wealth, exploitation and repression

wealth, exploitation and repression (Full Version)

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

Message

LadyEllen -> wealth, exploitation and repression (5/22/2010 7:34:37 AM)
Throughout western history one thing has remained a constant. That in order for great wealth to be generated, a system whereby the repression and exploitation of a great many people must be introduced, maintained and where possible extended, by force as necessary. We see this in the ancient empires, the feudal system, the imperial expansion of the latter half of the last millennium, (including the Atlantic slave trade and the expansion of the US), the industrial revolution and now in the outsourcing of production to low wage economies. For the greatest part of all of this, great wealth was generated for a very small percentage of the population, with the vast majority living in poverty yet the source of that generation of great wealth. And we might have found ourselves today living in a world alike but for the liberal and later socialist influences on our societies that emerged in the late 19th century and came to prominent effect throughout the 20th, whereby the benefits arising from wealth generation and the significant resource of retained wealth from the past came to be more equitably distributed amongst the entire population. All in all this more equitable distribution seemed, and still seems, to be a good thing. The downside however has been that as the distribution took place, progressively over the 20th century, the degree to which the majority of the population could be profitably exploited and, given the political reform accompanying the impact of liberal and later socialist influence, successfully repressed depreciated correspondingly. The result was the export of wealth generation to places where such political and economic change had not taken place, where the same model of exploitation and repression could be introduced so as to maintain wealth generation and more than that to restore the benefit of that wealth generation into the hands of a very few. The maintenance meanwhile of our progressive values in the face of such deterioration has required the liquidation of almost all of that remaining resource of wealth from the past and lately has required the injection of cheap credit from overseas, principally from those places to where our wealth generation was exported, in order to fund public spending, propel a consumer economy and enable speculation on international markets as a means of generating income. The question therefore is that given our need in the west to regain our ability to generate wealth, rather than rely on the less than reliable speculations of banking and finance, a consumer economy driven by credit derived from overseas and public funding to keep up appearances funded by the same mechanism, must we not roll back a century of political and economic change in order again to become competitive in this regard by restoring the exploitation and repression of the masses within our own borders? E

vincentML -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/22/2010 8:34:41 AM)
quote: The question therefore is that given our need in the west to regain our ability to generate wealth, rather than rely on the less than reliable speculations of banking and finance, a consumer economy driven by credit derived from overseas and public funding to keep up appearances funded by the same mechanism, must we not roll back a century of political and economic change in order again to become competitive in this regard by restoring the exploitation and repression of the masses within our own borders? I would take issue with two implicit or explicit assumptions in your question, Lady Ellen. all just my opinion of course. First, you assume the supply of people in the world who are available to be oppressed for the sake of our wealth (US/UK) is limited. I say this is an error. The oppressed worldwide obligingly reproduce prodigiously. You are allowing national borders to cloud your thinking. Reach out to the oppressed. They are eager for more. Why deprive them by turning inward? Secondly, I disagree that our credit is dependent upon financing from abroad. Fuck no. It is created out of thin air. We don't need your lousy Chinese credit. What? You expect us to become manufacturing giants again? I don't think so. The new world order is one of digital creation and destruction of wealth at the speed of light. Yes, there will be some ups and downs, but what the hell! These are the new good old days.

LadyEllen -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/22/2010 9:02:26 AM)
My view V is that we need to reacquire the lost art of wealth generation - this is not at all the same as financial speculation that may or may not generate income. I reach this view from both sides as it were. On the macro-economic scale what wealth we have in our nations is being drained off with little or nothing topping it back up. There comes a point in this scenario where there is nothing left with which we can pay, and this regardless of conjuring money out of thin air for this money is effectively nothing more than a promise that is currently good only because there is still sufficient wealth to drain from us. On the level of the individual and his community, unless we take restorative action then we shall see only further decline in prospects and conditions if we do not reacquire wealth generating capacity. This can only lead to social decline, civil unrest and a host of other ills as we see have sprung up over recent times being exacerbated. Paradoxically this trend will eventually lead us to a situation where we are again competitive, but through desperation and not on our own terms but on the terms of overseas corporations visiting upon us that which we previously visited on their countries. In the meantime it seems clear that we cannot prop up the social and political changes made last century because we increasingly lack the means to pay for them. It therefore seems necessary to roll those changes back such that we may become again competitive in terms of wealth generation and by doing this of our own volition now being able to do it on our own terms. The effect on the individual and his community is the same as doing nothing in that living standards will have to fall markedly - but we retain in this way the ability to maintain minimum acceptable standards and the prospect for all to get ahead within that adjusted society. I see it as a matter of letting events control us or controlling events ourselves. E

pahunkboy -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/22/2010 12:58:01 PM)
Oh - is there no end to America bashing? We have the right to manifest destiny! (I hear you E. I am just pushing buttons with you. It is all about Wall Street. My cynicism runs deep and wild.... in your own way tho- you just echoed my post on how the govt will kill us when it gets that bad.... in a strange sorts of way)

vincentML -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/22/2010 3:53:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen My view V is that we need to reacquire the lost art of wealth generation - this is not at all the same as financial speculation that may or may not generate income. I reach this view from both sides as it were. On the macro-economic scale what wealth we have in our nations is being drained off with little or nothing topping it back up. There comes a point in this scenario where there is nothing left with which we can pay, and this regardless of conjuring money out of thin air for this money is effectively nothing more than a promise that is currently good only because there is still sufficient wealth to drain from us. I am uncertain if you are only tweaking us for fun here, LE. I will give you the courtesy to assume you are not. So, to answer your first position i ask when was wealth ever supported by any thing that retained value? Not land and surely not gold. Everything tangible is subject to being valued by what the willing buyer offers. Was a time when tulip bulbs were worth more than my auto is today. What is your definition of "wealth" then? You write of it as if it were once not ephemeral. I think the concept is delusional (not you LE, the concept) For me, wealth is whatever the prevailing Power says it is. Or whatever the Market acclaims. The Market creates and destroys wealth. Wealth is not static. Currency is just the way we keep score. quote: On the level of the individual and his community, unless we take restorative action then we shall see only further decline in prospects and conditions if we do not reacquire wealth generating capacity. This can only lead to social decline, civil unrest and a host of other ills as we see have sprung up over recent times being exacerbated. Paradoxically this trend will eventually lead us to a situation where we are again competitive, but through desperation and not on our own terms but on the terms of overseas corporations visiting upon us that which we previously visited on their countries. With all respect, this seems very Dickensian. If you were talking about the under dveloped world populations I would agree. But civil unrest has not been on the rise and it seems to be a fact that the Western world underclasses of today live far better lives than those during Victorian or Edwardian times, due to the success of the Progressive agenda. I hope Pahunk reads me here. quote: In the meantime it seems clear that we cannot prop up the social and political changes made last century because we increasingly lack the means to pay for them. It therefore seems necessary to roll those changes back such that we may become again competitive in terms of wealth generation and by doing this of our own volition now being able to do it on our own terms. The effect on the individual and his community is the same as doing nothing in that living standards will have to fall markedly - but we retain in this way the ability to maintain minimum acceptable standards and the prospect for all to get ahead within that adjusted society. Okay ..... my first reaction here is that one person's or class's social rollback is another's suffering. How far back is rollback? Do we do away with child labor laws and the 40 hour work week? So, here are three things in your analysis I would ask you to define more clearly: wealth, social rollback, and competitiveness. I think there is a hint (just a wiff) of reactonary Luddites in your essay. Really, I do not mean to insult you. Please don't take it as such. Let me suggest what is missing in your analysis is some consideration of Schumpeter's Law of Creative Destruction in Capitalism. Schumpeter's view was that Capitalism is driven by technological innovation. New technology destroys old technology. Or as the tune goes, "Video killed the radio star." My point is that new technology drives Capitalism and it drives competition. It is the technology we employ that keeps us competitive not cheap labor of old. We live in an age where digital tools and processes dominate. I posit that digital technology is the basis of new wealth creation. Those that are blind to it today will fall away just as analog has died. And one day there will be a new technology that will challenge digital. Keep an eye out for it. It will bring you wealth. <lol>

realcoolhand -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/22/2010 4:06:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen The maintenance meanwhile of our progressive values in the face of such deterioration has required the liquidation of almost all of that remaining resource of wealth from the past and lately has required the injection of cheap credit from overseas, principally from those places to where our wealth generation was exported, in order to fund public spending, propel a consumer economy and enable speculation on international markets as a means of generating income. The reason why credit became such a problem was not that our ability to generate wealth decreased as our commitment to a more equal distribution of wealth deepened; it's that credit *simulates* the effects of spreading wealth without actually spreading it. Of course what really matters is total volume of a person's lifetime income stream. If the average person's total volume of a person's lifetime income stream increases, then the average person can said to have become wealthier. At any given moment their purchasing power is greater, their material comfort is greater, and their quality of life is improved. Credit simulates the effect of a real increase in wealth in the present by allowing folks to increase their present purchasing power, and therefore their present quality of life, by borrowing against their future income streams, without actually increasing the total volume of those streams over the course of the person's life. Of course, credit arrangements create unnatural allocations of risk, and so systems that depend on credit end up more fragile, but that's a discussion for another thread I guess. Back to the unnatural allocations of risk, the lender bears the risk of default, and what's happened as the former third-world has become the western world's banker is that we've shifted to them all the risk that we've borrowed too heavily against our future income and will be unable to pay them back.

realcoolhand -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/22/2010 4:08:13 PM)
We've got the same (probably greater) ability to generate wealth, we've just found a way to extend the illusion of wealth without sharing the wealth itself.

pahunkboy -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/22/2010 4:44:16 PM)
coming up- Tomorrow we will do an excericism on Ronald Reagan. Heil Trickle down- voodoo economics! lol

realcoolhand -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/22/2010 4:47:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy coming up- Tomorrow we will do an excericism on Ronald Reagan. Heil Trickle down- voodoo economics! lol Dude, what?

pahunkboy -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/22/2010 5:20:13 PM)
quote: Trickle down- voodoo economics quote: ORIGINAL: realcoolhand quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy coming up- Tomorrow we will do an excericism on Ronald Reagan. Heil Trickle down- voodoo economics! lol Dude, what? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics The 80s rocked. But Reagan was- - over rated. Trickle down we were told would elevate all of us- it of course did not.

LadyEllen -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/22/2010 5:21:56 PM)
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. E

pahunkboy -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/22/2010 5:22:02 PM)
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/col/huff/2002/09/05/voodoo/index.html The return of voodoo economics The policies once blasted by the president's father have become the centerpiece of the current administration's economic policy.

realcoolhand -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/22/2010 5:47:23 PM)
There ya go; I don't know if the eighties rocked (I was eight when they ended) but I agree that Reagan is overrated.

Politesub53 -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/22/2010 5:48:54 PM)
It is debatable the the industrial revolution exploited workers, given the economic conditions of the time. It is all well and good looking back in hindsight, but it is easy to forget the progress made by working class in this period. I am convinced we are about to see some of the biggest changes to social laws in the UK, since 1834. Capitalism, unbridled, is as big a disaster as socialism unbridled. Recent economic events show us that. Despite people crowing about the plight of the Euro, it needs to be remembered that it was deregulated capitalism that got us into this miss. The ONLY people to gain from the sub prime mortgage disaster were the CEOs and higher managment of the banks and financial service companies. Lending to people who were unable to repay their loans, knowing they would default, was a despicable practice carried out by many mortgage companies. This, not the physical, was the force that kept people in their place. The fear of losing your home, and in some cases sheer greed by the home owners, led to people over extending on mortgages. No one will convince me that these CEOs didnt realise what may happen. The bubble had to burst and the banks knew the Government would have to pick up the tab, or face an economy in ruin. Many on here knock socialism yet forget the free market has brought cases were children were jailed for profit, fraudulently and with the conivance of the law. The richest countries in the west, still have a situation where 99% of the wealth is owned by 1% of the population. This cant be right and everyone needs to strive to alter the current system.

realcoolhand -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/22/2010 6:36:38 PM)
Damn. Why bother? The premises are flawed. LE assumes that wealth creation and equitable distribution of wealth are inversely related. They are not. Distributing wealth more fairly does NOT mean producing less wealth. And yes, we are continuing to produce wealth, not merely living off our savings. No one seems to notice, but I've already explained how consumer credit allows us to simulate a FAIR distribution of wealth. So NO, we do not need to roll back liberal society to halt the decline of western civilization. Western civilization is not declining, the distribution of wealth is not dramatically more fair than it was before the industrial revolution, and the credit structures that have been used to convince us that it is more fairly distributed are now used to engender xenophobia even as they render the system as a whole more fragile.

Vendaval -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/23/2010 1:56:11 AM)
I don't think that we will have to return to the worst ills of the Industrial Revolution. But we are in a time of grave economic crisis and social/economic restructuring. And with new trade agreements, multi-national companies and the continuing loss of the middle class it is going to be a rough time.

LadyEllen -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/23/2010 6:16:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: realcoolhand Damn. Why bother? The premises are flawed. LE assumes that wealth creation and equitable distribution of wealth are inversely related. They are not. Distributing wealth more fairly does NOT mean producing less wealth. And yes, we are continuing to produce wealth, not merely living off our savings. No one seems to notice, but I've already explained how consumer credit allows us to simulate a FAIR distribution of wealth. So NO, we do not need to roll back liberal society to halt the decline of western civilization. Western civilization is not declining, the distribution of wealth is not dramatically more fair than it was before the industrial revolution, and the credit structures that have been used to convince us that it is more fairly distributed are now used to engender xenophobia even as they render the system as a whole more fragile. And you do not see any issue with foreign credit being introduced to "simulate a fair distribution of wealth"? I would go further than that though and say that this introduced credit is responsible to great extent for a simulated economic growth too. Neither are real and each is subversive to retaining whatever wealth we imagine we may have gained from the introduction and whatever wealth we retain from centuries of exploitation and repression, at home and abroad - for it has to be repaid. Not only this but it has been used to mask the decline in our ability to generate the wealth whereby we might have done without the credit and now to repay the credit. That wealth generation is hindered by a fair distribution is clear - if workers require pay and condtions that lift them out of poverty then the cost of generating wealth rises, the profit falls and others may easily outcompete us who have not adopted such progressive policies. This is why so much wealth generation has been removed to countries where such policies are absent or underdeveloped, and why the need arose to mask everything here with cheap easy credit. E

realcoolhand -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/23/2010 7:47:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: realcoolhand Damn. Why bother? The premises are flawed. LE assumes that wealth creation and equitable distribution of wealth are inversely related. They are not. Distributing wealth more fairly does NOT mean producing less wealth. And yes, we are continuing to produce wealth, not merely living off our savings. No one seems to notice, but I've already explained how consumer credit allows us to simulate a FAIR distribution of wealth. So NO, we do not need to roll back liberal society to halt the decline of western civilization. Western civilization is not declining, the distribution of wealth is not dramatically more fair than it was before the industrial revolution, and the credit structures that have been used to convince us that it is more fairly distributed are now used to engender xenophobia even as they render the system as a whole more fragile. And you do not see any issue with foreign credit being introduced to "simulate a fair distribution of wealth"? I definitely do. Not only because it allows western societies to put off the hard work of actually engaging in substantive institutional reform that would result in more equitable distributions of wealth as it is generated, but because it shifts to other economies the risk that the west will be unable to or, more likely, unwilling to make good on the promise to pay. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I would go further than that though and say that this introduced credit is responsible to great extent for a simulated economic growth too. Depends on what you mean by "simulated economic growth." When properly managed, debt can be a good thing if the debtor invests borrowed funds in such a way that, in the long term, their total volume of income increases, allowing them to pay back the loan with (hopefully) a surplus. Because the availability of credit has a real impact on our ability to generate real wealth, financial services add real value to the real economy. Of course there is a purely speculative side to the financial services economy, but that does not mean that all growth in that sector of the economy is illusory and unsupported by real value. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Neither are real and each is subversive to retaining whatever wealth we imagine we may have gained from the introduction and whatever wealth we retain from centuries of exploitation and repression, at home and abroad - for it has to be repaid. Not only this but it has been used to mask the decline in our ability to generate the wealth whereby we might have done without the credit and now to repay the credit. Treating wealth solely as the product of oppression and exploitation is as much a mistake as is treating the value added by finance as illusory. Time is money, and so efficiency gains increase real wealth by saving time, without exploiting or oppressing anyone. Although it's not a straight conversion, it's helpful to think of a dollar as equivalent to an hour of labor (it's not such a stretch, which is why wages work). Now imagine that we all need some product called Alpha. It normally takes three precious hours to produce a unit of Alpha, and so a unit of Alpha costs three dollars in a fair market. Now I take out a loan and use the proceeds to develop a technique which allows me to produce a unit of Alpha in one hour. Since that hour is worth a dollar, it costs me a dollar to make a unit of Alpha. I sell it to you for two dollars, and make a dollar of profit. I am now one dollar/one hour richer. Since it would take you three hours to make the Alpha yourself, it would cost you three dollars, and by purchasing from me, you've saved a dollar/hour. You are now one dollar/hour richer. Everyone wins, and I can use the profit I make to pay back the loan I took out. In this example, credit is not masking declining productivity, but rather facilitating an increase in productivity. Consumer credit is, by in large, different. Consumers use credit almost exclusively to increase their present ability to consume, without regard to the fact that their future income streams will be substantially narrowed by the press of repayment obligations. Credit should not be used to facilitate consumption. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen That wealth generation is hindered by a fair distribution is clear - if workers require pay and condtions that lift them out of poverty then the cost of generating wealth rises, the profit falls and others may easily outcompete us who have not adopted such progressive policies. This is why so much wealth generation has been removed to countries where such policies are absent or underdeveloped, and why the need arose to mask everything here with cheap easy credit. That wealth generation is hindered by a fair distribution is NOT clear, in fact it is counterintuitive. It's all about transaciton costs and incentives. If everyone is ensured a fair share of the wealth they generate, then they have an incentive to cooperate (lowering transaction costs) and innovate (increasing real productivity). The transaction costs of cooperation are lower than those of coercion. Transaction costs are the costs of ensuring that work actually gets done. Imagine that the only means of production is a farm, and the only economic actors are two farmers. They could agree to till the soil together, and to take a share of the produce equal to the share of work each has done. Now both have an incentive to work hard, and neither has to waste time (which, remember, is equal to money) making sure that the other is working. If, on the other hand, farmer John will take all the produce and give farmer Harry only enough produce to survive, farmer Harry has no incentive to work hard, no incentive to innovate, and farmer John will have to spend a considerable amount of time/money just to ensure that farmer Harry is working at all!

realcoolhand -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/23/2010 7:49:16 AM)
Damn; my quotations are all screwed up. This is why I'm not a computer programmer.

realcoolhand -> RE: wealth, exploitation and repression (5/23/2010 7:52:52 AM)
There we go.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875