Wednesday, September 09, 2009

10 comments:

Illuminaughty said...

Fellow socialists wouldn't criticize each other.

Anonymous said...

If they thought for themselves they might.

Illuminaughty said...

If they thought for themselves and took Macroeconomics 101, they wouldn't be socialists.

Anonymous said...

Macroeconomics defined

Tu-shay. Personally I think that we are too dependent on macroeconomic systems. I'd like to see smaller, local economies become stronger and more self-sustainable so that everybody isn't screwed when something goes wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_(engineering)

Illuminaughty said...

The textbook definition of Economics is "the study of the allocation of scarce resources." Macro just deals with nations, whereas micro deals with a specific business (which could be expanded into an industry analysis, in my opinion).

You may want to rethink the strong, local economy school of thought in light of the history of natural disasters destroying entire cities. That being said, if you let the free market play out, this school of thought becomes outdated. The end result of free markets is strong economy from the individual level to the national level.

I encourage you to go the nearest half-price bookstore and buy a used macroeconomics book. If you are hard up on cash, I know of a local second-hand store that just throws donated textbooks away. Anyway, this subject is one that should be read in small pieces and thought about in your spare time. I always suggest that you put one in the bathroom.

Anonymous said...

Resources tend to be scarce, in my broad opinion, because of the way that systems are set up on purpose to waste, due to corporate greed. (There is a term for this but I can't remember what it is right now)

I very much appreciate the suggestions and that is exactly how I read textbooks, a little at a time. The internets can be another valuable resource for finding textbooks as well.
Introduction to Economic Analysis
by R. Preston McAfee


I generally don't read on the toilet, I just do my business and get of the pot :) but thanks. I really don't have the attention span to read so much dry stuff like a whole textbook on Macroeconomics. I don't need it to see that it's way more complicated than it needs to be.

I find that a broader perspective of things is more useful to me in understanding how stuff works and I've also found that simpler generally works better. Often times when we, as society, make things too complicated, then just a few people know how run-game on everyone else and take advantage and what you get is 1% of the people controlling 90% of the resources.

I'm down with free markets but not to the point of corporate anarchy. That's a machinistic road that could, in my observations, ultimately lead to people not viewing each other as people anymore but instead numbers. Assigning a specific value to a human life like The Ford Company did with the Pinto(lack of)recall. Soylent-green, death-camps, and patenting life is where absolutist mentalities such as the "free market playing out" tend to take us.

Strong local economies tend to benefit the individuals whereas one strong economy tends to benefit more-so the few at the top.
I'm not saying that a larger economy wouldn't be useful, such as in cases of natural disasters, but I think that we could have our cake and eat it too in some ways.

Illuminaughty said...

Statement: Resources tend to be scarce, in my broad opinion, because of the way that systems are set up on purpose to waste, due to corporate greed.

Response: In the above definition, the term, scarce, means limited. All resources are limited or finite at any given time (i.e. there are a set number of laborers and no more). In response to the term, "corporate greed," the purpose of a business is to make as much money as possible via offering a product or service which will voluntarily be purchased. This is, by nature, serving your fellow man, and therefore morally good as opposed to evil.

As far as your statement about corporate anarchy, a corporation is amoral with its sole responsibility to its owners. Anything else would be improper fiduciary responsibility, in my opinion. The problem, in this case, is not with the corporation but with the government official(s) who were bought off. All corporations who can buy a politician(s) to further their profits should, in my opinion. The corporation is not to blame because it is acting solely in its best interest; the government is the problem.

I have a couple more responses but time, my scarce resource, has temporarily run out. I will continue this post later tonight.

Anonymous said...

"In the above definition, the term, scarce, means limited. All resources are limited or finite at any given time (i.e. there are a set number of laborers and no more)."
-
Plenty of human resources are available - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate
World Population - 6,790,062,216 (July 2009 est.)
Birth rate:
19.95 births/1,000 population (2009 est.)
Death rate:
8.2 deaths/1,000 population (2009 est.)
Source - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html

Waste – a reckless or grossly negligent act that causes state funds to be spent in a manner that was not authorized
or represents significant inefficiency and needless expense.
Examples:
• Purchase of unneeded supplies or equipment
• Purchase of goods at inflated prices
• Failure to reuse major resources or reduce waste generation
Source - http://www.dhr.georgia.gov/DHR/DHR_Stimulus/ARRA%20Fraud%20Presentation.pdf



"...the purpose of a business is to make as much money as possible..."
-
This is a growing problem in that they increasingly don't care how they do it.-
Corporate Fraud statistics(the ones that are investigated by the FBI anyway)
Fiscal Year 2003 - 279 pending cases
Fiscal Year 2004 - 332 pending cases
Fiscal Year 2005 - 423 pending cases
Fiscal Year 2006 - 490 pending cases
Source - http://www.fbi.gov/publications/financial/fcs_report2006/financial_crime_2006.htm



-
A grocery store or a farm or an auto repair shop are some good examples of "...offering a product or service which will voluntarily be purchased. This is, by nature, serving your fellow man..."

[Defend this, please because I'd really like to hear it]
'The first time growers purchase Monsanto seed, they sign a stewardship agreement and contract agreeing not to save and replant seeds produced from the crops they grow from Monsanto seed.'
Source - http://www.monsanto.com/seedpatentprotection/monsanto_patent_seeds.asp



"...a corporation is amoral with its sole responsibility to its owners."
-
Of course. A corporation is a toaster. It doesn't care about anybody it just does what it is programmed to do.



"All corporations who can buy a politician(s) to further their profits should, in my opinion."
-
Wow. That's cold.



"The corporation is not to blame because it is acting solely in its best interest; the government is the problem."
-
You're right. You can't really blame a toaster if it burns you. Governments are another type of toaster. In my observations, we are not driving the machines as much as the machines are driving us these days.
I put together some audio conceptions a while back on some of these subjects. They are similar to the 'suicides' that are played on a show that often sucks these days.
A Red Pill Journey



"I have a couple more responses but time, my scarce resource, has temporarily run out. I will continue this post later tonight."

I understand. Time is a resource that I have had the good fortune to have plenty of lately.

Anonymous said...

To Listen To A Red Pill Journey Please Click Here

Anonymous said...

Excuse me please,
9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!
Thank You and have a nice day :)

(People get really pissed when I do this in trivia chat-rooms.)