I found this blog through another post on the Secular state.
Justin is a very intelligent young man who likes to cover political, philosophical, economic issues, and the topic of secularism and religion. In fact, part of me wants to defer to him on the topic of secularism and religion as he is wise beyond his age in thse matters.
He has just finished a three part post on Afghanistan that is most cogent and insightful regarding history and nation building. Unfortunately, the west likes to place its constructs upon a society which cannot work. The concept that nations can be built upon geographic, rather than cultural and ethnic lines is the cause of much conflict in Europe (Balkans), Africa, and Asia. Justin addresses the extreme multicultural society comprised by Afghanistan. Actually, Justin doesn't mention that this area combines Iran, Pakistan, and India by the nature of ethnic and cultural identites (e.g., Pashtuns).
I hope that decision makers consider Justin's comments and I hope those who read this take a look at Justin's blog.
I wish young Justin well.
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
18 December 2009
05 December 2009
Matthew White on economics
Well worth a squiz! OK, we're probably like minded people. But Jane Wiedlin thought she would have a lot in common with Sparks until she met them and the song Cool Places is about their mutual inability to find anything they had in common.
Anyway, I was reading his stuff to find something refuting a comment along the lines of German gun control enabled the Holocaust in Eastern Europe. Not that a comment like that needed any help in refuting since that's like saying Canadian gun control results in more US homicides. Matthew's Which Has Killed More People? Christianity? or Gun Control? sort of covers it. I have to admit that I cover it even more thoroughly in my astroturfed genocide post.
But not as humourously as does Matthew!
Anyway, this comes from A Billion Here, a Billion There:
If you're like me, you probably have four categories of money:
1. the price of a beer,
2. too much for a beer,
3. rent, and
4. far beyond my ability to comprehend.
He also trashes Wikipedia: "Wikipedia has become the McDonalds/Microsoft/Walmart of information. It provides reliably mediocre information at a low, low cost. This drives competitors out of business, reduces diversity, and lowers the standards all across the board. Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge. Everyone knows this already. "Checking Wikipedia" has become the information equivalent of "stopping at McDonald's". It reeks of apathy and superficiality."
Hey, wikipedia's a start sometimes, but the copy can indeed be pretty biased. On the other hand, the Oxford University Press has a book where somebody like Stephen Halbrook wrote the Section on the Second Amendment! Are we going to trash OUP for that? You betcha!
His Translations from the Italian are pretty good as well!
Anyway, I was reading his stuff to find something refuting a comment along the lines of German gun control enabled the Holocaust in Eastern Europe. Not that a comment like that needed any help in refuting since that's like saying Canadian gun control results in more US homicides. Matthew's Which Has Killed More People? Christianity? or Gun Control? sort of covers it. I have to admit that I cover it even more thoroughly in my astroturfed genocide post.
But not as humourously as does Matthew!
Anyway, this comes from A Billion Here, a Billion There:
If you're like me, you probably have four categories of money:
1. the price of a beer,
2. too much for a beer,
3. rent, and
4. far beyond my ability to comprehend.
He also trashes Wikipedia: "Wikipedia has become the McDonalds/Microsoft/Walmart of information. It provides reliably mediocre information at a low, low cost. This drives competitors out of business, reduces diversity, and lowers the standards all across the board. Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge. Everyone knows this already. "Checking Wikipedia" has become the information equivalent of "stopping at McDonald's". It reeks of apathy and superficiality."
Hey, wikipedia's a start sometimes, but the copy can indeed be pretty biased. On the other hand, the Oxford University Press has a book where somebody like Stephen Halbrook wrote the Section on the Second Amendment! Are we going to trash OUP for that? You betcha!
His Translations from the Italian are pretty good as well!
The acres greens are the place to be. The life of the agricultural company is the life for me. Earth that is scattered outside up to now and widely. Manhattan Conservation. Just give that side of the country. Not, New York is where rather I would remain. I obtain the feeling hay the allergic odore. Adore hardly one seen of the penthouse. Love of treasure I, but give the tree-lined avenue to me of the park. The chores, the warehouses, fresh air, chronometer of the square. You are my moglie. Good bye, life of the city. Acres greens we are here!
17 November 2009
Thinkin' 'bout the economy.
I used to say that George W. Bush wasn't going to be outdone by his father who saw the collapse of one of the world's two superpowers, Dubya was going to make sure the other one collapsed.
Of course, people have been predicting the demise of the United States before the Declaration of Independence, let alone the Treaty of Paris.
What gets me off on this topic is that a few mornings back, I awoke to a story about China studying and preparing for the decline of US power. I would have preferred a more definite story on this, but I found the possibility quite intriguing.
I mean you have to remember that the question “How would you carry out a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor?” appeared on every final exam for each graduating class of Japan’s Naval Academy from 1931 until the actual attack. So, there is a precedent for not so sneak attacks catching the US unprepared.
I have to thank il principe for the term weapons of mass distraction media since as per usual, the yanks are too distracted by wedge issues and irrelevancies to see what is happening right in front of their noses. That is that the Chinese are the people propping up the US economy.
Sure, this seems a bit like the episode of Spooks I watched last night (S7e5) where the British economy is on the brink of collapse. On the other hand, that episode raised a lot of the issues, such as running an economy based upon debt, that I talk about here.
There is a seriously mixed rant here at the inability of the American people to see through the bullshit handed to them by the media and politicians. Worse, they are easily misled by special interest groups such as the NRA, Americans for Quality and Affordable Healthcare, pro-life, and so on that keep them in a panic about everything except what really is happening.
The funny thing is that the next invasion may happen by stealth. It will be undetected until the coup has happened. By that time, it will be too late for anything to be done.
Of course, people have been predicting the demise of the United States before the Declaration of Independence, let alone the Treaty of Paris.
What gets me off on this topic is that a few mornings back, I awoke to a story about China studying and preparing for the decline of US power. I would have preferred a more definite story on this, but I found the possibility quite intriguing.
I mean you have to remember that the question “How would you carry out a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor?” appeared on every final exam for each graduating class of Japan’s Naval Academy from 1931 until the actual attack. So, there is a precedent for not so sneak attacks catching the US unprepared.
I have to thank il principe for the term weapons of mass distraction media since as per usual, the yanks are too distracted by wedge issues and irrelevancies to see what is happening right in front of their noses. That is that the Chinese are the people propping up the US economy.
Sure, this seems a bit like the episode of Spooks I watched last night (S7e5) where the British economy is on the brink of collapse. On the other hand, that episode raised a lot of the issues, such as running an economy based upon debt, that I talk about here.
There is a seriously mixed rant here at the inability of the American people to see through the bullshit handed to them by the media and politicians. Worse, they are easily misled by special interest groups such as the NRA, Americans for Quality and Affordable Healthcare, pro-life, and so on that keep them in a panic about everything except what really is happening.
The funny thing is that the next invasion may happen by stealth. It will be undetected until the coup has happened. By that time, it will be too late for anything to be done.
06 August 2009
All that glitters...
I have to admit that I am musing on the topic of money and economics lately. Not just fiat money, you know, the folding stuff in your wallet that you spend. I am considering why gold has value.
There are two commonly held views as to why money has value:
1. Social convention--People are willing to accept it as payment.
2. Government decree--The government says so (Fiat money).
The first reason, that being that money has value because people are willing to accept it as payment is nothing more than a circular argument. It states that money has value because it is accepted. Why is it accepted? ...because it has value!
The second belief is also false. As history reveals, there are many country currencies that have suffered through hyperinflation or complete collapse click here.
Right now we are witnessing the collapse of the world economic system which is causing great grief to governments. The problem is what is going to replace it. Not to mention there is fierce resistance from the "haves" who see their power waning as their wealth becomes worthless.
Money originally started out as a commodity. Originally, people exchanged goods according to their wants and needs with one another. Examples of commodities that have been used as mediums of exchange include gold, silver, copper, salt, peppercorns, large stones, decorated belts, shells, alcohol, cigarettes, cannabis, candy, barley etc. These items were sometimes used in a metric of perceived value in conjunction to one another, in various commodity valuation or price system economies. The problem is that it makes trade difficult, so along came a medium of exchange that eventually became money.
Money has to fulfill three things to be useful:
1. It is a medium of exchange.
2. It is a store of value.
3. It is a unit of account.
Now the real hitch is value. The title of this comes from the fact that I read that gold has no real value. I read somewhere that gold's value is subjective. That is
There are actually three types of value in economics, Objective, Subjective, and relative. Objective value is a value set by a marketplace such as a commodities exchange and is otherwise known as market value. It's a bit like the social convention that says "gold is valuable because people find value in gold". Relative value is the attractiveness measured in terms of utility for a given instrument of exchange.
Although value in general is relative. That is even if gold has a market value (Objective), it doesn't matter whether you think it's valuable or not (subjective), it does not affect its objective value. However, the situation in which the gold is supposed to be of value does matter, because value in general is relative to individual and circumstances. For instance to person X, who happens to be stranded on a desert island, gold is not valuable. Its value to him is still objective. That is it won't all of a sudden change price because he decides so, that's a market force. But relative to him the value of gold is, objectively, zero since it isn't useful for exchange. That is there is no utilty to gold.
So, in a situation where the currency has colapsed and one needs food, which is more valuable to the person with food: gold or something they need?
I like to quote the TV show "Jute City": Money in of itself isn't evil, its when people take it from a medium of exchange and make it into a commodity that it becomes evil. Probably more of a paraphrase than a quote, but you get the idea. There is a cruder version of this which is "money is like shit, it's useless unless it's spread around."
Part of the problem is that people have been wanting to accumulate far more money and things than they need. That means the rest of us are stuck in an economic form of musical chairs since the economy is really based upon debt. I know, I just did a literary no-no by introducing debt into this mix about money and value. But really the fiat money has been backed by debt and not by value for some time now. That is the reason for the seeming economic fluctuations. Although to be quite honest, the economy has been in recovery for quite some time now: at least since Reagan-Thatcher came into office.
Why are so many people having trouble making ends meet given the economic recoveries?
Actually, the economic situation is like a game of musical chairs and the recoveries have just been changes of songs.
But the real gist of this is that the gold out there is worthless if it can't be spent. It's nice to think something has value until you try to sell it.
Then you really see the market forces kick in.
There are two commonly held views as to why money has value:
1. Social convention--People are willing to accept it as payment.
2. Government decree--The government says so (Fiat money).
The first reason, that being that money has value because people are willing to accept it as payment is nothing more than a circular argument. It states that money has value because it is accepted. Why is it accepted? ...because it has value!
The second belief is also false. As history reveals, there are many country currencies that have suffered through hyperinflation or complete collapse click here.
Right now we are witnessing the collapse of the world economic system which is causing great grief to governments. The problem is what is going to replace it. Not to mention there is fierce resistance from the "haves" who see their power waning as their wealth becomes worthless.
Money originally started out as a commodity. Originally, people exchanged goods according to their wants and needs with one another. Examples of commodities that have been used as mediums of exchange include gold, silver, copper, salt, peppercorns, large stones, decorated belts, shells, alcohol, cigarettes, cannabis, candy, barley etc. These items were sometimes used in a metric of perceived value in conjunction to one another, in various commodity valuation or price system economies. The problem is that it makes trade difficult, so along came a medium of exchange that eventually became money.
Money has to fulfill three things to be useful:
1. It is a medium of exchange.
2. It is a store of value.
3. It is a unit of account.
Now the real hitch is value. The title of this comes from the fact that I read that gold has no real value. I read somewhere that gold's value is subjective. That is
1) The item is useful in satisfying human wants, therefore it is desirable
2) There is a limited supply to satisfy demand.
3) We are told it is valuable even though it can't be eaten, worn, or very useful.
There are actually three types of value in economics, Objective, Subjective, and relative. Objective value is a value set by a marketplace such as a commodities exchange and is otherwise known as market value. It's a bit like the social convention that says "gold is valuable because people find value in gold". Relative value is the attractiveness measured in terms of utility for a given instrument of exchange.
Although value in general is relative. That is even if gold has a market value (Objective), it doesn't matter whether you think it's valuable or not (subjective), it does not affect its objective value. However, the situation in which the gold is supposed to be of value does matter, because value in general is relative to individual and circumstances. For instance to person X, who happens to be stranded on a desert island, gold is not valuable. Its value to him is still objective. That is it won't all of a sudden change price because he decides so, that's a market force. But relative to him the value of gold is, objectively, zero since it isn't useful for exchange. That is there is no utilty to gold.
So, in a situation where the currency has colapsed and one needs food, which is more valuable to the person with food: gold or something they need?
I like to quote the TV show "Jute City": Money in of itself isn't evil, its when people take it from a medium of exchange and make it into a commodity that it becomes evil. Probably more of a paraphrase than a quote, but you get the idea. There is a cruder version of this which is "money is like shit, it's useless unless it's spread around."
Part of the problem is that people have been wanting to accumulate far more money and things than they need. That means the rest of us are stuck in an economic form of musical chairs since the economy is really based upon debt. I know, I just did a literary no-no by introducing debt into this mix about money and value. But really the fiat money has been backed by debt and not by value for some time now. That is the reason for the seeming economic fluctuations. Although to be quite honest, the economy has been in recovery for quite some time now: at least since Reagan-Thatcher came into office.
Why are so many people having trouble making ends meet given the economic recoveries?
Actually, the economic situation is like a game of musical chairs and the recoveries have just been changes of songs.
But the real gist of this is that the gold out there is worthless if it can't be spent. It's nice to think something has value until you try to sell it.
Then you really see the market forces kick in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
