Globalization rant continuation

[Legacy777]

Originally started here by Steve, I wanted to post the link below with mucking up the original thread.


We're boned!

[evolutionmovement]

Nice link. I've been telling people that for years. It's the deck of cards that is modern capitalism going back to dropping the gold standard. There were valid reasons for having to move away from the gold standard, but the choice to base it on essentially, imaginary money, is comical. I tried to explain it to my 8 year old nephew and he said he didn't get it since it didn't make sense. I told him that's how he knows he gets it.

I'm not anti-capitalist as those who lack vision or knowledge may accuse, it's that I realize the ideal of it that people claim they want doesn't work. Even less government regulation would result in an even worse mess as we'd return to the early days of the industrial revolution, essentially an informal monarchy. Socialism doesn't work as there's little incentive to succeed beside pride or selflessness. Both, like any other -ism only work when people in charge, be they industry or government, are honorable. Honorable people are few and are seldom in charge, so there needs to be a system of checks and balances (sounds familiar), hopefully with enough selfish people looking after their own needs that their disparate interests work to keep things from moving too far in one direction or for one individual/organization. The problem now is that too many politicians and their families are in office for too long. Perhaps what Jefferson meant when he suggested a non-violent revolution every 20 years.

Of course in my books, what's happening is all part of the Evolution Movement's scheme for a New World Order. For whatever reason, I kind of wish there really was a conspiracy because at least there'd be some intelligent drive with a planned end game behind it rather than just the bumbling stupidity of the world's politicians. Either that or we all go back to lives as hunter-gatherers.

[PhyrraM]

The only thing I know (or care to know) is that we just sold out my children. And I'm pissed. I'm partly pissed because this is what seems to be the status quo theses days (protect ours/now, screw the future). And I'm partly pissed because my kids will be in debt (not neccisarily personally, but communally) thier entire working lives to pay for the mess that "we" just created (and are supposedly fixing )

Call me 'old school but, my ancestors worked thier asses off so I wouldn't have to. It was supposed to get better as the generations went by. It seemed to be working right up until my generation. Now, it seems that my kids are going to have to work twice as hard to have 1/2 as comfortable a life, regardless of anything I can do about it. (other than win the lotto or cheat somebody else out of what they are working for (seems a common tactic these days))

I don't really have an answer, that's why I usually don't complain. I can deal (till I get fired ), but I really wonder what these geniuses have in store for my kids.




IMO? These are all just symptoms of overpopulation. I can't say at what level (country, world?), but there is JUST TOO MANY FREAKING PEOPLE these days.

[entirelyturbo]

I've known that for a little while too. My understanding is basically that the Chinese have given us one huge loan. If they actually ever want to collect on it, we're going to come up WAAAAY short... and they'll essentially taken ownership of us as collateral.

You all really need to read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand if you haven't already. I'm almost done with it (I got to page 1070 last night, got another 170 pages to go I think). It's worth the length tenfold.

It seriously changes your life. Your outlook on money, the economy, your job, even love... that book will have an effect on it.

Anyway, thanks to the book, I am still in support of a idealistic, 100% capitalistic free market. Every man for himself... literally. It's the most efficient way. I'm aware that the human condition dictates that such an idealistic strategy can't exist, just like I'm aware that a perfect and 100% efficient engine can't exist.

I wrote an article last night on the Atkinson-cycle engine, which attempts to perform a reversible adiabatic process in the interest of efficiency. A 100% adiabatic process is not possible, as there is still friction and heat sink and so on. But the Atkinson-cycle engine still operates much more efficiently by at least trying to get as close as possible to doing it.

Likewise, I continue to believe that we should attempt as free a market as possible.

A lot of people say the free market has failed... I don't think it's been allowed to succeed. This recession and the Great Depression are what I feel to be necessary to clean out all the garbage produced by greed. The greed may result from the free market, but so does its removal.

Laissez-faire -- let it be.

All the big companies whose names have been in the news in the past year didn't get too big to fail, they got too big to succeed. They surpassed their threshold of efficiency.
AIG, Goldman Sachs, Bear Sterns, GM, Chrysler... they all got arrogant and believed that their good times would never end, and threw away all the savings they had based on that assumption. Had they been left to the free market, they would have been long gone.

However, companies like Ford and JPMorgan-Chase knew better. Ford liquidated a lot of their assets a couple years ago and are still surviving and not asking for bailout money, even though they've been bleeding cash for a year and a half now. JPMorgan-Chase didn't jump on the subprime lending bandwagon. They were far more selective on who they loaned money to, and have survived the pop of the housing bubble a lot better than their competitors as a result.

Steve, you mentioned we'd return to the industrial revolution if we let the free market take over now. Yeah, probably. You know what? That's what we deserve. For acting like this, we deserve to have China take us over and be enslaved to them.

A lot of us would lose everything we have, and a lot of people would probably be killed in the chaos... and I'm man enough to admit I stand a good chance of being one of them.

However, I'd damn sure find a way to survive as long as I could, and not just survive, but be a free man as well.

And you know what? If I survived, I'd be a far better person because of it.

Even so, I'm doing my best to not be a snot-nosed spoiled brat like the rest of my generation. I'm trying to earn everything I have, I'm trying to educate myself, I'm generally trying to raise myself to a higher standard. My hope is that by doing so, I'll at least exempt myself from the debt that America is incurring (whatever that's worth), I'll set an example for others my age, and that will somehow turn the entire American population from a nation of consumers into a nation of producers.

It's crazy, but then again, so was founding this country in the first place.

[evolutionmovement]

Well that's just it with every man for himself—it inevitably degenerates into anarchy (after becoming a corporocratic monarchy (which I think i just made up as a term). Just because someone's rich doesn't mean he can't be shot. Terrorism, crime, extremist movements all stem from a squashed lower class who are squashed through no fault of their own. I've seen descendants of Rockefellers and Vanderbilts and many of them are weak, stupid people, much like the inbreeding of the old royal courts, who have never and could never hold a job (though they haven't had to).

Essentially, it is nihilistic. There would be no way for humanity to progress with a constant vicious cycle of repression and revolt. What's the point? Sounds like a bleak existence, the likes of which is common in many countries in Africa. That's why I suggest we should go back to hunter-gatherer. Studies of some existing groups show them to be happier, generally healthier people, with few possessions to drive greed, and who don't overpopulate or overpollute. There was one tribe that didn't even have a word for war, but I can't remember the friggin' name.

You also touched upon the inverse relationship between security and freedom. Absolute freedom (which arguably also cannot exist), would mean absolute lack of security. I believe the Western world has conceived a decent compromise, but is worryingly driving towards the cliff into the valley of security.

In the end, I'd rather be run by a government than a corporation. Whatever that matters as I have no real choice and I don't think there's really much difference. Is the government really controlling the corporations when the corporations ask for money and get it? Who's in control of a parent-child relationship where the parent gives the child everything it asks for? Maybe neither.

I'd like to say I'm a straight libertarian, but if I really believed that I wouldn't be compromising myself every day by taking part in this society. In the end, I prefer some government for the stability it provides. As flawed as it is, I don't enjoy human suffering and a strong government reduces this over anarchy. I guess following my Evolution Movement, I'd prefer an aristocracy, but I'd probably rarely agree on the merits the leadership was elected for.

So far we all seem to agree that there are way too many damn people (that would solve most problems in a flash) and blind consumerism is stupid. People often criticize me for going off on the morons that try to fill the holes in them with toys, asking me what business it is of mine. If it weren't my business, I wouldn't care, but it is—it's all of ours because we're all in this shit storm because of it.

This might sound gay, but I could lose my house and everything else I have with a shrug (except for my computer because of my writing) and still be happy because I'm lucky to have some real good friends and part of my family. As long as I have my tools and a car, I can work and eat and I'm grateful for that much.

[Legacy777]

The oil & gas industry went through what the banks & automakers did this past year back in 2001 & 2002.

A lot of the companies were modeling themselves after Enron and carrying up to 70-75% debt to equity. The company I worked for at the time Williams was in that boat, and surprisingly they managed to keep away bankruptcy by making a late night loan with Berkshire hathaway. The stock bottomed out at 76 cents. It was in the $50-$60 range when I joined the company in mid 2001. It did rebound, and has been in the $30-$40 range at some point.

So I'll give them credit, they definitely worked their asses off to keep out of bankruptcy. They sold A LOT of good assets.


Anyway, I'm not sure how things are going to turn out in the next year or two. I have a nagging feeling that we haven't seen the worst of things. I'm comfortably living within my means, and hopefully I can stay that way. I wouldn't mind buying a house, but I don't know if I want that burden right now. Too many unknowns....

[entirelyturbo]

Terrorism, crime, extremist movements all stem from a squashed lower class who are squashed through no fault of their own.

True, that's not right. But it comes back to personal responsibility (i.e. every man for himself). The squashed need to find a way to subvert those who are squashing them. If they're truly intelligent people who are really behing held down by the man, then they're the ones who need to take matters into their own hands, and since...

I've seen descendants of Rockefellers and Vanderbilts and many of them are weak, stupid people, much like the inbreeding of the old royal courts, who have never and could never hold a job (though they haven't had to).

... this is what's happening in our aristocracy now, the lower class have their work cut out for them.

Also, again, if they're capable of intelligent thought, they'll find a way to simply overthrow the aristocracy without bloodshed or thievery.

There would be no way for humanity to progress with a constant vicious cycle of repression and revolt.

We've managed thus far, haven't we? The colonists were repressed in Europe, so they revolted and started the United States, which soon became the most advanced nation in the world.

What's the point? Sounds like a bleak existence, the likes of which is common in many countries in Africa.

That's a defeatist attitude. Of course it's going to be a bleak existence if everyone just throws their hands up and says "We're just going to end up back in repression again anyway."

That's why I suggest we should go back to hunter-gatherer. Studies of some existing groups show them to be happier, generally healthier people, with few possessions to drive greed, and who don't overpopulate or overpollute. There was one tribe that didn't even have a word for war, but I can't remember the friggin' name.

Those countries in Africa you mentioned, who still mostly abide by this way of life? They're the ones causing the biggest population explosion right now.

You also touched upon the inverse relationship between security and freedom. Absolute freedom (which arguably also cannot exist), would mean absolute lack of security. I believe the Western world has conceived a decent compromise, but is worryingly driving towards the cliff into the valley of security.

In that case, as the more redneck of the conservatives have plastered all over their cars now: "I'll keep my guns, my money, and my freedom... you keep the 'change'." As uneducated and barbaric as it sounds, I'd prefer that over a completely false sense of security.

In the end, I'd rather be run by a government than a corporation. Whatever that matters as I have no real choice and I don't think there's really much difference. Is the government really controlling the corporations when the corporations ask for money and get it? Who's in control of a parent-child relationship where the parent gives the child everything it asks for? Maybe neither.

The government shouldn't even have enough money to bail out the corporations in the first place.

I'd like to say I'm a straight libertarian, but if I really believed that I wouldn't be compromising myself every day by taking part in this society.

I'd like to keep parties out of this altogether, but since it's on the table... my voter registration card still says Republican, but I don't claim affiliation with that party anymore. I'm not sure what I am, as both the Republicans and Democrats are far too full of bullshit and none of the rest of the parties seem to be able to do anything about it. Once I find a party that does more than just tell us what we want to hear, and actually has a chance of kicking the two big ones off the mountain, I'll gladly sign up.

In the end, I prefer some government for the stability it provides. As flawed as it is, I don't enjoy human suffering and a strong government reduces this over anarchy.

I don't enjoy human suffering either, but until we are able to upload our brainwaves into computer chips and become cold lifeless cyborgs, there's no way of avoiding it.

The point is to look forward to the reward of freedom that results from your vigilance to defend it, and do your best to ignore the suffering, inevitable though it may be. Not the other way around.

So far we all seem to agree that there are way too many damn people (that would solve most problems in a flash) and blind consumerism is stupid.

Agreed, and I believe the two go hand-in-hand (the incompetent who participate in the blind consumerism are the ones producing the most people).

People often criticize me for going off on the morons that try to fill the holes in them with toys, asking me what business it is of mine. If it weren't my business, I wouldn't care, but it is—it's all of ours because we're all in this shit storm because of it.

What needs to be done (this goes for all of society as well as you and I) is to work on producing something worthwhile instead of worrying about who's throwing the most money away on stuff that's not worthwhile.

Does it make sense to buy endless subscriptions to People Magazine if all you're going to do is berate the subjects of the magazine for living superficial lives?

This might sound gay, but I could lose my house and everything else I have with a shrug (except for my computer because of my writing) and still be happy because I'm lucky to have some real good friends and part of my family. As long as I have my tools and a car, I can work and eat and I'm grateful for that much.

I could relate to that. They can find the house a lot easier than they can find the car.

[93forestpearl]

So many good points I don't know where to begin.



Yes our country has been mortgaged. Everyone's gonna have to pay to get out of this mess. When was the last time our nation's budget was balanced? About ten years ago. That is a major problem, and possibly the largest threat to our security. Several other countries have a significant amount of leverage upon us. Not good. I wasn't alive at the time, but there a was a little snafu in Egypt involving the UK and someone else whom I cannot remember. Anyways, the US owned a ton of the UK's debt and threatened them with it and they pulled out. That may be a simplistic take, but whatever.


Basically what I'm getting at is I'm nervous about this country's balance sheet, and where that leaves us in the end. Pretty much most of the world's finances are built around our currency and system, and we almost brought it all down.


Like Steve was talking about, some regulation is necessary to maintain some sort of reliable system. no matter how much we despise some of the legislation. We just haven't found the balance yet, whether it be society, finances, or military.

[SubaruNation]

we're all asleep. that's problem #1.
Example:

found here


The real problem wont come until the resource giants and Multi-National Corporations decide to find a new currency. Which depends currently on Hope and Change's view of monetary policy.

We are going to have to spend alot to get out of this mess obviously,
but as long as the investment has a positive impact on our infrastructure and or innovation in some way we will be golden.

Also with the china-US Debt relationship, i dont think they will ever be like "well guess what US of A we're takin' you DOWNTOWN!!" because it's still a mutually beneficial relationship. It wouldnt make sense for them to do anything negative. also when you look at the national det as a percentage of GDP it reeeally isn't that big. I mean ya its big, but on a global scale... not really.

[Adam West]

This pretty much says it all in a 9 minute movie...

Enjoy!

http://rushkoff.com/books/life-incorpor ... nc-movies/

[PhyrraM]

Thanks for that. While I don't agree with everything he concludes, What is, and always has been for me, crystal clear is that folks spend way to much time "playing the game" and "running the race" and not nearly enough time living anymore. Most of us (and I conditinally include myself) even feel that these actions ARE living.

If everyone would just slow down and "smell the roses" both the corperations and governments would lose the almost total control they have today.

I never thought about the Rennissaince before, but it makes a little bit of sense. I doubt it was totally enginnered though. Mostly luck with just enough guidance through the years to bend to the desired outcome.

[SubaruNation]

This pretty much says it all in a 9 minute movie...

Enjoy!

http://rushkoff.com/books/life-incorpor ... nc-movies/

top movie?

which one specifically?

also: pretty sure they just showed Anthony Leeuwenhoek, the microscope perfecter as a king for their example. LOL

[fishbone79]

I've been stewing over this thread while I recovered from clavicle surgery. I'd like to toss my $0.02 into the whirlpool, if I may... more of a rant on the role of governance than globalization - but they are hand in hand.

You also touched upon the inverse relationship between security and freedom. Absolute freedom (which arguably also cannot exist), would mean absolute lack of security. I believe the Western world has conceived a decent compromise, but is worryingly driving towards the cliff into the valley of security.

In that case, as the more redneck of the conservatives have plastered all over their cars now: "I'll keep my guns, my money, and my freedom... you keep the 'change'." As uneducated and barbaric as it sounds, I'd prefer that over a completely false sense of security.

As ignoramus as it may sound, I too think they have a very good point. Thanks to the war on drugs and our wonderful patriot act, we do many, many, things every day that we technically don't have the right to be doing. Somewhere I have a list of all the rights we have forfeited for the sake of 'keeping our streets and schools drug free' and eradicating 'terrorism' from the inside... it's dumbfounding how little we have left, and it was all taken right from under our noses.

In the end, I'd rather be run by a government than a corporation. Whatever that matters as I have no real choice and I don't think there's really much difference. Is the government really controlling the corporations when the corporations ask for money and get it? Who's in control of a parent-child relationship where the parent gives the child everything it asks for? Maybe neither.

The government shouldn't even have enough money to bail out the corporations in the first place.

The state governments should have enough money to run our schools and maintain/build our streets, etc. The federal government should have enough money to roughly oversee matters of collective state, but not enough to put it anywhere but from whence it came (yours and my pockets). A topheavy government like this with collective ownership leads only to one thing, collectivism and its bed-partner, corruption. This is what is needed, no?:

... I continue to believe that we should attempt as free a market as possible.

A lot of people say the free market has failed... I don't think it's been allowed to succeed. This recession and the Great Depression are what I feel to be necessary to clean out all the garbage produced by greed. The greed may result from the free market, but so does its removal.

However...

Both, like any other -ism only work when people in charge, be they industry or government, are honorable. Honorable people are few and are seldom in charge, so there needs to be a system of checks and balances (sounds familiar), hopefully with enough selfish people looking after their own needs that their disparate interests work to keep things from moving too far in one direction or for one individual/organization.

Bring this back down to the individual level and you have the essence of why libertarianism works well, for a little while, but eventually grades to organization. However, the premise is the same, but the emphasis is on individual rights, and not the right of an entity to do as it pleases (be it government or private sector).

But, for the system to work in it's purest form, everyone needs a gun for the check, and we are only as safe as we think we can make ourselves... In our zeal for safety we have sacrificed individualism and relative freedom for a collective herd mentality where the men with cattle prods will protect us... right?

Any 'country boy' forced to live in a populated erea is acutely aware of what little freedom we have left. The police (puppets of a delusional state) are tax supported public servants who, in conception are as pure as the driven snow, but in practice are abusive and seductive. Their constant presence is nothing short of harassment, and the shear number of laws by which we are implored to abide is staggering. A normal person cannot go through a day without braking several laws. If you think this isn't true, think about your day... did you go 26 in a 25 MpH zone? You sir are a criminal.

This is an affliction of a governance overrun with laws, bloated and corrupted by power that wields it's sward at every level down to the individual. If we are diligent students of history, we know the next step is imperialism.... When did that start? The late 1950's, and has repeatedly bit us in our ever-more-collective ass since.

BTW, in case you didn't know, we are now in a state of martial law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wc_Lza1J6o (sorry, cspan)

I know I rant, but I ask: who are the stewards of the individuals right to freedom and prosperity? If not so quashed in this country by laws, regulations and overzealous union mongers (who have gone about 75% too far), the little guy would still have a fighting chance. As a former entrepreneur, I know this saga too well. Government inevitably oversteps even the most liberal of bounds because it is not checked by the free market.

Anyway, to anyone who cares, I point you to a little Thoreau, "On resistance to civil government."