and now Obama.

Loved Obama's announcement today, btw.

Edited by Bron, 02 April 2013 - 10:59 PM.

[niner]

Don't kill the messenger. I am not an evil Republican, in case you forgot. Results matter. Numbers matter. 5 years and Obama's legacy is woeful. It just is. He isn't helping the middle or lower classes unless you count soul-crushing dependency on welfare as helping (which a lot of people say "counts", I know) . He is an expert at giving people a hand-out, not a hand up - that is what I see, but I know a lot of others would disagree. In Obama's America, big time financial criminals like Jon Corzine (oligarch and Obama campaign financier/bundler) walk free (Huffpo) while organic farmers who sell raw milk are raided by swat teams (Huffpo).

No, I know you aren't a Republican, although in America today, to be opposed to one party is to de facto enable the other one. That's just the way it is. If you had ever said a peep about the absolute godawful record of the Bush Administration, then it would be easier to view your constant attacks on Obama as something other than partisan hating. If your complaints about Obama were both accurate and about the big picture, I might be agreeing with you instead of arguing. I don't know how you can call rescuing the country from the worst financial crisis in 80 years, finally putting us on a path to having healthcare for most Americans, getting us out of Iraq and killing bin Laden a "woeful" legacy. The market is at record highs, American industry is kicking ass, and the housing market is heating up. Even the jobs picture, while not perfect, is on a positive trajectory. I don't think you really appreciate what a hole we were in on the day Obama first took office, and how badly that could have turned out if it was mishandled. That was not a normal recession. I also don't think you appreciate how little power the Presidency has. Obama is opposed at every turn by the Republicans. They wouldn't allow him to close Guantanamo, then ran on the fact that he hadn't closed it. They refuse to confirm anyone he puts up, be it for judge or dog catcher, then complain when he uses recess appointments. "hand out, not a hand up" is just a bumper sticker that has little or no basis in fact. Isn't Obama supportive of education from pre-K through college, and for making work pay? (a hand up) Isn't he getting opposed on all of it by the GOP? Has he expanded Welfare in some huge way? Bush gave us a huge medicare drug entitlement, with a giveaway to Big Pharma (the no-bargaining clause) to boot. That sounds like a handout. There are plenty of examples of Republican administrations failing to prosecute financial criminals or enforcing food and drug laws in ways we don't like. If you stack Obama up against the Presidencies of the past half century, is he markedly worse than any of them? Has he lied us into a fiasco of a war, and paid for it with a credit card? Has he nearly brought down the world economy? Has he caused much of the world to hate us?

I just wish you would look at Obama in the context of other administrations, taking into account this moment in our history. It might also be worth considering how things would be done in a McCain/Palin, Romney/Ryan, or any hypothetical future administration. We need to have realistic expectations about what is possible.

[okok]

I think there's an even deeper reason for the disparity in wealth.


Source: http://andrewmcafee....the-us-economy/

Yet nobody has an answer nor dares to talk about it. Not Marx, not Krugman. The scandinavian countries (scary socialism) did pretty well, but wouldn't a model that isn't based on coercion - government controlling, restraining and giving the necessary steering for capitalism that doesn't have bigger goals and operates on primitive needs - be optimal? Who will create one self-consistent system without the friction of this dichotomy.

[niner]

I think there's an even deeper reason for the disparity in wealth.
Source: http://andrewmcafee....the-us-economy/

Yet nobody has an answer nor dares to talk about it. Not Marx, not Krugman. The scandinavian countries (scary socialism) did pretty well, but wouldn't a model that isn't based on coercion - government controlling, restraining and giving the necessary steering for capitalism that doesn't have bigger goals and operates on primitive needs - be optimal? Who will create one self-consistent system without the friction of this dichotomy.

I don't understand what you're saying about a model that isn't based on coercion. Are you arguing for a Laissez faire model? Capitalism without rules? Or something else?

Did you take a look at McAfee's article that was the source of that graph? Krugman was one of the topics of that post- He certainly is talking about it. There are four sources of the disturbing divergence in those curves: 1) To use McAfee's terms, Droids are taking our jobs. 2) Globalization- people in other countries will work for less. This is eventually going to even out. 3) Our economy has become much more "financialized"- the financial industry is a far larger fraction of the economy than it was in the period when the curves were not diverging. Not only are the Banksters taking a larger cut, but most publicly traded firms are run in a different way- much more attention to the stock price and much higher pay for executives. If McAffe had used average income instead of median, it wouldn't look like a problem, because the wealthy have reaped all the benefits of the increases in productivity, and they skew the average higher. 4) The total tax burden, meaning ALL income, payroll, state, local, sales and excise taxes falls more heavily on the lower classes. This isn't just because income, dividend, and capital gains taxes on the wealthy were significantly reduced, but much less appreciated is that the lower classes are paying a larger fraction of their income as total tax than they used to, not to mention that many pay a larger fraction than people far wealthier than them pay.

Reasons 3 and 4 could be fixed with policy. Whether or not that will happen is an open question. Very open. At least Obama is trying to help with number 4. Reason 1 scares me. We will one day be faced with a situation in which robots are better than humans at essentially everything. I think that day will be here sooner rather than later. We are going to have to craft a new world where people can live and have meaning in their lives, even though there won't be much need for them. If you want to start cooking up dystopias, there is plenty of fodder here. In a class warfare scenario, I think the rich would win, and would exterminate the poor like so many roaches. It probably won't come to that, but if you think there are too many people on welfare now, you ain't seen nothin' yet. It's a bit harder to imagine a utopian outcome. Maybe human creativity will come to the fore.

Edited by niner, 03 April 2013 - 02:01 PM.

[Mind]

I will just point out this one item, and then that will have to be it for me in this discussion:

"hand out, not a hand up" is just a bumper sticker that has little or no basis in fact."

The Obama administration has aggressively expanded the "food stamp" program. For the first time in history, that I can remember anyway, the government has actually encouraged people to become dependent, actually going out into the marketplace and convincing people to sign up. USDA PSAs. It used to be different. People used to pull themselves up, learn life lessons, be more responsible, rely on family and community, etc... Not anymore. The Obama administration has achieved success in this regard with a record number of people on "food stamps" (nearly 50 million and climbing). If the economy was so awesome under Obama, the number of people needing food stamps would be declining.

Like I said earlier, unfortunately, by nearly every measure or government statistic, Obama's America is one of increasing stratification, increasing wealth/power disparity (worse than under Bush). Oligarchies can survive and prosper at times, people can be cared for (ruling class caring for the welfare class), I just didn't think the U.S. would end up that way.

And I do criticize Bush-era policies. I voted for Bush in 2000 and I was a luke-warm supporter of the Iraq war, but it didn't take too long to see the writing on the wall. I DID NOT vote for Bush in 2004. I was appalled at the expansion of debt/government and the erosion of liberties, which has intensified under Obama. I am surprised Obama does not receive more criticism for these trends. Criticism from the right is expected and nothing out of the ordinary. I am surprised at the lack of criticism from the left.

[okok]

Laissez-faire capitalism, certainly not. That leads to inequality and the Idiocracy we live in today. Government beyond the minimal state is supposed to counteract this but tends to bloat into overbearing bureaucracy and dictatorship at worst. So what I meant is why have we not been able to transcend this antagonistic principle which tries to outwit itself and devise society on a single self-correcting, goal-oriented, just system. That was pointed out in the article, but the answer was left to the reader. I think it's easier than building a self-replicating robot, so we don't have to wait for singularity or the one-eyed one-armed flying purple people (l)eader.

Ad the droids (1): Hazlitt talked about this in Economics In One Lesson back in 1946 (industrialization). He was right and wrong - the real problem is redistribution of wealth. Trickle-down economics doesn't work.
(3): Yes, combining human nature's greed and a virtualized economy disconnected from reality, lacking objective performance measures where the real resource constraints have to eventually percolate up is bound to produce bubbles.

Human creativity - Iain M. Banks with his Culture series for me is the undisputed master when it comes to describing utopia.

[niner]

I will just point out this one item, and then that will have to be it for me in this discussion:

"hand out, not a hand up" is just a bumper sticker that has little or no basis in fact."

The Obama administration has aggressively expanded the "food stamp" program. For the first time in history, that I can remember anyway, the government has actually encouraged people to become dependent, actually going out into the marketplace and convincing people to sign up. USDA PSAs. It used to be different. People used to pull themselves up, learn life lessons, be more responsible, rely on family and community, etc... Not anymore. The Obama administration has achieved success in this regard with a record number of people on "food stamps" (nearly 50 million and climbing). If the economy was so awesome under Obama, the number of people needing food stamps would be declining.

Let's start with some facts. Obama didn't "aggressively expand" it. The eligibility requirements haven't changed in years. Usage went up because of the financial crisis and the long term mess that caused, which as you're aware, was not an Obama production. The usage went up a lot in 2009 and 2010, less in 2011, and even less in 2012. It's a sigmoid curve, and if the economy continues to improve and more people get jobs, which is likely, then SNAP usage will probably drop. I think you ought to read the McAfee article linked above. We have a long term joblessness problem in this country that started thirty years ago. It was made a lot worse by the financial crisis. The out-of-work population, many of whom are middle aged white rural people who lost factory jobs, are surviving by getting on Social Security Disability and SNAP/Food Stamps, among other things. This is certainly not an optimal situation, but it started decades ago and is only going to get worse. You need to get a grip on the fact that this is not an ordinary recovery. You can't expect to go through an economic shock like that, along with so many households under water and/or massively in debt, and get to full employment in a few years. The Right needs to wake up and smell the coffee on that. Seriously.

Regarding the USDA PSAs, I can certainly understand how that rankles you. What should we do about our millions of un- or under-employed people? Let 'em die? These are the early phases of the "useless human" problem that we're going to have to address in a huge way in the 21st century. How do you propose we deal with it?

I am surprised at the lack of criticism from the left.

By the time I get done correcting the record on all the inaccurate criticism from the Right, I'm too tired to criticize Obama myself. There are issues: The failure to come down even harder on Wall Street. The drone program in Pakistan... The problem is, most of our problems are caused by our grotesquely broken political system, with a Gerrymandered congress and fundraising being the be-all and end-all. Congress is so messed up, and is so much The Problem, that the failures of the Obama Administration pale in comparison.

[Bron]

Funny, Obama's failure to come down harder on Wall Street and his expansion of the drone program are the exact reasons I like him.

SNAP is a complete nonissue in my opinion.

And Obama did not get us out of Iraq. He was forced out by Iran.

Maliki, though he has been criticised in the past for being too close to Iran, had wanted to keep some US troops in Iraq to help train Iraqi security forces and to help in the event of a resurgence of sectarian violence. But he had to bow to pressure from pro-Iranian politicians and others in his coaliton government who wanted all US troops out.
Obama was ambivalent on the issue, seeing a total withdrawal as a good sell to a US public tired of war. But the Pentagon had wanted the bases, and the president reluctantly sided with the military staff.

http://www.guardian....s-us-plea-bases

To me, the great "decoupling" just sounds like neo-luddite lamentations. But maybe it is because it is hard for me to take Paul Krugman seriously:

To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

http://www.nytimes.c...double-dip.html

Bit of a nonsequitur, but it is true. Any article that mentions his opinions or writings just puts me off. It's not that the guy was wrong in his life. It is that he was so wrong he should have changed careers.

Edited by Bron, 05 April 2013 - 02:23 AM.

[niner]

To me, the great "decoupling" just sounds like neo-luddite lamentations. But maybe it is because it is hard for me to take Paul Krugman seriously:

To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

http://www.nytimes.c...double-dip.html

Bit of a nonsequitur, but it is true. Any article that mentions his opinions or writings just puts me off. It's not that the guy was wrong in his life. It is that he was so wrong he should have changed careers.

I don't get what you're saying here. Do you think Krugman was in favor of another of Greenspan's bubbles? I think he was criticizing it. Later in that article, he said:

Bear in mind also that government officials have a stake in accentuating the positive. The administration needs a recovery because, with deficits exploding, the only way it can justify that tax cut is by pretending that it was just what the economy needed. Mr. Greenspan needs one to avoid awkward questions about his own role in creating the stock market bubble.

What do you think Krugman was catastrophically wrong about? Are you sure you aren't thinking about Alan "Bubbles" Greenspan? If so, he would agree with you.

Do you support the existence of "Too Big To Fail" financial institutions in which profit is privatized but risk is socialized? Why don't you want Obama to come down harder on Wall Street? I want to see the TBTF banks broken up so that failure is on them, not on the taxpayer. Should we subsidize their risky behavior?

[Bron]

Going to have to actually read the article instead of just me cherry picking one quote. And here I may have held a grudge against Krugman for years all for naught...

EDIT: Well, I am an idiot. It is quite clear Krugman was being facetious, and not advocating the creation of a housing bubble.

If I would have read even one more sentence I would have known that.

Edited by Bron, 05 April 2013 - 03:12 AM.

[Bron]

As for the too big too fail institutions, I think we should continue to subsidize their risky behavior until we get some sort of stability. Sadly, looking at Japan, and their recent 1.4 trillion bailout, we will probably be doing it for at least another two decades.

If we really wanted to be fair, and not socialize losses and privatize gains, then we wouldn't have bailed the banks out to begin with. We would have let them fail or thrive on their merits. If we would have done that, I truly think we would be either fighting or gearing up for WWIII, economies would probably have been that bad.

Edited by Bron, 05 April 2013 - 03:05 AM.

[Major Legend]

I don't think subsidizing too big too fail was a bad choice, at the time it was indeed necessary to prevent a total worldwide economic melt down. The fiscal stimuluses have helped US and China, countries insistent on conservative fiscal policies are stupid. This is why the EU and the UK have been suffering so much, either that or you go the Iceland route and you let the whole thing collapse, and hope it resolves itself naturally.

However what has happened now is we have failed to reel in the super rich, we have been unable to put bankers who destroyed thousands of lives into jail, these people used other people's money to play extremely high risk games. It is a crime. Now the economy is showing signs of stabilising we have to reduce the margins these banks are making, and put money into producing real services and goods - much like Germany/China/ South Korea and so on. I do not want to see the west fall into 2 decades of zero growth like Japan.

Japan actually is a special case anyways, because of their integrated culture and superb public infrastructure in areas such as wellfare, pay equality, healthcare and so on. They also still produce a lot of export, if Europe or America went down the Japan route, it wouldn't be able to keep it together like Japan, thats just my personal opinion. Whether you think financial products are real exports/economy is up to debate, arguably finance is needed but the fees and charges on all levels from credit cards to mutual funds are ridiculous. Financiers are basically making loads of money - because most people don't understand how these things work mathematically.

I do believe the United States is going in the right direction. I have a positive outlook on the states and will be investing in it. I think Obama has done some good things, the previous generation of government was a complete fail - Bush, Blair, Sarkozy, they were all people who contributed to financial deregulation which ultimately put at stake the lives of millions if not billions.

Starving people from help when they need it the most and giving money to the rich during an economic downturn is stupid. Thats why UK is in a double dip recession. The united states did the right thing.

[niner]

As for the too big too fail institutions, I think we should continue to subsidize their risky behavior until we get some sort of stability. Sadly, looking at Japan, and their recent 1.4 trillion bailout, we will probably be doing it for at least another two decades.

I don't agree. Our banks are stable enough that we could start breaking them up today, if we had the political will. We should break up the TBTF institutions so that they would be small enough to fail without wrecking the economy. Our situation is different from Japan's.

I hope I didn't give the impression that the bank bailouts that the Bush (not Obama, contrary to popular opinion) Administration did were not a good idea. They were necessary to prevent a global economic meltdown. The fact that they were necessary was the problem- we never should have allowed banks to get to the point where they threatened the economy. As long as they do, there is a de facto subsidy of their risk-taking, paid for by taxpayers. It's just wrong.

[Bron]

As for the too big too fail institutions, I think we should continue to subsidize their risky behavior until we get some sort of stability. Sadly, looking at Japan, and their recent 1.4 trillion bailout, we will probably be doing it for at least another two decades.

I don't agree. Our banks are stable enough that we could start breaking them up today, if we had the political will. We should break up the TBTF institutions so that they would be small enough to fail without wrecking the economy. Our situation is different from Japan's.

I hope I didn't give the impression that the bank bailouts that the Bush (not Obama, contrary to popular opinion) Administration did were not a good idea. They were necessary to prevent a global economic meltdown. The fact that they were necessary was the problem- we never should have allowed banks to get to the point where they threatened the economy. As long as they do, there is a de facto subsidy of their risk-taking, paid for by taxpayers. It's just wrong.

Hard for me to disagree with you. If I thought we could break them up without sending shockwaves throughout the global banking system, I suppose I would be all for it. But since even a tiny country like Cyprus apparently has the ability to bring the system to its knees (or so I should say some claim it does), I worry.

And it is true our situation is far different from the Japanese.

Since the entire extent to my economic credentials is the AP credit I received for micro economics that I took in high school, all I can say is that I just want to maintain liquidity.

I don't subscribe to the notion that monetary lending is usury (not saying you do) and all I want to see is a highly functioning banking system. The truth is, I guess I don't know how to get that done.

Considering I literally thought for about the past four years that one of the most respected economists in the country was cheering on the creation of the housing bubble, I think my opinion on our current economic situation isn't worth anything and I am a bit out of my element.

But I digress. One thing I assumed about Obama not being hard on the banks is that he refrained from action or even harsh words because he fears a repeat of '08, but that is just something I assumed with obviously no evidence.

[Layberinthius]

Yawn, I think its pretty clear to everyone on this thread that resources are finite and we cannot possibly hope to continue to feed 50% of our population on fossil fuels, whats being done about it? nothing, exact same damn thing thats being done about robots taking our jobs.

But is everyone really still screaming over THIS or THAT little factoid? ie, politics? Politics is a distraction! Political differences, policy matters, are ALL a distraction! from the REAL issues which affect the economy.

They are there for a reason, China needed jobs because they had a humanitarian crisis after fucking too much (too many kids), so we've given them both our manufacturing industry (worldwide) and our balls (debt). What is the reason behind this? Because we felt sorry for them imho.

This is actually a good thing that we're so humane but we have taken the food out of our mouths inorder to feed them!

Australian politics has really proven to me that it doesnt matter who is in power, as long as they dont do anything stupid to the economy, big buisness will do whatever it wants to, and TO HELL with what the people want! If they aren't rioting in the streets then its okay by them.

You can clearly get the emotion, the impression, that everyone knows this little fact simply by watching the news, that we are all doomed, that the economy worldwide is fucked.

Seriously, you guys think that investing in a system whereby people could create something so evil as a housing bubble, and then burst it, is a wise thing to do???

One thing that nobody has discussed is, wether or not the housing bubble was a ploy by Chinese real estate investors to collapse the US housing market. NO ONE has EVER mentioned that, yet if you take a look at Australia's real estate market, you can see that there is not a single piece of cheap land left between here and woop woop that isnt owned by the Chinese.

Fact of the matter is, the world is overpopulated, as a human species we fucked up so now its time to pay the piper. There is no magic bullet, there is no economic bandaid (christ, who the fuck fell for that one?), the economy runs on greed, if you are an economist and you dont have a reason to get up of a morning then your in serious trouble. THATS what is wrong with our society.

When I was younger I used to be an American boyscout, I wanted the full American dream.

Then after realising that a dumb fuck Tradie kid and his family were the ones making all of the money in my school, and that my genius skills, my skills in inventing new and exciting ideas were no longer needed, Infact I was regularly ridiculed and teased for thinking different at that moment in time it felt like my soul died inside, it felt like I no longer had a reason to live anymore, I no longer wanted to be a part of the American dream and I felt a little betrayed. But its not America's fault, its the entire worlds fault for FUCKING too much!

Good luck talking to a tradie about our overpopulation problems: http://blogs.smh.com...tradiemyth.html

Even my own father fought with me and sometimes still does to this day for me to try and become a tradesman, a working man, my father is an idiot I realise that but he is so greedy and disgustingly homicidal about it that anyone would think he is the spawn of satan, a part of this generation's faults are genetic and its been left to breed and foster for the last 100 years.

I'm sure that 100 years ago the founders of this country wouldnt have thought that greed, fighting and poverty, and class warfare would be a part of the American or Australian dream, and what has been two of the major factors which has changed since then? Our population levels. Our manufacturing sectors. Our unchecked GREED.

https://en.wikipedia...ation_curve.svg

I mean jesus fucking christ, is nobody thinking that this huge spike is anything to worry about??

"What most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint) is our teeming population. Our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly support us... In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race." - https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Tertullian

Edited by Layberinthius, 24 September 2013 - 03:46 PM.