aab714de   
   XPost: alt.anarchism, alt.politics.socialism, alt.society.anarchy   
   XPost: soc.rights.human   
   From: nihil@none.com   
      
   On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:25:37 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Apr 13, 3:10 pm, Joseph K.  wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:13:33 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous   
   >>   
   >>  wrote:   
   >> >On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:10:12 +0200, ni...@none.com wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >>The idea has some merit. If you are sick you go to the physician. If   
   >> >>your car is broken you go to the mechanic. If you want to increase the   
   >> >>wealth of a population then transfer wealth to those with a proven   
   >> >>record of wealth creation.   
   >>   
   >> >It's not about increasing the wealth of the population. It's about   
   >> >distributing wealth. The top few percent already own over 90% of the   
   >> >county's wealth and I can't see how giving them more is helpful to anyone   
   >> >but themselves.   
   >>   
   >> I know that.   
   >>   
   >> The point is that your pious leaders and many well-intentioned   
   >> followers rationalize the transfer of wealth they have engineered over   
   >> the years and across resounding failures to the super wealthy by   
   >> recourse to the central tenet, and outspoken dissidents like Chomsky   
   >> should re-direct their argument to attack that central tenet,   
   >> especially now with so much evidence proving its falsity, i.e. the   
   >> super wealthy are actually incompetent in creating wealth that spills   
   >> over to the rest of the population. They have actually _lost_ most of   
   >> that wealth in stupidly risky investments concealed in charlatan   
   >> finantial technicisms.   
   >>   
   >> A digression: the bail out process reminds me of the motto of marxist   
   >> revolutionaries when faced with the obvious failures of the systems   
   >> they set up: 'To solve the problems of the revolution, more   
   >> revolution!'   
   >   
   >I think it's probably a mistake to confuse the possession   
   >and use of money with wealth.  It is true the very rich have a   
   >lot of nominal money, but the money they have is largely the   
   >product of credit inflation, so it is hard to say what they   
   >actually possess.   
   >   
   >They certainly appear to be incompetent, but we may be   
   >looking at things the wrong way.  They are kleptocrats; if   
   >they are smart thieves, they've got a stash hidden away   
   >somewhere where they can go after things turn really   
   >sour in the U.S.   
      
   I'm sure they have built a personal safety net, but it still more   
   useful to stress the fact that they lost so much of the funny money   
   (as you call it) the big guys in gov't engineered towards them. That   
   way it is clear that both groups failed, and that they insist in the   
   application of their failed ideology.   
      
   Things are going to turn very sour after the next election in 2012.   
   There will be really big cuts in gov't spending. At the same time, the   
   families in the nine lower deciles will continue contracting. So who   
   will push the economy into solid recovery? Corporations are making   
   spectacular profits nowadays, but most of it is in the financial   
   sector. The USA is facing stagnation Japanese-style (and that may not   
   be a completely bad thing, to get used to much lower levels of   
   spending and debt).   
      
   Another interesting development in the brave new neoliberal world is   
   the potential real estate buble explosion in China. More than 60   
   million unsold apartments, a good fraction of them in the market for   
   years now. Complete ghost cities with empty apartment complexes and   
   gargantual malls without shoppers. What will be the consequences of   
   that for the USA given that a large part of USA debt is held by   
   chinese banks and corporations?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)