Hi Richard, There was an article in New Scientist recently about a mathematician who claims to have a theory which says roughly what you are saying - do you know anything about that? It sounds a bit like "the railways would run on time if it wasn't for the passengers!" -- or in this case, "the capitalist system would work fine if it wasn't for the rich" :)
On 22 November 2013 10:53, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote: > Bruno, > > The rich have been trying to take over the US govt to reduce their tax > burden for over 100 years. > > > Every time they have succeeded the result has been an economic crash > usually followed by war. > > That happened in 1857 after a decade of prosperity and then the crash was > followed by the Civil War within a decade. > > > Crash and Clash was repeated in 1893->WWI, > > and again in the real estate crash of 1926 and the Wall Street crash of > 1929->WWII. > > > In each case the very rich accumulated so much wealth that they caused > investment/debt bubbles resulting a crash. After the real estate crash of > 1926, rich investors then switched to stocks and caused the 1929 crash. We > have already experienced a real estate crash in 2008. and today we see > the stock exchange reaching never before heights. > > So we again are ripe for a crash which and if the lessons of the 1920s are > repeated, > > the crash will be much more severe than the 2008 Great Recession. > > > The roaring 20s prosperity came about when the top tax rate was reduced > to 25% along with finance deregulation. Since WWII and up to Reagan, the > top tax rates were between 90% and 70%, and at those rates the rich tended > to turn profits back into their companies and the recessions were rather > mild. But after Reagan reduced the top rates to 28%, the incentive to > accumulate wealth was strong resulting in a series of investment bubbles. > Recall the internet bubble at the turn of the century. And deregulation > resulted in the invention of derivatives. > > > So I think, and many bankers do as they are hoarding cash, that we are > headed for a serious stock market crash, and apparently just because the > very rich are making so much money, especially in derivatives which > continue to exist despite being the cause of the real estate crash. It is > said that the value of the derivative debt is orders of magnitude bigger > than the value of the entire world. > > > That sounds like a form of comp (;<) > > > Richard > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 21 Nov 2013, at 13:41, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:05, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>> If nobody complains on his local decentralized power, the central power >>>> should have nothing to say, but if the locals complain about their local >>>> powers, the central power can be used as an arbiter. >>>> >>> >>> I agree that this is a risk. I don't claim that there is any system >>> that could be implemented and would solve all the problems, that's the >>> danger with ideologies. >>> >> >> I agree. >> >> >> >>> My belief is that "human evolution" -> "better forms of governance", >>> not the other way around. So democracy, with all its flaws, was made >>> possible by a new level of human development. Here I mean evolution >>> and development in the broad sense, not the biological sense. This is >>> made clear by the attempts to force democracy on less developed >>> societies. >>> >> >> OK. >> >> >> My point is that, as we evolve further, maybe the >>> decentralized system can exist without incurring so much on the risks >>> that you mention, and at the same time being much more resilient to >>> sociopathic manipulations. >>> >> >> About this I am not sure. With local powers you augment the risk of the >> "little bureaucratic sort of bosses". >> With some level of "spiritual maturity", I can conceive that you are >> right, but since sometimes I am not sure such spiritual maturity exists, >> nor even that it is on a near horizon. >> >> >> >>> >>>>> The deeper problem relies in the fact that most humans are unwilling >>>>>> to >>>>>> think by themselves, and they confuse "p -> q" and "q -> p" all the >>>>>> times. >>>>>> The (human, but not only) sciences are still driven by the appeal to >>>>>> authority. We have never been "modern". >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm happy to read this. I thought this confusion was a central problem >>>>> in society for a long time, without being an expert in logic. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The problem is that "p <-> q" is far better than nothing, in the short >>>> run, >>>> so our brains are hardwired to "reason" by association, instead, of >>>> logical >>>> validity. Logic is by essence counter-intuitive (which explains the >>>> logician's sense of humor). >>>> The short term/long term conflict is unavoidable. Humans face it all the >>>> time, like when hesitating to stop smoking, or to stop producing CO2, >>>> etc. >>>> It is even more complex today due to globalization. With the 20th >>>> century, >>>> earth has become a finite space, and this has to be taken into account, >>>> and >>>> it is not a simple task, as we have to change habits that we have since >>>> a >>>> very long time. In the long run, we will have to escape the planet and >>>> continue to run forward. But meanwhile, we have to accommodate with the >>>> finite resourcing, with or without global warming. That's a reason more >>>> to >>>> fight against corporatism, special private interests, international >>>> white >>>> collar criminality, etc. >>>> >>> >>> Right, but the hope of some people who propose a radically free market >>> is that it would work more like the immune system, and that it would >>> allocate resources in a more efficient way than central control. >>> >> >> I am for a free market. The market should be independent of the (central) >> power, except for the modalities of the contracts, the selling technic, etc. >> >> >> >> >> The >>> long term view is not foreign to markets. This is precisely what >>> investments are. Warren Buffet became extremely rich by taking a long >>> view on investments, not by doing high-frequency trading. But again, I >>> say this with the human evolution caveat in mind. >>> >> >> Local powers can easily design laws against foreigners, and develop >> selfish local profits method. In the UD this could enlarge the gap between >> black and white, or between middle class and lower classes. >> I would favor a stable central power, which would enforce few but basic >> important laws and rules, on which everyone agrees. Then the local powers >> can implement special politics and experiences. >> Somehow I do believe that the Americans were close to this, but they >> failed to prevent prohibition, and that remains a bit of a mystery for me. >> I am open to the idea that there has been a real well prepared conspiracy, >> not by "illuminati" but by by a collusion of special interests (paper, oil, >> pharma, military, jails, and the black market, etc.). >> >> >> >>> I'm also strongly in favour of experiments. For example, and this >>> would certainly annoy most libertarians, I am very excited by the >>> Swiss plan to provide a base level of income to all citizens. >>> >> >> I have always defended that idea. >> >> >> >> >> I like >>> it because it's so simple and non-intrusive. You just give everyone >>> the same base income, no matter how poor or rich they are. >>> >> >> Yes. That is what the communist never grasped. It makes no sense to >> distribute the money from the rich to the poor, this makes the richer less >> rich, and very quickly the poor even much less rich. As long as people >> don't use lies and dishonest methods, people should be able to enrich >> themselves as much as they want. But we must find a way to prevent the bad >> use of money to enrich oneself. And this asks for very special laws against >> the fake speculation. The problem is that with enough money, you can >> multiplied your richness easily by dishonest means, and this perverts the >> system. >> >> >> >> >> Hopefully >>> it will remove unnecessary and even counter-productive jobs, free more >>> people from meaningless lives and attack the entire "job mentality". >>> One can hope... >>> >> >> I agree. I believe that it will be more easy to avoid counter-productive >> jobs if there is a minimal salary. It would stabilize the little markets, >> and would annoy only those who are addicted to "more money at all price". >> For the "job mentality", I'm afraid we will need a coming back to >> seriousness in the human sciences, but this will take time, and some >> catastrophes. The "job mentality" is not unrelated to the current >> institutionalized religions, and the current conception of reality. >> >> Bruno >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
