[quote=Stan Robertson]There are many necessary jobs that are not fun. People take them in order to earn the money required to do things that are more fun. Take away the reward and the jobs will not be done. Dream on.
[/quote]
Another classic argument that narrows a highly variable concept into a nice, tight, simple explanation. It is a fallacy known as ‘over generalizing’.
I work hard at tasks that I recieve little reward from, namely helping to remove the world of the uncritical, unobjective thinking that accompanies statements such as these. I spend hours reading both view points, understanding them, and then promoting alternatives on sites such as these, only to receive constant ridicule. Its not very fun, but I understand the necessity of it, so I do it.
Figure that huh? Someone working really hard, not for money, but to seek alternatives to money!!
I also volunteer at my school, and at my local state park. I do it because the reward I get is seeing a better community, and more collaboration/companionship with my peers and neighbors. Now, incorporate this into our cultural mindset, as oppose to contemporary views which support selfish, greedy, and unaltruistic behavior, and I believe human productivity could triple what it is today.
There are many well meaning, highly intelligent individuals that could be making huge contributions, but do not have the access.
And as for jobs that aren’t fun, something we need to realize is what jobs are needed, how they can be managed in differing way via technological application, and how to eliminate dangerous or toxic jobs. I feel that 80% of contemporary jobs only exist to help move money around, nothing whatsoever in producing new knowledge or inventions for society.
I don’t think this has been posted here."There are many different views being shared, but the prevailing message is that a few powerful men have corrupted our system and have looted the wealth of the hard working middle class. I saw no one representing the Free Shit Army looking for more handouts. From a demographic viewpoint, this protest is clearly being led by the Millenial Generation. There are no Boomers pulling the strings behind the scenes and calling the shots. George Soros and Jesse Jackson haven’t hijacked the agenda. I would estimate that 60% of the crowd were Millenials, with 20% Gen-X and 20% Baby Boomers. I would estimate that 75% of the crowd was white, with 15% hispanic and 10% black. The stereotypes being portrayed by the MSM get blown out of the water when you see for yourself. A young black guy with a NOBAMA shirt on marched by us holding an End the Fed sign. That was the last thing I thought I would see. Later in the day I was handed a Bernanke buck by a young black man as he described the evils of inflation and the Federal Reserve. Does that sound like what you are hearing on Fox News?"
http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=23205
First off, let me apologize for the strident tone of my comments last night… I get worked up too easily. You write very well.
I don’t have time right now for a lot of point-by-point, so let’s just start with this;
You said, "And your last bit on "capitalism aint the monetary system" is hilarious, how exactly is capital acquired, or transfered, or used in exchange for labor and or goods, without money? "
I thought my point here was obvious because we are on CM.com, and I think we all agree that one of our underlying problems is debt-based money that requires continuous, exponential growth in order for the system to be healthy… you know, the old principle + interest thing. It seems to me that if you had some kind of non-debt based money, i.e. hard money, maybe Gold-backed, then this insidious drive for continuous expansion that is acted upon by powerful entities like the FED would go away, and our economy could become more capable of periods of relative stasis.
Heffe also said, "For me to meet my expenses, I have to achieve growth in my production, growth in the demand, and in the process, support destructive, unsustainable, and even exploitative means to do so, and so does every single business in existence."
Why would you always have to achieve growth in production? what is driving this (other than our current monetary system)? Why couldn’t one find a nice critical mass for a business, and assuming an environment of low inflation, run the business in a relatively stable mode, tweaking things here and there, some mode of continuous improvement, but otherwise finding stasis? I am not saying that the drive to expand is not there… driven by the profit motive inherent in capitalism… I am just asking why, within capitalism, one could not find a happy, static balance?
[quote=steveyoung]
Perhaps it’s true that OWS was organized by socialists or labor or whoever and that these organizations still play a significant role in the ongoing protest. Now that it’s grown so big and has spread to so many cities, how can they possibly maintain control? There are millions of frustrated and angry people out there.[/quote]
Exactly! It is significant that Socialist and Progressive groups have organized OWS. The creators of these events are hoping that they go out of control. As you said, there are many angry people (especially the young, indoctrinated by our Progressive colleges). Progressives have tried to change our Country for the past 100 years (ex; 1916, "Progressive Income Tax"), but need a total collapse of our Republic before true Socialism can be implemented. Just wait for the cry, "Please government, save us from these riots", and the response from our benevolent government, "I’m the government and I’m here to help…"
I’d be interested in your comments to this post which has some reference to your question about sizing a business to not require growth. I do think you’ve keyed into a very important fundamental, that which blames the monetary system for the very basis of exponential growth.
Many (if not all) of the ideological positions advocated here and within OWS seem to reference in some way the notion that all of this is traceable to a debt based monetary system. There is near universal agreement than this is a root cause of our predicament.
But is it?
Clearly, we have very serious, perhaps irreparable issues with our monetary system, which is of course debt based. But are these failure modes intrinsic, meaning must they always happen to any debt based economy, or are they behavioral, e.g. they have been “gamed” by certain actors. If it were to turn out that the system was simply gamed by actors pursuing their own profit motive at the expense of the rest of us, how would this change the outlook as to corrective action?
I think an interesting example to illustrate the core problem is the chicken and the egg dilemma. Does the (debt based) monetary system influence the behavior of the capitalist, or does the capitalist influence the behavior of the monetary system? I believe the answer to this question is so important that is worthy of some in depth (independent) analysis on the part of anyone who is serious about understanding our predicament.
To begin, I would highlight the notational belief that when loans are created that they can never be repaid (because of the interest equipment) without the constant expansion of the monetary supply.
This is based on a simple linear static equation. (p + prt/100 = a) Where:
a = the amount of a loan contract (the sum of principal + interest)
p = the principal amount
r = the rate of interest as a percentage
t = time (duration)
This static equation, often used to demonstrate that the principal can never be repaid is not relevant (or valid) for dynamic systems (like money flow). It does not differentiate between stocks and flows, nor does it use the time component in a meaningful sense. It takes extremely complex equations to determine if even a simple closed monetary system requires additional capital to allow interest to be repaid.
If you have an interest in investigating this further, Steve Keen has some useful materials to illustrate the correct way to resolve this question. It is somewhat dense, but well worth the effort.
(Link)
His conclusion is that a debt based monetary system does not require exponential growth.
(but then he’s Austrailan )
[quote=Jim H]You said, "And your last bit on "capitalism aint the monetary system" is hilarious, how exactly is capital acquired, or transfered, or used in exchange for labor and or goods, without money? "
I thought my point here was obvious because we are on CM.com, and I think we all agree that one of our underlying problems is debt-based money that requires continuous, exponential growth in order for the system to be healthy… you know, the old principle + interest thing. It seems to me that if you had some kind of non-debt based money, i.e. hard money, maybe Gold-backed, then this insidious drive for continuous expansion that is acted upon by powerful entities like the FED would go away, and our economy could become more capable of periods of relative stasis.
Heffe also said, "For me to meet my expenses, I have to achieve growth in my production, growth in the demand, and in the process, support destructive, unsustainable, and even exploitative means to do so, and so does every single business in existence."
Why would you always have to achieve growth in production? what is driving this (other than our current monetary system)? Why couldn’t one find a nice critical mass for a business, and assuming an environment of low inflation, run the business in a relatively stable mode, tweaking things here and there, some mode of continuous improvement, but otherwise finding stasis? I am not saying that the drive to expand is not there… driven by the profit motive inherent in capitalism… I am just asking why, within capitalism, one could not find a happy, static balance?
[/quote]
Fractional reserve banking, along with monetary creation through purchasing of treasury bonds, had reasoning for its development. While I agree that a scarcity based, centralized fiat currency does add to the need for constant growth, it ignores many facets of market economics. A major problem of gold based currencies is continual deflationary contraction, as the currency is still based on scarcity and debt.
We (US) were forced to continually rearrange the value of the dollar in relation to gold to compensate for this shrinking of available money supply. This shrinking of the money supply is what helps create that feudalism I was referring to, as the owners/producers with private ownership over specific resources become the dominate institutions while capital for low-end producers is extremely limited. A basic siphoning of money from the lower to the top, it exists within fiat currency market systems, and within gold based market systems as well.
I suppose a better currency is Energy Accounting Units, as they can be locally produced, universally accepted, and can be produced in abundance without inflationary expansion. This is due to the EAU equating to an amount of energy (like a watt or amp), that unlike gold, is useable in every aspect of our lives in heating, manufacturing, agriculture, etc. However beneficial this currency system could be, I still feel as though the modus operandi of maintaining cost efficiency results in inherent destruction on the large scale.
Referencing my argument in growth, I suppose a single institution can become a static state, that is until other competing entities force me to expand in order to maintain a relevant status among consumers demanding my product, otherwise I am ‘outcompeted’ by resorting to a non-growth theme. It is why corporations are the most powerful business entities in the world; unrelentless growth in numerable areas.
And further analyzing the growth argument, the biggest requirement of growth is our general economy, or GDP for simplicity. For the populous to increase their access to goods, they sell their labor for money. Thats why we always talk about getting jobs; as thats the only way within monetary market mechanics for access to increase. A few big problems here are that, our economic model DEPENDS on consumption and job creation to function. This is key, any model which DEPENDS on any form of consumption or monetary exchange will seek out growth in money supply as the means to do so. A steady state economy would be a free standing system of access, that doesn’t rely on consumption or job growth for it to function.
Gold price from 1786-1933 varied between ($19.39 and $20.67), for a grand total fluctuation of 1%! Talk about a huge fluctuation! Here are the prices:
1786-1791 $19.49
1792-1833 $19.39
1834-1836 $20.69
1837-1933 $20.67
I guess 4 changes in 147 years is continually?
And here we go again with a complete fantasy solution… BLAH BLAH BLAH… Spend a little time trying to explain exactly how this "Energy units" would work and a bit less time hand waving and bashing several thousand years of monetary history and I think you’ll discover why gold is money and why some new form of fiat currency (yes that’s exactly what your Energy Units are) will not function over the long run. Perhaps you should go back and watch the Crash Course on "What is money".
You do understand that that statement contradicts itself? Perhaps you don’t and that is the problem!
[quote=Jim H]It seems to me that if you had some kind of non-debt based money, i.e. hard money, maybe Gold-backed, then this insidious drive for continuous expansion that is acted upon by powerful entities like the FED would go away, and our economy could become more capable of periods of relative stasis. [quote]I think you’ll find that even when the dollar was backed by gold it was still created as debt. Any alternatives to creation as debt is called counterfeiting…
I used to think that too, until I realised energy is just a fleeting thing, here one nano second, gone the next…
technically, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. All matter is simply energy condensed to a slower vibration.
But that’s not why I’m posting. There’s a lot of different views on the OWS movement (shocking!). From many of the posts, i really wonder what people on here do for a living. There doesn’t seem to be much practical experience for how small businesses actually work, mostly a bunch of "capitalism" theorizing.
I run a small business (not my main source of income). I also run a charity. Most of my friends and family have small businesses. Couple of things-
1. You do not have to borrow money to start/run a business. That is a CHOICE, and not neccesarily a good one. The ONE person I know that used borrowed money to start his business is still having problems with the partners he took on.
- You can run a business profitably without expansion. It is a concious decision, usually made to keep the business true to its quality standards or keep it in the family.
If you are living comfortably, there is no reason to "grow" your small business IF you have been intelligent in your use of debt, i.e. don’t take any on, or pay it off immediately. Yes, your prices will have to rise with cost-of-living, fuel costs, etc. but that is mostly due to an inflationary money system, which is unneccesary to begin with.
This isn’t theory, it’s practical application, in a state that is decidely un-friendly to business in general.
As for the protest, we used to call people like that "soillys" in Santa Cruz, as in they did not bath adequately. Ah yes, far less tolerant then…:) But people do not have to know WHAT is wrong and HOW to fix it to simply say, "this isn’t working". I don’t have to be a plumber to know when the toilet doesn’t work. The comments that the protestors aren’t consolidated on the problems, or have no solutions, are moot.
You’re absolutely right, in small business there is nothing that says you have to borrow money, nor that you have to expand. As pointed out in post # 117, the forces that apply to large scale capitalism do not apply to small businesses.
But even at a very small scale, the dynamics of starting and running a business requires access to capital, as the fundamentals are such that the entrepreneur must pay up front for raw materials, non-recurring costs such as equipment and machinery, as well as recurring costs such as rent and employee wages. The conversion of these components into goods or services that contain surplus value takes time, as in time to convert these goods or services back into capital to replenish the working capital used to advance these payments in the first place.
So where did this money come from to advance these payments? In a truly small business, it comes from personal savings, and sometimes by asking creditors for favorable terms (you get paid when I get paid) but it always comes from somewhere. Another source is loans or advances from family members. The larger the business the less feasible these arrangements are, and in most cases, a loan is undertaken from a bank or an investor. And to be sure, this is where the trouble starts……
But the problem in our country is not small business.
There is a mistaken belief that our country has an economy that is comprised largely of entrepreneurs and small businesses. This is false, and has been for some time. By every meaningful metric, our economy is comprised of large businesses, which I would define as greater than 500 employees.
Consider:
- Approximately 75% of all businesses in America have no payroll at all-none whatsoever.
- These 75% of the total number of all businesses (with no employees) account for only about 1/30th of the total revenue.
- If we look at business with 100 or more employees we see that we can account for .04% of the total number of firms in the US, yet, we see that this miniscule quantity represents nearly 75% of the total business income.
- Of this grouping of businesses that account for the vast majority of corporate revenue, we can see that .04% of the firms employ nearly 60% of all the workers in the US, and account for nearly 75% of the total revenue.
Source
So when we talk about capitalism this is what we are talking about.
How about Entrepreneurial activity? Let’s take a look at the most common indicator for capital realization of start ups, the IPO market. From 2004-2007 (until the crash) the IPO market averaged about 200 new IPO’s each year, in 2008 there were 31 and this year it looks to be about 110 or so, nearly half the range seen pre-crash.
Source
However, if you look at the M&A market, the metric for large business acquisition activity, you see that the big guys are buying up other companies at a feverent pace, and this economic activity dominates the business and economic landscape.
The more larger business takes hold in the marketplace, the more relevant the “theories” of capitalistic behavior becomes. I would also note that this accompanies the cry of excess regulation, which is normally couched by manifold reference to the impact on small business, with the line served up to “stop killing jobs” by strangling small business who cannot afford to comply with the regulations. So what I’m saying is that the big business lobbys are piggybacking on the war cry of the small business to provide cover for what they really want, which is reduced regulation.
I submit what we need is reduced regulation for small business, and dramatically increased regulation for large business. As someone who owns and runs a small business, I would support moving to an economy composed entirely of small regionally based businesses, with an end to globalization and the massive energy consumption associated with this.
In order to see this clearly, we have to understand the differences in how large multi-nationals act, and how small businesses act. They are not the same, and bundling them together with the anti-regulation/anti-government crowd, in my opinion, is a major intellectual error.
I think the guys at OWS have it about right.
Gold price from 1786-1933 varied between ($19.39 and $20.67), for a grand total fluctuation of 1%! Talk about a huge fluctuation! Here are the prices: 1786-1791 $19.49 1792-1833 $19.39 1834-1836 $20.69 1837-1933 $20.67 I guess 4 changes in 147 years is continually?And what happened after the last set of years you provided? A large deflationary contraction, for many reasons, including increases in production (ie, industrial revolution) which lead to abundance (which drops pricing). Thus in order to allow access during a time of monetary contraction, we had to facilitate ways of monetary easing. Similar approaches are happening today; in order to battle the deflationary beast, we inflate the supply.
And here we go again with a complete fantasy solution.. BLAH BLAH BLAH.... Spend a little time trying to explain exactly how this "Energy units" would work and a bit less time hand waving and bashing several thousand years of monetary history and I think you'll discover why gold is money and why some new form of fiat currency (yes that's exactly what your Energy Units are) will not function over the long run. Perhaps you should go back and watch the Crash Course on "What is money".I am suspecting some emotions are getting to you. There is no need for anger during these exploratory discussions, we are merely learning about ourselves and our world. The main cause of reactionary statements is having an attachement to beliefs, which may in part support your lifestyle. I imagine you own gold, so the phrase "why gold is money" shows some highly attached cognition regarding a finite metal. Fiat currency is based on debt and government decree. Gold money still reserves fractional banking practices, along with debt creation as means to facilate access to resources. The only thing seperating the two is an attachement to a defined weight of gold. Yes this gold helps maintain growth, for its finite applicability, but no where has a gold based currency ever been able to eliminate its problems. A currency based on energy accounting would be similar to gold, in that its denomination is based around a set amount of a finite resource. Its main benefits are in how it comes into existence. A gold based currency still requires debt creation, which inherently leads to the deflationary collapses that occur so often within monetary systems. An energy based currency, allows it to be created through means of extracting a valuable resource, one that everyone can use in every aspect of their lives (unlike gold, if I want to exchange my paper note for a gold oz. I cant really do anything physically life saving with it). This eliminates centralized control over monetary access, as every community can produce it, and it based on a universally understood concept like a Watt, it can be globally exchanged without the mess of differing currencies.
You do understand that that statement contradicts itself? Perhaps you don't and that is the problem!More emotionally charged posts, eh? No bien voto. Inflation requires that the monetary supply, in relation to RESOURCES, is in excess, so that its value becomes less. If a money supply is growing in tangant with the resource it is based on, then the inflationary affects on that monetary note are neglible, if even existent at all. The reason for this is no matter how many 'Watts' are floating around in the economy, their life giving function still exists. Banks would be replaced with reserve stations, similar to batteries, and whenever the need to apply a Watt, or Amp, or Ohm, or whatever energy unit it is based on, an individual can use those energy units for creating a good, or transportation, etc.
[quote=tictac1]
I run a small business (not my main source of income). I also run a charity. Most of my friends and family have small businesses. Couple of things-
1. You do not have to borrow money to start/run a business. That is a CHOICE, and not neccesarily a good one. The ONE person I know that used borrowed money to start his business is still having problems with the partners he took on.
2. You can run a business profitably without expansion. It is a concious decision, usually made to keep the business true to its quality standards or keep it in the family.
If you are living comfortably, there is no reason to "grow" your small business IF you have been intelligent in your use of debt, i.e. don’t take any on, or pay it off immediately. Yes, your prices will have to rise with cost-of-living, fuel costs, etc. but that is mostly due to an inflationary money system, which is unneccesary to begin with. [/quote]
- I as well, run a small business (my main source of income) and I took no loans for start up costs, etc.
- This is true if your business, and its product, has no competition. Once competition gets involved, the decision ‘not to grow’ becomes a business ending move, as more competitive entities will either buy you out, or reduce your consumer base. Take all the fast food chains for example, most were once a small business, now most are owned by ConAgra. For me, I have to continually seek means of expansion, or I am likely to be outbidded and snuffed out. I am not doing so for profit sake, but merely to survive.
- My biggest point with the necessity for growth does not rely on small business, but in the well being of the populous, as growth in GDP is our only means of creating access to resources. Regardless of gold or fiat currency, growth is the only way to facilitate money flow and job growth. Without growth in GDP, we have contraction, which in monetary terms equates to less people having less stuff, which usually equates to more crime, poverty, and stratification.
Especially interesting is that human labor is extremely inefficient when compared to mechanization, as automation produces more goods at faster rates with less waste and less energy consumption. So it makes sense that we should eliminate more of our jobs with automation, but with that, we need a new means of resource access. I believe once this has occured on a major scale we will have achieved a stable, steady state economy that doesn’t depend on consumption, growth, competition, or jobs to foster a healthy lifestyle for its populous.
I was reading the early comments on this thread a few days ago and saw Rector’s suggestion to begin by prosecuting the fraud. Looking back at 2008 and the financial crisis, prosecuting fraud should have been brought to the forefront. I don’t remember hearing anything about it. I was so dumbfounded that the bailouts occurred that I just watched as more and more money was shovelled into the gaping hole. I expected the forced breakup of the too-big-to-fail companies after the immediate crisis was resolved. It didn’t happen.
So why didn’t they (congress) prosecute the fraud? Are the members of congress so entwined with the money centers that they dare not anger their masters? Are the voters so easily manipulated by patriotic themes and a representative who "brings home the bacon" that it really didn’t matter what they do? Was it just an oversight? I don’t know.
I’ve been trying to place a convenient tagline on the Occupy movement to wrap my arms around. About the only descriptor that fits is "frustration." They’re frustrated that the jobs are gone, frustrated with the corruption, frustrated with a bleak future, etc. To fight the organized system, they created a movement with little organization, no head or tail, no spokesman or message, and no measure of victory. Perhaps they’ll spontaneously decide that they’ve had enough protesting and they’ll collectively leave. Perhaps winter will drive them out temporarily.
Until the sense of frustration has been resolved, this movement will likely continue.
Grover
[quote=Grover]
[Edited by Travlin]
I was reading the early comments on this thread a few days ago and saw Rector’s suggestion to begin by prosecuting the fraud
So why didn’t they (congress) prosecute the fraud? Are the members of congress so entwined with the money centers that they dare not anger their masters? YES
Are the voters so easily manipulated by patriotic themes and a representative who "brings home the bacon" that it really didn’t matter what they do? YES
Was it just an oversight? NO
[/quote]
Hi Grover
The credit for prosecute the fraud should actually go to Thc0655 in post 9, but with over 200 posts it is hard to keep them straight. 
I added my answers to your questions above. You are asking the right ones.
Travlin
I don’t know if someone else has posted this. But worth watching.
A protester at Occupy Wall Street talks Austrian economics, Peter Schiff, and Ron Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwpWhvmJfE
Link to video above: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwpWhvmJfE
Poet
I think it may be even scarier why their hasn’t been prosecutions. I think most of our congressman do not understand money, they believe what the Fed and BLS tell them. They don’t question them since they are the experts. I think many just think this was an accident that started out as a housing bubble. I mean you have the Fed and all the Keynesian economists telling everyone that this was not predictable. You have a congress that has grown up and served in an era that housing prices never fell, that the US has always been able to borrow without question, etc.
It’s really worrisome that I think most of our citizens, elected officials, corporate leaders, and their advisers just don’t have a clue. I think many of the people who we consider committing fraud don’t believe they did anything wrong - yes they made lots of money, but they were just doing what everyone else was doing. No one saw it as their place to question things, to dig a bit and figure out if what was going on was creating huge risks. We basically have a system that allows individuals at all levels to distribute risk to a larger group. Very few people have direct financial risk. That includes the majority of citizens who are "protected" by all kinds of government programs which creates apathy to risk. No need to worry, no need to be concerned, the government is looking out for me (FDIC, PBGC, SEC, FDA). So virtually no one cares until it’s too late…
I can personally say, until about 4 years ago, I was one of the apathetic. I lived my life, things were good, no worries. You see stupid crap being done by politicians but it really didn’t have much of an effect on everyday life. The debt was just some number that people talked about once in a while. I had never thought about money very much, even while working in the financial industry. I knew how it moved, I understood financial transactions but not the deep down understanding of what the dollar really was.
[quote=Travlin]Hi Grover
The credit for prosecute the fraud should actually go to Thc0655 in post 9, but with over 200 posts it is hard to keep them straight. I added my answers to your questions above. You are asking the right ones.
Travlin [/quote]
Thanks for correcting me. Thc0655 got the ball rolling, but several have jumped on the idea. That thought keeps bumping into my brain. Until there are open investigations and prosecutions, nothing will feel settled. That alone may not quench the protestors thirsts, but it is a necessary step.
Grover
[quote=heffe]And what happened after the last set of years you provided?
[/quote]
We were no longer on a gold standard and our currency had no relation to gold. We actually lost that in 1913 at the forming of the Fed. Then throughout the 1920’s the Fed injected way too much money into the system creating a giant bubble (the roaring 20’s). Until the bubble burst and faith was being lost in the dollar. Then in 1933, the US citizens lost the ability to own gold and covert the dollar but we kept lying to the world that the dollar was still as good as gold, until in 1971 we finally said "just kidding suckers".
Even from 1933-1971 gold fluctuated very little after the initial devaluing of the dollar after gold was confiscated from US citizens.
No emotion, I just think your postings are naive - particularly when you spout on about energy currency and economic theory…
You are missing the point, money is an intermediary used to value other assets. The fact that gold is not industrial, is durable, and the quantity does not radically change is why it makes good money. Energy that is consumed, has vastly fluctuating value, is not equal does not make good money. Seriously, you need to watch the Crash Course section on money again.
So I’ll play along a bit longer, answer these questions:
Who produces your energy certificates? What do they represent? What happens when the energy is used? How do you value human labor? Provide some examples of their use (step through a transaction - begining with creation of the certificate though someone using it for exchange). Be specific - no hand waving or jargon…