The DnD Sanctuary

From the article (book review) Innovation: The Government Was Crucial After All (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/apr/24/innovation-government-was-crucial-after-all/)

“The great advances of civilization,” wrote Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom, his influential best seller published in 1962, “whether in architecture or painting, in science or literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government.” He did not say what he made of the state-sponsored art of Athens’s Periclean Age or the Medici family, who, as Europe’s dominant bankers but then as Florentine rulers, commissioned and financed so much Renaissance art. Or the Spanish court that gave us Velázquez. Or the many public universities that produced great scientists in our times. Or, even just before Friedman was writing, what could he have made of the Manhattan Project of the US government, which produced the atomic bomb? Or the National Institutes of Health, whose government-supported grants led to many of the most important pharmaceutical breakthroughs?

We could perhaps forgive Friedman’s ill-informed remarks as a burst of ideological enthusiasm if so many economists and business executives didn’t accept this myth as largely true.

All ideologies aside, modern economic systems are hybrids of capitalism and socialism. Relying on private enterprise for innovation often fails, as the company needs to please its shareholders in time for the next quarterly report and something that will take a few years to pay off won't necessarily do that. That leads the investors to question the R & D spending, although they often don't know the technology that drives the company from their own asses. But we've also seen pure socialism and its failures. The economies behind the Iron Curtain stagnated and the communist system crumbled. China only began to prosper after it abandoned its Maoist ideology.

In another thread Belfrager said that Marx, among other authors, was "adulterated". I'm not sure what he meant. Maybe that he's wrongly interpreted? I don't think Marx's behaviour at communist conferences left much room for doubt about his overall big plans.

Still there are two important things that Marx got right. One is that the system of economy is related to or vitally dependent on the form of government. For example feudal economy works best under feudal form of government. Dictatorship can choose whichever economy to implement, but it would be self-defeating for dictatorship to let the economic system foment self-reliant or democratic sentiments too much. Various shapes of slavery serve the purpose of dictatorship better. And of oligarchy. 

The other thing Marx got right was an accurate description of capitalism as economic theory. There are two circuits: The circuit of commodities and the circuit of capital. The circuit of commodities is the production cycle, and the circuit of capital is to produce "surplus value" where "money makes money" apart from any actual consumption or production of commodities. No other economic theory comes even close to Marx's in accuracy and applicability.

The two things that Marx got right are right about other things than socialism. I don't think he got socialism right (and judging by his behaviour at communist conferences, he never meant to get socialism right).

The big idea of socialism is redistribution with the purpose of equalisation of property. Noble policies require decent people to implement them. Marx was wrong to suggest that a "dictatorship of the proletariat" could do it. Idealising the proletariat is as wrong as idealising the aristocracy. In reality there should be actual checks and balances in place to reduce the potential for corruption. Anyway, this gets a lot into how the politics should work rather than the economy, so this is why I think Marx was at least right in saying that a theory of economy is not enough. The proper perspective is politico-economics.

The big difference between socialism and capitalism is that capitalism's virtue, aim and motive is profit, and there's no suggestion how to cap it, no suggestion how to deal with overheating, cyclical booms and crashes. Socialism's virtue, aim and motive is economic equality by means of redistribution, to provide to everyone from the common means. Socialism sounds much more sensible and moderate, but in this world I doubt there will be a government who will actually do it.

These days people call the spending of tax revenue "socialism" (or "mixed economy"), but within the framework of capitalism this does not even come close to what socialism and communism actually mean. And since every country in the world has taxation, there's nothing "mixed" in it either. Everybody does it.

Relying on private enterprise for innovation often fails, as the company needs to please its shareholders in time for the next quarterly report and something that will take a few years to pay off won't necessarily do that.

In Europe and perhaps especially Japan the "long" term (i.e. more than just one or two years) tends to carry a little more weight than in America. That's a cultural thing, nothing state-mandated. Although the top managers seem to be infatuated with the Anglo-Saxon model, for some reason. *cough*filling their own pockets*cough*

In another thread Belfrager said that Marx, among other authors, was "adulterated". I'm not sure what he meant. Maybe that he's wrongly interpreted? I don't think Marx's behaviour at communist conferences left much room for doubt about his overall big plans.

I'm not a marxist, by the contrary, always fought all my life against the marxist forces. It seems my side has won but honestly, looking around the western world, I don't know anymore if this is better.
That said, there's one aspect that I think Marx was right and it's a fundamental part of his work - the exploitation of man by man.

Adulterated means what it means and I had the trouble of checking if english had that word previous to post. A necessity that affects those who have to express at rudimentary languages.

I'm not a marxist, by the contrary, always fought all my life against the marxist forces. It seems my side has won but honestly, looking around the western world, I don't know anymore if this is better.

How in this world do you think that the "Marxist forces" in the West have lost…? Multiculturalism, Critical this-and-that-ism, moral relativity and post-Modernism (whatever that means…) permeate our cultures! They are viruses. (Shouldn't they be quarantined? :) )

That said, there's one aspect that I think Marx was right and it's a fundamental part of his work - the exploitation of man by man.

What a brilliant man! He almost grasped the import of Original Sin… A little late, but then he was an "intellectual"!

Adulterated means what it means and I had the trouble of checking if english had that word previous to post. A necessity that affects those who have to express at rudimentary languages.

Not to worry, Bel: People have managed to talk to each other for aeons… (May I post another's poetry?

The Aim Was Song

Before man came to blow it right
The wind once blew itself untaught,
And did its loudest day and night
In any rough place where it caught.


Man came to tell it what was wrong:
It hadn't found the place to blow;
It blew too hard--the aim was song.
And listen--how it ought to go!


He took a little in his mouth,
And held it long enough for north
To be converted into south,
And then by measure blew it forth.


By measure. It was word and note,
The wind the wind had meant to be--
A little through the lips and throat.
The aim was song--the wind could see.

How in this world do you think that the "Marxist forces" in the West have lost…? Multiculturalism, Critical this-and-that-ism, moral relativity and post-Modernism (whatever that means…) permeate our cultures! They are viruses. (Shouldn't they be quarantined?  :)  )

What you refer aren't Marxist products or even by-products but the result of savage Capitalism, a capitalism under no moral order.

What a brilliant man! He almost grasped the import of Original Sin… A little late, but then he was an "intellectual"!

:)
Marx was a bourgeois...

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-11-02, 03:56:21

How in this world do you think that the "Marxist forces" in the West have lost…? Multiculturalism, Critical this-and-that-ism, moral relativity and post-Modernism (whatever that means…) permeate our cultures! They are viruses. (Shouldn't they be quarantined?  :)  )

What you refer aren't Marxist products or even by-products but the result of savage Capitalism, a capitalism under no moral order.

I just meant to say that. Oakdale completely (and wrongly) equates Western decadent Leftism, a natural by-product of capitalism, with Marxism. Marxists always had a strong sense of ideals where they were getting at. The ideals were misguided (as I said, Marx didn't get socialism right) but there surely were ideals, whereas Western decadent Leftism is a whiney critique of everything without any constructive element.

And Oakdale has nothing to say about economy. When he does, he's ironically just as whiney and deconstructive as Western Leftists.

Well, one thing is for sure; some changes are going to be necessary in our (US) system of govt.

Corruptness runs rampant, our citizenry is ignored while other countries are waited on like royalty by our govt (Israel), young adult unemployment near 20%, and most of the just-mentioned young adults have a minimum of $30,000 student loan debt.

The whole lot of it is depressing.

And Oakdale has nothing to say about economy.

Yes but I like his poetry. :)

By measure. It was word and note,
The wind the wind had meant to be--
A little through the lips and throat.
The aim was song--the wind could see.

I imagine this played as that kind of Bob Dylan songs...
Protest song writers aren't anymore what they used to be... :)

Protest song writers aren't anymore what they used to be...

Sure, they've grown old.

Then:
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxYXLcy6WP8[/video]

Late '90s:
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWlsA6K5Q-w[/video]

:P

Oakdale completely (and wrongly) equates Western decadent Leftism, a natural by-product of capitalism, with Marxism.

In a sense, ersi, you are correct: Capitalism and a reasonably limited government combine to dis-establish the intellectuals, who must rule, regulate and meddle — or lose their self-esteem!

Marxists always had a strong sense of ideals where they were getting at. The ideals were misguided (as I said, Marx didn't get socialism right) but there surely were ideals, whereas Western decadent Leftism is a whiney critique of everything without any constructive element.

As intellectuals, Marxists craved power over men… Their ideals were -shall we say- contingent upon receiving enough power? :) They wanted to re-shape society so that no man could be other than a cog in the machine they envisioned — as Trotsky said, "God Is the State; the State is God"! (Yeah, I know he didn't say it… :) )
Western Leftism is much the same; intellectuals hungry for power! To pretend to control matters beyond our understanding requires only that one convince others that these matters aren't… And, then, consolidate — a so-called constructive element?
It's only rule over men, ersi.

And Oakdale has nothing to say about economy. When he does, he's ironically just as whiney and deconstructive as Western Leftists.

I take "deconstructive" here to mean not consonant with Grand Schemes of Command and Control… I plead guilty, then!
——————————————————
@Belfrager: It seems unlikely, but your words and mine here might give the wrong impression to some. The poem The Aim Was Song was written by Rbt. Frost — still my favorite poet, in the English language. :)

And Oakdale has nothing to say about economy.

I would treat this separately:
Economics is a descriptive science, first. And a subsumed off-shoot of ethics…secondarily. Would you disagree, ersi? Belfrager? Anyone? :)

Of course, the "planners" would… Human nature, being what it is, they want control! )both senses meant, of "want" :) (

Quote from: ersi on 2014-11-02, 01:19:30

Oakdale completely (and wrongly) equates Western decadent Leftism, a natural by-product of capitalism, with Marxism.

In a sense, ersi, you are correct: Capitalism and a reasonably limited government combine to dis-establish the intellectuals, who must rule, regulate and meddle — or lose their self-esteem!

As intellectuals, Marxists craved power over men… Their ideals were -shall we say- contingent upon receiving enough power? :) They wanted to re-shape society so that no man could be other than a cog in the machine they envisioned — as Trotsky said, "God Is the State; the State is God"! (Yeah, I know he didn't say it… :) )

Western Leftism is much the same; intellectuals hungry for power! To pretend to control matters beyond our understanding requires only that one convince others that these matters aren't… And, then, consolidate — a so-called constructive element?
It's only rule over men, ersi.

You go on about power in a way that makes it abundantly clear that this is your major gripe. So, let me ask: When you get the power you crave, economic and political, what will you do with it? According to what theory and practice will you wield it?

I know. Your point narrows down to these words: "To pretend to control matters beyond our understanding requires only that one convince others..." i.e. as long as all goes well, you will bask in hoped popular fame - certainly in self-adulation -, but as soon as things go wrong, it's "matters beyond our understanding" that are to take the blame.

Economics is a descriptive science, first. And a subsumed off-shoot of ethics…secondarily. Would you disagree, ersi? Belfrager? Anyone? :)

As a science, economics of course should be descriptive, and this is precisely the problem with Say's Law, Friedmanian monetarism, et al. - they aren't descriptive! Marx's Kapital is the most accurate description of capitalism there is. The prescriptive stuff in Marx's writings concerns socialism which had not been implemented yet and thus could not have been descriptive, and I already said Marx got that part wrong anyway.

Of course, the "planners" would… Human nature, being what it is, they want control! )both senses meant, of "want" :) (

"Planners" want control? As opposed to cronies who act out of sheer altruism for the society? Remember that my main complaint was that you are saying nothing about economy, and this perfectly applies here.

That said, it's worth noting what Social Democrats, originally Western followers of Marx, are really doing. They share political power as collaborators of bourgeois parliamentarism. They didn't grab all the power to themselves. And this collaboration has given much vitality to capitalism since the end of WWII until now, even though Marx predicted capitalism's demise was imminent in his own lifetime. Social Democrats really grok capitalism, both theoretically and practically, while the bourgeois have no proper theoretical comprehension of it and in practice live off the fruits of those who have the comprehension and who do the essential work in the society.

I hve no basic problem with capitalism but it has been sorely misused in the West and the perpetrators  get away with criminality

the bourgeois have no proper theoretical comprehension of it and in practice live off the fruits of those who have the comprehension and who do the essential work in the society.

Who are these people who do "the work" and what is the work they do?  If it's essential, it is -at least- something that can be delineated, no? Of course, No!
What you mean is: Intellectuals are smarter than everyone else; hence, what they think is important matters most… What they don't think is un-thinkable. Or banal. :)

Perhaps if someone wrote a book that noone could understand, stating the primacy of the bourgeois view, you'd re-consider your view? :)
I repeat myself: Who are these people who do "the work" and what is the work they do?  If it's essential, it is -at least- something that can be delineated…
So. Delineate, please.

Who are these people who do "the work" and what is the work they do?  If it's essential, it is -at least- something that can be delineated, no? Of course, No!

I spoke deliberately in Marxist terminology so you should have got this on the fly, but no hope. The work is of course productive work, the kind of work that builds houses, produces food and puts it on people's tables.

What you mean is: Intellectuals are smarter than everyone else; hence, what they think is important matters most… What they don't think is un-thinkable. Or banal. :)

Obviously I didn't mean that. You are too painfully thick these days. In turn, what do you mean? Had a point to make?

I think maybe Oakdale has spent too much time being an "intellectual" and has forgotten how the rest of us in the real world have to make this all work. It's not all about spinning big words into sentences that only 5 people can understand-- and in truth they're lying about that.

Hey, you want an example of "essential work"? OK, next time your car breaks down you have a choice. Either find a mechanic who can fix the thing-- or fix it yourself if you can. That's essential work if you expect that car to get you to the library where you can bury yourself in all those books with all those big words in sentences that only 5 people can understand-- and they're lying about that. :D

Buy a dictionary, sir. Better yet, there are many free online dictionaries.

Merriam-Webster Online: Dictionary and Thesaurus
www.merriam-webster.com/
Merriam‑Webster
Free online dictionary, thesaurus, spanish-english and medical dictionaries, audio pronunciations, Word of the Day, word games, and many more high-quality ...
‎Word Games - ‎Word of the Day - ‎Vocabulary Quiz - ‎Top Ten Lists
Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words ...
dictionary.reference.com/
Dictionary.com
The world's most popular dictionary and thesaurus with definitions, synonyms, antonyms, idioms, word origins, quotes, audio pronunciations, example sentences ...
‎Translator - ‎Word of the Day - ‎Fun and Games - ‎Crossword Solver, Crossword ...
Cambridge Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus
dictionary.cambridge.org/us/
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Cambridge Dictionaries Online - English dictionary, English-Spanish translation and British & American English audio pronunciation from Cambridge University ...

Do you have a OakdaleFTL-rjhowie/rjhowie-OakdaleFTL dictionary in store?

Perhaps some NLTK (http://www.nltk.org/) trickery could make a reasonable initial attempt at compiling one automatically.

Do you have a OakdaleFTL-rjhowie/rjhowie-OakdaleFTL dictionary in store?

That is probably the funniest thing I've read this year! Bravo!

Quote from: jax on 2014-11-23, 11:28:52

Do you have a OakdaleFTL-rjhowie/rjhowie-OakdaleFTL dictionary in store?

That is probably the funniest thing I've read this year! Bravo!

Rjhowie's asking what you said...

No, he is laughing at the would-be intellectuals. Have been in many a public meeting and most of you would leave at the end of one whimpering.  :hat:

Hello all,
Frequent stereotype about migrants (especially from Asian and African countries) is that high level of immigration is not good for original indigenous population in Europe and elsewhere. However, many agree that immigration is supportive for each economy and create additional source of diversification in innovation, culture, and even a genetic diversity in humans. That all is very hard to solve, rather unsolvable to find the real truth behind that. But take a look on pure numbers and demographics. How many children do you have? How many children your friends, relatives etc. have? Are you classic example of White European ethnicity? = single with no children, like me? Do you know anyone with Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq origin to have 7 children in the EU member state? Is our welfare, freedom, human rights, solidarity, etc. causing us more vulnerable and even infertile? 'White European' ethnicity likely to be scarce in future. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzbnARyPMMk Should we care? Does it even matter? Looking for your interesting inputs and viewpoints!

Hello all,
Frequent stereotype about migrants (especially from Asian and African countries) is that high level of immigration is not good for original indigenous population in Europe and elsewhere.

This is not a stereotype, but straightforwardly objective. For example see what happened to the indigenous population of the Americas when they were overrun by Europeans.

However, many agree that immigration is supportive for each economy and create additional source of diversification in innovation, culture, and even a genetic diversity in humans.

Yes, mixing populations is supportive of diversification. Whether diversification is a good thing remains debatable. Anyway, substantial social overhauls occur historically every once in a while. Whether we like it or not, nobody will be able to stop it.

That all is very hard to solve, rather unsolvable to find the real truth behind that. But take a look on pure numbers and demographics. How many children do you have? How many children your friends, relatives etc. have? Are you classic example of White European ethnicity? = single with no children, like me? Do you know anyone with Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq origin to have 7 children in the EU member state? Is our welfare, freedom, human rights, solidarity, etc. causing us more vulnerable and even infertile? 'White European' ethnicity likely to be scarce in future.

To take a concrete example, I am from a Baltic country. The Baltic countries are Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The populations are respectively 1 million, 2 million, and 3 million. Each has lost half a million people in the course of last 25 years, i.e. add half a million and you will have the population of 25 years ago.

The problem here these days is massive emigration, not immigration, even though we are allegedly a major channel for smuggling of Asian immigrants. Foreign races are uncommon in the street view.

As to fertility, Lithuanians and Latvians have it in reasonable order, I have heard. They are more fertile than Russians. Russians are the main other ethnicity in the countries to compare with. It's just that emigration from Latvia and Lithuania surpasses anything that organic fertility could counterbalance. In Estonia the birth rate is a bit less than that of Russians, yet the emigration works at the same pace.

Nature would not tolerate an empty place, so we will see what will eventually fill this currently evacuating corner of the world. For now it looks like nobody wants to live here. I know it's quite different in other EU countries, but this is precisely why they are other countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzbnARyPMMk Should we care? Does it even matter? Looking for your interesting inputs and viewpoints!

Did you make this video? :)

To take a concrete example, I am from a Baltic country. The Baltic countries are Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The populations are respectively 1 million, 2 million, and 3 million. Each has lost half a million people in the course of last 25 years, i.e. add half a million and you will have the population of 25 years ago.

I am from the Czech Republic. Immigration is not big deal here since the country has, in my opinion, 'just right' policy. We have 'Net Migration Rate' (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2112rank.html) in 'positive', what means more people are coming to Czechia than fleeing away. However, the most recent estimates say that in the year 2100, it would be 6,5 mil. nation instead of 10,5 mil. nation nowadays (about 40-years highs). That means, immigration shall be much greater than now in order to sustain a population on pure replacement-only ratio. Many sociologist and demographics experts even expressed joyful comments after release of this news. I personally prefer low population as it creates more opportunity for those remnants alive. Recently, there is too much of competition for jobs, education, social status in society. No previous generations were in such huge competition for resources situation as recent generations are in. Resources on planet Earth are also limited and not bottomless. There are 7 billion people and still raising. Human overpopulation is sourced only by poor developing countries. Governments should ensure policy of 'quality' of its population instead of 'quantity'. It is vain if family has 7 children, while all those kids are dump people with no usefulness for whole society.

Did you make this video? :)

No, I am not user/bringbackmydemocracy. Unfortunately or thankfully. I just encountered it somewhat accidentally after reviewing my favorite YouTube subscription feed channels (like "TestTube" user/TestTubeNetwork).

Also I reviewed this other video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w Islam is culturally incompatible with European values. As they say, Multi-Culturalism has failed.

As they say, Multi-Culturalism has failed.

I think it's more a problem of the phrase being misunderstood. Multiculturalism (the melting pot, etc.) means you largely adopt or at least accept our norms and values and maybe we also change ours the tiniest bit, but we like to taste your food and your clothes bring variety to our streets. But both proponents and opponents often seem to be talking about pluriformalism instead (cf. pillarization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillarisation)).

I think it's more a problem of the phrase being misunderstood. Multiculturalism (the melting pot, etc.) means you largely adopt or at least accept our norms and values and maybe we also change ours the tiniest bit, but we like to taste your food and your clothes bring variety to our streets. But both proponents and opponents often seem to be talking about pluriformalism instead

The problem is that new population often do not want to assimilate into our society, values, legal law system. I am not saying that they must become Christians, but at least, they should adhere all other rules of the game in Europe. Nigerians, Afghans, Turkish, - most of them- they simply keep living the way of life as they were used in their original countries. They do not respect our law system and prefer either Islam or African tribal traditions. That makes it incompatible for integration and assimilation into Europe. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assimilate) I do not want to generalize about all individuals, but the problem with integration is that is largely unsuccessful. Closed and segregated communities, unemployment, all sort of crimes, and potential of would-be-terorists mentality is simply unsuccessful result of immigration policies in highly developed countries. This result is even more unhappy when we take into account also the fact, that there is 'positive discrimination' policy (or affirmative action) of favoring members of a disadvantaged group. Black or poor-country origin people are therefore preferred and have some kind of advantages over indigenous population) in most Western countries. The word "disadvantaged" makes you real paradise-like scenario if you are happy-enough to allegedly regarded by your government as being a 'disadvantaged'. All other people do not have any such advantages and are left behind with nothing. In other words, if you are relatively poor or average guy in every of 28 states of the EU, you are regarded as rich-enough and get nothing from government. If you are coming from outside the EU, and your country is regarded as a poor developing country, you may be eligible to get a lot of money for free.

As author=ersi pointed out, it had happened to indigenous population of the Americas. Indeed. It has happened in all newly discovered continents. (The Americas, Australia and Oceania). That disaster was caused by White Europeans' immigration. They replaced indigenous population + mixed races together. Something similar is happening again. Right now in Europe. But this time is different. European white population is not replacing, but is being replaced (substituted) by more fertile immigrant population from Africa and Asia.

The average birth rate among immigrants is slightly less than three and dropping quickly; the average birth rate among those who've been around here a bit longer is slightly less than two and stable. Even if all immigrants chose to have seven children they wouldn't reach 50% of the population until long past the 2060s and that's completely ignoring the fact that their children are growing up in our society. Culture isn't genetic. There is no unique situation. It has always taken three generations. My grandfather was a poor boy from the countryside who worked himself up to middle class. My father couldn't attend a university for financial reasons and my mother couldn't even attend the highest level of high school for much the same reason. Together they achieved a much more solid state of middle class, so I have an academic degree. Naturally, the reverse also happens. One of my Huguenot ancestors was of French lower nobility, yet only my completely unrelated grandmother's family was 19th-century middle class. The fact that second-generation immigrants are underrepresented in higher education is just the way these things go and I believe it doesn't have much to do with immigration per se. Socialists think you should be able to skip a generational step and I'm sympathetic to that thought, but it's simply the same old problem. Most also seem to lack even a basic sense of history. You can read the same complaints about French and Eastern European immigrants if you read texts from the 17th century.

Canada's immigration policy is much more honest. It's hostile toward lower-class immigrants, which has its moral implications, but it's much friendlier toward the middle class than most of the world. By only letting in people with a certain degree of education and sophistication you pretty much avoid the entire potential problem. But those who are against poor Muslim immigrants don't have the balls to say it and they're perfectly happy to include the whole world as collateral damage so that they might appear more fair. (Excluding mad raving nationalist racists.) I hold rather the opposite position regardless. Poor or rich, you don't just move countries. You either really want to be where you move or you don't want to be where you're moving from. Which is fully corroborated by the facts. Actual immigrants, they are by and large happy and content even at the bottom of society. The people who are called "immigrants" in popular parlance, those who some people have a problem with: they are Dutchmen; they're Belgians. They're the second and third generation. They couldn't be "repatriated" to a country they've never set foot in. That's claptrap. Incidentally, the local Muslim community has been staging protests against e.g. the Sharia4Belgium loonies to show that they are in fact integrated in society.

As author=ersi pointed out, it had happened to indigenous population of the Americas. Indeed. It has happened in all newly discovered continents. (The Americas, Australia and Oceania). That disaster was caused by White Europeans' immigration. They replaced indigenous population + mixed races together. Something similar is happening again. Right now in Europe. But this time is different. European white population is not replacing, but is being replaced (substituted) by more fertile immigrant population from Africa and Asia.

When the Germanic tribes conquered Romanized Gaul, within a generation or two they completely replaced their own language and culture by the sophisticated culture and language of those they conquered.

I personally prefer low population as it creates more opportunity for those remnants alive. Recently, there is too much of competition for jobs, education, social status in society. No previous generations were in such huge competition for resources situation as recent generations are in. Resources on planet Earth are also limited and not bottomless.

The population will always be there according to the amount of resources and the way the resources are distributed. The population will be appropriate, neither low or high.

Shortage of resources does not necessitate competition. Well, it does, but in this world we don't have this shortage. Rather, unfair distribution of resources causes competition, strife, starvation in the midst of abundance, etc.

Governments should ensure policy of 'quality' of its population instead of 'quantity'. It is vain if family has 7 children, while all those kids are dump people with no usefulness for whole society.

In danger, people become overwhelmed by survival instinct. In misery people tend to breed like rats to ensure the survival of the species. This is why poor countries have high birth rates.

There are certain basic needs that everybody must have satisfied, food and shelter and clothes. A decent society should see to it that everybody has these basic needs covered. Part of ensuring that everyone's basic needs are covered is to deal with those who tend to grab too much. It's right to ensure that everyone gets according to basic needs, and it's also right to watch out for the corruption in the system and take measures to prevent and punish it.

Everyone's basic needs are basically the same. They are easily quantified. The momentum that turns quantity into quality will be provided by fair (=equal) distribution of resources. For example, when everybody gets paid roughly the same salaries, then people won't choose their job according to the salaries (=quantity) but according to what they like to do best (=quality). Accordingly unnecessary competition will be reduced. Pretty simple economic principle, don't you think?

The population will always be there according to the amount of resources and the way the resources are distributed. The population will be appropriate, neither low or high.

Nope. In reality, humanity already 2x or 3x surpassed natural level of Earth exploitation capacity. See more for Happy Planet Index and Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity per person http://www.happyplanetindex.org/, http://www.footprintnetwork.org Earth is already under heavy weight exploitation. That is why scientists recently debate about renaming current geological era to 'Anthropocene'. Hopefully it will not be the last age for Humans. Planet Earth will certainly survive. Not so sure if humanity will achieve it.

In danger, people become overwhelmed by survival instinct. In misery people tend to breed like rats to ensure the survival of the species. This is why poor countries have high birth rates.

I knew about that. This phenomenon has some official name. I cannot remember it. By the way, in my opinion, it is absolute nonsense and highly irrational behavior. I would expect the exact opposite. If someone cannot feed 1 child and not fully provide all the care necessary until adulthood, how can they afford even more children? They simply cannot 'breed like rats'. Unlike rats, people are intelligent (or should be) and count pros and cons and find if they can afford to have another child. If they bear a child with intention to left such child in the same poverty condition as they have, such parents are stupid and their kids will be the same as their parents, and result of it is as I wrote before ('dump people with no usefulness for whole society.'). If parents cannot provide for children, they simply should not to allow a birth in first place. Willingly expose a newborn baby to the poverty condition should be a crime. Better is if they use contraception and never allow other generation to suffer poverty of their parents on its own again.

Pretty simple economic principle, don't you think?

That is description of perfect world of Communism, which history proven never materialized. The 'Real Communism' is unachievable. The 'Real Socialism' as it were in Eastern Europe 25 years ago was hundreds miles away of such ideal condition.

Quote from: ersi

The population will always be there according to the amount of resources and the way the resources are distributed. The population will be appropriate, neither low or high.

Nope. In reality, humanity already 2x or 3x surpassed natural level of Earth exploitation capacity. See more for Happy Planet Index and Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity per person http://www.happyplanetindex.org/, http://www.footprintnetwork.org Earth is already under heavy weight exploitation. That is why scientists recently debate about renaming current geological era to 'Anthropocene'. Hopefully it will not be the last age for Humans. Planet Earth will certainly survive. Not so sure if humanity will achieve it.

The best system of economy describes what people should do in order to survive. What people really do is something different. Humanity does not have the collective intelligence to live and let live.

Quote from: ersi

In danger, people become overwhelmed by survival instinct. In misery people tend to breed like rats to ensure the survival of the species. This is why poor countries have high birth rates.

I knew about that. This phenomenon has some official name. I cannot remember it. By the way, in my opinion, it is absolute nonsense and highly irrational behavior. I would expect the exact opposite. If someone cannot feed 1 child and not fully provide all the care necessary until adulthood, how can they afford even more children? They simply cannot 'breed like rats'. Unlike rats, people are intelligent (or should be)...

Looking at your own sources, Happy Planet index and such, you should know that people are wasteful, not intelligent at all. With less waste, people would not have to go hungry, and they would instinctively stop breeding like rats. Facts say that people breed in misery, and the rapid increase of the population of the world should logically tell you that we are in the midst of the worst misery.

Quote from: ersi

Pretty simple economic principle, don't you think?

That is description of perfect world of communism, which history proven never materialized. The 'Real Socialism' as it were in Eastern Europe 25 years ago was hundreds miles away of such ideal condition.

Yet the best approximation, the most egalitarian countries of the world, namely the Nordic countries, provide the best living standards known to mankind. There really is something to the idea of providing to everyone equally.

That is description of perfect world of Communism, which history proven never materialized. The 'Real Communism' is unachievable. The 'Real Socialism' as it were in Eastern Europe 25 years ago was hundreds miles away of such ideal condition.

Nah, it's been pretty much implemented in all of the most livable countries in the world. We were de facto more socialist than the "socialist" east when the Wall fell.

Quote from: Josh M on 2014-12-03, 16:31:26

That is description of perfect world of Communism, which history proven never materialized. The 'Real Communism' is unachievable. The 'Real Socialism' as it were in Eastern Europe 25 years ago was hundreds miles away of such ideal condition.

Nah, it's been pretty much implemented in all of the most livable countries in the world. We were de facto more socialist than the "socialist" east when the Wall fell.

Capitalist model of 'Welfare state' is still far away from 'Classless society', how ersi described such perfect world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_society I read many indexes, statistics, and even in Nordic countries, there is significant number of very poor people. Especially in more liberal capitalist economies like Denmark and Norway. Finland, Sweden and Iceland do regulate markets more, and in this regard, much better in number of low class than the other 2 states.

Perfect World

there is no Perfect human .
therefore , there will no Perfect World .

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mememaker.net%2Fstatic%2Fimages%2Ftemplates%2F1710510.jpg&hash=716a82f5c6f9ff8a9a1f74cf880c2011" rel="cached" data-hash="716a82f5c6f9ff8a9a1f74cf880c2011" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/templates/1710510.jpg)

Socialist is capitalist that governed  by government .

Capitalist model of 'Welfare state' is still far away from 'Classless society', how ersi described such perfect world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_society I read many indexes, statistics, and even in Nordic countries, there is significant number of very poor people. Especially in more liberal capitalist economies like Denmark and Norway. Finland, Sweden and Iceland do regulate markets more, and in this regard, much better in number of low class than the other 2 states.

I most definitely did not mean classless society. I meant income equality, and I would like to see more economic equality than mere income equality, but I tied the equality to basic needs, not to classlessness, not even to central planning. My ideal is economically equal, but functionally structured and stable society. Revolutions are undesirable, particularly when they involve ideology that tries to foment constant revolutionary sentiment, such as in Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela.

In the West, social democracy has pretty much achieved what communists behind the Iron Curtain promised.

Yes, there are beggars and homeless people in Nordic countries, but not in significant numbers among the local population. On the other hand, there are significant numbers of immigrant beggars who live in cars with which they arrived. It simply pays off to be a beggar there rather than elsewhere.

@ersi

I agree.

Can you define what you meant specifically with 'equality to basic needs', and 'economic equality'? Did you meant something like access to flush toilet? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B6g92hRzXc
If so, I quess this is obvious in all EU member states' population in rate 99,9 or even 99,99 percent accessible.

Can you define what you meant specifically with 'equality to basic needs', and 'economic equality'? Did you meant something like access to flush toilet? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B6g92hRzXc
If so, I quess this is obvious in all EU member states' population in rate 99,9 or even 99,99 percent accessible.

I said food, shelter, and some clothes, but yes, access to toilet qualifies as a basic need. However, notice that there's a difference between having a basic need covered and having it covered on equal terms. 99,9 percent of the people in Europe have access to flush toilet, but not on equal terms.

Many people live in basic conditions under threat of eviction, while others live comfortably in luxury. Basic living conditions should not be subject to threat of eviction, certainly not when others live in luxury in the same neighbourhood. In my country so-called social housing is exclusively occupied by the wealthy due to corruption in the system. Of course they are happy with it: having a "modest" affordable living, even though they got it through crooked means leaving homeless people (for whom the housing was meant for) on the streets. In my country, with low and decreasing population, the incongruity of still having a shortage of living space is particularly harsh.

In my country so-called social housing is exclusively occupied by the wealthy due to corruption in the system. Of course they are happy with it: having a "modest" affordable living, even though they got it through crooked means leaving homeless people (for whom the housing was meant for) on the streets. In my country, with low and decreasing population, the incongruity of still having a shortage of living space is particularly harsh.

It's odd that they're able to get access to social housing at all, but I always shake my head in wonder at those socialists who claim that people who've started making a little more money should "move up" to more expensive housing. Oh no, someone might be saving up a little to buy a house or have a little more financial security instead of moving to a more expensive apartment as soon as they get a promotion. The horror!

Incidentally, I doubt any Western country has an actual shortage of living space in the sense of available housing. It's all a shortage of affordable living space.

@ersi

Well. That is a result of Capitalism, what is almost as bad system as Socialism.

I always remember, in this regard, program created by Alexander Dubček in 1968 in Czechoslovakia, which was called 'Socialism with human face'. (in Czech language "Socialismus s lidskou tváří" http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialismus_s_lidskou_tv%C3%A1%C5%99%C3%AD). It was his call and effort for more human-like form of Socialism in real terms of living. He was trying to reform Communist party from inside and create something more useful and fair than Socialist country realties in late 1960s. That was called "Prague Spring" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring). However USSR and other Warsaw Pact' armies intervened by force and stopped that experiment very early.

Who knows if any such reform would resulted in something really good. Maybe we would not be tempted to call for 1989 Revolutions at all if we were really happy with 'Socialism with human face'. We can only speculate. Nothing more or less.

Who knows if any 'Capitalism with human face' would be ever developed in future.

We already know about 'Capitalism with normal face' (= mostly cruel one).

We already know about 'Capitalism with tyrannical face' (= current China, Russia, Brazil, India, most non-EU countries in Europe, and perhaps some less happy EU countries too).

Who knows if any good system will be at some point in future discovered and applied on all the Earth, not only for some 20 or 40 relatively lucky countries.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-12-04, 06:12:04

In my country so-called social housing is exclusively occupied by the wealthy due to corruption in the system. Of course they are happy with it: having a "modest" affordable living, even though they got it through crooked means leaving homeless people (for whom the housing was meant for) on the streets. In my country, with low and decreasing population, the incongruity of still having a shortage of living space is particularly harsh.

It's odd that they're able to get access to social housing at all,...

Odd only for those who have no clue about corruption. I imagine that in a country, such as yours, where ministers step down for accidentally having bought socks with the state/party credit card instead of with their own, it's hard to imagine the blatant corruption of some other country, such as mine, e.g. a guy who just pocketed the money of a few private banks - private banks whose collapse he orchestrated as the governor of the national bank and used his party's power to avert investigation - becomes the prime minister of the country, then moves on to become EU commissioner. Etc.

...but I always shake my head in wonder at those socialists who claim that people who've started making a little more money should "move up" to more expensive housing. Oh no, someone might be saving up a little to buy a house or have a little more financial security instead of moving to a more expensive apartment as soon as they get a promotion. The horror!

You must mean social democrats of your own country. Social democrats are pro-capitalists in more ways than they are socialists, and you are precisely pointing out one way in which they are capitalists: cementation of wealth disparity.

Incidentally, I doubt any Western country has an actual shortage of living space in the sense of available housing. It's all a shortage of affordable living space.

Shortage of both affordable and liveable living space. For example, the countryside has been effectively abandoned. I.e. it's empty, vacant. Available in some sense, but unliveable. Perfectly affordable if you don't tell anyone where you live, but as soon as the authorities find out, prepare your every penny to be closely monitored for the rest of your life.

Whereas the city is full - by design.

Who knows if any 'Capitalism with human face' would be ever developed in future.

We already know about 'Capitalism with normal face' (= mostly cruel one).

We already know about 'Capitalism with tyrannical face' (= current China, Russia, Brazil, India, most non-EU countries in Europe, and perhaps some less happy EU countries too).

For the latter, Cowboy Capitalism is an apt name, I think. As in Wild East :) At least we got past the era of mafia wars. Those were pretty gruesome even for random passers-by.

You must mean social democrats of your own country. Social democrats are pro-capitalists in more ways than they are socialists, and you are precisely pointing out one way in which they are capitalists: cementation of wealth disparity.

I never found them particularly social or democratic. But yes.

Shortage of both affordable and liveable living space. For example, the countryside has been effectively abandoned. I.e. it's empty, vacant. Available in some sense, but unliveable. Perfectly affordable if you don't tell anyone where you live, but as soon as the authorities find out, prepare your every penny to be closely monitored for the rest of your life.

Sure, but I'm talking primarily about too expensive real estate in what are otherwise livable locations. That's kind of the socialists' weird idea: if more people spent more money on the more expensive stuff then there'd be more cheaper places available. Except the market would simply compensate, so no one would be off any better except landlords.

For the latter, Cowboy Capitalism is an apt name, I think. As in Wild East  :)  At least we got past the era of mafia wars. Those were pretty gruesome even for random passers-by.

Is that something different than laissez-faire capitalism or is it just a lack of the use of commonly accepted terminology? :P

Is that something different than laissez-faire capitalism or is it just a lack of the use of commonly accepted terminology? :P

Cowboy Capitalism and Wild East imply Post-Soviet/Post-Communist. Laissez-faire is the more common term in theoretical economic literature, but does not carry the same connotation.

Is that something different than laissez-faire capitalism or is it just a lack of the use of commonly accepted terminology? :P

I think that historical experience proven clearly that 'Laissez-faire' was major factor allowing situation of 'Robber Capitalism' in USA (18-19th Century), Britain and Netherlands (15-20th Century), Russia and Eastern Europe (from 1989 to nowadays). Rise of capitalism helped to intellectual and technological dominance over the rest of the world in colonial empires era, but it not resulted to the social cohesion and solidarity. These feautures came up from the scratch self-evidently without the need of capitalism itself.

In Czech Republic, we have had robber capitalism only for few years (1989 to about 1994) until proper market regulation, rule of law, independent justice courts, uncorrupted police, were strong enough to stop most of robber barons. Although, there are still rare cases of corruption and injustice, but is very improved. I never came up to single case of corruption in all my life. Czech Republic is increasingly better in Corruption Perception Index, though it would need some 30 or 60 years more of peace, democracy, capitalism, increased social welfare etc. to get where the TOP 5 countries are. But sadly such robber capitalism is still possible in lot of other countries now.

Countries which installed Laissez-faire policies, like vast majority of South America, Asia, and elsewhere, were always ending up stolen with few super-wealthy on top. The rest of population left behind with nothing. Lack of regulation, or more specifically lack of proper quality regulation caused 2007 Financial Crisis, and the Great Reccession 2008-?, European Sovereign Debt Crisis and all other monetary excesses of Central Banks. 'Invisible hand of free market' solves nothing. Free market is working from 33 percent, but the rest two thirds came up broken.

Cowboy Capitalism and Wild East imply Post-Soviet/Post-Communist. Laissez-faire is the more common term in theoretical economic literature, but does not carry the same connotation.

I see, thanks.

I would not be so vocally anti-capitalist, if capitalism had a sound economic theory. Unfortunately capitalism does not have a sound economic theory.

The whole theory is built on the assumption of indefinite growth of production, consumption, and trade. This is of course untenable - even in theory. A sound theory would be built on satisying consumer needs (believe it or not, those needs are actually limited) based on the resources available. Even capitalist theory knows that the resources are limited, but they push for unsustainable hypes and hikes anyway because of alleged consumer demand. Naturally the boom is followed by the crash.

Another element that always caught my attention in capitalist theory was the mantra "price is information". This basically seems to mean "buy when it's cheap and sell when the price is up". This too is untenable - even in theory. In real economy, price is a contract. The buyer and seller agree on a price. When the price changes, it means that the agreement is off. When the agreement between the buyer and seller is off, there's zero trade, i.e. zero economy. Therefore the sustainable way is to keep prices steady, so that both decent people and capitalists alike will be safe from crashes.

Ssshhhh ersi you know what mjsmsprt40 will call you!

Nah, he's busy persecuting you personally :) It's Christmas and all that.

I'm the founder of Neo Feudalism. There's nothing better.

Well ersi with him  making me a Commie is such a hoot and will salute the picture of my Monarch above the fireplace and proudly in a Royalist home.  That is almost as funny as the chance of Belfrager becoming a Protestant.  :D :faint:

:lol: Or me becoming a Christian of any variety.  :lol:

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FI6oAqhe.jpg&hash=a52f69dfe3c7c373bdb90ca3f88921d6" rel="cached" data-hash="a52f69dfe3c7c373bdb90ca3f88921d6" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/I6oAqhe.jpg)

I would not be so vocally anti-capitalist, if capitalism had a sound economic theory. Unfortunately capitalism does not have a sound economic theory.

The whole theory is built on the assumption of indefinite growth of production, consumption, and trade. This is of course untenable - even in theory. A sound theory would be built on satisying consumer needs (believe it or not, those needs are actually limited) based on the resources available. Even capitalist theory knows that the resources are limited, but they push for unsustainable hypes and hikes anyway because of alleged consumer demand. Naturally the boom is followed by the crash.

Another element that always caught my attention in capitalist theory was the mantra "price is information". This basically seems to mean "buy when it's cheap and sell when the price is up". This too is untenable - even in theory. In real economy, price is a contract. The buyer and seller agree on a price. When the price changes, it means that the agreement is off. When the agreement between the buyer and seller is off, there's zero trade, i.e. zero economy. Therefore the sustainable way is to keep prices steady, so that both decent people and capitalists alike will be safe from crashes.

Entirely agree. These thoughts frequently came on my mind too. Growth cannot be perpetual. At least not worldwide, neither perpetual in any single country. However, those who are living zero growth or low growth conditions are often dismissed as "the lost generations". But CPI (inflation figures) and GDP growth rates ... say usually nothing about 'how's life?' cause most GDP growth is benefited by tiny extremely wealthy group and ordinary people do not participate in such growth. If inflation is say about 1 percent or even 15 percent in some countries... and your money (wage for employment, retirement benefit, unemployment/social/housing/family benefits, investment income) is not getting up with the same rate (better with higher rate), people are becoming actually poorer than they were previously. Why central banks aims for 2 percent inflation (every year!!!!) ? And those crazy people who sitting at central banks always thinking that everything is fine. Yes. It is fine. (Just for them personally). Switzerland, Euro-zone, Japan and some few other examples show that 0 inflation figures does not harm economies. Exactly the opposite, its stabilizes individual savings, consumption, life planning etc. People are generally happier with 0 inflation. Negative inflation (deflation) is bad for manufacturing, corporations and employment. But very low (above zero) figures are OK for everyone.

No one knows what is economy. Understood? Good.
Unfortunately, we have to live listening to economists, ruled by economists, defenestrated by economists.*

Economists are the fortunetellers, the charlatans of this globalised society.
Like meteorologists, another kind of charlatans, they always know why and how something happened, but they always fail about what's going to happen.

Surprisingly, or maybe not so much, they rule this brave new world.

* You, not me.

Switzerland, Euro-zone, Japan and some few other examples show that 0 inflation figures does not harm economies. Exactly the opposite, its stabilizes individual savings, consumption, life planning etc.

Quite right.

Contrary to von Mises and Friedman for whom "price is information", Keynes provided the observation that "prices tend to be sticky". Prices (and wages are viewed as a kind of price in classical economics) tend to be sticky because this is what people want - arrangements/agreements/contracts that work and provide security. Why else have the arrangements?

Economists are the fortunetellers, the charlatans of this globalised society.
Like meteorologists, another kind of charlatans, they always know why and how something happened, but they always fail about what's going to happen.

Good analogy. Economists are perfectly comparable to meteorologists. However, it's a pretty sensible mathematical science, not hodgepodge or charlatanry. I have seen good predictions a number of times.

Meteorologists can quite accurately predict their own imprecision, when they do their work. Economists unfortunately are generally dishonest, lazy and stupid. They falsely imagine they are as accurate as physicists, while they can systemically be only as precise as meteorologists.

Hopefully someone will make a YT clip from 3:25 to 7:45 of this video. Or at least from the economic insight between 4:40 and 5:00. Here's the video http://arenan.yle.fi/tv/2451570
And the insight, if you don't understand the language (Swedish):

The host: Where does the money (for the ECB's purchase of state bonds) come from?

The analyst: Good question. The money comes from ECB's computers. It's the money that the ECB can create - in its capacity as a central bank - out of nothing.

My observation is that money out of nothing is a relatively new idea. Money used to be understood as a measure of value of real-life assets primarily, as in accounting. The theory of monetary eigenvalue used to be secondary. These days it's the other way around. The turning point was, inasmuch as I know the history of world economy and finances, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system). This system was undermined by the United States when it ceased to be in their own interests. They didn't like that the system served everybody's interests.

The specific event was this: "On 15 August 1971, the United States unilaterally terminated convertibility of the US dollar to gold, effectively bringing the Bretton Woods system to an end and rendering the dollar a fiat currency."

My observation is that money out of nothing is a relatively new idea. Money used to be understood as a measure of value of real-life assets primarily, as in accounting. The theory of monetary eigenvalue used to be secondary. These days it's the other way around. The turning point was, inasmuch as I know the history of world economy and finances, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system). This system was undermined by the United States when it ceased to be in their own interests. They didn't like that the system served everybody's interests.

That's correct.

I don't remember the exact number but the amount of financial transactions worldwide compared with the amount of real money that exists is up to one hundred times more or something like that. Just numbers in computers.
Pay the debt? press delete.
Simple as that.

What takes us to the Saxon strategy against Southern Europe, of course. Economy it's a weapon, always was.

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.amuniversal.com%2F60eebbb01c1401329cea005056a9545d&hash=7454580cd11628fa8e21e208cf926a66" rel="cached" data-hash="7454580cd11628fa8e21e208cf926a66" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://assets.amuniversal.com/60eebbb01c1401329cea005056a9545d)

Some (many) idiots are easily convinced by the media that their wellbeing depends on what is told to them how "economy" goes.
Then, the same very idiots votes. That's why "economy" exists. And economists, the useful clowns.

Here's a lecture on how common paradigms of economics ignore environment and how environment should be incorporated in economics. The central statement of the lecture somewhere in the middle, "Economy is a subset of the environment."

The central statement of the lecture somewhere in the middle, "Economy is a subset of the environment."

Is it? and about bitcoins? and about futures? is it financial gambling a part of environment? :)


Course there's a big diference between economy and financial... no one really speaks about true economics these days, everything is about financial.

Quote from: ersi on 2016-01-28, 18:04:40

The central statement of the lecture somewhere in the middle, "Economy is a subset of the environment."

Is it? and about bitcoins? and about futures? is it financial gambling a part of environment? :)

"Subset" is something different than "part". "Economy is a subset of the environment" means that economy exists completely thanks to and on the mercy of the environment, like foetus depends on mother.

I'm not so sure. (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subset) But I won't dispute that.

I'm not so sure. (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subset) But I won't dispute that.

They don't think like us. Course a subset is a part.

Subset" is something different than "part". "Economy is a subset of the environment" means that economy exists completely thanks to and on the mercy of the environment, like foetus depends on mother.

As I've known for a long time: You don't know what most terms of logic mean! :)

Might I recommend any introductory text in modern elementary (basic, simple; preliminary, required) logic?! :)

To your point that ""Economy is a subset of the environment" means that economy exists completely thanks to and on the mercy of the environment […]" is merely a notion that your absurd ideology finds comforting… (You like to think that -once you've defined a term- it then has an effect upon reality! Sorry, kidd-o: Your delusions are your own problem; and your opinions based upon them are as supportable as they'd be without them — to the likes of me.
Which is why they've seldom convinced me…
(I'd say "Put up or shut up!" But you don't seem to have actual opinions… :) )

As I've known for a long time: You don't know what most terms of logic mean! :)

Might I recommend any introductory text in modern elementary (basic, simple; preliminary, required) logic?! :)

To your point that ""Economy is a subset of the environment" means that economy exists completely thanks to and on the mercy of the environment […]" is merely a notion that your absurd ideology finds comforting…

Are you making a point about logic or ideology? I used to think there was a difference between the two. Teach me.

Are you making a point about logic or ideology? I used to think there was a difference between the two. Teach me.

No you didn't; no you don't!
The idea that "economy" and "ecology" are sets is preposterous…

If you don't understand that the real world is something different from the dry terminological disputes of so-called scholars, you'll remain ignorant of much that goes on there.

Let me offer you some new definitions: "Economy" is what people do, in place of warfare… " And "Ecology" is what happens…" I'm sorry to be so blunt; but I'm also sorry you're so obtuse.

Being Eco the same, nomy means measuring and logy means knowing. The first means quantity concerns while the second means quality concerns.

The idea that "economy" and "ecology" are sets is preposterous…

Why? How?

Let me offer you some new definitions: "Economy" is what people do, in place of warfare… " And "Ecology" is what happens…" I'm sorry to be so blunt; but I'm also sorry you're so obtuse.

As per usual, your definitions are Oakdalean, i.e. defective.

Economy is what people do in place of warfare? Is e.g. going to the library or voting an economic activity? Your fav school of economy in fact denies govt any role in economy, even though govt is, from one point of view, something that people do, and from another a group of people that do stuff.

And ecology is what happens? Here you are missing the specification - happens when, where, to what, by whom? Is ecology what happens when people do stuff other than warfare? 

Better definitions:
- Economy is the sum total of people's economic activity, i.e. production, consumption, trade, commerce, and finances. This occurs regardless of peace or war, even though it takes different forms depending on peace, war, level of social (dis)order, etc.
- Ecology is the environment that enables the activity we call life, including economic activity.

Best system of economy - robbing banks.
In others words, paying back with love.

Robert Koons has an interesting article about theoretical economics where he says that disagreements in economics are due to disagreements in metaphysics. This has been my impression too.

According to Koons, there are broadly three kinds of metaphysics:

- Spinozan a.k.a. cosmic
- Cartesian a.k.a. dualistic, which in its modern version is reductive physicalistic and atomistic
- Aristotelian a.k.a. intermediate

Spinozan or cosmic metaphysics yields socialist or progressive view of economics, says Koons. Cartesian or dualistic yields classical liberal or libertarian economics. Aristotelian metaphysics yields conservatism, a peculiar Koonsian conservatism.

The last is, according to the article, of course the best or the rightest kind of economics and sociology due to stemming from the rightest kind of metaphysics. Its notable features are respect for property rights and inheritance, where socialism would overstep them by treating everything as common property because the only agent, in the eyes of socialists, is the society.

Another feature of conservatism is orderliness, having moral distinctions of vice and virtue, so that rights and liberties would not become a license to treat one's own property indiscriminately, as it may happen in libertarianism.

There are some random isolated points in the article that I agree with, but it doesn't seem to present a coherent whole. For example, it's not quite clear to me how Koons derives libertarianism from Cartesianism and why cosmic metaphysics can be called Spinozan. (Maybe because Koons has read Spinoza and I haven't?)

And I cannot agree with his overshooting criticism of socialism and liberalism. The features he criticises, such as indiscriminate license and lack of property rights, are inherent only to anarchism and totalitarianism. Ordinary socialism and liberalism have more nuance than Koons permits.

On the other hand, a point of agreement between me and Koons is the view of the individual as microcosm of society (he doesn't say this, but describes it this way) wherefrom stems a necessity for an ordered system of intricate priorities, if we are to make sense of the world. It's just that I would not label it in any way Aristotelian and there are plenty of distinctly Aristotelian elements that I have nothing to do with. However, I agree with the basic premise that disagreements about economics correlate with disagreements about metaphysics or world view.

All in all, the article is a nice abstract thought exercise with a great inspiring potential, even though it crumbles down structurally and stays at the level of musings, not a coherent system. That's why it's among Koons' unpublished papers (http://www.robkoons.net/23138.html), I guess.

Best system of economy - robbing banks.
In others words, paying back with love.

That's what bankers are doing by playing monopoly with money they don't own. :)
They don't even have to pay back with love. If the bank gets bankrupt, it will be bailed out with taxpayer money.

If the bank gets bankrupt, it will be bailed out with taxpayer money.

Because you are a slave. I'm not.
Tax payers is the modernist name for slaves.

Quote from: krake on 2016-07-28, 15:05:06

If the bank gets bankrupt, it will be bailed out with taxpayer money.

Because you are a slave. I'm not.
Tax payers is the modernist name for slaves.

You don't have to pay taxes - at least as long as taxpayers from other countries are paying for you... :devil:

Quote from: Belfrager on 2016-07-29, 23:34:17

Quote from: krake on 2016-07-28, 15:05:06

If the bank gets bankrupt, it will be bailed out with taxpayer money.

Because you are a slave. I'm not.
Tax payers is the modernist name for slaves.

You don't have to pay taxes - at least as long as taxpayers from other countries are paying for you... :devil:

See Krake, quod erat demonstratum, you - the slave - pay for bankrupted banks, you pay for me, you pay for anything your masters want you to pay.
Strangely, very strangely, such condition makes you feel superior... perfect slavery it's already a reality, your reality.
You'll never revolt. Or will you? :)

Adam Smith is considered a great father of economic theories, but given his reputation among other theorists, I never saw the relevance of reading him directly. However, it's good when common folks put up their reading notes so we can read and gather the right impression without having to really read that fat book of little use.

A few quotes for taste:

(112) “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” A rare aphorism— Smith is rarely witty— and one libertarians would do well to ponder.

(140) Here’s a factoid for you: Smith thinks that when the poor are mostly fed by oatmeal, as in his native Scotland, they’re poorer workers and frankly uglier; while the Irish, raised on potatoes, are stronger and better looking.

Glancing through there, I came upon a link to Jacobs (http://www.zompist.com/jacobs.html), which sounds like a much more interesting book. I think @jax might like it too. In any event, nice site, thanks!

The writer is a good language theorist and maker of artificial languages. That's how I discovered his site once upon a time. Must have been around the turn of the century.

Glancing through there, I came upon a link to Jacobs (http://www.zompist.com/jacobs.html), which sounds like a much more interesting book. I think @jax might like it too. In any event, nice site, thanks!

Pretty much. Nations are illusions that take continuous propaganda to maintain. Cities are real (as is the countryside for those remaining there).

Nations are illusions that take continuous propaganda to maintain. Cities are real (as is the countryside for those remaining there).

Cities are an exhausted model. Cities can't deliver anymore the needed resources, safety and sustainability to the inhabitants.
For long that cities acts merely as a country's cancer destroying the capacity for the Nation's survival.

Nations aren't illusions, nations are the only and sole refuge for fighting the internationalist globalizing menace aiming to destroy people's resistance all over the world and impose a ruthless new order. Nations are the only human made organizing structures/entities that assures diversity and, as such, survival.

The city is where all activity and all value creation happens, economy is local. The nation is a notion, an idea, an ideal. Like other ideas and ideals it may mobilise and direct emotion, but it is in the mind of the emoter.

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fassets4.bigthink.com%2Fsystem%2Ftinymce_assets%2F2082%2Foriginal%2FCityState.jpg%3F1456313591&hash=3b4e8f97e1cc945fca0af21650426374" rel="cached" data-hash="3b4e8f97e1cc945fca0af21650426374" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://assets4.bigthink.com/system/tinymce_assets/2082/original/CityState.jpg?1456313591)

The city is where all activity and all value creation happens

More than 70 80 or 90% of those cities have no grow rate whatsoever what confirms my point, cities as an exhausted model.
However, those cities keeps draining their countries resources literally drying everything around.

You'll keep being wrong while adopting the outdated leftist concept of nations as simple ideas or artificial inventions, nations are much more - are organic entities. Much more real than all the "economics" you talk about.

Actually, while Europe as a subcontinent has a population that is flattening out or in the long term falling (migration doesn't quite make up for that, but we'll see how it goes in the future), European cities, particularly European large cities, are growing.

Even in countries with falling population, like Russia, cities like Moscow are growing. (The dataset used in the graph above differs from other datasets, which would highlight other cities as growing the most/least, or by how much, but the rough overall picture is similar.)

Economy is predominantly local (you make and spend money locally), but with an increasing global component. Geography matters, borders less so. Here in Södertälje I am a part of the Stockholm urban area, while Gothenburg is slightly distant and the third urban area in Sweden, around Malmö, is slowly merging with the Copenhagen economy, in a different country. There are areas in Sweden that are more distant in time and culture than other European cities, and arguably cities like Beijing and New York.

Dreams of modernists, a nightmare painted with ignorance colors.

The city state is vastly older than the nation state, if antiquity or seniority is an argument.

The city state is vastly older than the nation state, if antiquity or seniority is an argument.

Nope. Cities and Nations are older than States. The nation of tribes precedes by thousand years the first city states.

As for your defense of economy being local, as you stated here and in the other thread, that's not correct. You simply forget that production and consumption rarely are at the same place/region.

From the old Silk Road to today's chinese products invading the west, not forgetting the crucial role of colonies, there's nothing local in economy. To trade is exactly to find different prices in different locations and usually with different currencies.

Medieval mercators knew much more about economy than you do Jax. :)

Tribes are even further removed from nation states than city states.

The economy is predominantly local, even now that we live in an unprecedented globalised economy. Will there one day be a truly global economy where geography ceases to matter? Possibly, but not any day soon. Today, most of the value we create and consume is local. Even those that are "serially local", that would include me, are spending their money locally. When I am in Södertälje most of my money is spent here. When I am in Prague most of my money is spent there. The Internet allow me to source my purchases anywhere in the world, but still I find it more convenient, better and cheaper to source locally. When this is no longer the case for most people, the economy is no longer local.

A "Made in China" product is only partially made in China. A typical product may have perhaps 20% of the value chain produced in China (some more of course, some less). Much of it would likely be local, you can expect a "Made in China" product to make more value locally than in China, particularly for cheaper products.

When I am in Prague most of my money is spent there

Wow, Jax you deserve the Nobel prize of Economics.

You have a lot of problems with basic notions. Added Value is not what you think it is.
When a laptop costs to general public 500 euros in Europe and it's produced by something around 15 euros in the Chinese manufacturer, that's not "added value".
It's simple price speculation by intermediaries. It doesn't add any "value", it simply contributes to financial inflation.

It's you who should learn rudimentary economics.

It is raining here. That rain water has no value to me, quite the opposite. Now, if I was dying of thirst in Sahara that water would have very high value, if I was drowning in a lake nearby the rain would have negative value. Moving a resource to a place and into state where it is useful creates value.

Now, you could argue, and many have, that price and value are distinct concepts, and that it is a misrepresentation for economists to talk about values when they really are talking about prices.

Cecil Graham: What is a cynic?
Lord Darlington: A man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.
Cecil Graham: And a sentimentalist, my dear Darlington, is a man who sees an absurd value in everything and doesn’t know the market price of any single thing.

Price and value are distinct in economy too, but the general assumption is that the price of a product in a transaction would be higher than its value to the seller and lower than its value to the buyer.

It's you who should learn rudimentary economics.

Not yours. You are just repeating what I said before.
By the way, I remember you that the world is governed by economists. Their work's result speaks for their quality.

Please don't bother posting endless statistic about how much Africa grew at the last 50 years, I don't believe in magics.

Want to Know the Economic Forecast? Check Your Underwear

The Men’s Underwear Index, as it’s known, was originally conceived of and popularized by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. It looks at the sale of men’s underwear as an indicator of economic growth. In a healthy economy, the theory goes, men are more likely to buy new underwear; in shakier times, they’re more wary of spending and don’t buy much new underwear because it’s not a true necessity. [...]

So does the Men’s Underwear Index hold water? Well, in 2008 and 2009, sales of men’s underwear began to slow, which matched with the Great Recession. In fact, according to H&R Block, in the years leading up to and including the Recession, there was a three percent increase in men buying single pairs of underwear and a decrease in men buying multi-packs — a sign that buyers were looking to make one pair of underwear stretch a bit further. As the economy started to come back to life, men’s underwear sales across the U.S. began to increase again. They stayed pretty consistent.

Currently, it looks like men’s underwear sales for 2019 are down a bit. [...] But if you haven’t bought new underwear in a while, you might want to. Economic certainty be damned.

I don't know how I compare to "men" in general, but I don't even think about buying underwear unless I happen to randomly run across some and they look decent or if I think what I've got is wearing down…

And anyway, if you're wary of spending a few Euros on some underwear once every few years then you're just plain poor.

I have a pair of Björn Borg boxers that were given to me as a present. They're like € 25? Maybe € 30? They're definitely not bad, but not substantially (if at all) better than C&A underwear for € 5. It's possible that it's a touch more durable but I doubt it.

If anything I'd simply be (even) less likely to be out shopping if I were trying to save money, i.e., to be in a situation where I'd run across some underwear.

Anyway, just a simple hypothesis of course, but wouldn't it rather make sense that underwear sales rise and fall along with sales of most things?

So I was wondering why just men's underwear? I'm not even sure I was actually there for the purchase of my current batch in circulation. Pretty sure I'd have to get down to like three pair before laundry day wouldn't keep up and I'd notice. Nevertheless the answer to my question seems a bit sexist. At least the articles I Googled up are aware of it, then proceed to overstate women's vanity. Mine were purchased by a woman. Not sure what that proves, but I'm pretty sure the answer to that is nothing. Or at least nothing meaningful to the economy. 

Critics of this theory suggest that it may be inaccurate for several reasons, including the frequency with which women purchase underwear for men, and an assumed tendency for men not to purchase underwear until it is threadbare regardless of the performance of the economy.

(...)

Some other Unconventional Economic Indicators that have been promoted include:

1. Hemlines: First suggested in 1925 by George Taylor of the Wharton School of Business, the Hemline Index proposes that skirt hemlines are higher when the economy is performing better. For instance, short skirts were in vogue in the 1990s when the tech bubble was increasing.
2. Haircuts: Paul Mitchell founder John Paul Dejoria suggests that during good economic times, customers will visit salons for haircuts every six weeks, while in bad times, haircut frequencies drop to every eight weeks.
3. Dry-cleaning: Another favorite Greenspan theory, this indicator suggests that dry cleaning drops during bad economic times, as people only take clothes to the cleaners when they absolutely need to when budgets are tight.
4. Fast food: Many analysts believe that during financial downturns, consumers are far more likely to purchase cheaper fast food options, while when the economy heads into an upswing, patrons are more likely to focus more on buying healthier food and eating in nicer restaurants.

I just spent 20mins googling people's underwear buying habits. This kind of stuff is why I keep coming back. :)

2. Haircuts:
3. Dry-cleaning:

Those sound a lot more sensible, but my "get my hair cut as little as I think I can get away with" approach has nothing to do with money. It sounds more like an excuse really. Oh, I didn't get my hair cut because I'm saving money. Not at all because I didn't want to bother planning or going. ;)

The big difference with the underwear thing is that it's actually something you have to do every few weeks to months, as opposed to every few years. Plus I can literally buy years worth of underwear for the cost of one or two haircuts. Or one to two pairs of Björn Borg, but even then the gist of it holds up.

4. Fast food: Many analysts believe that during financial downturns, consumers are far more likely to purchase cheaper fast food options, while when the economy heads into an upswing, patrons are more likely to focus more on buying healthier food and eating in nicer restaurants.

Yet I'm cheaper and healthier off by doing neither… Maybe it's a cultural divide with Americans but I think most people cook their meals at home most of the time here. And fast food isn't nearly cheap enough to compete with reasonable quality TV dinners/salads in the first place. You can get decent to quite good ready-made meals/meal salads from about € 3 at the cheaper end to € 5-6 at the higher end.^[1] Or you can cook for yourself and eat for something closer to € 1.50/portion while getting an experience superior to the € 6 option.

We always cook enough food for 2 or 3 days. It's hardly any more effort in order to significantly reduce the workload throughout the week.

Anyway, the tl;dr is that if you like the food at more expensive restaurants then you can get expensive ready-made meals for fast food prices. Switching to fast food makes zero sense unless you like fast food. It's a completely different category of food.

my "get my hair cut as little as I think I can get away with" approach has nothing to do with money.

Right. And winter is coming so more hats. :whistle:

Yet I'm cheaper and healthier off by doing neither...

Yeah, there's no argument that you can cook it yourself and eat better cheaper. Maybe prep time and number of people are a factor too. I can cook lasagna, spaghetti, stew or whatever and eat for days. The kids aren't so big on leftovers, and the youngest is picky the way only the youngest child can be, doesn't make any sense he just doesn't eat 'new' things. Will turn down great food for junk basically. I'm the only one that can cook a burger he'll eat. I've cooked them every way possible so how it's cooked isn't a factor. As long as I cooked it he'll gobble it up. I'm not the world's greatest burger chef or anything. So with kids especially I don't see where it matters. I don't always want to police the "you need to try new things" philosophy. I don't eat much fast food myself, passed mozzarella sticks and a banana milkshake or the likes, but if I just want everybody fed and done I'll get him whatever passes for chicken from a burger joint. Economy be damned.

I'm sure I'm marginal on some things but if I've learned anything from this tangent It's how little the economy is involved in my decision making. Even when money is tight a few dollars here or there isn't enough to deviate from what works and not needing to save a dollar has never stopped me from not spending it. Results may very of course.     

The psychology of money is a full topic of its own. We, our fellow primates, and presumably our antecessors, have an idea of earning money that is useful, but not very advanced. Among other things it can make us penny wise, dollar foolish.

That could be used for desired effects, nudges. Assuming you consider flowing traffic a good, a small fee can make you change your behaviour.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonas_eliasson_how_to_solve_traffic_jams?language=en

The best thing about TED videos is you don't have to watch them.

Seventy percent of the population didn't want this. […] 70 percent of the population in Stockholm want to keep a price for something that used to be free. […]

And the other question, who changed their mind? Who changed their opinion, and why? So we did another interview survey, tried to figure out why people changed their mind, and what type of group changed their minds? And after analyzing the answers, it turned out that more than half of them believe that they haven't changed their minds.

Let me get this straight… if 40 % of the population changed their minds from don't want to want then obviously more than half haven't changed their minds.

The best thing about TED videos is you don't have to watch them.

Yes, that is one of the reasons I always try to link to the TED page rather than the Youtube equivalent, even though the latter can be embedded here as a video. More than half the TED talks I scan/consume I read rather than watch. If there is something interesting or visual in the transcript, you can click that to get to the corresponding part of the video, and vice versa.

If 70% against turns to 30% against, at least 4/7 must have changed their minds (more if someone of those for had become against). Now he didn't say who they asked, so it is hard to say whether that is notable or not. If more than half of those who had changed their mind said that they hadn't, that's interesting. If it was more than half of those who hadn't, much less so (but still for those who have claimed to have changed their minds without actually doing so).

I'm sure I'm marginal on some things but if I've learned anything from this tangent It's how little the economy is involved in my decision making. Even when money is tight a few dollars here or there isn't enough to deviate from what works and not needing to save a dollar has never stopped me from not spending it. Results may very of course.

I think that rather than change what I buy, I'd better pay more attention to where I buy it.^[1] I do that for surprisingly large differences, like at the one store Frosch dish washing liquid is literally less than half the price of at another, but for an everyday object like mushrooms I often pay 10-20 cents more than the cheapest price. Heck, I even pay 50 % more for milk & buttermilk because the store with the more affordable (butter)milk (AH) is super out of the way in the north of town. They closed down the one much closer to me.  :no:

We recently also started saving some money through the discovery of frozen bulk Quorn over at Colruyt. But you can save money more proactively than just by randomly running into an opportunity like that.

Some other Unconventional Economic Indicators that have been promoted include:

1. Hemlines: First suggested in 1925 by George Taylor of the Wharton School of Business, the Hemline Index proposes that skirt hemlines are higher when the economy is performing better. For instance, short skirts were in vogue in the 1990s when the tech bubble was increasing.
2. Haircuts: Paul Mitchell founder John Paul Dejoria suggests that during good economic times, customers will visit salons for haircuts every six weeks, while in bad times, haircut frequencies drop to every eight weeks.
3. Dry-cleaning: Another favorite Greenspan theory, this indicator suggests that dry cleaning drops during bad economic times, as people only take clothes to the cleaners when they absolutely need to when budgets are tight.
4. Fast food: Many analysts believe that during financial downturns, consumers are far more likely to purchase cheaper fast food options, while when the economy heads into an upswing, patrons are more likely to focus more on buying healthier food and eating in nicer restaurants.

What I find curious about these indicators is that most of them are allegedly trying to capture consumer behaviour, something that the mainstream theory is incapable of. According to the mainstream economic theory, just one type of people exists: maximisers of economic profit. In reality, there are at least three types: hoarders, hustlers, and drifters.

Maximisers of profit are a combination of hoarders and hustlers, whereas the bulk of consumers are drifters. After fulfilling their primary needs, drifters buy stuff just because other people are buying the same or similar stuff, or if minimalism is in the vogue, they do not buy anything. There may be more pennywise and less pennywise drifters, but they do their thing completely regardless how economy at large is doing.

With the last point (fast food), I guess they are referring to the famous Big Mac Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index). It is useful for measuring purchasing power parity rather than consumer behaviour in relation to upswings and downturns of economy. West-branded fast food is a completely different social phenomenon in e.g. Eastern Europe compared to Western Europe and USA.

In Eastern Europe, McDonalds and Burger King are a symbol of the stage of development where prestigious global brands enter the local market. Visiting such places signals that you can afford shiny foreign things. It has nothing to do with cheapness or even with fastness. In under-industrialised countries, Western fast food brands are an outrageously expensive choice compared to e.g. forest produce which comes only at the expense of picking (and most people are picking forest produce by themselves because this is what under-industrialised means). When these people go to a fast food restaurant, they are not thinking about saving money. They think about showing off and having fun like they have seen in the movies, nevermind the health effects.

This is why the Big Max Index measures purchasing power parity, not much else. Also those other indices measure, in a limited way, purchasing power parity in various social strata. They can have a relation to macroeconomic trends on the assumption that economy equals consumption. Wrong assumption.

Economics is about the least attractive science, not really worth to be called a science. Accounting and econometrics are something, but economics is nothing.

With the last point (fast food), I guess they are referring to the famous Big Mac Index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index).

Oh right, I've heard of that.

In Eastern Europe, McDonalds and Burger King are a symbol of the stage of development where prestigious global brands enter the local market.

Back in the mid-'90s, there was a particular ad McDonald's ran on TV. A bunch of kids were hanging around a set of swings talking about what their dads did.^[1] "My dad's a teacher, mine's a banker, mine's a lawyer. Dude, what's your dad do? My dad works at McDonald's." Cue stunned silence from the kids.

When I first saw that ad, for the first split second I thought it was shocked silence at the family's misfortune and I was afraid the poor kid was about to get bullied.

Maybe it was a dubbed American ad? I'm not sure if native Dutch ads were so bluntly sexist.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdGIJFVRZpE[/video]

If this is a real ad by McDonalds, then they easily compete with Disney in overt racism. And yes, the message is "I'm lovin' it", their current catchphrase, but from the bad quality and general lack of availability of the video, it seems the ad was cancelled.

Is there some "Black TV" network in USA?

Edit: And yes, it looks like in USA the marketing departments in all earnestness posit the question, "How can we dupe that particular demographic into buying the product?" https://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/mcdonald-s-hits-refresh-african-american-marketing/317145

Nope, definitely a fully Dutch commercial. Turns out there's a subtlety I missed at the time: the kid's dad in the commercial is actually a famous architect of presumably greater importance than some random lawyer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTlDfAQNXkI

(And it says it was from 2000? Huh, it somehow feels older in my memory.)

Western fast food brands are an outrageously expensive choice compared to e.g. forest produce which comes only at the expense of picking

Well to be fair, urbanites have always been more dependent on how their money works. I grew up in a small town. Gardens, hunting and foraging were just a thing. 

Yeah, living in a city has some truly bizarre aspects, at least from my perspective as someone who didn't grow up in one. (My parents did.)

Things like blackberries are basically weeds that to quite some extent you want to get rid of. Of course you eat plenty of actual blackberries from about August to October, but they're just these things that are there. Same for watercress (except more of a welcome guest than a weed), etc., etc., etc. But here in the city blackberries are some kind of expensive delicacy, as is watercress.

But here in the city blackberries are some kind of expensive delicacy...

Some of them are indeed expensive. :)

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-ga9GhPI_5uY%2FUP-u8DUVUuI%2FAAAAAAAAAAg%2FCEuOIKDoy4I%2Fs400%2Fmost-expensive-blackberry-blackberry-bold-9700.jpg&hash=1a4911f2a9933d8bac95843363f54976" rel="cached" data-hash="1a4911f2a9933d8bac95843363f54976" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ga9GhPI_5uY/UP-u8DUVUuI/AAAAAAAAAAg/CEuOIKDoy4I/s400/most-expensive-blackberry-blackberry-bold-9700.jpg)

Yum, chips!

Hail Finland! And congrats for independence day again! (Dec. 6)

Finland Is a Capitalist Paradise (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/07/opinion/sunday/finland-socialism-capitalism.html)
"Can high taxes be good for business? You bet."

Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled, So They’re Piling Up in Landfills https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills

Recycling is one area where capitalism will forever be far behind compared to socialism.

In Rotterdam they're making playgrounds out of old windmill blades.

(https://currystonefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/csf_pr_superuse-studios_image1.jpg) (https://currystonefoundation.org/practice/superuse-studios/)

They also recycle them into some kind of wooden plank alternative.

They say the ideal is to make ones that can be remade into base components to make new blades, but we're not there yet.

So while it's a bit of a problem, just tossing them in landfills has the appearance of primarily being an American approach. But one might argue the problem is a lack of capitalism. When certain common goods like air and dumping grounds are "free," capitalism isn't doing anything at all.

The Globalist published some scattered notes juxtaposing Marx and Friedman. A few notable quotes:

Friedman often is caricatured as an unqualified defender of free markets, but this is inaccurate.

While he was deeply hostile to government intervention in the economy, he recognized standard market failures including externalities (“neighborhood effects”).

If I were to point out a single biggest flaw in economics as science, it is exactly the concept of "externalities" or "exogenous shocks". Those phenomena, like industrial pollution, a supply shortage from foreign countries and busts of any sector are inseparable from economy, so they are really something that economics must account for. Economics can make sense as a social science, not as mere mathematical model.

A product of the Great Depression, Friedman particularly disputed the Keynesian claim for active countercyclical policy. A steady rate of growth of the money supply was all that was needed to stabilize the economy.

In complete contradiction to Marx, Friedman believed that government, not capitalism, produced business cycles.

If monetary policy were driven by simple rules rather than the judgments of policy makers, market economies would grow steadily.

I think of Friedman as an “economic deist” who thought that relatively few government interventions would be sufficient to set the economy running unmonitored, like clockwork.

Build the capitalist clock, wind it up, and then let capitalism run without further intervention.

That's Reaganomics and Thatcherism in a nutshell, I guess. Except it resulted in the kind of growth (somewhat captured by the stock market indexes) that was actually accumulation to the top of the pyramid, logically bound to follow by a crisis, as Keynes (and Marx) correctly perceived.

As disappointing as it may be to libertarians (excluding the sizable corps of true believers, immune to evidence), a complicated society needs a lot of complicated, active public policy, both microeconomic and macroeconomic.

Agreed.

If [Friedman's] dream of inactive government has not been supported by history, his attention to the importance people attach to autonomy, and the social cost of restricting it, is as important as ever.

So Friedman's contribution was more of a sociological nature: He emphasised that people like freedom. But this was already known. And even more was known: Freedom is a word that can be easily abused to dupe the masses.

Neither Marx nor Friedman made lasting contributions to economic theory, in my view. However, anyone who tries to understand and to intervene in today’s political economic processes had better pay attention to what they said.

We cannot understand modern political economic developments without bringing to bear Marx’ understanding of the role of social class. Nor can we understand them without Friedman’s appreciation of markets as expressions of freedom.

Okay. Any comment? Anybody? Oh, well...

Matthew 7:16-20

Libertarianism has proven as harmful, and ultimately as tyrannical, as the other ideologies of the 20th century.

Okay. Any comment? Anybody? Oh, well...

I basically agree with you.

A nice video starting with a slice of early history of Iceland.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTN64g9lA2g[/video]

The modelling leads to the conclusion that anarcho-capitalism is no alternative to the capitalism we have; it just is plain (corporate) capitalism. You cannot be a proponent of entrepreneurial freedoms, small government, and democracy all at the same time (a la Reaganomics, Thatcherism and neoliberalism). It's because in companies and corporations there is no democracy, thus the unmitigated expansion of entrepreneurial freedoms leads to an oppressive social order for the majority (social order = form of government).

And here's another modelling of anarcho-capitalism, a game called Habbo that I did not know about earlier.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE6jxjKPNZQ[/video]

So what's the alternative? In real life, there are state-designated strategic domains such as vital resources, energy, military, possibly also education and healthcare etc. The more there are such strategic domains and the more closely they are regulated with price controls, trade barriers and other protections, the more mixed the economy is. It's mixed, not socialist. The government has to operate for the social benefit of the society, something that capitalist companies do not do. Companies can give salaries to the workers, but they cannot guarantee that the salary will be just, sufficient, or that the money will be convertible and stable. Companies also do not guarantee that products are beneficial for the people and that the trade or production is not too harmful for the environment. The government needs to identify the strategic domains, pay attention to equitable distribution of the resources and products of the domain to the society and be diligent punishing any abuses, particularly when own officials fail to observe the rules or become corrupt, but also when companies encroach.

All this is of course unenforceable in a game where the environment is created by a for-profit company. The game reflects its creator. A for-profit creator of course defines the terms and calls the shots for his own profit.

Gonna have to make saving the environment and treating workers good profitable somehow. Perhaps if the government took contracts based on these attributes and not just lowest bidder. Tax incentives for years compliant, tax spikes for years not. Maybe if lawmakers just quit taking corporate money and worked for the people or something. Radical idea, that last one, I know. 

‘No one should have more than €10m’: the author of Limitarianism on why the super-rich need to level down radically

Here’s a couple of good questions for an election year: while we may talk about minimum wages, why don’t we ever discuss maximum wages? And, while our politicians may argue about how little a family can survive on, why do they never address the other end of the inequality scale: just how much accumulated wealth might be too much?

The best move ever is of course to come up with a catchy name for your theory. In this case, it's Limitarianism.

Nobody should own more than me sounds like a good economic model. Comparativism?