Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Richest of rich at Davos ponder how to level the field
OK, just when you thought you could not become more indignant, you then read a headline like this.
How about as a start all of you Davos bound elite libertarian morons get your heads out of your asses and finally admit that our institution of government has absolute authority to credit the bank account of ANYONE and not just the accounts of your own sorry selves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Idiots. No wonder they're holding this thing in a concrete bunker.
"Avalanche protection" Mike ;)
In the bars they are probably all talking about how to best get thru all the inevitable sovereign defaults with Reinhardt and Rogoff.
When will be the next "black swan"
Is Roubini still bullish
Who will "buy them now" if the Fed ends the QE...
Are we still on a "sugar high"..
etc...
You would literally have to have a lobotomy first to be able to contribute there.
rsp,
The plutocrats are starting to get mildly worried. They are in the process of attempting to build a fake anti-inequality movement to co-opt dissension and buy off the rubes with crumbs and handouts.
Used to be bread and circuses.
Matt,
One of the issues that crop up when inequality (income AND wealth) goes to an extreme is that real assets get concentrated in the hands of a few. When that happens, monopolist and oligopolistic responses take over, and mere fiat currency operations cannot address the imbalances. This is when revolutions and revolts happen - clawing back of real productive assets.
Clonal,
I cannot see how there can be revolution. Militarization of law enforcement together with the vast resources of the military dwarf any historic comparison. The ability to easily subjugate millions is without question. Moreover, the political process has been completely hijacked by the oligarchs. There is literally nothing we can do, but become one of "them."
Dan,
The operative word is "mildly." They really have nothing to worry about. See my comment above.
And Obama nominates a Fed Vice-Chair who has written and believes in currency pegs and fixed exchange regimes. So sad, so sad.
Revolution comes through the co-option of the police and the military. Revolutions happen when the police and the military refuse to obey. Example in the US - See this article Utah is Ending Homelessness by Giving People Homes
Quote:
City council members in Columbia, South Carolina, concerned that the city was becoming a “magnet for homeless people,” passed an ordinance giving the homeless the option to either relocate or get arrested. The council later rescinded the ordinance, after backlash from police officers, city workers, and advocates.
Clonal,
The Utah story is amazing, I did not know this. Doubtful, however, that it will go national. Other than the S.C. example you gave, where cops said they wouldn't obey, most of the stories were about protest. Fine, protest, then get arrested and go to jail.
Really, the only clear answers to their headline question are:
a) lobotomy (yes, it does seem redundant, but apparently there's just enough left to be non-passive, & hence dangerous)
b) suicide
Yet the root issue here is Middle Class expression of fiat. As Gandhi said, the 1% can't subjugate the 99%, if the 99% simply refuse to cooperate.
ps: Letting the 1% "level" their own playing field? Don't be ridiculous.
Translation: "How may the 1% co-opt the fiat of the 99%, in a slightly less risky way?"
If the 1% are asking, it proves that the 99% don't need them. Any more questions for the Middle Class?
There are many reasons why such a thing can happen in Utah first despite it being a red state. It has a "small" population, very tight knit. It is almost "socialist" in many of its policies. Regular tithing (20%) to the Mormon Church is the norm.
In such a society, there is nowhere to "point the finger" - the finger always comes back pointed at you. It is very difficult to ignore the poor and suffering, because in a tight knit community, these people are known and close to you.
I don't think we are close to "revolt" and "revolution" - hopefully we will never be. I just hope that this phase of "personal acquisitiveness" passes and the people in power recover their sense of balance
"How about as a start all of you Davos bound elite libertarian morons get your heads out of your asses and finally admit that our institution of government has absolute authority to credit the bank account of ANYONE and not just the accounts of your own sorry selves."
Matt Franko - Can you provide a list of libertarians, elite or otherwise, attending Davos? Or, if providing a list of libertarians at Davos is too much to ask, can you point out just one libertarian showing up there?
I believe that Matt is using "authoritarian" and "libertarian" in the same way the Political Compass uses these terms. Authoritarians believe in varying degrees that optimal socio-political solutions involved government exerting authority, e.g., monetary and fiscal policy in econ, as well as regulation, while libertarians hold the opposite, again in varying degrees, that government should stand aside other than in providing security of person and property. There are two economic poles corresponding to these two polar political categories. Authoritarians of the left prefer something in the direction of communism at the extreme while authoritarians of the right prefer fascism at the extreme range. Libertarians of the left prefer anarchy-socialism at the extreme range and Libertarians of the right prefer anarchy-captialism at the extreme range.
I think that most at Davos are probably on the right clustered around the dividing line between authoritarian and libertarian. They consider themselves economic liberals but they need a strong authoritarian government to make the system work for them by privileging them and their institutions with a double standard. They don't admit to the later, however, and are therefore inauthentic and psychologically conflicted. Many of the are at least incipient sociopaths so ration categories don't hold consistently for them.
Sorry Tom but that sounds like a long winded bunch of gobbledygook. Besides, words have meaning and I think that Matt can speak for himself.
Our dear beloved Prime Minister, the reverend Tony Abbott, is in Davos, too.
Sucking up like crazy to the big puppet masters... uh... sorry, promoting Australian national interests!!!
Alright Rombach, Ill be a little more terse than Tom
Libertarian in Matts usage likely refers to the fact that libertarian is the fallback "A-poitical" term people use when they want to sound serious and non partisan. No body wants to admit to being a republican anymore just like liberal was a toxic term starting in the 80s. All the Davos folks are serious non partisan problem solvers....... in their view.
Ed,
If someone is believing that govt "has to get the money from the taxpayers" or govt "has to use precious metals as money" then that is enough for ME to include them in the out of control "libertarian" camp...
This form of 'libertarianism' is THE problem imo... I talk to people ALL THE TIME and I simply assert "the govt can just credit a bank account the govt does it all the time" and they retort: "the govt cant just DO THAT!"...
They have no view or knowledge of this authority and it is THE BIG problem in all of this imo...
It is imo the mark of true 'libertarianism' as it leaves the govt without authority of anywhere near sufficient measure: "we're out of money!"
You and many others here may fancy yourselves some form of "libertarian" but I will never identify any of you all that way... to me you are NOT libertarian if you are seeing this govt authority which I think you do...
Here is the wiki on 'libertarianism':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Key excerpt: " Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals",
This stuff is just bad news Ed, way out of bounds for anyone who advocates for modern civilization.
I'm also sure many of these people at Davos are caught up in this but dont even realize it.. or the harm it causes ie "they know not what they do" ie morons, ie zombies, etc whatever you want to call them...
rsp,
What I meant was that I understand Matt to mean by "libertarian" all those that oppose government authority, not just those typically considered Libertarians, e.g, the Mises-Rothbard crowd, the Ron Paul - Lwe Rockwell _Gary North people, the Robert Nozick folks, the Friedman contingent, and the Randites — other than when it is in their interests, such as protection of person and private property, and promoting "free markets, free trade, and free capital flows."
If this is not what Matt means, he can set me straight.
Greg,
"Libertarian in Matts usage likely refers to the fact that libertarian is the fallback "A-poitical" term people use when they want to sound serious and non partisan."
Right!
This is NOT the time for spinelessness with the socio-economic results we are seeing.
Its time for us all to stand and be counted imo...
And I STILL say there are less than 2,000 of us on the planet out of 7B humans now... who are REALLY given to see this authority... and Ed Rombach is one of us whether he is led to admit it or not imo...
rsp,
" Many of them are at least incipient sociopaths so rational categories don't hold consistently for them."
I wish I had written that.... ;)
And I STILL say there are less than 2,000 of us on the planet out of 7B humans now... who are REALLY given to see this authority... and Ed Rombach is one of us whether he is led to admit it or not imo..."
Why Thank You Matt! As I think you may know I am drawn to arbitraging the intellectual ignorance gap between MMT, libertarians, Supply Siders & yes... Marxists. I see it as not unlike the pursuit of some physicists who try to reconcile Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. That said, "2000 of us" will never get the job done, so best bet is to reach out to some of these other people you seem so intent on demonizing to see where there there is common ground on which to agree.
Ed,
imo there is no "common ground" on some things and this is one of them.... People are either believing govt possesses this authority or they are not.
We cant be saying something like "well govt has a small bit of this authority..." this is a yes or no issue imo... (cant be "a little bit pregnant") so it requires some confrontation to draw people out to help them figure out what side they are on... rsp,
WTF does that have that have to do with alleged libertarians attending Davos? Stop picking the lint out of your navel and start taking notice of what's going on around you. As an exercise in honing your communication skills, I challenge you to refrain from using the word "moron" for at least one month when you post on this blog.
Ed,
Jamie Dimon? Kenneth Rogoff?
To name just 2 who never miss a chance to denigrate govt authority.... that's just a start... they are all like this...
Cameron and Abbott? Never miss a chance to denigrate this authority... "less govt!" "cut spending!" etc...
Anyone who denigrates this authority of govt is a libertarian, what else can they be? Look at the wiki page on libertarianism in the comment above...
They lack the knowledge that our govt institution has this basic superior authority to use as needed... this makes them "morons" or "insipid ones" or "tasteless" people... ie lacking this ingredient.... they just dont have it, and often take actions that work against others who may otherwise come into this knowledge that we have... they have to be confronted.
rsp,
Hmmnnn.... David Cameron seems to pay lip service to some libertarian themes but I have my doubts. Tony Abbott is nominally conservative although I believe he has also flirted with Labor in the past. Not sure why he would be classified as a libertarian. I think most bonafide libertarians would laugh at your suggestion that Jamie Dimon is a libertarian. As for Rogoff, I really don't know enough about him to say what his ideological leanings are. I think you have a misconception of what a libertarian is and you are overly fixated on the government's ability to just credit a bank account as the be all and end all to all of the political and economic ills that plague our society.
Matt, I don't think I have ever come across anyone who so slavishly worships the welfare/warfare state as you do. My take on it is that people in the government aren't any more moral, or altruistic than anyone else, but they are a lot less accountable. When people screw up in the private sector they are usually shown the door. When was the last time you heard of something like that happening in the US federal government. Oh, wait a minute.... there was that senior IRS official, Lois Lerner, who was forced by Congress to resign last September.
I like Jefferson's notion that government is best that governs least. That said, I can't disagree with Warren Mosler when he says... "For the size government we have, we are grossly overtaxed."
The overwhelming majority of people want government ( in varying degrees, of course) and also want the ability to fully express their individuality (within limits for most). I've never met anyone who desires a totalist government or anything resembling that form. I have met a few who'd like absolute freedom (no government), but I consider them rare, and cranks to boot. The only substantive argument IMO is over just how much government is optimal to balance the part and the whole? If government monetary policy keystrokes (MMT) work to further the economic health of us all then by all means I say let's go for it. I don't know why that has to necessarily mean we need a super-state bureaucratic, individual loathing, monolith to implement said policy. In light of those so called concerns in Davos, redistribution of existing wealth also could be a policy agenda without emasculating the individualism valued by the libertarian. It's not that complicated.
For economic justice maybe we need an all encompassing master plan going forward, and the only way to bring it about is through a concentrated central government apparatus? Then again maybe such a vision doesn't comport with any meaningful consensus, and thus has no real viability absent the popular will, which is where I think we're headed. In other words our balkanized electorate will never get together on a grand plan to grow and empower even more government going forward, and it will likely be trial and error, in the moment acts, or crisis catalyzed action moving us forward. At any rate, no matter where the individual in relation to the collective (say big govt vs small) is headed there is no reason we need 85 people controlling roughly 50% of the world's wealth. The 99.9% can still be richer at the expense of these power brokers, and still maintain the anti Big Brother freedoms many of them (the 99%) cherish. Redistribution within limits (no income tax for anything under $250 k a year for starters, and 90% rate after that) and individualism are not mutually exclusive. In our modern technological world nothing is more freeing to the individual than a fat bank account, even if it's in part built on transfer payments from the haves to the have-nots. Just ask the fat cats over in Davos how their rigged wealth accumulation has freed them. Let's make obscene wealth accumulation anathema once and for all. This is only a start. Once the playing field is leveled we can move on from there to other pressing matters.
The challenge of social, political and economic liberalism lies in reconciling the trifecta of liberty, egality, and solidarity aka community (liberté, égalité, fraternité). Hasn't been done yet, and neoliberalism is going in the wrong direction by emphasizing a false sense of liberty at the expense of equality and community.
How to this optimally, i.e., to get there from here, is an open question in different societies, as well as the emerging global society of humanity as a whole. Unfortunately, conventional economics subverts this project, as do conventional institutional arrangements in most parts of the world.
Define "liberty"
"The liberty of the individual is no gift of civilization. It was greatest before there was any civilization." ~ Sigmund Freud
Why so much confusion on the topic of social species?
A social species "domesticates" itself.
Every individual willingly trades SOME personal degrees of freedom, for access to SOME group degrees of freedom.
Evolution suggests the trade balance is permanently weighted in one direction.
For every limitation, there is a solution, and that solution involves yet another level of indirection. And added, coordinated diversity supplies that indirection.
There's always room to coordinate on a larger scale. The only known way to counteract entropy is to constantly increase NET organizational methods. NOT JUST LOCAL ONES (that's looting, not countering net entropy).
Post a Comment