TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The most pressing problem
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

The most pressing problem

So Krypton was quoted as saying:

Infation is the least of our problems.


But if it's not, what is?

What are the most pressing problems in the world today?

Here are a few of my top 100:

Bullshit
Inflation
Militarization
Complacency
Entitlement
Slums
Inequality
Global Warming
Civil Unrest
Mis-communication
Impacience

More capital has exited the system than the Fed has put into the system. Deflation is the Fed's primary concern at the moment. Therefore, inflation is the least of their worries.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton More capital has exited the system than the Fed has put into the system. Deflation is the Fed's primary concern at the moment. Therefore, inflation is the least of their worries.

Where did it go?

I agree that deflation could devestate an already fragile economy but I think that the effects of the bailouts has yet to really take hold.

By most estimations I've come across, including work I've done on my own, Bush's first bail out should just be really taking effect in the next couple of months. Not to mention Obama's or the Fed's T bill purchases.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton More capital has exited the system than the Fed has put into the system. Deflation is the Fed's primary concern at the moment. Therefore, inflation is the least of their worries.

Just because something isn't the prime concern doesn't make it our least of worries. Concerns about prospective inflation is almost as important as current worries about deflation. The problem with everything that has been going on lately is the violent swings from one extreme to another. With all the measures being implemented to kickstart the economy (and now avoid deflation), could we be setting up ourselves for a violent swing towards high inflation? Probably!

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 Just because something isn't the prime concern doesn't make it our least of worries. Concerns about prospective inflation is almost as important as current worries about deflation. The problem with everything that has been going on lately is the violent swings from one extreme to another. With all the measures being implemented to kickstart the economy (and now avoid deflation), could we be setting up ourselves for a violent swing towards high inflation? Probably!

Not if that inflation has been leveled out by the gigantic loss of capital which has occured over the last 2 years. I look at it as capital replacement, rather than an increasing money supply. Granted, zero variation in the currency is not rational, low to moderate inflation should be the near term trend. Once the next bubble hits, that's when we'll see the big inflation you guys are talking about. Right about the time it all comes crashing down once again. Don't you love those business cycles?

quote:

Originally posted by atbell Where did it go? I agree that deflation could devestate an already fragile economy but I think that the effects of the bailouts has yet to really take hold. By most estimations I've come across, including work I've done on my own, Bush's first bail out should just be really taking effect in the next couple of months. Not to mention Obama's or the Fed's T bill purchases.

Maybe you're missing the effects of home values that have been halved or stock values that have been halved (or worse). Do you think shorts are picking up all of those losses? No, it's just disappeared and gone to money heaven.

What we have now is disinflation, not deflation..big difference. The money supply is not shrinking at all today (it's soaring actually). Prices are declining from artificially high levels while the fed pumps trillions into the system to ease the pain. True deflation is a contraction of the money supply, and we aren't close to having that. The real estate declines may FEEL like deflation, but they really reflect disinflation...the unwinding of an inflationary binge and a return to more sane price levels.

P.S. Atbell, everything on your list up top is a problem except inequality.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt P.S. Atbell, everything on your list up top is a problem except inequality.

quote:

As of 2006, the United States had one of the highest levels of income inequality, as measured through the Gini index, among high income countries, comparable to that of some middle income countries such as Russia or Turkey, being one of only few developed countries where inequality has increased since 1980.

U.S. Gini Coefficient: 46.3%
Mexico Gini Coefficient: 45.0%
Denmark Gini Coefficient: 23.2%

I'm not disputing the fact that inequality exists. I'm disputing the idea that it is a "problem" to be solved politically. The world is unequal. People will always live in different circumstances and have unequal skills and ambitions..so naturally inequality will exist. There's nothing wrong with that.

Wow.

Your philosophy seems to be 'capitalism creates poverty, so therefore poverty is perfectly fine.'

The United States currently has greater income disparity than Mexico and India. 71% of American economists responded in a survey that income inequality is a very big problem, as it creates structural poverty endemic to the system. 81% responded that "income redistribution" is a valid issue to be taken up by government. Upward social mobility in unequal societies is the biggest myth propagated by libertarians - it simply doesn't exist. Inequality is the single greatest determinant of poverty after conflict.

In the past decade, more Americans have fallen into poverty than have climbed out of it - a product of the widening gap between rich and poor dragging up the standard of living (and the poverty line).

But yeah, let's focus on inflation that doesn't actually exist.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/deflation-risks-again/

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov In the past decade, more Americans have fallen into poverty than have climbed out of it - a product of the widening gap between rich and poor dragging up the standard of living (and the poverty line).

The fact that people are becoming impoverished because others are becoming wealthier seems to be a terribly weak argument. I find it difficult to believe that people who weren't technically below the poverty line before are now worse off because other people have made more money in the meantime.


Wealth disparities in countries like Saudi Arabia are much more problematic than wealth disparities in the US. Contrary to the belief of many in the democratic party (and i am a democrat), it is NOT more difficult to climb the proverbial economic ladder than it was when my grandparents came to the US in the early 1900s (At 27, I have accomplished more than any other person in my family). Achieving success in the US never came easily. The change that appears to make it more difficult is the attitude of entitlement to the so-called "american dream." Unfortunately, I think people have lost sight of the basic fundamental that the effort you put in directly reflects the outcome. There really are no short-cuts in life and many aren't willing to put in the effort (e.g., attending law school, med school, etc...).

Certain segments of the population idolize athletes and rappers who portray the fast money lifestyle. That happens to be the same segment of the population that find it difficult to claw out of poverty. If poverty is a result of personal choices, and not a systematic exclusion, I am not quite as concerned about it. I am not saying we should ignore poverty or that we shouldn't provide better education, etc... to these communities (because I firmly believe we should), but i dispute the claim that they can't rise out of poverty. More blame should be attributed directly on the person who can't climb out of poverty than the system in which we live.

And, before someone calls me some sort of elitist republican, while i was growing up my mother was a teacher's assistant and I was on the federally funded free lunch program (i.e., my family was teetering on being poor).

One of the most despicable beliefs of laissez-faire capitalism is the acceptance of inequality. You must be dying for a workers' revolution because that's what you'll inevitably get.

I have no problem with equality under the law..but when people talk about economic equality, they are generally talking about equality of OUTCOME. These two definitions of equality are mutually exclusive. To achieve equality of outcome requires massive coercive power and tyrannical policies of wealth redistribution. It requires changing the rules of the game midway through to favor some players over others in order to achieve an arbitrarily "desirable" outcome. This is an attempt to create an outcome that would not exist if the rules were fixed and people were allowed to rise and fall on their own merits. In other words it's a philosophy that says it is moral to give runners at the back of a race baseball bats so they can crack the kneecaps of those in front of them...dragging the fastest down to a mediocre average. Rarely does the philosophy focus on REMOVING barriers to success and doing things to increase the wealth of everyone in society. It prefers to focus new ways to penalize success and reward failure. Yep, I'm against that stuff..sue me.

The fact is that in a diverse society, equality of outcome requires *INEQUALITY* under the law.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 The fact that people are becoming impoverished because others are becoming wealthier seems to be a terribly weak argument. I find it difficult to believe that people who weren't technically below the poverty line before are now worse off because other people have made more money in the meantime.

Not so. The inequality trap is very real. Amartya Sen has done a lot of work on the structural problems induced by growing inequality - namely, the growing monopoly on individual opportunity and social cohesion held by those with the ability to feed themselves, as well as the ability to put up collateral in exchange for a loan. Without loans, many poor can't send their children to good schools or start their own microenterprises.

Under capitalism there are inherently winners and losers. It stands to reason that win the entire focus of society is on rewarding the winners, the losers will lose at greater magnitudes than before. Also, the lowest quintile of a population shows the same susceptibility to chronic illness and mental depression across states, regardless of real level of income. In other words, whether you're earning $100 a month in the US or $10 a month in Saudi Arabia, the impact on your health is the same. Inequality is a real cause of poverty, which is why economists devote so much time to the study and evaluation of Gini Coefficient fluctuation.

quote:

Wealth disparities in countries like Saudi Arabia are much more problematic than wealth disparities in the US.

Not according to economic data.

quote:

Contrary to the belief of many in the democratic party (and i am a democrat), it is NOT more difficult to climb the proverbial economic ladder than it was when my grandparents came to the US in the early 1900s (At 27, I have accomplished more than any other person in my family). Achieving success in the US never came easily. The change that appears to make it more difficult is the attitude of entitlement to the so-called "american dream." Unfortunately, I think people have lost sight of the basic fundamental that the effort you put in directly reflects the outcome. There really are no short-cuts in life and many aren't willing to put in the effort (e.g., attending law school, med school, etc...).

I think you would agree that you are lucky to have come so far. Many don't - there are literally dozens of books on the cross-generational nature of structural poverty and inequality I can point you to if you're interested.

quote:

Certain segments of the population idolize athletes and rappers who portray the fast money lifestyle. That happens to be the same segment of the population that find it difficult to claw out of poverty.

Certain segments? Amartya Sen writes that the Industrial Revolution transformed modern societies into materialistic cultures where owning a tv or radio has more social significance than the ability to consume a daily calorie allotment. Adam Smith described capitalism in London in 1776 thusly: to fit in the modern economy, one needed to own at minimum a linen shirt and leather shoes - to arrive in London without either would only result in unemployment. Society continually reminds the poor that status is important, and that certain goods can elevate them to a status beyond their income level. Athletes and rappers are just a manifestation of this larger social trend.

quote:

If poverty is a result of personal choices, and not a systematic exclusion, I am not quite as concerned about it.

It is and it isn't. Are you arguing that structural poverty doesn't exist?

quote:

I am not saying we should ignore poverty or that we shouldn't provide better education, etc... to these communities (because I firmly believe we should), but i dispute the claim that they can't rise out of poverty. More blame should be attributed directly on the person who can't climb out of poverty than the system in which we live.

This is the comment that most surprises me. Surely you realize that you are the exception and not the rule?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I have no problem with equality under the law..but when people talk about economic equality, they are generally talking about equality of OUTCOME.

You've completely missed the point. Color me surprised.

And lez, you are parroting the old myth that some people grow poorer BECAUSE others grow wealthy. It's called the fixed pie argument, and it's the oldest economic fallacy in the book.

Color me surprised.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I have no problem with equality under the law..but when people talk about economic equality, they are generally talking about equality of OUTCOME. These two definitions of equality are mutually exclusive. To achieve equality of outcome requires massive coercive power and tyrannical policies of wealth redistribution. It requires changing the rules of the game midway through to favor some players over others in order to achieve an arbitrarily "desirable" outcome. This is an attempt to create an outcome that would not exist if the rules were fixed and people were allowed to rise and fall on their own merits. In other words it's a philosophy that says it is moral to give runners at the back of a race baseball bats so they can crack the kneecaps of those in front of them...dragging the fastest down to a mediocre average. Rarely does the philosophy focus on REMOVING barriers to success and doing things to increase the wealth of everyone in society. It prefers to focus new ways to penalize success and reward failure. Yep, I'm against that stuff..sue me. The fact is that in a diverse society, equality of outcome requires *INEQUALITY* under the law.

Riight, because Europe is so tyrannical with all their social programs!

Indeed they are krypt. I'm glad I live in the USA, though I fear we are quickly heading down the same path towards socialism and bankruptcy.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Indeed they are krypt. I'm glad I live in the USA, though I fear we are quickly heading down the same path towards socialism and bankruptcy.

lol, what nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton lol, what nonsense.

k.



+ $9 trillion in additional debt projected over next 10 yrs according to the CBO.
+ $12.8 trillion lent/printed by the various stimulus plans so far which is unlikely to be paid back in full
+ $796 Zillion in unfunded social security/medicare/medicaid liabilities over the next few decades. (maybe a slight exaggeration)

You think this is a healthy balance sheet krypt? Would you invest in this stock? Really?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt k. + $9 trillion projected deficits over next 10 yrs according to the CBO. + $12.8 trillion lent/printed by the various stimulus plans so far which is unlikely to be paid back in full + $796 Zillion in unfunded social security and medicare liabilities. (maybe a slight exaggeration) You think this is a healthy balance sheet krypt? Would you invest in this stock? Really?

The government is not a stock, nor is it a company. Europe is tyrannical. That is utterly ridiculous. They have one of the highest standards of living in the world, and far better infrastructure than we do.

What needs to happen is once this recession is over with, the government needs to make a surplus budget the #1 priority over everything else. Fuck Iraq. Fuck Afghanistan. Fuck Pakistan. We can't afford this shit anymore. These are the things which put us in deficit territory in the first place, thanks Mr Bush for running the country into the ground.

quote:

What needs to happen is once this recession is over with, the government needs to make a surplus budget the #1 priority over everything else. Fuck Iraq. Fuck Afghanistan. Fuck Pakistan. We can't afford this shit anymore. These are the things which put us in deficit territory in the first place, thanks Mr Bush for running the country into the ground.

I'm glad we still agree on something krypt

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Not so. The inequality trap is very real. Amartya Sen has done a lot of work on the structural problems induced by growing inequality - namely, the growing monopoly on individual opportunity and social cohesion held by those with the ability to feed themselves, as well as the ability to put up collateral in exchange for a loan. Without loans, many poor can't send their children to good schools or start their own microenterprises.

obviously there are difficulties for those people starting businesses, and i wasn't saying that it isn't difficult. What has amrtya sen's research shown about the contribution to increasing poverty by shifts in social attitudes? Obviously I haven't conducted substantial research on this issue, but from personal experience (and I live in an area many people would consider ghetto) interracting with lower income people I am persuaded that most are in their situation because of poor choices. In my experience, among people I know in the lower income population, there is a general lack of personal responsibilty for the direction of their own lives.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Under capitalism there are inherently winners and losers. It stands to reason that win the entire focus of society is on rewarding the winners, the losers will lose at greater magnitudes than before. Also, the lowest quintile of a population shows the same susceptibility to chronic illness and mental depression across states, regardless of real level of income. In other words, whether you're earning $100 a month in the US or $10 a month in Saudi Arabia, the impact on your health is the same. Inequality is a real cause of poverty, which is why economists devote so much time to the study and evaluation of Gini Coefficient fluctuation.

so mental health is the determining factor for drawing the poverty line?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I think you would agree that you are lucky to have come so far. Many don't - there are literally dozens of books on the cross-generational nature of structural poverty and inequality I can point you to if you're interested.

I don't agree that I'm lucky. I've worked hard to accomplish everything in my life and to say luck was a determining factor diminishes the effort I put into the process. I didn't even find difficult to accomplish, it was just alot of work and very time consumming.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Certain segments? Amartya Sen writes that the Industrial Revolution transformed modern societies into materialistic cultures where owning a tv or radio has more social significance than the ability to consume a daily calorie allotment. Adam Smith described capitalism in London in 1776 thusly: to fit in the modern economy, one needed to own at minimum a linen shirt and leather shoes - to arrive in London without either would only result in unemployment. Society continually reminds the poor that status is important, and that certain goods can elevate them to a status beyond their income level. Athletes and rappers are just a manifestation of this larger social trend.

that probably correct, but why is the effect of that more determinatal to people who are in the lower classes? If you cite structural inequalities, please cite some that are not a cause of personal behaviors.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov It is and it isn't. Are you arguing that structural poverty doesn't exist?

no i'm not, but provide me an example so we're on the same page.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov This is the comment that most surprises me. Surely you realize that you are the exception and not the rule?

Not quite. you either work with or study too much of this issue on an academic level focusing on an extreme segment of the population. I personally know a good deal of people who are doing much better than their parents and grandparents. While most of the people who graduated with me in law school had successful parents, there were also a significant number who didn't. Many of my coworkers also are doing much better than their parents.

I have to run to class, but here are a few examples of structural facets of poverty:

Capital Traps
Lack of credit. Many poor lack the resources to become microentrepreneurs, and those that make the effort usually do so with inferior inventories. For instance, someone with no marketable skills may try to open up a car repair shop, but without the capital to purchase the necessary tools and parts, they'll be limited in the types of services they can provide, losing more business than they gain. Though Mohammed Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize for creating a microfinance model in the developing world, no such thing really exists in the US.

Un-insurable Risks
Property, nutrition, healthcare. Most poor people can't afford or don't have access to many of these necessities. Instead, their lives orient around minimizing risk of catastrophe - not upward mobility. The maintenance of the status quo is safer than taking risks to build assets that will lift them out of poverty (see above). For instance, poor people are largely disempowered in terms of decreasing risks - instead they engage in informal risk-sharing behaviors that lead to distortions of local job markets and economies of scale.

Debt Bondage
This one can be generational. Unscrupulous money-lenders are regulated in the US, but they still exist (anyone else see commercials for CashPoint, etc.?) - terms of debt are designed to be a trap.

Family-Child Labor Traps
Though child labor laws exist in the US, they are often subverted by families that wouldn't be able to survive without children contributing to the household and earning some income. When this is the case, children aren't going to school and they aren't learning the skills (like literacy) needed for upward mobility.

Fertility Traps
Ever wonder why so many poor families have many children? It isn't related to contraception as most believe. It's related to a bargain made by the parents. The more children, the greater the odds that one of them succeeds enough to care for the parents as they age. Hope you draw a lucky straw at birth. This can overload the resources used to help poor families, resulting in an over-saturation that leaves future poor generations larger and more destitute than those before.

Health Trap
If you're poor and chronically ill or disabled, game over.

Collective Action Trap
This is where community organizers (like Obama) have done great work. Mobilizing the voiceless to lobby for better low-income housing and service provision. Also, joint community projects have been shown to raise standards of living as well as local employment rates.

Criminality Traps
For youths, they can help their families most by joining gangs or organized crime groups/drug rings that offer more money than they could ever hope to make with their minimal skills on the legitimate job market.

Anyway, those are just a few. There are many more.

Also, I should be clear that I'm not talking about lower middle-class. I'm talking about the 30 million Americans that actually live in abject poverty. That isn't synonymous with ghetto - in fact, many of them are rural.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton One of the most despicable beliefs of laissez-faire capitalism is the acceptance of inequality. You must be dying for a workers' revolution because that's what you'll inevitably get.

Oh, no fun, I'm in the middle of this one.

I'm quite warry of a workers' revolution except that I'd call it an unemployed educated youth revolution. It is all the more likely in a country where guns, and stock piles of guns, are so available.

But at the same time I agree with Capitalizt that there is always going to be 'poverty'. There has to be, some people want to work harder then others, some people are smarter then others, some people are lucky, some peoples risks don't pay off.

IMO, once that is accepted then the real work can start which is to make sure that 'poverty' isn't crushing. The slums of Mumbai or Rio are good examples of pressing poverty issues, many of the 'poor' in North America are good examples of poor that have some amount of opertunity. From the people that I went to high school with many of them had the chances to raise thier social status siginficantly and some took the opertunity. By the same token, some of those who could have gone on to climb the social status lader chose to move down a notch to live with fewer complications.

I'm also a beleiver in the concept of 'nobless obliger', the notion that the highest social classes have a responsibility to help those in need once they have enough. In this case clearing slums would be a good example of where money is needed, or possibly the social support organizations such as women's shelters / childeren's shelters.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.