Topic: Economic Devastation - page 8. (Read 504811 times)
And now the conservative Generation Z
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2017/02/and-now-the-conservative-generation-z/
Forget Millennials. A new generation is coming of age: Generation-Z. It’s being heralded as the most conservative generation since 1945.
One reason, according to Charlie Peters, a member of that generation in Great Britain, is their love of freedom. Not long ago, that impulse led young people to embrace the causes of the Left. But now the Left is associated with suppressing freedom.
Now that Generation-Zs are entering the university, they are chafing against the Leftist establishment’s rejection of free speech. These young people, Peters observes, grew up on the internet and social media where people can hold any position and say whatever they want. So when they come to the university with its speech codes and taboo ideas, they don’t like it. So they are becoming conservatives.
From Charlie Peters, The student Left’s culture of intolerance is creating a new generation of conservatives, London Telegraph:
Analysis from market research firm, The Gild, shows that ‘Gen Z’ is the most conservative generation since 1945. The research reveals that ‘Gen Z’ Britons are more likely to favour conservative spending, dislike tattoos and body-piercings, and oppose marijuana legislation.
The youth and student members of the British Left have given up trying to win arguments on principle, preferring to shut down the views of those they opponents. But ‘Gen Z’ live in the time of mass media where anyone’s political views can be shared worldwide at ease. By pushing a “you can’t say that” attitude, the young Left in the UK and the US are reducing their opportunity to respond to conservative ideas, and, as a result of this, conservatism is on the rise.
Nowadays, the only thing that is stopping a student from accessing a new idea is a censorious gag from a student union or NUS apparatchik. Whilst the student Left have historically campaigned in support of causes that the West’s youth have been favourable towards, such as the anti-war and anti-austerity movements, they are now picking on something that is dear to us: freedom of information.
Students of my generation have grown up in an era of mass-communication. Each year has brought new tools for the flow of ideas, conversation and media. The rapid expansion of affordable technology has been matched by the growth of the social media market. When it is common for students to be able to easily interact with anyone in the world via a portable computer that fits in their pocket, nothing seems more silly to us than cliquey calls for censorship.
That is why young people and students are becoming conservatives – they’re the only people making the case for a freedom that they love.
This is the article’s conclusion, but you really need to read the whole thing. Note especially the quotation from Mario Silva’s speech at Berkeley, sparking the Free Speech Movement. In contrast, Berkeley students today riot, destroy property, and commit arson in order to prevent a gay conservative from saying what’s on his mind.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2017/02/and-now-the-conservative-generation-z/
Quote from: Gene Veith
Forget Millennials. A new generation is coming of age: Generation-Z. It’s being heralded as the most conservative generation since 1945.
One reason, according to Charlie Peters, a member of that generation in Great Britain, is their love of freedom. Not long ago, that impulse led young people to embrace the causes of the Left. But now the Left is associated with suppressing freedom.
Now that Generation-Zs are entering the university, they are chafing against the Leftist establishment’s rejection of free speech. These young people, Peters observes, grew up on the internet and social media where people can hold any position and say whatever they want. So when they come to the university with its speech codes and taboo ideas, they don’t like it. So they are becoming conservatives.
From Charlie Peters, The student Left’s culture of intolerance is creating a new generation of conservatives, London Telegraph:
Analysis from market research firm, The Gild, shows that ‘Gen Z’ is the most conservative generation since 1945. The research reveals that ‘Gen Z’ Britons are more likely to favour conservative spending, dislike tattoos and body-piercings, and oppose marijuana legislation.
The youth and student members of the British Left have given up trying to win arguments on principle, preferring to shut down the views of those they opponents. But ‘Gen Z’ live in the time of mass media where anyone’s political views can be shared worldwide at ease. By pushing a “you can’t say that” attitude, the young Left in the UK and the US are reducing their opportunity to respond to conservative ideas, and, as a result of this, conservatism is on the rise.
Nowadays, the only thing that is stopping a student from accessing a new idea is a censorious gag from a student union or NUS apparatchik. Whilst the student Left have historically campaigned in support of causes that the West’s youth have been favourable towards, such as the anti-war and anti-austerity movements, they are now picking on something that is dear to us: freedom of information.
Students of my generation have grown up in an era of mass-communication. Each year has brought new tools for the flow of ideas, conversation and media. The rapid expansion of affordable technology has been matched by the growth of the social media market. When it is common for students to be able to easily interact with anyone in the world via a portable computer that fits in their pocket, nothing seems more silly to us than cliquey calls for censorship.
That is why young people and students are becoming conservatives – they’re the only people making the case for a freedom that they love.
This is the article’s conclusion, but you really need to read the whole thing. Note especially the quotation from Mario Silva’s speech at Berkeley, sparking the Free Speech Movement. In contrast, Berkeley students today riot, destroy property, and commit arson in order to prevent a gay conservative from saying what’s on his mind.
CoinCube do you realize how monumentally important your OP is:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18280586
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18280586
But it seems to me everything is much easier. China has provoked mass production of cheap products. The crisis provoked by the over-saturation of market with goods. Gold will also fall in price because will fall the income of producers of goods. Unfortunately, the way out of this situation only through technological progress that is problematic or through a world war, after which mass destruction will trigger the demand and revive the economy.
China has built an industrial economy and is making great products while paying its workers more and more every year, 1 billion persons went out of poverty.
The west has accumulated a lot of wealth but the government has kept growing and the rising cost of it has increased with it.
Technology, cheap goods from asia, women going back to the workforce outside of home, debt has delayed the problem that is still here : subsidizing goods and services cost a lot and has two horrible consequences : the quality goes down and the price goes up as competition goes down and overcomsumption occurs.
The solution is more competition, less taxes and no debt to be paid by the next generations to satisfy our need to think we help the poor while not wanting to have increased taxes.
If there is a huge economic devastation in the west, gold, connections, guns, bottles of alcohol to trade for food could come handy.
But it seems to me everything is much easier. China has provoked mass production of cheap products. The crisis provoked by the over-saturation of market with goods. Gold will also fall in price because will fall the income of producers of goods. Unfortunately, the way out of this situation only through technological progress that is problematic or through a world war, after which mass destruction will trigger the demand and revive the economy.
Roach read http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2016/02/two-malthusian-scares.html?m=1#links
We are in the offloading gold stage by elite.. oil producers are buying by converting from oil.. malthusian event is over and commodities are set to collapse lagging behind gold. Now where oh where the heck is smart money going to start putting their money over the next decade in anticipation of industrial usage actually catching up and producing the next malthusian event? Hint its sure as hell not back into gold.. as that would not.be very smart
We are in the offloading gold stage by elite.. oil producers are buying by converting from oil.. malthusian event is over and commodities are set to collapse lagging behind gold. Now where oh where the heck is smart money going to start putting their money over the next decade in anticipation of industrial usage actually catching up and producing the next malthusian event? Hint its sure as hell not back into gold.. as that would not.be very smart
Excellent post. Plays right into the theme of my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance essay.
Roach read http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2016/02/two-malthusian-scares.html?m=1#links
We are in the offloading gold stage by elite.. oil producers are buying by converting from oil.. malthusian event is over and commodities are set to collapse lagging behind gold. Now where oh where the heck is smart money going to start putting their money over the next decade in anticipation of industrial usage actually catching up and producing the next malthusian event? Hint its sure as hell not back into gold.. as that would not.be very smart
We are in the offloading gold stage by elite.. oil producers are buying by converting from oil.. malthusian event is over and commodities are set to collapse lagging behind gold. Now where oh where the heck is smart money going to start putting their money over the next decade in anticipation of industrial usage actually catching up and producing the next malthusian event? Hint its sure as hell not back into gold.. as that would not.be very smart
Excellent post. Plays right into the theme of my Rise of Knowledge, Demise of Finance essay.
"the tax rate in the Roman empire before sh*t hit the fan. It was 2% "
If you believe that the tax rate of the Roman Empire was 2% for other than a brief moment
of time, I have a bridge you may want to buy for your Collection :-)
If you believe that the tax rate of the Roman Empire was 2% for other than a brief moment
of time, I have a bridge you may want to buy for your Collection :-)
Again for those who don't know what time it is and prefer it graphically conveyed, we are in the tail-end of the 309.6 cycle of the cyclical Fall of Society.
On the chart below, 485 AD was the fall of the Western Roman Empire (when only the Byzantine portion remained) and 1105 AD was the fall of the Eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empire:
On the chart below, 485 AD was the fall of the Western Roman Empire (when only the Byzantine portion remained) and 1105 AD was the fall of the Eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empire:
If you are convinced that one needs a king in order to make food, then we will always need a king (in more modern forms of presidents, parliaments, or whatever aristocratic structure). Because we will never be free of material needs and always be prone to physical violence.
Wow. What you smoking?
If you believe that one day we will be free of material needs and will not be prone to violence, then I think the guy smoking heavily is on the other side of the line
I still need a house, I still need food, I still need a lot of material stuff, and I can still be beaten up, tortured, and killed. I don't think that this kind of thing will disappear in any near future, on the contrary.
Again you continue to conflate large scale with small scale. The key concepts you elided from your thought process were:
As the physical economy becomes a smaller and smaller portion of the total economy, we can move away from physical violence as necessary for human progress.
Instead of harvesting high diversity of effort (i.e. true investment) with a viral distribution model, IMO Byteball is creating a low entropy speculation with too much top-down control at the nascent stage where it needs exponential distribution. Thus the probability of failure is much higher, i.e. the antifragility is very low.
And the various ways I have tried to explain to you that annealing by decentralized failure is more antifragile than top-down failure. So thus when violence is only at an individual decentralized level, then it can't fail everywhere all at once. It anneals (please search the thread for my use of the word 'anneal'), as in simulated annealing as a form of free market fitness (which is why ice doesn't crack if you freeze it slowly enough).
So the point is that once the intangible Knowledge Age economy is orders-of-magnitude more valuable to humanity than the tangible one, then top-down control over the tangible one won't be economic. The top-down controller wouldn't be able to extract enough value from it to maintain control over those who extract value from the intangible economic.
And that my friend is a "genius" level divergent analysis. We can't train a machine to think this way, because it is induced from creative thinking originating from my unique experiences and integration in the human living network.
I hope you clearly see your error now.
All incorrect. In essence you are transposing cause and effect, as well transposing large scale changes fromwith "smaller things grow faster" changes. And the agriculture age required roads for economies-of-scale in commerce thus it was not decentralized. You have numerous errors like that throughout.
Well, this is an interesting subject. Two-wheeled chariots were invented by a "distributed" people, the Andronovo culture in Siberia, about 2000 BC. One of the oldest roads on earth was build in England at about 3800 BC (the Sweet Track) where it is hard to imagine that it was an empire-induced road building operation.
Again I repeat, you are conflating large scale change with "smaller things grow faster" changes.
Yeah those technological innovations and example prototypes occur due to spontaneous diversity in the decentralized (high entropy) wild, but to scale those innovations out to every human on earth at that time required the monopolist state to conquer all the warlords, and to keep order over interstate commerce. Otherwise it diverged into bandits waiting along the side of the road to effective force you into the business of trading contraband, which destroys commerce.
But the idea that you need a *violence monopolist* and a *king* in order to build roads and be able to do agriculture, is the misguided kind of social lie that we have been fed with since we were children.
...but I don't think that the price of giving all power to an aristocratic elite is necessary to achieve this, which is the basic tenet of statists.
...but I don't think that the price of giving all power to an aristocratic elite is necessary to achieve this, which is the basic tenet of statists.
Exactly. And even when a central violent monopolist does do things well (e.g. the height of rome), they don't actually need all that much power. For example look at the tax rate in the Roman empire before sh*t hit the fan. It was 2% but they had a huge empire connected with the best roads, agricultural systems and water distribution systems that weren't reached again till the modern era (and with like 30% tax rates). The problem is that central control brings in corruption and waste, somehow the Romans were able to avoid that (for a while).
Missing from your analysis is the fact that thermodynamic processes are irreversible and you can't just replicate into the past. The state of the empire at the end is of course inefficient, but nature didn't build the empire for the end, but rather for all that it accomplished before the end. You can't get all those in the middle without also getting the end. You can't have it both ways and eat your cake too. Sorry.
As the physical economy becomes a smaller and smaller portion of the total economy, we can move away from physical violence as necessary for human progress.
I also think that if you are dreaming of a "new economy" (the dematerialized economy you're talking about) before hoping that a distributed society like it was before agriculture, is possible again,
Agriculture was never decentralized. Hunting was decentralized. Agriculture required protection from the bandits. You apparently don't know anything about farming. The Bible says don't mix your field with many kinds of plants and don't produce just enough for yourself. Produce an whole hectare of produce and then trade. This is economy-of-scale and maximum division-of-labor which has been absolutely necessary for the productivity of man to increase above subsistence level.
...you will have to wait for eternity.
Dude it is already underway. This is covered extensively in the Economics Devastation thread in the Economics forum.
If you are convinced that one needs a king in order to make food, then we will always need a king (in more modern forms of presidents, parliaments, or whatever aristocratic structure). Because we will never be free of material needs and always be prone to physical violence.
Wow. What you smoking?
Spoetnik you are describing the fact that the lack of top-down order is a power vacuum due to Coasian costs. I agree, but I want you to read the thread from the following quote forward to the third quote, because Coasian costs become compatible with higher levels of entropy as mankind progresses (credit @CoinCube with that conceptual discovery) and we are leaving the Stage #4 Industrial Age:
Actually the conceptual discovery was mentioned by myself in 2010.
You will probably need a week or two of studying the thread slowly.
I will be the first to admit I needed a week or two to fully absorb the following works of AnonyMint.
The Rise of Knowledge
Understand Everything Fundamentally
Together these are quite simply the most insightful piece of economic theory I have ever read.
If the author is right and I think he is we are all in the midst of a tragedy of epic proportions. It is sad unstoppable and will devastate the lives of much of humanity.
The seeds of those essays were written in 2010. Also here.
Elaboration continued into 2012.
I think this quotation from Lewis Mumford summarizes many key points in regard to current era economic policy.
I wish current era education made more of an effort to be honest with students rather than teaching blind faith in consumerism & the state.
I wish current era education made more of an effort to be honest with students rather than teaching blind faith in consumerism & the state.
Quote
The dogma of ‘increasing wants’ as an indispensible basis for further industrial progress. Instead of the duty to work, we now have the duty to consume. To ensure rapid absorbtion of its immense productivity, megatechnics resorts to a score of different devices: consumer credit, installment buying, multiple packaging, non-functional designs, meretricious novelties, shoddy materials, defective workmanship, built-in fragility.
The aim of industry is not primarily to satisfy essential human needs with a minimal productive effort, but to multiply the number of needs, factitious and fictitious, and accommodate them to the maximum mechanical capacity to produce profits. These are the sacred principle of the power complex. Not the least effort of this system is that of replacing selectivity and quantitative restriction by indiscriminate and incontinent consumption.
Thus the shorter working day promised by this system is already turning into a cheat. In order to achieve the higher level of consumption required, the members of the family must take on extra jobs. […] The effect, ironically, is to turn the newly won six- or seven-hour day to twelve or fourteen hours; so in effect, the worker is back where he started, with more material goods than ever before, but with less time to enjoy them or the promised leisure.
If all these goods are in themselves sound and individually desirable, on what grounds can we condemn the system that totalizes them? So say the official spokesmen. All these goods remain valuable if more important human concerns are not overlooked or eradicated. Unqualified successes in over-quantification.
When a scientist in good repute, like Dr. Lee du Bridge, can defend the wholesale immediate use of pesticides, bactericides, and possibly equally dangerous pharmaceuticals, by saying that it would take ten years to test them sufficiently to certify their value and innocuousness and that ‘industry cannot wait’ – it is obvious that his rational commitments to science are secondary to financial pressures, and that the safeguarding of human life is for industry not a matter of major concern.
The ironic effect of quantification is that many of the most desirable gifts of modern technics disappear when distributed en masse, or when – as with the television – they are used too constantly and too automatically. No umbilical cord attached man to nature: neiter ‘security’ nor ‘adjustment’ were the guidelines to human development.
Patrick Geddes: Conditions of degeneration in the organic world are approximately known. These conditions are often of two distinct kinds, deprivation of food, light, etc. so leading to imperfect nutrition and enervation; the other, a life of repose, with abundant supply of food and decreased exposure to the dangers of the environment. It is noteworthy that while the former only depresses, or at most distinguishes the specific type, the latter, through the disuse of the nervous and other structures etc. which such a simplification of life involves, brings about that far more insidious and through degeneration seen in the life history of myriads of parasites.
THE PENTAGON OF POWER, Lewis Mumford, 1970
The aim of industry is not primarily to satisfy essential human needs with a minimal productive effort, but to multiply the number of needs, factitious and fictitious, and accommodate them to the maximum mechanical capacity to produce profits. These are the sacred principle of the power complex. Not the least effort of this system is that of replacing selectivity and quantitative restriction by indiscriminate and incontinent consumption.
Thus the shorter working day promised by this system is already turning into a cheat. In order to achieve the higher level of consumption required, the members of the family must take on extra jobs. […] The effect, ironically, is to turn the newly won six- or seven-hour day to twelve or fourteen hours; so in effect, the worker is back where he started, with more material goods than ever before, but with less time to enjoy them or the promised leisure.
If all these goods are in themselves sound and individually desirable, on what grounds can we condemn the system that totalizes them? So say the official spokesmen. All these goods remain valuable if more important human concerns are not overlooked or eradicated. Unqualified successes in over-quantification.
When a scientist in good repute, like Dr. Lee du Bridge, can defend the wholesale immediate use of pesticides, bactericides, and possibly equally dangerous pharmaceuticals, by saying that it would take ten years to test them sufficiently to certify their value and innocuousness and that ‘industry cannot wait’ – it is obvious that his rational commitments to science are secondary to financial pressures, and that the safeguarding of human life is for industry not a matter of major concern.
The ironic effect of quantification is that many of the most desirable gifts of modern technics disappear when distributed en masse, or when – as with the television – they are used too constantly and too automatically. No umbilical cord attached man to nature: neiter ‘security’ nor ‘adjustment’ were the guidelines to human development.
Patrick Geddes: Conditions of degeneration in the organic world are approximately known. These conditions are often of two distinct kinds, deprivation of food, light, etc. so leading to imperfect nutrition and enervation; the other, a life of repose, with abundant supply of food and decreased exposure to the dangers of the environment. It is noteworthy that while the former only depresses, or at most distinguishes the specific type, the latter, through the disuse of the nervous and other structures etc. which such a simplification of life involves, brings about that far more insidious and through degeneration seen in the life history of myriads of parasites.
THE PENTAGON OF POWER, Lewis Mumford, 1970
It has always been my working thesis that none (let's say very few) of us can know the future. It is too complex...
For one thing, there is A REASON the majority of large human settlements through history have been bordering the ocean. If the crops go bad or if there's some type of scarcity issue, people just ratchet up the fishing. There will be no global "TEOTWAWKI".
Sorry guys but you are incorrect. Stage #5 is not just one of many possible outcomes, it is the ONLY possible outcome. And the totalitarianism will be global w.r.t. to all things tangible and physical (including precious metals!), thus the only release valve frontier will be decentralization network technology. See the problem with your idyllic and naive fishing plan, is that some power will be preventing you from fishing as TSHTF, because the masses are going to be demanding that the resources are shared equally (which will morph into rationing+eugenics) and the chaos is going to dictate that there is fighting over control of all strategic resources. Remember the masses are not armed (especially outside of the USA) and for example the coasts in the USA are leftists controlled States, e.g. California, Washington and the north-east seaboard. China has ample military to occupy the West coast of the USA and prop up the leftists. The fish food supply would be critical if the conservative interior of the country has shut off supply of food to the coasts. Shutting down trade with the world and access to electronics and other technology can cripple the interior of the USA. An essential ingredient is have an interior that is steadfast on resisting international cooperation and the rise of China, which is Trump is the leading edge of right now. China will see itself as leading the "free" world to international harmony by defeating the renegade white supremacists in the USA. It is very obvious why Rothschild used his influence over Wikileaks and media in the USA to install Trump (also so the conservatives will eat the blame for the global collapse caused by socialism).
The socialism doesn't just die overnight. It dies a painful death of self-destructive totalitarianism. Haven't you guys learned anything from the studying the history of the collapse of Germany or Rome.
If you want to understand why the entropy of the top-down ordered outcome is so low and thus so predictable, refer to the Petri dish analogy from my seminal essay:
Also you have to factor in that China and Russia don't have the socialism and pension debts problem that the West has (their debts can be written off as their demographics and unfunded social liabilities are not yet a huge inertia so their downturn can bottom in 2020 whereas the West will continue to disintegrate even after 2032); thus as China is rebalancing their economy from the Industrial Age exports to the Knowledge Age service industry and consumption (see upthread links to Michael Pettis' blogs), they will displace the West, become the new financial center of the world, and be very strong. Thus the totalitarianism isn't going to abate, because on the heels of the disintegration of the West, China's and Russia's Technocracy form of oligarchy control is rising to a NWO. After Rothschilds' succeeds in dividing-and-conquering Europe and the USA, then he will send Chinese troops into the USA and Russian troops into Europe to complete the NWO enslavement. You aren't going to have any respite. The only release valve is going to be decentralization network technology. The Barbarians are the gates and in another couple to few of decades they will be in your living room. Your silly tangible assets are going to be pet rocks.
What Rothschilds is doing right now is building a short dollar vortex of epic pain, so the world will hate the concept of a reserve currency controlled by any one nation. So the world will acceded to an international cooperative SDR reserve unit (which of course Rothshilds will control with the international central bank).
I've read through the PM's & Collapse thread...
But iamnotback makes some great points, namely:
during ww2 gold was used because it already the backbone of the system, unlike now.
as long as infrastructure survives (indicating a financial system collapse) the internet & the speed at which solutions can be engineered outside of governmental avenues. and crypto is blooming, could soon be as ubiquitous as mobile phones. if crypto overcomes onramping obstacles it could serve as the path of least resistance ie stored & sent via mobile phones.
that a total financial system collapse could shove us into a dark age of food shortages (4 meal theory) and need for weapons. in isolated or war torn areas, are PM's more viable than food or ammo.
But iamnotback makes some great points, namely:
during ww2 gold was used because it already the backbone of the system, unlike now.
as long as infrastructure survives (indicating a financial system collapse) the internet & the speed at which solutions can be engineered outside of governmental avenues. and crypto is blooming, could soon be as ubiquitous as mobile phones. if crypto overcomes onramping obstacles it could serve as the path of least resistance ie stored & sent via mobile phones.
that a total financial system collapse could shove us into a dark age of food shortages (4 meal theory) and need for weapons. in isolated or war torn areas, are PM's more viable than food or ammo.
And incorporate the creative destruction aspect of Stage #5.
So clearly we see what is being created is the antithesis of the NWO, i.e. the decentralized society that is rising to become Stage #6.
This is why the goldbugs are entirely wrong. The NWO is going to take Universal Surveillance control over the tangible economy and destroy it. All tangible stores of wealth will die, and only the new decentralized forms of capital in the Knowledge Age will survive.
And unlike the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, this NWO will be geographically global. The frontier this time will not be geographical (i.e. no Byzantine Eastern Empire), but rather the decentrzalized online economy will be the release value and frontier that provides the way out of the creative destruction.
This is absolutely crucial to understand. And I as @AnonyMint have been explaining this since 2012 with my seminal essay in the Economic Devastation thread and then the various quotes since such as in 2014.
The only source of Marxism is the Jews, it does not originate from anywhere else.
The actual source is the power vacuum created by the natural requirement to concentrate fixed capital in the Industrial Age. The banksters just stepped into that natural power vacuum.
Life is doing circles in every aspect and the same goes for economics. Things goes bad, then something big happens (war ?) and we have a restart, a new era. Every great dynasty come down, now its a USA era, other countries try to compete and i dont think USA like it, maybe they will try to end thinks quickly with their superiority in army before CHINA and Russia advance more. I just hope humanity will find a more peaceful way to settle things than last time, WW1 and WW2. Sooner or later we will see
Jump to: