Author Topic: Any economists here?  (Read 591 times)

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Any economists here?
« on: February 04, 2022, 04:46:04 PM »
Yep, you're wrong, but this forum is famous for that right?

Anyhoo check my math here: with (historic) low interest rates plus stimuli plus plenty of storage space forces durable good prices up yes? That's a death spiral of price increases isn't it?

I mean there's plenty of free office space that can be converted to storage so this isn't at all like the Whip Inflation Now days I would...think...

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: Any economists here?
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2022, 05:04:50 PM »
Wait. SELL REAL ESTATE NOW!!! We've topped out. I can't see another alternative.

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: Any economists here?
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2022, 05:10:35 PM »
speculative money: buy out-of-money BRG puts (like 5 cents ones) every month or quarter
« Last Edit: February 04, 2022, 05:13:53 PM by Ephrem Moseley »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Any economists here?
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2022, 02:49:28 PM »
Let's examine the basis for the Democrat power, after all, it is derived from economic malfeasance.

Quote from: [i]The Intellectual Origins Of America-Bashing[/i] Lee Harris
url=http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3458371.html

Marx and Engels were supreme pragmatists who did not believe Communism would succeed because of its inherent strengths and unstoppable inevitability. They argued it would only come about if Immiserization occurred:

• The capitalists would begin to suffer from a falling rate of profit.
• The workers would therefore be “immiserized”; they would become poorer as the capitalists struggled to keep their own heads above water.
• The poverty of the workers would drive them to overthrow the capitalist system — their poverty, not their ideals.

The opposite happened and Immiserization was repudiated.

Then Paul Baran and Immanuel Wallerstein followed with a revision that can be called The Global Immiserization Thesis.

...instead of applying to the workers of the advanced capitalist countries, it now came to apply to the entire population of those countries that have not achieved advanced capitalism: It was the rest of the world that was being impoverished by capitalism, not the workers of the advanced countries.

This thesis is the the basis of America-bashing. America has gotten rich by making other countries poor: a combination of my enumerated points 2 and 3. This subjective argument was embraced by the Left because it denigrated the success of Free-enterprise by using the failure of other systems as victims, and not as losers in an international game of choice and free will.

This same argument has grown into the class-warfare political agenda of the Left. The rich can only become rich and maintain their wealth at the expense of the poor. However, history has indisputably shown that people become wealthy by providing services, which benefits all the people. People can always misuse the wealth they inherited - and often lose it all - but the accumulation of it originally is not heinous.

The attack of 9/11 on the WTC did not signal a revolution on the inequality of wealth. Instead - it strengthened the unity of the U.S. However, as always, the Left continues to whittle at any success of Free Enterprise. Global Warming and the highly successful War against Terror is denigrated daily to make success appear to be losing.

Quote from: 'Harris'
Cloward and Piven's article is focused on forcing the Democratic Party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of the United States Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They stated that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare "would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments" that would: "...deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas."[2]

(1) Cloward, Richard; Piven, Frances (May 2, 1966). "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty". (Originally published in The Nation). Archived from the original on November 24, 2011. Retrieved April 11, 2010.
(2) Cloward and Piven, p. 510
(3) Reisch, Michael; Janice Andrews (2001). The Road Not Taken. Brunner Routledge. pp. 144–146. ISBN 1-58391-025-5.

Quote
They further wrote:

The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.[2]

Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven "proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy."[3]

Yes, this is the basis of today's Democrat strategy. Overload the system and make the needy frantic. Blame the other party to make their own party look like the good guys, although it is their objective to make things worse. This is easily understood with the adage: "The ends justifies the means."

So there you have it. Most Democrats are useful idiots. They are mere cannon-fodder for those running their system, and believe their side is one of goodness and light. However; it was purposefully set up to fail, and in that failing give the Democrat intellectual leadership power and control over the country. Socialism does not work - but if they hide that fact, then their useful idiots who are untaught in this area may accept the disinformation. They can't denigrate Free-Enterprise, so they put up the Paul Baran and Immanuel Wallerstein The Global Immiserization Thesis. Third World Hell-holes run by elite dictators aren't unsuccessful because of their own efforts, but because other nations are successful. If the USA is successful, they must be blamed for other nations being unsuccessful.

Everything Biden touches is designed to hurt the success of the country. The worst thing for the Democrats was Trump making the nation successful.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Any economists here?
« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2022, 05:27:39 PM »
This is easily understood with the adage: "The ends justifies the means."

Along the lines of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition, that's Socialist Rule of Power Acquisition #1.

And then there are:

Socialist Rule of Power Acquisition #11 Never let a crisis go to waste.

and

Socialist Rule of Power Acquisition #12 Where there isn't a crisis, create one, or better yet, several.