[onlooker]

It is amazing how they keep propping up this smoke and mirrors economy , it is like a cat it has nine lives. Print more fiat money, create some other Bubble, let the suckers buy into the newest Ponzi scheme on Wall street or Main street. Just keep em looking that way so they cannot see how the trick is done. Well the trick has always been to take oops borrow from the future. Problem is the future will some day become the present.

[sjn]

Onlooker, I don't it see that. Real estate has always been a sound investment, a conservative route to personal economic freedom. Why dump rental expenses down the drain, when the same money could be applied to a mortgage and home ownership? Why shouldn't ownership be available to the poor and overworked? We made the right choices as a nation, to make loans available to the poor, just at the wrong time, exactly when Cinderella's real estate was turning back to desert again. Real estate depends on capital, and that includes oil and oil-fueled transport.

I can't agree with this. Not the home ownership vs rent part, but the idea that it should be afforded through a debt instrument made available to the poor. The only affect this has is to force the market price for an "affordable" home to be the minimum a median poor household could get via credit (ie a mortgage) versus savings or cost of construction and land. Throughout history societies have made various arrangements made for sheltering the "peasant" classes, but debt servitude is not one that has served the interests of the masses, IMHO.

[onlooker]

I think though these points are mute because we live in a different world now, one predicated more and more on scarcity ie Peak Oil. Such a world is not compatible with interest lending. So what I mean is that we are being sold a bill of goods in the sense that the standard growth and loan practices are becoming less and less viable.

[Strummer]

Such a world is not compatible with interest lending.

This is a very important point that is often missed. The same goes for all insurance and pension systems. There was a study last year by the UK Institute of Actuaries which plainly stated that if growth does not resume, all pension systems will be broke in a few decades:

http://www.actuaries.org.uk/research-an ... -implicati

[sjn]

Decades is very unlikely. Once there's realisation growth isn't resuming, the games up.

[onlooker]

wow, sjn you you really hit the bullseye with that one!

[dolanbaker]

Decades is very unlikely. Once there's realisation growth isn't resuming, the games up.

Maybe two decades, but not much longer, the provision of compulsory state pensions will replace the current private schemes. In other words more taxes.

[SeaGypsy]

Onlooker, can you define yourself as Marxist? That's what I'm seeing in your posts so correct me if not please. Currently we have had two. Ralphy , who you clearly regard as astute, who abhors being labeled but the shoe fits & American Dream, who is up front about his politics directly contradicting his work as a player of the markets.

[onlooker]

No Sea I would not say I am a Marxist however I do see more wrong with capitalism then with communism

[dorlomin]

Right I was going to answer stuff on this thread but no.

Congratulate each other on your genius with no one challenging you.

Dont want to annoy the mods.

[sjn]

dor, challenging the stuff on this thread isn't going to annoy anybody. It's why we're here, right?

[ralfy]

Onlooker, can you define yourself as Marxist? That's what I'm seeing in your posts so correct me if not please. Currently we have had two. Ralphy , who you clearly regard as astute, who abhors being labeled but the shoe fits & American Dream, who is up front about his politics directly contradicting his work as a player of the markets.

As I said earlier, my arguments have nothing to do with my ideological views but with science and logic.

To recap, the global economy on which industrial civilization exists and thrives is free market capitalist. There are many reasons why it does not appear to be "free," but the most obvious ones are:

- the use of money and a credit system that operates on regulation or agreements between parties, which explains why the largest component of the system is over a quadrillion dollars (notional value) in unregulated derivatives:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/ ... arket.html

- laws which legitimize private property, the formation of private corporations, and many other aspects of business operations;

- the inevitable result of such a system, which is control of the global economy by the strongest corporations, especially those that deal with finance:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... world.html

So, you see, my arguments have nothing to do with Marxism but with facts.

How can this industrial civilization continue? It requires economic growth. That's why businesses want to keep expanding and find new technologies to increase productivity, especially given competition. That's why workers want higher pay, promotions, and bonuses. That's why governments support business needs for deregulation, as that means more economic activity, and thus more tax revenues. That's why the global middle class has been growing:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22956470

Why will it stop growing? There are several reasons, but the most prominent ones are peak oil, environmental damage coupled with global warming, and financial crashes due to speculation (inevitable given large amounts of credit involved). These explain oil production costs rising, more than a trillion dollars in damage yearly due to global warming, and the 2008 crash.

Again, none of these points have to do with Marxism. In fact, you will find them discussed actively in various threads of this forum.

[ralfy]

Right I was going to answer stuff on this thread but no.

Congratulate each other on your genius with no one challenging you.

Dont want to annoy the mods.

FWIW, many of the points I used to address your arguments involve other threads in this forum.

[careinke]

Excellent analysis Dor. Marxists never give up, even when confounded by logic.

My argument is not based on Marxism but on logic and science. Put simply, more material resources and energy are needed to allow industrial civilization to grow, and one reason is that most people worldwide lack basic needs. Also, the number of people are growing, and environmental damage lessens access to various resources.

If you have evidence showing that these are not true, then let me know.

The vast majority of people worldwide do NOT lack "basic needs." If they did, they would be dead.

[sjn]

It's quite possible to be alive whilst deficient of basic needs up to a point. Health tends be poor and longevity short, with high infant mortality and prevalent disease.