Joseph Campbell and Postmodernism

Joseph Campbell believed that "...each of us has an individual myth that's driving us, which we may or may not know." This forum is for assistance and inspiration in the quest to find your own personal mythology.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
User avatar
adirondack
Associate
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:10 pm

Post by adirondack » Sat May 08, 2010 3:13 pm

Evinnra wrote:It is not that centrally governed economies can not function at all - as they function rather well for a short period of time - but centrally governed economies lose sensitivity to the usefulness or actual quality of things. The solution must be in the knowing of what is the ballanced approach. to progress. Right :?
Economies can't be governed. It's supply and demand. Only individual businesses can see the prices which are determined by supply and demand. And nobody knows where consumers will go and buy stuff. If you mean the application of justice, then that's a totally different situation. Fraud, stealing, etc.... are criminal acts, but economies are not controllable. They are spontaneous and each single business is only able to determine what the consumer needs. And the consumers can only ultimately dictate the market. There hasn't been a non-intervention market though. There are degrees of "how much intervention" there has been, but no interventions in the market actually "know" what's happening in the market.
There's only the free market and socialism (fascism, communism, etc....). There is no middle way, because interventionism only leads to socialism. Theoretically this had been proven over the centuries and it has absolutely been proven in the early 1900's by various economists one named Ludwig Von Mises who demonstrated that socialist's (interventionists) can't economically calculate in the market. They can't calculate because they don't see prices. Interventionism creates havoc in the market and then interventionist policies trying to provide a solution only cause further problems. These have already been determined within the science of economics. Politics, though, doesn't adhere to economic science. Political motives operate in true Machiavellian style in order to protect the status quo.
But as I said, justice is what has definitely been missing in the market. And without that, markets will be distorted, businesses will have no incentive as legislation protects the status quo, etc.... As I mentioned in my last post.
Last edited by adirondack on Sat May 08, 2010 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
adirondack
Associate
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:10 pm

Post by adirondack » Sat May 08, 2010 3:20 pm

jonsjourney wrote:A relativist perspective is adopted because the idea is understood that "objectivity" is largely a part of the stratified system that supports the industries that have created "objective reality".
In my opinion, jonsjourney, I believe your post paints too broad a brush and depends on events within society having to fit neat within your categorical assumptions of "post-modernism" and "modernism". Your approach appears to rely on implications having to connect to one of those two categories, rather than delving into the issues themselves which may not actually depend on those two categories alone. Also I believe you are still trying to interpret reality within the subject-object dichotomy, which by my experience is a false one.
But I'm open to a re-interpretation on my part, as this is what it seemed to me, and I can't be completely sure unless we discuss this more.

- thank you.
User avatar
adirondack
Associate
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:10 pm

Post by adirondack » Sat May 08, 2010 3:35 pm

Evinnra wrote:Currently, the thread 'Republic of Fools' is one that I believe touches on this topic. Please feel free to join us there. :)
It took me about three or so days to read this thread, so, it might be a bit before I join in. I'll start on that thread now. Looks Great!
Thank You.
jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney » Sun May 09, 2010 5:18 pm

But I'm open to a re-interpretation on my part, as this is what it seemed to me, and I can't be completely sure unless we discuss this more. -Adirondack
Yes, I think you may have missed my point, but that is ok, we can get there. I have a big week with 4 final exams, so it may take a bit, but I will return to address your comment thoughtfully and we shall proceed from there.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams
Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra » Mon May 10, 2010 5:50 am

Economies can't be governed. It's supply and demand. Only individual businesses can see the prices which are determined by supply and demand. And nobody knows where consumers will go and buy stuff. If you mean the application of justice, then that's a totally different situation. Fraud, stealing, etc.... are criminal acts, but economies are not controllable. They are spontaneous and each single business is only able to determine what the consumer needs. And the consumers can only ultimately dictate the market. There hasn't been a non-intervention market though. There are degrees of "how much intervention" there has been, but no interventions in the market actually "know" what's happening in the market.
There's only the free market and socialism (fascism, communism, etc....). There is no middle way, because interventionism only leads to socialism. Theoretically this had been proven over the centuries and it has absolutely been proven in the early 1900's by various economists one named Ludwig Von Mises who demonstrated that socialist's (interventionists) can't economically calculate in the market. They can't calculate because they don't see prices. Interventionism creates havoc in the market and then interventionist policies trying to provide a solution only cause further problems. These have already been determined within the science of economics. Politics, though, doesn't adhere to economic science. Political motives operate in true Machiavellian style in order to protect the status quo.
But as I said, justice is what has definitely been missing in the market. And without that, markets will be distorted, businesses will have no incentive as legislation protects the status quo, etc.... As I mentioned in my last post.
Couple of weeks ago I hosted a dinner party where the topic of social justice in different social structures happened to come. My guest – who has an MBA – asked; how would I describe the difference between socialism, communism and free market economy, or capitalism. It was quite obvious to me that he is either attempting to please the hostess with such a debate provoking question OR he is genuinely interested in how someone with a predominantly contemplative approach to life’s big question would answer a question like that. At first I was sorely tempted to answer with what is obvious , with the social advantages and disadvantages of each social structure, but then I thought better. (Am I a practicing contemplator if I answer with the obvious? :roll: :lol: ) My answer was that the difference, as I see it is in the degree of private ownership of those things that a society – held together by common interests and values - allows to be privately owned. (Understandably, here I attempt a more eloquent repharasing of what I've said, not the exact words. ) In communism – which never quite existed on our globe yet – absolutely everything is the property of the fictional entity we call the government. People don’t even have the right to travel as they please, the national resources are government owned and the government looks after the interests of absolutely everyone. (In theory, that is….) In socialism, there is some privately owned businesses, but the natural resources, banking and even the intellectual property of private citizens are owned by the government. In Liberal democracy, the mineral resources, banks and private intellectual property are not owned by the government, but the government owns transport, communication, water, health-care, education, national secuirty and provides a social welfare system as a ‘fall-back’ position for the citizens in return for the taxes they pay. In capitalism – since there is no such thing as a perfectly free market-economy – basically the government does nothing other than provide national security - and sometimes not even that . The gist of my answer was that social systems are always between full blown capitalism and communism, and my position is that each country adopts the system that best suits this particular country at the time. My thinking was, that some countries prefer constitutional monarchy - like Australia, for instance – some countries prefer a more religious type of government administration – for instance Iran – and some countries prefer a predominantly secularist administration – like France seems to do lately.

It is easy to see that a country ravaged by crime and corruption will ache for justice delivered by a just central government more than a country where law and order is still intact. This is going to be controversial, but I think Zimbabwe – for instance - has good enough national security and central governance to allow for development towards a more free economy. Mexico, on the other hand has so much trouble right now that it would not surprise me one bit if full blown communism developed there at any given moment. China still has strict central control hence it is in the position to provide the stable social structure that gives opportunities for safe business development. My point here is that asking which social system works best is rather futile, since the best systems will always be the one that suits the particular unified region the most at the time. If we were to decide that constitutional monarchy, or socialism, or secularist republic is the best for absolutely everyone on this globe, we could find ourselves in trouble pretty soon. (Within 25 years or so.) What does all this have to do with postmodernism? Everything! In order to have the skill of good discernment regarding what changes are required in a particular unified region at a time, we must allow for the individual to make rational decisions what is better for them and for their entire region. Postmodernism – in general – aims to undermine our belief in the reliability of our faculties to discern objectively. That is NOT what we need right here and right now. Right?
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com
Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato » Mon May 10, 2010 3:41 pm

Evinnra Wrote:
Postmodernism – in general – aims to undermine our belief in the reliability of our faculties to discern objectively. That is NOT what we need right here and right now. Right?
I'd rather focus on acheiving pristine cognition then try to convince myself that it doesn't exist. :D
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.
User avatar
adirondack
Associate
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:10 pm

Post by adirondack » Mon May 10, 2010 3:59 pm

Evinnra wrote: My thinking was, that some countries prefer constitutional monarchy - like Australia, for instance – some countries prefer a more religious type of government administration – for instance Iran – and some countries prefer a predominantly secularist administration – like France seems to do lately.


Ah. I see. You're talking about something else. I am talking about economics, not politics. I am using the economic science definition of terms while your interjecting politics into what I was discussing. In economic science terminology socialism is communism and fascism, etc... The free market is private property exchanges where socialism involves a gov't that intervenes in the market which rids prices that only arise spontaneously in private property exchanges. Socialism without prices can't economically calculate. There is interventionalism which is socialism in sectors of the economy, but it only works due to relying either on historic prices or looking at prices in other countries or other parts of the economy, because there are no supply and demand prices to look at in interventionalism which is basically socialism within a sector of an economy that is bordered by political nation-state lines. Without the prices socialism is blind and has to rely on other parts of the economy via taxes or the gov't owning the oil industry, etc... in order to pay for the socialistic parts of the economy. But it can't exist without other parts of the economy being a free market which then profits can be taken to pay for the socialistic parts of the economy. If the socialistic parts of the economy had access to prices and where not legislated or effected by central banking interventions then there would be prices and the supply and demand of consumers and producers would provide information (prices to meet people's needs.

Politically speaking, the UK and U.S. politically have been socialist in most parts of their economies, especially the healthcare industry for almost 100 years now. Since they have central banks then they can inflate money to socialize education (terrible education in the U.S. public schools, my wife is a teacher), control the Agriculture, etc.... The U.S. Presidents cabinet is what socialism controls in politics is. Public intervention in all sectors of society.
Evinnra wrote: My point here is that asking which social system works best is rather futile, since the best systems will always be the one that suits the particular unified region the most at the time. If we were to decide that constitutional monarchy, or socialism, or secularist republic is the best for absolutely everyone on this globe, we could find ourselves in trouble pretty soon. (Within 25 years or so.) What does all this have to do with postmodernism? Everything! In order to have the skill of good discernment regarding what changes are required in a particular unified region at a time, we must allow for the individual to make rational decisions what is better for them and for their entire region. Postmodernism – in general – aims to undermine our belief in the reliability of our faculties to discern objectively. That is NOT what we need right here and right now. Right?
Right, but I don't know if I would, at this point, call it post-modernist. Yet there has been an eroding of science in the economic departments, at least in the U.S. and U.K. for at least 100 years now. They threw much of the Theory of Marginal Utility (that Carl Menger revolutionized in economic science) they threw out parts at that time, though they can't throw it all out if any science is left in that department because what Menger came up with in the 1800's is what all economic sciences in modern times are founded upon. Yet slowly it has been discarded, Marx formulated his theory based on Adam Smith was the exact opposite of Menger's theorizing, but Adam's and Marx's theory's were proved wrong in economics in the late 1800's. Menger's is still present, though, the individual means of objectively taking a look at a subject have been slowly put on the backburner and not used. Which has created debates in the economic field for decades without any objective claims by those shelving what is essentially Menger's works. They are just doing it by force, not argumentatively.

The science of economics in mainstream economic teachings in the universities isn't much of a science anymore. Again, there's big debates and lots of information to point this all out on how economics is not a science when performed at the Fed. Reserve or what is taught in the universities. The science of economics that is being implemented the debate is still on-going, but those in positions of power consider the debate over and the science aspect is no more in policy circles and within the universities in most countries.

The Huffington Post did an amazing article that helps put much of this into focus. It is entitled How The Federal Reserve Bought The Economics Profession. This is not the only source in my researching over the years, but it gets to the point.

{source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/0 ... 78805.html

I was trying to point out the economic science which is different from the politics, but you're correct in terms of the types of politics.

My frame of reference by the way for justice is valuing each single individual that no physical aggression is to be initiated against any one person. That would be breaking the law and is the very essence of where justice evolves.
Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra » Tue May 11, 2010 5:29 am

Neoplato wrote:Evinnra Wrote:
Postmodernism – in general – aims to undermine our belief in the reliability of our faculties to discern objectively. That is NOT what we need right here and right now. Right?
I'd rather focus on acheiving pristine cognition then try to convince myself that it doesn't exist. :D
... for declaring defeat even before we attempted fighting is not clever. :D
Last edited by Evinnra on Tue May 11, 2010 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com
Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra » Tue May 11, 2010 6:28 am

adirondack wrote:
Evinnra wrote: My thinking was, that some countries prefer constitutional monarchy - like Australia, for instance – some countries prefer a more religious type of government administration – for instance Iran – and some countries prefer a predominantly secularist administration – like France seems to do lately.


Ah. I see. You're talking about something else. I am talking about economics, not politics. I am using the economic science definition of terms while your interjecting politics into what I was discussing. In economic science terminology socialism is communism and fascism, etc... The free market is private property exchanges where socialism involves a gov't that intervenes in the market which rids prices that only arise spontaneously in private property exchanges. Socialism without prices can't economically calculate. There is interventionalism which is socialism in sectors of the economy, but it only works due to relying either on historic prices or looking at prices in other countries or other parts of the economy, because there are no supply and demand prices to look at in interventionalism which is basically socialism within a sector of an economy that is bordered by political nation-state lines. Without the prices socialism is blind and has to rely on other parts of the economy via taxes or the gov't owning the oil industry, etc... in order to pay for the socialistic parts of the economy. But it can't exist without other parts of the economy being a free market which then profits can be taken to pay for the socialistic parts of the economy. If the socialistic parts of the economy had access to prices and where not legislated or effected by central banking interventions then there would be prices and the supply and demand of consumers and producers would provide information (prices to meet people's needs.
I must have gone about expressing my view the wrong way, for I thought I was talking about the economy of countries in relation to the social structures of these countries as you have done. What the previous post attempted to emphasise was that it is not economies that create the social context, but rather it is the social context that creates the economic structures. Perhaps this view is a bit Marxist - I give you that much - but it is difficult to argue against the fact that already existing things have priority in causation. (Let's keep it simple here and not get into arguments about backward causation.) Although it is true that economic systems do have an effect on social structures, yet social structures are more dominant in the interaction between society and the economy of the same society.. (Hence my comment on Mexico.)

Politically speaking, the UK and U.S. politically have been socialist in most parts of their economies, especially the healthcare industry for almost 100 years now. Since they have central banks then they can inflate money to socialize education (terrible education in the U.S. public schools, my wife is a teacher), control the Agriculture, etc.... The U.S. Presidents cabinet is what socialism controls in politics is. Public intervention in all sectors of society.
Beg to differ on that point adirondack, if by perfectly free market economy you mean an economy that has no discernible leadership or rules, then perhaps what you call free economy is better described as anarchy inflicted upon subjects who don't even know where the next hit will come from, let alone by whom it is being inflicted upon them. Perhaps I badly missunderstood your point, but I could not help making this assumption when reading that you think the US and UK economies were/are socialist in most parts. Indeed, there are admitted influences on the economy by cabinet or president in each of these countries, I just don't get it why would it be equal to a system that is admittedly socialist. :? Is it a bad thing to have a visible leader? Is it a bad thing that a leader have influence on what s/he is leading?
Evinnra wrote: My point here is that asking which social system works best is rather futile, since the best systems will always be the one that suits the particular unified region the most at the time. If we were to decide that constitutional monarchy, or socialism, or secularist republic is the best for absolutely everyone on this globe, we could find ourselves in trouble pretty soon. (Within 25 years or so.) What does all this have to do with postmodernism? Everything! In order to have the skill of good discernment regarding what changes are required in a particular unified region at a time, we must allow for the individual to make rational decisions what is better for them and for their entire region. Postmodernism – in general – aims to undermine our belief in the reliability of our faculties to discern objectively. That is NOT what we need right here and right now. Right?
Right, but I don't know if I would, at this point, call it post-modernist. Yet there has been an eroding of science in the economic departments, at least in the U.S. and U.K. for at least 100 years now. They threw much of the Theory of Marginal Utility (that Carl Menger revolutionized in economic science) they threw out parts at that time, though they can't throw it all out if any science is left in that department because what Menger came up with in the 1800's is what all economic sciences in modern times are founded upon. Yet slowly it has been discarded, Marx formulated his theory based on Adam Smith was the exact opposite of Menger's theorizing, but Adam's and Marx's theory's were proved wrong in economics in the late 1800's. Menger's is still present, though, the individual means of objectively taking a look at a subject have been slowly put on the backburner and not used. Which has created debates in the economic field for decades without any objective claims by those shelving what is essentially Menger's works. They are just doing it by force, not argumentatively.
If there are highly skilled economic scientists arguing, the eyes of most people glaze over. That is not to say people are not interested in the economy in general, rather that the science of economy is so complex that not even economists look confident making their point in public. Like with philosophy, unless one is trained in the topic, the most significant nuances in an argument escapes the general public. Yet it is the general public that is involved in making a good life for themselves by thinking clearly (using philosophy) and investing their money wisely ( science of economy) . We've got to the point that admittedly, someone trained in the classics can make far more useful predictions about economic realities than economists them selves. It is the complexity of the topic I blame, not the economists who enthusiastically got themselves into a topic that consequently developed into a science as comples as theoretical physics. If I didn't know better, I could assume that economists are out to dazzle the public with arbitrarily chosen facts and figures ( smokes and mirrors) and blame the ignorance and greed of the public if it can't figure out their 'magic'.


The science of economics in mainstream economic teachings in the universities isn't much of a science anymore. Again, there's big debates and lots of information to point this all out on how economics is not a science when performed at the Fed. Reserve or what is taught in the universities. The science of economics that is being implemented the debate is still on-going, but those in positions of power consider the debate over and the science aspect is no more in policy circles and within the universities in most countries.

The Huffington Post did an amazing article that helps put much of this into focus. It is entitled How The Federal Reserve Bought The Economics Profession. This is not the only source in my researching over the years, but it gets to the point.

{source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/0 ... 78805.html

I was trying to point out the economic science which is different from the politics, but you're correct in terms of the types of politics.

My frame of reference by the way for justice is valuing each single individual that no physical aggression is to be initiated against any one person. That would be breaking the law and is the very essence of where justice evolves.
I apologise if my post appeared to convey a lack of respect for the science of economics. :cry: For me, the science of economy is like the science of psychology, I respect it because I don't claim to have any experties in it. That is not to say I will toss out all my common sense discernment just because I admit that there are experts in the field. As a mother, I don't need a psychology degree - though it could be useful - to bring up my children. As a consumer, I don't need a degree in economics to spend my money - though having a degree in economics might be very useful. Nor do people need a degree in philosophy to lead a healthy and happy life - though having it might be very useful. On the end, commmon sense must dictate what we do, and for that all we need is to take a close look at what is happening in the here and now. If common sense dictates that we do know things, we do experience life it does not seem clever to ignore this information. Right? :)
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com
User avatar
adirondack
Associate
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:10 pm

Post by adirondack » Tue May 11, 2010 4:58 pm

Evinnra wrote:
adirondack wrote:Politically speaking, the UK and U.S. politically have been socialist in most parts of their economies, especially the healthcare industry for almost 100 years now. Since they have central banks then they can inflate money to socialize education (terrible education in the U.S. public schools, my wife is a teacher), control the Agriculture, etc.... The U.S. Presidents cabinet is what socialism controls in politics is. Public intervention in all sectors of society.
Beg to differ on that point adirondack, if by perfectly free market economy you mean an economy that has no discernible leadership or rules, then perhaps what you call free economy is better described as anarchy inflicted upon subjects who don't even know where the next hit will come from, let alone by whom it is being inflicted upon them. Perhaps I badly missunderstood your point, but I could not help making this assumption when reading that you think the US and UK economies were/are socialist in most parts. Indeed, there are admitted influences on the economy by cabinet or president in each of these countries, I just don't get it why would it be equal to a system that is admittedly socialist. :? Is it a bad thing to have a visible leader? Is it a bad thing that a leader have influence on what s/he is leading?
I'm saying the politics intervening in the economy are socialist, because any intervention in the economy is via economic science called socialist. Economic speaking there is only the free market and then there is socialism. The interventionalism leads to socialism, but there has never been absolute socialism because it is economically impossible. There has to be a free market somewhere in order to pay for things.

You're conflating the social science called politics with the social science called economics. They are two different subjects. I am providing what in economics all gov't interventions into the market are called. I haven't ventured into what the political influence is other than that it does exist via legislation. Maybe that is partly my fault because I'm used to seeing that economics is not politics. Two different subjects that for instance at school, it would involve two different instructors teaching two totally different subjects.
Evinnra wrote:If there are highly skilled economic scientists arguing, the eyes of most people glaze over. That is not to say people are not interested in the economy in general, rather that the science of economy is so complex that not even economists look confident making their point in public.
Right. Exactly. And thereby some people don't realize what it means when interest rates are artificially lowered and highered and don't realize how that directly effects them. So when things crash people look in the wrong places for answers. They don't realize what's happening, but some economists do. To the point that the academia has been bought off by the Federal Reserve and what is taught in the classroom has gotten away from the science of economics. It's a very easy way to decimate whole economies and sustain political power Machiavellian style. The economics of the Fed. is economics, but it is currently teaching and involving a pseudo-science because they are the intelligentsia vanguard of the political power, especially as of the last 100 years or so. It is this complicated aspect of economics that the psuedo-scientists give it, because economics taught scientifically as of old and in some universities that still do teach the current economic sciences (not the pseudo-science of the Fed.), they know what is happening. They see the people getting duped. It's rather unfortunate.
Evinnra wrote: Like with philosophy, unless one is trained in the topic, the most significant nuances in an argument escapes the general public. Yet it is the general public that is involved in making a good life for themselves by thinking clearly (using philosophy) and investing their money wisely ( science of economy).
But when there are central planners forcing bad economic decisions on people in a void of justice, even if people know what's happening and try to save wisely. They can't. The fox is in the hen house.
Evinnra wrote: We've got to the point that admittedly, someone trained in the classics can make far more useful predictions about economic realities than economists them selves.
I'm only repeating a lot of what other economist argue. I find it simple and very persuasive, because it has predicted the Great Depression (Ludwig Von Mises predicted the Great Depression nearly a decade before it happen), it had predicted that the U.S. will detach from gold on the global market due (Hazlitt did about twenty years before it happened all based on the policies at the time. It is all predictable on if A happens, ceteris paribus then B will happen. Nixon ended up doing this ca. 1970). The 1970's crisis was predicted about one or two decades beforehand, same thing. So was the housing bubble by various people about a decade before it happened. They did it theoretically, using economic theorizing, mainly the theory called Austrian Business Cycle Theory. Watch the interest rate manipulation and the consequences are very predictable. Then further interventions are also further predictable as to what kinds of consequences they lead to.
Evinnra wrote: It is the complexity of the topic I blame, not the economists who enthusiastically got themselves into a topic that consequently developed into a science as comples as theoretical physics.
Right. And yet all theories of good economic science point out 'do not intervene in the market'. I mean economically by manipulating economic influences such as interest rates, etc.... Again, politics is different. Justice is a whole other field as well that one field of justice is called criminology. The complexity of the psuedo-scientists confuses the public, but it's also because they don't even know what to do. The Fed. Chairman has said numerous times of recent that these are new issues, they are thinking creatively. In other words, they're throwing out experiments upon the society and seeing what works. They are doing experiments on the public. They have no clue what to do, in their own words. So they are 'being creative', trying 'new things'. It's all because central economic planning doesn't work, never has, never will. It's theoretically impossible and all practices or attempts only further validate this. But without a theory to begin with (which the Fed. doesn't currently have, even the universities are trying to develop new theories as they all admit since this past housing crisis they their theories didn't work), without that theory, then they are blind. They have no thoughts as to what to do. And they never will, because they can't figure out what decision Johnny will make when it goes to the store. Heck Johnny might not even know yet. Supply and demand.
Evinnra wrote:If I didn't know better, I could assume that economists are out to dazzle the public with arbitrarily chosen facts and figures ( smokes and mirrors) and blame the ignorance and greed of the public if it can't figure out their 'magic'.
It is magic. Economist who have stuck to the science compare the Fed. psuedo-economists as if they are astrologers when the topic is astronomy. They are that off. They are astrologers trying to do astronomy. Not that astrology is anything bad, but to dabble in the economy, in astronomy with astrology is like asking a baker to come and fix a car.
Evinnra wrote:I apologise if my post appeared to convey a lack of respect for the science of economics. :cry: For me, the science of economy is like the science of psychology, I respect it because I don't claim to have any experties in it. That is not to say I will toss out all my common sense discernment just because I admit that there are experts in the field. As a mother, I don't need a psychology degree - though it could be useful - to bring up my children. As a consumer, I don't need a degree in economics to spend my money - though having a degree in economics might be very useful.
No need to apologize. I took no offense to anything and all posts that have responded to me have been excellent, informative, and very nice. I like the people here.

To continue, at least for the moment psychologists are not making impacts on our lives directly by policies or direct actions that reach every single person daily. Economists on the other hand are. And it distorts the perceptions and conclusions of people to the point of rebellion (Greece), and poverty (much of the world). And how much food and energy currently is, etc.... It's not the studying of it that impacts people's lives. It's the implementations of policies in economics without any theoretical insight that effects the whole of societies that is detrimental. I still would need to go to a psychologist office down the road to get help from them. Economist are directly in the lives of people whether they care or not.
Evinnra wrote: Nor do people need a degree in philosophy to lead a healthy and happy life - though having it might be very useful. On the end, commmon sense must dictate what we do, and for that all we need is to take a close look at what is happening in the here and now.
Common sense is being dictated to at the moment. Any common sense drives people have will lead to situations that where caused by central planners and the lack of justice. They are pulling the strings of every single individual and nobody can do anything about it at the moment. Save or start a garden, but they've already created the crisis and they are only making it worse. Savings will be worthless more and more. They already are and have been, but the threat is real. They've already done much of the damage and they are only going to be doing more.
Evinnra wrote:If common sense dictates that we do know things, we do experience life it does not seem clever to ignore this information. Right? :)
Yes. I just don't like to have a few people have such direct manipulation means over the essential livelihoods that I depend on, such as food, shelter, and heat (I have enough clothes to last me and with heat, at least I can chop wood). Taxes are going up probably next year so we're trying to get out of this house because times are going to only get worse.
jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney » Wed May 12, 2010 12:12 am

I noted an interesting story earlier today...
Reported by: Newsroom Solutions
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @08:05am CDT

U.S. tax rates fell to their lowest levels in more than half a century last year.

According to "USA Today," figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis show Americans spent nine-point-two percent of their income on federal, state and local taxes in 2009.

That's the lowest rate since 1950.

The average tax rate in the past 59 years has been about 12-percent.

The tax rate for all Americans combined has fallen 26-percent since the recession began in 2007, saving the average household more than three-thousand dollars a year.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams
User avatar
adirondack
Associate
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:10 pm

Post by adirondack » Wed May 12, 2010 2:17 am

jonsjourney wrote:I noted an interesting story earlier today...

Reported by: Newsroom Solutions
Tuesday, May 11, 2010 @08:05am CDT
Are those the Bush tax cuts? I don't know how those tax cuts were laid out, if they were different each year or whatnot. They end soon, and it has been reported that Congress will probably not renew the tax cuts and so they will probably go back up next year. But that's next year and who knows what will happen tomorrow let along next year. Life is full of possibilities.

Thanks for the news link. :)

P.S. Time for me to move onto some Campbell stuff and check out the virtue thread. :D
Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato » Wed May 12, 2010 1:19 pm

According to "USA Today," figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis show Americans spent nine-point-two percent of their income on federal, state and local taxes in 2009.
Hey JJ,

Just wanted to let you know this is a numbers spin. The true rate is significantly higher than 9.2%. Percentages can me manipulated based on actual numbers (and what is excluded and included in the numerator and demoninator).
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.
User avatar
adirondack
Associate
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:10 pm

Post by adirondack » Wed May 12, 2010 1:34 pm

Neoplato wrote:
According to "USA Today," figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis show Americans spent nine-point-two percent of their income on federal, state and local taxes in 2009.
Hey JJ,

Just wanted to let you know this is a numbers spin. The true rate is significantly higher than 9.2%. Percentages can me manipulated based on actual numbers (and what is excluded and included in the numerator and demoninator).
I wasn't sure what the numbers meant personally, but kinda wanted to move on to another subject. All I know is about 43% or so taxes are taken out of my paycheck.
Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra » Wed May 12, 2010 3:25 pm


I'm saying the politics intervening in the economy are socialist, because any intervention in the economy is via economic science called socialist. Economic speaking there is only the free market and then there is socialism. The interventionalism leads to socialism, but there has never been absolute socialism because it is economically impossible. There has to be a free market somewhere in order to pay for things.
Yes, if you recall I did claim that neither perfectly free market, nor perfect communism is possible in actual practice. I take it you agree with me that the economic structures vary only in extent of the dominance of central organisations. My claim is simply that this variety is caused by each regions social conditions and I'm not quite sure what you say about this claim of mine. :?
You're conflating the social science called politics with the social science called economics. They are two different subjects. I am providing what in economics all gov't interventions into the market are called. I haven't ventured into what the political influence is other than that it does exist via legislation. Maybe that is partly my fault because I'm used to seeing that economics is not politics. Two different subjects that for instance at school, it would involve two different instructors teaching two totally different subjects.
So, am I correct that you claim the two social sciences (politics and economics) can be arbitrarily gathered under the same umbrella for the sake of making a point , when it suits our needs to make an argument, but we can arbitrarily divide these social sciences into two at any given moment, when it does not serve our interest to see them as fundamentally inter-related? At which point is it justifiable to separate the two social sciences and for what reason?
Evinnra wrote:If there are highly skilled economic scientists arguing, the eyes of most people glaze over. That is not to say people are not interested in the economy in general, rather that the science of economy is so complex that not even economists look confident making their point in public.
Right. Exactly. And thereby some people don't realize what it means when interest rates are artificially lowered and highered and don't realize how that directly effects them. So when things crash people look in the wrong places for answers. They don't realize what's happening, but some economists do. To the point that the academia has been bought off by the Federal Reserve and what is taught in the classroom has gotten away from the science of economics. It's a very easy way to decimate whole economies and sustain political power Machiavellian style. The economics of the Fed. is economics, but it is currently teaching and involving a pseudo-science because they are the intelligentsia vanguard of the political power, especially as of the last 100 years or so. It is this complicated aspect of economics that the psuedo-scientists give it, because economics taught scientifically as of old and in some universities that still do teach the current economic sciences (not the pseudo-science of the Fed.), they know what is happening. They see the people getting duped. It's rather unfortunate.
Adirondack, I can not recall arguing against the usefulness of getting a degree in economics.
Evinnra wrote: Like with philosophy, unless one is trained in the topic, the most significant nuances in an argument escapes the general public. Yet it is the general public that is involved in making a good life for themselves by thinking clearly (using philosophy) and investing their money wisely ( science of economy).
But when there are central planners forcing bad economic decisions on people in a void of justice, even if people know what's happening and try to save wisely. They can't. The fox is in the hen house.
Low interest rates also encourage people to invest in small businesses as opposed to saving money in a bank that can go insolvent any time. How is this not protecting the free market? It certainly does not lend much money for speculators to gamble away in a still inadequately regulated financial system. Right? :wink:
Evinnra wrote: We've got to the point that admittedly, someone trained in the classics can make far more useful predictions about economic realities than economists them selves.
I'm only repeating a lot of what other economist argue. I find it simple and very persuasive, because it has predicted the Great Depression (Ludwig Von Mises predicted the Great Depression nearly a decade before it happen), it had predicted that the U.S. will detach from gold on the global market due (Hazlitt did about twenty years before it happened all based on the policies at the time. It is all predictable on if A happens, ceteris paribus then B will happen. Nixon ended up doing this ca. 1970). The 1970's crisis was predicted about one or two decades beforehand, same thing. So was the housing bubble by various people about a decade before it happened. They did it theoretically, using economic theorizing, mainly the theory called Austrian Business Cycle Theory. Watch the interest rate manipulation and the consequences are very predictable. Then further interventions are also further predictable as to what kinds of consequences they lead to.
Who am I to argue against such illustrious names? Of course, you could be right what you say about interest rates, I just can not agree with you because the reasoning does not seem quite right to me. Why put money in banks and financial institutions when these institutions admit that they don't really know what they are doing (non-transparency) and accept no responsibility for their disasterous actions (un-accountability? It seems one might be better off saving money under the mattress. :lol: But people in general are smarter than that, if they have money to invest, they could invest in actual businesses that they can see working with their money and have some control over.
Evinnra wrote: It is the complexity of the topic I blame, not the economists who enthusiastically got themselves into a topic that consequently developed into a science as comples as theoretical physics.
Right. And yet all theories of good economic science point out 'do not intervene in the market'. I mean economically by manipulating economic influences such as interest rates, etc.... Again, politics is different. Justice is a whole other field as well that one field of justice is called criminology. The complexity of the psuedo-scientists confuses the public, but it's also because they don't even know what to do. The Fed. Chairman has said numerous times of recent that these are new issues, they are thinking creatively. In other words, they're throwing out experiments upon the society and seeing what works. They are doing experiments on the public. They have no clue what to do, in their own words. So they are 'being creative', trying 'new things'. It's all because central economic planning doesn't work, never has, never will. It's theoretically impossible and all practices or attempts only further validate this. But without a theory to begin with (which the Fed. doesn't currently have, even the universities are trying to develop new theories as they all admit since this past housing crisis they their theories didn't work), without that theory, then they are blind. They have no thoughts as to what to do. And they never will, because they can't figure out what decision Johnny will make when it goes to the store. Heck Johnny might not even know yet. Supply and demand.
This is the point I am not getting just yet. You say central planning never works and I agree with this. But then you would like people to invest in financial institutions that can only make profit if they have knowledge of what a central planning is about to do. It is this knowledge that has value on the stock market, for the buildings, material and the work of the people would earn a nice profit without the stock market. I am confused now. :? Do you or do you not believe in central planning? If you believe central planning never works out, hence it is bad, then why rely on a system (the stock exchange) to make money that it self must rely on the existence of central planning? If you believe there is always some central planning and it is a good thing, why promote a money making method (the use of the stock exchange) that undermines the stability of central planning? :?

Common sense is being dictated to at the moment. Any common sense drives people have will lead to situations that where caused by central planners and the lack of justice. They are pulling the strings of every single individual and nobody can do anything about it at the moment. Save or start a garden, but they've already created the crisis and they are only making it worse. Savings will be worthless more and more. They already are and have been, but the threat is real. They've already done much of the damage and they are only going to be doing more.
Evinnra wrote:If common sense dictates that we do know things, we do experience life it does not seem clever to ignore this information. Right? :)
Yes. I just don't like to have a few people have such direct manipulation means over the essential livelihoods that I depend on, such as food, shelter, and heat (I have enough clothes to last me and with heat, at least I can chop wood). Taxes are going up probably next year so we're trying to get out of this house because times are going to only get worse.
To break something deliberately in order to have the opportunity to come and save the day is a very nasty act but there are many who make their fortune this way. All I know is that if I were using this method to look like the hero on the end of the day, I would admit that I have done it just in case there is a special corner in hell reserved for the likes of me. It is much safer to make peace with my enemy while we are still on the road, no? :)
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com
Locked