John, I totally agree--natural ecosystems also break down and collapse when an invasive species without predators takes over. The key is keeping every node of power / influence limited / small / localized. If there were 5,000 banks instead of five "too big to fail," some would fail but the system would be robust. The problem is the system (whatever we call it--Corporate-State Capitalism?) rewards and incentivizes cartels, monopolies, and corporate-state duopolies that all benefit from consolidating capital and power, and then snapping up smaller competitors. This is why John D. Rockefeller proclaimed competition "a sin." Indeed. Our economy is dominated by cartels and monopolies, and of course the federal government is a monopoly, balanced in theory by state governments and the judiciary, but nothing stops the consolidation / concentration of "invasive species" in the system as it is currently organized.
I have tried to sketch out an alternative system in my books, one that seeks to institutionalize limits on the concentration of capital and power. One idea I promote is "if we don't change the way money is created and distributed, we change nothing." This flows from understanding that "money" is a social construct.
David, you're right, I am suggesting that doubling down speeds our descent off the cliff, even as it appears to stave off collapse temporarily-- the past 15 years since the 2008 meltdown being proof of this temporary success. As John noted, accountability has been neutered throughout the system, so there's no real feedback, with the result being consequences pile up unseen and the eventual conflagration burns off all the dead wood, a.k.a. "phantom wealth."
As Zero Hedge observed, this is the first time that the Federal Reserve cutting rates by 100 basis points resulted in Treasury bond yields rising 100 basis points. The powers that be may be losing control not just of the narrative but the mechanics of their control.
Kevin, that is an excellent, practical proposal which means it is exceedingly dangerous and will be avoided at all costs :-)
Wishing you all a Happy New Year--2025 promises to be most interesting-- charles
BJ, thank you for the book recommendation. On the other side of the debate is the entirety of sociobiology, which identifies social hierarchy and therefor authority as innate to our social-beings / primate genetics. Social hierarchy / authority isn't a superstition, it's genetically hard-wired.
You seem to hold the view that the government is pretty much the sole source of all our problems, and absent the state, Utopia appears as the natural order. History is starkly clear that what actually happens is warlords take over. The history of late 19th century China is instructive, though there are many other examples. "Private sector" force is used to impose authority, whether it is "state" or "private sector" is semantics to the powerless being dominated.
Did the government force GE to ship a defective stove/oven to Home Depot where I bought it on the premise that GE and HD would not sell a defective appliance? Many of the miseries in my life stem from Corporate behemoths / cartels / monopolies who are "too big to care" about low quality goods and services and who profit from planned obsolescence and addiction.
The state left J.D. Rockefeller alone and he assembled a monopoly. That's the "natural order of things."
Dealing with government agencies has been miserable, too, of course, and I've often described the Kafkaesque nature of simple things like getting my address changed completed by government agencies. On the other hand, when we called GE to send a service tech to repair our defective GE oven, GE sent the tech to our address of ten years ago, in another state, despite my wife giving them our current address.
Is the state to blame for the gross incompetence, abysmal service, wretchedly low quality and near-zero customer service of Corporations? I would say the superstition we're dealing with is the belief that "private enterprise freed of all restraint is Utopia." The first thing any enterprise does that seeks to maximize profits is to eliminate competition and transparency. Once a cartel or monopoly has been established, "customers" have zero power.
In this way, corporations are like warlords. They impose an arrangement that suits them on the powerless masses. The "choice" in a cartel is illusory. We get the same price and low quality regardless of the "brand." This is like choosing which warlord you wish to live under.
Is the state too powerful? Yes. Are corporations too powerful? Yes.
Fundamentally, the human brain can only understand so much. But when something can be understood, humans have a history of making good decisions otherwise we would not be here. Much of what government, corporations, growth do is create complexity that cannot be understood. Unfortunately complexity is inherently instable and will eventually collapse.
The instability comes because of lack of a functioning feed back loop. (accountability) Unfortunately, we need a better way to organize ourselves and at present we have no working models of what that better organizational system might be.
To do this we need to look at natural systems. A forest is a complex system, but it is stable unless disrupted by external source (loggers, volcano, etc.) A forest does not have a government, or a regulatory board but it self corrects. If there are too many wolves and the rabbit population collapses the natural feedback kicks in. The wolves will relocate, have fewer pups, or find a different food source. They do this with out a government edict, or directive from a CEO. There's no conference of rabbits and wolves convened to out line a strategy, it just happens.
As humans, we need to start using natural systems as our models. We need to focus on creating systems that self correct, not on writing endless regulations, white papers, or focus groups. The best way to do this to create systems where there are natural consequences to actions, and for this to be true, needs to be localized, and large centralized systems are by their very nature unaccountable.
If there are too many wolves and the rabbit population collapses the natural feedback kicks in. The wolves will relocate, have fewer pups, or find a different food source. They do this with out a government edict, or directive from a CEO. There's no conference of rabbits and wolves convened to out line a strategy, it just happens.
Unquote
My theory is that if the income tax was ended then the government would be forced to downsize
That was why the founders were against income tax as it would lead to more and more government
Also common stock need to be banned as it is a form of money printing a form if credit at zero interest rates
Allow stock that pays a dividend at least matching inflation
We have lots of mega corporations that really are not benefiting society and this sucks away money and resources from real things like affordable housing and quality affordable food
Also end federal reserve
The solutions are simple but 37 percent of Americans now live directly or indirectly off the government
So guess it will collapse with hyperinflation
There has never been a point in history where USA was this badly situated
The debt is at top level only after Second World War was this high
But then were lots of young healthy men
And America was number one in industrial with 55 percent of world industrial capacity
Now we print dollars and do overpriced healthcare and speculation on crypto and stocks and bonds and real estate
A great deal of the problem lies in the nature of the issues we face. Government/"authority" is at the very root of those issues. Government is an illusion/delusion. Its simply a group of people who imagine they have the right to rule everyone else. Using any and all means to that end. Think of statism as a type of religion. Belief in "authority" lies at the core of that religion. A book titled The most dangerous superstition explains it in graphic detail. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10836816-the-most-dangerous-superstition
A total of 771,480 people - or about 23 of every 10,000 people in the U.S. - experienced homelessness in an emergency shelter, safe haven, transitional housing program, or in unsheltered locations, according to data released on Friday.
When I read the paragraph about, "No politician wins re-election by cutting the budget," it reminded me of something I read in the Reagan-era Grace Commission report. The report pointed out that there is an office for the Department of Agriculture in every county in the United States. Now, I'm not certain what their employees in Manhattan do, but they are hard at work doing whatever it is they do. Oh, wait; I just remembered: The Department of Agriculture is responsible for administering SNAP, which was called "Food Stamps" in my youth.
Earlier today, I heard a possible solution to the extreme size of our government. Lock every member of Congress into a single room for one day, without any means of communicating with people outside the room. Give each a blank sheet of paper and a pen or pencil. Instruct them to write down every agency within the Executive Branch. Compile the lists, and any agency that doesn't get a single mention shall be eliminated at the end of the year.
Great comments, thank you.
John, I totally agree--natural ecosystems also break down and collapse when an invasive species without predators takes over. The key is keeping every node of power / influence limited / small / localized. If there were 5,000 banks instead of five "too big to fail," some would fail but the system would be robust. The problem is the system (whatever we call it--Corporate-State Capitalism?) rewards and incentivizes cartels, monopolies, and corporate-state duopolies that all benefit from consolidating capital and power, and then snapping up smaller competitors. This is why John D. Rockefeller proclaimed competition "a sin." Indeed. Our economy is dominated by cartels and monopolies, and of course the federal government is a monopoly, balanced in theory by state governments and the judiciary, but nothing stops the consolidation / concentration of "invasive species" in the system as it is currently organized.
I have tried to sketch out an alternative system in my books, one that seeks to institutionalize limits on the concentration of capital and power. One idea I promote is "if we don't change the way money is created and distributed, we change nothing." This flows from understanding that "money" is a social construct.
David, you're right, I am suggesting that doubling down speeds our descent off the cliff, even as it appears to stave off collapse temporarily-- the past 15 years since the 2008 meltdown being proof of this temporary success. As John noted, accountability has been neutered throughout the system, so there's no real feedback, with the result being consequences pile up unseen and the eventual conflagration burns off all the dead wood, a.k.a. "phantom wealth."
As Zero Hedge observed, this is the first time that the Federal Reserve cutting rates by 100 basis points resulted in Treasury bond yields rising 100 basis points. The powers that be may be losing control not just of the narrative but the mechanics of their control.
Kevin, that is an excellent, practical proposal which means it is exceedingly dangerous and will be avoided at all costs :-)
Wishing you all a Happy New Year--2025 promises to be most interesting-- charles
BJ, thank you for the book recommendation. On the other side of the debate is the entirety of sociobiology, which identifies social hierarchy and therefor authority as innate to our social-beings / primate genetics. Social hierarchy / authority isn't a superstition, it's genetically hard-wired.
You seem to hold the view that the government is pretty much the sole source of all our problems, and absent the state, Utopia appears as the natural order. History is starkly clear that what actually happens is warlords take over. The history of late 19th century China is instructive, though there are many other examples. "Private sector" force is used to impose authority, whether it is "state" or "private sector" is semantics to the powerless being dominated.
Did the government force GE to ship a defective stove/oven to Home Depot where I bought it on the premise that GE and HD would not sell a defective appliance? Many of the miseries in my life stem from Corporate behemoths / cartels / monopolies who are "too big to care" about low quality goods and services and who profit from planned obsolescence and addiction.
The state left J.D. Rockefeller alone and he assembled a monopoly. That's the "natural order of things."
Dealing with government agencies has been miserable, too, of course, and I've often described the Kafkaesque nature of simple things like getting my address changed completed by government agencies. On the other hand, when we called GE to send a service tech to repair our defective GE oven, GE sent the tech to our address of ten years ago, in another state, despite my wife giving them our current address.
Is the state to blame for the gross incompetence, abysmal service, wretchedly low quality and near-zero customer service of Corporations? I would say the superstition we're dealing with is the belief that "private enterprise freed of all restraint is Utopia." The first thing any enterprise does that seeks to maximize profits is to eliminate competition and transparency. Once a cartel or monopoly has been established, "customers" have zero power.
In this way, corporations are like warlords. They impose an arrangement that suits them on the powerless masses. The "choice" in a cartel is illusory. We get the same price and low quality regardless of the "brand." This is like choosing which warlord you wish to live under.
Is the state too powerful? Yes. Are corporations too powerful? Yes.
charles
Fundamentally, the human brain can only understand so much. But when something can be understood, humans have a history of making good decisions otherwise we would not be here. Much of what government, corporations, growth do is create complexity that cannot be understood. Unfortunately complexity is inherently instable and will eventually collapse.
The instability comes because of lack of a functioning feed back loop. (accountability) Unfortunately, we need a better way to organize ourselves and at present we have no working models of what that better organizational system might be.
To do this we need to look at natural systems. A forest is a complex system, but it is stable unless disrupted by external source (loggers, volcano, etc.) A forest does not have a government, or a regulatory board but it self corrects. If there are too many wolves and the rabbit population collapses the natural feedback kicks in. The wolves will relocate, have fewer pups, or find a different food source. They do this with out a government edict, or directive from a CEO. There's no conference of rabbits and wolves convened to out line a strategy, it just happens.
As humans, we need to start using natural systems as our models. We need to focus on creating systems that self correct, not on writing endless regulations, white papers, or focus groups. The best way to do this to create systems where there are natural consequences to actions, and for this to be true, needs to be localized, and large centralized systems are by their very nature unaccountable.
Quote
If there are too many wolves and the rabbit population collapses the natural feedback kicks in. The wolves will relocate, have fewer pups, or find a different food source. They do this with out a government edict, or directive from a CEO. There's no conference of rabbits and wolves convened to out line a strategy, it just happens.
Unquote
My theory is that if the income tax was ended then the government would be forced to downsize
That was why the founders were against income tax as it would lead to more and more government
Also common stock need to be banned as it is a form of money printing a form if credit at zero interest rates
Allow stock that pays a dividend at least matching inflation
We have lots of mega corporations that really are not benefiting society and this sucks away money and resources from real things like affordable housing and quality affordable food
Also end federal reserve
The solutions are simple but 37 percent of Americans now live directly or indirectly off the government
So guess it will collapse with hyperinflation
There has never been a point in history where USA was this badly situated
The debt is at top level only after Second World War was this high
But then were lots of young healthy men
And America was number one in industrial with 55 percent of world industrial capacity
Now we print dollars and do overpriced healthcare and speculation on crypto and stocks and bonds and real estate
37 million people on food stamps
A great deal of the problem lies in the nature of the issues we face. Government/"authority" is at the very root of those issues. Government is an illusion/delusion. Its simply a group of people who imagine they have the right to rule everyone else. Using any and all means to that end. Think of statism as a type of religion. Belief in "authority" lies at the core of that religion. A book titled The most dangerous superstition explains it in graphic detail. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10836816-the-most-dangerous-superstition
Charles i think as you are implying hope not misquoting you that doubling down makes things worse
For example healthcare issues lead to personal bankruptcies increasing homelessness
Then politicians say will imprison the homeless but taxpayers ie middle class pays for it ie for profit prisons
Middle class more and more squeezed
A death spiral for society
So then more bankruptcy among middle class
From Reuters
A total of 771,480 people - or about 23 of every 10,000 people in the U.S. - experienced homelessness in an emergency shelter, safe haven, transitional housing program, or in unsheltered locations, according to data released on Friday.
When I read the paragraph about, "No politician wins re-election by cutting the budget," it reminded me of something I read in the Reagan-era Grace Commission report. The report pointed out that there is an office for the Department of Agriculture in every county in the United States. Now, I'm not certain what their employees in Manhattan do, but they are hard at work doing whatever it is they do. Oh, wait; I just remembered: The Department of Agriculture is responsible for administering SNAP, which was called "Food Stamps" in my youth.
Earlier today, I heard a possible solution to the extreme size of our government. Lock every member of Congress into a single room for one day, without any means of communicating with people outside the room. Give each a blank sheet of paper and a pen or pencil. Instruct them to write down every agency within the Executive Branch. Compile the lists, and any agency that doesn't get a single mention shall be eliminated at the end of the year.