How much of the economy is actually real?
#1
FAANG plays pretend by wearing the mantle of a technology company that only generates pretty pictures on screens and providing another competitor to usps. Social media is already a finished niche. All social media has slowly blended into one large amalgamation with instragram and snapchat stories. 'Metaverse' is just a VR chat nobody will use. Half of facebook accounts are fake.   

Real estate is the largest slice that makes up 10-13% of total GDP. Fueled by speculation and overleveraged elders staking their retirement on the basis of the ponzi scheme continuing ad infinitum. But then again you're just building boxes so people can exist. Growth for the sake of growth.  


People go into debt to work in a service economy allowing them the ability to outsource parenting so they have time to work more to buy into a ponzi scheme that can only be afforded by 2 people going into debt so they can work in the service industry.


A huge basis of our society and institutions are modeled on the idea that there will always be a baby boom and new more populous younger generation to buy into this scheme. When it stops - game over. Los Angeles is the Mecca of globohomo adopting the strategy of replacing the current population every 10 years because they simply cannot afford to exist and tfr drops. 

Will this game eventually end? Will human capital just become so deficient at one point it all collapses or will we be propelled towards favela world. 

Is this it? Is this really our economy?
#2
I do not derive any pleasure from thinking any of it is real except when I post the gigachad image
#3
This all sounds about right. Same shit's happening here. Country doesn't make anything, economy runs on FIRE, service and strip-mining natural resources. Human capital is collapsing, but doesn't matter from an economic perspective because monkeys can do service work and there are over a billion hans and pajeets desperate to escape their hells of their own creation.

We need more people talking about how awful service-world is. I don't want to be serviced, I want to live.
#4
The main issue to be addressed is how do you the cut out the useless parts of the economy while still maintaining a largely useless population? The percentage of labor to maintain a modern nation is quite trivial, especially in those countries that largely outsource their manufacturing (doubly so in the future due to automation). One thing people really haven't grappled with is that the economy continued to function during the lockdowns despite millions staying at home due toe continued labor of "essential workers" (who are also suspectible for replacement by automation, as has already been accelerated during the COVID years). The question then becomes: do you really want to risk cutting these jobs? What do you do with these people then? What means of sustenance would they even have?
#5
You vaccinate them. (Darkened gigachad.jpg)
#6
"I dont see how boosting the populations resistance to covid solves the issue"
#7
what exactly is less "real" about creating an app which has as its source of revenue the optimization of the momentary fulfillment of human desire (not "creation" of desire - advertisement doesn't work that way, pop-psych is fake) across the population than, say, assembling cars, making toys, etc. - and selling the finished products to some members of the population?

a possible answer: the greater ease in 1914 compared with 2022 with which workers and existing infrastructure could be shifted towards creating products of greater importance to an expansion of the armed forces - but i don't think this works. if naytoh were to magically occupy half of China and ensure the continuing stability of manufacturing - would that really make the economy in the U.S. more "real"? i don't think so.

>would that really make the economy in the U.S. more "real"?
i meant the economy in the U.S. as well as that in the before-not-occupied, now-occupied territories
#8
(03-08-2022, 09:23 AM)Sharmat Wrote: The main issue to be addressed is how do you the cut out the useless parts of the economy while still maintaining a largely useless population? The percentage of labor to maintain a modern nation is quite trivial, especially in those countries that largely outsource their manufacturing (doubly so in the future due to automation). One thing people really haven't grappled with is that the economy continued to function during the lockdowns despite millions staying at home due toe continued labor of "essential workers" (who are also suspectible for replacement by automation, as has already been accelerated during the COVID years). The question then becomes: do you really want to risk cutting these jobs? What do you do with these people then? What means of sustenance would they even have?

I remember that, the dow dipped to 17,000 and everyone thought it was completely over. The past 2 years governments just decided to ritualistically engage in the controlled demolition of the economy and all it lead to was a once in a lifetime buying opportunity for a week.

3 months deep into the lockdowns whilst playing WoW classic all day I thought to myself: "Maybe we already live in a post-scarcity economy?". If I can work from home with no decrease in job performance - is the office really needed? A metaphorical genie was let out of the bottle. Perhaps we already live in a post-scarcity world Marx desired and a big part of if is centered around maintaining the illusion by artificially creating the need for certain goods & services? 

Example: Mass soft processed foods to support population --> Need for braces --> Orthodontist industry (scam)

The soft foods leads to a narrow palate. You need braces and teeth extractions now. Your breathing is subpar leading to headaches and migraines. You need to buy this sleeping aid and this painkiller covered by this insurance package that's not aspirin. I have tons of these flowcharts in my head outlining self created problems that could easily be resolved with simple choices instead get perpetuated and causes a civilization to favor the sick and elderly because they have a higher likelihood of perpetuating these schemes (spic nig cycle) 

For the large amount of nonessential workers who live paycheck to paycheck indebted to a system they can never truly payback - how does an elite utilize that populace? I believe people are fielded as pawns to further the ability for this scam society to perpetuate. This is why we're seeing an increase in mass psychosis w people signaling they took the jab, putting a countries flag in their bio and posting black squares on social media. The NRX idea that the system selects for compliance, not competence. A growing biotrash serf class that's just an extended phenotype of the 'elite'.


The 'elite' occupying the west regularly get dunked on by college kids with anime girl pfps on twitter. Existence only guaranteed through censorship in an ideological vacuum. If anything dissidents should take the samizdat distribution and mockery even further to new heights by pointing out and coming to the realization of just how useless this empire of dirt truly is - not on just an ideological level. The realization that we truly do not need that much in order to live should be powderkeg for dissident thinkers who want to breakaway and form secret societies. 

What if the boomer model & ideal essentially always leads to this 'bad ending'? If so, it should be rejected in its entirety and a new paradigm should be the objective.
#9
@FruitVendor I have had similar thoughts. To take it to the next level realize that all of these “schemes” are not planned out but are all malignant memes that self replicate and destroy just like viruses and bacteria. The elite is not smarter than you, they are not smart enough to conceive of these things. Here is another example: why are all teachers die hard big government liberals? Obviously because they depend on big government for their living. But the education system has evolved perfectly to select for the personality types that will perpetuate itself. The whole world is just a Petri dish of malignant memes and the only way to survive this and kill the memes is to actually understand how the world works i.e. philosophy.
#10
(03-19-2022, 01:40 PM)FruitVendor Wrote:
(03-08-2022, 09:23 AM)Sharmat Wrote: The main issue to be addressed is how do you the cut out the useless parts of the economy while still maintaining a largely useless population? The percentage of labor to maintain a modern nation is quite trivial, especially in those countries that largely outsource their manufacturing (doubly so in the future due to automation). One thing people really haven't grappled with is that the economy continued to function during the lockdowns despite millions staying at home due toe continued labor of "essential workers" (who are also suspectible for replacement by automation, as has already been accelerated during the COVID years). The question then becomes: do you really want to risk cutting these jobs? What do you do with these people then? What means of sustenance would they even have?

I remember that, the dow dipped to 17,000 and everyone thought it was completely over. The past 2 years governments just decided to ritualistically engage in the controlled demolition of the economy and all it lead to was a once in a lifetime buying opportunity for a week.

3 months deep into the lockdowns whilst playing WoW classic all day I thought to myself: "Maybe we already live in a post-scarcity economy?". If I can work from home with no decrease in job performance - is the office really needed? A metaphorical genie was let out of the bottle. Perhaps we already live in a post-scarcity world Marx desired and a big part of if is centered around maintaining the illusion by artificially creating the need for certain goods & services? 

Example: Mass soft processed foods to support population --> Need for braces --> Orthodontist industry (scam)

The soft foods leads to a narrow palate. You need braces and teeth extractions now. Your breathing is subpar leading to headaches and migraines. You need to buy this sleeping aid and this painkiller covered by this insurance package that's not aspirin. I have tons of these flowcharts in my head outlining self created problems that could easily be resolved with simple choices instead get perpetuated and causes a civilization to favor the sick and elderly because they have a higher likelihood of perpetuating these schemes (spic nig cycle) 

For the large amount of nonessential workers who live paycheck to paycheck indebted to a system they can never truly payback - how does an elite utilize that populace? I believe people are fielded as pawns to further the ability for this scam society to perpetuate. This is why we're seeing an increase in mass psychosis w people signaling they took the jab, putting a countries flag in their bio and posting black squares on social media. The NRX idea that the system selects for compliance, not competence. A growing biotrash serf class that's just an extended phenotype of the 'elite'.


The 'elite' occupying the west regularly get dunked on by college kids with anime girl pfps on twitter. Existence only guaranteed through censorship in an ideological vacuum. If anything dissidents should take the samizdat distribution and mockery even further to new heights by pointing out and coming to the realization of just how useless this empire of dirt truly is - not on just an ideological level. The realization that we truly do not need that much in order to live should be powderkeg for dissident thinkers who want to breakaway and form secret societies. 

What if the boomer model & ideal essentially always leads to this 'bad ending'? If so, it should be rejected in its entirety and a new paradigm should be the objective.
You are 100% right. We do (effectively) live in a post-scarcity society, money is used to create an artificial cap on what the average consumer can buy as to not ruin the system. It's not a purely economic/materialist calculation either, increasingly access to money is based on your espoused political and moral affiliations wherein your ability to use your bank account might be redacted from you due to a wrong political stance.

We currently live in the closest thing to the communist ideal we will ever get, the only thing left to push for is really the further abolition of work. We live in infinite surplus, the division of labor has effectively been dissolved, you can work several jobs in a day based off of your personal taste, the state has been dissolved in favor of a network of philanthropic NGOs and think tanks, etc. There is very little left for leftists to want which is why there is an increasing tendency to hide ones beliefs under meaningless aesthetics and lingo which have been divorced from their right wing origins to still look hip and relevant.
#11
it's interesting how little "you people" have changed in your views (reheated jehu nigger trash) on the economy, both of the first world and of the world as a whole - since mid-2020. always a day late and a dollar short.
#12
(03-21-2022, 04:05 AM)Guest Wrote: it's interesting how little "you people" have changed in your views (reheated jehu nigger trash) on the economy, both of the first world and of the world as a whole  - since mid-2020. always a day late and a dollar short.

What exactly do you disagree with? That the majority of jobs serve little practical purpose and can increasingly be automated or have their work hours reduced through smarter management is quite obvious. Unless you have a substantive comment to make this just seems like disagreeing for the sake of it.

The only reason I can see you objecting so harshly is thinking 1)we endorse this state of things or 2)that it should be exploited through some sort of "right wing MMT policy". Both are not true.
#13
I disagree with the description of the observed effects of the lockdowns, and specifically the connection made to the supposed existence of a post-scarcity state of affairs.

>One thing people really haven't grappled with is that the economy continued to function during the lockdowns despite millions staying at home due toe continued labor of "essential workers" (who are also suspectible for replacement by automation, as has already been accelerated during the COVID years).
>The past 2 years governments just decided to ritualistically engage in the controlled demolition of the economy and all it lead to was a once in a lifetime buying opportunity for a week.

The consequences of the lockdowns (which have barely lasted an aggregate 2 years) are becoming more and more clear. The reduction in supply - via the disruption of so many production and logistical pipelines - compared to the counterfactual world with no lockdowns will persist for many years to come. The same reduction in combination with high demand, is the cause of inflation, not le heckin bailouts - https://www.epi.org/blog/inflation-and-t...e-in-2022/ . Continuing logistical difficulties: https://www.flexport.com/research/ocean-...indicator/ ; https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfe...pressures/
The Fed will have to continue raising interest rates if it wants to lower inflation.

How someone can look at the above consequences of comparatively-short labor participation disruption and conclude that we live in a post-scarcity society is the real question.

Also: stock markets are forward-looking; the current value of the S&P 500 index is below that which it would have been had it followed the trend from before March 2020.
I personally anticipate lower earnings growth into the future in combination with already high P/E values leading to mediocre returns on investment for the next decade - or a "readjustment" (crash).
#14
(03-21-2022, 05:39 AM)Guest Wrote: I disagree with the description of the observed effects of the lockdowns, and specifically the connection made to the supposed existence of a post-scarcity state of affairs.

>One thing people really haven't grappled with is that the economy continued to function during the lockdowns despite millions staying at home due toe continued labor of "essential workers" (who are also suspectible for replacement by automation, as has already been accelerated during the COVID years).
>The past 2 years governments just decided to ritualistically engage in the controlled demolition of the economy and all it lead to was a once in a lifetime buying opportunity for a week.

The consequences of the lockdowns (which have barely lasted an aggregate 2 years) are becoming more and more clear. The reduction in supply  - via the disruption of so many production and logistical pipelines -  compared to the counterfactual world with no lockdowns will persist for many years to come. The same reduction in combination with high demand, is the cause of inflation, not le heckin bailouts - https://www.epi.org/blog/inflation-and-t...e-in-2022/ . Continuing logistical difficulties: https://www.flexport.com/research/ocean-...indicator/ ; https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfe...pressures/
The Fed will have to continue raising interest rates if it wants to lower inflation.

How someone can look at the above consequences of comparatively-short labor participation disruption and conclude that we live in a post-scarcity society is the real question.

Also: stock markets are forward-looking; the current value of the S&P 500 index is below that which it would have been had it followed the trend from before March 2020.
I personally anticipate lower earnings growth into the future in combination with already high P/E values leading to mediocre returns on investment for the next decade - or a "readjustment" (crash).
There are several factors that complicate the relationship drawn between the reduction of labor (which can directly be attributed to the pandemic) and the economic disruptions that have come with the lockdowns, namely the costs that came purely out of the difficulty of transport and the complications created out of vaccine requirements (particularly for essential workers). Another issue to be raised is that there isn't an equal distribution of "useless" jobs internationally, nor was there an equal response to Corona. To this day, China will still totally shut down provinces due to rising COVID cases(https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...of-economy), which has closed many crucial manufacturing plants used by western businesses. Obviously labor intensive countries do not have the luxury of functioning under lockdown, and the ability of the developed world to continue focusing on services depends on the maintenance of international supply lines and third world labor.

There's also the issue of workers voluntarily quitting, particularly in the industries that need on-site labor(https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...-quitting/). In the US, this has hit manufacturing the hardest, with a 60% increase in the amount of workers willingly quitting. This is largely due to perceived job insecurity, stagnant wages, and poor benefits. This has been an issue for a while but has recently been taken advantage of by labor organizers due to the trend towards a labor dominated market. I believe this is a short term problem which will be rectified by an increase in wages and the integration of online work where possible, but some of those gains will be eaten by inflation.

There's also the role played by artificial demand increase through stimulus checks which could not be reflected in supply, but you've basically already hinted at that in your post. Needless to say, this is the result of poor government policy. 

TL;DR: Many of the issues that came out of the lockdowns were more so a result of poor governmental policy in terms of which sectors of the economy it closed down and international management of the supply chain rather than labor reduction as such. It is also quite clear that the "post-scarcity" of the west depends on the continued operation of the third and second world, so a global lockdown is obviously untenable. There were also structural issues in the labor market which were accelerated and taken advantage of due to the lockdowns, but these issues did not emerge out of it. When the factors are broken down like this it becomes clear that the issue was not labor reduction in of itself.
#15
>labor reduction as such
>labor reduction in of itself

what do these two terms mean? do you posit a counterfactual world A where first world nations did not engage in any restrictions on labor participation, and second and third world nations acted in the same way they acted in reality (i.e. enact lockdowns) - and then say that economic output in the counterfactual world A 2 years down the line would be very similar to economic output in our world?

if so, consider a different counterfactual world B: 15 years into the future, where the labor-participation-restricting policies of our-2020 have continued un-interrupted: would economic output in world B still be very similar to that of economic output in world A?
i ask, because obviously the labor-liquidating state (hinted at in this thread) would have effects on economic output more similar to those occurring in world B as opposed to world A ("those people" won't be coming back after 2 years; they won't be coming back after 15 years either, but a finite time frame for counterfactual reasoning was needed)
#16
(03-21-2022, 08:47 AM)Guest Wrote: >labor reduction as such
>labor reduction in of itself

what do these two terms mean? do you posit a counterfactual world A where first world nations did not engage in any restrictions on labor participation, and second and third world nations acted in the same way they acted in reality (i.e. enact lockdowns) - and then say that economic output in the counterfactual world A 2 years down the line would be very similar to economic output in our world?

if so, consider a different counterfactual world B: 15 years into the future, where the labor-participation-restricting policies of our-2020 have continued un-interrupted: would economic output in world B still be very similar to that of economic output in world A?
i ask, because obviously the labor-liquidating state (hinted at in this thread) would have effects on economic output more similar to those occurring in world B as opposed to world A ("those people" won't be coming back after 2 years; they won't be coming back after 15 years either, but a finite time frame for counterfactual reasoning was needed)

When I say "labor reduction as such", I mean a decrease in general operating labor as the primary cause of the economic disruption experienced during the lockdowns as opposed to a decrease in labor participation in a certain industry/country or some other reason which is not directly related to labor. The counterfactual world I posit involves minimal lockdowns in the second and third world, uninterrupted international trade (at least in terms of legal and health barriers) and the continued operation of essential industries that necessitate on-site labor in the first world at full scale. The rest of the first world population could be taken under lockdown to work online (we do not want to introduce an unemployment factor yet as this would obviously create instability on its own which is irrespective of the ability to maintain the productivity rates of the pre-covid world. Merely showing that a large part of the economy can be taken fully online would prove that a substantial % of on-site labor is redundant). This would account for ~40% of jobs and ~50% of wages (https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uplo...3.2020.pdf). They're also overwhelmingly service jobs. In this world, there would be minimum economic disruptions beyond the obvious changes in labor dynamics involved in going online.

I dont see the point in answering the second point since it's an objection to a counterfactual scenario which I did not raise, but I wish to reiterate that I believe that the main cause of the lockdown's economic mores is the closing down of the wrong industries in the wrong countries. The "post-scarcity" economy that I speak of where only a part of the labor pool needs to operate exists only in the first world and necessitates the continued operation of the third and second world. It is not a global phenomenon. 

Addendum: Before you claim I copped out with taking a large part of the labor pool online instead of outright firing them, the aim was merely to show that they are not needed for the continued production of commodities. Firing them would produce issues with demand and political stability that harm the hypothesis and I would have to introduce government remedies such as UBI in order to remedy it (not to speak of the consequences of political instability). Simply put, it would get too complicated to be productive.
#17
The Andrew Yang Charles Murray Chungus idea that some people are too low IQ to do any job and make a living is only true because they don’t acknowledge the government intervention that makes employing people a huge gamble and that without the government fucking everything up the prices of products and services deflate extremely rapidly which makes it easy for people to get what they need.

Minimum wage laws, affirmative action/civil rights laws, laws that prevent businesses from hiring and firing whoever they want whenever they want. These are what keep people out of the workforce, and these will continue to be the reason that people find it hard to get a job as the government grows cancerously.

A homeless guy can easily go to a library or beg on a street corner and get access to computing equipment that would have cost trillions of dollars in the 1970s. This is not a unique property of computers. It’s a result of the computer science industry being less regulated than every other industry. If it wasn’t for currency inflation, overtaxation, labor laws that prevent humans from maximizing their potential, and worst of all, a cancerously growing regulatory state that exponentially multiplied the number of laws one must follow to do business, then healthy food, real estate, education, etc. would have similar radical deflation in price.

TLDR No one needs UBI, not even low IQ niggas. Unemployment and poverty would not be a problem without the government. the only thing keeping us from a world of unimaginable wealth is that big government is a parasite that slurps up all of that potential wealth creation and the vast majority of people are too buck broken and traumatized by child abuse to admit that this is a problem and do their best to Go Galt.

Thinktank Chungus

1. Identify very real problem that is a pain point for people but is ignored by the political establishment.
2. Ignore that this problem is caused by the government.
3. We need SMART government that GETS SHIT DONE
4. SCIENCE it up Reddit style to prove you are SMART and you want to GET SHIT DONE.
5. Propose government solution that will partially alleviate this pain point but also cause other problems (ex. UBI, infinite work visas, giving the SMARTEST 18 year olds academic tenure and a salary, child tax credits, trade schools)
6. People now think the government is not malicious, but only incompetent. You are now seen as a savior and will get elevated to a position of power and status in the government or NGO think tank shadow government.
7. Your relatively smart policy solution, if implemented at all, is bastardized into a bureaucratic nightmare designed to murder white people and make everyone’s lives a living hell.

This is the career of every twitter intellectual SMART PROBLEM SOLVER from Andrew Yang to Freddie DeBoer to everyone in the think tank industry (besides Donkey Hanania; he is pretty based, but even most of the people who come on his podcast are like this and he rarely calls him out on their shit)
#18
Basically. I'm not a libertarian totalist, but governments are to be kept sleek and efficient. As unnoticeable as possible. To be the lubricant ensuring smooth running of an engine. It's involvement in the economy is to be kept to ensuring domestics are competitive against foreigners, and nudging trends long term, directly or indirectly. Laws are to be kept vague, and their amount small, because all judges will be detached schizoid types and autists. No need to make specific idiotic food safety standards because it's common sense. In a sense, the state exists to *ensure* any negative consequences of incompetence and stupidity are punished far more severely than the populace would naturally. A sort of amplifier for natural selection.

On the other hand my ideas on how a state should be run tosses every existing notion out of the window, the state itself becomes like a corporation, itself organized like an organism. Holistic approach. The line between what is government and what isn't is blurry and constantly shifting, and this prevents such parasitical actions because it cannot define itself as an entity of it's own.
#19
(03-22-2022, 04:43 PM)Svevlad Wrote: Laws are to be kept vague, and their amount small, because all judges will be detached schizoid types and autists. No need to make specific idiotic food safety standards because it's common sense.

This sounds like a bad idea. The laws should be very clear so people know when they are following them, don't have to guess, and can't be at the mercy of some judge interpreting vague laws to suit himself.
#20
There has to be a balance I guess.

Guess less vague, but no tolerance of pseudo-kike pilpul loophole bullshit



[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)