11 thoughts on “Sandpit

  1. The middle class is hurting (and shrinking) in the US. The country will eventually polarise into about 80% working poor and underclass, 10% precarious middle class, 9% comfortable middle class, .9%, rich and then the super rich on top who will own more than 50% of all US wealth (if they don’t already).

    The current middle class is desperate and though Trump would help them. He won’t. He will make things much worse. The US is in serious trouble. If I was a Chinese geostrategist I would not know whether to laugh or cry. The US will become unstable and desperate and the US elite are crazy enough to do anything to supress dissent, deflect blame and start (more) endless wars to keep power.

  2. @Ikonoclast

    “about 80% working poor and underclass, 10% precarious middle class, 9% comfortable middle class, .9%, rich and then the super rich on top ”

    Oh, you mean just like Britain during the reign of Empress Victoria.

  3. @Ikonoclast

    Icon, yes the middle class is shrinking but it is because more families are moving UP the scale, not DOWN:
    <a href="www.aei.org/publication/americas-middle-class-has-been-shrinking-but-its-because-so-many-middle-income-households-have-become-better-off/"

  4. @GrueBleen

    Exactly. Capitalism is trending back that way in terms of unequal wealth distribution. Piketty has shown this and why it is happening (in endogenous capitalist-system terms).

    Of course, just about everybody here throws up their hands and pretends capitalism doesn’t exist or that they don’t know what it is. Don’t bother bringing up that again (if you feel so inclined). I can’t be bothered any more arguing with denialists who pretend that capitalism isn’t a large part of our current system (and still getting proportionately larger and more influential).

    Capitalism denialism, limits to growth denialism and climate change denialism tend to go hand in hand in hand. Though with some in this camp, the climate change denialism is not always denialism about the science but denialism about the full extent of changes necessary to rapidly ameliorate the dangers (so far as we can at this over-late stage). I’m done arguing with all the derp that “capitalism doesn’t exist”, “LTG doesn’t exist”, “the need for fundamental change to address CC” doesn’t exist.

  5. @Ikonoclast
    Your #5

    Well in that case, all I can do is wish you a joyous Saturnalia and a very prosperous New Year (Gregorian, Chinese and Islamic). And I promise never to deny the existence of Capitalism ever again (not that I ever have anyway). Ah, but as to what “capitalism” means …

  6. Again about how influential Austrian economics are. It is astounding that people think that Austrian economics are not taken seriously when it acctually rules the world and it is called neoliberalism:

    From George Monbiot at http://www.monbiot.com/2016/11/15/the-deep-history-behind-trumps-rise/

    “The events that led to Donald Trump’s election started in England in 1975. At a meeting a few months after Margaret Thatcher became leader of the Conservative party, one of her colleagues, or so the story goes, was explaining what he saw as the core beliefs of conservatism. She snapped open her handbag, pulled out a dog-eared book, and slammed it on the table. “This is what we believe,” she said. A political revolution that would sweep the world had begun.

    The book was The Constitution of Liberty by Frederick Hayek. Its publication in 1960 marked the transition from an honest, if extreme, philosophy to an outright racket. The philosophy was called neoliberalism.”

  7. @Jordan from Croatia
    The reason why I asked in the Austrian thread, is that, for example, true Austrian scriptures imply that central banks should not intervene in the economic manipulation of an economy eg. not vary interest rates or provide any actions in an attempt to manipulate inflation rates or growth or crises. How much of global GDP is managed under such constraints?

  8. “How much of global GDP is managed under such constraintts?”
    I think that it is more important of how many people live under such constraints?. The reson that about only 50% GDP but 3/4 of population live under such constraints is the reason that their GDP is much smaller.

    Anyone under fixed exchange rate (very similar to Gold Standard) regime doesnt have a monetary policy. And thats about 3/4 of population or 90% of countries.
    Former empires learned importance of having fiat money/ monetary policy so “former” empires do not have such constraints. And EU implemented something even worse then GS by having extra punishement that they use selectively and now only against Greece.

    I think that u have no idea how many “former” colonies do not have monetary policy, only policy to keep fx fixed which is about the same constraints what u described.

    So they have much lesser GDP and more unemployment because thay are prevented from taking any actions to ameliorate crisis and unemployment except austerity which makes matters wors. And that auszerity is forced upon them by IMF and international banks because they could never lower interest rate when crisis hit but even inctease it which makes debt burden even worse.

    Such selfinflicted wound by having raising interest rates( just as Greece was raising rates for new debt, up to 27% before troyka had to move in. Fixed fx is forcing that which mkes debts even higher and more unemployment. This is how GS or Austrian economics works on 3/4 of world population. This is how “former” empires keep “former” colonies under control.

  9. I find it a long bow to draw claiming the Euro system is fundamentally Austrian school based. The central tenet of the philosophy is for minimum government and central bank intervention, yet you use the “tyranny” of such centralised intervention as a foundation to classify it as Austrian School?

  10. @Troy Prideaux
    Tyranny consits in not allowing governments to act positevly onto their respective economy.
    Tyranny is in forcing Austrian policies and actions on them.

    Forcing them to privatize assets that are income earners in normal times (maybe even now).. Get it?
    It is enforcing Austrian policy.
    Please do not use any kind of governmental “tyrany” as dumb justification of government-bad when such tyranny is discovered to be bad for economy and it is acctually what you want to inforce.

    If you have an austrian bias, which anyone thinking of government tyrany in every case government acted have, you now have an excellent example how returning Gold Standards of 19th century is bad after enjoying some fiat benefits. You would find what tyranny is when governments enforce what you want. But you would find another excuses why your imagined utopian policies did not work.

    It is the same with neoliberal excuses why more deregulations are needed: not only that they do not see the problems deregulation produced, they find the blame in not enough deregulation.
    So, it is not pragmatic at all, but ideologically driven decisions. No real world evidence can persuade them othervise.

    Which is why you yourself, see tyranny when your policies are enforced, but want more of them by not seeing the real world but an utopian, imaggined and impossible one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s