One Of YOU Econo Types- Help!

[Hum Dinger]

the problem is people are not equal in capacities.
and the strong are not interested in any other kind of equality with the weak.
what the weak think ultimately doesn't matter.
that's all there is to it ...
maybe when we develop models for future societies we need to start with INEQUALITY as basis ?

Yet the societies which have most adhered to the principles of equality are the strongest and most developed of all societies.

The fact that all people are not equal does not mean that a government and society should not behave as though they were.

In fact, there is no definition of superiority (excepting myself of course) or inferiority. There is no such thing as 'the strong' or 'the weak'. The physically weak may be the intellectually strong or the intuitively strong or the artistically strong.

Darwin's guess that the mechanism of evolution being 'survival of the fittest', doesn't hold up to the light of evidence. (Not that I don't believe in evolution, I just don't believe in 'the survival of the fittest' as it's mechanism). If so, lions would rule the world.

My personal belief is that biological evolution is a product of random genetics. Mankind has not all evolved equally or in the same way. This makes a potpourri of human talents and abilities. This is why a society (like the U.S.A.) BASED on equality thrives.

Societies, if not stifled by the domination of the most violent, aggressive and animalistic people, evolve quickly by manifesting the full talents it's people.

In fact, history repeatly shows a cyclical elimination of the most aggressive, dominant types thru the mechanism of wars, coups and mass revolution.

It's the apparently 'weak' commoners that continue to survive.

 

[Paulie]

Lions are not the fittest creatures. They can't build boats and migrate to other land masses to slaughter the inhabitants and take the land.

Lions can kill a human one on one, but they are inferior to the human race in so many ways.

Gorillas might be the closest thing to superiority, but they also have that little problem of not being able to migrate themselves over oceans, or acquire large amounts of firepower, or fly jets that can bomb entire cities.

The animal kingdom doesn't even compare in that regard.

 

[Annie]

Lions are not the fittest creatures. They can't build boats and migrate to other land masses to slaughter the inhabitants and take the land.

Lions can kill a human one on one, but they are inferior to the human race in so many ways.

Gorillas might be the closest thing to superiority, but they also have that little problem of not being able to migrate themselves over oceans, or acquire large amounts of firepower, or fly jets that can bomb entire cities.

The animal kingdom doesn't even compare in that regard.

You all are now speaking in metaphors I can't understand! Can one of you, more knowledgeable ones please address the op?

 

[Agnapostate]

When I make a profit from an investment, and someone else less equipped than me lost SOMETHING because of it, how do I think negatively of myself?

If that less equipped person had been more educated and informed, it very well may have been THEM who profitted instead. The biggest reason people lose in capitalism is lack of information. More often then not, from what I've seen, that lack of information was due to their own apathy. There is a WEALTH of information out there that can help a person prosper in capitalism.

Really? In which facet of a capitalist economy does perfect or costless information exist? I'll be interested in hearing this one.

You all are now speaking in metaphors I can't understand! Can one of you, more knowledgeable ones please address the op?

I've addressed the OP. The fact that you falsely believe sexist, ageist stereotypes about my identity does not diminish that fact.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Lions are not the fittest creatures. They can't build boats and migrate to other land masses to slaughter the inhabitants and take the land.

Lions can kill a human one on one, but they are inferior to the human race in so many ways.

Gorillas might be the closest thing to superiority, but they also have that little problem of not being able to migrate themselves over oceans, or acquire large amounts of firepower, or fly jets that can bomb entire cities.

The animal kingdom doesn't even compare in that regard.

Your right! It take creativity, hard work, team work & intelligence to do the thing that make humans superior to animals. But in most cases, those who promote 'social darwinism', base there notions of superiority on aggressiveness, competitiveness, selfishness and often times violence. The very qualities most attributable to dumb animals.

Compassion, moral awareness, responsibilty, altruism, creativity, personal integrity are all human qualities that are all but absent in dumb animals (except the dog to some extent).

Most people who promote 'social darwinism' tend to behave in ways close to that of dumb animals - often times the pig.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't a 15% risk, nearly a guarantee when it comes to risk? Mightn't this be the reason that only the rich get to play?

They are risking 100% of their own money. They stand to make the profit as though they'd risked almost 7 times as much - pretty good deal.

Of course it's set up so only the rich can play, that's how it's always been. But you only have to be 15% as rich to make an investment.

You can always form some type of partnership or corporation to raise the money.

The big question is:

Do you know enough about the value of these assets to know how much you should bid on them? If not, stay clear.

 

[Annie]

They are risking 100% of their own money. They stand to make the profit as though they'd risked almost 7 times as much - pretty good deal.

Of course it's set up so only the rich can play, that's how it's always been. But you only have to be 15% as rich to make an investment.

You can always form some type of partnership or corporation to raise the money.

The big question is:

Do you know enough about the value of these assets to know how much you should bid on them? If not, stay clear.

I'm sorry, when you say the gov't is 85% responsible, of the contribution/investment of private, isn't that leaving only a 15% exposure of the private?

 

[neurosport]

I'm sorry, when you say the gov't is 85% responsible, of the contribution/investment of private, isn't that leaving only a 15% exposure of the private?

America has been raped and murdered and you are trying to answer a very important question - what color condom did the assailant use ?

As soon as the first bailout was passed i knew it would go on forever and escalate until everything was gone.

If you give them anything at all they will want more - is that not obvious ? And we already given them trillions. Do you now expect them to stop ?

That's like saying " i am bleeding but you can keep raping me ... however if i pass out you will need to stop " right ... nobody is going to stop.

 

[editec]

Social darwinism is an excellent cover for a kleptocracy.

We read posts from people here who either believe that tripe, or want us to believe it.

What is mankind's greatest strength?

Is it his brain, or his body?

Well, right now, the social darwinists want us to believe that it's his brain, and the often repeated claim is that those with the most brains rise to the top of the social heap.

Except one cannot prove that very easily since millions of very intelligent people are nowhere near the top of the heap, and plenty of very average people are.

What gave mankind the impedus to take control of this earth is COOPERATION, not competition.

Read that agin...mankind advanced because he is very intelligent and because he is a SOCIAL ANIMAL.

Cooperation in the form of division of labor is what puts us on top...not competition or aggression, not out brains not our tools, but our propensity to ORGANIZE and COOPERATE.

But within our societies that division of labor REQUIRES that some are given more power within that society than others.

And that social power is easily manipulated to insure that those with power KEEP power, regardless of their ability.

Now, I often bring out the editecian 100% inheritance concept, not because I expect anyone to sign onto that plan, but to show you all something about most of the bitching we hear about taxes.

The continuation of the classism DEPENDS OF the generation in power's ability to leave that power to their children REGARDLESS of that next generation's real ability to lead.

And how is power in this society basically transferred?

Not by title, but by leaving power (in the form of money and social connections to the power) to their progeny.

None of the above suggests that I think that those with money necessarily are immune to losing it, or that there is no competition within the ruling classes, but it merely suggests what I think none of us would deny..

That money grants one enormous benefits to make more money, and a lack of money pretty much keeps most of us from every getting much more of it, too.

One of the inherent flaws of nearly every social system is the transference of power from one ruling generation to the other, folks.

That propenisty to take care of one's own children is basically limiting MERIT's ability from rising to the top of the social heap.

And please, folks, when you respond to this theory, don't waste my time giving me WILLY MAYS examples. If you cannot understand why the WILLY MAY examples are insignificant refutations of this theory, I cannot explain to you why that is irrelevant.

The exceptions that you can name (and there are many of them) do not refute that theory of intergnerational classism, they merely show us that that that is not the ONLY thing which effects outcomes.

Statisitcally, in this society, the likeihood that one will go from a low class start to a very high class outcome is VERY remote...statistically speaking, of course.

Intelligence, ambition, skillsets, all those are certainly important, and I do not deny that claim.

But nothing is more important in determining the outcome of most people's lives than WHAT CLASS THEY WERE BORN IN TO BEGIN WITH.

There is, according to stats I have read, LESS chance of climbing the social ladder in AMERICA, than in any other modern WESTERN state.

So much for that former "land of opportunity" status this nation might have once had, eh?

Some of youngsters are now growing into your professions and many of you are likely making more money than you ever thought you'd make and I understand how heady that is.

And some of you think that you will never encounter any ceiling to you meteoric rise in this society.

I'm here to tell you most of you, proabably all of you will never change class no matter how hard you work, or even how much money you make.

And it won't take a conspiracy to keep you down, either.

I'll say it again...mankind is a social creature so while many of us on this board are quite bright, very ambitious, highly creative, those things in and of themselves will NOT get you into that superwealth class.

You lack the SOCIAL CAPITAL to ever get into the power class which has been running, and which will continue to dominate this society.

There were and there will be PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES who will never attain enough social capital to get into that master class, folks.

Wishing that were not true, denying that is not true, calling me a communist or a socialist or a liberal or a class envisous person, might make some of you feel better about that, but nevertheless what I tell you here is self evident to ANYONE willing to give up the myths you have been fed and simply LOOK at the statistics (and the pattern of who is in power generation after generation) dispassionately.

 

[Agnapostate]

Herbert Spencer's social Darwinism and its variants have had a critically strong monopoly over Darwinian and sociobiological arguments relating to political structure, as most irritatingly characterized by repetitive quotation of Tennyson's remark on "a nature red in tooth and claw." Its absurdity is effectively summarized through McQuaig's quote of Amartya Sen on rational choice theory, always a critical element of a philosophy that emphasizes the role of maximizing individual self-interest above all else through cutthroat competition. "'Can you direct me to the railway station?' asks the stranger. 'Certainly,' says the local, pointing, in the opposite direction, towards the post office, 'and would you post this letter for me on your way?' 'Certainly,' says the stranger, resolving to open it to see if it contains anything worth stealing." (McQuaig, 2001)

What's actually needed, of course, is to pay more heed to Bakunin's critically obvious observation that "[e]ven the most wretched individual of our present society could not exist and develop without the cumulative social efforts of countless generations." Kropotkin made a valiant effort to do just that in Mutual Aid by noting the role of cooperation in animal interactions, rather than sole and obfuscatory focus on competition. The recent revival of the field also generates further interesting points of interest.

 

[neurosport]

SOCIAL CAPITAL

if you are born a megalomaniacal sociopath you can build up the social capital if you start early enough.

however if you're born a hippie being a bush or a kennedy won't help you.

 

[editec]

Herbert Spencer's social Darwinism and its variants have had a critically strong monopoly over Darwinian and sociobiological arguments relating to political structure, as most irritatingly characterized by repetitive quotation of Tennyson's remark on "a nature red in tooth and claw." Its absurdity is effectively summarized through McQuaig's quote of Amartya Sen on rational choice theory, always a critical element of a philosophy that emphasizes the role of maximizing individual self-interest above all else through cutthroat competition. "'Can you direct me to the railway station?' asks the stranger. 'Certainly,' says the local, pointing, in the opposite direction, towards the post office, 'and would you post this letter for me on your way?' 'Certainly,' says the stranger, resolving to open it to see if it contains anything worth stealing." (McQuaig, 2001)

What's actually needed, of course, is to pay more heed to Bakunin's critically obvious observation that "[e]ven the most wretched individual of our present society could not exist and develop without the cumulative social efforts of countless generations." Kropotkin made a valiant effort to do just that in Mutual Aid by noting the role of cooperation in animal interactions, rather than sole and obfuscatory focus on competition. The recent revival of the field also generates further interesting points of interest.

Nice scholarly referencing, Agna.

I no longer feel much need to find the scholars to help me find (or to support) my social scientific POV but I'm happy to see somebody well read enough to reference them, anyway.

Ironically what most social science studies seem to support are the same common sensical things I was taught by the grandmothers and great gandmother, none of whom studied anything in school, but all of whom lived long enough to see through the bullshit which our masters seem to want to convince us of.

Long life makes better social scietists of us all sooner or later, I suspect.

 

[editec]

SOCIAL CAPITAL

if you are born a megalomaniacal sociopath you can build up the social capital if you start early enough.

Yes, if you're a highly functional and particularly intelligent sociopath, this is the society for you, without doubt.

however if you're born a hippie being a bush or a kennedy won't help you.

On the contrary, my friend.

I went to school with hundreds of hip scions who are doing very well because of their money and social capital.

Who do you think funds the leftest organizations, and makes them too often clueless forces in society?

That actually pisses me off more than most right wingers and their machinations ever could to be honest.

 

[Paulie]

Really? In which facet of a capitalist economy does perfect or costless information exist? I'll be interested in hearing this one.

If you require "perfect" and "costless" information, than you are already out of your league in regards to capitalism. You should probably quit complaining about the awful conditions in capitalist America and just move somewhere else.

In capitalism, someone is most likely going to want to make a profit from providing someone else with valuable financial information. That's how capitalism works. You want something, I have what you want, we can make a mature, educated transaction, and each of us is happy in the end.

I like it like that. If you don't, than it sucks to be you in the USA, Agna.

I must say though, I get a free daily email alert from an organization that offers 3 stock market picks per day. I just signed up about a week ago, and at least half the positions they've recommended have gained over 40% after the email alert. You get the suggestions, you do a little homework and learn about the companies, and you make an INFORMED decision. It's not really that hard. You're not going to win 100% of the time, but if you're looking for a society like that you may as well just kill yourself Agna because it doesn't, nor will it EVER, exist.

 

[Agnapostate]

If you require "perfect" and "costless" information, than you are already out of your league in regards to capitalism. You should probably quit complaining about the awful conditions in capitalist America and just move somewhere else.

In capitalism, someone is most likely going to want to make a profit from providing someone else with valuable financial information. That's how capitalism works. You want something, I have what you want, we can make a mature, educated transaction, and each of us is happy in the end.

I like it like that. If you don't, than it sucks to be you in the USA, Agna.

I must say though, I get a free daily email alert from an organization that offers 3 stock market picks per day. I just signed up about a week ago, and at least half the positions they've recommended have gained over 40% after the email alert. You get the suggestions, you do a little homework and learn about the companies, and you make an INFORMED decision. It's not really that hard. You're not going to win 100% of the time, but if you're looking for a society like that you may as well just kill yourself Agna because it doesn't, nor will it EVER, exist.

See, here's the thing. Dismissal of the information asymmetries that characterize a capitalist economy doesn't make them go away; it merely makes those ignorant of them less capable of addressing the inefficiencies of capitalism and thus rectifying them. It's the inaccurate conception that free markets that provide perfect or costless information can exist that underlies the claims of the Austrian school and similarly ignorant Misesians. It certainly isn't mine. I'm all for addressing imperfections.

 

[garyd]

There is no society in which highly functional and prperly motivated sociopaths will not succeed. All you can do determine the direction they chose ie whether they go into government where they are arguably far and away more dangerous or into the private sector where there own excesses will eventually catch up with them.

If everyone is in truth an asshat then there is no system you can design that will result in any kind of fairness worthy of the name.

 

[Iriemon]

Whenever I read something economy related that makes sense to me, I get nervous. What's your take on this?

Links at site:

The Volokh Conspiracy - -

Continuity We Shouldn't Believe In - Moral Hazard and the Geithner Bailout Plan: Nobel Prize-winning liberal economist Joseph Stiglitz points out that the Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's plan to have the government subsidize investments in "toxic assets" creates a serious moral hazard: Private investors will pocket any gains, while the federal government promises to cover virtually all potential losses:

Professor [Joseph] Stiglitz on Tuesday led a list of well-known economists and high-profile industry figures who have said Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's toxic asset plan may not be as successful as it first seems.

The plan involves ensuring up to $100bn of government funding is matched by private investors, with the monies combined and leveraged up, in some cases to by as much as 20:1, with the help of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), to buy pools of unwanted assets.

Professor Stiglitz, speaking at a conference in Hong Kong, said that the US government is essentially using the taxpayer to guarantee the downside risks, namely that these assets will fall further in value, while the upside risks, in terms of future profits, are being handed to private investors such as insurance companies, bond investors and private equity funds.

"Quite frankly, this amounts to robbery of the American people. I don't think it's going to work because I think there'll be a lot of anger about putting the losses so much on the shoulder of the American taxpayer."​

As Stiglitz suggests, this privatization of profits combined with socialization of losses is likely to incentivize overly risky investments that taxpayers will be left holding the bag for. It may also lead to misallocation of resources, as investors transfer funds from more economically efficient uses in order to take advantage of Uncle Sam's blank check for investing in "toxic assets." Jeffrey Sachs, another prominent liberal economist, makes a similar point in this Financial Times piece (free registration required).

Ironically, the moral hazard created by the Geithner plan is similar to the incentivizing of risky mortgage investments by the government's backing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which played a major role in causing the financial crisis in the first place, as economists Peter Wallison and Charles Calomiris describe in this paper. Wallison deserves some credit for warning about this danger back in 2005.

Both parties deserve blame for the policy of federal backing for dubious mortgages and investments. Certainly, President Bush didn't help matters when he, in his own words, "use[d] the mighty muscle of the federal government" to promote the issuing of risky mortgages.

Barack Obama, however, promised to break with the failed policies of the past, and often criticizes those who he claims advocate "the same failed ideas that got us into this mess in the first place." Ironically, he has now embraced some of the worst of those ideas himself.

The author is correct. However, he'd great on cricitism but doesn't say much about what "change" he thinks Obama should have done. Let the entire finance system implode into the resulting depression I guess would be his preferred "change".

I don't think Obama is really a corporate welfare guy at heart. But after a generation where "antitrust" and "regulation" have been un-PC words, we have corporations so huge and so entangled in different financial vehicles that they are "too big to fail" without promoting overall economic calamity.

If AIG was 20 different companies and a couple of them got into this subprime mess, you could let them fail without the overall consequences that the mega-firm has.

We need make anti-trust and regulation activities that are meaningful again, and avoid our economy being hostage to a few mega-companies that are too big to fail.

 

[Paulie]

If you require "perfect" and "costless" information, than you are already out of your league in regards to capitalism. You should probably quit complaining about the awful conditions in capitalist America and just move somewhere else.

In capitalism, someone is most likely going to want to make a profit from providing someone else with valuable financial information. That's how capitalism works. You want something, I have what you want, we can make a mature, educated transaction, and each of us is happy in the end.

I like it like that. If you don't, than it sucks to be you in the USA, Agna.

I must say though, I get a free daily email alert from an organization that offers 3 stock market picks per day. I just signed up about a week ago, and at least half the positions they've recommended have gained over 40% after the email alert. You get the suggestions, you do a little homework and learn about the companies, and you make an INFORMED decision. It's not really that hard. You're not going to win 100% of the time, but if you're looking for a society like that you may as well just kill yourself Agna because it doesn't, nor will it EVER, exist.

See, here's the thing. Dismissal of the information asymmetries that characterize a capitalist economy doesn't make them go away; it merely makes those ignorant of them less capable of addressing the inefficiencies of capitalism and thus rectifying them. It's the inaccurate conception that free markets that provide perfect or costless information can exist that underlies the claims of the Austrian school and similarly ignorant Misesians. It certainly isn't mine. I'm all for addressing imperfections.

Human beings are imperfect by nature. How do you ever expect information to be perfectly symmetrical?

The more you're willing to seek, the more you're going to learn. You'll never know EVERYTHING, but knowing more than the next guy is a huge boost. All I do is try and learn as much as I can, and profit from it whenever possible. When I lose though, I blame no one but myself. That's all one can really ask for, in my opinion.

 

[Agnapostate]

Human beings are imperfect by nature. How do you ever expect information to be perfectly symmetrical?

The more you're willing to seek, the more you're going to learn. You'll never know EVERYTHING, but knowing more than the next guy is a huge boost. All I do is try and learn as much as I can, and profit from it whenever possible. When I lose though, I blame no one but myself. That's all one can really ask for, in my opinion.

There is no expectation that asymmetric information could be eliminated altogether; there is one that it could be minimized by pursuing alternatives to capitalist economic structure.

 

[Paulie]

Human beings are imperfect by nature. How do you ever expect information to be perfectly symmetrical?

The more you're willing to seek, the more you're going to learn. You'll never know EVERYTHING, but knowing more than the next guy is a huge boost. All I do is try and learn as much as I can, and profit from it whenever possible. When I lose though, I blame no one but myself. That's all one can really ask for, in my opinion.

There is no expectation that asymmetric information could be eliminated altogether; there is one that it could be minimized by pursuing alternatives to capitalist economic structure.

I happen to believe it could be minimized by people simply being willing to seek knowledge. Apathy will no doubt breed stupidity. Capitalism could be stronger if people weren't mindless, lazy fucks.