RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

pahunkboy -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/23/2010 7:56:42 AM)

E.,  our age group enjoys a special place in history.


(truly)

We are still spoiled- with out being in the worst of it all.   IMO we are in an 80 year cycle.   the generations forget the mistakes of the past hence that type of cycle.



LadyEllen -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/23/2010 8:05:01 AM)

And there is the problem is it not - the credit has not been used to develop the economy such that it truly grows by way of the wealth generated being increased; that is, it has not been used to invest in future returns but as a sop by which through enhanced government spending and consumerism, no one should see what is going on. When the credit card bill comes due, we will have nothing with which to pay the interest and liquidation of our consumer goods will yield little or nothing - transferring this to a national scale only makes the problem larger. The idea of credit as a means of investment relies on that credit being used to create added value sufficient to meet the interest repayment and produce a profit for the borrower and by way of taxes on his activity government revenue needs. Instead the credit has been frittered away with nothing to show for it.

Farmer Harry by the way must work the fields or starve. Sounds like a good incentive to me. Farmer John meanwhile took out credit to buy the farm - he has to meet the interest repayment, pay his own wages, depreciate his equipment and bear the risk; quite why Harry should be entitled to more if he does not undertake similar burdens and risks is unclear - as unclear as to why John might be so foolish as to risk himself in order to pay Harry anything more than is needed.

E



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/23/2010 8:17:31 AM)

I have to confess that this Game of life was much easier in board game format. You were always guaranteed to end up living in a mansion or a country cottage at the end. You also didn't have to worry about wearing seatbelts in your car because you existed in peg form and could simply be fitted into one of eight holes in that block of plastic.

Life was great, we were all doctors or technical professionals.



realcoolhand -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/23/2010 8:36:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

And there is the problem is it not - the credit has not been used to develop the economy such that it truly grows by way of the wealth generated being increased; that is, it has not been used to invest in future returns but as a sop by which through enhanced government spending and consumerism, no one should see what is going on. When the credit card bill comes due, we will have nothing with which to pay the interest and liquidation of our consumer goods will yield little or nothing - transferring this to a national scale only makes the problem larger. The idea of credit as a means of investment relies on that credit being used to create added value sufficient to meet the interest repayment and produce a profit for the borrower and by way of taxes on his activity government revenue needs. Instead the credit has been frittered away with nothing to show for it.


I'm not sure what evidence you have for the proposition that credit has been widely abused on the macro scale, rather than used to increase productivity. If there's data out there, I'd like to see it. I suspect that you see what straights average folks are in, and the consequent squeeze on revenue available to governments, and conclude that credit has been misused. On the consumer level, that's doubtless true, and the consequences of overuse of consumer credit have in the present crisis been the shock to a fragile system that triggered the downturn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Farmer Harry by the way must work the fields or starve. Sounds like a good incentive to me. Farmer John meanwhile took out credit to buy the farm - he has to meet the interest repayment, pay his own wages, depreciate his equipment and bear the risk; quite why Harry should be entitled to more if he does not undertake similar burdens and risks is unclear - as unclear as to why John might be so foolish as to risk himself in order to pay Harry anything more than is needed.


Farmer Harry must work or starve, but has no incentive to work any harder than necessary to avoid starvation. Meanwhile, the value of the time farmer John spends ensuring that Harry works at all is dead weight loss. And don't forget that farmer John expects a surplus sufficient both to recover his costs and to compensate for all his risk, which as you envision it goes all to John. Figure in that John probably has access to the capital necessary to buy the farm as a consequence of circumstances beyond his control (read accident of birth), there's no good reason why he should be entitled to more than a fair share of the surplus it's wise investment produces.

You might wonder what I mean by "fair share." Well, I mean a share that would be acceptable to John if he found himself in Harry's shoes, and vice versa. Pinning John on that point would be tough, since he's likely to insist that as the one with the capital to invest, he gets to call the shots regarding how any surplus is distributed, and Harry can either take it or leave it. If Harry can only take it or leave it, he's likely to take the opportunity to subsist, no matter how bitterly he resents the arrangement.

That said, he have historical precedent for the use of thought experiments to elicit honest answers contrary to the subjects interests. In particular, I'm thinking of King David and Uriah the Hittite. Uriah, one of David's commanders (who incidentally lived adjacent to the King), had a beautiful wife named Bathsheba. David noticed Bathsheba, wanted her for himself, and arranged to have Uriah put into harms way in battle, where as David expected he was killed. David thereafter took Bathsheba as his own wife.

The prophet Nathan thereafter paid a visit to King David. Nathan told David that in his own town, a rich man who owned large herds of sheep had held a feast, at which he intended to serve a lamb to his guests. Rather than slaughter one of his own, he went to his neighbor, a poor man with only one ewe which he faithfully cared for, killed the poor man, and took the ewe for his feast.

David did NOT say, "Well, he's rich, he's powerful, he sets the terms." Instead, David recognized the injustice, and it was only after David swore the rich man would be put to death for his crime did Nathan reveal that David himself was the rich man who had killed his neighbor, Uriah. Reasoning by analogy can be pretty powerful stuff.



LadyEllen -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/23/2010 9:04:27 AM)

It sounds like youre coming to a conclusion that comes close to some sort of socialism? That it is wrong for John to expect to take all he can so that Harry might receive more, having put in nothing but his labour, on the basis that Harry will work harder on the basis of aspiration than starvation?

Seems to me that Harry ought to work hard anyway - that way he could one day own his own farm.

E



vincentML -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/23/2010 9:30:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

But there is the rub is it not V?

From what I can see, the rollback is long since in effect and the new technology has not served to resist that rollback but to enable it, require it even. The export of blue collar jobs is being succeeded by a likewise export of all else but the senior executives - whilst individuals, families, neighbourhoods, entire cities even fall into poverty as their wealth generation is destroyed, incomes for the happy few remaining in the game escalate beyond all reasonable measure.


I do not agree the rollback is in effect, LE. If the new technology has contributed to the poverty of neighborhoods and cities it is due to the upward mobility and emigration from the cities of those who successfully adapted their skills to it. The movement of people and the tax base they take with them is the factor that leaves cities in poverty while at the same time enriches "new" cities or suburbs. Detroit, Cincinnati, Youngstown and other "rustbelt" cities have fallen into disrepair while Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, etc have prospered because they have attracted the new technology, the people adapted to it, and the tax base that results from the purchase of newly build homes in those regions. It seems to me you are missing the point of a circulation of wealth rather than a decline, if we define wealth loosely as "living well." You are attributing regional changes to the entirety of the nation, at least as your thesis is applied to the US. The problem may be that we cling romantically to the old cities or neighborhoods. If they cannot be saved by renovation then perhaps they should be plowed under and left for future archeologists.

quote:

That which ought to have brought - and which was professed to promise - ongoing prosperity for all has become instead the downfall of entire swathes of nations, accompanied by political and legal manipulations whereby the process may be maintained and strengthened and dissent dealt with. That which was put before us as our salvation has turned out to be the means by which that wealth we and our families built up could be drained off into the hands of a few who now use it invest where they might continue the exploitation and repression of others in order to develop ever growing incomes for themselves.


Neither prosperity nor salvation were ever promised to us by new technology. Technological change is an imperative that is indifferent to human emotions and hope. Since the invention of the wheel, the plow, and the discovery of fire it continues because the human mind is restless and imaginative. What is done with the new technology is a matter for each generation to adapt. If we allow our wealth to be drained off into a hands of the few then who is to blame? Certainly not the few who readily take what is offered. Those are political issues not technical ones. And seriously, LE, what is new about the disparity between the very rich and the rest of us other than old wealth was based upon land manipulation while new wealth is based upon the digital manipulation of currency and derivatives?

Exploitation and repression are not unique to our times or the result of the advent of the digital age. Exploitation has been a condition of the earliest specialization of society and human culture. I just do not see the downfall of entire swaths of nations to which you refer. Certainly not among the West. There are rising nations: China, Brazil, India but they represent opportunities for the West.

quote:

By these means, the rollback of all the progressive policies of a century are underway and have been underway for some considerable time. The symptom so far are comparatively mild its true, but if action is not taken to prevent further erosion then it will not be long - within what is left of our lifetimes - before "Arbeit und Brot" become the sole focus of the vast majority, such that they may readily dispose of all else in order to feed themselves and their families and have a roof - any roof, over their heads, whereby the rollback shall be completed and we shall be competitive once more in generating wealth for those whom we allow to call the shots.


I simply cannot see that a rollback of progressive policies is underway. I will require specifics as to your generalization.


quote:

The question is, what are we going to do about it?

It seems clear to me that many sense the same feeling as I. Our homegrown Islamic terrorists are an expression of it, as are the likes of the English Defence League and your own Tea Partiers. The successes of the BNP here in the UK may also be accounted to this same feeling. Though none of these are as yet perfected, time and the continuing rollback and deterioration can only serve to focus these movements into what it is that is wrong and thence, repression allowing, enable them to move to bring about remedy.


History is replete with loosely organized disgruntled groups. Sometimes they manage to get more organized and have some impact. I don't know about the EDL and the BNP in the UK. Forgive my ignorance if you can. But the Tea Party seems to be made up of mostly older and financially solvent white males. The US has always had nativists groups who bob to the surface during times of distress. Doesn't mean times will not get better.

quote:

The question then is, shall we the intelligentsia one might say, become involved or should we stay out of it to preserve our "good names"? I believe this is a moot point in that the way things are going, the people running the show have no interest whatever in the value of our good names just as they have no interest whatever in the wreckage they have left behind so far and the wreckage they are now producing. In summary, worry not - they will get round to us when they are done with whomever they are destroying right now. So it seems there is no choice but for us to get involved, help to bring about that focus of ideology and direct the remedial actions to come - or to sell out and join the enemy.

It is clear to me how this is going, how it was planned systematically, how the entire socio-political-economic apparatus was manipulated to its ends, and how should no resistance be offered, it shall end. I do not intend to be in a line for soup and a hunk of bread that I must share with my kids.


It is a fallacy of class warfare to ignore the upward mobility and prosperity of individuals. Where you see conspiracy I see the same old workings of politics and market economics. Really, planned systematically? By whom and in what fashion?





realcoolhand -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/23/2010 4:28:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

It sounds like youre coming to a conclusion that comes close to some sort of socialism? That it is wrong for John to expect to take all he can so that Harry might receive more, having put in nothing but his labour, on the basis that Harry will work harder on the basis of aspiration than starvation?


Wrong? More like unfair. Can't expect too much social cohesion if the society is unfair. And it's less socialism than liberalism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Seems to me that Harry ought to work hard anyway - that way he could one day own his own farm.

E


Of course he should, provided he has the real prospect of accumulating enough of the surplus to one day buy his own farm; the greater the his share of the surplus, the more realistic that expectation is, and the more incentive he'll have. Of course, if he's at a real subsistence level and enjoying above subsistence living conditions only by borrowing against his own future, that might be tough.



LadyEllen -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/23/2010 5:18:51 PM)

Wonderful RCH. And in two pages too.

And this is where I see one aspect of the problem - the wages of workers have hardly risen at all, even as their fellows were made redundant as their jobs were shipped overseas, whilst the cost of living has risen and the wages of the boss have risen to dizzying heights.

We are being told that we too can get to be rich, if only we put in the work - but its a lie. A damned lie. Because even qualified people who do skilled work are living close to subsistence level, having to borrow against their (unsure) future to get by. Whereas a generation ago a skilled working wage provided a reasonable standard of living, now two professional salaries are required and the downward pressure on wages vs upward cost of living will only continue.

But whereas in the past it was possible to implement progressive liberal and then socialist policies to remedy such a situation and to pay for them by taxation on the wealth generating activity and inherent latent wealth of the nation, it is now not possible to do so - because its either all gone or is insufficient to even maintain current policy let alone embark on a reverse.

There is a suggestion that my position - that the credit pumped in has not been used to develop wealth generation but to fund masking activity in government and consumer spending - is incorrect. But here is the question - if that money has done any good at all to the end argued then how come now its been cut off there's nothing in the penny jar? Where are all the profits from the vast wealth creation that has apparently been going on under our noses that might have kept us in business, in jobs and able to repay?

E



Marini -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/23/2010 5:39:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Wonderful RCH. And in two pages too.

And this is where I see one aspect of the problem - the wages of workers have hardly risen at all, even as their fellows were made redundant as their jobs were shipped overseas, whilst the cost of living has risen and the wages of the boss have risen to dizzying heights.

This is a wonderful topic LadyEllen, many people don't want to face or think about the reality of the way our world is going, because they really can't handle the truth.
[;)]

We are being told that we too can get to be rich, if only we put in the work - but its a lie. A damned lie. Because even qualified people who do skilled work are living close to subsistence level, having to borrow against their (unsure) future to get by. Whereas a generation ago a skilled working wage provided a reasonable standard of living, now two professional salaries are required and the downward pressure on wages vs upward cost of living will only continue.

I know many professional people that have been in their field over 20 years, and are barely making it.
My grandfather was able to build and obtain a home 75 years ago, with a 5th grade education.
In fact, almost everyone in my grandparents generation owned a home {maybe modest} but they owned it.
None of them had more than a high school education, and this was during the era of segregation.
Now that I think of it, almost everyone in my grandparents and parents generation owned their own homes.
Very few in my grandfather's generation had a college degree, but they did own their own homes.
 Many young people will have a much lower standard of living than their parents, what is wrong with this picture?


But whereas in the past it was possible to implement progressive liberal and then socialist policies to remedy such a situation and to pay for them by taxation on the wealth generating activity and inherent latent wealth of the nation, it is now not possible to do so - because its either all gone or is insufficient to even maintain current policy let alone embark on a reverse.

There is a suggestion that my position - that the credit pumped in has not been used to develop wealth generation but to fund masking activity in government and consumer spending - is incorrect. But here is the question - if that money has done any good at all to the end argued then how come now its been cut off there's nothing in the penny jar? Where are all the profits from the vast wealth creation that has apparently been going on under our noses that might have kept us in business, in jobs and able to repay?

E



realcoolhand -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/23/2010 5:41:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Wonderful RCH. And in two pages too.

And this is where I see one aspect of the problem - the wages of workers have hardly risen at all, even as their fellows were made redundant as their jobs were shipped overseas, whilst the cost of living has risen and the wages of the boss have risen to dizzying heights.

We are being told that we too can get to be rich, if only we put in the work - but its a lie. A damned lie. Because even qualified people who do skilled work are living close to subsistence level, having to borrow against their (unsure) future to get by. Whereas a generation ago a skilled working wage provided a reasonable standard of living, now two professional salaries are required and the downward pressure on wages vs upward cost of living will only continue.

But whereas in the past it was possible to implement progressive liberal and then socialist policies to remedy such a situation and to pay for them by taxation on the wealth generating activity and inherent latent wealth of the nation, it is now not possible to do so - because its either all gone or is insufficient to even maintain current policy let alone embark on a reverse.

There is a suggestion that my position - that the credit pumped in has not been used to develop wealth generation but to fund masking activity in government and consumer spending - is incorrect. But here is the question - if that money has done any good at all to the end argued then how come now its been cut off there's nothing in the penny jar? Where are all the profits from the vast wealth creation that has apparently been going on under our noses that might have kept us in business, in jobs and able to repay?

E


Here is a chart of real GDP (tracking growth in the real economy, that is, the total real value of goods and services with the effects of inflation, et cetera, stripped out) from 1900 - Present, from the University of Minnesota. Real GDP has increased steadily.

If there has been no trickle down, you can look to the deepening of corporate coffers, wildly inflated salaries at the highest percentiles of the income scale, and other forms of wealth-aggregation for the cause. It is NOT that a fair distribution has led to a decline in real outputs. Real outputs have risen.

[image]local://upfiles/779528/F52EDF5A694E4352BBA2FA5B81D0D0AD.gif[/image]



realcoolhand -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/23/2010 5:44:11 PM)

All rhetoric aside, go to the data.



realcoolhand -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/23/2010 5:52:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Wonderful RCH. And in two pages too.



Was that a subtle, good natured dig at me? In my defense, these are fairly complicated concepts, they require a good deal of precision, and it can take a little spilled ink to line them up properly.



pahunkboy -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/23/2010 5:58:31 PM)

Dont mind E.

The house changed her shampoo and now she says off beat things at the drop of a hat.

Last time this happened is when she wore the same dress as Lady Di.



;-)



Silence8 -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/23/2010 7:41:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

It sounds like youre coming to a conclusion that comes close to some sort of socialism? That it is wrong for John to expect to take all he can so that Harry might receive more, having put in nothing but his labour, on the basis that Harry will work harder on the basis of aspiration than starvation?

Seems to me that Harry ought to work hard anyway - that way he could one day own his own farm.

E


Einstein didn't give a fuck about the profit motive. There are other things that motivate people (dimensional people, at least) than McMansions and boob jobs.



Silence8 -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/23/2010 7:43:56 PM)

Plus, wealth in the lower and middle classes recirculates faster, for obvious reasons (buying real goods and services, rather than poking around for the cheapest, dirtiest M-M' masturbation-fest.)



LadyEllen -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/24/2010 6:13:18 AM)

Hi RCH

No - it wasnt a dig at anyone or anything (except maybe that all the salient points had come out within two pages - ask around), which was surprising.

What I see before me is a race to the bottom brought to us c/o Global Markets Inc, using the exact same logic about price affecting demand as was brought to us by Industrial Revolution Inc. The difference between now and then is that its other people, in far away lands, that are getting fucked over day and night, rather than our ancestors.

I believe we did well when, from the end of the 19thc through to near the end of the 20th, we embarked on liberal and then socialist policies of improving workers' rights, pay and conditions. Everyone did well from this because as you (and Silence) point out this put more money into the economy and it provided a sort of social lubrication whereby everyone could rub along happily together and if they had the talent and the work ethic, anyone could make it.

The last 30 years though we have declined in a way that is simply unbelievable and should break the hearts of our grandparents to see. We were told that the processes by which this decline was occasioned were good and right and that we should be the winners in the end when we had more leisure time, when the dirty jobs were done overseas and we went to the offices, when our incomes would rise and our pensions and social care would be safeguarded. Its all been a total crock.

But we went along with it - after all it seemed to be true and the only people complaining were "communists", "anarchists", "layabouts" and so on. We saw employment rising, our home equity rising and we saw that we must now be super beings because any of us could get loans and credit cards previously reserved for the rich and successful and all the trappings of a wonderful life from them.

Except it was all an illusion. Rising employment was down to public bodies taking on enormous numbers, our home equity no longer belonged to us because it barely covered our loans and credit cards and the trappings we had so greedily acquired turned out to be utter junk. And what broke the illusion was that those who had engineered this brave new world suddenly came unstuck with the realisation that they had inadvertently befuddled themselves too. The foreign credit dried up, and it was the only thing keeping the whole illusion under wraps.

My question is how do we restore ourselves and restore the kind of world that I experienced as a child in the 70s where one semi skilled wage gave us a reasonable standard of living and there was work for anyone who wanted it and they didnt need a Phd to get it? How do we restore "broken Britain" (substitute your own country as required) to that prior state where there was enough social lubrication as well as (oddly) social glue that respect, responsibility and compassion displaced their alternatives with which we now live?

I was born in 1967. I started school in 1972. The understanding was simple - that if I paid attention and worked hard that I should be set for life. I should be able to go to university, get a degree, own a reasonable house by age 45 and drive a prestige car. Everything changed from 1980. From then on it didnt matter what you did - all that mattered was how much money you made and what you got away with to make it - rules and regulations were for suckers and part of "socialist repression". All prior understandings were cancelled. It was now "you" vs "the world" and if you had to tread on others to get ahead, you did it or you lost out. All virtues were abolished, replaced by whatever vice and sin might be amenable at the time.

And this is where those changes have brought us. A place where I can honestly say that as the owner of a multinational business I am doing worse than my parents who only ever had one semi skilled wage coming in. A place where I seriously doubt that my kids will ever own their own home, even a shoddy apartment in a run down neighbourhood like mine. Where millions are homeless and millions more are living in social housing which if one were to place animals there one should face charges.

What do we do then? Bearing in mind we have no money to invest and bearing in mind that those with the skills we might need are now long since dead or have forgotten them after 30 years on the public dole.

E



realcoolhand -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/24/2010 9:19:49 AM)

Gotcha.

Well, first of all, semi-skilled jobs are industrial jobs, and industry is gone. It's become so efficient that it can't sustain relatively high wages in first-world economies, so it's been "shipped out" to developing economies. In those economies, a wage consistent with the value of the time actually required to do the work would confer relatively little purchasing power in a developed economy, but confers a relatively high purchasing power in the local economies (which is why Chinese cities are full of ex-farmers). It's not, all things considered, a necessarily fair wage, but it's better than the alternative for those workers.

What it takes to succeed in a developed economy is the cultivation of different skill sets, which can be achieved only through education. My present preference (I'm as inconsistent as the next guy, after all) for addressing the issue of wage inequality in the first world is to subsidize education. That is NOT to say to universalize education (though that's an option), but to ensure that education is treated as a public good, like roads or water, non-excludable and and widely available.



LadyEllen -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/24/2010 9:47:01 AM)

Indeed RCH - but what of the 40% or so who are simply not capable of acquiring the skills required for the new economy?

And where is the wealth coming from? This is one of my key points - its all very well to have an economy based on services (including finance, which is also a service) - but if there isnt somewhere value being created and that can be added to by those services, there shall be no need of those services and no means to support them.

We could argue that the value is being created anywhere - the developing economies for instance, and our services add value to that. We could even argue our R&D is what creates value and the manufacture in the developing economies adds value to that and then our services add value to the product when it arrives here.

This is all fine and good except that the much of the services we provide and all of the R&D will within a few years also be possible to export to low wage economies. India turns out 50 engineering graduates for every 1 here and its the same in the hard sciences. Amassing wealth as they are these countries will soon not need us to finance their production, provide the ships or coordinate the supply chain. We shall be left to do only those things that can only be done here - final distribution and legal issues particular to the jurisdiction (and even that latter could be in doubt). We cant all work in the warehouse or the store at Walmart.

What do we do then? We shall not have 40% who are incapable of participation but 80% - they cant all stack shelves or flip burgers, even if the populace could afford to buy. And we certainly cant believe that each of us or even 10% of us can become a successful artist, entertainer or other creative type.

And I dont believe this is some future scenario entirely either - its what we live in right now to great extent. Again I return to my point that the economic growth over the last years has actually been the effect of the introduction of money in the form of credit, used to pump up government spending and employment and to delude the people with easy credit so they wont make a fuss.

I believe we need a curious combination here. We need a liberal approach whereby we make it possible for people to realise reasonable prospects (education being key, with the caveat that not all are cut out), a social democrat interventionist approach whereby we regulate, limit and control the economy to the purposes of the people not the global mega corps, and a conservative approach that says the private sector is the only way forward and efforts and policies must be directed towards its revival so that there are jobs and prospects for the people to work towards but the proceeds of such private sector activity must be allocated more reasonably - certainly not greedily gobbled up by bosses at the expense of the workers. "We're all in this together" must become the way we think and act, replacing the destructive "selfish greed is good" utterly. Equally we must reject the socialist notion that there is any such thing as a free lunch or that it is acceptable to demand more without having made an effort.

E



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
5.078125E-02