Journal zogger's Journal: Wealth or income 49
Here is an article that goes into the difference between creating wealth, which you absolutely need in order to have a good economy, as opposed to the notion of creating an artificial income, or how I have been putting it, wealth re-arrangement, which dilutes the economy and will lead to eventual bankruptcy, if and when that wealth rearrangment becomes the primary area for "jobs".
Now, what is interesting to me about this particular piece, is that the author is coming from a US far left perspective, but he understands that you can't have any sort of safety net or advanced social programs type society without *first* creating enough wealth to be sustainable. He correctly identifies that wealth is grown, mined, and then combined in numerous ways by manufacturing..and that's it. The rest, although it might produce an income, is not wealth creation, and the wealth creation part must always be larger (or at very respectable percentage thereof) than the wealth dilution or rearrangment part of the economy, or you eventually fail. He groks what "no free lunch" really means, and that you can't pour six gallons of prosperity from the five gallons of produced wealth bucket.
Re: (Score:2)
> Well, realistically, 1st world wages have already been cut way back, and social benefits are
> going to see cuts as well. There's no way around it. The money just isn't there.
You're right. We can't afford much of anything, any more - not even infrastructure. We're all going to have to make sacrifices if the "investment class" is going to continue its "growing faster than the economy as a whole" trend. If the size of the pie is fixed, and one part is growing, then the rest is shrinking. There are
What is even worse (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that he overlooks that his five gallons of produced wealth bucket required eight gallons of natural resources to produce- so even the produced wealth he's labeling as income is often a mirage in the extreme long term.
That's the problem with economics as I see it- it pretends to defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics on a universal scale, when we all know that it can't.
Re: (Score:1)
But that's an arbitrary scale. You might define the chopping down of a tree and making a table as 5 units of wealth created but 8 units of resources consumed, and therefore a net loss. But for someone who thinks the earth is here for us to use, and thinks trying to assign numeric values to tapping its resources is meaningless, the comparison is invalid. Any more than someone who defines making a vase to be creating 5 units of wealth but 8 units of cosmic love feelings lost to the universe.
Re: (Score:1)
But for someone who thinks the earth is here for us to use, and thinks trying to assign numeric values to tapping its resources is meaningless,
Ok, then can you grok this scenario:
Natural resource A can be turned into product B. We need 2 units of B a year, but would enjoy 4.
We've got 10 units of A. Natural resource A magically replenishes itself at a rate of 30% each year (ultimately coming from some other resource). So how much of A should we turn into B?
You see how measuring units of consumed resources can be useful?
Re: (Score:1)
Well certainly we'd want to try to manage the burn rate -- that's obvious. (Altho we might disagree on whether the rate must always work out to be zero or less.) I was only objecting to choosing a number for A that's bigger than B and then implying that that means there's actually overall net wealth destruction or whatever.
Re: (Score:1)
Hopefully though, you tie it back to a massive resource dump that isn't going to be expended in our lifetime, like, oh, the sun.
Crops, for example, they take nutrients from the soil and energy from the sun. Soil may be cheap as dirt, but over in Europe they measure their usable topsoil in inches because they've been farming it for a lot longer then here in the m
topsoil (Score:1)
It's going pretty quick. In the midwest, it was several feet deep when the first plows took to the turf..not so much now though. didn't take long either. And a lot of land that is farmed now is near sterile, it just doesn't have the tilth and carbon and microorganisms and "water sponge" effect it really needs.
I know I learned this lesson more than half a century ago now, if you farm or garden, you are a soil farmer first and foremost, no matter what your end sale-able crop is.
In Europe as you
Re: (Score:1)
Crazy thought: If you were an "intelligent designer" of a ("M class") planet, and knew that as the humanoid population advanced and increased 1) global temperatures would rise and 2) more food would need to be produced, would you design in frozen, preserved extra farmland that would naturally come on line/available for farming as it became needed?
Depends (Score:1)
Depends on how many slow ground monkeys I wanted running around on the planet, or if one fixed number was preferable. Because there's no guarantee they would be smart enough to make use of what they had anyway. It could be designed with a variable outcome, else, there's no point really, why bother in the first place with all the creating stuff?
I am more of the "big ant farm" mindset, turn them loose, sit back, apply Federation type no intervention rules, and see how they do.
And judging by the planet today,
Re: (Score:1)
While certainly sometimes one creates stuff to see what will happen, other times one creates stuff for specifically what one knows will happen.
And as a man of many, ahem, interesting notions, I'd love to hear your theories some time on why you think aliens came and messed with our DNA!
that's easy (Score:1)
Way too fast a rise in advanced technology, with no apparent parallel in any other species. We went from more or less the same capability humans to ZOOM advanced, in a short time frame. Plus, we have historical records from almost all cultures going way back that clearly are describing being fooled around with by visitors. Lastly, I saw one of their sportscars way back when I was a teen, myself and some friends, at extremely close range, close enough to ignore and dismiss any other explanation that the visi
Re: (Score:2)
"But for someone who thinks the earth is here for us to use"
That alone, is heresy to a conservative Catholic. We are *stewards* of the Earth, God is the ultimate owner.
The point with a vase would be 5 units of wealth created today, using up 8 units of clay, is a net reduction to our children.
One cannot defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics forever- locally things will be organized more usefully, but it steals from the future to do so.
And no need to believe in some hippie jive about cosmic love- it's simple ac
Re: (Score:1)
The earth is our placenta, perishable and only here to support us temporarily as we pass thru this fallen/imperfect phase of our existence. God doesn't "own" it. What does God need of possessions? He could make another one anytime He wants. And God doesn't want us to stay spiritually unborn babies in the trappings of the earth, hiding from Him and from moving on and growing into the spiritual adulthood that He meant for us to be in. If He wanted us to live forever like this He would've enabled us to live fo
Re: (Score:2)
"God doesn't "own" it. What does God need of possessions? He could make another one anytime He wants."
So your argument is that EVERY generation- who only survive a hundred years or so- is given the entire natural resources of the earth that took millions of years for God to create, to abuse as they see fit, because supposedly this God can break his own rules and make another anytime he wants?
Hmm- sounds more like the IRRATIONAL Allah (who can break the rules of physics at will, and does so to the point that
Re: (Score:1)
My argument is that the earth is our collective placenta, it is there to be used (not abused), that's its purpose, and nothing more. Its resources only needs to last until the Second Coming, when everything worldly will pass away anyways. No man knows when that'll be, of course, so we should be prudent in our consumption of the earth. But it's not like God said He wants it back and we have to return it to Him in or near the same condition He gave it to us. There's no trade-in value on the earth, we're given
Re: (Score:2)
To me- learning to take care of the earth and preserve it as much as possible for future generations is a mark of spiritual maturity- it means you're selfless enough to sacrifice now for the future, like true conservatives USED to do before James Watt and Ronald Reagan. Nobody seems to see the value of sacrifice anymore, or saving up for the next generation, or even the next decade; it's all liberal spend, spend, spend.
Why would the second coming happen when human beings refuse to prove themselves ready fo
Re: (Score:1)
To me- learning to take care of the earth and preserve it as much as possible for future generations is a mark of spiritual maturity-
Only pagan spiritual maturity. Don't paint Catholicism with that brush unless you're sure it's been corrupted like that.
Why would the second coming happen when human beings refuse to prove themselves ready for it?
Maybe that's why -- when we've learned that we can't help but refuse to prove ourselves ready for it. That we're hopeless, and we need God once again.
Re: (Score:2)
Only pagan spiritual maturity. Don't paint Catholicism with that brush unless you're sure it's been corrupted like that.
No new encyclicals, but solar panels on the Vatican [newsweek.com] says a lot. Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II also said as much back in 1990 on World Peace Day [franciscancoalition.org]. However, I'd note a great difference between "pagan spiritual maturity", which worships the earth as Gaia, the goddess of Mother Earth, and the grave moral duty to preserve the planet for future generations. The first ma
Re: (Score:1)
The first makes no reference to the creator of this universe and planet, the second makes man a co-creator with God...
To me you just noted the (non)difference between pagan and pagan. You can be pagan without being 100% pure pagan.
Why would any messiah come to a hopeless people?
Um, because they're desperately in need of hope? Why would a messiah come to non-hopeless people? If we didn't need saving, what would we need a savior for? And what would a savior save us from, but that which we're utterly hopeless
Re: (Score:2)
I think we're speaking different languages again.
A truly hopeless people is a people that not even God can save. Why would Jesus waste his time on a people not even he can save? Better to send the flood again than that.
If man cannot perfect himself, if he's going to just keep sinning REGARDLESS of Christ's sacrifice, then Jesus has no reason to return- mankind's just going to keep sinning anyway. Only when we are ready to be saved, can Christ return. You've got to meet God halfway.
Reminds me of a joke t
Re: (Score:1)
I totally disagree:
* That there are some that God cannot save.
* That God sent the flood because the people could not be saved.
* That the fact that we'll keep sinning regardless of Christ's sacrifice is a problem.
* That people naturally continuing to sin means Jesus has no reason to return.
* That Christ can't return until we're ready to be saved.
* That we have to (or more importantly, that we even can) meet God halfway.
This is the last time I care to discuss religion with you, since yours (an unholy pagan/hu
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't become better you haven't repented. And you haven't been saved.
I'm glad I'm not a Christian in your eyes- your "mainstream Christianity" is nothing but heresy- an excuse to keep sinning.
Re: (Score:1)
But for someone who's been a believer since before you knew them, you don't have a baseline or "before picture" to compare their current attitudes and behaviors to. So you don't know if they've "become better".
And the teachings of mainstream Christianity is an excuse to not beat oneself up over one's (and others') (inevitable) continuing to sin. I accept that I am imperfect, I can never be without God's help, but He's offered and I and many have accepted immunity, so I won't agonize over all my and my fello
Re: (Score:2)
But for someone who's been a believer since before you knew them, you don't have a baseline or "before picture" to compare their current attitudes and behaviors to. So you don't know if they've "become better".
A believer should always be striving to be better- none of us are saints yet, and backsliding is always possible. I don't have to compare their current attitudes and behaviors- I am not the judge of them, God is, and they are. Each man should strive to become better, to "Go and sin no more"
Re: (Score:1)
Christ offers forgiveness, yes, but not immunity.
Then you epically fail to understand the whole point of Christianity. In the Old Testament, God offered us forgiveness if we sacrificed a flawless lamb. So we did, and we were considered clean again, but then we just went and sinned again, and had to do this sacrifice over and over and over. The message: We're hopeless, this doesn't ultimately work, because we're imperfect and will invariably eventually fall short and sin again, we need a better way, and it w
Re: (Score:2)
It was once and for all. But the sacrifice means NOTHING without conversion- without truly taking up the Cross and following Christ.
On the plus side, life gets a hell of a lot easier when you live up to your burdens and responsibilities instead of avoiding them.
It is easier to be a Christian than a Catholic. It would have been easier on me not to be a Knight of Columbus, sworn to defend the faith. It is easier not to add another cross to one's burden. It is certainly easier not to spread the faith by be
Re: (Score:2)
It occurs to me that you're making the same mistake this blogger (and I don't expect you to respect him any more than you've respected me, he's Catholic after all) claims that the German Peasants did with respect to Martin Luther's teachings [blogspot.com]- that the real heresy wasn't in Luther's teaching, but in his inability to explain it properly to the people at large. It's exactly the same problem- Martin Luther suffered from scrupleosity- with the exact same perceived solution: If to repent, people need to actuall
Re: (Score:1)
Faith is not supposed to add to your burdens, it sets you free of them. It gives you peace in this unpeaceful world. If being a part of your Catholic knights organization or the good works that you do seem like a burden to you, then I would suggest that you do not have authentic faith:
I.e. if you have authentic faith, the good works will come naturally. The Holy Spirit will move
Re: (Score:2)
And what of the person who simply has no gratitude for the gift, as it seems so many in the United States do? On one side you have people claiming to be Christian, but encouraging a genocide of the poor, the weak, the elderly, the unwanted. On the other side you have people claiming to be Christian, but actively pursuing worship of Mammon to the point of kicking people out of their homes and denying them access to food, clothing, water, and medical care.
If one has authentic faith- one is not only contrite
Re: (Score:1)
(I'm ignoring your "Capitalism is teh sin (but Lefties abusing people somehow isn't)" usual horseshit. Go talk with Z about it -- he agrees with you that it's only banker types who are greedy and evil and pay no attention to what's going on over there on the Left. And we need to end this as we're waaay off-topic in his journal, that we've now been spewing in two weeks after he wrote it.)
What did Jesus mean when He told the adulterer to "go and
equal opportunity (Score:1)
Hey, I never said that about the bankers versus other folks, I just write about the deals and people that effect huge numbers of other people. And it isn't left or right, I think stuff like what Acorn does is just as bad as per ethics, but it doesn't have the same huge impact as to what a huge wall street casino does, that's all. And I have certainly ranked unions for being greedy and corrupt before, especially the one of two I was in, the UAW, and *numerous* times to boot. The other union I was in, united
Re: (Score:2)
The banker types ARE "Lefties abusing people". As are most other business owners. Ever since mergers and acquisitions became legal again after the Great Depression, most business owners ARE collectivist lefties. Those that aren't soon find their customers grabbed by lower prices offered by economies of scale, or worse yet, find their businesses made illegal by anti-competitive laws.
I find it interesting that you have to result to a modernist, liberal version of the Bible to support your private interpret
Re: (Score:2)
I think Acorn and carbon capping is a part of collectivism as well. That's the strange thing about libertarians- if they truly believed in bottom up government, they'd agree with the Popes that *every man* deserves at least a quarter acre for raising his own food.
1/4 acre garden spot (Score:1)
Well, that is possible in the US at least. Even a full acre is just not that expensive. Rest of the world, can't say, no idea what land costs, etc other places.
A lot of people though just really don't want a quarter acre, they are totally happy in some apartment with zero land.
As to it being automatic and being granted, I see no way how that could come about, so I can't comment past that. We are too far gone into everything is owned already. Heck, you can't even go to someplace like Antarctica and high tech
Re: (Score:2)
Based on arable land, I recently calculated out that we'd have enough for 40 billion + human beings, at a quarter acre per person. Not much more than that, but at least that much.
As for people who don't want their quarter acre- then an equivalent rent to cover a year's food and clothing should make that quarter acre available to whatever farmer wishes to farm it.
As for how it would come about- only through a total collapse of the current system AND a realization that the Pope's idea in Caritas in Veritate
theoretical (Score:1)
We'll see if it happens. Global collapse and pure restructuring is rather an iffy subject, too many wild cards, and I doubt you'd get most humans into just giving up what they own. On a purely intellectual basis, yes, I think human beings should all be entitled to their chunk of the planet. After all, people born recently had no chance to buy up land that was seized as personal property ages ago. I also don't think you'd get many people in the tech nations to go to being subsistence farmers. I mean, I like
Re: (Score:2)
That last is more a matter of asking the pre-agricultural natives what THEY ate, and planting that.
However, the point is more this- each person on the planet deserves, as a basic, food, water, clothing, and shelter. They deserve the chance to provide this for themselves by whatever method they see fit. Any personal property system or ownership rights that do not provide this opportunity for *EVERYBODY* on the planet, is a failure to begin with and needs reconsidering.
At least from a theoretical moral stan
Re: (Score:1)
FYI, the NIV is in no way considered one of the liberal Bibles. It is actually seen as centrist, amongst the Christian community -- conservative Christians think it's too liberal and liberal Christians think it's too conservative. (And thusly each side has their own preferred interpretations, with the conservative Christians favoring the NKJV and the NASB before that and the KJV before that, and liberal Christians favoring whatever ones replaced the masculine personal pronoun for God with a gender-neutral o
Re: (Score:1)
You do rank some on Lefties sometimes, but you did say that Left/Right was an illusion. I guess you meant by that what you said here, that Progressives are just as evil as bankers, it's just that Progressives don't have anywhere near the impact. It is that that I totally disagree with, and see their destructive effectiveness about equally dangerous and alarming. So the main difference is, I see two major forces trying to kill us, and you say be vigilant of only one of them.
Re: (Score:1)
The persistent divide between us is your attachment to thinking in terms of central planning, and my rejection of that as a category as typically too dangerous to entertain.
So you say that we should calculate the number of people and the number of farmable acres and we should divide them up for everyone, and take from whoever has them now, for the greater good. That *is* collectivism. Sure it would be for the greater good of all, but I can't accept how you want to get there. Z did a good job of pointing out
Re: (Score:2)
The persistent divide between us is your attachment to thinking in terms of central planning, and my rejection of that as a category as typically too dangerous to entertain
I think you're mistaking *single reality* for *central planning*.
So you say that we should calculate the number of people and the number of farmable acres and we should divide them up for everyone, and take from whoever has them now, for the greater good. That *is* collectivism.
Or it's respecting human
Re: (Score:2)
God's word is Christ, not the Bible. The Bible is just a commentary.
Creating wealth (Score:3, Interesting)
Early in GWB's time, he said something about wanting to, "adjust the tax code to favor capital and investment over labor as a means for creating wealth." I didn't like it at the time, because to me it sounded like tax cuts for the "investment class" and more burden on my shoulders - class warfare, really. I've tried searching for that quote, and can't find it now, so I can't substantiate it. But I distinctly remember hearing him say it on TV.
At the time I thought of it as class warfare, and I still do. But recently I thought a little more about it, and realized something more basic, that's being echoed here... Investment does not create wealth. Period. End of story. That doesn't say that investment is without its value. The real purpose of investment is to get some resources available to those who do make wealth, to help them do so.
I create wealth. My business is "selling sand to Arabs." My industry takes sand, weaves a little magic into it, and when we're done, people the world over are happy to give us money for it - including Arabs. I'm in the semiconductor industry - personally as a designer. But the semiconductor industry is expensive to be in - a billion bucks for a fab, these days. We need investment in order to create wealth.
Back to globalism, for a moment... I heard a bit back that China could swallow *every* job in the US, and still have an unemployment problem. There needs to be a middle-ground between protectionism and sending every single "portable" job over to China. As far as I can tell, the current discussion has neither admitted that the conundrum exists, nor is trying to find a solution.
Re: (Score:1)
We need investment in order to create wealth.
And therefore we *some* middlemen to connect those with capital to invest with those who need capital in order to create wealth. As someone who wants to protect what I've earned thru my laboring from the erosive effects of our govt.'s/the Fed's monetary policy, these middlemen perform a valuable service so that I don't have to spend the time and money finding those who need capital and delivering my money to them. And with a ton of people having some fruits of th
Re: (Score:2)
I don't deny that the traders fill a purpose. I deny that they're "primary" and that others like us effectively "don't matter," which appears to be the way things are, today.
I would also say that Goldman Sachs, with their high-speed computer trading has become counter-productive, because they skim too much of what passes between investors and creators. (Hint - they've got more money than either of the other 2 sides.) I tend to think the same of those who run the commodities markets, too.
It's not black an
Investing (Score:1)
I don't think much of any of these big investment houses/casino banks are needed at all, just abolish them completely, or regulate them like any other casino..
This is the internet age, clicky clicky clikcy, all we need is a legal and vetted marketplace for buying stocks, heck, the government could run it as a public utility for no profit, just expenses, which would be low, if that is the form of investment someone wants to make. And we can dump bonds as being future credit/debt bubble driven, a tax on ourse
Re: (Score:2)
Derivatives - After the crash they were talking about finding a "safe" way to use these "financial instruments." I tend to think that's like finding a "safe" way to use heroin.
That is one confused Progressive (Score:1)
He's not referring to globalism like he thinks he is, he's referring to economic globalism. For example he mentions no problem with political or environmental globalism. He's only talking about capitalism extended beyond national borders.
He's right about wealth vs. income and why GDP can be misleading, but look at his opening/thesis paragraph. He says economic globalism is killing us because our socialistic society-wide govt. programs are collapsing. Economic globalism is exacerbating this, for sure, for th