Economic Meltdown - Again

drunken_munky52

I would not consider myself an expert in the field of modern economics, I think someone once made that very clear to me.

What I do know is that the current economic system has failed before, it has failed now, and thus will fail again inevitably... yet the majority still seem to have unquestioned faith in the control mechanism which govern the way the system runs... when as you might be aware, time is all another bust needs, as some future generation will likely ignore past lessons as ours has.

The question is, when will this system fail to the point where enough is enough and the next thing takes it place? Shouldn't we be planning for the next thing now? Rather that reaction over prevention methods?

How can a sustainable economic system be achieved, when clearly the tools and infrastructure for the current system either need to be abolished or seriously redesigned? Redundancy is clearly one way, but the current system is not compatible with auxiliary backups or parallel ways. Having a dual system would diminish the resources of both, but wouldn't having a backup system be best seeing as economic meltdown is inherently part of the current system?

cavedave

I have just listened to the hardcore history podcast about WW2 on the eastern front.

What I do know is that the current economic system has failed before, it has failed now, and thus will fail again inevitably

If you want to know what living through an actual failure of the economic/political/social system is like it is worth a listen.

Flamed Diving

I would like to see more counter-cyclical policies adopted, in future.

silverharp

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I would like to see more counter-cyclical policies adopted, in future.

I agree with that, but "jam tomorrow" policies are incompatible with term based politics?

how about GAAP accounting for governments to a similar standard of corporations. Pay-as-you-go doesnt compute for me when it comes to future heath care or pension funding. Same problem as above though.

Flamed Diving

Silverharp2 wrote: »

I agree with that, but "jam tomorrow" policies are incompatible with term based politics?

how about GAAP accounting for governments to a similar standard of corporations. Pay-as-you-go doesnt compute for me when it comes to future heath care or pension funding. Same problem as above though.

Yeah, of course the notion of smoothing growth and term-based politics are incompatible without some type of enforcement. If there was some way you could easily relay information to the average joe about how well the current government are doing wrt to this optimal smoothing target then perhaps public pressure could do the job, rather than the top-down, who is guarding the guards approach?

silverharp

Flamed Diving wrote: »

If there was some way you could easily relay information to the average joe about how well the current government are doing wrt to this optimal smoothing target then perhaps public pressure could do the job, rather than the top-down, who is guarding the guards approach?

The ratings cartel needs to be broken up and the model changed. At the moment bond issuers pay their fees which is flawed. It would at least provide some early warning if the agencies had to compete to provide the best "under the bonnet" info for their clients.

As for joe public no idea. I dont think enough people would care and any critical comments would be deflected much like when the IMF and the "London based ratings agencies" did in fact issue some warnings on the Irish economy after 2000

Regarding the financial system ultimately its up to banks and shareholders as the owners of capital to be on the ball and to keep their borrowers on a short enough leash. Again bank equity analysts tend to be heavily biased to the long side as again they are not paid by the owners of equities. So I'd be in favour of seperating analysts who issue public reports from the institutions they work for.
I was aware of hedge funds that were setup in 06 to short subprime debt. Anyone coming out with have advice form an equity house would have been shown the door.

drunken_munky52

cavedave wrote: »

I have just listened to the hardcore history podcast about WW2 on the eastern front.


If you want to know what living through an actual failure of the economic/political/social system is like it is worth a listen.

WW2? Dont need to go that far back to see the system fail. If you heard, 50% of the world's population today live in poverty. A chunk of them dont even understand the basic concepts of a economic/political/social system not to mention clean water.

Diairist

Stephen kinsella was on Newstalk 106 this morning. What website did he say was good for calulating the comparative costs of buying & renting?

thanks.

drunken_munky52

Silverharp2 wrote: »

As for joe public no idea. I dont think enough people would care and any critical comments would be deflected much like when the IMF and the "London based ratings agencies" did in fact issue some warnings on the Irish economy after 2000

Thats another thing, we ignore all this IMF mumbo jumbo because its boring the masses to tears. If they were interested, then there would be a bigger problem. Ignorance is bliss for the IMF after all. The more confused the public are, the better.

Flamed Diving

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

WW2? Dont need to go that far back to see the system fail. If you heard, 50% of the world's population today live in poverty. A chunk of them dont even understand the basic concepts of a economic/political/social system not to mention clean water.

What was the ratio in 1945?

hinault

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What was the ratio in 1945?

whoooooooosssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Flamed Diving

hinault wrote: »

whoooooooosssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Go on then, explain it to me...

hinault

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Go on then, explain it to me...

No point.

You're beyond help.

Time Magazine

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

What I do know is that the current economic system has failed before, it has failed now, and thus will fail again inevitably... yet the majority still seem to have unquestioned faith in the control mechanism which govern the way the system runs... when as you might be aware, time is all another bust needs, as some future generation will likely ignore past lessons as ours has.

It depends on what you mean by "fail". I've never gone hungry, but my father did, as did his father, and every one in the line back to Adam. Sure, output has fallen 10%, and it's not pretty, but we're communicating over broadband connections while I listen to my Californian-produced music on my iPod. So what do you mean by "failed"?

drunken_munky52 wrote:

WW2? Dont need to go that far back to see the system fail. If you heard, 50% of the world's population today live in poverty. A chunk of them dont even understand the basic concepts of a economic/political/social system not to mention clean water.

The inequality in the world is harrowing, but I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with our economic system. For example, the major nations could stop their morally reprehensible approaches to trade and maintain capitalism, I'm just not sure the IFA would be too pleased. It's not capitalism that makes cut back on overseas development aid, it's politics. Africa is growing, far too slowly, but I don't blame capitalism for the failure to address the problem - I blame people's self-interest (IFA) or apathy (everyone else).

hinault wrote:

whoooooooosssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

1945 is the typical benchmark for investigating how "the West" has done so it's fair comment, no?

hinault

Time Magazine wrote: »

1945 is the typical benchmark for investigating how "the West" has done so it's fair comment, no?

Indeed.
It probably is fair comment if one is using the "West" as a reference point.



Drunken's point still stands however.

Flamed Diving

hinault wrote: »

Indeed.
It probably is fair comment if one is using the "West" as a reference point.



Drunken's point still stands however.

Can you point out where I explicitly stated that I meant the West?

I reckon your imagination is the place to look first.


While you are rummaging around in there, I will point out to the rest of our viewers that I responded to a post who made a remark about World poverty. My choice of year was kind of arbitrary, but also based on my experience in knowing that pre-war data of this kind pretty much doesn't exist.

Time Magazine

hinault wrote: »

Indeed.
It probably is fair comment if one is using the "West" as a reference point.



Drunken's point still stands however.

I guess we have to see what drunken_munky52 means. I read the OP to be a reference to the financial crisis. That's a fair enough point, but it's couple of steps away from why children in Malawi die from malaria.

Time Magazine

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I reckon your imagination is the place to look first.

That's borderline, FD.

Let's keep it civil.

hinault

Time Magazine wrote: »

I guess we have to see what drunken_munky52 means. I read the OP to be a reference to the financial crisis. That's a fair enough point, but it's couple of steps away from why children in Malawi die from malaria.

Drunkens point, I assume, is that no economic system can be described as being "successful" when the majority of the people on this planet are at the poverty line, and/or below the poverty line.


Incidentally I have inlaws who fought and died on the Ostfront.

Flamed Diving

It also depends on how you measure success, really... is it the exclusive domain of GDP? Is it calorific intake? Life Expectancy? Literacy? Infant Mortality?

drunken_munky52

Going back to my OP, I made reference to the "system" failing, which time magazine has correctly assumed was about the current financial crisis that we "western" societies are experiencing. Now when you put this crisis in context, it is indeed a far cry for the misery of life in front-line WW2 or the continuing suffering of our species in other parts of the globe.

To bridge this with my later comment about the poverty in the world, our pursuit of short term gain, is not only is done at the expense of the 3rd world ( i.e. waste, globalization, etc), it also supersedes sustainable economic thinking that "fire hoses" such crisis that we are in now. For example, now we have a tougher financial regulator; but for how long will this toughness last before another Bertie Ahern tell the party poopers to go kill themselves? :pac:

This is how our system has rotten parts in the middle of it waiting to surface all the time, as you may have worked out by my "boom to bust to boom..." analogy.

Yes our competitive system has its advantages, but the point is that it is never sustainable. Its very nature dictates that to be a winner there must always be losers in it and that to have to good times you must have the bad times also. Some people might argue thats how life is, but I disagree.

Flamed Diving

I thought I would present a few graphs, just to bring some perspective. In order, they represent the log of: gdp per capita, GDP and consumption for the USA between 1947 - 2009Q4.

As you can see, in the long-run there is very little deviation from the upward trend (draw a line through it). But when you are living in one of those downward bumps, with the media getting into a frenzy, it is easy to think that the world is collapsing. But it isn't. When this mess is overcome, the line will continue upward, as it has done sine 1800, in the West.

GDP per capita:


GDP:


Consumption:

hinault

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Going back to my OP, I made reference to the "system" failing, which time magazine has correctly assumed was about the current financial crisis that we "western" societies are experiencing. Now when you put this crisis in context, it is indeed a far cry for the misery of life in front-line WW2 or the continuing suffering of our species in other parts of the globe.

To bridge this with my later comment about the poverty in the world, our pursuit of short term gain, is not only is done at the expense of the 3rd world ( i.e. waste, globalization, etc), it also supersedes sustainable economic thinking that "fire hoses" such crisis that we are in now. For example, now we have a tougher financial regulator; but for how long will this toughness last before another Bertie Ahern tell the party poopers to go kill themselves? :pac:

This is how our system has rotten parts in the middle of it waiting to surface all the time, as you may have worked out by my "boom to bust to boom..." analogy.

Yes our competitive system has its advantages, but the point is that it is never sustainable. Its very nature dictates that to be a winner there must always be losers in it and that to have to good times you must have the bad times also. Some people might argue thats how life is, but I disagree.

Agreed.

The so-called economic system that the "west" has derives benefits to only a percentage of people on this planet.
The argument could made that the percentage of people contributing to that system only includes that percentage of people.

However, that argument doesn't hold water when you factor in other things.
For example, the main source of energy for economic activity is?
Oil.
Where oil has been found and sourced, have the people of those territories reaped the economic benefits of that raw material which fuelled the Western economy?


It is my view that the redistribution of wealth would help to secure the overall health of any proposed economic system

Time Magazine

hinault wrote: »

It is my view that the redistribution of wealth would help to secure the overall health of any proposed economic system

And what in capitalism, pray tell, stops the redistribution of wealth among nations? Is it the economic system that prevents that or is it the democratic system?

Our economic system could eliminate hunger and thirst tomorrow, there are more than enough resources for it if we cared. But we don't. It's the fact that people, in general, don't give a sh*t that prevents it from happening. We look after ourselves. That's appalling, but that's not capitalism's fault.

Blaming our economic system is looking at entirely the wrong target. Ask your friends how many of them give more than 5% of their income in aid and see if you can find the true cause.

hinault

Time Magazine wrote: »

And what in capitalism, pray tell, stops the redistribution of wealth among nations? Is it the economic system that prevents that or is it the democratic system?

Our economic system could eliminate hunger and thirst tomorrow, there are more than enough resources for it if we cared. But we don't. It's the fact that people, in general, don't give a sh*t that prevents it from happening. We look after ourselves. That's appalling, but that's not capitalism's fault.

Blaming our economic system is looking at entirely the wrong target. Ask your friends how many of them give more than 5% of their income in aid and see if you can find the true cause.

Is the "democratic system" a by product of "capitalism"?
Or is "capitalism" a by product of the "democratic system"?

What is clear that realpolitik dictates both the economic system and the redistribution of any benefits from that economic system.

drunken_munky52

hinault wrote: »

Agreed.


However, that argument doesn't hold water when you factor in other things.
For example, the main source of energy for economic activity is?
Oil.
Where oil has been found and sourced, have the people of those territories reaped the economic benefits of that raw material which fuelled the Western economy?

Agreed. Oil is the lifeblood of our modern economy. Without it, we would be back at in the industrial revolution. But even think back before this. You had the British Empire (London based agencies) spreading out all over the world exploiting the lifeblood resource of them days (namely silk, tea and other commodities) and they used force to get these things without any discretion (people knew what they were doing)

Here we are today and they still have the empire along with their imperial brothers the US, running an empire under the majority's noses (using media the champion their aspirations). George Bush senior said his self that America would use force to secure its strategic interests (oil from Iraq), only no oil for blood campaigns made him change his language. Now use of force is justified with lies.

It it frankly sick to assume that these imperial powers that be have the best interests of anything other than their elite few at heart. OK, they didn't invent this system, but its clear that past imperialism is the foundation of the society we live in today. And that is not a good foundation to be resting on.

I digress.

According to those graphs, GDP will continue to grow in a straight line forever. That is based on consumerism am I right? The economic output based on what exactly?

What about our natural and technological evolution trend? Would it be correct to say that our this trend is been held back because our base economic system is not compatible with it?

Flamed Diving

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

According to those graphs, GDP will continue to grow in a straight line forever.

No, they are historical graphs. They imply nothing but what has been. However, in my opinion, it would seem likely that this long-run growth will continue for some time, as it has been for over 200 years now... in the West.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

That is based on consumerism am I right?

I don't really know what that means.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

The economic output based on what exactly?

National income accounts. Take a look:

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=5&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2009&Freq=Qtr

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

What about our natural and technological evolution trend?

Our natural evolution? You mean Neo-Darwinian? This has no direction, and no trend. No up or down.

As for our technological evolution, from what I gather the rate of technology growth has been increasing, but it's marginal effect on production has been decreasing. However, this was just something I picked up in a lecture. I only remember it because I questioned the lecturer on it.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Would it be correct to say that our this trend is been held back because our base economic system is not compatible with it?

Technological growth thrives in capitalist economies, because it creates incentives to innovate. Communism does the opposite. Note China's use of market mechanisms to achieve such technological productivity gains. Unfortunately, they still execute more people than the entire world combined and invoice the family for the bullet...

The only other alternative is a non-capitalist society which relies on peoples goodwill to innovate. People just aren't like that.

hinault

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Agreed. Oil is the lifeblood of our modern economy. Without it, we would be back at in the industrial revolution. But even think back before this. You had the British Empire (London based agencies) spreading out all over the world exploiting the lifeblood resource of them days (namely silk, tea and other commodities) and they used force to get these things without any discretion (people knew what they were doing)

Here we are today and they still have the empire along with their imperial brothers the US, running an empire under the majority's noses (using media the champion their aspirations). George Bush senior said his self that America would use force to secure its strategic interests (oil from Iraq), only no oil for blood campaigns made him change his language. Now use of force is justified with lies.

It it frankly sick to assume that these imperial powers that be have the best interests of anything other than their elite few at heart. OK, they didn't invent this system, but its clear that past imperialism is the foundation of the society we live in today. And that is not a good foundation to be resting on.

Agree.

You look at the great British companies : Tate & Lyle for example fleeced raw materials throughout the Far East.
Or BP.
Maybe we should refer to BP by it's original name Anglo-Persian Oil Company!
Both of these companies and many other "western" companies and western economies were built upon fleecing conquered territories and robbing the indigenous people of those regions.

Ever walk through London/Paris/Madrid/Lisbon?
Look at the huge buildings that line the main streets of those cities.
How many of those buildings were built through the theft and exploitation
of countries conquered, including this country?

And as you say, it goes on today.
Oil taken from a well in Nigeria for example. How much does the local Nigerian get for each barrel sourced?
He gets nothing.
In fact, companies like Shell pay a commission to the Nigerian govt for every single barrel of oil taken out of the ground of Nigeria.
The Nigerian regime installed in Nigeria are all soldiers who were schooled at.............Sandhurst in Britain.
So the natural resources of a sovereign nation, are taken by an international conglomerate, who are prepared to overlook the human rights records of an English based military junta.


For the record, I believe in democracy and I believe in the concept of redistribution of wealth.
They're not mutually exclusive as some (here) would like you to believe they are.

Time Magazine

hinault wrote: »

Is the "democratic system" a by product of "capitalism"?
Or is "capitalism" a by product of the "democratic system"?

What is clear that realpolitik dictates both the economic system and the redistribution of any benefits from that economic system.

You're of course correct that there's considerable endogeneity between democratic institutions and capitalism. Leaving aside the implication that democratic societies tend to choose capitalist policies, it still doesn't address my point.

I assert, with regret, that people are ridiculously self-interested. It is no surprise to me to hear you talk about oil companies behaving irresponsibly - people are selfish.

I think that was true before capitalism emerged, I think it was true when capitalism emerged, I think it is true today and I think it was true in Soviet Russia. Capitalism is not the problem.

There was a thread here a couple of years ago that, in a round-about way, was blaming world poverty on the fractional reserve monetary system. All very well-intentioned, but completely thoughtless. This thread, with respect OP, seems to be a similar (but more subtle) beast. If people really cared above poverty (and I wish they did), we could have political parties winning elections on the basis of the effectiveness of their overseas development aid programs. Nothing stopping it happening, except the complete absence of a democratic mandate. The means by which we create our wealth is independent of how we distribute it.

hinault wrote: »

For the record, I believe in democracy and I believe in the concept of redistribution of wealth.

We didn't see that one coming :pac:

They're not mutually exclusive as some (here) would like you to believe they are.

I don't think anyone said that.

Hinault, why do you think that so few people donate more than a meagre amount of their income to the third world?

hinault

There is no doubt that people always act to look after themselves, first and foremost.
However, would most people condone the theft and robbery of the assets of a sovereign nations to the detriment of 95% of the population, as in the case of Nigeria and their oil, for example?
I think not.

With regard to your question about political parties.
All politics are local.
Of course, it is too much to expect any govt to be voted in to office on their overseas aid mandate.
But to suggest that because capitalism is the "least worst economic system" doesn't validate capitalism.
When the majority of this planet still live close to, or below, the poverty line, no economic system can be said to be "successful".

Regarding your point about how much people donate to the third world.
I do not have access to the amounts that people may or may not donate.
However, if there was an equitable international economic system, the need for people to donate would not exist.
Economies and nations would be able to survive and prosper in a more just and fair economic system, without the need for people to have to donate money.

And such a system can be achieved - through more fair and transparent economic templates.

many years ago, when I was a youngman, German Chancellor Willy Brandt commissioned what I consider to be a very wise and perceptive report detailing a more equitable system for this planet and people.

The Brandt report, for example, would be an ideal starting point to look at ways of making the world economic system more fair.

Hasschu

It is all relative, Ireland in the twenties, thirties, forties and fifties was a poverty stricken place. A lot of businesses gave "tick" in those days so there are ledgers with all the details of the typical consumption patterns. Week after week families bought sugar, tea, flour, salt bacon unsmoked, baking soda, salt, pepper, jam, butter and Clark's Plug and Bendigo with Woodbines taking up more market share as time progressed. Those were grim days any way you parse it. Ireland made enormous progress after entering the EU largely because we had to take leave of our parochial anal retentive behaviours and actually join the real world. We retained some of our less attractive traits such as our willingness to vote for politicians on the take and our firm belief that we were wonderful and our prosperity was due to our superior work habits and intelligence. Hopefully we are now cured of those bad practices and delusional thinking (for 25 years probably). Not many people seem to recognise that America has been in relative decline economically and militarily since 1945 ( America peaked in 1945). Since 1945 oil and gas has propelled the whole world to higher and higher levels of prosperity. We have lived through the best period in human history since Eve bit into the apple. So stop complaining or I will cut off your Clark's Plug.

Hinault, with respect, an economic system is simply the aggregate actions of a group of individuals. For such an 'equitable international economic system' to exist, you must first have a critical mass of people behaving in that manner and there is nothing currently stopping that.

Far too often, people get caught up in the economic rhetoric without acknowledging that it is the underlying people which drive the economic system.
You also have to admit that geography is not homogeneous and that in simple terms there are few 'haves' and more 'have nots'.

There is absolutely nothing, apart from human nature, stopping the 'haves' to give the 'have nots'. Simple as.
The rhetoric of communism, capitalism, socialism, whatever is misplaced here. This comes down to the fact that people are greedy and self centred and people's common individual traits will be aggregated up to whatever economic system is in place.

Time Magazine

hinault wrote: »

There is no doubt that people always act to look after themselves, first and foremost.
However, would most people condone the theft and robbery of the assets of a sovereign nations to the detriment of 95% of the population, as in the case of Nigeria and their oil, for example?
I think not.

Yes, and their protests on the streets show that they really care. Oh no, wait, that was about medical cards.

With regard to your question about political parties.
All politics are local.
Of course, it is too much to expect any govt to be voted in to office on their overseas aid mandate.

Why is it too much to expect? Because people, John Q Taxpayer, don't care. And as long as that's the case you're going to have inequality.

But to suggest that because capitalism is the "least worst economic system" doesn't validate capitalism.

No, no, I fully assert that capitalism is far better than communism. Of course saying "it's the best economic system that the world has ever seen" doesn't validate either, but this is all irrelevant.

When the majority of this planet still live close to, or below, the poverty line, no economic system can be said to be "successful".

I completely disagree. Capitalism has created enough wealth, for the first time in human history, to easily feed and clothe 6 billion people. We also have governments with the resources to do just that. But they don't. We spend those resources on medical cards and Western Rail Corridors and invading Iraq. The problem is political, not economic.

Regarding your point about how much people donate to the third world.
I do not have access to the amounts that people may or may not donate.

Not much.

However, if there was an equitable international economic system, the need for people to donate would not exist.

To an extent, I agree, and when the EU pulls down trade barriers and allows free movement of people to and from sub-Saharan Africa it will be a boon for the developing world. This would happen if people stopped buying Lady Gaga CDs and instead bought Mahmoud Ahmed CDs. But neither of these can be blamed on capitalism per se, they're effects of decisions by politicians and by average Joes.

Economies and nations would be able to survive and prosper in a more just and fair economic system, without the need for people to have to donate money.

And such a system can be achieved - through more fair and transparent economic templates.

There's nothing unfair about Lady Gaga's success.

many years ago, when I was a youngman, German Chancellor Willy Brandt commissioned what I consider to be a very wise and perceptive report detailing a more equitable system for this planet and people.

The Brandt report, for example, would be an ideal starting point to look at ways of making the world economic system more fair.

The primary thrust of the Brandt Report, unless I'm confusing it with something else, was about redistribution. The only thing stopping is Fianna Fáil increasing ODA to 5% of GDP is political will. That's not capitalism's fault.

Oak3

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

The question is, when will this system fail to the point where enough is enough and the next thing takes it place? Shouldn't we be planning for the next thing now? Rather than reaction over prevention methods?

Absolutely, yes. The goal is to feed, clothe, house, educate, care for the health of and legally represent every citizen on this tiny island for free. That is our immediate goal if we are to be prepared for an evaporation in global currency systems, which would appear to be imminent. It's back to basics, co-operation and foresight from here on in amd rapid action. So how do we make that simple message abundantly clear to the decision making process? And then act on it?

Profit is your enemy, do something for someone else. But what do I know, I'm just Joe Public, only this time I've got an interest in what's happening. That's the reality.

Flamed Diving

Oak3 wrote: »

Absolutely, yes. The goal is to feed, clothe, house, educate, care for the health of and legally represent every citizen on this tiny island for free. That is our immediate goal if we are to be prepared for an evaporation in global currency systems, which would appear to be imminent. It's back to basics, co-operation and foresight from here on in amd rapid action. So how do we make that simple message abundantly clear to the decision making process? And then act on it?

Profit is your enemy, do something for someone else. But what do I know, I'm just Joe Public, only this time I've got an interest in what's happening. That's the reality.

Just viewed your debut post from 2001:

Oak3 wrote: »

Oooh look at this...a list of new errorcom mirrors. Things are hotting up.
I think we should go all out to bring the truth out into the open

The truth about the scandalous way in which everybody in this country is
being treated by government, utilities, banks, insurance companies, and those
who have a cosy cartel in the marketplace. The PETROL Companies.

Its about time we voiced our collective disapproval. Our decisions as consiumers will make the difference. Dont be ripped off. Just say no.

http://www.pinkbubble.net

It'll be very interesting to see what happens in the coming months. My feelind is that the hour of the underdog has finally arrived, and we should jump on it like a school of piranha fish having suddenly come across a shoal of juicy sardines. ( yes i know that piranha are freshwater fish....rare to come across a sardine isn't it?):p

Do you just take this sensationalist style of thinking and apply it to everything in your life?

Furthermore, did the hour of the underdog finally arrive?

drunken_munky52

unfortunately, we are all part of an socio-economic order that revolves around a handful of institutions, all of which are preventing society from becoming a hostalgic sustainable entity that is meant to be.

for example:

1. the church - one of the oldest economic paralyzing structures the world has ever known
2. the banks - all of which are basically run by umbrella groups, part of a larger single umbrella group, that creates scarcity and slavery by inflating and deflating currency at the touch of a button.
3. politicians - an interface between lobbyists and law makers. profoundly influence peoples beliefs and ideals, create division which is eluded as democracy.

with an un-uniform order such as this in tandem with the working model of established economic systems, we are missing the big picture.

my prediction is that as capitalism, communism and so on repeatedly fail, society will choose to go down the route of abanodoning materialism, social class and eventually money, in favour of solving real problems with the advancement of shared knowledge and technology... this is the economy of the future.

anyone know that name of it?

Oh dear.

Oak3

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Do you just take this sensationalist style of thinking and apply it to everything in your life?

Furthermore, did the hour of the underdog finally arrive?

If you're going to besmirch me then I suggest you do the job properly, I won't tolerate shoddy workmanship. The post you dragged up from almost 9 years ago was posted in the context of an attempted legal action that was taken by Eircom against a website put together by a boardsie lampooning Eircom's dismal approach to rolling out Broadband. Eircom got the lawyers out.

Most of us were still on 56k connections back then and ISDN was prohibitively expensive and only marginally better. The link in the original quote you posted above is dead, however we still have a record of the original site.

http://users.tmok.com/~dburke/errorcom/

It's only fair to include that so readers can get an idea of why I and others were so p***ed off with eircom and not only ranting about it but plastering it all over the internet. As I recall there were at least 20 mirrors of that site at one point.

If you think that kind of thing is sensationalist thinking well you're entitled to that. Personally I think it's outrage and dissent using the perfectly healthy medium of the internet to get that point across and aggregate it.

Furthermore, to include my response to drunken_munkey question would suggest that you believe that that is also sensationalist thinking. I think many people would agree that our public services in many cases are woefully unprepared and inadequate for unforseen natural disasters as we have seen only recently. So why hang around and wait for it to happen? Being adequately prepared for it is critical.

And finally, for a boards.ie moderator to attempt to start a flame war while being intensely personal and grossly off topic at the same time is beneath contempt in my opinion.

Is that sensationalist enough for you?

Time Magazine

Lads, cop on. Debate without making implications about people's lifestyle or accusing others of flaming. Last chance.

Edit: don't drag this thread off-topic either!

Flamed Diving

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

unfortunately, we are all part of an socio-economic order that revolves around a handful of institutions, all of which are preventing society from becoming a hostalgic sustainable entity that is meant to be.

for example:

1. the church - one of the oldest economic paralyzing structures the world has ever known
2. the banks - all of which are basically run by umbrella groups, part of a larger single umbrella group, that creates scarcity and slavery by inflating and deflating currency at the touch of a button.
3. politicians - an interface between lobbyists and law makers. profoundly influence peoples beliefs and ideals, create division which is eluded as democracy.

with an un-uniform order such as this in tandem with the working model of established economic systems, we are missing the big picture.

my prediction is that as capitalism, communism and so on repeatedly fail, society will choose to go down the route of abanodoning materialism, social class and eventually money, in favour of solving real problems with the advancement of shared knowledge and technology... this is the economy of the future.

anyone know that name of it?

I'm tempted to say Star Trek. Or is it that Venus Project thing?

Time Magazine

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

1. the church - one of the oldest economic paralyzing structures the world has ever known

The influence of the church on the economy is negligible.

2. the banks - all of which are basically run by umbrella groups, part of a larger single umbrella group, that creates scarcity and slavery by inflating and deflating currency at the touch of a button.

This is just nonsense. Banks don't create scarcity, nature does. Slavery? Are you serious?

3. politicians - an interface between lobbyists and law makers. profoundly influence peoples beliefs and ideals, create division which is eluded as democracy.

If that is true, we fall hook, line and sinker.

my prediction is that as capitalism, communism and so on repeatedly fail, society will choose to go down the route of abanodoning materialism, social class and eventually money, in favour of solving real problems with the advancement of shared knowledge and technology... this is the economy of the future.

anyone know that name of it?

I'm sorry, but I really think you're living in a fantasy world here. Why would the rich abandon social class? Why would people share knowledge unless they benefit from it? You say yourself that poverty is shocking. I agree, and say it's there because people are greedy. What can you do that would make people less greedy?

drunken_munky52

Time Magazine wrote: »

The influence of the church on the economy is negligible.

Has been in the past tough, and still a major influence outside of Ireland.

Time Magazine wrote: »

This is just nonsense. Banks don't create scarcity, nature does. Slavery? Are you serious?

More money is owed to the banks than is actually in circulation; thats slavery to me. Not just the banks, explotation of workers by multinationals in low wage economies is considered modern day slavery.

Time Magazine wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I really think you're living in a fantasy world here. Why would the rich abandon social class? Why would people share knowledge unless they benefit from it? You say yourself that poverty is shocking. I agree, and say it's there because people are greedy. What can you do that would make people less greedy?

What makes you think that humans would need money as an incentive? There are many natural incentives which are obscured by money; namely curiosity, problem solving and helping one another.

A change of our value and belief systems will be needed and awareness of these facts needs to spread in order for natural incentives to come back. Unfortanately, we are locked in a never ending cycle of consumption, which the advertisment industry makes us believe is part of our natural behaviour.

GDP can not continually rise in a finite world. Anybody who reads this that adheres to the status quo will simply ignore the simple truth because its simplicity challenges everything they were thought in college.