This Is Getting Embarassing!

[vt]

xkcd.com

[shiny!]

Re: This Is Getting Embarassing!

Love it!

[Forrest]

Re: This Is Getting Embarassing!

I can't help wonder if all the really rich people that are behind much of what goes on in the world...in that they pull strings, and tell politicians what to do...are even aware of what people think of them.

I know they don't care, but are they even aware?

[vt]

Re: This Is Getting Embarassing!

I think some are aware, but others may think what they are doing is noble.

Conservatives view free markets economies best able to increase living standards by creating products and services that deliver value faster, better and cheaper.
Competition creates more jobs, but also winners and losers. Study Joseph Schumpeter's Creative Destruction theme:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

Those that create businesses sometimes amass great wealth. What you don't see is what they had to do to succeed, and most didn't hurt others getting there.
Business creators have to invest their life savings, take on the risk of borrowing, fail at times, perhaps go bankrupt. Many of them care about their employees, even to the point of paying them but not themselves in slow times.

There are a few that take advantage of their workers and engage in other nefarious behavior, but most work hard and struggle. We never hear about those that worked hard, reached some level of success, and then faded as they got older. Americans move up and down among classes over time periods. We have an open system that allows success but creates failure too.

Liberals tend to look at those that aren't rich as noble, and the rich as uncaring. However socialist systems also create elite structures. Those at the very top can become obscenely rich. The favored around them can also become wealthy.

EJ had a chart of employment distribution by job type, and the income each sector received. As expected the managerial group got far greater income than their percentage in the population. What was surprising to some was that federal government employees made up 3% of the population, but received 7% on total income!

Socialist systems are viewed as fairer by some, but in reality they do not result in better living standards, and many fail because their leaders are too greedy. They turn out to be just as uncaring as the robber barons that we all detest.

What EJ has pointed out is that the FIRE leadership has become too greedy and controlling to the detriment of the free market system. There is nothing wrong with large corporations as long as they are lead by noble leaders that care for their employees and community.

I do feel that politicians take money from rich donors then often do what they want anyway. There have been noble politicians, but a large portion the group we have now is bereft of care.

[photon555]

Re: This Is Getting Embarassing!

I think some are aware, but others may think what they are doing is noble.

Conservatives view free markets economies best able to increase living standards by creating products and services that deliver value faster, better and cheaper.
Competition creates more jobs, but also winners and losers. Study Joseph Schumpeter's Creative Destruction theme:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

Those that create businesses sometimes amass great wealth. What you don't see is what they had to do to succeed, and most didn't hurt others getting there.
Business creators have to invest their life savings, take on the risk of borrowing, fail at times, perhaps go bankrupt. Many of them care about their employees, even to the point of paying them but not themselves in slow times.

There are a few that take advantage of their workers and engage in other nefarious behavior, but most work hard and struggle. We never hear about those that worked hard, reached some level of success, and then faded as they got older. Americans move up and down among classes over time periods. We have an open system that allows success but creates failure too.

Liberals tend to look at those that aren't rich as noble, and the rich as uncaring. However socialist systems also create elite structures. Those at the very top can become obscenely rich. The favored around them can also become wealthy.

EJ had a chart of employment distribution by job type, and the income each sector received. As expected the managerial group got far greater income than their percentage in the population. What was surprising to some was that federal government employees made up 3% of the population, but received 7% on total income!

Socialist systems are viewed as fairer by some, but in reality they do not result in better living standards, and many fail because their leaders are too greedy. They turn out to be just as uncaring as the robber barons that we all detest.

What EJ has pointed out is that the FIRE leadership has become too greedy and controlling to the detriment of the free market system. There is nothing wrong with large corporations as long as they are lead by noble leaders that care for their employees and community.

I do feel that politicians take money from rich donors then often do what they want anyway. There have been noble politicians, but of large portion the group we have now is bereft of care.

+1

The same logic that is used to argue for limiting the power of government also argues for limiting the power of corporations and other institutions. The root cause of corruption is human nature itself. Those who gain power may be noble of spirit, or they may be contemptible. Therefore power must be limited by legal structures for the betterment of all society. But who watches the watchers? I think the overall moral and spiritual condition of a people ultimately determines whether they remain free or not. The only "magic bullet" is the redemption of the human heart.

[LorenS]

Re: This Is Getting Embarassing!

+1

The same logic that is used to argue for limiting the power of government also argues for limiting the power of corporations and other institutions. The root cause of corruption is human nature itself. Those who gain power may be noble of spirit, or they may be contemptible. Therefore power must be limited by legal structures for the betterment of all society. But who watches the watchers? I think the overall moral and spiritual condition of a people ultimately determines whether they remain free or not. The only "magic bullet" is the redemption of the human heart.

My thoughts exactly. Many people define Right and Left by whom they wish to wield absolute power. I view it similar to how you have expressed it. No one should have too much power, everyone should be held accountable.

[Forrest]

Re: This Is Getting Embarassing!

I think some are aware, but others may think what they are doing is noble.

Conservatives view free markets economies best able to increase living standards by creating products and services that deliver value faster, better and cheaper.
Competition creates more jobs, but also winners and losers. Study Joseph Schumpeter's Creative Destruction theme:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

Those that create businesses sometimes amass great wealth. What you don't see is what they had to do to succeed, and most didn't hurt others getting there.
Business creators have to invest their life savings, take on the risk of borrowing, fail at times, perhaps go bankrupt. Many of them care about their employees, even to the point of paying them but not themselves in slow times.

There are a few that take advantage of their workers and engage in other nefarious behavior, but most work hard and struggle. We never hear about those that worked hard, reached some level of success, and then faded as they got older. Americans move up and down among classes over time periods. We have an open system that allows success but creates failure too.

Liberals tend to look at those that aren't rich as noble, and the rich as uncaring. However socialist systems also create elite structures. Those at the very top can become obscenely rich. The favored around them can also become wealthy.

EJ had a chart of employment distribution by job type, and the income each sector received. As expected the managerial group got far greater income than their percentage in the population. What was surprising to some was that federal government employees made up 3% of the population, but received 7% on total income!

Socialist systems are viewed as fairer by some, but in reality they do not result in better living standards, and many fail because their leaders are too greedy. They turn out to be just as uncaring as the robber barons that we all detest.

What EJ has pointed out is that the FIRE leadership has become too greedy and controlling to the detriment of the free market system. There is nothing wrong with large corporations as long as they are lead by noble leaders that care for their employees and community.

I do feel that politicians take money from rich donors then often do what they want anyway. There have been noble politicians, but a large portion the group we have now is bereft of care.

Oh, they care, but only for their position, their popularity and their influence.

My thoughts exactly. Many people define Right and Left by whom they wish to wield absolute power. I view it similar to how you have expressed it. No one should have too much power, everyone should be held accountable.

Yes, indeed, but down to the last man, woman and child. It is not enough for the rulers to be accountable...the people have to be accountable themselves, or they will not hold anyone
else accountable.

+1

The same logic that is used to argue for limiting the power of government also argues for limiting the power of corporations and other institutions. The root cause of corruption is human nature itself. Those who gain power may be noble of spirit, or they may be contemptible. Therefore power must be limited by legal structures for the betterment of all society. But who watches the watchers? I think the overall moral and spiritual condition of a people ultimately determines whether they remain free or not. The only "magic bullet" is the redemption of the human heart.

+1

[GRG55]

Re: This Is Getting Embarassing!

I can't help wonder if all the really rich people that are behind much of what goes on in the world...in that they pull strings, and tell politicians what to do...are even aware of what people think of them.

I know they don't care, but are they even aware?

That implies a level of organization and coordination among them that could only be conjured up in a true flight of fantasy of the imagination.

It seems today there is too little effective leadership. Political institutions all around the world are breaking down under the complexity of the problems that have been created not by some grand design or plan of a wealthy elite, but the cumulative effect of hay wire, chewing gum and duct tape patching previous "fixes" over decades by short term thinking politicians and self serving business leaders.

The EU, for example, didn't arrive at the catastrophe that it's dealing with now because of some grand plan to wreck the continent. What purpose would that serve for anybody? Especially given Europe's history, much of it still within the memory of the living.

You don't get to this result because someone has a plan:



You get this result because there is NO plan...

[shiny!]

Re: This Is Getting Embarassing!

That implies a level of organization and coordination among them that could only be conjured up in a true flight of fantasy of the imagination.

It seems today there is too little effective leadership. Political institutions all around the world are breaking down under the complexity of the problems that have been created not by some grand design or plan of a wealthy elite, but the cumulative effect of hay wire, chewing gum and duct tape patching previous "fixes" over decades by short term thinking politicians and self serving business leaders.

The EU, for example, didn't arrive at the catastrophe that it's dealing with now because of some grand plan to wreck the continent. What purpose would that serve for anybody? Especially given Europe's history, much of it still within the memory of the living.

You don't get to this result because someone has a plan:



You get this result because there is NO plan...

It's hard to argue with the logic of this. So my question is:

If things have gotten this way because of the absence of effective leadership, then what is the purpose of the Bilderburg Group, the Illuminati, Skull & Bones, Bohemian Grove, etc.... ?

[BadJuju]

Re: This Is Getting Embarassing!

Well, the Illuminati are entirely fictional, so that rules them out entirely. I think the rest can be explained by the fact that people of similar means and 'stature' tend to mingle with each other. If this is all part of some grand plan, then the planners suck and they have no earthly idea of what they are doing. All and all, I think it is just a mixture of all the classics: greed, corruption, and isolation from the real world culminating together to create a disastrous scenario. No grand designs, no great schemes, just old fashioned human nature. The problem is that when you introduce a little corruption in a system, it doesn't just remain there and not spread. It pervades everything bit by bit and what was once a bad bit is now a bad byte. And it just propagates. Corruption begets corruption and as it becomes more pervasive, it becomes more acceptable and more people begin to become corrupt even if they don't realize it. It is like people at my work and myself included where we'll all snatch materials from each other for our own jobs because everyone else is doing it. It hurts the big picture overall and is corrupt in its own way, but it has become acceptable because it just is now. The same thing plays out in society with people doing something that isn't good because everyone else is doing it and why shouldn't they.

[dcarrigg]

Re: This Is Getting Embarassing!

I think some are aware, but others may think what they are doing is noble.

Conservatives view free markets economies best able to increase living standards by creating products and services that deliver value faster, better and cheaper.
Competition creates more jobs, but also winners and losers. Study Joseph Schumpeter's Creative Destruction theme:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

Those that create businesses sometimes amass great wealth. What you don't see is what they had to do to succeed, and most didn't hurt others getting there.
Business creators have to invest their life savings, take on the risk of borrowing, fail at times, perhaps go bankrupt. Many of them care about their employees, even to the point of paying them but not themselves in slow times.

There are a few that take advantage of their workers and engage in other nefarious behavior, but most work hard and struggle. We never hear about those that worked hard, reached some level of success, and then faded as they got older. Americans move up and down among classes over time periods. We have an open system that allows success but creates failure too.

Liberals tend to look at those that aren't rich as noble, and the rich as uncaring. However socialist systems also create elite structures. Those at the very top can become obscenely rich. The favored around them can also become wealthy.

EJ had a chart of employment distribution by job type, and the income each sector received. As expected the managerial group got far greater income than their percentage in the population. What was surprising to some was that federal government employees made up 3% of the population, but received 7% on total income!

Socialist systems are viewed as fairer by some, but in reality they do not result in better living standards, and many fail because their leaders are too greedy. They turn out to be just as uncaring as the robber barons that we all detest.

What EJ has pointed out is that the FIRE leadership has become too greedy and controlling to the detriment of the free market system. There is nothing wrong with large corporations as long as they are lead by noble leaders that care for their employees and community.

I do feel that politicians take money from rich donors then often do what they want anyway. There have been noble politicians, but a large portion the group we have now is bereft of care.

I think this entire post is a huge misconception, and is greatly distorting what people who disagree with you actually mean. There's a big difference between political liberalism and socialism. The gulf is probably as wide as the gulf between conservatism and fascism. And the gulf is probably less wide than the gulf between libertarianism and anarchism. I have never met a self described liberal who argued for public ownership of the means of production (socialism).

So, liberals too take a free market approach. They just don't necessarily take a completely unregulated free market approach. This is particularly true in markets that are either natural monopolies (public utilities etc.), extremely price and income inelastic markets (emergency care, etc.), and things that are considered to be public goods (public schools, water etc.).

Now you might find some liberals who believe healthcare is a public good, and maybe even a majority would agree. But I think you'd find they'd be split.

The problems liberals see with the privatization wave that has been marching forward since 1980 are three fold:

#1: Things that make no sense to privatize get privatized. So prisons go private. But prisons only have one customer - the state. So what kind of free market is that? And predictably, prisons end up getting built on speculation for new inmates in California. Not good. Then major cities like Chicago sell their parking off to Morgan Stanley. And, quite predictably, nobody can park and regular people get charged huge fines that go right into NY bankers' pockets. Selling the city's parking spaces to a bank doesn't create competition in the parking market. It's just kleptocracy. (PS, it can get scary to liberals - this is why when W. hired Blackwater it worried so many - privatizing the military means now there are private people with legitimate use of deadly force and zero public oversight).

#2: Things that need to be regulated go unregulated. Social liberals in America are split on this. I think there's a fair majority of liberals now who think Clinton's deregulation activities went far too far and Obama hasn't gone far enough. These are your restore glass-steagall, increase capital requirements, force bank transparency, question the existence of some overly complex & opaque financial products etc. people. The Rubin wing of the democratic party might be popular in the ivies, but not on the street. I think the main argument against deregulation here has 2 points, firstly that finance is too powerful and financialization actually harms the rest of the economy, and secondly that the lack of regulation leads to a lack of transparency which leads to illegal scams that no one can keep track of simply because nobody is keeping track. There are no liberals arguing to re-regulate the airlines, so far as I know.

#3: Arguments in favor of privatization are often made on faith-based terms. Liberals tend to want regulation in reaction to what they see as market failures, not just for no reason. Liberals don't believe blindly that markets are incapable of failing as some libertarians might. In fact, liberals aren't entirely sure that a market with one customer is in fact a "free" market, or that a market with one seller is in fact a "free" market, or that a market with no physical goods and only unexplainable intangible products sold by intermediaries to intermediaries is in fact a "free" market. Right-wing libertarians tend to believe that all you need for a "free-market" is to get government "out of the way." But that's not a good definition. So liberals bring these problems up. And inevitably libertarians blame the government - and the government is naturally always involved - because the act of privatization requires taking something that the government owned and giving it to some non-government entity. But that doesn't mean that private prisons are better for your town or your state, or that they save taxpayers any money, or that they are moral, in the eyes of a liberal.

But the mere fact that right-wing folks, both conservatives and libertarians, often believe that specific objections to privatization are the same thing as socialism is a problem. Because it is not the same thing. Not even close. Socialism in America has become another faith-based word. It is ill-defined and just used to smear, and this has been the case for 100 years. So people walk around going "free market good; socialist bad" but they don't even define free market in any sensible way and they certainly don't define socialism - a concept with a clear inventor - as Marx did.

If the founders of America had used the phrase "free market" things might be different. They didn't. And the term "free market" is very hard to define. People are so interested in capturing the concept for their own political movement that nobody has ever settled on a definition. I can go to the store and buy one of 20 types of Ibuprofen. But the FDA examines and regulates them. Is that a free market? A liberal and a conservative might say yes. A libertarian might say no. I can operate a factory and sell goods in almost any country around the world, but I can't hire a 5 year old for $1 per week. Would my factory be free market? Again, I think liberals would say yes. Libertarians would say no. And conservatives might fall somewhere in between.

So, let me try to be more clear here, and work towards a definition of free market.

Minimalist definition: If there exists an arena - real or imaginary - where goods & services - real or imaginary - are sold and prices for goods & services are set by buyers and sellers, then there exists a free market.

Libertarian definition: If there exists an arena - real or imaginary - where goods & services - real or imaginary - are sold and prices for goods & services are set by buyers and sellers, then there exists a free market, if and only if government doesn't get involved in any part of the process whatsoever.

Conservative definition: If there exists an arena - real or imaginary - where goods & services - real or imaginary - are sold and prices for goods & services are set by buyers and sellers, then there exists a free market, if and only if it follows community standards. Minimal rules may govern the process, and should be enforced to maintain tradition, family and a sense of place and community.

Liberal definition: If there exists an arena - real or imaginary - where goods & services - real or imaginary - are sold and prices for goods & services are set by buyers and sellers, then there exists a free market, if and only if transactions are not coerced. Sellers typically have a natural upper hand. Rules to govern the process that increase fairness, decency, honesty and transparency to ensure prosperity for all involved (buyers, sellers, laborers, etc.) are welcome.

These might be the three different ways people in America are thinking about the term "free market." But notice that under no circumstance is the liberal asking for a government takeover of all industry.

There are two reasons why a liberal might think that public provision of a specific good or service is more efficient than markets. They are as follows:

1) It's a natural monopoly. If there's one reservoir and pipe system delivering water to town, it doesn't make sense to give someone the power to charge whatever profit margin they want on it.

2) It's a nearly perfectly price and income inelastic market providing a public good. This is the healthcare argument. Poor people with no money who have a heart attack are going to be rushed to the hospital and given heart surgery whether or not they have money and regardless of the cost. There is no other choice. If the 'efficiency' or 'magic' of markets is in price setting, then the more price inelastic a market is, the less useful a market is. When buyers have no ability to negotiate prices with sellers in a free market because they are quite literally dying, then there is no real free market to a liberal. When the state has to pay for a poor man's heart attack surgery anyways because it is not willing (and shouldn't be willing) to just let people die without trying to help, then the "free market" in healthcare is merely an illusion anyways.

As I've said before on here, I'm a business owner. I don't hate business. My political views are also to the left. I don't want the state to just take my business away. This idea that liberals are socialists is absurd.

I do question whether some markets are actually efficient, though. Especially finance and insurance markets. And I resist the idea that in order for one to believe that free markets work pretty damn well for physical goods that one must also believe that free markets always work just as well for intangible "goods."

An intangible "good" like a financial product or an insurance policy is not in fact a good at all. In reality, an intangible "good" is nothing more than an agreement. If we don't have rules we live by through which the terms of agreements are made reasonable, then we must live in a cavet emptor dystopia. Put more simply, anyone can go down to the market and squeeze the fruit to see if it's rotten, check the price, and decide whether or not to buy it. But signing a 40 page document full of fine print doesn't lend itself to the same non-coercion in transactions - often times people don't know or can't know what they are signing. As a general rule-of-thumb, the person who provides the form letter for an agreement is always at an advantage over the person signing the form letter. Rules for that type of situation matter.

So I think we can get to what liberals really probably want, which is a lot more nuanced than you portray:

1) Free markets, so long as there are:
2) Rules to prevent coercion in markets
3) Increasing rules the further one gets away from real physical products and the more inelastic a market gets
4) Public regulation or ownership in the case of natural monopolies and public goods

That's it. That's the case. It's harder to say than just "free markets" or "socialism." But it's much closer to the truth and less full of ideological nonsense than the simpler way to describe things you hear on Fox and MSNBC.

[lektrode]

Re: This Is Getting Embarassing!

.....
...........
So I think we can get to what liberals really probably want, which is a lot more nuanced than you portray:

1) Free markets, so long as there are:
2) Rules to prevent coercion in markets
3) Increasing rules the further one gets away from real physical products
4) Public regulation or ownership in the case of natural monopolies and public goods

That's it. That's the case. It's harder to say than just "free markets" or "socialism." But it's much closer to the truth and less full of ideological nonsense than the simpler way to describe things you hear on Fox and MSNBC.

i think even us small r types can agree on this definition.

and those of us who understand the benefits of public ownership of 'natural monopolies' - like say the booze biz in states like NH - which holds the profits for The Public's Benefit - and sometimes even results in cheaper prices/better service ;)

but NOT when the 'privatization' of public built infrastructure is typically an(other) inside job, and merely addresses the political class' failure to effectively manage The Public's resources (after typically HUGE sums have been borrowed/taxed/spent to build them) - as we have seen with so many... ummmm... blue states, in particular.

thanks dc - and i mean that sincerely - for taking the time to flesh this stuff out - as it helps those of us not so well schooled in the political 'sciences' to understand the argument(s)

[reggie]

Re: This Is Getting Embarassing!

I can't help wonder if all the really rich people that are behind much of what goes on in the world...in that they pull strings, and tell politicians what to do...are even aware of what people think of them.

I know they don't care, but are they even aware?

What do you mean, "are even aware of what people think of them"? They tell the masses what to "think". They design the messaging and the control-feedback systems needed to distribute, measure and affect the boundary of these messages and the resulting frames of "thought".

And what's most concerning is that their systems are so complete and so effective that most probably don't believe what I am saying, nor do we even see the mechanisms of the system and how they work.

SIGINT is a very advanced science. But it ain't taught at University, and so-called "thought leaders" sure as hell aren't telling the public how it works. However, in TedX Latvia Validis gives you a peek in....

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...e-S-Out-of-You!

[reggie]

Re: This Is Getting Embarassing!

You don't get to this result because someone has a plan:



You get this result because there is NO plan...

Are you kidding me? Accelerated Entropy IS THE PLAN!

But notice, that acceleration commenced after the control of chaos was understood and tested, and the systems necessary to control said chaos were deployed. Now that the networks have been proven, old institutions can be disgarded.

We're heading toward a small world of weak tie relationships where the system velocity is such that no occupant of the system can alter its trajectory, let alone keep-up with it.

But there's a dead end to all of this, and that's the point in which system complexity exceeds the ability of the system to manage the complexity. At that point, the system hits a tilt, with a significant phase shift that I don't think anyone can predict.

[Shakespear]

Re: This Is Getting Embarassing!

You get this result because there is NO plan...

Yes there is no Plan :

When the data shows you this

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images...08image002.jpg

http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/20...cit_120319.jpg

Yes, they simply didn't know what was coming. It was just a freak accident.