Political Change: In Context

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by markyr

If we were able to model the earths problems in a computer and we programmed it to advise us to either:

a) Continue along the current path
b) Enable swift positive change

I think very firmly it would be b)

Probably, at least on many aspects. I also believe we have a lot of good going for us (both as a Nation and as a Species); perhaps those agents for positive change are too fragmented...

Good question

[markyr]

Originally Posted by Khethil

Probably, at least on many aspects. I also believe we have a lot of good going for us (both as a Nation and as a Species); perhaps those agents for positive change are too fragmented...

Good question

I also believe we have enormous potential as a species but face what appear to be insurmountable problems. But they are not insurmountable. We just need to address them in the most logical and practical (a subset of logical of course) manner. Which as a species, we probably haven't done for a long time - if ever. Knowledge base anyone?

In terms of action - this means positive agents of change (me, almost certainly you and others) need to defragment as quickly as possible the other positive agents for change - whoever, wherever they are.

If only we had a way of doing that?

The internet?

What a journey that would be

I believe we have all the tools we need - now we just need to do it.

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

Heart warming, but it dosen't pay the bills. The fact that Obama won on his 'change' platform proves that American's hate the current system and that they do not understand why they hate it, as he is more of the same. People are dumb; this is a democracy; I'm very pessimistic.

What are you talking about? The American people, generally, know exactly why they hate the current system - because the current administration has done one heck of a job wrecking the country with said system.

People are dumb, but that doesn't discredit Obama. Not everyone is dumb.

To say that Obama is more of the same is easy to do. He is from a major political party, he was democratically elected, and he happens to be of the same species as all previous Presidents. But pointing out similarities ignores the differences - and if there are differences, Obama is hardly the same. Clear policy disagreements exist between Obama and every other President this nation has ever seen. Always will be differences. In Obama's case, he is also quite different than any President we've had in the past 30 years.

Also, I'm astonisged at your response to the great change in race relations this nation has undergone. Obama's election is one of the most significant historic events we will ever witness.

[BrightNoon]

Dewey,
“Why do we denounce their practices and promises even as we demand benefits only for ourselves?” We are dumb. We elect dumb politicians. This is the age of mediocrity.

Tom,

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

What are you talking about? The American people, generally, know exactly why they hate the current system - because the current administration has done one heck of a job wrecking the country with said system.

The present administration has merely exacerbated a problem that has been inherent to our system for many decades, which will no doubt be the policy of the coming administration. What, you ask, is this problem? In short, the problem is Keynesian economics specifically and generally the assumption that everyone, via the government, has a right to every perceived societal problem: i.e. socialism. It is natural for a democracy to become socialistic/paternalistic and necessary for it to be lead by morons, which are increasingly corrupt as the size of the government, and therefore the scope of their powers, increases.

The current crisis was caused by government intervention in the housing sector and loose money policy, leading to a speculative bubble, and it will not be corrected by massive monetary expansion; at best, the bursting of the bubble will be delayed, as previous bubbles have been sustained artificially in the past. This is the flawed theory that has led to the annihilation of American industry and its replacement with a consumer society, which is growing increasingly unsustainable; i.e. the government constantly causes bubbles which then want to burst and eliminate malinvestment, but are not allowed to and are sustained and inflated more via the printing press or borrowing, causing inefficiency. This current bubble that is bursting is the accumulation of this policy over many years, which changed little from administration to administration. I fear that this bubble is now so large that it will burst, despite the actions of all the central banks. All Obama will do is turn what must be a severe reccession or depression into a hyperinflationary reccession or depression. Printing money only works for so long. If you don't beleive me, do some research. Look at M3 over the last two or three decades; check out the GAO on the budget deficit; look at what the democrats did during the Clinton adminstration regarding housing through Fannie and Freddie; look at the account balance. All of this points to an increasingly unsustainable consumer society, built on foreign debt and inflation, which will not be maintained by more of that same Keynesian lunacy, no matter how many times you click your heels and beleive.

So, my point was that the American people hate the fact that jobs are leaving the country, prices for goods are rising faster than income, lobbyists are more powerful than ever, etc, and that that is all result of the big-government that is represented by Obama, and every other mainstream politician. They are clamoring for the thing that caused their problems, because they don't understand the relationship.

People are dumb, but that doesn't discredit Obama. Not everyone is dumb.

Everyone doesn’t need to be, only most.

As for the historic significance of this election, no one is denying that. My point is that government is not there to make history; that is a byproduct. It has not been doing its work well, nor will it under Obama. His race is irrelevant to the issue.

[markyr]

Originally Posted by Khethil

Probably, at least on many aspects. I also believe we have a lot of good going for us (both as a Nation and as a Species); perhaps those agents for positive change are too fragmented...

Good question

Hi Warren,

I've been pondering how to model this and have arrived at the following paradox:

If change (which is constant and infinitely beneficial to everything) > status quo (zero benefit), therefore change is inevitable, therefore change = status quo



Mark

[Dewey]

BrightNoon, you simply must get a new psuedonym. How about “DarkestGloom”?

You say we’re dumb, and that we elect dumb politicians. I think any assessment of another person’s intelligence is so subjective as to be a wild guess and, uh, dumb.

Your comments about the causes of our economic crisis are well-stated and, to a point, persuasive. I’m far from expert on economics but have some questions and doubts.

For example, you go too far, I believe, when you try to fix so much blame on Keynesian politics and socialistic democracy – to the point, even, of inferring that some autocratic control is needed. Also, I wonder whether you’re right to place so much of the blame on “government intervention”. The authorities, including even Allen Greenspan himself, are blaming the deregulation that occurred – rather than too much regulation.

One thing I bet we have in common is a concern that the authorities are acting before thinking – just as they did after 9-11!

[BrightNoon]

Originally Posted by Dewey

BrightNoon, you simply must get a new psuedonym. How about “DarkestGloom”?

You say we’re dumb, and that we elect dumb politicians. I think any assessment of another person’s intelligence is so subjective as to be a wild guess and, uh, dumb.

Yes your right. Everyone is brilliant and knowledgable and anyone who thinks otherwise is dumb. Have you met any people?

Your comments about the causes of our economic crisis are well-stated and, to a point, persuasive. I’m far from expert on economics but have some questions and doubts.

For example, you go too far, I believe, when you try to fix so much blame on Keynesian politics and socialistic democracy – to the point, even, of inferring that some autocratic control is needed. Also, I wonder whether you’re right to place so much of the blame on “government intervention”. The authorities, including even Allen Greenspan himself, are blaming the deregulation that occurred – rather than too much regulation.

One thing I bet we have in common is a concern that the authorities are acting before thinking – just as they did after 9-11!

You totally misread what I said. My point is that martial law is where we are heading if the economy collapses as a result of the absurd policies of the government. I don't like that, I'm not advocating that, but I think that is reality. Hopefully I'm quite wrong. The issue of martial law is more debatable than the economic issue though. I see the latter as being pretty much certain. Why?

Keynesian theory functions until debts surpass savings, which is inevitable. (see the national savings rate for the last few decades)

When this occurs, inflation must proceed with increasing speed to prevent default, which would of course reduce consumption. (the only way debtors can continue to consume is to have their debts inflated away; see the exponential increase in the money supply in recent decades)

This inflation will become hyperinflation unless checked by very high interest rates.

Therefore, the government is eventually placed in a position such that they have to choose between hyperinflation and depression: i.e. continually financing more debt via inflation, or dramatically halting lending and consumption. Neither is good, but since a hyperinflationary period always results in depression anyway, the continual inflation option is the worst. That is the course we are on currently, which is no surprise; every government is history has chosen to debase its currency rather than run out of money (whether for keynesian stimulus, war, etc).

You'd be surpised to be find how optomistic of a person I usually am in private life. However, I can't deny the facts, which to me point to one conclusion. On that note, I'll be glad to see this monstrosity go down the drain. Too bad it will have taken such a disaster to accomplish that.

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

The present administration has merely exacerbated a problem that has been inherent to our system for many decades, which will no doubt be the policy of the coming administration. What, you ask, is this problem? In short, the problem is Keynesian economics specifically and generally the assumption that everyone, via the government, has a right to every perceived societal problem: i.e. socialism. It is natural for a democracy to become socialistic/paternalistic and necessary for it to be lead by morons, which are increasingly corrupt as the size of the government, and therefore the scope of their powers, increases.

You are skirting the point. The people know why they do not like the current administration. The people, generally, like Keynesian economics, even if you think Keynesian economics is an inherent flaw in our system.

Your own economic ideology is irrelevant as to whether or not the people at large know why they do not like the current administration.

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

Everyone doesn’t need to be, only most.

And how does this discredit Obama?

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

As for the historic significance of this election, no one is denying that. My point is that government is not there to make history; that is a byproduct. It has not been doing its work well, nor will it under Obama. His race is irrelevant to the issue.

Irrelevant to what issue? To the supposed flaws in Keynesian economics, well sure his race is irrelevant. But the supposed flaws in Keynesian economics is beside the point. Obama, for race and politics, represents a significant change in this country even thought the change he represents is not the change you want to see.

[BrightNoon]

Didymos Thomas,

The people do not like keynesian economics; they do not know what keynesian economics are. They know and worry about the actual conditions of living in this country: prices of goods and services, the value of their retirement savings, likelyhood of emplyment, etc. My point is that, despite a few decades of artificial prosperity generated by monetary inflation, the keynesian chickens are now coming home to roost. The people liked that artificial prosperity, but I don't think they would have had they known at what cost it was achieved; they certainly don't like what's happening now.

And that is precisely why govenments around the world have adopted central banking and keyensian theory isn't it; the government can provide more services even send cash directly to the citizens without having to raise taxes. Of course, the real cost is inflation, which benifits the rich, especially the bankers, who use the money first, while disadvantaging those who receive it later: i.e. the ordinary consumer. The only way keynesian economics do not impoverish people, sooner or later, is if wages/salaries keep up with inflation, which had historically been a rare occurance. Let us not forget also that the Fed earns interest on every new Treasury debt that it purchases with newly printed money; i.e. the greater the monetary expansion, the greater the profit for the Fed, which, let us not forget, is composed of private bankers.

The whole thingsort of resembles what happened at Enron; those who managed the system have artifically increased the apparent value of the system (e.g. GDP, which has been kept high because of inflation; real GDP is estmiated by many economists to be substantially lower than the government figures; the same with inflation, except that government figures are too low), all the while pulling real welath out for themselves. When this is finally realized (when T-bill rates explode upward and the U.S. loses its AAA credit rating), the system collapses.

I'm not saying that the people share my philosophy, just that they dislike the effects of the keyensian policy. Unfortunately, without understanding the reasons for those ill effects, they are demanding more of the same: "the government has got ot do something.' No, in fact, they do not.

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

Didymos Thomas,

The people do not like keynesian economics; they do not know what keynesian economics are. They know and worry about the actual conditions of living in this country: prices of goods and services, the value of their retirement savings, likelyhood of emplyment, etc. My point is that, despite a few decades of artificial prosperity generated by monetary inflation, the keynesian chickens are now coming home to roost. The people liked that artificial prosperity, but I don't think they would have had they known at what cost it was achieved; they certainly don't like what's happening now.

You are still skirting the point. You say the people do not know what Keynesian economics is, which means they cannot possibly dislike Keynesian economics. The people dislike Bush administration politics - this is something they can recognize and clearly detest. If you ask people what they do not like about the current system, they will not reply "Keynesian economics" but will reply "Bush policy".

I really don't care to get into the economic debate, but it's funny - you speak of monetary inflation, but monetarists are not Keynesians.

Either way, you can blame Keynesian economics for the current economic problems, but that's beside the point. The people know why they do not like the system, even if they are mistaken in their diagnosis of said system.

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

I'm not saying that the people share my philosophy, just that they dislike the effects of the keyensian policy. Unfortunately, without understanding the reasons for those ill effects, they are demanding more of the same: "the government has got ot do something.' No, in fact, they do not.

This is your economic ideology and nothing more. The issue goes beyond Keynesian economics, brother. It's closer to immense spending in futile wars, lies from the government and that sort of thing.