View Full Version : The Venus Project
Brilliance
04-04-2009, 09:18 PM
What are your thoughts on it.. If you are unfamiliar... Three documentaries are at this link.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
1. Zeitgeist Movie
2. Zeitgeist Addendum (Most important I believe)
3. Zeitgeist Movement
I think this project is quite an interesting thing to think about.. I just watched them, so I need a little more time to analyze and research before I give my direct opinion..
Thoughts?
Pandemonium
04-05-2009, 02:56 AM
I am part of the Zeitgeist movement.
They were very interesting movies. Nothing was displayed than I already knew. The ethos of the movement are similar to my own goals, so I decided to join.
Brilliance
04-05-2009, 10:32 AM
Pandemonium, I see. I think that there is a lot on the issue that many people don't know. I may look into joining the movement in the near future aswell.
What are your thoughts on it.. If you are unfamiliar... Three documentaries are at this link.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
1. Zeitgeist Movie
2. Zeitgeist Addendum (Most important I believe)
3. Zeitgeist Movement
I think this project is quite an interesting thing to think about.. I just watched them, so I need a little more time to analyze and research before I give my direct opinion..
Thoughts?
I have watched the movies a while back. Their ethos are consistent with mine.
The rest of the world is not there yet.
Pandemonium
04-05-2009, 03:30 PM
Pandemonium, I see. I think that there is a lot on the issue that many people don't know. I may look into joining the movement in the near future aswell.
They have a ventrilo sever you can jump onto, to deduce whether or not they are a bunch of people over the rainbow.
They have a ventrilo sever you can jump onto, to deduce whether or not they are a bunch of people over the rainbow.
After a quick google browse on 'ventrilo server' I fail to get the connection. Could you explain ?
Ugh. I don't want to waste two hours watching the propa^Wdocumentaries. Is there a Cliffs Notes version? I tried reading the .pdf available on the web page. The guy is using a funky font that doesn't render well on my computer. (The .pdf renders worse than how MS Word renders text in fully justified mode. It's a pet peeve of mine.) If he can't make a skimmable .pdf, I'm not going to waste time skimming enough of it to decide to actually read it.
Anyway, my guess is that the Cliffs Notes version is spouting some utopian bullshit that we can make a better society with better people. (Hopefully he doesn't say better people, because I don't like genocide or its more tactful name of eugenics.) Great. We've tried this kind of thing before. It always leads to an authoritarian state. Or even best, it fails and there's little collateral damage when it does.
Brilliance
04-05-2009, 05:22 PM
phej, It's more of a revolutionary idea to abolish the monetary system. I do not know about the .pdf unfortunately, perhaps you should just watch the documentary. ;P
phej, It's more of a revolutionary idea to abolish the monetary system. I do not know about the .pdf unfortunately, perhaps you should just watch the documentary. ;P
And replace it with what? Go back to bartering? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Marxism)? Again, been there, done that.
What is this revolutionary idea?
For example, I've pondered replacing price with energy cost to production (Joules), but when I thought it through it's the same as using dollars. My counterexample to this is the R&D costs to any pharmacological substance. It usually costs hundreds of millions of dollars to get to the first pill on the manufacturing floor (even if the marginal cost of the pill is pennies, you have to pay for understanding a biological system, for designing a chemical and/or delivery system, for understanding its safety, for developing factory lines). How do you include the fixed costs in the energy cost of something? You use the same pricing techniques as you do with dollars: you forecast demand and set a price to recover your fixed costs in a reasonable time.
You really can't abolish the monetary system. We humans will eventually use something to represent wealth so that we can specialize. Also, we humans will never agree to the same price of any given product. Collectively, our preferences just vary too much.
@ phej
George Mobus (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. sever) does a pretty good job laying it out. He calls it Biophysical Economics. Scroll down a bit, cause George has done a bit more than 'ponder'.
Edit:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Er. That link doesn't work. I stripped off enough of the URL to get somewhere, but is there a direct link to an abstract?
Er. That link doesn't work. I stripped off enough of the URL to get somewhere, but is there a direct link to an abstract?
You want an abstract for something that is arguably a paradigm shift ?
As a Texas resident you ought to be cognizant that you are knee deep in alligators of the present paradigm.
I'm guessing you haven't got the swamp drained yet, so you don't see them 'gators ??
You want an abstract for something that is arguably a paradigm shift ?
As a Texas resident you ought to be cognizant that you are knee deep in alligators of the present paradigm.
I'm guessing you haven't got the swamp drained yet, so you don't see them 'gators ??
Yes, I would like an abstract. Yes, I would like the for-dummies version. If it is indeed interesting, then I'll read something more heavy about it. I do not goodthink what you mean by the current paradigm.
But placing it on a pedestal and hinting at how great the paradigm shift is only encourages me to deconstruct it.
phej added to this post, 2 minutes and 35 seconds later...
Oh. Dear. Someone beat me to it:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
@ phej
goodthink ? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Is English your native language ?
Re: Zeitgeist - is literal all you can do ?
Re: Paradigm shift and biophysical economics has (almost) nothing to do with the OP. It was a direct response to
For example, I've pondered replacing price with energy cost to production (Joules), but when I thought it through it's the same as using dollars.
PunkinA
04-05-2009, 08:25 PM
What, two hours for that.
The movies talk about central banking enslaving me. This movie took two hours to give back half an hour of information. Thirteen minutes to get to part one? The message was lost on pathetic editing.
Revise and resubmit.
Oops. I responded to the wrong thing. I thought it was about the OP. I've thought about using energy as a replacement for dollars, but it still acts the same. But, there is a weird relationship with energy and its availability. Our reserves get bigger and bigger as we find more of the stuff in the earth. I don't know if I buy that we are going for more and more marginal energy reserves. It may seem like that we are going for marginal energy reserves, but old fashioned greed is pushing the development of the technology. (Yes, you can no longer poke a hole in the ground and have oil squirt out. Nowadays, you need to force steam or you need to drill horizontally and vertically in the same well.) When the price of crude oil gets to high, we'll switch to some other energy source (like fission, fusion, wind, solar, oil shale, or something else.)
@ phej
goodthink ? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Is English your native language ?
Re: Zeitgeist - is literal all you can do ?
Re: Paradigm shift and biophysical economics has (almost) nothing to do with the OP. It was a direct response to
Oops. I responded to the wrong thing. I thought it was about the OP. I've thought about using energy as a replacement for dollars, but it still acts the same. But, there is a weird relationship with energy and its availability. Our reserves get bigger and bigger as we find more of the stuff in the earth. I don't know if I buy that we are going for more and more marginal energy reserves. It may seem like that we are going for marginal energy reserves, but old fashioned greed is pushing the development of the technology. (Yes, you can no longer poke a hole in the ground and have oil squirt out. Nowadays, you need to force steam or you need to drill horizontally and vertically in the same well.) When the price of crude oil gets to high, we'll switch to some other energy source (like fission, fusion, wind, solar, oil shale, or something else.)
ERRRR, Do you even know how reserves are defined ? how they are calculated ? The difference in calc's between IOC'a and NOC's ?
Because the flaws you made in the post are numerous and your 'something else' is mere hand waving
Ever heard of the Hubbert Curve ?
RBM added to this post, 9 minutes and 21 seconds later...
What, two hours for that.
The movies talk about central banking enslaving me. This movie took two hours to give back half an hour of information. Thirteen minutes to get to part one? The message was lost on pathetic editing.
Revise and resubmit.
Given your avatar, maybe the animated 'Money as Debt' would elicit less whine.
Yes, I am just handwaving. (I haven't been following the energy industry) Yes, I'm aware that reserves are just estimates. (From what I understand, using Hubbert's curve in estimating reserves makes assumptions about recovery technologies being fixed)
PeterIMC
04-05-2009, 11:31 PM
After an hour of watching this left wing crap I couldn't take it anymore.
They are describing what is happening, but present it in a way as if it is all planned and executed accordingly. Here's my opinion: IT ISN'T!
They are suggesting that value should be created before money is created. That on it self is not a strange idea, but it has the very negative side affect that it goes really slow. With loans it becomes possible to invest so that faster growth can be made which then can be used to pay back the loan. However, the growth also results in the creation of more value so that can be used to loan more money and continue growth.
Without loans, growth is almost impossible.
The idea that the world is better of without loans is rediculous.
What's even worse is that they actually think that the USA is in charge of this whole process. What a rediculous idea. As if the European union has no power. As if Asia has no power, etc.
They are also representing the numbers on poverty wrongly. Percentage wise poverty in the world has reduced. But because of the growth of the global population, the absolute numbers have increased which are the numbers they are using.
I think it's funny how they are scared of the way it has always been.
People are still slaves, only now they have to feed and house them selves instead of their masters doing that for them??? Because of their economic needs they are forced to work???? What kind of a nonsense is that? As if they wouldn't have to work if money and economic needs didn't exist. What do they want? That everybody fends for them selves in the plains, searching for food and most certainly not try to build a house because that would make them dependent of course.
Don't put yourself in the position that you actually believe that you have no freedom but are merely a slave of the financial system. You´re part of the financial system which is a good thing. Imagine not getting a loan, but also no inflation, and working your whole life in order to own a house which you can then appreciate for a couple of years before you die. Just get that loan, and allow a bit of inflation so that you can live in a nice house while you work and don't have to wait untill you´re about to die to buy it.
Pandemonium
04-06-2009, 03:09 AM
Here is a link to the movement and the second is the PDF.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
After an hour of watching this left wing crap I couldn't take it anymore.
They are describing what is happening, but present it in a way as if it is all planned and executed accordingly. Here's my opinion: IT ISN'T!
They are suggesting that value should be created before money is created. That on it self is not a strange idea, but it has the very negative side affect that it goes really slow. With loans it becomes possible to invest so that faster growth can be made which then can be used to pay back the loan. However, the growth also results in the creation of more value so that can be used to loan more money and continue growth.
Without loans, growth is almost impossible.
The idea that the world is better of without loans is rediculous.
What's even worse is that they actually think that the USA is in charge of this whole process. What a rediculous idea. As if the European union has no power. As if Asia has no power, etc.
They are also representing the numbers on poverty wrongly. Percentage wise poverty in the world has reduced. But because of the growth of the global population, the absolute numbers have increased which are the numbers they are using.
I think it's funny how they are scared of the way it has always been.
People are still slaves, only now they have to feed and house them selves instead of their masters doing that for them??? Because of their economic needs they are forced to work???? What kind of a nonsense is that? As if they wouldn't have to work if money and economic needs didn't exist. What do they want? That everybody fends for them selves in the plains, searching for food and most certainly not try to build a house because that would make them dependent of course.
Don't put yourself in the position that you actually believe that you have no freedom but are merely a slave of the financial system. You´re part of the financial system which is a good thing. Imagine not getting a loan, but also no inflation, and working your whole life in order to own a house which you can then appreciate for a couple of years before you die. Just get that loan, and allow a bit of inflation so that you can live in a nice house while you work and don't have to wait untill you´re about to die to buy it.
Read the PDF.
eternaltriangle
04-06-2009, 05:03 AM
I am looking through the .pdf right now...
Glaring inaccuracies:
1. Claim that Austrian economics is influential (either among policy-makers or academics). As Maxpot (an Austrian) will tell you, Austrians are NOT even close to being mainstream. So Naomi Klein tactic #1: equate moderate "capitalism" with extreme laissez-faire policies... check.
2. Focus on the labour theory of value (though they call it the theory of value) with some bad economic history. A labour theory of value is not at the core of monetary economics. It is a largely obsolete notion that used to be the cornerstone of 19th century (pre-Marshallian) economic theory. Ironically Marx used it to lend his theories greater credibility (ironic because Marxian methodology is closer to that of 19th century laissez-faire guys like Ricardo).
The mainstream theory of value, of course, is NOT a labour theory of value. It is that the price of an object is driven by the UTILITY of the object and the scarcity of the object. Labour is only important as part of the price mechanism.
The conclusion of their obsolete theory of value is that increasing mechanization (Marx called this the organic composition of capital - YOU DO REALIZE THIS IS CLEARLY WRITTEN BY SOMEBODY WHO IS JUST REHASHING DAS KAPITAL) will replace labour. Except that the expansion of mechanization over 150 years has driven a 15-fold INCREASE in per capita income, and no shortage of employment (in fact there is less underemployment as inefficient agricultural producers have moved to other lines of work). Just because people don't work in factories doesn't mean that our innovative economy can't find other things for humans to do (eg. invent better robots).
2. Their next chapter is about cyclical consumption. They essentially argue that the need to keep consumption going means that there exists planned obsolescence -each good must break down in some period of time, and this is wasteful. Well, a few points. Firstly, the basic logical fallacy employed here is to treat all producers as a common entity. They are not - if my products are shoddy, I will either have to charge less for them or I will not sell very many in a competitive market.
Moreover the old adage that "they don't make 'em like they used to" is often wrong. The average lifespan of an automobile just about doubled in the 1990's with a switch to more durable car frames. Most of the planes we fly in were constructed in the 1980's. And indeed, some of the reason consumers replace products is that technological improvement is producing genuinely better products. Has there really been no essential change in say the speed of computers, or picture quality of televisions over the past 15 years?
This also assumes that consumers are stupid and will buy things that they do not need or want. To some degree consumers are not always the brightest, but there are definitive places where many consumers have said "enough already!". For instance look at the failure of blue ray to penetrate a large enough market share to replace DVD's.
They have another argument though, in suggesting that cyclical consumption induces inefficiency and waste because more efficient products are withheld. This is ridiculous given that more efficient products yield a higher profit margin and can help a company blow its competition out of the water. Secondly, it is not consistent with empirical evidence. Our supposedly choking, stagnant capitalism exhibits some of the highest productivity growth known to man.
3. Next they argue that because it is profitable for resources to be scarce, it makes sense for capitalism to induce scarcity...
A few points. Does Coca-Cola (which owns Dasani) actually have the power to pollute drinking water (which is actually perfectly safe) sufficiently so as to drive demand for bottled water? Again, this asinine argument is driven by the idea that "capital" is a single solitary class, and not a group of separate agents. In this case we are talking about a leap across different industries.
Moreover, they have the problem entirely backwards. The problem is that public goods (like water or air) cannot easily be converted into private property, and so tend to be over-exploited, unless regulated or taxed. Most economists and policymakers accept that argument, which is why there are quotas for fishing, why there is an emissions trading market in sulphur-dioxide and why many countries have carbon taxes. Do we have the right policies? Not necessarily. But you guys have got to realize you are being hoodwinked big-time with a straw man argument (clearly the writer of the pdf has no actual economics background).
4. On profit they again use Marx's same argument that all profit is exploitation. This goes back to their notion that only labour creates value, therefore labour should get the lion's share of the proceeds of production. Their argument is not really
This argument is ridiculous on a number of levels. Firstly, how successful would labour be without capital? Secondly, they don't answer the question of where profit goes, because the answer is not nearly as malign as they would like to believe. Profits go towards higher wages as unions demand raises, towards plant expansion and R&D (which creates more jobs and lowers prices), and towards dividends, which brings in more investment capital which can be used for more research and more plant expansion. *Cue sinister organ music, theremins* OH NO! Higher productivity? More jobs? Capitalism strikes again!
Of course they have the wussy old argument that the profit motive perverts true artisanship and means that profit motives come before human concerns. Well here's the rub. Corporations get taxed, and we use that tax revenue to do all the save the whales crap that corporations won't do because they (rightly) are concerned with profits. What the nutjobs who wrote that pdf propose is that you get corporations to save the whales. *Cue Donald Trump photo op with baby seal*
5. Wow, they redefine crime to include outsourcing (which is not only a tiny fraction of labour, it typically involves jobs Americans won't do, and pays foreigners above market wages - otherwise why would they do those jobs). How deep. They add some other things like collusion that are already illegal (why do we need this paradigm shift again?) and the true horror of some-what empty cereal boxes (all cereal boxes tell you how many grams of cereal are inside and are required to by law).
Then there is government crime... Like the Nazis! They then ignore the Nazi argument (they are clearly throwing this out there without defending it so that you will make the connection subconsciously) but describe how evil governments are in the pockets of politicians. Campaign contributions (this is a very American-centric argument, for one thing - many countries have strict regulations on campaign contributions, or have political institutions that limit their importance) drive collusion between government and business. What do they collude to do? Make wars (this is actually a rip off of Lenin's imperialism argument - so these guys aren't JUST reading Marx).
Now here is the problem with that idiotic argument. War is terrible for the economy and terrible for most rich people that don't own defence firms. War disrupts international trade, production and commerce. War creates labour shortages (and higher wages at home). War sometimes means rationing, which limits production runs. War requires inflationary government spending, which is bad if you are rich. It means that spending then has to be ratcheted down (or taxes ratcheted up - and guess who pays 80% of taxes... the richest 10%) after the war, which tends to cause a postwar recession (WWII is by far an exception). If you aren't in one of the industries that profits from the war, you are in one of the industries that pays for the bloody war.
Look at the evidence - the rising costs of war-making sapped the strength of the economies of 17th century Spain, 17th century Holland, France in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, Britain in the late 19th century, and America today. War is bad for business.
War is not about resource acquisition either. Resource wealth is no longer the basis of economic success in the modern economy. You are successful by being the most innovative. How else could Japan become a leading power?
7. Then comes their big distortion chapter that they built up to throughout the screed. Advertising... distorts values. Religion, patriotism... distort values. Make us spend too much. They use fashion as an example of that as well - brand names are more costly although they have no extra "utility".
Well only if you believe the sole utility from a bag stems from its ability to hold things. Obviously it is also a social symbol, and yes, that is reinforced by advertising. It creates ostracism too.
Here is the problem with that basic argument. Firstly, yes westerners overspend - and they are starting to feel the crunch for that right now. People need to live within their means, and are being forced to by this recession. Secondly, cultures do not create social symbols - they run far deeper than that. If you made being non-materialistic a status symbol people would compete in giving away their material goods.
Moreover, even without material inequality, there will be some with less and some with more. If I am short, and another man tall, guess who is going to be more respected, and romantically successful? A world of crass commercialism, however, gives the short man a shot to beat the tall man by working harder and being more successful. Maybe its a long shot, but its a hell of a lot better than the hand genetics dealt him. Our problem is that we compare the inequalities and imperfections of capitalism to an imagined utopia of perfect equality. A much fairer comparison would be to compare capitalism to the drudgery of our mutual slavery as peasants, or the absolute horrors of Communism in practice.
8. I could go on, but this has really not convinced me it is any different from the same old argument I would have gotten at the Paris Commune. It is not an intellectually honest piece of work whatsover. It does not address mainstream economic theory, but rather constructs a parody of it. It is a factually bereft novel, not an empirically rooted case for much of anything.
History is on our side, we already buried you.
Valiyn
04-06-2009, 05:04 AM
I wasn't the most impressed with it.
I agree that going to something reminiscent to a hunter-gatherer society would be a good thing.
But some of it was just bullshit, like their plans for the future society. Their lack of stability plans for this society also sent up a large warning flag in my mind. It's too unrealistic. They make the claim technology has allowed us to do this but it hasn't. We have had an interesting form of society before hand, one I very much prefer: the hunter-gatherers. Those societies still have laws, something that's been present in all human societies. As much as I wish for it to be possible, it won't be happening to see a society without laws. Furthermore, money came about to act as a medium in trade. Got any large bricks on you? I'm looking for some large black bricks for my evil supervillainy lair but I can only have World Domination Kits to trade. Well the chance of me finding someone who 1) Has what I want and 2) Wants what I can part with is slim and gets slimmer as the quantity goes up. With money, I could sell a World Domination Kit to Sauron, Palpatine, and this short little guy named brain I recently met in a pub. Come to think of it, that last one kinda looked like a mouse....Anyway, I now have the money I want, so I can trade it for the bricks I need for my evil lair. We'll probably never see money disappear.
As for the majority of the ideas presented....I'm still undecided on it. Alot of area was covered in the videos and that means alot of research checking to be done.
Edit: Seeing as there suddenly is a new post where there wasn't after I hit reply, I want to quickly reinforce on of the less supported ideas in it.
"Here is the problem with that basic argument. Firstly, yes westerners overspend - and they are starting to feel the crunch for that right now. People need to live within their means, and are being forced to by this recession. Secondly, cultures do not create social symbols - they run far deeper than that. If you made being non-materialistic a status symbol people would compete in giving away their material goods."
This is true, and to verify the validity of this I'm going to point to the Renaissance. It started, because the rich and powerful wanted largely to atone for their sins. They did this through art, through great works of charity as well, but mostly art. Although, there is obviously still greed and the desire for more, they did compete through the art they patronized.
eternaltriangle
04-06-2009, 05:11 AM
Valiyn,
I sometimes hope that these dopes succeed in overthrowing the current power structure and creating their utopia. All it would take is a small group of well-organized people to take over and rule with an iron fist. I would want to be one of the people with the foresight to back such a winning horse.
Valiyn
04-06-2009, 05:35 AM
Valiyn,
I sometimes hope that these dopes succeed in overthrowing the current power structure and creating their utopia. All it would take is a small group of well-organized people to take over and rule with an iron fist. I would want to be one of the people with the foresight to back such a winning horse.
Yeap, I'm saving a world domination kit to sell to the future emperor.
eternaltriangle
04-06-2009, 05:43 AM
What, two hours for that.
The movies talk about central banking enslaving me. This movie took two hours to give back half an hour of information. Thirteen minutes to get to part one? The message was lost on pathetic editing.
Revise and resubmit.
1. Evil Marxist exploiters! Random interesting fact - at my alma mater the Marxist newspaper costs 50 cents or so a copy, while the objectivist one is free. Truly strange.
2. At least in the journals in my field, a revise and resubmit is fairly hard to get, and results in a publication most of the time. These ideas would not get a second look anywhere worth looking.
Yes, I am just handwaving. (I haven't been following the energy industry) Yes, I'm aware that reserves are just estimates. (From what I understand, using Hubbert's curve in estimating reserves makes assumptions about recovery technologies being fixed)
Handwavers generally don't admit to such.
TheHubbert (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) peak theory posits that for any given geographical area, from an individual oil-producing region to the planet as a whole, the rate of petroleum production tends to follow a bell-shaped curve.
Technologies change, e.g. see 3 D seismology.
RBM,
Yes, technologies change, but I don't think Hubbert's curve takes that into account. I think that Hubbert's curve from two decades ago isn't quite the same as Hubbert's curve of today. (Even if you exclude new fields to make a fair comparison.)
Of course I'm handwaving when it comes to energy. I've never studied energy policy or technology. I just find it offensive that I've heard that we will run out of oil in the next X years and then wait Y years, such that Y > X, but we haven't run out of oil; in fact, we have more. We moved the endpoint because of two things (1) better extraction technologies; and (2) new oil fields. i.e. The Chicken Little effect is most annoying.
maxpot46
04-06-2009, 12:02 PM
Glaring inaccuracies:
1. Claim that Austrian economics is influential (either among policy-makers or academics). As Maxpot (an Austrian) will tell you, Austrians are NOT even close to being mainstream.Yep, he's right, Austrian economics is a extreme minority view that is currently marginalized (if not demonized) by mainstream economists and politicians.
maxpot46 added to this post, 11 minutes and 21 seconds later...
I agree that going to something reminiscent to a hunter-gatherer society would be a good thing.What's stopping you?
Pandemonium
04-06-2009, 05:41 PM
I think that eternaltriangle's comments speak for them selves. No need for me to read it.
Is that the equivalent of putting your head in the sand?
I have read eternal triangle's comments but that is his own counter-arguments to the reasons or causes of why our current system is detrimental. Though, his comments are hardly an rebuttal but more or less an 'no der' mixed in with 'that is wrong because in this example'. Under Keynesian economics war is great at stimulating the economy and also in the political arena, it is great at increasing approval rating.
The movement is not aiming for an Utopia just a better system that does not revolve around the exploitation of the world's people. An alternative system put forward would be that an truly free-market will solve the world's issues. We all no truly free markets never occur due the never ending externalities in the market. Whether that may be government or monopolies/oligopolies or both working together.
Valiyn
04-06-2009, 07:09 PM
Under Keynesian economics war is great at stimulating the economy and also in the political arena, it is great at increasing approval rating.
:stunned:
Explain to me how that works and please cite your sources.
What's stopping you?
From going to join a hunter-gatherer society? Probably career. I'm just starting a lovely career I would do even if I didn't get paid beyond that was needed to survive. I'm content and happy because I essentially see my life as free time and get paid for it.
eternaltriangle
04-06-2009, 07:35 PM
Is that the equivalent of putting your head in the sand?
I have read eternal triangle's comments but that is his own counter-arguments to the reasons or causes of why our current system is detrimental. Though, his comments are hardly an rebuttal but more or less an 'no der' mixed in with 'that is wrong because in this example'. Under Keynesian economics war is great at stimulating the economy and also in the political arena, it is great at increasing approval rating.
The movement is not aiming for an Utopia just a better system that does not revolve around the exploitation of the world's people. An alternative system put forward would be that an truly free-market will solve the world's issues. We all no truly free markets never occur due the never ending externalities in the market. Whether that may be government or monopolies/oligopolies or both working together.
1. More people would read this if it offered something new. Most of us have already debated Communism vs. capitalism and made our choice. Zeitgeist takes an angle I have heard from many "we are proposing a truly FREE market" (huh, then why am I not free to consume what I want, or maximize profits - clearly the definition of freedom being employed is not freedom but some version of "justice" to which I do not subscribe).
2. I use a range of different arguments - sometimes I look at empirical examples, but other times I question the basic logic of the argument. For instance, the argument assumes that all capital, regardless of country or industry are in cahoots. Please, enlighten me if you have some evidence that capital
3. In practice, since this is not a utopian article, how do you make individuals do things they don't want to? Force. When you are talking about re-organizing the entire economy, you require a LOT of force, typically of a centralized sort. This obviously undermines the foundations of liberal democracy. What I see here is the same naive idea that we can remake culture anew (70 years of communism in Russia certainly didn't stifle greed - indeed if you look at the oligarchs, it only made it woese). Don't give me "but in Sweden social democracy prevails". Sweden still has a free market, and many of the things lambasted in the market. It taxes more than the US, but property is still owned by profit-maximizing companies like Ikea.
4. Firstly, I thought the article argued that we were dominated by Austrian economics. Anyhow, you clearly do not understand Keynesian economics with your "war is great argument." Broadly speaking, Keynes posited that governments should act counter-cyclically in order to smooth out the business cycle. In bad times, governments should prime the presses and spend more money - digging ditches if they needed to.
However, it is absolutely NOT the case that this is always good for the economy. If you do this during a boom, or when the economy is already at full employment, the additional spending will only cause inflation. More recent economists have found evidence that there is a NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment), below which inflation will accelerate, above which inflation will decelerate. Contemporary monetary policy does not seek to stimulate all the time (otherwise interest rates would always be zero). Nor would such a policy be good for the "power elite", since inflation reduces the value of saved up wealth (of which rich people have more than poor people).
World War II is the exception because the economy was most definitely below full employment, so America's entry into WWII moved in the same direction of the country's fiscal and monetary policy. Even if there is a temporary boom, there is also a postwar recession. That even happened after WWII.
The economy went from virtually no unemployment during the war to over 8% at the end of 1949.
After the Korean war ended the US economy went from 2.5% unemployment to over 6% unemployment.
During the American exit from Vietnam unemployment went from under 5% to as high as 9%.
If the point of Keynesian economics is to stabilize consumption patterns and moderate the business cycle, then it is hard to square this with the promotion of war. War requires very high spending, at junctures determined by geopolitics or crises that trigger conflicts, not by any economic calculus. This is not to mention as I did before that the economic costs of war are largely paid for by the rich, which should make us question the argument that they are in it for a profit.
5. If you actually believe there is a cabal, they have been INCREDIBLY unsuccessful despite the general interpretation of the last 30 years being their era.
Today, taxes as a proportion of GDP are at the same essential point that they were before Reagan came into office.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Have taxes gotten less progressive since 1979? Err... no. Actually they are more progressive.
Total effective tax rate poorest quintile, 1979: 8%
Share of taxes paid by poorest quintile, 2005: 4.3%
Total effective tax rate 81-90th percentile, 1979: 23.3%
Total effective tax rate 81-90th percentile, 2005: 20.3%
Total effective tax rate 91-95th percentile, 1979: 24.9%
Total effective tax rate 91-95th percentile, 2005: 22.4%
Total effective tax rate 96-99th percentile, 1979: 27.7%
Total effective tax rate 96-99th percentile, 2005: 25.7%
Total effective tax rate 99.5th-99.9th percentile, 1979: 35.8%
Total effective tax rate 99.5th-99.9th percentile, 2005: 31.2%
Total effective tax rate richest .01%, 1979: 42.9%
Share of taxes paid by richest .01%, 2005: 31.5%
So in 1979 the poorest paid 1 fifth the tax rate of the riches. Today they pay 1 seventh, and an increasingly small share of taxation too. Their effective income tax rate is -6.5%. The only taxes that have gone up and disproportionately harmed the poor are excise taxes and social insurance taxes, which are favoured by the left.
What about the distribution of government spending - do the rich reap a profit at everybody else's expense? Lets assume they reap all of the benefits of military spending (which is only 3% of GDP - that must be SOME 3%). How much do they get out of social security? Our of medicare? Medicaid? Welfare spending? Spending on public education? Clearly the benefits of government spending remained skewed towards the great mass of the populace.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
In other words, If I was a member of that sinister power elite, I would ask for my membership dues back.
Pandemonium
04-06-2009, 07:59 PM
*stares blankly at eternaltriangle*
Perhaps I should change war is great for stimulating the economy to war was great at stimulating the economy. Back in the old days when production lines were not fully automated/mechanised, they utilized labour capital. I never said anything about the economic conditions after war. In a down turn start a war. Stimulates the economy for the duration of the war. <---------back in ye-old days.
Most of your arguments are inconsequential or against an misinformed perception. It would seem that you are arguing against an different topic.
eternaltriangle
04-06-2009, 08:29 PM
Under Keynesian economics war is great at stimulating the economy and also in the political arena, it is great at increasing approval rating.
Actually that is incorrect as well. There is no consensus in the diversionary war literature - see the following articles for a range of perspectives (though the positive ones tend to involve formal models with no supporting empirical data, like the case for Tarar).
************************************************** *******************
Diversionary Theory and the Use of Military Force
Baker, W. (2004) “The Dog that Won’t Wag: Presidential Uses of Force and the Diversionary Theory of War”. Strategic Insights Vol 3. No. 5.
Foster, D. and Palmer, G. (2006) “Presidents, Public Opinion and Diversionary Behavior: The Role of Partisan Support Reconsidered.” Foreign Policy Analysis. 2: 269-87
Benjamin O. Fordham. (2005) “Strategic Conflict Avoidance and the Diversionary Use of Force.” The Journal of Politics 67:1 132-153
Hagan, Joe. (1994) “Domestic Political Systems and War Proneness.” Mershon International Studies Review 38:2 pp. 183-207
Foster, D. (2006) An “Invitation to Struggle”? The Use of Force Against “Legislatively Vulnerable” Presidents. International Studies Quarterly 50:2, 421-444
Tarar, A. (2006) “Diversionary Incentives & Bargaining Approach to War” International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 50 No. 1: 169-88
************************************************** ******************
The only consistent finding is that there is a "rally around the flag" effect WHEN WAR IS DECLARED (or during other crises - Eisenhower got a boost when he had a heart attack), but that public support for the president falls rapidly as time goes on - usually falling well below pre-crisis levels. It is reasonable to question why a president would start a war if the long-term result would be declining approval ratings.
Here are FDR's approval numbers (in blue). His approval was rising before the war as the economy recovered, and only took a downward turn after American entry - despite continuing success.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Here are Truman's. He got a small boost out of the beginning of the Korean war, but it is very small relative to the subsequent decline.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Here are Johnson's approval ratings, as American involvement in Vietnam progressively increased:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Here are Nixon's which declined continually till the run-up to the end of the Vietnam war.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Bush Sr. is one of my favourite examples of why war for popularity is a bad strategy. He hit 90% approval with the overwhelming American victory. With the end of the war, however, nobody cared and he lost badly in the subsequent election. That is hardly a ringing endorsement.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Here is Dubya. Compare the tiny war boost to the subsequent decline. Does that really sound like a politically beneficial tradeoff to you?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
What about some other cases? Woodrow Wilson couldn't run for re-election in 1920 (though his party lost that election in a landslide), but we can look at postwar congressional election results. Did the pro-war party gain or lose seats?
In 1916 before American entry in WWI the Dems had 230 seats. In 1918 they were knocked back to 192, and in 1920 they lost an incredibly 61 additional seats.
What about the relatively short and successful Spanish American war? Again we can't compare presidents because McKinley was shot in 1900. In 1896 before the war, the Republicans had 206 seats. In 1898 (after the victory) they lost 19 seats and were reduced to 187. Meanwhile the Democrats were able to unite with the populists and go from 124 to 161 seats.
What about the US Civil war? This one is hard to compare as well because 1860 was a multiparty election, while 1864 was a two-party election that excluded all of the southern states. Lets look at congressional elections. The Republicans held 108 seats in 1860. In 1862 they lose 22 seats, and were reduced to 86. They did make a strong comeback in 1864, when the war was going much better.
For Lincoln though, 1864 wasn't actually an improvement. Lincoln had earned essentially no votes in the southern states in 1860, so the fact that they couldn't vote did not cost him anything. He increased the number of people voting for him from 1.85 million to 2.2 million ~315,000. What about Lincoln's opponents? McLellan in 1864 won 1.8 million votes - impressive since Stephen Douglas, Lincoln's only opponent in most of the north had won only 1.4 million in 1860 (some of which was in the south, which obviously didn't vote in 1864). Of the 5 biggest states, Lincoln lost support in Pennsylvania and New York, but gained support in the smaller Massachusetts, Indiana and Ohio.
In the Mexican-American war the Whigs gained 37 seats in 1844 as the Democratic president Polk entered war with Mexico. The land gained from the war ultimately destroyed the Democratic party as well, by inducing instability in the balance between north and south.
In the war of 1812, the federalists made massive gains over their opposition to the war. In 1812 (after war was declared) they gained 37 seats, while the Democratic-Republicans gained only 7 (the size of congress was increasing).
In conclusion there is very little evidence that war is good for presidential approvals, and quite a lot of evidence that the opposite is true. The most supportive cases are in the 19th century where we have less and worse data.
eternaltriangle
04-06-2009, 09:29 PM
Perhaps I should change war is great for stimulating the economy to war was great at stimulating the economy. Back in the old days when production lines were not fully automated/mechanised, they utilized labour capital. I never said anything about the economic conditions after war. In a down turn start a war. Stimulates the economy for the duration of the war. <---------back in ye-old days.
1. Uh, the power elite still exists after the war. Why would they stimulate the economy only to see it fall after? Why would they want to spend lots of capital in re-tooling their factories for wartime production, then re-tooling back to peacetime? The critical question is whether the economy would do as well with war as without. The answer is clearly no.
2. Lets say you are correct and war used to stimulate the economy. Don't you think that the power elite or bourgeoisie or whatever would get the idea after 50 years of war NOT stimulating the economy?
3. Anyways, you are incorrect that war "used to be great for stimulating the economy". Why would the existence of labour capital change that? I am guessing you are saying because the government had more room to clamp down and induce forced savings out of people (building up the capital stock). Whatever - lets look at the UK economy 1830-1939 (source eh.net). I will do a simple ARIMA model of the bivariate relationship between war and economic growth.
dependent variable: real GDP per capita.
independent variable: war (0 if UK at war, 1 if not). Includes Crimea, Boer wars, Zulu war, Anglo-Egyptian war, Indian mutiny and WWI (I am using a casualty cutoff).
control: long-term interest rates and a time trend.
Result: war is a statistically insignificant predictor of GDP growth per capita.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Doing the same to predict inflation... War is a positive predictor of inflation (which rich people hate).
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
There is no evidence that war stimulated the economy in the UK before WWII (and much evidence of the opposite in the US after WWII).
PS: I am focusing on the US and UK because they were the leading power in those time periods, and thus had the greatest opportunity to launch wars.
Pandemonium
04-06-2009, 11:41 PM
Here that actual link to the Venus Project;
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.