Wealz has been mentioning for a long time about the looming financial crisis that will soon hit the West (and the world) as a result of US military, economic and political lunacy, coupled with the awakening of the developing world (a phenomenon that originally caused weazl to major in developemental economics, yet the process has begun nearly 20 years later). And it now seems that the major institutions are even starting to hear the alarm bells themselves, as the International Monetary Fund tries to convene major forces to step the time of economic disarray.
Yet let weazl be the first to say that whatever measures can be taken will be too little, too late. The US economy has been SO mismanaged and SO reckless with NO real viable chance of resurrecting itself, that the global economy is in for a major hit that will only be sped up immediatly upon any attack against Iran.
Unfortunately the majority of minions didn't fully understand that Reagan's Voodoo economics of Laffer Curves (implemented in force by Dubya) should have been called Laughter Curves and politely dismissed as silly bar talk, but such foolishness has lead not only to the future bankrupting of the United States but has indirectly lead to the slaughter of thousands as the theives have tried to steal other's assets as a cover for catastrophic economic policies.
And perhaps after the fall, the US can get a dose of reality and move back to Keynesian principles that are truly necessary for a healthy and productive economy. The faster every aspect of the "Bush Doctrine" dies, the better prospects we will have for a better country and a better world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Hey Weasel,
I don't think we aould agree on much in the realm of philosophy and ideas, as I would probably classify myself as a libertarian of the extreme sort.
But I do respect your honesty here in discussing ideas. You seem to have changed from your days as a poster at FPM, in that regard. Is the change cosmetic or have you gotten a new medication?
You say that you studied 'developmental economics'; that is a term with which I am unfamiliar what exactly is that?
Claims to the contrary from "beakerkin", I am NOT Socrates and he is not me.
Soc, in short "the creditors" are primarily Chinese and Japanese bondholders, the people who've been floating the economy for the past decade, but who've grown sick and tired of it under the Bush spree spending. So they have said they are not going to buy bonds in such quantities anymore, which places pressure on interest rates to rise as the US government needs to find new investors in its bonds. And the zero interest bond that the Chinese and Japanese were paying just ain't gonna cut it. The "One World" plan has been long discussed and those were perhaps more relevent under Clinton. Under Bush, the neo-Con thugs want it all, and aren't going to share the worlds spoils with weak Europeans and Asians.
I am aware of plane for large scale depopulations, but to be honest, I'd rather not talk about them, because they seem too weird for most people to believe, People can still hardly believe that the US wants to bomb Iran with nuclear weapons, Sy Hersh be damned.
So this is the short answer to your questions, Soc. Not particularly hard ones to answer, but they do take a bit of time to flesh out. But hell, Soc, we have time. So before long it's be a clear to you as Donut's nastiness.
Wayne, I haven't changed anything. FPM is a site for morons, so why bother explaining anything to them. Their idea of deep political thought is "Clinton sucks," "Bomb the Ragheads," "Close the borders," and "Niggers need to stop bitchin' and whinin'." Not really much room for rational debate. But they liked feeling really good about themselves, so it was weazl's job to rain on their parade, and make them feel a lot less smug and cocky as they were when weazl arrived. Weazl accomplished this hands down. FPM is only populated by the certifiably crazy, which is how it should be.
But when I really have something to say, it looks like the posts I post on a daily basis.
Despite our differences, hope you enjoy. And the only medicine weaz takes is a big dose of healthy livin'.
I would like to know more about developmental economics. Has the dismal science become specialized to the extent of requiring a branch for different parts of the world?
You seem smart enough to recognize that bureaucratic politics would hardly lead to economic prosperity, so why the leftward tilt in your thinking?
Reality doesn't support the successful practise of statist syatems of economic micromanagement, does it?
You correctly point out that the USA faces some perilous times in the near term - so why would you not recognize that regardless of the party in power, interference in the economy has always been part of the mix. Bush and the so-called compassionate conservatives may have even done more of THAT than the Democrats and Clinton.
Do you really think expanding the state interference in an economy - such as in Bolivia - could lead to a better outcome for the people there?
I always thought that expanding the power and influence of the state in individuals' lives is a destructive process to both freedom and individual responsibility. Have I been mistaken?
Wayne,
The development economics is what I studied when I was an undergraduate at Yale twenty years ago. My belief at that time was that I wanted to help poorer countries become richer, and wanted to study the economic methods to do so. So I learned fancy theories and sophisticated gibberish that could impress other young Yalies or others. In the midst of my studies, I was able to secure work for a professor of mine who had projects all over the world for such places as the World Bank and InterAmerican Bank of Development. He hired me along with a Ph.D student to assess a structural development loan given to the Paraguayan government for agricultural development. I spend a summer there and learned first hand how this process de-industrializes and impoverishes nations, and realized that there was effectively no way to change it. I subsequently secured a fellowship to do similar type of work in Morocco, and after I graduated spent a year confirming that this activity was a complete waste of time. Yet the experiences did help me gain fluency in both French and Spanish, and introduced me to some of the most amazing people and places in the world. I then made the transition to law. But I never lost my desire to help the poor and the oppressed from systems that crush these nations. But after having learned the law, and having become a voracious consumer of history and politics, try to analyse their situations from a variety of vantage points. Hope this answers your question. But can't linger longer.
Must go shopping for bookcases. ;-)
(excuse the typos, if any. Haven't had a chance to read what I just wrote.)
Thanks for the answer weaz.
I guess you are compassionate above all. I just don't think historically that leftism or statism has been very compassionate in practise in the real world.
Compassionate conservatism seems to be swirling down the toilet, as well.
I did appreciate your answer.
Soc, I make no claim to being a teacher - that was your supposed practise. So, if you don't understand - you are on your own.
Ducky,
Well, maybe no system is perfect, but some systems do work better than others. I'd choose capitalism over statism - since statist absolutism has proven to be a failure in both incarnations - communism and nazism(aka, national socialism).
Giving absolute and total power to the state in the form of economic micro-management means freedom of choice and individual reponsibilty for choices made go with it. Is that what you prefer?
Wayne, youn talk about economics, but don't really seem willing to respond to the Keynesian vision that I've discussed. There are a few options in between fascism and communism. And by the way, Wayne, where we're at right now is at the close end of fascism. A rose by any other name . . .
If the argument is for more bureaucratic management, after presenting a case that we are entering a period of precarious uncertainty, I don't agree that what we need is more of the disease that is causing the problem.
Keynes was embraced by the political elite that desired to use his theories as a means to push further into economic management of the nation. Keynes could even be considered the thin edge of the wedge to be driven into the economic system that would eventually lead to a more controlled economy.
Logically once his theories were accepted they made it easier to expand the state's presence in all economic endeavors. If his theories were applied to a free market that had broken down, we may be facing a market on the verge of a similar catastrophe - but this time it is not a free market, but one that has been bureaucratically mismanaged,IMO.
When has the supply and demand of a free market not been able to balance itself if price is used as the means to accomplish that? Rising prices will restrict demand and increase supply leading again to falling prices and an equilibrium in the market. Attempting to bureaucratically manage THAT has disasterous - since the bureaucrat is not an active participant in the market by actually producing something, but only seeks to manipulate and control that part of other market participants.
Ducky, nobody wants to interfere with your choice of packaged potato chips. In the overall scheme of things even Stalin would not have a problem leaving that choice up to you.
Ducky,
I guess we will always disagree about markets and their ability to allocate production to consumers, then.
You can't argue that today the problem is caused by laissez faire capitalism, since you would be hard pressed to find any market that does not have outside interference involved with it.
Even the oil industry, which everybody loves to hate today, being made the villain with the ever higher prices being paid at the pump for gasoline.
Exploration and new areas of known supply are so tightly controlled and regulated with bureaucratic regulation, that these regulations make new sources of supply off limits, until permission can be granted or purchased from those gatekeepers.
Then the ever present ubiquitous whiners point their fingers at the oil companies and holler exploitation - even they are prevented from adding to supplies by regulations.
Post a Comment