11 Oct 06
Originally posted by AmauroteMy point is that the stock exchange, by itself, is not a reliable proxy of growth in the short term.
What I don't accept is your premise that the views of the stock exchange are of little significance in indicating growth or stability - in the kind of deeply unequal society we live in, the views of the people who are planning it are very significant indeed, and the views of those people are wholly opposed to it, which would be very curious if they were net ...[text shortened]... short-termist that they deliberately avoid short-term profit in favour of long-term stability.
That's very different than saying that it has little significance in indicating growth or stability. Obviously, it even has a direct impact in the economy so it would be foolish to claim they are uncorrelated.
The views of the people who are planning it are significant, but one must never forget that they are looking into their best interests. Spending sprees are, by definition, not sustainable and therefore lead to higher short-term peaks followed by lower lows when the budget constraints tighten on the following periods. These creates more possibilities of gain for those very same people advocating it. Coincidence? Maybe. I think it's a form of wishful thinking allied to the perception that everything is great because they're personally earning more money.
Those same corporations gain from these short-term imbalances, so in the long-term, they profit from more them. I'm not saying they don't look to the long term. The stability of the US's economy pretty much almost guarantees that these imbalances won't spiral out of control, so it just reflects in slightly lower long-term growth and into a strong (in my view prejudicial) redistributive effect.
11 Oct 06
Originally posted by PalynkaI agree with nearly everything you're saying, but I wouldn't necessarily equate the concept of a spending spree with the kind of spending we generally see in most advanced industrial countries - and I think it's much more sustainable (economically, though for the most part not morally or environmentally). I also don't disagree with your description of the stock market as an interest group - I just think that because their activity is so significant, their views are important, and as much as I dislike what passes for liberal capitalism, I think the technostructure these days (as opposed to thirty or forty years ago - although even then there were plenty of examples) is astute enough to prefer short-term losses to destablizing gains or rapid innovation, the classic example being the firms out there that patent inventions and then refuse to exploit them.
The views of the people who are planning it are significant, but one must never forget that they are looking into their best interests. Spending sprees are, by definition, not sustainable and therefore lead to higher short-term peaks followed by lower lows when the budget constraints tighten on the following periods. These creates more possibilities of gai ...[text shortened]... to the perception that everything is great because they're personally earning more money.
On the whole, I think consumer capitalism is absolutely sustainable, even when mired in debt, and the fear of savings no doubt emanates from the desire to plan and to avoid the fall in output that un-offset saving may cause. The real joke here, as you've implied, is that a fall in output may not matter all that much, because much of what we produce is so much unnecessary junk: at the moment there's a huge amount of interest here in the deregulation of the Post Office, which is going to quadruple its handling of junk mail and send landfill sky-rocketing up. The defence of this sector is that it creates jobs - which of course it does, but that begs the question of just how much human talent is being wasted in employment in this area?
11 Oct 06
Originally posted by AmauroteWe agree in almost everything, I was just adding a few commentaries on minor details on your argument, but when given a little more focus provide us some food for thought.
I agree with nearly everything you're saying, but I wouldn't necessarily equate the concept of a spending spree with the kind of spending we generally see in most advanced industrial countries - and I think it's much more sustainable (economically, though for the most part not morally or environmentally). I also don't disagree with your description of the s ...[text shortened]... egs the question of just how much human talent is being wasted in employment in this area?
I usually find that the most interesting debates are not necessarily those with strongly opposed views, but those where the disagreement lies in little details.
12 Oct 06
Originally posted by AmauroteWhy don't you realise what a sanctimonious humbug you are?
Why don't you misspell yourself a new handle? I suggest Krapov or Copablinca, they have a nice ring to them - if you did, I'm sure the board's collective respect for you would go through the roof.
14 Oct 06
Originally posted by AmauroteJust go on reading my posts and you will unltimately benefit, although I appreciate that it must be difficult for one in your confused state of mind to understand this at present. Have courage! Have faith!
I'd certainly become full of something, but emulating you isn't top of my To Do list at the moment.
14 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PhilodorI can't say that I "unltimately" gain much from your posts other than a sense of despair at the death of Eric Partridge.
Just go on reading my posts and you will unltimately benefit, although I appreciate that it must be difficult for one in your confused state of mind to understand this at present. Have courage! Have faith!
14 Oct 06
Originally posted by AmauroteYou have already shown an improvement since you have made several consecutive posts without calling me a 'racist'. Well done. Just persevere and you'll come out alright in the end.
I can't say that I "unltimately" gain much from your posts other than a sense of despair at the death of Eric Partridge.
14 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by AmauroteBut previously you were not ashamed to post that very charge on a regular basis, so at least you have now been able to see the futility doing so. Well done; you are comimg on as they say.
It only needed to be said once to establish the fact. Anything more would be tautology.
14 Oct 06
Originally posted by PhilodorIf by "regular basis" you mean once or twice, you need a better dictionary.
But previously you were not ashamed to post that very charge on a regular basis, so at least you have now been able to see the futility doing so. Well done; you are comimg on as they say.