United States of Entropy

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ronus Paulus? Jebius Bushius? Newtius Gringus or even Sarus Palinian?
 
You (as the OP) sound like one of the Roman writers from the final century of the Western Empire, or most of the folk who thought the world was going to end in 1000AD which was surprisingly a lot of people. Society is far from getting worse and could still get better in how we treat people. Last days of empire and all that yada yada.


The world did go into decline after the Western Empire finally withered away though. The middle ages were a cesspool.

(Not agreeing with the premise of the thread, however)
 
Not really interested in the sanctimonious bullshit debate on the so-called state of our nations morals, so I present you with a song....



Bad Religion - Entropy

random blobs of power expressed as that which we all disregard,
ordered states of nature on a scale that no one thinks about,
don't speak to me of anarchy of peace or calm revolt,
man, we're in a play of slow decay orchestrated by boltzmann,

it's entropy, it's not a human issue,
entropy, it's a matter of course,
entropy, energy at all levels,
entropy, from it you can not divorce
and your pathetic moans of suffrage tend to lose all significance,

extinction, degradation;
the natural outcomes of our ordered lives,
power, motivation; temporary fixtures for which we strive,
something in our synapses assures us we're ok
but in our disquilibrium we simply can not stay,
it's entropy......

a stolid proposition from a man unkempt as I,
my affectatious I can not rectify,
but we are out of equilibrium unnaturally,
a pang of consciousness of death
and then you will agree
 
The world did go into decline after the Western Empire finally withered away though. The middle ages were a cesspool.

(Not agreeing with the premise of the thread, however)

The world didn't go into decline, Western Europe yes, but depends what you mean by decline, life went on quite similarly for a lot of folk. Eastern half of the Empire did alright for another couple hundred of years. The Arabs did quite well and kept up a lot of the supposedly forgotten knowledge of the Romans, they held up the academic side of things quite well and for the most part were also quite multicultural. China I do believe was doing grand at the time as well, but i'm less familiar with their history.
 
The world didn't go into decline, Western Europe yes, but depends what you mean by decline, life went on quite similarly for a lot of folk. Eastern half of the Empire did alright for another couple hundred of years. The Arabs did quite well and kept up a lot of the supposedly forgotten knowledge of the Romans, they held up the academic side of things quite well and for the most part were also quite multicultural. China I do believe was doing grand at the time as well, but i'm less familiar with their history.

Yes, sorry, I was referring to Western European civilization. They certainly took a lot of steps backward in respect to sanitation, city planning, etc
 
The Arabs ..kept up a lot of the supposedly forgotten knowledge of the Romans, they held up the academic side of things quite well

I wish this point would be brought up more often to certain groups of people
 
People are selective in their history and they hark back to an era of prosperity that didn't really exist for all.

I do find it funny that the 'personal responsibility brigade' are oh so willing to blame everything that's wrong with the world on somebody else, 'big government', 'the undeserving poor'.
 
Thanks for your response. I agree with many things you say but I'll give you my perspective on some of your answers.

Some of what you've mentioned is happening in other countries too, not just in America, or they are nothing new.

Faith in God is mocked in Europe, Canada, Australia and other industrialized places.
True, I admitted as much in my opening. But wouldn't it be prudent to learn from the errors of Europe's massive Welfare State, debt and experiments in multiculturalism rather than repeating their mistakes decades later?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by individual initiative, so please explain.

It's the first step in self-reliance. It's doing what needs to be done without being told. It's how businesses are created. It's the opposite of waiting for someone to give you what you need.

There are plenty with a strong work ethic in this country. I suspect you are looking at a small group of people being lazy and thinking this is the future of the entire country.
There is, but how do you think that is affected when you have to earn at least $X in salary to come out ahead of someone on Welfare payments, food stamps, Medicaid, Sec 8, free day-care, heating assistance, free cell phone service, etc, etc. It takes a lot of individual initiative to work and be self-reliant instead.

What happens as the stigma to living on the dole lessens and it's seen as a personal choice not to be morally condemned?
Personal responsibility has always been a human problem. In the past, people blamed the devil or someone else for their problems. Nowadays, it's our parents' fault or a co-worker or whoever. It isn't good to not be responsible for yourself, but it is not easy. I think it takes a lot of self-respect and strength to have full personal responsibility. Also, this is a problem everywhere in the world; there's not one society that is free from dishonesty.
I agree, personal responsibility is a major reason the Founders thought our Constitution required a people of faith. A secular government but a religious populace. A self-controlled citizen doesn't require a controlling government (tyranny). My question is, if many citizens learn from the Bible the value of personal responsibility why isn't that seen as a good thing? One doesn't have to believe the theology to recognize the wisdom in the Bible. That's the question I'd like to see asked of religion bashers. But I never see it.

True, not too many people are frugal with their money, but that's a long standing problem throughout the world.
The generation that went through the Depression was and they lived their entire lives that way because they knew it could happen again. And it will. Do you think the materialistic messages in pop culture contribute?

There are plenty of progressives who are proud of America. Just because people have different political beliefs than you does not mean they all hate this country and want to destroy it.

Destroy no... but "fundamental transformation" can't happen soon enough for the far-Left.

I think families have always been dysfunctional. Husbands and wives got married too young and since divorce was taboo, stayed together for miserable decades. Doesn't sound like a stable home to me. I do agree that families need to be strengthened, but that comes down to personal responsibility and the need to look ahead into the future and accept the changes - gender equality, same-sex parenting, etc. - as human evolution, rather than looking back at the good old days which weren't really so great.
We have 40 years of evidence of the Great Society's influence in the breakup of the family through perverse welfare incentives. Marriage rates are down, the rate of children born out of wedlock goes higher every decade and yet almost the entire West is now at a negative reproduction rate.

I can think of no better term than entropy for a civilization that can't even be bothered to genetically replace itself.
Culture may be rotting, but that has more to do with Hollywood and record companies trying to shock audiences for the sake of money. I think the average movie watcher of music listener just accepts what entertainment says and doesn't question the semantics.

Maybe Sandyhook will finally open some eyes.

Academics is in decline in many ways. On one hand, you have students who can barely read their grade level. On the other, you have students being taught creationism as a legitimate fact, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and the fact that the U.S. is the only industrialized country debating evolution.

I don't happen to believe in Creationism but you can still be an engineer, orthodontist, biologist or lawyer after being taught Creationism, if you don't read however you can't.
Narcissism is a worldwide problem, not just an American issue.
And it would be narcissistic to think so. :wink:

INDY, I think you see our country as the super great, unique, utopia-like place, when it really never was. Yes, it is great that a simple country developed into a huge economic and political superpower, but we've always had our flaws. But you seem to think America and its people are unlike other countries and other people in the world. We're all human.

No, my utopia is in the next life. I just want a country where the individual matters more than the government. His sovereignty takes precedence, he is free to find his own potential, purse his own interests, follow his own faith and keep his own property while respecting the unalienable rights of others to do the same.
 
So what happened to the great empires and powers of the past? Were they conquered by invaders from beyond their borders or did they decay into moral decadence, bankruptcy, ethnic polarization and economic stagnation and fall at the hand of civil war and revolution from within?
 
Thanks for your response. I agree with many things you say but I'll give you my perspective on some of your answers.


True, I admitted as much in my opening. But wouldn't it be prudent to learn from the errors of Europe's massive Welfare State, debt and experiments in multiculturalism rather than repeating their mistakes decades later?

When I brought up Canada, Australia and Europe, I was referring to your complaint that faith in God is being mocked and belittled in this country. My point was it is happening in many places in the world, so it is not just an American problem.

It's the first step in self-reliance. It's doing what needs to be done without being told. It's how businesses are created. It's the opposite of waiting for someone to give you what you need.

Self-reliance comes in many different forms, and while there are some who need more of it, I do not believe there is an epidemic of lazy people in this country.

There is, but how do you think that is affected when you have to earn at least $X in salary to come out ahead of someone on Welfare payments, food stamps, Medicaid, Sec 8, free day-care, heating assistance, free cell phone service, etc, etc. It takes a lot of individual initiative to work and be self-reliant instead.

What happens as the stigma to living on the dole lessens and it's seen as a personal choice not to be morally condemned?

See my above answer.

I agree, personal responsibility is a major reason the Founders thought our Constitution required a people of faith. A secular government but a religious populace. A self-controlled citizen doesn't require a controlling government (tyranny). My question is, if many citizens learn from the Bible the value of personal responsibility why isn't that seen as a good thing? One doesn't have to believe the theology to recognize the wisdom in the Bible. That's the question I'd like to see asked of religion bashers. But I never see it.

You don't need to believe in God to have personal responsibility. Also, there are plenty of people who claim to be God-fearing who lack personal responsibility. I think you bringing up the Bible repeatedly here tells me you want everyone to read the Bible whether they want to or not. Besides, there are plenty of religions and philosophies that teach personal responsibility - even New Age philosophies and self-help books these days teach the same thing.

The generation that went through the Depression was and they lived their entire lives that way because they knew it could happen again. And it will. Do you think the materialistic messages in pop culture contribute?

The materialistic messages in pop culture is driven by publicity and endorsements. If a reality star or singer or whatever is promoting a brand, they are paid to do so by a company, who will in turn support them however way. This has more to do with the fact that the world tends to idolize celebrities far too much, and we should all ask ourselves why do we idolize such people.


Destroy no... but "fundamental transformation" can't happen soon enough for the far-Left.

I see such beliefs as more conspiracy than anything. This is something Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh will say.

We have 40 years of evidence of the Great Society's influence in the breakup of the family through perverse welfare incentives. Marriage rates are down, the rate of children born out of wedlock goes higher every decade and yet almost the entire West is now at a negative reproduction rate.


I can think of no better term than entropy for a civilization that can't even be bothered to genetically replace itself.



Wrong. The welfare system is not alone in why marriage rates are down and single moms are on the rise. Many people I know who have no interest in getting married is because they've seen how nasty divorce can be and they don't want the same for themselves. Also, some people are choosing not to get married these days because the lousy economy has killed off their future plans. As for the West no reproducing enough, I think that has more to do with the fact that we in the West are educated enough to know that only two, maybe three children is enough - not six or even ten.

Maybe Sandyhook will finally open some eyes.

Sorry, but Sandy Hook happened because of a failed mental health system in this country. It is pretty lame to blame shooting sprees on Hollywood when there are deeper factors going on.


I don't happen to believe in Creationism but you can still be an engineer, orthodontist, biologist or lawyer after being taught Creationism, if you don't read however you can't.

I find it odd that you don't believe in Creationism, yet you want it taught in schools. If you find that such a belief or theory doesn't make sense, then why insist that it be taught?

And it would be narcissistic to think so. :wink:

It sounds like you are mocking what I said here. Narcissism is not just an American issue, but a world issue. America is not an island.

No, my utopia is in the next life. I just want a country where the individual matters more than the government. His sovereignty takes precedence, he is free to find his own potential, purse his own interests, follow his own faith and keep his own property while respecting the unalienable rights of others to do the same.

You can. You still can. I fail to see any proof or evidence that the United States is now suddenly like it is in Ayn Rand's book, Anthem. How exactly are we being prevented from pursuing our own interests, following our faith or finding our potential? I'm confused and baffled that you would go that far here.
 
So what happened to the great empires and powers of the past? Were they conquered by invaders from beyond their borders or did they decay into moral decadence, bankruptcy, ethnic polarization and economic stagnation and fall at the hand of civil war and revolution from within?



thankfully, the true destroyer of empires -- foreign entanglements in places like, and especially, Afghanistan -- has been ended by Obama, finally stanching the needless loss of blood and treasure that is the true cause of decline, from the Romans to the British to the Soviets.

occupation destroys the occupier.
 
is this what you have in mind INDY, when you think of the past?

To be happy, we must admit women and men aren't 'equal'
By Suzanne Venker
Published February 05, 2013
FoxNews.com


A war on men?

Norman Vincent Peale, author of "The Power of Positive Thinking," once wrote these words: “Change your thoughts, and you change your world.”

His statement is highlighted at the beginning of my new book, "How to Choose a Husband and Make Peace with Marriage." Its premise is that if women want to be successful in love, they should reject the cultural script they’ve been sold and adopt a whole new view of men and marriage.

As products of divorce, the modern generation has few role models for lasting love. That alone is a problem. But young women have an added burden: they’ve been raised in a society that eschews marriage. They’ve been taught instead to honor sex, singlehood and female empowerment.

Consider this statement by Rebecca Traister in Marie Claire: “The world as we’ve known it for a very long time—one in which a woman’s value was tied to her role as a wife—is ending, right in front of us. It is now standard for a woman to spend years on her own, learning, working, earning, socializing, having sex, and yes, having babies in the manner she—and she alone—sees fit. We are living through the invention of independent female adulthood.”

This message is not an anomaly; the idea that women don’t need men or marriage is palpable. It began in earnest more than forty years ago, with the modern feminist movement. Feminists assured women their efforts would result in more satisfying marriages, but the result is something else altogether. It looks something like this:

1. Women postpone marriage indefinitely and move in and out of intense romantic relationships, or even live with their boyfriends for years at a time. Eventually, their biological clocks start ticking and many decide they better hurry up and get married to provide a stable home for their yet-to-be-born children. Trouble is, their boyfriend’s not willing to commit.

2. Marriage becomes a competitive sport. The complementary nature of marriage—in which two people work together, as equals, toward the same goal but with an appreciation for the qualities each gender brings to the table—has been obliterated. Today, husbands and wives are locked in a battle about whom does more on the home front and how they’re going to get everything done. That’s not a marriage. That’s war.
It’s time to say what no one else will: Feminism didn’t result in equality between the sexes – it resulted in mass confusion. Today, men and women have no idea who’s supposed to do what.

Prior to the 1970s, people viewed gender roles as as equally valuable. Many would argue women had the better end of the deal! It’s hard to claim women were oppressed in a nation in which men were expected to stand up when a lady enters the room or to lay down their lives to spare women life. When the Titanic went down in 1912, its sinking took 1,450 lives. Only 103 were women. One-hundred three.

Compare that with last year’s wrecked cruise line, the Costa Concordia. It resulted in fewer deaths, but there was another significant difference. “There was no ‘women and children first’ policy. There were big men, crew members, pushing their way past us to get into the lifeboats. It was disgusting,” said passenger Sandra Rogers, 62.

The captain of the ship agrees. In USA Today, Francesco Schettino was asked about his New Year’s resolution. He responded, “Bone up on the parts about ‘women and children first’ and ‘the captain goes down with his ship.’”

You see, the problem with equality is that it implies two things are interchangeable – meaning one thing can be substituted for the other with no ramifications. That is what feminists would have us believe, and anyone who contradicts this dogma is branded sexist.

But the truth must be heard. Being equal in worth, or value, is not the same as being identical, interchangeable beings. Men and women may be capable of doing many of the same things, but that doesn’t mean they want to. That we don’t have more female CEOs or stay-at-home dads proves this in spades.

Unless, of course, you’re beholden to feminism. In that case, you’ll believe the above is evidence of discrimination. You’ll believe what feminists taught you to believe: that gender is a social construct.

Those of us with children know better. We know little girls love their dolls and boys just want to kick that ball. This doesn’t mean men can’t take care of babies or women can’t play sports. It just means each gender has its own energy that flows in a specific direction. For God’s sake, let it flow.

The battle of the sexes is over. And guess what? No one won. Why not try something else on for size? Like this: men and women are equal, but different. They’ve each been blessed with amazing and unique qualities that they bring to the table. Isn’t it time we stopped fussing about who brought what and simply enjoy the feast?


Read more: To be happy, we must admit women and men aren't 'equal' | Fox News
 
Suzanne Venker is Phyllis Schlafly's sidekick - and Schlafly is the most anti-woman woman there can be. She even once said a wife cannot be raped by her husband because sex within marriage is consensual the moment you take your vows.

ETA: the actual quote is: "By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape."
 
If gender isn't a social construct, what the hell is it? The implication here is that girls whose "energy" fails to flow "that way" are broken.

That essay is a mess.
 
Suzanne Venker is Phyllis Schlafly's sidekick - and Schlafly is the most anti-woman woman there can be. She even once said a wife cannot be raped by her husband because sex within marriage is consensual the moment you take your vows.

ETA: the actual quote is: "By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape."



I think a little marital rape now and then is a small price to pay for getting off the Titanic, ladies.

Think about it. And then envy how good your great grandmother had it.
 
So what happened to the great empires and powers of the past? Were they conquered by invaders from beyond their borders or did they decay into moral decadence, bankruptcy, ethnic polarization and economic stagnation and fall at the hand of civil war and revolution from within?

I don't know of any particular civilisation that fell due to 'moral decay'. I mean Edward Gibbon saw the Roman Empire becoming Christian as one of the reasons why it fell. Plus the Romans had a lot of moral decadence for a long time before they were anywhere near collapse.

I mean what do you think when I imagine most of us here that the US is improving morally in at least in regards to how you treat homosexuals, other races and women?

You make many assumptions from a skewed religious bias about the state of the nation's morals. From my perspective the pursuit of capitalism in all its forms is more morally troubling than anything else you have mentioned so far. You hark to a bygone era which wasn't particularly espouse freedom for a lot of people other than the WASPs among us.
 
Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

The poor economy is not the fault of people on welfare. Bush II had a lot to do with the downturn and good old Reagan got the deficit ball rolling.

You complaining about the marriage rate going down was more in line with your belief of the fall of the American family. Never once in this thread did you point to the economy.
 
The Roman empire 'fell' (at least in the west) because of a centuries-long process of musical chairs occasioned by successive mass migrations out of central Asia and into Europe. In the end all those people had to go somewhere, and they did.

The British empire did not so much fall as go bankrupt. I suppose it could have reneged on its debts to the US and held onto India like grim bloody death... actually, no it couldn't have.

The Mughal empire was picked off piece by piece by the British East India Company.

The Byzantine Empire never really recovered from the rise of Islam, but it was the invention of cannon that sealed its fate at the end.

Moral virtue has only a little to do with any of these developments.
 
Our system is what is wrong in America.
A system governed solely by the almighty dollar.

It doesn't matter who the President is. This is why we're sinking.

Because you can't properly govern in a democracy that isn't a true representative democracy. We literally can't do what needs to be done. The special interests and lobbies get their way. Economic disparity grows and America sleeps...when we aren't being materialistic, superficial, incurious morons.

It's a very involved subject.
I just don't have the energy to waste on it right now.
 
Never once in this thread did you point to the economy.

Avg. retail price/gallon gas in U.S. (regular all formulations)
Beg. of 1st Term
$1.85
Beg. of 2nd Term
$3.32
% change
79.5%

Consumer Price Index (all urban consumers)
Beg. of 1st Term
211.1
Beg. of 2nd Term
229.6
% change
8.8%

Unemployment rate, civilian labor force, seasonally adj. (current = Dec '12)
Beg. of 1st Term
7.8%
Beg. of 2nd Term
7.8%
% change
0.0%

Unemployment rate, alt. measure of underutilization (U-6), seas. adj. (current = Dec '12)
Beg. of 1st Term
14.2%
Beg. of 2nd Term
14.4%
% change
1.4%

Unemployment rate, blacks, seasonally adj. (current = Dec '12)
Beg. of 1st Term
12.7%
Beg. of 2nd Term
14.0%
% change
10.2%

Civilian labor force participation rate, seasonally adj. (current = Dec '12)
Beg. of 1st Term
65.7%
Beg. of 2nd Term
63.6%
% change
-3.2%

Number of federal employees, seasonally adj. (current = Dec '12 prelim.)
Beg. of 1st Term
2,790,000
Beg. of 2nd Term
2,794,000
% change
0.1%

Real median household income, in 2011 adj. dollars (2008 vs 2011)
Beg. of 1st Term
$52,546
Beg. of 2nd Term
$50,054
% change
-4.7%

Number of food stamp (SNAP) recipients (current = Oct '12)
Beg. of 1st Term
32,204,859
Beg. of 2nd Term
47,525,329
% change
47.6%

Number of unemployment benefit recipients (current = 1/5/13)
Beg. of 1st Term
7,770,779
Beg. of 2nd Term
5,659,482
% change
-27.2%

Poverty rate, individuals (2008 vs 2011)
Beg. of 1st Term
13.2%
Beg. of 2nd Term
15.0%
% change
13.6%

Disabled workers in current-payment status, SSDI (Jan '09 vs. Dec '12)
Beg. of 1st Term
7,442,377
Beg. of 2nd Term
8,827,795
% change
18.6%

U.S. rank in Economic Freedom World Rankings
Beg. of 1st Term
6
Beg. of 2nd Term
10

U.S. money supply, M2, in billions, not seasonally adj. (current = Dec '12)
Beg. of 1st Term
$8,249.3
Beg. of 2nd Term
$10,475.6
% change
27.0%

Price of gold, London (per troy oz.)
Beg. of 1st Term
$835.00
Beg. of 2nd Term
$1,688.00
$853.00
% change
102.2%

National debt, in billions
Beg. of 1st Term
$10,627
Beg. of 2nd Term
$16,433
% change
54.6%

Federal expenditures, in billions, current $ (4 yrs ended FY '08 vs 4 yrs ended FY '12)
Beg. of 1st Term
$11,945
Beg. of 2nd Term
$14,515
% change
21.5%

(S&P) federal gov credit rating
Beg. of 1st Term
AAA
Beg. of 2nd Term
AA+

Dow Jones
Beg. of 1st Term
8,281
Beg. of 2nd Term
13,650
% change
64.8%

GDP real growth rate
2012 2.2%
2011 1.7%
2010 2.8%
2009 -2.6%
2008 1.1%
2007 2%
2006 3.2%
2005 3.2%
2004 4.4%
2003 3.1%
2002 2.5%
2001 0.3%

Except for the last half of my first post you mean. Who here thinks the majority of these numbers will show improvement 4 years from now?

Who expects they'll be even worse? :wave: But I hope I'm wrong.
 
Except for the last half of my first post you mean. Who here thinks the majority of these numbers will show improvement 4 years from now?

Who expects they'll be even worse? :wave: But I hope I'm wrong.

No, INDY. I meant you never once blamed the decreasing marriage rate in America on the poor economy. Copy and pasting those numbers was totally pointless, and it took what I said out of context.

You are now heading toward your usual tricks of playing victim and refusing to participate in a debate. I thought this would be a good chance to discuss the future of America, but I was wrong.
 
It's been awhile since I've written a long FYM post, so... here we go.

The United States lies in an interesting economic position at the moment. A little bit of background on my own prejudices and whatnot: I tend to draw a distinction between cyclical and structural economic conditions. That's not a very controversial thing to do in itself. Cyclical downturns happen when an economy, for whatever reason, is producing less than it could be producing. Structural downturns happen because of much more fundamental economic shifts. Check. The controversial prejudice of mine: I tend to believe in government intervention in cyclical crises, and I tend to believe that the government can't do much to affect structural crises, aside from long-term investment in education and whatnot (although I'm not positive how strong an impact that has either). Example: In 2008, I was against the bailouts of Chrysler and GM, because I thought that the US auto industry was something that structural conditions would not allow to survive, and a bailout would be useless in the long-run. I was incorrect about that; I think now that the auto industry's plight was largely from a combination of bad business decisions (making too many SUVs), high oil prices before the crash (yes, Indy, they were higher under Bush than they've ever been under Obama), and the obvious cyclical issues of 2007-2008. But I still largely think that supporting structurally damaged industries is probably a poor idea.

So that is the framework through which I look at economic issues. The downturn that happened in 2008 I think (though I am not sure) had elements of both. The cyclical elements are obvious. The subprime mortgage needn't happen, but it did, and, starting in late 2008, the United States economy started producing less than it should have. The United States government responded by, in effect, creating money. There was some literal money creation starting in (IIRC) 2009, via Quantitative Easing, but most of the money creation was Congressional, through deficit spending via the creation of bonds (which are liquid enough to be de facto money). That response, to me, makes sense. Classical Economics says that the Economy is always in equilibrium, that the real and nominal sides of the economy do not interface... that the amount of money in the economy has nothing to do with its production in real terms. That is... to use one of my favorite phrases, empirically denied. Money was removed, which in the short term caused an economic downturn in real terms. Introducing new money to stop that made sense.

So, in my opinion, the 2009 stimulus was good. But the economy still suffers, growing less than it structurally should... or does it? If we assume that the US economy is still cyclically dragging behind, then there are a few (not mutually exclusive) considerations. What would help against a cyclical downturn? Loosening regulations, lower taxes, more stimulus money, even looser monetary policy... take your pick. Democrats and Republicans tend to each favor half of the list and dislike the other half. But if this is still a cyclical downturn, any combination of these should help. Is the deficit an issue? I'm not really sure. If the economy is in a cyclical downturn, then inflation really shouldn't be an issue of money creation, because newly printed money should be matched by new production in real term. A piece of evidence to me that suggests that there is still a significant cyclical component to the economic situation is that the economy is proving pretty much immune to inflation above 2%, despite the massive amount of money creation and de facto money creation that has happened in the past five years. So maybe some combinations of the above things will help, and Washington gridlock certainly isn't helping. There are potential drawbacks so some of the options, though.

But there's much of me that thinks that there's much more than a cyclical downturn happening right now. I am fond of a theory by some conservative economist (probably at UChicago, but I don't remember much about this economist) which states that the natural rate of unemployment actually fell during the 2000s before the financial crisis, but was masked by an economy producing more than it should because of the housing bubble. In other words, the economy took a structural downturn, but our numbers were fairly decent through the Bush years because of a cyclical bubble that burst. When that bubble burst, down went the cyclical expansion, and we're only catching up with our new structural norm, which is much worse than it used to be, and can't really be affected by the government or... anything, really.

The reasons, in my mind, why that could be the case are two-fold. I'll go with the reason that is weaker (in my mind) first: automation. This has been happening for 150 years and never caused a substantial structural issues, as low-paying jobs were replaced with machines and the workers moved onto higher-paying jobs (if you can't make the car, program the machine that makes it, or design a new machine entirely, or teach others to do so, et cetera). But I'm not entirely beyond the possibility that automation has reached some sort of a critical point where it is causing major structural issues. The solution? I haven't the fainest idea how to implement it, but ideally, I would like to see equity ownership spread out more broadly, so that the enhanced ability of modern society to produce can spread through more hands. This sounds a lot like a central tenet of fairly pure socialism (let the workers own the factors of production), but I don't advocate government implementation of it.

Another potential structural issue that seems somewhat more likely to exist to me is globalization. I hesitate to call this an issue, honestly, because I tend to be fairly staunchly pro-free trade. Globalization has actually wrought enormous equality along with growth around the world. The rich have gotten richer, the developing world has actually become closer to the developing world (in past years, that word tended to be much more of a euphemism for "third world" than anything), and the middle and lower-middle classes in the developed world have gotten poorer. So what we see in the US is more inequality, and more economic stagnation for significant swathes of people, but what has happened around the world is somewhat different. For more than half a millennium, European peoples more or less oppressed what is now (for the most part) the developing world, and in the past half century, that has been largely removed. Ironically, Western ideas and believes penetrate the developing world more strongly than they did in colonial days, to an extent, as the developing world plays the game of capitalism to catch up to the West. Perhaps that's a major structural issue in the United States. But there's no inherent reason why Americans deserve jobs and development and people in the developing world don't. I like globalization. Theoretically, in the very long run, things should equal out. The lump of labor fallacy (there are x number of jobs and the world would be better off if there was less competition for them) is generally absurd, and, once the developing world is more developed, international demand should be the source of growth that pulls the United States out of our current economic issues. But that's potentially quite a long distance away.

And on top of that, there are more minor structural issues, such as demographic issues in the United States, Europe, and Japan. INDY seems to have a propensity to attribute this to some sort of moral failure. I attribute it more to a lessened sense of reliance on children combined with a stronger need to be educated into ones thirties to be able to pay for a stable household. I'm not sure what to do about that. Immigration is probably a good idea, and it's the best that I can think of, but the issue of not being able to start a household until parents are in their thirties is... formidable. This appears to be one of the larger long-term deficit issues. Deficit spending to deal with cyclical crises doesn't bother me very much, but demographics could be an issue that is much deeper than the deficit, and just affects the deficit in a very negative way.

So yeah... the economy is problematic. But what of the massive moral regress or whatever that we're apparently experiencing?

Honestly, the sense of malaise that is so clearly spread across the country can be traced pretty strongly back to the economy, in my mind. Moral loosening (by INDY's definition) has been occurring for decades, connecting them to economic effects that just started to happen in the past decade seems... silly. As does blaming this on "greed" or "the system". People have always been greedy, and always will. The system has always been corrupt, and always will. Our issue is not just that people in Washington can't get along, or that they are devoid of logic, or something. It's that the economy is quite possibly in a major structural downturn (and if not a structural one, a very stubborn one nonetheless), and people across the country (not just their politicians) have rather major differences. The politicians have been very faithful to their people, on the whole, in terms of accurately representing beliefs. We just like to simultaneously lambast Washington for both not compromising and for "giving in to the other side too much". Religion... yawn. Peoples' morals don't come with it. Societies' morals have a fairly strong positive correlation between progressiveness and economic activity, regardless of religion. The same Christianity that lies beneath the strength of the American economy is the same religion which lay beneath the post-Roman European hellhole for nearly a millennium. The same Islam that lies beneath the modern Middle East is the same religion which lay beneath the Abbasid and Umayyad Caliphates which boomed with economic strength and (relative) progressiveness while Europe floundered with economic disaster and a political and social climate that make modern Iran look like Berkeley. Read Arabian Nights (I recommend the story of the Porter and the Three Ladies) and compare it to Beowulf. You'll notice a striking difference.

So yeah... there are my thoughts. I apologize for the gazillion typos that must be in this post. I don't want to proof-read it.
 
Honestly, the sense of malaise that is so clearly spread across the country can be traced pretty strongly back to the economy, in my mind. Moral loosening (by INDY's definition) has been occurring for decades, connecting them to economic effects that just started to happen in the past decade seems... silly. As does blaming this on "greed" or "the system". People have always been greedy, and always will. The system has always been corrupt, and always will. Our issue is not just that people in Washington can't get along, or that they are devoid of logic, or something. It's that the economy is probably in a major structural downturn, and people across the country (not just their politicians) have rather major differences. The politicians have been very faithful to their people, on the whole, in terms of accurately representing beliefs. We just like to simultaneously lambast Washington for both not compromising and for "giving in to the other side too much". Religion... yawn. Peoples morals don't come with it. Societies' morals have a fairly strong positive correlation between progressiveness and economic activity, regardless of religion. The same Christianity that lies beneath the strength of the American economy is the same religion which lay beneath the post-Roman European hellhole for nearly a millennium. The same Islam that lies beneath the modern Middle East is the same religion which lay beneath the Abbasid and Umayyad Caliphates which boomed with economic strength and (relative) progressiveness while Europe floundered with economic disaster and a political and social climate that make modern Iran look like Berkeley. Read Arabian Nights (I recommend the story of the Porter and the Three Ladies) and compare it to Beowulf. You'll notice a striking difference.

Thank you, digitize. This sums up America and the world perfectly. Economies go up and down, blaming that on so-called moral decline is indeed silly, and politicians will always be corrupt no matter what system or circumstance.

I'd like to add this: deal with it, everyone.
 
Religion... yawn. Peoples morals don't come with it. Societies' morals have a fairly strong positive correlation between progressiveness and economic activity, regardless of religion.

Thank you. This hand-wringing about people mocking religion all over the place is grossly misunderstood. Religion in and of itself is not the problem for (most) Americans. The percentage of people in this country who identify as Christian is still quite high, people can still go to church as often as they want, Christmas is still a holiday that many observe and celebrate, etc., etc.

No, the problem comes in when people start acting like they are better than other people because of the religion they follow, or claim that if someone doesn't live up to their idea of "proper Christian ideals" that they are "immoral" and "sinning" and all that nonsense. That is what people mock, the holier-than-thou attitude. Some people do make fun of religion just to make fun of it, yes, but they're not a big enough percentage to pose any sort of legitimate "threat" to the concept of religion in general, and besides that, given the truly serious and deadly abuse and threats to their lives that Christians face in other parts of the world, someone in the U.S. making fun of you for going to church on Sunday, while definitely annoying, is not even close to anything resembling actual persecution.

As for the economic issue, I really would just absolutely love it if, even for a little bit, people could get off the backs of those who use welfare and quit attacking them for all our woes for a change. Again, have some people abused the system? Yep. But as digitize noted, that will happen with ANY system in the world. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater because some people take advantage of and abuse the system, nor should you go around assuming the worst of everyone who uses the system as a result because a few people like to fuck things up. Most people on welfare are hard-working and as self-reliant as can be-believe me, many find it deeply embarrassing and humiliating to find themselves in such a state of needing that kind of help just to take care of themselves and their own families. But they have fallen on hard times, in part because of reasons they could not control. And instead of treating them like dirt and making insulting accusations about them, why not, I dunno, HELP THEM instead?

I firmly believe that a country that does not take care of those who are struggling, a country that treats various parts of its society as second-class citizens not worthy of the same rights as everyone else, is a country that will undoubtedly wind up falling apart.
 
. But they have fallen on hard times, in part because of reasons they could not control. And instead of treating them like dirt and making insulting accusations about them, why not, I dunno, HELP THEM instead?

I firmly believe that a country that does not take care of those who are struggling, a country that treats various parts of its society as second-class citizens not worthy of the same rights as everyone else, is a country that will undoubtedly wind up falling apart.

:yes:
 
As for the economic issue, I really would just absolutely love it if, even for a little bit, people could get off the backs of those who use welfare and quit attacking them for all our woes for a change. Again, have some people abused the system? Yep. But as digitize noted, that will happen with ANY system in the world. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater because some people take advantage of and abuse the system, nor should you go around assuming the worst of everyone who uses the system as a result because a few people like to fuck things up. Most people on welfare are hard-working and as self-reliant as can be-believe me, many find it deeply embarrassing and humiliating to find themselves in such a state of needing that kind of help just to take care of themselves and their own families. But they have fallen on hard times, in part because of reasons they could not control. And instead of treating them like dirt and making insulting accusations about them, why not, I dunno, HELP THEM instead?

Yeah, I agree. I especially take issue with attacking people who use welfare when this country doesn't really have very good equality of opportunity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom