USA was 3 hrs away from Economic, Political Collapse... last Sept.

POSTED BY: pizmobeach
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 11:44
VIEWED: 42658
PAGE 13 of 16

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 14, 2009 9:30 PM

Sarge, since you didn't respond to my post, let me ask you simply: What if the purpose of a system is to guarantee maximum individual economic freedom?

What if that kind if freedom CANNOT be achieved laissez-faire? Because it seems to me that the ONLY thing laissez-faire gets us is a lot of power for a very few and very little power for everyone else.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, February 14, 2009 9:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
If you see it as a system with a clear purpose, then we can act in a deliberate way to achieve that purpose.

I rather doubt you know how I see it.

I wasn't presuming to. That's why I said "if". I wasn't even refer to you personally, just the hypothetical.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Those two goals aren't exactly co-aligned, and to the extent that they aren't, people will have different notions about what policies are good for the economy.

They're not mutually exclusive either.

That's why I said "to the extent that they aren't".

Quote:
I'll tell the Chinese medicine place I walk past on my way to work they have to shut down, because we have the NHS and SergeantX says the two can't co-exist.

That happens quite often, though not on my say-so.

Quote:
Economies are a system, whether they have an overarching guiding hand, or purpose is irrelevant, they're still a system.

The question, is whether it's a system with clear structure and purpose or not. Sure, it's a system in-as-much-as all of reality is a system. The question rue ask was about purpose.

Quote:
The only people who might be curbed are those that want to use the river to shit in or dam, and really I don't see the problem in saying fuck them, the same way they say "fuck everyone else".

Sure, if they're harming others, fuck em all you like. That's what I consider proper economic regulation - legislate against those who harm others. But there are plenty of people who get curbed merely for being out of the mainstream, even if their actions aren't harming anyone. Using government to promote certain types of economic activities at the expense others does exactly that.

In the current situation, for example, I don't want spend more money and rack up more debt. Yet the government has decided that's what's good for the economy, so they're launching programs to push us in that direction. Many of us happen to think that prudent saving and more cautious economic growth will be a better approach in the long run. If the government weren't tinkering, we'd find out. But the cards are being deliberately stacked against us by "stimulus" programs. We're putting all our eggs in one basket and discouraging diversity. That doesn't seem like a good idea.

Quote:
... I'll remind you that you see it having an overarching purpose, the purpose of giving people the opportunity to get what they want from it.

Actually I don't think that, any more than I think that the purpose of the weather is to water crops. There can be purpose behind laws regarding economic activities, but I think that should be limited to preventing fraud and theft. Beyond that, the economic goals of individuals are too many and varied to support a systemic approach.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Saturday, February 14, 2009 9:51 PM

Sarge, there is no such thing as an individual with "an economy". Economies are arrangements between people: divisions of labor, trade, etc. As such, they necessarily have a purpose.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, February 14, 2009 10:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge, since you didn't respond to my post, let me ask you simply: What if the purpose of a system is to guarantee maximum individual economic freedom?

Sorry, Signym. Wasn't ignoring you deliberately. Lotta distractions today.

Quote:
from earlier
I'm of a different school of thought: I believe that we have the possibility of defining our future. I guess it's a very existentialist viewpoint; WE decide what is "fair", WE create our purpose, WE take responsibility for our own meaning, instead of letting "god" or "nature" or "economics" do it for us.

Well, we've certainly been down this road before. The problem is with the "we" aspect. When there is such a thing as 100% consensus, or at least very near it, I'm okay with defining our future it that way. But we usually don't have that unanimity, so "we" becomes "50%+", and pushes the rest of us down a road we might not want to travel. And, as often happens in history, the majority might be dead wrong, in which case uniformity can have disastrous consequences.

(If you have any spare reading time this winter, see if you can find a copy of Ishmael, but Daniel Quinn. It's not at all a libertarian screed, in fact it has an idealistic liberal feel to it. The rather audacious theme of the book as that we took a wrong turn some 10,000 years ago by adopting expansionist, agrarian culture as our modus operandi - and it's been trampling every other kind of culture ever since. His conclusion is that we are risking annihilation by forcing everyone down the same path.)

Quote:
That also means that we must recognize that systems develop which are LARGER than we are- memes, technologies, languages, societies, institutions, religions, businesses- which have their own "food", their own reproduction, evolution, lifespan. Its as if we are the "cells" to these "bodies". But we must understand them if we are to control them instead of them controlling us. That is one of the reason swhy I find the Funding Father's document to be so interesting: it is the first CONSCIOUS attempt that I know of to create a larger institution which is both reproductive AND deliberately self-balancing: People and state. Branches of government. Inalienable rights and change.

That is why I find anarchism somewhat naive. Trying to create freedom by simply insisting that we all behave individually denies the (VERY POWERFUL and seemingly inevitable) development of these "larger-than-individuals" interactions and systems. In order to CREATE freedom one must create a SYSTEM which constantly enhances it. Then one must keep an eye on that system to make sure that it it is doing its job, and then CHANGE THE SYSTEM if it fails to perform.

Well said. That's why I fall short of calling myself a literal anarchist. But I lean in that direction because I have yet to see a systemic approach to fighting these threats to liberty that doesn't create institutions just as threatening to liberty as the ones they presume to oppose. I think the FFs recognized this contradiction and it was the impetus for placing strong limitations on government power.

Quote:
For example, I think the Founding Fathers' experiment was a bold experiment. They did their best, by god, but clearly the system has enough flaws in it to be corrupted by concentrated wealth and power.

Of course, the libertarian premise is that these concentrations of wealth and power happen because of government policy, and not in spite of it. Obviously, that's a chicken and egg thing and difficult to prove conclusively.

Quote:
What if that kind if freedom CANNOT be achieved laissez-faire? Because it seems to me that the ONLY thing laissez-faire gets us is a lot of power for a very few and very little power for everyone else.

That's certainly the question to answer. Because I see exactly the opposite, ie the ONLY thing big government gets us is a lot of power for a very few and very little power for everyone else. Time will tell I supp

KPO

Sunday, February 15, 2009 4:06 AM

Quote:
While there is an economic argument for taking care of people, you will not find that argument in capitalism.

Is there anything 'in capitalism' that precludes it?

Heads should roll

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 15, 2009 5:46 AM

"While there is an economic argument for taking care of people, you will not find that argument in capitalism."

"Is there anything 'in capitalism' that precludes it?"

Yes, it's precluded by the drive to maximum profit.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It's like a rapist charging you for their time.

Effin' A.
I have a "reading charge" for an X-Ray that these evil peeps are persuing me for that isn't "covered" & wasn't explained to me for a needless X-Ray that I'm fully willing to pay for ($26 measley dollars), but they want a money order and I want to pay it by debit card or in person by cash & they won't take it that way.
Our system basically SUCKS.
But the UK way is undesireable for some.
Go figure the resistance to it.

Hey Cit, will you sponcer me to move to your country? It would be nice to live in a relatively civilized country for a change.
But...I guess I should give Obama a chance to make things right...

The serf Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:06 AM

Double post that I blame on the US health car system

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 15, 2009 1:30 PM

And folks believe that if Earth were just 1 mile closer to the sun, we'd all burn, and 1 mile further away, we'd all freeze.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CITIZEN

Sunday, February 15, 2009 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
That happens quite often, though not on my say-so.

I assure you that I have never once told a Chinese herbalist to shut down on anyone's say so.

Quote:
The question, is whether it's a system with clear structure and purpose or not. Sure, it's a system in-as-much-as all of reality is a system. The question rue ask was about purpose.

An economy is a system in the same way a rail network is a system, but people can still take different trains to different places. They can still get on and off at different platforms. They can still take those journeys for different reasons. But they're all trying to get somewhere.

An economy is about moving goods and money around. In fact in a capitalist economy it's about moving capital, money, around; goods and services are a means to that end. That's why it's called capitalism. Sure, people have different goals, but just like having different destinations on the train, they're all travelling.

One person may be a true capitalist, their goal may be to move lots of money from outside of their pocket, to the inside of it. Maybe someone else just really likes to make clocks, but at the end of the day they need capital to do that. If they had a rich and generous uncle to finance them, they could make clocks and keep them, or just give them away, in which case they're not taking part in the economy.

All an economy is, is money moving around. It really isn't anything more than that. Just because people come to the river for different reasons, doesn't make it anything other than a river.

So that's the purpose of the economy. And that's the purpose of regulation of an economy. Ensuring the proper and unrestricted flow of money through the economic system.

That includes laws against overt theft, but it also includes regulation against practices that have shown to cause failures within the economic system in the past, and now. Like, for instance, keeping investment and commercial banking separate.

Keeping the river flowing is the only way the disparate goals of the economy can be fulfilled, and that is it's over arching purpose. Don't confuse an overarching purpose, or regulation to keep the money flowing, as a centrally managed economy.

Quote:
Actually I don't think that, any more than I think that the purpose of the weather is to water crops.

So you wouldn't have a problem with economies being structured so that some people can't get what they want out of it then? I was trying to point out the difference between implied and overt purpose. If you think an economy is there for anyone to get what ever they want out of it, that is an implied purpose.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE