Ch. 3: Bullnomics: Its Favoritism and Fiction

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

Some topical imagery to start things off for this chapter.



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

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.

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.

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.

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

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/ ... -morality/

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?

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.

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.

I want to see what would happen if we all had rich mentalities.

The rest of this post isn't directed at Interbane - who is talking about issues/topics/ideas I know nothing about.

Something is lost in capitalism and that is the team concept of America. Greed is something that motivates us to prosper but it shouldn't be what separates us - extremely successful from slaves. The hard worker who is not creative or does not excel in intelligence or ingenuity shouldn't be punished for using his meager skills to the fullest in an effort to better himself and his countrymen. He's doing what he can for his nation. On the flip side of the coin, the man able to provide his countrymen with more should be rewarded more than the average man who cannot.

Such a large divide between the two types of men should never be allowed to be created - for the health of the society - the team.

Looking back on this post, I can see morality as an issue I've chosen. That's because saying that the poor should simply throw down on the rich shouldn't be the FIRST option they should seek.

from President Obama's inaugural speech.

Just thought this quote was relevant to some of the comments in this thread (with respect to distribution of wealth) and also to the general theme of Phillips book. The market really is dispassionate. It does not care what happens to us.

Am I missing something? Two types of men? What are they? Rich/poor, creative/non-creative, hard-working/lazy..

Pres: "Greed is something that motivates us to prosper but it shouldn't be what separates us - extremely successful from slaves."

It seems to be an inherent part of humanity that the will to power we each have will cause this gulf unless there are increased restrictions on how far we're each able to progress. I personally can't think of any system that would be honest, open, and keep all players wealth matched to their contribution to society. The closest I can think of is that any and all corporations of a certain size should be non-profit. Those who are successful would rise to the higher paying salary positions. Money that is sitting in a savings account should be residually taxed if it's greater than a certain amount.

There seems to be a dichotomy in American thought of the rich vs. the poor; those that deserve and those that don't.

I mean to say that those who deserve are not necessarily those who produce the most. The hard working man who devotes most of their his/her life to arduous and honest labor should not be thrown scraps.

We shouldn't allow both members of a family unit to work if they don't want to. We should allow one to stay home and take care of the family unit. This doesn't happen today and it's a travesty for the nation and the family unit.

This all stems from my ideas on the investment in the future our country makes. Americans today don't want to invest in the future. We, so to speak, plant crop after crop, never fertilize the soil, and eat all the fruits of our menial labors - spitting the seeds of that fruit into the proverbial gutter. We want. We smile. Our kids will have.... I'm sure. blink blink smile blink blink consume blink blink smile.

We pay our school teachers the bare minimum and even ask them to forfeit their raises for the good of the children (because they're probably the only ones who might actually care). We are in debt, not for the purpose of investing in our own productive activities or our children; we buy luxuries instead. Because most of the things we buy come from other nations - we aren't helping the country - merely ourselves - day in and day out - a nation of masturbating brownie eaters.... decadence is what it is for a reason. The word wasn't created to describe something that never happens to a society

It's a whole way of thinking that needs to change. People need to stop attacking the common good. The common good is the common good for a reason. (Communism was obviously NOT the common good.)

Whenever I start talking about the team concept... it seems people think that they aren't a part of the team or they are too good for it. Who on this forum makes over 250,000 per year???? If not, you're on my team whether you like it or not.

Alas, it's far easier to collude if you're the top 1% than if you're the bottom 99%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!