Page 1 of 5

Ch. 3: Bullnomics: Its Favoritism and Fiction

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:36 am
by Chris OConnor
Ch. 3: Bullnomics: Its Favoritism and Fiction

Please use this thread for discussing Ch. 3: Bullnomics: Its Favoritism and Fiction.

Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:40 pm
by Grim
Some topical imagery to start things off for this chapter.

Image

The idea is that the whole world feels the pain and has interest in keeping the bull form of economics alive.

:book:

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:08 am
by President Camacho
I've just broke into chapter three. The book lays out some pretty interesting stuff here and elaborates on points made at the end of the previous chapter.

I had no idea that the CPI had changed. How crazy is that? The substitution of goods is allowed in order to maintain the same standard of living... it's NOT the same standard. If I substitute beef for chicken it's because I CAN'T AFFORD BEEF - not because I value them the same but pay for chicken because it happens to be cheaper. My standard of living has gone down once I begin substituting products I want to have with products that I can afford. In short, inflation has prevented my dollar from buying the things I want. What better case for inflation - and what a dirty trick to hide it.

Inflation reaching 5-7% ...yup yup yup. wow.

There is something to be learned from the turtle and the hair. Slow, arduous, and correct is better than fast, easy, and corrupt in the long run.

When Phillips begins to talk about markets being rational - it's not like it's handled solely by super computers - markets are run by people. Last time I checked, people weren't robots. They're subject to human vices and they manipulate the market in order to satisfy their selfish agendas.

To say that markets are rational is to say that there is no crime in the united states because everyone knows that if there was crime we would need to pay for police officers, alarm systems, jails and all that that implies, and a whole judicial system.

Of course it doesn't work that way. That's why there are rules and an infrastructure to ENFORCE those rules.

You guys look up leveraged buyouts? They're interesting. The more I think about them the more I'm on the fence about them.

I liked the list for EMH goals
1. persistent economic deregulation
2. debt dependent mergers, takeovers, and leveraged buyouts
3. economic utility of speculation
4. usefulness and facilitation of markets provided by derivatives

Freedom of the markets IS the answer. Just like I have the freedom to do almost anything I want until I start to hurt someone, show intent to hurt someone, or engage in activity that has a high likelihood of putting others in danger - the markets should enjoy this same freedom. Government control is not a bad thing - keeping things under control is good - government CONTROL is a bad thing.

The ways that our government has helped to "stratify" our country and colluded to decrease the standard of living for 98 percent of Americans is detestable.

I wish someone had the power to write a love note to all those billionaires, thanking them for helping the country in its time of need, and then garnish every penny they have. ...and chase them down and assassinate them should they choose to run or hide their money.

Hanging Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz - would send a much needed message too.

Also, anyone with the last name of Bush, Clinton, or Kennedy needs to be executed. I'm sure there are more... I'll start making a list ready.

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:23 pm
by realiz
I had no idea that the CPI had changed.
This surprised me as well, also the fact that it only changed in the US, clearly manipulation. Phillips also talked about a Working Group, I think part of the Federal Reserve Board, that has the power to manipulate the stock market in times of crisis. I can see this coming back to haunt the US government should this backfire. Will there not come a point in time where the US government will not longer be able to keep borrowing money? Perhaps they are buying lottery tickets as well.

I thought there would be many on BT who would agree with Phillips in his partial blame of the religious. I am not sure where the idea 'God wants you to be rich', comes from.

Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:45 pm
by President Camacho
I think it comes from the same place that all religious drugs come from - the make them feel good so they keep the collection plate full - place.

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:29 pm
by Grim
I feel this is relevant regarding our awareness and experiences relating to methods of organization in the financial world and in the business media as our connection to the system becomes much deeper and more profound:

"Every Roman was surrounded by slaves. The slave and his psychology flooded ancient Italy, and every Roman became inwardly, and of course unwittingly, a slave. Because living constantly in the atmosphere of slaves, he became infected through the unconscious with their psychology. No one can shield himself from such an influence."
-C.G.Jung

:book:

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:59 pm
by Interbane
I recall Nietzsche having related thoughts. I'll have to find some excerpts.

Here we are...

"Like Callicles, Nietzsche argued that morality was something developed by 'weak' people in order to defend themselves from the 'strong'.

At this point, we might recall the elitism of Aristotle's ethics, where moral excellence is only available to the nobility. However, Nietzsche has something rather different in mind. One of the main themes in Nietzsche's work is that ancient Roman society was grounded in master morality, and that this morality disappeared as the slave morality of Christianity spread through ancient Rome. Nietzsche was concerned with the state of European culture during his lifetime and therefore focused much of his analysis on the history of master and slave morality within Europe (partly through the rise of 'slave' religion like Christianity."

Fromhttp://py111.wordpress.com/2008/02/14/nietzsche-on-master-and-slave-morality/

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:13 am
by Grim
Yes, morality is relevant as well. I took a much more simplistic view that essentially switches the role normally associated with modern master and slave. While Americans as a citizenry have been the masters all this time it is their money that has, like the slave to Jung, inseminated the culture into bondage.

"The catch is that these can't be managed overnight or even in a few years. The most successful spin cycles, like the economic one that peaked in and around the millennium, take a generation or more to reach fruition."

Simply a realization in the idea of psychological infection by a permeating influence in a society. The question would be if the financial system is in fact a slave or master morality? Can the roles of Jung be switched? Does the master influence his subject as effectively as the slave to his master?

What relationship or affect do you see master-slave morals having to the American/World economy and by proxy its culture?

:book:

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:35 pm
by giselle
The issue of manipulation of economic data makes me think that government cannot be trusted wih this task, essentially the task of measuring their own performance. Maybe we need an independent body, similar to the independence of the judiciary, to produce and publish statistics. In Canada we have problems with this as well, for example, downward reporting of unemployment figures by manipulation of the criteria used to determine the size of the workforce.

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:15 pm
by Interbane
I think people have the tendency to take on master slave moralities based on upbringing and whatever position they currently have. "Rich Dad / Poor Dad" helped me see the distinction a bit clearer. Some people have personal philosophy to work for as much as the other guy will pay you. Others tend toward self employment but need help, and will only pay as little as possible to keep other people working for them.