It's the Economy, stupid.
So, we're experiencing the longest economic boom in modern history. Yet, most people aren't really feeling trickle-down or a rise in the tide that lifts all boats.
I've long been a neo-Keynesian. In that, in the long run, we are all dead.
Recently, Marxism is becoming ethical in terms of being more oriented towards situations like the tragedy of the commons. China isn't perfect; but, will most likely dominate the new green economy.
So, what's your opinion about the economy? I am a trained economist and just opened a business (2 years, dropout), so I might be able to chime in on these issues.
My personal opinion is that college is severely misaligned with the interests of the individual. Mostly, due to imposing a hefty debt and a degree that may or may not have any utility. I'm over that frightening phase of trying to decide what I really want. The military was an option that I pursued once but didn't work out. But, it's quite possibly the shortest route to a life of comfort and ease if you have the right mettle.
Now, again my personal opinion is an increase in specialization that is needed. General ED and liberal arts degrees are a waste of time in money, apart from personal satisfaction.
What are your thoughts?
I've long been a neo-Keynesian. In that, in the long run, we are all dead.
Recently, Marxism is becoming ethical in terms of being more oriented towards situations like the tragedy of the commons. China isn't perfect; but, will most likely dominate the new green economy.
So, what's your opinion about the economy? I am a trained economist and just opened a business (2 years, dropout), so I might be able to chime in on these issues.
My personal opinion is that college is severely misaligned with the interests of the individual. Mostly, due to imposing a hefty debt and a degree that may or may not have any utility. I'm over that frightening phase of trying to decide what I really want. The military was an option that I pursued once but didn't work out. But, it's quite possibly the shortest route to a life of comfort and ease if you have the right mettle.
Now, again my personal opinion is an increase in specialization that is needed. General ED and liberal arts degrees are a waste of time in money, apart from personal satisfaction.
What are your thoughts?
Comments (32)
101%
Conditions have changed. The post-war boom was special in that it came with high levels of workplace solidarity and a reduction of wealth disparity. Meanwhile, recent economic booms have all increased wealth disparity, there is no comparable workplace solidarity. This might be mostly due to the availability of labor. Full employment no longer exists, and even if it did, there is now an international labor market that is a lot easier to tap since the fall of the Soviet Union.
@Wallows --
In tRumpistan - It's the Emoluments, stupid! :monkey: :shade:
Yet people here are from the West, hence they don't actually care shit about global poverty being actually twarted and successfully diminished.
Quoting Wallows
Whimsical bullshit. Marxism is as failed as it was from the start, there is just a new generation that hasn't ever seen Marxism-Leninism in reality and hence the left can blissfully forget everything about all the failed experiments that all ended up in tragedy.
Quoting Wallows
China hasn't been marxist for a long time. They learnt that from their "Cultural Revolution". Far proper would be to talk about China being the example of fascism: a mixed economy with the government in control of the economy which opposes liberalism, but tolerates well capitalism.
Quoting Wallows
Likely goes sideways. Not going to have a huge collapse, but likely the economy is going to be a disappointment.
I set out the only viable solution to the tragedy of the commons in a thread with that name. Trouble is, it's not an economic solution but an ethical one; and hence it is quite unlikely that folk will choose it. Hence, given the breakdown of our global commons, which has only just begun, we are indeed fucked.
But but my liberal arts degree told me that ethics is good and the tragedy of the commons is bad. What went wrong here?
But but the invisible hand does wonderous things for us. Why shalt one bite it?
Wealth at the beginning is with those who produce it. The more mature an economy / civilization becomes the more wealth is concentrated with those that control the means of production. Eventually the society / economy falls apart because those that produce the wealth are not those who prosper.
Look at history.
Rome
Han dynasty in China.
Etc etc. Ad infinitum
It goes hand in hand with the phrase power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Everyone is susceptible, nobody is immune.
What we are experiencing is a long cycle that is near its end - in another hundred years or so maybe. The economy would have to completely collapse in order to effect change - which nobody wants. So we are along for the ride.
Perhaps if energy is virtually free there may be a way to make a peaceful transition.... where enough wealth is available that the concentration at the top is watered down a bit.... completely speculative. Probably there is a way to control those means as well.
The economy will see the rise of unions again, as part of the natural pattern (well it seems predictable, if not “natural”).
Short term the EU will default on its debts eventually (the countries in the EU). Then capital will hide in the USA for a while. Then when the US debt causes an inevitable default, to China. Then when China collapses who knows where? Maybe back to Europe of Africa for all we know.
And eventually when wealth, and it’s distribution is not defined by nation states easily, then world government and a chance to actual tax corporations where they make profits - which is the real cause of the debts after all. Maybe that is the new meta... again just wait a hundred years or so....
/peace. Sorry that was a bit of a rant....
You could also say, that people that have the right mettle maybe have a duty to not seek a life of comfort and ease and instead seek a life in service of others. It’s easy to get comfort and ease with the right mindset, but to be honest it’s a little boring.
I value a good economy based on what a good economy can do for people. However, if not everyone is enjoying the benefits of a booming economy, is a booming economy a good thing?
Is making a million dollars the goal or is the million dollars the vehicle to the goal?
Is being rich good or is using richness for good things good?
Are you being sarcastic here? There is no such thing as an "invisible hand".
Well, under the guise of rationality, why go out of one's sphere of interest? Let the economy take care of the rest of the boats, or not...
No, it's a term baptized by Adam Smith, although he never would have imagined that it would be the grand signifier of his neo-classical economic theory, in his magnum opus, being The Wealth of Nations.
It must be tiring to constantly point out the no true Scotsman fallacy towards China. Fascism just doesn't sound right in my mind, at least not yet.
I am aware of the history of the term, but Smith never referred to market forces as an "invisible hand". Indeed Smith's usage of the term is highly questionable, since the term is never explained and seems rather like a deus ex machina (and Smith may have meant literal divine intervention) to salvage a conclusion that otherwise just would not follow.
Personally, I think it was a term popularized by the religious fanatics. Smith just went along with it.
Communism?
God is the ultimate miscreant. He's been in power for the longest-running reign.
God? What is this strange creature you refer to? That is in power? Do you really believe in a god that has ethics and that actually is like us only better? I thought the 18th century was over....
Marxism was also influential for late nineteenth and early twentieth century European political parties and American labor movements which fought for and obtained worker rights ranging from paid vacation, reduced working hours, safety regulations, etc. Ahistorical to suggest that the only politically reification Marxism actually achieved was through failed communist states, notwithstanding the fact that Marxism as a critique of Capitalism remains perennially relevant.
As for the economy, 40 years of neoliberalism has proven that it is not benefiting most Americans.
It's hard to bite the invisible hand when it has your balls in a tight grip
If the post WWII boom is what you are talking about, it's a very screwy boom. Anyway, the post WWII boom came to an end in the early 1970s. For the working class (just to remind you, that's about 90% of the population) it's been slowly going down-hill since 1973, with bursting bubbles along the way.
Much of the wealth expansion is highly concentrated and isn't based on actual production; it's based on speculative investments in paper, much of which does not connect to the real economy of production and consumption (per Pikeitty).
I would agree that China is a variety of fascism. I think you'll be seeing more fascist regimes over time -- but don't think Hitler and the Nazis. They were fascists of a particularly vile variety, but fascism has other - friendly and not very friendly - faces.
I have a personal hunch. Had Pearl Harbor never happened, and America stood on the sidelines, they would have adopted fascism. 1930's America, as per Dewey upon visiting it, was praised as the greatest social experiment. Thing is that after observing the ludicrous transformation within the span of 15 years of the German nation after the treaty of Versailles, it would have made any economic manager of the country drool with envy.
:point:
Quoting Bitter Crank
Gospel! :up:
Because it's used just as a derogatory swearword, the word might sound empty, yes. But why to speak about "at least not yet"?
You have to understand that China is a totalitarian system and sees liberalism and democracy as a threat. The people that ordered the tanks to Tianamen Square in 1989 are still the people in power in China. Just look at Hong Kong today, just look at what a cyber-surveillance state the Chinese are creating for their own people.