I was wondering recently whether the very nature of money might be part of the problem. Money has the same value regardless of how you attained it. Whether you earn it doing work that is urgently needed by people or steal it, it spends the same. So the concept of value is debased to a certain extent because it is linked to this largely arbitrary mechanism - arbitrary and ambiguous in the way it's attained, and also in the way it itself is valued. We're about to get a primer on that as a nation.
One conceit is that of money and contracts are a form of trust. Codified, but still reliant on trust that something can be redeemed for wants and needs. So the 9/11 automobile-owning victim is part of the same trust network as her Osama-funded assassin, and so on. If you asked people who they trusted, they would probably only name a handful of people, and certainly none of would be their banker, but in fact we do trust banks and elites. What happens when that trust is betrayed?
I think you've hit on some deeply embedded assumptions here, which is great. I think most people don't think very deeply about what powers our system. I think the poor here know they have it better in the main than the poor in many other countries - esp. the poor who have come from these other countries and know it more deeply than any American born person could.
Most people would recoil from your description of our system, but I think they would have a hard time debunking it.
It seems to me that the fractional reserve system has evolved simultaneously with the commercial and the industrial revolutions. I think it's hard to make a case that living standards didn't rise precipitously within that short period of time. Do you think there's good evidence that with absence of fractional reserve banking that this growth would have persisted?
Also, what supports your claim that living standards have decreased? How do you measure it?
I am skeptical of the argument that something like the fractional reserve banking system was necessary for an industrial or technological revolution or a rise in living standards. 1st, I am unaware of evidence to support that. 2nd, I'm unaware of how the latter would have to be dependent on the former.
3rd, it implies that somehow a top-down force is necessary to spur the labor of people who would either be lazy or be misdirecting their efforts. In reality, you see horizontal coordination all the time, and the inspiration of human effort isn't dependent on supervision, especially by fellow humans.
I didn't mean to make anybody think that I was arguing that our standard of living has somehow decreased, although it has over recent decades by some measures, and it has for much of the third world ever since the advent of colonialism. I simply argue that the American economic model is a complex sort of feudalism. In much of Europe, there are mechanisms to balance out such inequality and prevent the rich from softly seizing power, which explains their higher standards of living.
2. There will be no election on the individual and there has not been a referendum, for the vast majority, concerning the creation of the post in the first place.
1. "In much of Europe, there are mechanisms to balance out such inequality and prevent the rich from softly seizing power, which explains their higher standards of living."
I completely disagree with the above comment. The EU is an artificial political construct which has softly been seizing power over the last few decades. We are now at the stage where an EU president is being chosen.
You're right. I shouldn't have put that in absolute terms, because of course the wealthy have a disproportionate amount of power in Europe (heck, that's practically what defines European-ness) and things have been moving in a negative direction since the creation of the EU, but I would argue that the situation over there is still better than the US.
There is a general tendency for the Gini coefficient to be a decent indicator of living standards. But what if it could be demonstrated that for example that the income gap in 12th century Feudal serfdom was similar to the 19th century. Are living standards the same? What I mean is, can there be an objective measurement of material well being, or are relative shares of wealth the only accurate measurement for living standards ?
Personally I'm not a materialist, and I don't think that income gap should be a direct concern, but income gaps inevitably translate into imbalances in political power, social control, and the kind of fundamental inequalities of opportunity and status that I am very concerned with. But yeah, the whole concept of "standard of living" is problematic.
the game is rigged man
greenhell666 1 year ago
I was wondering recently whether the very nature of money might be part of the problem. Money has the same value regardless of how you attained it. Whether you earn it doing work that is urgently needed by people or steal it, it spends the same. So the concept of value is debased to a certain extent because it is linked to this largely arbitrary mechanism - arbitrary and ambiguous in the way it's attained, and also in the way it itself is valued. We're about to get a primer on that as a nation.
FeelFreeToArgue 2 years ago
One conceit is that of money and contracts are a form of trust. Codified, but still reliant on trust that something can be redeemed for wants and needs. So the 9/11 automobile-owning victim is part of the same trust network as her Osama-funded assassin, and so on. If you asked people who they trusted, they would probably only name a handful of people, and certainly none of would be their banker, but in fact we do trust banks and elites. What happens when that trust is betrayed?
funkalunatic 2 years ago
I think you've hit on some deeply embedded assumptions here, which is great. I think most people don't think very deeply about what powers our system. I think the poor here know they have it better in the main than the poor in many other countries - esp. the poor who have come from these other countries and know it more deeply than any American born person could.
Most people would recoil from your description of our system, but I think they would have a hard time debunking it.
Fun Outtake.
FeelFreeToArgue 2 years ago
Hilarious outtake, even you almost laughed!
oliverscott2007 2 years ago
It seems to me that the fractional reserve system has evolved simultaneously with the commercial and the industrial revolutions. I think it's hard to make a case that living standards didn't rise precipitously within that short period of time. Do you think there's good evidence that with absence of fractional reserve banking that this growth would have persisted?
Also, what supports your claim that living standards have decreased? How do you measure it?
LexPhilogus 2 years ago
I am skeptical of the argument that something like the fractional reserve banking system was necessary for an industrial or technological revolution or a rise in living standards. 1st, I am unaware of evidence to support that. 2nd, I'm unaware of how the latter would have to be dependent on the former.
funkalunatic 2 years ago
3rd, it implies that somehow a top-down force is necessary to spur the labor of people who would either be lazy or be misdirecting their efforts. In reality, you see horizontal coordination all the time, and the inspiration of human effort isn't dependent on supervision, especially by fellow humans.
funkalunatic 2 years ago
I didn't mean to make anybody think that I was arguing that our standard of living has somehow decreased, although it has over recent decades by some measures, and it has for much of the third world ever since the advent of colonialism. I simply argue that the American economic model is a complex sort of feudalism. In much of Europe, there are mechanisms to balance out such inequality and prevent the rich from softly seizing power, which explains their higher standards of living.
funkalunatic 2 years ago
2. There will be no election on the individual and there has not been a referendum, for the vast majority, concerning the creation of the post in the first place.
Hail Ceasar!
IridescentEye 2 years ago
1. "In much of Europe, there are mechanisms to balance out such inequality and prevent the rich from softly seizing power, which explains their higher standards of living."
I completely disagree with the above comment. The EU is an artificial political construct which has softly been seizing power over the last few decades. We are now at the stage where an EU president is being chosen.
IridescentEye 2 years ago
You're right. I shouldn't have put that in absolute terms, because of course the wealthy have a disproportionate amount of power in Europe (heck, that's practically what defines European-ness) and things have been moving in a negative direction since the creation of the EU, but I would argue that the situation over there is still better than the US.
funkalunatic 2 years ago
There is a general tendency for the Gini coefficient to be a decent indicator of living standards. But what if it could be demonstrated that for example that the income gap in 12th century Feudal serfdom was similar to the 19th century. Are living standards the same? What I mean is, can there be an objective measurement of material well being, or are relative shares of wealth the only accurate measurement for living standards ?
LexPhilogus 2 years ago
Personally I'm not a materialist, and I don't think that income gap should be a direct concern, but income gaps inevitably translate into imbalances in political power, social control, and the kind of fundamental inequalities of opportunity and status that I am very concerned with. But yeah, the whole concept of "standard of living" is problematic.
funkalunatic 2 years ago