Topic: Economic Totalitarianism - page 24. (Read 345758 times)

I think lending is unavoidable, but it must be considered as an investment, not as a boumerang of money.

The money might not come back, so the lender must be cautious.



Thats the ponzi that the bankers play, they leverage themselves up, and never earn real profit.

And when they collapse ,the taxpayer comes to rescue.

 


I think debt is not evil, and in my view it should only be done with collateral.

If you need a loan for a house, your mortgage some asset + say 20% of your salary for 10 years.

However the non-collateral loans are the slavery. You need quick cash, you get it, and then you must repay it "or we put you in debt prison where you must work for free to repay it and take your kidney". Now that is slavery and one of the evils of the corporate world.


Those payday loans, shark loans, and other scammers should go away, because they only put gasoline on the fire.

Haha http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371861/NHS-director-dies-operation-cancelled-times-hospital.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2016/04/03/vt-taxhikes/#1edc9aa66ff4

http://www.businessinsider.com/tepper-move-hurts-new-jersey-2016-4

It's likely that "neither a debtor nor a lender be" needs some further
explanation, though I should point out that money was not the intended
focus of my earlier post.

If you are in business, borrowing and lending (extending credit) is
unavoidable. It goes with the territory. The advice really makes the
point that you should avoid placing your future in someone else's hands,
and most certainly to avoid borrowing in order to extend a loan
because bankers have that enterprise sewn up. 

Today, much of the stigma is gone from being in debt, and the linkage
between debt and prison is gone. While forms of slavery still exist
in the world today, to most of humanity, the idea of owning another
person is repugnant. This enlightenment is recent, less than 200 years,
and is perhaps the result of machines costing less than people. That
makes it the benign face of Capitalism.

Regarding the question of why the quantity of money must increase,
the time preference of consumers and others is the answer. See here :
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-01/path-final-crisis
"Market interest rates consist of the natural interest rate plus two
additional components: a price (or inflation) premium that reflects the
expected decline in money's purchasing power, and a risk premium or
entrepreneurial profit premium that reflects the perceptions of lenders
of a borrower's creditworthiness and generates an entrepreneurial profit
for those engaged in lending."

Maybe later I'll write something on the return of privilege (separate
legal status) for the Elite in Europe and elsewhere, to keep things on-topic. 

Having just $1000 in Bitcoin and making the right decision of which altcoin to trade for at the right time could potentially entirely erase your debt. This is what we call rational speculation. But you need to make sure you see the same sort of adoption and momentum that we saw developing for Bitcoin in 2012 and 2013. As you know, a level head and not a rash impulse is very important when speculating. And never speculating with more money than you can afford to lose.

So far, I haven't seen such an altcoin. No CC other than Bitcoin has been widely used as a currency.

Of course there have been unsustainable gains made in altcoins due to speculation but these are very hard to predict unless you buying low and just waiting for a manipulated pump by the insiders who control the float due to some ICO/premine/instamine scheme.

The US stock market would be at most a double (100% gain) from roughly mid-2016 to Fall 2017. So it isn't likely to erase your debt. Employing leverage increases risk of return of capital.

Here is a short but interesting youtube video that shows the battle lines in Europe each day of WWII.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WOVEy1tC7nk

Yep getting out of debt is the higher priority but I do have a very modest position in Bitcoin the operative word being modest.

It's relatively effortless for young children to pick up a second language at a young age so it's logical to teach them one. Chinese is not the only choice. As you mentioned Spanish is also probably a good choice. My goal is to give my children the broadest and deepest set of tools I can. What they do with those tools will be their decision.

...

All of metaphysics is essentially assumptions that cannot be falsified. To call metaphysics a delusion is very similar to calling all knowledge a delusion. Better to call such things a priori assumptions or non falsifiable theory.

Well, Bernie Sanders did say one time he liked seeing ration lines because it meant "the rich weren't getting all the food", so I think the rationing economy could be in the near future if Sanders gets elected.

I agree 100%, I despise leftist regimes, and I seriously hope that nothing happens in the states that would cause a leftist slip to occur. Being leftist on social issues is fine, IMO anyways, but severe socialist economies don't really work.

It's communism what did you expect, utopia?

I`m trying to explain here, how evil the leftist regimes are, because they wreck the economy so much that they will make everyone starve.

So either in ww2 leningrad or soon in the future they will unfortunately experience it, a rationing economy is exactly a dirty communist agenda.

When you're hungry enough, you'll eat anything. During the siege of Leningrad, I would certainly expect people who were starving to eat that. As long as it has some semblance of food, you can eat it, right?

That picture literally looks like dried out horse shit, one must be very crazy to eat that.

You can grow tomatoes easily in your house, grab some flour and make bread for it, it can be an emergency food in times of collapse, and it can also taste acceptable.

But even if a financial meltdown will happen, i dont think it will be fatal from food perspective.

Governments will introduce rationing, and will give everyone daily 1 bread, 1 butter, 1 small slice of pigmeat, and 1 cup of milk, just like in good old communism

"Beware what you wish because it might come true"

Those spoiled people will taste how evil communism is.

...

trollerc and RB

I would have to be very hungry to eat little rodents.  I had "Cui" (guinea pig) up in the Andes of Peru once, very greasy and once was enough.

Bread deep fried in machine oil?  That might be different!  Bearings just love machine oil.

I`d rather eat the rats from the basement than to eat that crap

MA is also expecting the climate to drop rapidly which is why I suggest growing food indoors.

Here is some yummy bread deep fried in machine oil which the plebs ate during the seige of Leningrad, it may seem nuts to imagine this scenario but shit happens..

Growing food is a good idea, though I doubt many here have the capacity to do so.
However, I'm not really sure it will get that bad so soon, so I'm still calm.

troller, ya wrote:

"Everyone must prepare differently for their situation, but for everyone I believe you should begin growing your own food indoors."

Yes, we are all different, with different situations.  My wife and I are only willing to go "so far" in preparing.  And if it gets REALLY REALLY UGLY, well I don't know if I would even want to live it...

But, I don't *think* it will be that bad ("TEOTWAWKI"), so your advice to get comfy, sit back and watch is also sound.  Don't forget the popcorn.

Thats nonsense, compound interest is based on an interest rate which may fluctuate depending on the health of the economy.

Of course if there is a central bank that sets it, then it's bad, it should free-float.

For example if there are tons of depositors, the rate is low ,and everyone can borrow and spend.

If people are poor, they work hard, and they start depositing but less, then they earn big interest and aquire capital. Now people are more producers and less consumers.

Its a balance between production and consumption.

Everyone must prepare differently for their situation, but for everyone I believe you should begin growing your own food indoors.

Get rid of your personal debts.

Follow the market trends, MA is best equipped to forecast trends.

Most importantly, get comfy and enjoy the fireworks as the west self destructs.

Y'all make yourselves comfortable, this one will take a little time.

I'll begin with the thought that to really mess up an economy, some
form of centralised decision making is needed. That's very different
from Adam Smith's invisible hand and its implied equal distribution of
power and insight that enable each individual to perfectly understand
the future and to have the fortitude to maximise his or her personal
outcomes irrespective of short term gains. Indeed, that perfection
presupposes that each individual is born into the world with perfect
knowledge. The real world is somewhat different.

In a way reminiscent of the Big Bang theory, microscopic advantages can
play out over long periods of time to create Empires and Catastrophes.
The key to this amplification is referred to in monetary terms as
compound interest. Compound interest sets in motion the idea that
something can grow exponentially forever. In a finite world, and given
differences that are far from microscopic, despite best efforts at
competition, one entity can eventually buy everything. This is the
perfect capitalist monopoly, something the game called "Monopoly" was
intended to demonstrate.

This illusion depends on the assent of a vast majority of the
population. The very idea of money is the outcome of a belief that debt
will be paid, and this in turn depends on social norms collectively
agreed. To the extent that monopoly and competitive capitalism
exists, it owes its existence to these conventions. There is thus
a paradox in the concept of Perfect Communism : The State owns
everything including the individual, but then requires the consent of
everyone for its existence. The Perfect Capitalist has a similar
paradox: his dependence on the legitimate monopoly of violence of the
State for his or her existence, but owning everything not owned by the
State.

Some may find difficulty in understanding that  Perfect Communism and
Perfect Capitalism should coalesce to the same solution, but from the
point of view of an owned individual, these differences are at best,
academic. Individuals find economies of scale in mutual cooperation,
and such conflicts that do arise are settled in a market of buyers
and sellers. The mutual satisfaction of these deals is unavailable in
the winner-takes-all world of grand strategies, that usually forces
war onto one or more of the players.

For the State and the Capitalist, War is a convenience for demanding
complete subservience and loyalty in their populations, while at the
same time diverting attention from the conflicts of interest writ large.
Chief among these are the paradox referred to earlier: the moment that
Perfect Control is manifest, it becomes the moment that collapse begins.

Left to itself, the system would endlessly cycle through the rise of the
Individual, the rise of the State, the rise of the Capitalist, and into
Collapse. As a consequence, political and monetary systems have grown to
mitigate these long wave cycles, seeking to move to a quasi-stable
equilibrium that maximises the wellbeing of elite sectors within
populations. Despite protestations, it is clearly not in the best
interests of any elite that resources, information and power structures
should be diffused through the population because that would strengthen
the invisible hand of the majority to produce an outcome that may more
effectively promotes the interests of society as a whole.

Consider Durkheim's New Religion of the West: The cult of the Individual,
finding expression in the Enlightenment, in the French Revolution, and
more recently in the youth movements of 1960's, and 1970's. Did
prosperity bring individual freedom, or did individual freedom bring
prosperity? Can proof by contradiction provide an answer?   

Consider, for example, the waging of war. As explained above, war is
almost never in the interests of the mass of individuals but most often
an unintended outcome of the narrow concentration of wealth and power.
Those waging war are certainly conscious of the enormous costs, but
calculate that the burden of these costs is either worth paying or
will be paid by others. Rarely are the costs paid for in advance, but
almost always by increases in public debt. Indeed, in today's world,
public debt, that burden upon the taxpayer, is the only available
recourse. Were the elite forced to pay for that war themselves it would
entirely negate the reason for their existence. 

Thus the Elite faces a choice: War, and poverty for the masses, or share
as an individual and invite prosperity. Thus, individual freedom comes
first and prosperity for all follows.

Well, that's the theory. How does this work out in practice?
In the long run, you get a steady drift toward totalitarianism and the
pretense of economic "stability" followed by catastrophic collapse and
war. Keep an eye on economic inequality as this tracks the progress of
power moving into the hands of the PriviLeged.

In the near term? That depends on where you live. Nothing says
instability like the gulf between the actions of the ECB in propping
up the EuroZone's financial structure, and action in real life to
forestall a wave of migrants seeking a home in Europe. There are less
obvious contradictions in Asia, and in North America, but Europe is
the game in play at the moment. To state the obvious, Germany could
have transferred work to Greece, but preferred to keep the work
within its borders and to invite migrants from outside the EU to
grow its GDP. Weren't the Spaniards, Irish, Poles, Ukrainian workers
good enough, or desperate enough?

I'll give the EuroZone another two years, a little less if the UK votes
to exit this year, could be longer if they get lucky. All of the
leaders that could potentially hold the thing together are now damaged
goods, and well past their sell-by date. But to try to keep things under
control, there will be more pressure to reduce individual freedoms.
"We are all in this together" - well Mr Cameron, some are more "in it"
than others, and as Mr Hollande (18% popularity) found out, Edicts do not
always pass. 

And what do the migrants, perhaps 80% young unskilled men do once
they set foot on a southern mediterranean shore where the unemployment
rate among young unskilled nationals approaches 50%? Make matters
much worse, and they will keep coming until the balance of economics
compels them to stay in their home country, or migrate elsewhere.
That is almost as absurd as paying people to dig holes and others to
fill them in again thus boosting GDP and giving a fake impression of
growth. Or, in a more technically advanced setting, bomb a country's
infrastructure back to the stone age and them provide billions in aid
to rebuild it in exchange for resources.

Ah, yes, resources. Scarce resources. When resources become scarce,
they either get rationed or monopolised, and my bets are for more
rationing, which means more controls, more government, less freedom.
And that in turn means less growth, specifically, lower global
productivity, and down that road lies collapse via hyperinflation
and depression. Everywhere.

Hang onto your bitcoin, and neither a debtor nor a lender be. 
 
PS: And the latest? There seems to be competition to see who can cause
the biggest unnecessary crisis in Greece (see IMF). Do they actually
think they are in control of this?

Links about Google's alleged involvement in the Benghazi, Hillary Clinton, Libyan, Middle East war machine.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/2016-u-s-presidential-election/hillarys-emails-very-disturbing-show-link-to-google/
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Cohen&oldid=705613599
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aarmstrongeconomics.com+Benghazi

The following are provided for the succinct verbal summaries, not to promote a specific religion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu41CPQw0hg#t=78
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong-in-the-media/the-forecaster/hollywood-ready-or-not-here-we-come/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPshSBNzb6U#t=125

I thought your first priority is getting out of medical school debt, before worrying about preserving wealth you don't yet have. And I ponder the argument that Bitcoin and gold don't have counterparty risk is dubious. If the governments institute capital controls, gold will be approximately as useful (short-term) as dirt. I realize this is debatable, but I think one prioritizes getting out of debt when in debt and not prematurely planning for a very difficult to predict chaos coming after 2017. I'd rather profit now, then readjust my lens in 2017 according to what is the best information then.


Largest in numbers I think will be India. Largest in monetary value probably China. I understand it adds a skill, I just worry about the exclusionary emphasis. I ponder you may be top-down planning your children's interests too much. Why not learn Latin, Spanish, and Chinese. I was taught Latin and French in high school.


The average for the white Asians is reasonably high (but not as high as some ethnic Jews) but their variance on the right tail is truncated. This may have been only for the brown skinned Melanesians, I forget. Perhaps conformance sacrifices outliers, which is apparently the trait of females. Perhaps it originated from communal rice growing which is much more labor intensive than wheat farming.

Frankly I am not as enamored with the physiques of Asians any more. No buttocks. No hips. Frail bodies. The Chinese faces are no longer appealing to me as they were when I was Asian-crazed in my 20s and 30s. Don't get me wrong, there are still some Asians that I think are hot, but for the most part I am burned out on Asia. Been over here half of my life.

I guess I distaste China's combination of conformance with "who you know is more important than what you know" and their corrupt and low-quality approaches to business. On the filipinos, although I love their playfulness, I grow weary of other aspects.


I really needed to edit my statement about females, because it is difficult to explain what I mean in a soundbite. See the thread I started in the Politics & Society this past week. Females have their priorities around family and society. They are not interested in disrupting power structures. Thus they are more likely to fall prey to "political correctness".

Yeah boys are being totally stripped of their masculinity by the politically correct feminism. I just don't see how adding another religion on top of the feminist religion is going to help them gain objectivity. Boys need a firm grasp on objectivity early on.

Believing in what can't be falsified is a delusion. One can't make a rational assessment of what they can't measure. Religion exists collectively for a reason as you pointed out in your recent analysis. Whether it is best for myself and my family is dubious to me. But then again, I don't have a good conceptual plan of how to raise kids within the society we have now. The society will have now looks like a Frankenstein to me.

I don't have all the answers. I am just saying religion made me more confused. What is driving me now is the desire to be a positive force in society and to maximize my role as a man, which means I am not going to pretend that a man doesn't want to have sex with more than one woman. I am not going to deny my male evolutionary strategy and make myself feel guilty for being a man. The Bible would make a man crazy. Do you know how many times I refused to have sex from 2006 - 2010 because I was thinking about what Matthew 19 says about bonding in the flesh means you are married to every one of those women. I realized now that is absolute horseshit. If I find the one woman I want to be exclusively partnered for the rest of my life, then great. If not, great. So instead of being confused, I can be more pragmatic about making sure all the choices I make, I am responsible for them instead of seeing my choices as weaknesses that only God can control. I have to be the man I want to be. Nobody and no God can be it for me. Having said that, I don't believe in hurting women or their feelings, but I do think gaming their hypergamy is a valid evolutionary strategy.

Is there a higher force? Yeah probably, but not an omniscient entity, i.e. God. More like a frequency or a harmony.