View Single Post
Unread 19 May 2008, 16:39   #35
Hebdomad
I ♡ ☠
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 834
Hebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldHebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldHebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldHebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldHebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldHebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldHebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldHebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldHebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldHebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldHebdomad spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Child poverty in the UK

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

It is laudable, but its not taking the whole economy into account. Many problems with measurement in the past have been because certain groups have been omitted arbitarily from the classification. Slaves, convicts, the homeless, destitute, ethnic groups, religious groups, military personnel, and so on. Usually, this has caused problems and either unacknowledged misery to continue, or unchecked cronyism to proliferate.

I think focusing on the fate of one specific group (in this case, the poor, which is a bit different to the usual practice but its the general principle that i'm talking about) is a bad thing. You need to see how everyone in an economy interacts with that economy otherwise you'll get systemic problems that you wont detect.
It's not about omitting groups, but concentrating on the poorest in society before those who are richer. Without this concentration you encounter social distortions between the rich and poor that the laissez-faire countries now encounter. You, indeed, need to account for the entire economy's interactions, but once you have done that you need to focus on the organisation of the economic actors, and I find any organisation illegitimate that does not have its primary focus on alleviating the conditions of the poorest in society.

Quote:
Gold does both. Well, it will definately "serve to sustain your social position" during a time of recession or adverse risk, because those who hold gold as a hedge against these things will do better than those who dont. Which comes to my main point; Gold is used as a hedge to shield current capital against future (or current) risk - once that risk is over, the money is then re-invested into whatever makes the highest returns (be it shares, real estate etc). So, that means that a proportion of the after-recession money actually comes from gold to re-start the economy.

So, Gold promotes investment into the future, at least to an extent, though not right now.
It is the retention of capital, gold included, especially in a depression, that causes huge economic problems. (I'm sure you're aware of this negative equilibrium and how it relates to the banking "confidence trick.") Keynes realised this and suggested temporary investment to reverse the negative equilibrium which the retention of capital causes, yet this tool was used to excess, and, thereafter, become a taboo. Nevertheless, it is the retention of capital (and excessive short term speculation, which overlaps with retention of capital, as the East Asian Financial crisis showed) which is at the heart of economic downturns.

Of course, you could argue that it's capital's intelligence that convinced it to 1) retreat from Asia in the mid-90s and 2) become extremely tentative about the US and the UK at the moment. Yet, in both cases, the economic "fundamentals" did and do not correlate to capital's behaviour, primarily, its exit. Essentially, investors lack of commitment to long term investment (their preference for short term gains, as opposed to the state's preference for long term gains) causes this negative equilibrium, and, ironically, damages an economy's fundamentals.

Quote:
Being against a fundamental aspect of humanity seems pretty futile. Everyone chooses to display their social status or whatever in different ways. Whether it is through bling, a good suit, a nice tie, a flashy car/house/boat, driving to work when you could easily take the bus/train, going on overseas holidays at every opportunity and then telling everyone about your fantastic time when you got home. Some people show their class by how the speak, by what they say, and what they dont say. Some show it by what they do, and what they dont do. Its a fundamental part of human nature that cannot be overridden with an economic system. Much better to celebrate these traits and then generate an economic system that enhances it, and put it to good use. Essentially, that's what capitalism did with greed: even Adam Smith recognised that. Supressing these traits in people is at best draconian-totalitarian, but even then you wont be successful.
Humanity's predilections are not set in stone. It is our unique capacity of free will that allows us to change. If you argue that the aspects of humanity cannot be changed then I cannot see how this idea leads to anything other than the negation of progress. Our current economic and social relations are not fixed. They are only advertised as so by those who benefit by them.

Quote:
Why not be a positive person?
Because without critique we do not progress.
Hebdomad is offline   Reply With Quote