theluckycountry wrote:They are neither. They are simply a product. Or more politely, a human resource.
Economics is a valuable tool for the establishment, that much is clear. It is the pseudoscience that explains, money basically, and gives credibility to all manner of insane activity. Like that which led up to the GFC and the IT bubble before it. After the blowups the smart young economists disappear for a while and are replaced by octogenarians who shake their heads and say "We went too far, we were too exuberant". This sheds the blame and when the dust settles they disappear and the young ones are back as mouthpieces explaining how they have fixed the system and all is well. Meanwhile living standards drop and drop, decade after decade.
Economics' teaching bodies are well controlled, the same as modern medical schools are, and if an economist, or a doctor, steps outside the mainstream training they are typically burnt at the stake. You can read these alternate economists but they are relegated to the fringe of the internets, they are never allowed on TV, never allowed into government or corporate positions. It's clear who funds the entrainment of the doctors, you only have to look at any university and you'll find a large pharmacological facility, funded by big Pharma, where the doctors will be trained in the aspects of drug peddling. Economists don't need this level of input but it's clear to them where the good jobs lie. In not rocking the boat.
In aggregate I would say that the economists in control of policy are more like politicians now, they prognosticate (like election promises) and then take no responsibility for their failures. Unlike politicians though they are all of the one party, all believe in the same underlying Keynesian branch of economics because that is all they are taught. Business schools are no better. What are they taught? That big spending by government and business is the solution, that privately controlled central banks should regulate money creation and currency flow not governments.
Their failure is easily exposed by simply looking back in time before the Keynesian central bank era. In the US for instance you had 100 years of mild deflation (due to innovations) and the currency got stronger and stronger as the economy slowly grew. That was Austrian economics at work. But it's too late to go back now. At least on a non-personal basis.
jedrider wrote:The wealth accumulating class basically justified what they do by having this professional class, economists, verify their wealth accumulation, and then we have an idiot class of politicians beholden to this wealth class, and they got it covered at that point.
theluckycountry wrote:jedrider wrote:The wealth accumulating class basically justified what they do by having this professional class, economists, verify their wealth accumulation, and then we have an idiot class of politicians beholden to this wealth class, and they got it covered at that point.
Exactly! Once you have figured that out it becomes easy to sidestep the system and protect your future to some extent.
davep wrote:It's hard to tell, but either way, mainstream economists are ignoring the dangers of climate change and resource depletion, or worse, using euphemisms to suggest pain in the global south will help GDP in temperate countries.
https://theintercept.com/2023/10/29/william-nordhaus-climate-economics/
https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/ ... um=reader2“Misnomers often arise because something was named long before its correct nature was known, or because an earlier form of something has been replaced by a later form to which the name no longer suitably applies.”
One could not find a better example to a misnomer nowadays than what most economists call “inflation”. Contrary to what the term implies (that is, an increase in prices), it is in effect a reduction in purchasing power. This means that the same money buys less bread, cheese or gasoline etc. than last year. Chances are that, as a result, you had to make some tough choices, postponing the buying of a new car, or even presents for Christmas. Some people were even forced to decide between heating and eating. Losing purchasing power is a very serious matter — no wonder that it is not widely used in government communiques.
Another important fact about “inflation” is how under-reported it is. Items can be added and removed, and their weight in the consumer basket adjusted at will to show an artificially lower number than what people experience. This not only serves to calm the public and investors by sending the message that things are not nearly as bad as they seem, but to show an increase in consumption and thus in GDP growth. Take groceries, for example. If your shopping bill goes up by 30% but only 10% is reported as inflation, then the remaining 20% increase in money spent on food can be attributed to growth. Should overall consumption (in real terms) fall as a result of this extraordinary price hike by say 10%, the government could still see an “economic” growth of 10%, despite all metrics indicating that the contrary is true. This is how the economy could be growing while average folks just get poorer and poorer. Is it any wonder that nobody talks about falling purchasing power, only economic growth?
Now, what is the usual answer from central banks to this issue misnamed “inflation”? Raising interest rates, resulting in a rise in the cost of credit. After paying mortgage and credit card fees, though, this leaves one with even less money in their pocket; directly resulting in a further reduction of the amount of goods and services one can buy. The same goes for companies investing in new production lines, solar panels or anything substantial requiring a loan. Now, all these purchases have to be postponed or cancelled in order to finance existing operations.
Seen in this light one can easily spot the logical fallacy here: central banks are fighting the reduction of purchasing power by further reducing the purchasing power of companies and average folks alike. Makes no sense? Well, according to our wise betters and elders, we must all reduce the consumption of goods and services — and thereby lower demand — so that suppliers finally lose their appetite for further price increases. Lower consumption begets lower economic output though — and lower investments all across the board — resulting in an economic slump. In a nutshell central banks are busy engineering a mini-recession to push “inflation” back under a certain limit.
https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/ ... um=reader2What is the goal of the economy? Growth? Full employment? Equity? Price stability? Security? Or, perhaps, to make the top 1% super rich at the cost of everyone else? Well, if it’s that latter, than the economy is doing a stellar job. If you think that’s too cynical to say, then you can chose two on the list above. Or one. Maybe none. With a relentless fall in people’s purchasing power, an energy infrastructure hitting diminishing returns, and being led by less than stellar minds, I argue, there will be just one overarching goal remaining. Security. The rest be damned.
We are heading into quite “interesting” times on the back of a lurking transportation fuel shortage. Lacking a viable solution to the question of long distance transport, or doing agriculture and mining without fossil fuels, the coming decline of carbon based energy will mean a further decline in living standards. All this happens amidst an unfolding ecological destruction brought about by humanity in overshoot. It looks pretty much guaranteed that sooner or later we will all experience severe disruptions and shortages. Water. Heating fuel. Food. Electricity.
Since it is our ruling elite, whether democratically elected or not, to whom we turn for solutions in such tumultuous times, we must now examine their role in the long emergency we are all in...
ralfy wrote:They can only ignore both because the primary tool that they use to measure what they're studying is money, and it's part of capitalist systems which require continuous growth in terms of credit.
ralfy wrote:They can only ignore both because the primary tool that they use to measure what they're studying is money, and it's part of capitalist systems which require continuous growth in terms of credit.
careinke wrote:ralfy wrote:They can only ignore both because the primary tool that they use to measure what they're studying is money, and it's part of capitalist systems which require continuous growth in terms of credit.
Capitalism does NOT require continuous growth in terms of credit. It does require continuous growth in terms of energy. Fortunately, energy is abundant everywhere in the universe, including earth, we just have to keep improving our collection methods.
Peace
theluckycountry wrote:
If we can figure it out, they can figure it out. They are feathering their nests for the Long Decent, buying islands, vast farms in South American nations, stockpiling gold no doubt. So what if the West collapses, the BRICS will still be doing ok and gold and land will always be valuable. They will just move away from the Hell holes.
ralfy wrote:theluckycountry wrote:
If we can figure it out, they can figure it out. They are feathering their nests for the Long Decent, buying islands, vast farms ...
The closest I can think of to what's desired are fields like environmental and ecological economics, which uses things like determining natural capital or, if money is used as part of measurement, give a price to environmental damage, and then come up with a cost-benefit analysis.
https://www.wired.com/story/mark-zucker ... popular4-1Zuckerberg is building a sprawling, $100 million compound in Hawaii—complete with plans for a huge underground bunker. A WIRED investigation reveals the true scale of the project—and its impact on the local community.
Off the two-lane highway that winds along the northeast side of the Hawaiian island of Kauai, on a quiet stretch of ranchland between the tourist hubs of Kapaa and Hanalei, an enormous, secret construction project is underway.
A 6-foot wall blocks the view from a nearby road fronting the project, where cars slow to try to catch a glimpse of what’s behind it. Security guards stand watch at an entrance gate and patrol the surrounding beaches on ATVs. Pickup trucks roll in and out, hauling building materials and transporting hundreds of workers. Nobody working on this project is allowed to talk about what they’re building. Almost anyone who passes compound security—from carpenters to electricians to painters to security guards—is bound by a strict nondisclosure agreement.
Interviews with several people associated with the project, along with public records and court documents seen by WIRED, suggest that since then, the planning and construction of the roughly 1,400-acre compound has been shrouded in secrecy. The property, known as Koolau Ranch, will, according to planning documents, include a 5,000-square-foot underground shelter, have its own energy and food supplies, and, when coupled with land purchase prices, will cost in excess of $270 million.
According to evidence reviewed by WIRED, the project has relied on legal maneuvering and political networking, and at times, sources believe, it has shown disregard for the local public. All the while, Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan continue to build one of the most expensive properties in the world.
With NDAs forbidding workers from discussing the project, the secluded North Shore compound has gained a mythic status on Kauai. One local architect unaffiliated with the Zuckerberg project jokes that it reminds him of medieval rulers who, according to legend, killed the architects of their most ambitious projects so the secrets of their designs would die with them.
...Many people speculate that the site will become some sort of postapocalyptic bunker in case of civilization collapse. What’s being built doesn’t live up to the coconut wireless chatter, but it’s close. Detailed planning documents obtained by WIRED through a series of public record requests show the makings of an opulent techno-Xanadu, complete with underground shelter and what appears to be a blast-resistant door...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 93 guests