There is one trend in these articles that is being hotly debated. It isn't voiced directly, but it boils down to this. Can we revive the system of trade and economics that we have so assiduously assembled in the last forty years? Needless to say, if you have dropped by here more than once, you know my take on this matter.
But, regardless of my take on this, you have to live in the real world with the general populace and their opinions. I think that the folks out here in the real world are starting to get really nervous. But the folks in the MSM are blithe-fully ignoring the issue.
But here and there, folks in the 'sphere whom I deeply respect keep printing silly pablum about a "New Golden Age (replete with Part I and Part II)" when the system we have falls apart. You know, maybe that will happen, but whenever you read the history books, interregnums appear to be dicey things.
So, back to Chuckie. When he writes stuff like this, he is kinda like an oncologist cheerfully telling a cancer patient, that, once the surgeon chops off the patients balls and one of his legs and a couple of fingers, well, by God, things will just get back to normal and there you go.
I think that this might have to do with Mr. Smith's vocation of part time shill for the contrarian school of the stock market. I really don't have any issues with him doing this, a guy has to put bread on the table. But the idea that the current economic theory of interest and investment can be a tool to lead to a bright future is kind of like saying that heroin can also be an effective tool in palliative care when used by responsible people. The statement may be true, but it can also be sadly misleading and thus false.
So, my point here is that statements about a coming golden age are just sadly false. But that isn't a call to go out and eat a gun. I is instead a call to maturity. Sometimes life is chopping wood and carrying water. We have led the lives of lotus-eaters for the past generation, to recognize that we will have to get back to work and live simply isn't the call to a new rebirth, but a bell tolling for us to return to the work we laid down to dream instead of Xanadu.
4 comments:
I think you misread CHS a bit - but overall agree with your take on the necessity of necessity.
I got tired of CHS. He was repetitive, and does not read his comments very closely.
After about the third time of trying to explain to him how a electrical usage at home does not correlate directly with usage by the utility, I gave up. If you just want to rant thats fine, but it shows an unwillingness to learn.
The modern system of economics was based on a revival of the world economy after a War that killed over 60 million people, and destroyed much of its industry. The system worked pretty well until the early 1970s.
Since the real 1970s we have only had a marginal gains in per capita productivity in the West and much of the wealth generated went to a very limited number of people.
The combination of the baby boomer cohort with limited productivity gains was "solved" by extending large amounts of credit to keep the train going. Where the credit was spent varied from country (Government, Companies, Individuals), but an increased indebtedness was the rule.
How will it come out?
Well the Great Depression's starting point was the spending boom of WW1 by the Europeans, fueled by post war commercial credit booms. Increased manufacturing went a long way toward hiding the inflation that normally alerted the PTB that there was a problem. When the bubble burst, the increased productivity on the factory line also harder to lower unemployment. Europe (who were the net debtor nations) came out of it much quicker: and then started a huge war. The net creditor, the United States was slightly staggering to a recovery, but it is not clear when this would have happened without the forced spending of the War, combined with War repairs and the release of suppressed consumer demand to ameliorate the negative effects after War spending was cut back.
Our bubble today is much larger,and spread to a greater percentage of the globe. A war large enough to kill 60 million people would go nuclear: and possibly kill everyone.
Our best "hope" is that extended economic decline, drastically decreases the birth rate to where once again (after many many years) there is room for per capita growth. This occurred somewhat commonly in pre-industrial societies. However, these pre-industrial societies also had revolutions and collapses caused by the stress as well.
I got tired of CHS. He was repetitive, and does not read his comments very closely.
After about the third time of trying to explain to him how a electrical usage at home does not correlate directly with usage by the utility, I gave up. If you just want to rant thats fine, but it shows an unwillingness to learn.
The modern system of economics was based on a revival of the world economy after a War that killed over 60 million people, and destroyed much of its industry. The system worked pretty well until the early 1970s.
Since the real 1970s we have only had a marginal gains in per capita productivity in the West and much of the wealth generated went to a very limited number of people.
The combination of the baby boomer cohort with limited productivity gains was "solved" by extending large amounts of credit to keep the train going. Where the credit was spent varied from country (Government, Companies, Individuals), but an increased indebtedness was the rule.
How will it come out?
Well the Great Depression's starting point was the spending boom of WW1 by the Europeans, fueled by post war commercial credit booms. Increased manufacturing went a long way toward hiding the inflation that normally alerted the PTB that there was a problem. When the bubble burst, the increased productivity on the factory line also harder to lower unemployment. Europe (who were the net debtor nations) came out of it much quicker: and then started a huge war. The net creditor, the United States was slightly staggering to a recovery, but it is not clear when this would have happened without the forced spending of the War, combined with War repairs and the release of suppressed consumer demand to ameliorate the negative effects after War spending was cut back.
Our bubble today is much larger,and spread to a greater percentage of the globe. A war large enough to kill 60 million people would go nuclear: and possibly kill everyone.
Our best "hope" is that extended economic decline, drastically decreases the birth rate to where once again (after many many years) there is room for per capita growth. This occurred somewhat commonly in pre-industrial societies. However, these pre-industrial societies also had revolutions and collapses caused by the stress as well.
Almost forgot, I hope everything is OK with your "family business".
Post a Comment