Gardener, the above hit the nail on the head exactly. Couldn't of said it better myself. Electroshock isn't shocking a whole pond, it's only a small portion. It's how Wildlife agencies which gather survey data collect their data. It's mainly an idea for an intentional community which is using fish as a source of food on a NEED basis instead of an alternative.
i know. i was disagreeing with you when you said it wasn't. monetarily. ie for greed. and excessive greed is bad for sure. i can see where you're coming from though. that's kinda the idealistic view of capitalism. i guess i just see it in more cynical terms. i don't really have much of an opinion on people making money off wall street or investments or whatever, but i do believe that tax exemptions for the rich is kinda backwards. rather than worrying about the problems like that, i think a solution would be to attack the cause of problems like that and implement measures to increase the size of the middle class and inter-class mobility. that's kinda a random accusation. how does thinking there might be some sort of calculative(not even calculative though...more based on economic theory than more intricate calculations) kind of way to stabilize the economy have anything to do with tax exemptions or whatever for the rich? i blame the weed for anything that doesn't make sense in this post.
Deranged, don't forget the upper class creates the middle class. For there to be factory workers you need somebody to own the factory. Plus, are you just going to take away from the rich just because they're rich? Places where industrialization don't reach are simply farmers. And without large profits how are they going to expand??? You're not looking deep enough into the issue anyways. Most of the problems stem from patents, private ownership, industrialization, and oil. Mainly oil + private ownership + industrialization.
it's common knowledge that class mobility and a large middle class are an integral part of a healthy economy. you're making things too complicated. and no, i don't believe in redistribution of wealth.
No, you're not looking at it deep enough. Your idea of a middle class is based off of an OIL driven society. A large middle class didn't exist until Industrialization. What happens when you don't have tillers to till the dirt and tractors to help plant it and harvest it? You do it by HAND or by Work animal. And you know how much land and how long it takes to feed 1 person for 1 year? You're going to be working all day every day (Except for the winter.) When 80% of the people work all day everyday there IS no upperclass (maybe Govenors) there is no middle class. Only the people who govern, the people who market, and the people who produce/craft. Or you live in a society where there is only the ruling (who rule by force, Kingship + aristocracy) and the people who produce (peasants, who are the wealth of the system). We are allowed nuclear families because of this high efficiency. You think we can heat as many homes as we do now with wood? No, you're going to have to live with another family and compromise. Are you going to use precious seasoned wood to reheat pizza from last night? NO, you make one giant pot of food and eat it hot till its gone. Goodbye nuclear family!! Why don't we have chickens in the backyard? Cuz oil is so cheap we can mass produce food, to mass produce chickens, to massively process and freeze them, and massively ship them worldwide. But what happens when we dont' have oil? You don't mow your lawn and let cows and chickens free-range in your back yard. High efficiency is a tricky game. Because now you need somebody to market all that excess. And lil' farmuh Billy Bob don't know a dang thing bout taxes, corporations, n wut not. Then you got assholes who speculate on hot commodities (housing?) and drive up the prices of stuff. But you see, this speculators get money from Loans (backed by 10% real money) from BANKS which are only possible through the HUGE EXCESS accumulation of wealth (due to HIGH EFFICIENCY = OIL!!). So you see my friend. You gotta look at the bigger picture. You're talking about shaping economics based on the problems of today, and not seeing the very temporary foundations which have allowed these problems to occur. Many of the problems are due to quickly integrating a technological boom (combustion engine) while not having enough time or patience to realize the social implications it has created. It's not just an "economics" problem.
dude, you're arguing there's no such thing as a middle class, a big middle class isn't good for the economy, and that john locke was full of shit. all that is pretty much a given in the opposite direction of your viewpoint to me. i think we're on different wavelengths here too. you're arguing specifics, while i'm talking about economic theory. and i think i am looking at the bigger picture, while you're standing there with a magnifying glass noting some weird finer points. as far as how much resources it takes to feed one person, right now the 7 riches nations in the world have the power to eliminate world hunger forever. there's resources out there man. and i don't mean any offense by this, but the oil stuff i keep hearing from you sounds like you subscribe to too many blatantly left media sources. you could be talking about something historical though. hell if i know.
Who said there's no middle class? And I never said John Locke was full of shit, maybe you gotta do some in depth reading into his stuff to truly understand. Lol, if "Hell if you know" then why are you talkin like u know something? Dude, you obviously don't know jack, especially talking about ur "aggregate supply and demand don't change" type answers. Out of the billions of causes of recessions you foolishly think that theres a way from keeping such a highly complex and unsustainable society from ever being "less productive". If the Middle East gives us the finger (the oil barons wouldn't, we're co-dependent) tomorrow and shuts off our oil supply ,we go into a deep depression!! Rising energy costs = higher costs = we allocate resources to the highest need for society. I try to tackle it from an economic approach, talking about shifts in industry, crippling malinvestment related to fractional-reserve banking, and rising energy costs. You debunk me. I try to show you historically how the Middle Class emerged, and by what principles they're allowed to exist, and you blatantly say that I'm gettin it from some leftist media hype. NONE of the "could be historical" stuff would ever have a chance of being on the media. Sure , you're just a kid with a dream. But you can't even look at the big or the small picture. You just have some ideas about how you would like the world to run, but you don't even have a clue how our current world runs. You don't take the real effort of studying the basic why's and how's which make our world run yet you're quick to talk. You cannot separate Economics from Government, nor Economics from Technology or Government. You gotta understand. Ok, so let me ask you a question. How is taking money away from the rich (getting rid of tax exemptions) going to "tackle" the problem? Without people who had the money to create and expand giant factories and corporations there would be no middle class jobs for people to work. And how do you go about expanding the wealth of the middle class without forcefully (law / policy) taking wealth away from the upper classes? (I'm just playing devil's advocate)
the key here is you're not talking even talking about economics. you're talking about business. and i never said that i believed there was for sure an economic model out there to solve the problem, just based on abstract theory, it makes sense. same number of people willing to work. same number of people wanting/needing shit. lol. you had me going there for a second with all the belligerence. yeah, and you're right when you say i should be more in tune with the world. i really don't know how to answer any of your questions either. i mean, i could bullshit you and what i say might make sense, but i try to not do that.
What is the difference between "economics" and "talking business" in your view? And how can you mutually exclude one from the other? Isn't economics mostly the study of business? And don't economic/monetary/fiscal policy set by gvt. affect how businesses run? Any smart answers? Before you even attempt to rebuttal seriously pick up a book and read a little. You're talking about something you don't understand and you argue against answers you don't understand. Learn about the evolution of societies and the development of social classes. Learn about Mercantalism, Capitalism, etc. Plus you're WRONG when you say the number of people willing to work doesn't change, and also the number of people wanting/needing shit. It does and always has. You're also forgetting the mean age group of different fields, the TYPES of things produced, the efficiency of production, and about a billion other things. If you don't think any of these factor into how a drop in productivity could occur then I advise you do a little more thinking. And you don't even ask a specific question like "How do we tackle cost-push inflation due to rising energy costs?". You ask "How can we prevent anything from ever causing a drop in productivity!!!!" Nothing's wrong with not knowing, but you touchee every response without a shred of knowledge. Instead of taking in the info and refocusing you just keep blindly pushing in the same direction. The only reason that I've responded so far was to make a FAQ for people who are asking the same questions as you. If you got a more well-thought out question or idea feel free to make it public. Until then good luck on finding your golden system.
the difference between business and economics is economics is more the study of supply and demand while business is talking about the specifics you keep mentioning. the stuff you're calling "knowledge" is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to economics. man, at the grand opening of my town's new baseball stadium, there were over a thousand people lined up around the block to apply for a job. there's people out there willing to work. they just can't find jobs.
Supply and demand are the true fundamentals of economcs. If you think those 2 factors run the economy today, you need a lobotomy. Recessions happen when national debt over-runs national gdp, when ran even further, a depression. Why is the worlds economy in the shitter you ask...? Zero-0 reserve policy and negative interest rates, which are now a reality. "Money borrowed is money earned" If you still do not understand, then count your pennies and build a raft.
A "recession" is some arbitrary standard of economic health that we reach when basically "We are consistently producing less than we did in the past". Having a famine that cuts our food supply in half could cause a recession. If food costs double, how can 5 star restaurants stay in business? Really you guys are gettin hung up on the word "recession", which like John the Baptist points out, shouldn't be the focus. We've created a system we're we've indebted way past bankruptcy and yet we artificially keep the system afloat. So by text-book definition of "recession" DEBT > GDP doesn't mean recession. Use whatever fancy definitions you want, regardless we are in a giant shithole.
I am all for calling them shit holes and deeper shit holes. Seems more accurate to me. Would be hard to paint them with a pretty brush and tell us only experts know how they operate, since we all know how to shit.
but why exactly is this the case? i mean, it's not like there's been some huge population decrease. there's the same number of people out there wanting shit. and if they are wanting less, why is that? there's gotta be some form of mass manipulation or something that could change this.
Thing is I think a lot of us are tired of producing for people that don't give a shit about us, so guess what? If you want a market based on the goods we produce then consider us when you attend your parties and decide our fates. Mass manipulation, hardly. The rich folks are buying consultant services, thing is the consultants are talking out their asses...they are just young kids with no experience only formulas. But it sounds good at the coctail parties. That's the crap the rich folks are buying. And that's what world economy was based on, not product and demand. But that's what the taxpayers ended up bailing out. With no oversight. How did that happen? Explain to me why the rich folks fell for Maddoff? Explain why we are protecting Goldman and Sachs?
Because Maddoff on paper was offering huge returns on investments to early investors while in reality this money never really existed as Maddoff paid off old investors with new ones? It's a pretty simple and old scheme
Actually his unique twist was that he offered steady, modest returns. That's why nobody suspected him - they figured a liar would have claimed much higher returns.
I'll give him credit, when it came to fraud race, slow and steady did in fact win the race Until it all came crashing down
