Is this the real reason for QE2 ? - Update

Published: November 4, 2010 - 07:45
This article received :  102 Comments

The Fed will buy 600Bn USD debt ...

"...the Committee intends to purchase a further 600 billion of longer-term Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011, a pace of about $75 billion per month. The Committee will regularly review the pace of its securities purchases and the overall size of the asset-purchase program in light of incoming information and will adjust the program as needed to best foster maximum employment and price stability."

It is not very credible that the Fed acts like this only because it is worried by economic growth.

Over the last 2 quarters, China has stopped buying USD debt. This makes a difference of 150 Bn USD per quarter, 50 Bn USD/month. The gap China leaves is now filled by the US central bank.

Coincidence ?


Ben Bernanke wrote anOp-Ed in the Washington Post, explaining his strategy. It is astonishing how the central banker sees QE, and the arguments he gives to support his actions.


* The argument that this action is to "sustain price stability" is of course completely wrong, and undermines his credibility

* Bernanke explains that he wants to inflate stock prices, implicitly acknowledging that the Fed creates bubbles to "help the economy":

"And higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending. Increased spending will lead to higher incomes and profits that, in a virtuous circle, will further support economic expansion."

* the Fed chairman does not mention China, and the monetisation of US government debt, because of a lack of large buyers however...

I print it here in full:

What the Fed did and why: supporting the recovery and sustaining price stability

By Ben S. Bernanke

Thursday, November 4, 2010;

Two years have passed since the worst financial crisis since the 1930s dealt a body blow to the world economy. Working with policymakers at home and abroad, the Federal Reserve responded with strong and creative measures to help stabilize the financial system and the economy. Among the Fed's responses was a dramatic easing of monetary policy - reducing short-term interest rates nearly to zero. The Fed also purchased more than a trillion dollars' worth of Treasury securities and U.S.-backed mortgage-related securities, which helped reduce longer-term interest rates, such as those for mortgages and corporate bonds. These steps helped end the economic free fall and set the stage for a resumption of economic growth in mid-2009.

Notwithstanding the progress that has been made, when the Fed's monetary policymaking committee - the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) - met this week to review the economic situation, we could hardly be satisfied. The Federal Reserve's objectives - its dual mandate, set by Congress - are to promote a high level of employment and low, stable inflation. Unfortunately, the job market remains quite weak; the national unemployment rate is nearly 10 percent, a large number of people can find only part-time work, and a substantial fraction of the unemployed have been out of work six months or longer. The heavy costs of unemployment include intense strains on family finances, more foreclosures and the loss of job skills.

Today, most measures of underlying inflation are running somewhat below 2 percent, or a bit lower than the rate most Fed policymakers see as being most consistent with healthy economic growth in the long run. Although low inflation is generally good, inflation that is too low can pose risks to the economy - especially when the economy is struggling. In the most extreme case, very low inflation can morph into deflation (falling prices and wages), which can contribute to long periods of economic stagnation.

Even absent such risks, low and falling inflation indicate that the economy has considerable spare capacity, implying that there is scope for monetary policy to support further gains in employment without risking economic overheating. The FOMC decided this week that, with unemployment high and inflation very low, further support to the economy is needed. With short-term interest rates already about as low as they can go, the FOMC agreed to deliver that support by purchasing additional longer-term securities, as it did in 2008 and 2009. The FOMC intends tobuy an additional $600 billion of longer-term Treasury securities by mid-2011and will continue to reinvest repayments of principal on its holdings of securities, as it has been doing since August.

This approach eased financial conditions in the past and, so far, looks to be effective again. Stock prices rose and long-term interest rates fell when investors began to anticipate the most recent action. Easier financial conditions will promote economic growth. For example, lower mortgage rates will make housing more affordable and allow more homeowners to refinance. Lower corporate bond rates will encourage investment. And higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending. Increased spending will lead to higher incomes and profits that, in a virtuous circle, will further support economic expansion.

While they have been used successfully in the United States and elsewhere, purchases of longer-term securities are a less familiar monetary policy tool than cutting short-term interest rates. That is one reason the FOMC has been cautious, balancing the costs and benefits before acting. We will review the purchase program regularly to ensure it is working as intended and to assess whether adjustments are needed as economic conditions change.

Although asset purchases are relatively unfamiliar as a tool of monetary policy, some concerns about this approach are overstated. Critics have, for example, worried that it will lead to excessive increases in the money supply and ultimately to significant increases in inflation.

Our earlier use of this policy approach had little effect on the amount of currency in circulation or on other broad measures of the money supply, such as bank deposits. Nor did it result in higher inflation. We have made all necessary preparations, and we are confident that we have the tools to unwind these policies at the appropriate time. The Fed is committed to both parts of its dual mandate and will take all measures necessary to keep inflation low and stable.

The Federal Reserve cannot solve all the economy's problems on its own. That will take time and the combined efforts of many parties, including the central bank, Congress, the administration, regulators and the private sector. But the Federal Reserve has a particular obligation to help promote increased employment and sustain price stability. Steps taken this week should help us fulfill that obligation.

The writer is chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

102 Comments

  1. Theo 

    On 4 Nov, 2010

    @ Geert

    Yep been thinking the same thing.
    I also link it with that Fannie & Freddie elephant on the FED balance sheet from your previous post.

    Note - "In addition, the Committee intends to purchase a further $600 billion of longer-term Treasury securities by the end of the second quarter of 2011, a pace of about $75 billion per month"

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20101103a.htm

    Also worth noting - QE1 was rolled out at the rate of about USD 80 bn per month. No big change from that... and probably with the same effect
  2. Nacht Und Nebel 

    On 4 Nov, 2010

    Misschien zien wij hierin de tug o' war tussen China en de VS.De VS wil de yuan doen opwaarderen waardoor China voor het grootste deel het kind van de de rekening wordt.Laten we eerlijk zijn het enige wat de VS tegenwoordig nog produceert zijn paroles.Daar China nu tijdelijk weigert om nog T-bonds te kopen komt de herfinanciering van het ganse amerikaanse apparaat in gevaar.De VS zal dus moeten plooien.Misschien heeft China de mosterd gehaald in Belgie.De rol van de VS lijkt sterk op die van Di Rupo en leterminateur terwijl de rol van China dan meer op die van De Wever lijkt.
    In ieder geval lijken mij de soft en sommige hard commodities de veiligste beleggingen die de burger momenteel kunnen doen.De tijd waarbij men gekocht overheidsobligaties op een rol zal verkopen nadert.De enige manier waarop wij ooit uit de crisis zullen komen is door de burger meer netto loon te geven zonder dat de brutto lonen stijgen.Hiervoor dient men echter het overheidsapparaat sterk afslanken.De vrienden van Di Rupo komen dus op straat te staan en dat is iets wat in dit land nooit zal gebeuren.Idem dito voor de rest van Europa.Persoonlijk zie ik de VS dit te boven komen vanwege hun ingesteldheid.Helaas,Europa wordt op korte termijn een economish kerkhof.
    1. frederic 

      On 4 Nov, 2010

      lijkt er wel op.
      Het is niet China maar Europa die het kind van de rekening wordt met een te dure euro .
      10 jaar geleden werd de euro geintroduceerd net iets onder de prijs van een dollar.
      10 jaar later is de euro (en dus de kostprijs van alles diensten incl. lonen/producten ) meer dan 40% gestegen ten opzichte van de wereldreservemunt . Het ziet er bovendien naar uit dat de euro nog zal stijgen want men wil hier terug conservatiever gaan handelen in de ECB, de FED blijft pompen.

      Ondanks de morele bezwaren, de ECB zou in princiepe meer aan Quantitative easing moeten doen alleen al om de euro niet te hoog te laten oplopen (en we steken het wel op grienkenland lol ) . Europa's exportmarkt kan niet blijven leven met de huidige dure euro.

      Ik hoorde het allemaal mooi zeggen dat men meer controle ging krijgen bij het IMF, en dat men devaluatieoorlogen ging stoppen etc... men doet nu al anderhalf jaar niets anders
    1. Theo 

      On 4 Nov, 2010

      It was funny listening to the US Ambassador telling us that his country has unemployment rate of under 10%.
      For us in Europe that has been the norm for the last 20 years.

      Also I do not see how the US can improve its overall economy when people do not have a place to live.
      At the root of the problem are those mortgage backed securities on the FED balance sheet. People are loosing or simply choosing to abandon their overpriced houses.
      This is why China is pooling out of buying any new issued dept. One must really think them very stupid to expect them to start paying 200% in order to receive interest due to them from past loans.
      The Chinese will never do with their currency what the Japanese did. They don't have to.
      It is not rocket science to figure out that a country with 1 out of every 3rd family being unemployed and homeless has no great prospects of paying its debts. It is more and more likely to start looking like a version of Haiti. Plagues come in different forms too.
      1. ducdorleans 

        On 5 Nov, 2010

        Theo,

        the US can improve its economy by exporting personal trainers ...

        (exports up = GDP up ... less unemployment = less government expenditures = GDP up ... there are probably more advantages ...)
        1. Theo 

          On 5 Nov, 2010

          :)
          after that they can send the census workers around the globe too
          that could really solve US and EU chronic unemployment due to anemic growth for the mid term.
          those from the US could be paid with T-notes fresh from the FED press, while those from the EU could be paid with dienstencheques bonds issued by Belgium

          If the Chinese like the Belgian Adidas gym suits, imagine the marketing potential of the dienstencheque!
          what about buying Belgian waffles and frietjes with made in Belgium maaltijdcheques?

          International economics and trade are just so much fun
    1. ducdorleans 

      On 5 Nov, 2010

      Nacht,

      iedereen die momenteel China het kind van de rekening wil maken, op welke manier dan ook, zal bedrogen uitkomen ...

      30 jaar geleden hadden de Chinezen enkel grond om te eten, en, op aangeven van hun grote leider Mao, een hoogoven in de tuin ... zowat alles is beter dan dat ... daar zijn ze ook druk mee bezig, met het beter maken van het leven van het merendeel van hun bevolking ...

      zullen ze daarbij fouten maken ? ... niet "natuurlijk !" ... maar "zeer zeker !" ... in China staan momenteel fabrieken, of worden momenteel fabrieken gebouwd, die niet anders dan verlies zullen draaien, en zullen uitmonden in het faillissement van diegenen die er geld hebben ingestoken ...

      trouwens, wat zou de reden zijn, wat zou de genetische voorbestemming zijn dat de Chinezen slimmer zouden zijn, of harder kunnen werken dan de Europeanen of de Yanks ? ... genetisch is er niets ! ... het is gewoon zo dat als je niets hebt, wil je iets ... en als je teveel hebt wordt je lui ...

      China heeft de USA gefinancierd en is er beter van geworden ... en nu hebben ze een hoop dollars waar ze verlies op zullen maken, maar het netto resultaat zal voor hen positief zijn ... en het netto resultaat voor ons westerlingen, terwijl we denken dat we ze flink bij hun sjokkedijzen hebben, zal negatief zijn ...

      we leren over het algemeen zeer weinig van het vak geschiedenis ...
  3. spaardertje 

    On 4 Nov, 2010

    Interesten moeten laag blijven, ook als de Chinezen niet meer willen meewerken...

    Wat als ook de anderen niet meer willen meewerken?
    QE3 of vrije markt en implosieve correctie?
  4. carl 

    On 4 Nov, 2010

    Veel paramters wijzen erop dat NuN wellicht gelijk heeft in zijn visie.

    De leidende China economist van de Wereldbak Ardo Hansson onderstreepte recent that China should target the yuan's value against a basket of currencies rather than one bilateral excchange rate

    and that some signs in recent yuan exchange-rate fluctuations suggest China mighrt be targeting a basket.

    De werledbak voorspelt nu 2765 trillion dollar foreign exchange)rate reserves for China
  5. spaardertje 

    On 4 Nov, 2010

    Increased spending will lead to higher incomes and profits that, in a virtuous circle, will further support economic expansion.

    Totaal verkeerd. Met spending wordt hier "besteding" bedoeld. Met de Fed (en Summers-Obama-Paulson-en zovele andere namen) politiek komt dit echter neer op verkwisting. Geld wordt steeds meer afgeleid naar niet productieve targets (efficiëntie-blinde allocatie van kapitaal). Dit heeft geleid tot schuldenbergen waar te weinig verwezenlijkingen tegenover staan.

    Nu de leningslimieten bereikt zijn wordt er overgegaan naar de volgende fase: het bijdrukken van nieuw geld om dezelfde destructieve politiek verder te zetten. Met de volle steun van de groepen die uit zijn op korte termijn woekerwinsten ten koste van lange termijn spaarders...

    Bubbels blazen zolang het kan, intussen zichzelf goed bedelen en elkaar feliciteren met de korte termijn voordelen...Bravo Bernanke en co.!
  6. Ton Veldhuis 

    On 4 Nov, 2010

    Als u een tweet-button aanbiedt, tweeten mensen dit zelf door en komt er meer bezoek bij u op de blog
    1. Geert 

      On 4 Nov, 2010

      @Ton: dat hebben we gedaan op uw advies!
      Dank voor de tip.
      Geert
  7. Bart 

    On 4 Nov, 2010

    coincidence, yeah sure, but the fed would have done "something" anyway.

    bla bla
    " Stock prices rose and long-term interest rates fell when investors began to anticipate the most recent action."
    bla bla
    "in a virtuous circle"
    bla bla

    Yes I took the liberty to quote selectively, but I always try to keep it simple enough for me to grasp. The fed always does as expected by those who mistrust it, admittedly packed in creative ways, shrouded in a veil of wise-sounding words.
    The fed sollicits the primary lenders on their wishes and leaks it's decisions and so on... Frankly to what can you compare something like that?

    So where does this bring "us"?
    http://bit.ly/9VBNHD

    Nice isn't it. Total Failure can be graphed is so many ways...
  8. JanS 

    On 4 Nov, 2010

    Ik lees het hier niet veel, maar het hele spelletje dient ook om de aandeelhouders van de Fed (grote zakenbanken en financiers) niet in de problemen te brengen.

    Als zij slechte kredieten moeten afboeken, of verliezen maken op hun aandelenbelggingen of verlies maken met speculaties met afgeleide producten, komen zij binnen de kortste keren in grote solvabiliteitsproblemen.

    Indien zij geen afboeking moeten doen (want aandelen en obligatiekoersen stijgen door de geldinjecties van de Fed), maken zij grote winsten en kunnen er waanzinnige bonussen uitgekeerd worden.

    Dus de Fed stelt de bonussen van Wallstreet en zijn eigen aandeelhouders veilig.

    Binnenkort worden er weer mega bonussen aangekondigd, ben benieuwd of de Amerikaanse publieke opinie dat nog gaat slikken..?
    1. ducdorleans 

      On 5 Nov, 2010

      Jan, hoe zou je zelf zijn ?

      als je weet dat, als je iets fout doet, iemand anders op de blaren zal zitten, dan is het toch alle remmen los ?

      je moet moreel al een 10tal niveaus hoger staan dan het wereldlijk gemiddelde om, wanneer iemand je een aantal miljoenen aanbiedt "no strings attached" (maar waarvan je weet dat ze eigenlijk van "de gemeenschap" komen), de toekomst van jezelf en je familie en toekomstige familie NIET veilig te willen stellen ...
  9. Theo 

    On 4 Nov, 2010

    We knew the writing was on the wall after Australia and India increased rates at their respective central banks' meetings on November 2nd.

    Result - commodities currencies have risen sharply against the USD and so has the euro.
    We'll need both Greece and Ireland to go bankrupt now to get the euro down to 1.35 which was the euro-zone target
  10. Theo 

    On 4 Nov, 2010

    @ Geert

    Thanks for the Op-ed highlights.

    To me it only means that the FED is still seeing deflation down the road and thus hopes to at least boost people perception of wealth through blowing up the equities bubble.
    Because if they really expected inflation to increase, people will not need to be told to go and consume now... that is had they had the free cash to spend.
  11. Bart 

    On 4 Nov, 2010

    BB goes gradual, more to come for sure (so savvy savers, don't worry too much now AND don't get boiled like a frog down the road)

    "Imagine that you are playing in a miniature golf tournament and are leading on the final hole. You expect to win the tournament so long as you can finish the hole in a moderate number of strokes. However, for reasons I won't try to explain, you find yourself playing with an unfamiliar putter and hence are uncertain about how far a stroke of given force will send the ball. How should you play to maximize your chances of winning the tournament?

    Some reflection should convince you that the best strategy in this situation is to be conservative. In particular, your uncertainty about the response of the ball to your putter implies that you should strike the ball less firmly than you would if you knew precisely how the ball would react to the unfamiliar putter. This conservative approach may well lead your first shot to lie short of the hole. However, this cost is offset by the important benefit of guarding against the risk that the putter is livelier than you expect, so lively that your normal stroke could send the ball well past the cup. Since you expect to win the tournament if you avoid a disastrously bad shot, you approach the hole in a series of short putts (what golf aficionados tell me are called lagged putts). Gradualism in action!"

    from:
    http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200405202/default.htm
  12. Tim 

    On 4 Nov, 2010

    Geert, this blog could no longer be reached (without proxy) in mainland China from mid October onwards.

    Anyway, prices of 5 year treasuries (I thought those are the ones the FED will buy?) have been rising consistently since the beginning of this year, so I doubt demand is a problem.

    I do find this graph interesting, but for another reason:

    The amount of dollars the Chinese buy is really not discretionary but dependent on the bilateral trade balance between itself and the US. They have to buy dollars else their trade surplus will fall (and the RMB will rise).
    Well, since bilateral trade balance has been in surplus and is rising and at the same time chinese treasury purchases are falling, what have the Chinese been doing with their dollars?
    (my guess is they have just been buying treasuries through foreign markets (this doesn't show up in official US data) but this is just speculation)
  13. Koen D. 

    On 4 Nov, 2010

    China en het Westen... Ik denk dat men in China vandaag meer oog heeft voor het verleden.

    onderstaande link past dus naadloos bij QE2:
    http://tinyurl.com/39g85hr

    Intussen zien de "goddelijken" van GS (en Nouriel Roubini) al QE3 en QE4 en QE... opduiken.
    http://tinyurl.com/29qooo8
  14. gv 

    On 5 Nov, 2010

    You need more than just China is buying less bonds and bills to come to such conclusion. The market is more complex. Let's do some brainstorming!

    Since the end (?) of the crisis a bond bubble has been building
    http://stockcharts.com/scripts/php/candleglance.php?TLT,IEF,SHY,TLH,IEI,SHV,TIP|D|P14,3,3

    A lot of big players and pension funds have been accumulating bonds or bills as a safe haven and together with Chinese buying pushed prices higher.

    However with China performing less on the stage, fear of a bursting of the bond bubble emerges and it could eventually lead to huge losses for US investors who have bought US long term bonds.
    After all we all know that bubbles are driven by (international) money flows and less demand means higher rates and lower bond prices (on the charts you can see what could be a topping process, but QE2 can change that)

    US investors in LT bonds could face what economists call a "Time Consistency Problem". Higher rates make new bond purchases more attractive but inflict losses on existing loans and insofar they suggest rates can still rise they even discourage purchases of the funding loan.

    In this context the FED intends to buy LT bonds and the Treasury will issue short term bills. Could it be the intention of the FED to allow investors to exit their positions in LT bonds and to avoid losses in case of a bursting of the bond bubble?

    There's a lot more to be said on this fantasy (?) of mine, but it would become too long (think about government debt management that scares the heck out of me).

    Strange however that El-Erian (Pimco) wrote an excellent piece in the FT yesterday, in which he calls for joint cooperation (btw excellent piece). Is he writing down a decoy for the public?
  15. gv 

    On 5 Nov, 2010

    I noticed the link doesn't work very will. Switch the duration to 1 year.

    I'd like to add one more comment (as a leftist wandering on a right-winged board),
    Losses do not disappear, they're shifted from one place to another. In my fantasy losses and increased risk in debt management would be born by the government (that's why I find it scary). Finally the government will be victim of what the Fed governor Strong in the twenties called "borrowing bondage".
    Finally losses and risk are shifted from investors to society!

    What macro-economics always ignores in its theory is the factor "Power". Who has the power (relations, political influence, to-big-to-fail, ...) to move central bankers and the government. Ultimately the powerful present the shift as being done for the greater good and the burden for society is only collateral damage.
    1. Theo 

      On 5 Nov, 2010

      @ gv

      Funny you identify yourself as a left wing and the board here as right wing... while in reality we all seem to be worried about exactly the same issue here.

      We all find the prospect of the government as financial risk manager of our increasing national and international debt scary! Me personally, because I know that the burden is in reality on the citizens.

      And when you raise the question of Power you are in fact also raising the question of Legitimacy of that power - not only who has the power but more importantly who gave it to them and to what extend and purpose!
      This is called the Social Contract (upon which all Western nations were built), which currently is broken indeed.
      1. WimV 

        On 5 Nov, 2010

        Tja... maar ook zónder "Sociaal contract" is er waarschijnlijk sprake van macht (en machtsmisbruik), niet?! Het enige dat je uit die uitspraak over het sociaal contract kan concluderen, is dat élk systeem zijn beperkingen heeft. Maar dat wisten we natuurlijk al wel langer. Dat is voor mij geen reden om het kind met het badwater weg te gooien.

        Velen op dit forum zien alleszins in dat er altijd één groot slachtoffer zal zijn, en dat is de gewone man. Dat is steeds de rode draad doorheen de geschiedenis geweest. Een andere weerkerend fenomeen wordt aangeduid met de slinger des tijds (die natuurlijk verschillende schaalniveaus kan beslaan). Daar waar in onze contreien enkele decennia geleden strijd geleverd werd voor sociale verworvenheden, vecht men nu voor de afschaffing ervan. En er zijn altijd voldoende demagogen om ons van "argumenten" te voorzien die ons ervan overtuigen dat het een noodzakelijk kwaad is... of beter: dat het iedereen ten goede komt. De analyse van GV is op dat vlak maar al te waar.
  16. spaardertje 

    On 5 Nov, 2010

    Voor enkele korte, welgemikte kritieken op het Fed beleid, een interview met David Stockman, directeur van het OMB onder Ronald Reagan:

    QE neemt het waarschuwingssignaal tegen onverantwoorde overheidsuitgaven weg door de rente kunstmatig laag te houden. Geef politici de illusie dat dat ze quasi gratis geld kunnen lenen, en ze zullen zich niet beheersen op dat vlak.

    Verder: de Fed is niet meer onafhankelijk, ze doet er alles voor om de jongens, meisjes en computers op Wall Street te behagen en zo de illusie van rijkdom (hoge beurskoersen) te creëren om de bestedingen (verkwistingen) aan te zwengelen.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/must-watch-david-stockman-says-fed-injecting-high-grade-monetary-heroin-financial-system

    Voor de Fed zullen de dollars massaal moeten stromen, ongeacht de richting waar naartoe. Er zijn altijd wel groepen om ze naar een of andere afgrond te kanaliseren in ruil voor een procentje van de overvloed (zie de voorbije huizen-en derivaten bubbel). QE en het bijdrukken van dollars kan niet snel genoeg gaan voor deze (hoofdzakelijk) heren die het dichtst bij de geldbronnen zitten.

    Sorry voor de resulterende inflatie, waarde landgenoten, maar die is niet onze eerste zorg....
  17. gv 

    On 5 Nov, 2010

    @Theo

    Yes, we're all in the same boat. But the interests of the social classes differ. One should not forget that in times of distress a war of attrition between social classes emerges (the interwar period is my favorite in this matter).

    The "have nots" want public spending and social welfare to continue while the "haves" are more concerned about taxes. Each of them uses the means available.

    The social contract you talk about doesn't warrant social peace. Here you remind me of the words of Hume who claimed that one should accept the social contract (thru government) and that only the elite should have the power to question the contract.

    Today the conflict has a different face cause a lot more citizens belong to the "have-class" or at least behave as such. Krugman recently wrote that the right won the mental war, I say he fails to see the shift in mentality thru a change in composition of the classes.

    If you study the interwar period you will notice that even inflation is the result of representation and conflict of the classes and the power they have. The Weimar inflation was "fabricated" as a mean to renegotiate war reparations. As soon as the Dawes plan was in place they solved hyperinflation in no time. Weird not?
    1. WimV 

      On 5 Nov, 2010

      A very interesting opinion about the mentality shift and the composition of the classes.

      But time will also tell how quick a society can return to new equilibriums with a much bigger group of "have-nots" and the tension that this will bring within a society. Those who will loose what they had may be much angrier than those who "were used to be poor". This will also bring back other negative trends: people will need (new) ennemies, groups within a society that will have to be "destroyed" so that everything will be perfect afterwards. Because "they take our jobs", "they don't integrate in our society", "they belong to the axis of evil", ... At the other hand, there will be... more (economic) emigration.

      America and it's increase of the homeless can possibly be a good example the following years, especially because I still can't figure out what the influence will be of the "Wild-West behaviour" that is preached by the right wing (eg. Tea-Party in it's most obvious form). Maybe government's last task will be to buy guns for everyone, so that people can protect themselves after the failure of the social contract? ;)

      Another example may be Iceland. I still haven't heard of a "Wild-West-attitude" there. So what will it be? The Wild West or Iceland, where: "...at the riots on Austurvöllur, our police officers only carried pepper spray as a weapon. No guns there. As it should be." (Páll Stefánsson - Iceland Review).
      http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_life/?cat_id=16567&ew_0_a_id=368598

      That's also part of the "social contract". I don't think that we really want it to fail.
  18. Theo 

    On 5 Nov, 2010

    @ gv

    First of all let us make clear that a Social Contract has in fact nothing to do with social classes.

    Second point - David Hume was a staunch critic of the Social Contract and could not understand how anybody could be so stupid as to allow to be governed!
    He is the one guy who challenged the elite of his time (without belonging to it!) and you want to tell us that he believed only an elite should have the power to question and challenge!? The man together with his friend Adam Smith fought against Slavery for crying out loud and believed that no Social Contract was possible if people were kept ignorant of what they were actually signing up to, largely with the help of scare tactics and the threat of violence.
    perhaps you should actually read what the man wrote in its entirety before jumping to conclusion
    http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Hume/hmMPL4.html#Part I, Essay IV, OF THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT

    War of attrition between social classes in times of economic distress?
    With all due respect we are not in the Middle Ages or India! Social classes and value of asset classes are not fix, static mental concepts!!!
    And if you believe that to be the case, then you are exactly the reason why Hume thinks that the majority of people are not in state to enter a proper Social Contract with the State.
    This is btw why the US makes you actually swear an oath when you become a citizen just so to avoid any future claims of ignorance. Or why all citizens of democratic states are actually expected to know the Law although even layers and Courts spend their time arguing about it.

    So this notion of the haves and the have nots class wars is nothing more but political parties using rhetoric to flair up the passions (and please look up what Humes says on that subject) of the ignorant masses.
    Belgium is a very good example in that aspect - not only is the entire concept being used by political parties but on top of that it is also being abused on bigger scale in order to drive a wedge between the so called rich/hardworking north and poor/lazy south.
    The empirical reality is very different of course, but after fueling passions for 60 years who cares about facts anymore!?
    And Flemish political parties leaders wonder why they are having a political party identity crisis!
    Yeah, Hume also believed that Cartesian Dualism was only in Descartes head... and apparently able to find its way into many more of those believing to have a mind populated with a priori ideas from their previous lives. Only the ignorant can be manipulated... and not for the greater good as we know so well from the past!
    1. gv 

      On 5 Nov, 2010

      @Theo

      It was John Locke in his Second Treatise, not David Hume. Memory starts to fade over fifty.

      I won't elaborate much on the rest of your comment, because obviously you haven't read my comment.
      I emphasized that the conflict (in a political way) between classes changes exactly because the composition of the classes changes over time.
      You accuse me of not knowing this while I write it.

      A war of attrition must be read, as explained properly in my comment, as a conflict in which social classes apply the beggar-thy-neighbour strategy.
      1. gv 

        On 5 Nov, 2010

        @ Theo

        A thorough description of war of attrition can be found in Barry Eichengreen's "Golden Fetters"

        I looked it up first!
      1. Theo 

        On 5 Nov, 2010

        Thank you for the clarification.

        I understood your point on the class conflict.
        My point is that it is and it has always been a concept invented and used by political parties for political purposes, although at least in the West it is primarily meant to be about the distribution of wealth and the means of production.
        My point is also that this concept as such is maintained in place for political purposes by political means - there is not one socialist government which has actually reduced poverty or shifted the poor out of poverty. On the other hand systems are maintained in place so that they can be mobilised when so needed.

        It is precisely the concept of Dualism which gets explored - this idea that two things must always be opposing and can never just exist either independently or interdependently.
        A society is composed of interdependent people (just like a family), thus if politics chooses to oppose them against each other in order to exploit the resulting conflict, it is in their interest to maintain such social (dis)order in order to ensure its own existence.
        Thus it is politics which decides the value of the means of production and the taxation on wealth... and not the people through and by the social contract they have with their government
        Hume was saying that this is madness and that the best government is a representative one, like in the case of Switzerland.
        As we see in Europe - with time only the class of the poor changes - it keeps growing - as value of both assets and means of production are constantly being debased by political decisions for and by political means.
        You might call that a class conflict, I call it manipulation of the people by their elected representatives.

        I also understood very well your comment on the war of attrition and the comment from Krugman.
        My point remains the same though - the idea of social contract was developed during a time of empires and nation state building. With nations came politics and with that the need for electorate.
        With nations came the need for territory and claim on land; which lead to wars and alliances between nations... and debt and the need to finance wars between nations.
        Then came the Treaties which divided people and land among the winning European powers... while the losers were made to pay for losing.
        So yes I see both WW1 and WW2 in that context... and the Gold standard... and the Great Depression... and the rise of Nazi Germany... and of the Allies paying their debt to Stalin off with half of Europe and then using Communism as their dualistic Evil for 50 years, casting themselves in the role of the Good whose actions and motives could thus not be questioned...
        I understood very well how you then arrive at a war of attrition where the US now has to debase its own currency because it cannot live with the consequences of its own actions.

        But we live in a very different world today - a multipolar and not a bipolar world - not unlike the world of before the industrial revolution in the West and before the empire and nation building started. There is no more the Good so called Capitalism and the Bad Communism... if anything the roles have been reversed and the lines have faded!
        While building its own empires, the West destroyed all other civilisations; Today faced with its own demise it has hit the self destruction button.
        But believe me, the rest of the world does not see this as a war of attrition - because Today the rest of the world does not expect much from the West and it does not need it.

        Again, it is an issue of philosophy - one of Cartesian Dualism - the West needs it as its engine for action just as we need to feel special and chosen by destiny as just and right; the rest of the world knows that the whole is made of different parts which somehow always manage to work together when they have the will to do so
        This is why with us everything is about competition, while they talk about cooperation.
        1. Nacht Und Nebel 

          On 5 Nov, 2010

          Poor Theo

          Attacked by two socialists with a very selective memory.Let's talk about how much all the members of the socialist party stole from the public this year .
          I bet they will say I don't remember,I don't recall.
          Every socialist has Selective Alzheimer's Disease syndrome or SAD-syndrome when we talk about corruption.
          1. Theo 

            On 5 Nov, 2010

            You mean they do not use Total Recall from Oracle? :)
          1. Nacht Und Nebel 

            On 5 Nov, 2010

            Theo,

            No,they don't use Total Recall But if necessary they will burn 7 million and afterwards they will regenerate from their nosebleed or epiTAXis in Cambridge for at least two years.
          1. Nacht Und Nebel 

            On 6 Nov, 2010

            BTW Theo did you ever met a socialist with cool shades?
            I believe not.They only wear glasses fit for a hair stylist
    1. WimV 

      On 5 Nov, 2010

      Theo schreef:
      "David Hume was a staunch critic of the Social Contract and could not understand how anybody could be so stupid as to allow to be governed!"

      Dat is zeker niet hetgeen Hume stelde. "My intention here is not to exclude the consent of the people from being one just foundation of government where it has place. It is surely the best and most sacred of any. I only contend that it has very seldom had place in any degree and never almost in its full extent. And that therefore some other foundation of government must also be admitted." -- On Civil Liberty, II.XII.20

      Overigens, wat is het beste:

      To be governed...
      Or to be enslaved by other (economic) powers...
      What's the difference for those at the bottom?

      Theo schreef:
      "As we see in Europe – with time only the class of the poor changes – it keeps growing – as value of both assets and means of production are constantly being debased by political decisions for and by political means.
      You might call that a class conflict, I call it manipulation of the people by their elected representatives."

      Is het niet eerder: "rijk wordt doorgaans steeds rijker" (in een veel sneller tempo zodat de minder rijken hen nooit zullen kunnen inhalen)? Ik weet niet of dat enkel door toedoen van politieke beslissingen is, dat zou me straf lijken. Ten eerste gooi je daarmee alle politici (en beleidsniveaus) op één hoop. En ten tweede - zoals ook GV al aanhaalde - de (top)politici staan onder directe invloed van de economische macht. De schuld alleen op de politiekers afschuiven en voorbijgaan aan de werkelijke macht die erachter schuilt zal tot weinig verhelderende conclusies leiden. Hume zou dit "valse ideeën" noemen. Het is overigens niet voor niets dat heel wat belangrijke internationale toppolitici (o.a. presidenten) sporadisch wel eens verwijzen naar de echte "onzichtbare" manipulatieve machten die achter de schermen spelen (meestal tijdens afscheidsredes of in memoires).

      Trouwens, één ding dat ik van Hume weet is dat hij streed tegen "valse ideeën" en "dogma's". Ik ken zijn werken niet echt, maar desondanks vraag ik me af wat hij - als econoom en filosoof - over een aantal economische dogma's zou denken. Volgens mij zou hij er een beetje sceptisch tegenaan kijken. In "Of the Jealousy of Trade" (1758) blijkt hij bvb. te stellen dat de bloei van de internationale handel direct gerelateerd is aan de diversiteit en de welvaart van alle(!) naties. "I shall therefore venture to acknowledge that not only as a man, but as a British subject I pray for the flourishing commerce of Germany, Spain, Italy and even France itself." Ik kan hem daar alleen in bijtreden... maar dit is zeker en vast niet hetgeen ik momenteel zie in de wereldeconomie. Het is de strijd en de competitie die steeds meer overheerst (en de uitbuiting die eruit volgt).

      In dat opzicht ben ik ook nog niet zo zeker van Theo's slotzin, immers: kapitaal wordt steeds internationaler en verre aandeelhouders bepalen de koers die een bedrijf moet varen. Samenwerken of competitie is dan geen vrijblijvende bedrijfskeuze... Us? Them? Who?

      Alleszins heeft Theo wel gelijk van te stellen dat een bipolaire visie te beperkt zou zijn om verklaringen te formuleren over een multipolaire wereld. De oplossing zal dus moeten gevonden worden in het "wegwerken" van (of constructief omgaan met) meerdere tegenstellingen.
      1. Nacht Und Nebel 

        On 5 Nov, 2010

        I Would Rather be Dead then Red
      1. Yannick Verdyck 

        On 5 Nov, 2010

        Zeg Theo

        Wat is er gebeurt met de prijzen van goud en zilver vandaag?
        1. Nacht Und Nebel 

          On 6 Nov, 2010

          Ze zijn een pak minder gestegen dan palladium.Ja,Yannick,u had moeten luisteren tot ik palladium aanraadde ipv goud maanden geleden.
          1. Dharmendra 

            On 17 Nov, 2012

            zegt:Wat een mooie reportages over zowel de Portugese- als de Nederlandse mlenos!Reuze interessant, nooit geweten dat er zf3veel verschillende, oude mlenos zijn die nog steeds dienst doen, petje af![]
        1. Theo 

          On 6 Nov, 2010

          @ Yannick

          Sailing on the QEII
      1. Theo 

        On 6 Nov, 2010

        And David Hume writes:

        "NOTHING appears more surprizing to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as FORCE is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular." Part I,Essay IV,1

        "Upon these three opinions, therefore, of public interest, of right to power, and of right to property, are all governments founded, and all authority of the few over the many. There are indeed other principles, which add force to these, and determine, limit, or alter their operation; such as self-interest, fear, and affection: But still we may assert, that these other principles can have no influence alone, but suppose the antecedent influence of those opinions above-mentioned. They are, therefore, to be esteemed the secondary, not the original principles of government." Part I, Essay IV, 5

        "Man, born in a family, is compelled to maintain society, from necessity, from natural inclination, and from habit. The same creature, in his farther progress, is engaged to establish political society, in order to administer justice; without which there can be no peace among them, nor safety, nor mutual intercourse. We are, therefore, to look upon all the vast apparatus of our government, as having ultimately no other object or purpose but the distribution of justice, or, in other words, the support of the twelve judges. Kings and parliaments, fleets and armies, officers of the court and revenue, ambassadors, ministers, and privy-counsellors, are all subordinate in their end to this part of administration. Even the clergy, as their duty leads them to inculcate morality, may justly be thought, so far as regards this world, to have no other useful object of their institution." Part I, Essay V, 1

        Trade was never esteemed an affair of state till the last century; and there scarcely is any ancient writer on politics, who has made mention of it.*76 Even the ITALIANS have kept a profound silence with regard to it, though it has now engaged the chief attention, as well of ministers of state, as of speculative reasoners. The great opulence, grandeur, and military achievements of the two maritime powers*77 seem first to have instructed mankind in the importance of an extensive commerce. Part I, Essay XII, 3

        Having, therefore, intended in this essay to make a full comparison of civil liberty and absolute government, and to showc the great advantages of the former above the latter; I began to entertain a suspicion, that no man in this age was sufficiently qualified for such an undertaking; and that whatever any one should advance on that head would, in all probability, be refuted by further experience, and be rejected by posterity. Such mighty revolutions have happened in human affairs, and so many events have arisen contrary to the expectation of the ancients, that they are sufficient to beget the suspicion of still further changes. Part I, Essay XII, 4

        It has become an established opinion, that commerce can never flourish but in a free government; and this opinion seems to be founded on a longer and larger experience than the foregoing, with regard to the arts and sciences. If we trace commerce in its progress through TYRE, ATHENS, SYRACUSE, CARTHAGE, VENICE, FLORENCE, GENOA, ANTWERP, HOLLAND, ENGLAND, &c. we shall always find it to have fixed its seat in free governments. The three greatest trading towns now in Europe, are LONDON, AMSTERDAM, and HAMBURGH; all free cities, and protestant cities; that is, enjoying a double liberty. It must, however, be observed, that the great jealousy entertained of late, with regard to the commerce of FRANCE, seems to prove, that this maxim is no more certain and infallible than the foregoing, and that the subjects of an absolute prince may become our rivals in commerce, as well as in learning. Part I, Essay XII, 9

        The source of degeneracy, which may be remarked in free governments, consists in the practice of contracting debt, and mortgaging the public revenues, by which taxes may, in time, become altogether intolerable, and all the property of the state be brought into the hands of the public. This practice is of modern date. The ATHENIANS,i though governed by a republic, paid near two hundred per Cent. for those sums of money, which any emergence made it necessary for them to borrow; as we learn from XENOPHON.*89 Among the moderns, the DUTCH first introduced the practice of borrowing great sums at low interest, and have well nigh ruined themselves by it. Absolute princes have also contracted debt; but as an absolute prince may make a bankruptcy when he pleases, his people can never be oppressed by his debts. In popular governments, the people, and chiefly those who have the highest offices, being commonly the public creditors, it is difficult for the state to make use of this remedy, which, however it may sometimes be necessary, is always cruel and barbarous. This, therefore seems to be an inconvenience, which nearly threatens all free governments; especially our own, at the present juncture of affairs. And what a strong motive is this, to encrease our frugality of public money; lest for want of it, we be reduced, by the multiplicity of taxes, or what is worse, by our public impotence and inability for defence, to curse our very liberty, and wish ourselves in the same state of servitude with all the nations that surround us? Part I, Essay XII, 14

        It is obvious, that the domestic industry of a people cannot be hurt by the greatest prosperity of their neighbours; and as this branch of commerce is undoubtedly the most important in any extensive kingdom, we are so far removed from all reason of jealousy. But I go farther, and observe, that where an open communication is preserved among nations, it is impossible but the domestic industry of every one must receive an encrease from the improvements of the others. Compare the situation of GREAT BRITAIN at present, with what it was two centuries ago. All the arts both of agriculture and manufactures were then extremely rude and imperfect. Every improvement, which we have since made, has arisen from our imitation of foreigners; and we ought so far to esteem it happy, that they had previously made advances in arts and ingenuity. But this intercourse is still upheld to our great advantage: Notwithstanding the advanced state of our manufactures, we daily adopt, in every art, the inventions and improvements of our neighbours. The commodity is first imported from abroad, to our great discontent, while we imagine that it drains us of our money: Afterwards, the art itself is gradually imported, to our visible advantage: Yet we continue still to repine,° that our neighbours should possess any art, industry, and invention; forgetting that, had they not first instructed us, we should have been at present barbarians; and did they not still continue their instructions, the arts must fall into a state of languor, and lose that emulation and novelty, which contribute so much to their advancement. Part II, Essay VI, 2
        1. gv 

          On 6 Nov, 2010

          I've a bit more time on a Saterday, but this discussion becomes quite extended and difficult.
          My last thoughts on this one, then I'll quit.

          I also noticed that hardliners of the right wing are joining the discussion with some very astute remarks.

          The class conflict isn’t a concept invented by political parties. It’s a concept that emerged the very moment man settled as a farmer, but the concept is exploited by political parties. But this is of lesser importance.

          Fulminating against socialism demonstrates ignorance of facts.
          Socialism has been the main benefactor for the rise of the middle class in the Twentieth century in Western society (and recently too in Brazil). Never in history man progressed socially as much as in the past century and probably will not do so in the future.

          Hume, Smith and others may have written about the insanity of slavery, but only when socialism gathered political strength during WW I, slavery in the broad sense of the word or maybe better exploitation, started to disappear. The best we can say about the Enlightenment period is that it was inhabited by a bunch of hypocrites whose word didn’t match their actions. Their theories chased poor but relatively happy farmers from their lands towards the cities, torn away from their families to live in miserable circumstances, ripped from the little freedom they possessed, treated no better than slaves by the new emerging industries. No wonder the seeds of unionism can be found in this environment, but vested interests easily prevented the masses from gaining influence. Only when the WWI threatened and after the Second Internationale, the elite realized that they would need the masses as canon-meat to defend their interest and they granted them, quite quickly during WWI, a representation in their political theatre.
          Vested powers will never cede powers for humanitarian reasons, only in self-defense (this will come back when I discuss today’s Socialism further on).
          (a staunch opponent of the Enlightenment was Dostojevski http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aantekeningen_uit_het_ondergrondse)

          The right dishonestly focuses on the extremes of socialism, in an attempt to minimalize its benefits. True without the delicate balance between right and left, we will always and ultimately travel to extremes.

          After denying the benefits of socialism as a necessary contributor to a well-balanced society thru its political institutions, you move in that direction via the concept of Dualism. So you recognize the core issue but you ignore the value of the participants in this game of Dualism. If not Socialism, then who would have been the right participant to create the right chemistry in your concept of Dualism?

          What you call political manipulation and a growing class of poor, I call the “demise” of socialism. The demise results from the change in the middle class.
          This shift had a perverse effect on socialist politicians. What I try to prove here is that the social contract is not a one-way-street where citizens transfer power to politicians. Citizens influence the behavior of politicians as much or maybe more than the opposite (though the time frame is different).

          A politician’s first interest is his wellbeing and as he sees his influence wane, he uses all means to keep his powers, a characteristic not proper to a socialist politician, but to all men and even institutions. Even when they have become obsolete they desperately hold on to their powers, status and privileges.

          There has been written that socialist parties moved to the right. I find this at least an incomplete explanation. In a kind of self-defense socialist parties moved together with their traditional electoral public and their policies have been directed towards this kind of public.
          This is what I call “perverse” and “demise”. Perverse because the middle class is not the kind of public you need to support and grant all kind of favors thru social welfare and labor law. Demise because they betrayed their ideology.
          For the real poor other groups without political power had to emerge. They play it through the media and via lobbying. Okay, that would lead me too far.

          The class conflict hasn’t gone though. It changed in its nature. The middle class and the elite both hold on to their powers, although they’re much more aligned than in the past. But the change in conflict still exist, only different in its composition.

          Why do you write that the Allies paid their debt to Stalin? As far as my memory goes, the belligerents in Europe paid directly and indirectly, war reparations to the US, Only last month Germany paid the last tranche of war reparations to the US. I dislike this kind of demagogue talk!

          My period of reference has always been a multipolar world, so I cannot see what you refer too. War of attrition will always remain an issue, everywhere and every place in times of distress.
          I even notice a contradiction in your reasoning. For a perfect war of attrition we need parties with equal strength and as long as the West ruled the world, this wasn’t exactly the case (only Communism was a weak opponent). Now the cards are redistributed in such a way that a war of attrition, is more likely.
          That many have common interests and that this international war will only know losers and cooperation could make them all winners in the long run has little importance in times of a recession. Usually sound logic has left the room by then.
          1. Theo 

            On 6 Nov, 2010

            @ gv

            "the moment man settled as a farmer"?
            I am sorry to burst your bubble, but man first needs land in order to start farming on it!
            Man can only SETTLE when man is a occupier of somebody else's land = settler.
            The entire point of a government is to protect the individual rights and to ensure justice - those are the only reasons why we as individuals give up our rights to natural laws.

            If not there is hardly any difference between peasants being given a slap of land to work and live on by their landlords during feudalism and social housing and welfare given to the masses today by the State - in both cases it serves the same purpose!
            Show me one so called class conflict in the West which started naturally by the people and was not organised by a political party and use them.
            This was even the case in France recently where the socialists and communists used the high school students to get more people on the streets, while the political leaders went away on a romantic weekend to Venice.

            Socialism has not been the main reason for the rise of the middle class.
            The industrial age created a middle class by getting peasants from the countryside to go and work productively - you see it repeated over and over again today in Asia and Latin America.
            What do we see Socialism do Today? It has made sure that the masses can never accumulate wealth through the most important factor of production they have = Labor and Skill
            Kindly look at the facts and not just the propaganda.
            The possibilities of trade from the age of industrialisation created a middle class from previous peasants and nobodies - they are the real backbone of the economy. I do not see what Socialism has done for the betterment of the small and medium enterprises today to help them prosper and flourish! Quite the opposite they would all say.

            No war of attrition is possible without an opponent!
            If the opponent you challenge does not want to play the game you want him to play with you... you are left to dry and self destruct from frustration.

            Why did the West have to pay off Stalin?
            Because it was the Russians who actually liberated Europe in WWII. What you are talking about is Germany paying off its debts to the US for the Marshall Plan which the US financed after the war.
            Do not be so selective in your reading. I am sure you have heard of the meeting in Yalta.

            You are surprised that Socialism has moved to the right? I am not! But then perhaps that is because I know that its ideas actually do come from the right - such as Solidarity!

            What is the alternative to Socialism? Individual freedoms!
            But then again if people were actually free they would not need socialist politicians and their trade unions, would they?
            And so you keep telling them that it is all for their own good... and not just for yours and your egos!
            When people are not allowed to think for themselves and take decisions for themselves... that is a form of manipulation. It is also a form of slavery though as well.
          1. Theo 

            On 6 Nov, 2010

            @ gv

            I knew I was right about this, but I had to look it up to make sure as it has been a long time since I have thought about Dostoyevski.

            Hear it is and also from Wikipedia

            "Dostoyevsky's experiences in prison and the army resulted in major changes in his political and religious convictions. First, his ordeal somehow caused him to become disillusioned with "Western" ideas; he repudiated the contemporary Western European philosophical movements, and instead paid greater tribute in his writing to traditional, rustic Russian values exemplified in the Slavophile concept of sobornost = "the combination of freedom and unity of many persons on the basis of their common love for the same absolute values.
            Nikolai Lossky for example uses the term to explain what motive would be behind people working together for a common, historical or social goal, rather than pursuing the goal individualistically. Lossky used it almost as a mechanical term to define when the dichotomy or duality of a conflict is transcended or how it is transcended, likening it to the final by product after Plato's Metaxy"

            Note that he lived in 1800 which is not the age of the Enlightenment and thus when they say "contemporary Western European philosophers" they do not mean Enlightenment philosophers.

            "In his writings, Dostoyevsky started to extol the virtues of humility, submission, and suffering.[16] He now displayed a much more critical stance on contemporary European philosophy and turned with intellectual rigour against the Nihilist and Socialist movements; and much of his post-prison work—particularly the novel, The Possessed, and the essays, The Diary of a Writer—contains both criticism of socialist and nihilist ideas, as well as thinly veiled parodies of contemporary Western-influenced Russian intellectuals (Timofey Granovskiy), revolutionaries (Sergey Nyechayev), and even fellow novelists (Ivan Turgyenyev).[17][18] In social circles, Dostoyevsky allied himself with well-known conservatives, such as the statesman Konstantin Pobyedonostsyev. His post-prison essays praised the tenets of the Pochvyennichyestvo movement, a late-19th century Russian nativist ideology closely aligned with Slavophilism.
            Dostoyevsky's post-prison fiction abandoned the West-European-style domestic melodramas and quaint character studies of his youthful work in favor of dark, more complex story-lines and situations, played-out by brooding, tortured characters—often styled partly on Dostoyevsky himself—who agonized over existential themes of spiritual torment, religious awakening, and the psychological confusion caused by the conflict between traditional Russian culture and the influx of modern, Western philosophy."

            Quite the opposite from what you are claiming on Dostoyevsky!
            He was in fact the the link from Hegel to Existentialism in Russia... the way Sartre was in France.
            But he was against Socialism of his contemporaries in the West and against the sort of class struggle you are talking about.

            Unless of course you meant somebody else entirely
          1. WimV 

            On 6 Nov, 2010

            @ GV

            I can only agree with your reaction. There is only one thing that I can add to your solid opinion.

            You wrote:
            "There has been written that socialist parties moved to the right. I find this at least an incomplete explanation. In a kind of self-defense socialist parties moved together with their traditional electoral public and their policies have been directed towards this kind of public."

            In my opinion, it's due to that shift to the right by a lot of people who became middle-class, that the rich have found their new "canon fodder" to protect their own privileges. The middle-class is now standing at the barricades for their crumbs, by that protecting the rich to get away with the big parts of the cake. They are eating out of their hands and are starting to talk more and more about "taking responsability". They don't seem to understand that this argument is always used very selectively by these demagogues. That mental-shift was also translated in politics, as you already have said. Middle-class still thinks that it will loose less... but soon we will see that they won't be more protected than the poor. The gap between middle-class, poor and very poor is narrowing fast in America, especially because of the fact that a lot of the middle-class-prosperity was build on debts. In West-Europe we see similar signs.
          1. WimV 

            On 6 Nov, 2010

            @ Theo

            Je schreef: “the moment man settled as a farmer”?
            I am sorry to burst your bubble, but man first needs land in order to start farming on it!
            Man can only SETTLE when man is a occupier of somebody else’s land = settler.

            Ik denk dat de overgang van jager-verzamelaars naar sedentaire agrarische maatschappijen niet begon met de aankoop van gronden. Men heeft het trouwens wel over een neolithische revolutie, maar het was eerder een geleidelijke evolutie. M.a.w., deze overgang ging niet van de ene week op de andere. Wat deden zij dan... grond kopen en daarna terug verkopen als ze toch nog wat verder gingen trekken? Misschien waren er zelfs al immokantoren ook?

            In heel wat Afrikaanse landen worden daarentegen nu mensen verdreven van "hun" gronden die ze al jarenlang bewerkten voor hun eigen voedselvoorziening, door de massale verkoop van grond door (corrupte) politici. Dat is natuurlijk nog een ander verhaal in de economische logica van geld en bezit.
        1. Nacht Und Nebel 

          On 6 Nov, 2010

          GV,

          50 jaar socialisme in het zuiden des land is voor de gewone burger aldaar een 'zegen' gebleken.Meer moet ik zeker over de weldaden van de socialistische partij niet zeggen zeker?
          1. gv 

            On 7 Nov, 2010

            Wim V

            About the new canon fodder for the rich
            It is exactly what I have in mind too.

            By shifting to the right they kind of entered the moral playgrounds of the elite and become an easy prey for the predators.
          1. gv 

            On 7 Nov, 2010

            @Theo

            Thanks for digging deeper in Dostojevski's work. I need to digest that.

            I become more and more impressed by your extensive knowledge in this field and start to get the feeling I'm challenging a professor Pol & Soc.

            I won't dig into this matter much deeper as it's bound to become a neverending story. Maybe more interesting is the kind of feeling this discussion creates.

            When I meet someone smarter than me, I become very careful. Contrary to what you claim, I don't see my reasons as selective but in the relative concept of "your knowledge versus mine", as "limited".

            The more you know, the more selective you can be.
            In a way I consider you as an intellectually dangerous man cause you possess the knowledge/skill to be selective and steer the less knowledgable in the direction you want.

            It also results from my encounters with other people of your intellectual standing, who rather leaned to my leftist vision (though with them too I met my barriers).
            Hence by which one should I let myself being manipulated?

            I prefer to stay free of mind and probably limited (outside my profession of course) than sounding smart but manipulated.

            Don't consider this as a reproach cause I didn't say you did use it in this discussion, but you have the ability and I should be careful.

            Maybe an example of your flexibility or selectivity that I labeled as suspicious (meant as a decoy or not, unconsciously or consciously).

            In my comments I always referred to the war reparations of WW I. Suddenly you switched to the far less important war reparations of WW II (yes, I had forgotten this made part of the Yalta conference).
            I assume they served your purpose and btw weren't these half for Stalin and Half for the Allies - am I wrong or were you selective again?
  19. ducdorleans 

    On 5 Nov, 2010

    WHOOSH !

    - wow ! ... heb je dat gezien ?
    - yep ... wat was dat ?
    - de positieve gevolgen van QE2 !
  20. Nacht Und Nebel 

    On 6 Nov, 2010

    GV

    De socialistische partij BEWEERT de partij van het volk te zijn en BEWEERT hun (eigen)belangen te behartigen.
    Vreemd dat de socialistische partij steeds vergeet dat bv Zwitserland ,het land van het REFERENDUM,het meest democratische maar ook het meest welvarendste land ter wereld is. Bij ons moeten we er zelfs niet aan denken een referendum te organiseren over de inkomstenbelasting. Daar zal ze in Di Rupo en zijn brusselse vrienden wel "autonoom" over beslissen en het parlement zal daar steevast mee instemmen.
    1. WimV 

      On 6 Nov, 2010

      Dat Zwitserland ook altijd een land met streng bankgeheim is geweest waar dus veel legaal, "minder legaal" en illegaal geld naartoe vloeide, heeft waarschijnlijk niets met hun welvarendheid te maken?! Heel wat dictators hadden zelfs "hun" geld op Zwitserse rekeningen staan.

      Je kan de dingen proberen te simplificeren, maar als je daarin overdrijft dan dreigt het belachelijk worden. Monaco is ook welvarend... En Vaticaanstad zal het al bij al ook niet slecht doen, daar is de volledige wetgevende, uitvoerende en rechterlijke macht toegekend aan één man. Laten we in België dus ook terug een alleenheerschappij in het leven roepen, het zal ons welvaart brengen... ;)
  21. fal 

    On 7 Nov, 2010

    More than 4 trillion in US debt will need to be rolled over over the next three years. 10 trillion in western economies in 2011.
  22. Bas 

    On 8 Nov, 2010

    kritiek op FED is alsmaar stijgende.. De Duitse minister van financiën, Wolfgang Schäuble, beschuldigt de Fed, ervan 'de onveiligheid in de wereldeconomie te vergroten'. Dat zegt hij in een interview met het weekblad Der Spiegel, dat vandaag uitkomt.
    (sorry nog geen link beschikbaar)

    Ben benieuwd naar reactie Bernanke nav alle kritiek die nog komen gaat, want de argumenten die hij eind vorige week liet weten slaan natuurlijk nergens op..

    Ben ik dan te sceptisch? Te nuchter? Kijk ik wel verder dan mn neus lang is.. Of snap ik er niks van..

    wordt vervolgd....
  23. Paul Vreymans 

    On 8 Nov, 2010

    @ JanS

    “ Ik lees het hier niet veel, maar het hele spelletje dient ook om de aandeelhouders van de Fed (grote zakenbanken en financiers) niet in de problemen te brengen.”

    Het probleem is niet zozeer de afschrijving van bad assets, maar eerste en vooral de “over the counter derivatives” ter waarde van zo’n 204 triljoen $. 80% daarvan zijn “interest rates swaps”, een veelvoud van de “Credit default Swaps”. Grootbanken verzekeren met die interest rate swaps massaal investeerders tegen stijgende rente en hebben het risico maar partieel ingedekt. Uiterst winstgevende aktiviteit zo lang de rente laag blijft, maar een ramp als de rente stijgt. De waarde van de OTC’s staat nergens geboekt op de balansen. Als de lange termijn rente stijgt kunnen sommige interestverzekeraars hun verbintenissen hoogst waarschijnlijk niet nakomen. De rente MAG gewoon niet meer stijgen. Verontrustend…

    Download eens deze mp3 van Jim Puplava (FinancialSense): http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2009-1024-3a.mp3

    Luister vanaf minuut 20…. en vooral het fragment vanaf minuut 50
    1. Yannick Verdyck 

      On 8 Nov, 2010

      Dat is toch algemeen bekend dat de boel ontploft wanneer de intrestvoeten zouden stijgen. De intrestvoeten zullen dan ook nooit meer stijgen.

      Grootbanken zijn vandaag eigenlijk allemaal al "de facto" failliet. Het systeem is al lang ten dode opgeschreven, vandaag zijn we gewoon de schijn aan het hoog houden. Het gaat finaal altijd om de knikkers, altijd over het bezit van echte activa, echte goederen, echte diensten en finaal macht.

      Steel/plunder vandaag dus zoveel als je kan, want morgen kan het te laat zijn. Tijd rekken en zoveel mogelijk proberen te plunderen voor het gedaan is, dat is het spelletje dat we vandaag mogen aanschouwen. De Amerikaanse overheid(CIA, NSA, het leger voorop), het militair industrieel complex, multi-nationale coöperaties (gesticht door koninklijke families) en Wall Street, allemaal bikkelen ze vandaag om de erfenis van wat ooit een wereldmacht was.


      Wie in het hele verhaal enige economische logica zoekt zal dan ook van een kale reis wederkeren. De geschriften van Machiavelli zijn dan honderd keer meer relevant. Studie over de val van de USSR en het Romeinse Rijk kunnen hierin ook extra inzicht verschaffen.
    1. Yannick Verdyck 

      On 8 Nov, 2010

      Heel die derivatenhandel, heel dat verhaal, dat is doelbewust gedaan. Ze wisten op voorhand al dat het allemaal zou ontploffen. Al die dingen, ze wisten op voorhand al wat er mee zou gebeuren, maar eens je die lijn van no return voorbij bent... wat dan nog? Wat is maakt het uit of je 5 keer teveel over de schreef gaat of 50 keer zoveel over de schreef gaat? De zaak is al lang beklonken, het enige wat nu nog telt is zoveel mogelijk binnenhalen/uitmelken zolang het systeem nog bestaat...
  24. Theo 

    On 8 Nov, 2010

    @ gv


    I can assure you I do not hold any PhD or have ever studied political sciences. What I have done though as part of my business studies, is study Philosophy = the study of living. Philosophers did write and thought extensively about politics, economics, society... The way we live essentially.

    Do not be intimidated or scared by anybody you perceive as being more intelligent or having more knowledge than you. Do not pull back, instead ask questions. What you perceive as my superior intelligence might in fact simply be an above average intellectual and empirical curiosity. Whenever I meet somebody smart I see it as an opportunity to pick their brains out!
    Intelligence then becomes a lot about having full understanding of the terms and concepts we use rather than just peppering sentences with hip words and concepts we've heard others use without really knowing where they come from. I can understand how the use and abuse of the art of rhetoric then seems subversive and threatening to you. Whenever I arrive at such points, my curiosity kicks in.
    Did curiosity really killed the cat!? When I was studying English I went to look up the origin and meaning of some of my favoured sayings. Well guess what - the original phrase was actually "Care killed the cat"! Care as in too much worry/sorrow - the way Sartre would later say "L'enfer c'est les autres."

    There is no such a thing as a person with limited knowledge. Knowledge is infinite. We alone can choose what and how much we want to know about anything dependent on our interests.
    Try as I may I can't escape from philosophy because I philosophise when I reflect critically on how we live. Living involves thinking, arguing, choosing and acting. Contrary to what you think of me I am not intelligent enough to invent a philosophy :) But I do think about philosophies, religions and ideologies invented by others. One way to evaluate philosophers' ideas is to see if I can live by it and this means I have to penetrate the illusions of appearances and the illusions of common sense. This is what the ancients called Wisdom - knowledge of what is true and right combined with responsible choice as to action. To determine what is true and right means to act a bit like a detective and discover the philosopher's assumptions upon which he bases his ideas. Because one of the most important things about any philosophy (and theory!) is not what it explains, but what it assumes. To uncover and analyse assumptions is the task of the educator as Socrates would say. An educator develops the intellectual, moral and aesthetic powers of individuals. It is very much the opposite of training individuals. To train is to instruct, drill and subordinate individuals to practice routines and standards. Philosophy is thus not an exercise in training the mind. Philosophers are educators because they prefer questions to answers, argument to instruction. Because it is a critical enterprise, it might seem a subversive as well as liberating affair.

    Long time ago I decided I wanted to get educated and not instructed by postmodernist trainers and coaches which one finds in the European state education system.
    Classical philosophers had a passion to understand the world and themselves, which was guided by their belief in truth and their love of rational argument. They never stopped arguing, preferring to give reasons to support their assertions rather than to share their feelings about it with each other. To argue rationally was to argue logically; to be reasonable was to be rational.
    Today we tell people who spout nonsense that "Well, I don't feel the way you do, but, well, your feelings are, well, reasonable; so let's just agree to disagree based on the fact that, well, my knowledge that you don't like to have your feelings hurt".

    Sharing our feelings about how $600 billion being printed by the FED makes us feel is not going to tell us anything about what it actually means for our economy and our lives and it's not going to help us decide on what to do about it.
    What is important here is to have an argument on the reasons , as given to us, of this decision in order to evaluate its impact not on our feelings about it, but on our actions because of it.

    Saying that class struggle is not a concept invented by Marx but it has always existed is not a feeling, but a statement from his Communist Manifesto. But it is not enough to just read it and believe it. One should also read the foot notes regarding that statement and find out where it really came from and what information was it based upon and the assumptions it made and the consequences that has had for the millions and millions of people who have died in communism (and Nazism! As they come from ideologies developed from the same sociological studies and German Romantic philosophies) because of people who never had the critical thought to go and act as a literary and philosophical detective.
    I can perfectly understand why you might feel on shaky ground, like the foundations of your thoughts and assumptions being shaken... I am told parents are afraid of the same thing when having to tell their children that Santa doesn't exist. The real question here is why make up the story and tell them the lies in the first place?
    1. WimV 

      On 9 Nov, 2010

      @ Theo:

      Millions have died and are dying because of (communistic) dictators. We are against that. Millions have died and are dying because of religious fanatics. We are against that. Millions have died because of economic fundamentalism and there are still people dying because of these economic principles (eg. forced by the IMF). Ow?! But that makes sense because the economic laws say that it is okay. It is... "efficient". I have given a lot of examples of the inhumanity of economics. Why aren't we counting the economic victims? Maybe they will be counted over 50 or 100 years, and people then will be astonished to see how stupid their ancestors where.

      Ideologies come in many forms (like you also indicate with your reference to dualism). A philosopher can't permit himself to be selective with its criticism, because that would mean that he is as blind as those who weren't critical when they read Marx. In that case, his blind spots are only on other places within the spectrum (or the picture). Apart from that, I totally agree with you on your opinion that philosophy is a very important source for finding deeper understanding in this world.

      Nonetheless, rationality doesn't say it all. If economy was all about rationality, why was everybody so interested in rebuilding the faith in the economic system after it crashed?! Even a person who pretends to be a rationalist will always live between emotional human beings which do a lot of irrational stuff and I don't think it's possible to build a rational theory on human behaviour that is totally fool-proof. And even more: a person who beliefs he or she is 100% rational, is lying or doesn't understand what he is saying. He/she doesn't understand the evolutionary importance of "feelings". There are also a lot of interesting books on our ability to lie to ourselves because that is a way to "survive" (or to nurture ourself). Feelings have an enormous impact on our decisions - and that can be examined with rational tests (psychology). Why are companies investing a lot of money on adds? Other people may be a mirror for ourself - to get a deeper understanding of who we are en what we think - but it is very difficult to know exactly what they are reflecting (rationality or personal feelings or a mix of both). So - like I said - rationality doesn't say it all.

      I think that philosophy and psychology combined will tell us as much as possible about our assumptions. And astronomy can put us back to where we belong in this universe. Printing $600 billion can be frightning... but why should it be deadly? We live on food, love, a roof and a fire to keep us warm. There must be solutions to overcome this troubles... but it may be naïve to think that we will find them if we don't start thinking out of the (economic) box.
      1. Theo 

        On 9 Nov, 2010

        @ WimV

        "Nonetheless, rationality doesn’t say it all. If economy was all about rationality, why was everybody so interested in rebuilding the faith in the economic system after it crashed?!"

        The majority of us would actually agree with you as we have been trying to make this point all along :)
        The economic theories developed by Keynes and applied by Western economies are indeed not rational. And as you can very well read most of the comments here, the overwhelming view of the people on this blog is that they are wrong and have indeed caused a lot of damage to the world! The majority of comments here are also against Keynesian economic theories being maintained in place after they have failed so miserably so many times since Keynes wrote them and implemented them after having imposed his will during the Bretton Woods conference.

        It is absolutely hilarious how, after having criticised our views on this point for so long, you now, albeit without realising it, actually agree with us!
        Believe me, I am not making fun of you. I actually really applaud you. Finally you are being rational.

        Yes, people are emotional beings. Absolutely. Our emotions act as motor for our actions.
        But do not confuse emotions with feeling! Feelings are triggered by external factors, while emotions are your own. This is why people talk about how others make them feel, but what makes them react to those feelings are their internal emotions triggered by their conscious thoughts. Those thoughts can be rational or irrational, depending on the person's self knowledge.

        Indeed Behavior is a very good example to use as parallel here. But first we'll have to determine what kind of a box is the Economy and what is its content.
        Is it a system, an organism or a thing? Does it have feelings and do we, as participants and agents of the Economy, somehow affect its feelings (like the way people some times talk about the Market behaving irrationally)?
        This is important to know, because it might provide us with a clue on what to do! Perhaps when it feels "sad" we should not try to cheer it up by pumping "stimuli" into it. May be all it needs from us is to send it lots of love and happy thoughts... or may be it simply needs a personal trainer and a top chef to keep its dopamine and cholesterol levels in check. Or perhaps we'll have to rescue it from a bad domestic environment. And then we can all live happily ever after.
        Unless of course it turns out to be a DreamWorks and not a Disney Land personality type.
        1. WimV 

          On 9 Nov, 2010

          Theo:

          You wrote: "It is absolutely hilarious how, after having criticised our views on this point for so long, you now, albeit without realising it, actually agree with us!
          Believe me, I am not making fun of you. I actually really applaud you. Finally you are being rational."

          Obviously, you don't understand my point. What I have said in this last reaction is what I'm telling all along. So if I didn't agree in the past, why should I agree now? Everytime I've said that "the economy" (only thinking in economic profits) is making a lot of unnecessary victims and that's why we need a sober but(!) strong, responsible government to correct some inhumanities in our society. We need a government to preserve some basis public needs from being privatised in favor of the more privileged. But everytime there are people on this forum who are telling that this is just the way the economy works and that governmental tasks should be privatised because that will be better. The free market will solve everything ans will benefit all (by "trickling down"-mechanisms). All the others who have the nerve to criticise those economic abnormalities are socialists (what did I say? - they are communistic mass-murderers!).

          Do you really think that a shift from Keynes to - let us say Austrian school (von Mises) - will do the job? What a naive idea. They are only focussing on a small counterpart of the spectrum, the opposite side of Keynes' "start the money-machine". From one extreme to another.

          Not once you've said: "Okay, the example that you gave is one of the excesses that are inherent to nowadays economic thinking". (And by that I mean the "efficiency"- and "maximalise profits"-orientated economic thinking.) The only thing you can bring on is the empty box of the Corporate Social Responsability. What a joke!

          Yes, Theo, you prefer rationality. Let's take the idea of Free Market Capitalism. It is rational... but ONLY rational. It starts with some assumptions like the transparency of the markets. But in daily life we see that the transparancy isn't there and the excesses of this blind rationality doesn't bother the inhuman consequences of it's actions, either in this part of the world, either at the other side of it, nor with the consequences for nature. The globalisation only makes the impact bigger. That is what I was telling all the time: "Economy nowadays only seems to be about rationality". People are driven by the economy instead of the other way around as it should be.

          And now you come with another, pure rational vision about another rational (economic) strategy that we should follow (e.g. less government). And you think you can applaud for me because you think I've seen the light in your point of view? I don't think so. If there is one thing to do, than it is stopping to put economy in the middle of everything. I think that Alain De Botton and a lot of other - older - philosophers could not agree more with that idea. And I think that we will have to change our way of thinking soon, because our economy as we know it today will collapse because of it's inherent faults.

          There's only one thing that I have to add. You - as a person who want's to get to deeper understanding of the world - know perfectly well that the rationality of the individual can become the insanity of a group. You see, rationality has it's limits. In the bigger picture, we will have to favour compassion and the ability to understand what other people will feel due to our individual actions. These are feelings/emotions. We need more matriarchy (without risking to be too emotional.)
          1. Theo 

            On 9 Nov, 2010

            @ WimV

            'If there is one thing to do, than it is stopping to put economy in the middle of everything."

            I couldn't agree with you more!
            Exactly why I am against Communism and Socialism, which as the first economic and political theories DID put economics at the center of everything by telling us not only how the economy but also how society should be organised.
            Capitalism on the other hand has always been nothing but an economic system (note the difference with theory!), leaving people the freedom to chose how they wish to live their lives and develop a social and judiciary system accordingly.
            You seem not to understand that culture, art and other such non-economic and non-profit seeking activities have always flourished in "capitalist" environments, not in socialist or communist ones.

            "You – as a person who want’s to get to deeper understanding of the world – know perfectly well that the rationality of the individual can become the insanity of a group. You see, rationality has it’s limits."

            What I know is that the use by certain individuals of German Romanticism of the 19th century has indeed become the insanity of a number of groups in the 20th century... such as socialism, fascism, communism and feminism.
            Your last statement is the proof that some of those groups have indeed remained in an arrested development stage - still stuck in the outdated socio-cultural and historic studies of the 1800's, which have by now been largely disproved since... such as the one about the benefits of replacing the Patriarchal society with a Matriarchal one!!!
            Obviously you don't even know what that actually means. It is very different from the idealised and romantic theories as developed by Marx on the grounds of the anthropological theories of 3 guys on Russian village life, American Indians and the Slavic communes in Germany. Perhaps you don't realise that those very same anthropological studies (or rather their wrong interpretations) lead to the ethnic cleansing of the Nazis as well as the starvation of millions of peasants in all communist countries.

            It really makes me laugh, because it also explains why for example some people on this blog assume that I am a man :)
            If you assume that a society with women in charge would be this touchy-feely place where peace and harmony will reign supreme ...
            So what becomes the new Socialist slogan - Women of the world unite??? for the purpose of replacing Patriarchy with Matriarchy... all to be achieved by the means of a revolution of course!!! and all based on the new Matriarchy Manifesto where it is said that "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of GENDER struggles" ;)
            Oh boy, how little you know women and of women!
          1. WimV 

            On 9 Nov, 2010

            You wrote:
            "Exactly why I am against Communism and Socialism, which as the first economic and political theories DID put economics at the center of everything by telling us not only how the economy but also how society should be organised.
            Capitalism on the other hand has always been nothing but an economic system (note the difference with theory!), leaving people the freedom to chose how they wish to live their lives and develop a social and judiciary system accordingly."

            Yes, Theo, and what are the IMF and the Worldbank? A bunch of socialists/communists who where forcing poor countries to adopt the free-market-ideology? What is the Washington consensus? Who is putting economy in the middle of everything? Socialists? And do they really have a free choice, those poor countries? No, most of them had to accept this fundamentalistic neoliberal policy. Even Stiglitz criticised this IMF-policy afterwards. What with the people who are send away from the land they cultivated for generations, because some dictator sold it to the person that gave the highest price for it? What should they think of this "free-choice-economy"?

            But maybe, we should see to the origin of this word "capitalism":
            "The conception of what constitutes capitalism has changed significantly over time, as well as being dependent on the political perspective and analytical approach adopted by the observer in question. [...] The first theorist of what we commonly refer to as capitalism is usually considered to be Adam Smith. His 1776 work, 'An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations', theorized that within a given stable system of commerce and evaluation, individuals would respond to the incentive of earning more by specializing their production. [...] The next major revision of the theoretical basis of capitalism began in the late 19th century with the expansion of corporations and finance, the globalization of production and markets, and the increasing desire to tap the productive capacity of the capital sectors of economies in order to secure the markets and resources required to continue economic growth. The state came to be viewed by many, particularly by the wealthy, as a vehicle for improving business conditions by securing markets and gaining access to scarce materials, even when such objectives could only be achieved through military force."
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalist_theory

            Ofcourse, it's only Wikipedia, but have you seen the words like "theorist" and "theorized"? That's not so weird when Smith starts to talk about an "invisible hand". But I have to admit, you're right in one way: by saying that "laisser-faire" will bring prosperity for all of us, people can't say that they said us how society should be organised. You know that I don't believe in that kind of freedom because it makes a lot of people totally unfree.
            (PS: You can also see that even capitalists in the late 19th century - till now - saw the government as a useful vehicle when it comes to "gaining acces to scarce materials (through military force)".)

            You wrote:
            "You seem not to understand that culture, art and other such non-economic and non-profit seeking activities have always flourished in “capitalist” environments, not in socialist or communist ones."
            Capitalism isn't that old... so are you claiming that without capitalism there can't be a flourishing culture, art, etc...? You even use the word "always". You seem te be very sure about you're statement. And what did the philosophers do before there was capitalism? What about Eastern culture? What about ancient art?

            You wrote:
            "Your last statement is the proof that some of those groups have indeed remained in an arrested development stage – still stuck in the outdated socio-cultural and historic studies of the 1800′s ... etc..."

            My latest statement didn't mention something about feminism. I was only mentioning that we need to need to pay more attention on a more "soft" - eg. more "feminin" -approximation (without being too emotional). But you do it again, even if feminism was't mentioned by me, you took this idea... pushed it very far to one direction of the spectrum and then make it sounds very bad and ridiculous. You even ends with "Oh boy, how little you know women and of women". A personal attack? It probably says more about you than it does say something about me.

            You wrote:
            "It really makes me laugh, because it also explains why for example some people on this blog assume that I am a man."

            The name "Theo" sounds pretty masculine to me. But if it could make you feel better, you can laugh as much as you want with your own cleverness. Just for the case of testing you: what made you think I'm a man that doesn't know much about women??? Only because of my name?
            Well indeed, I am a man, my name indicates that. But you probably couldn't know that. And you don't know anything about my age, my personal life, etc.. But nonetheless, without this knowledge you claim that I don't understand women? That makes your assumption a bit risky...

            I think I know why GV doesn't want to go further in this sort of discussion. You're very clever and you've showed in the past that you know a lot about this sort of themes. But I don't think you're always doing fairplay. So in that case, it's better that I will end the discussion here.
  25. JanS 

    On 8 Nov, 2010

    En wie investeerde er de laatste maanden massaal in Au (goud) ?

    F....g Goldman !

    Die kerels schamen zich echt nergens voor nadat ze eerst jaren TEGEN Au gespeculeerd hebben en het in beleggersadviezen aan hun eigen klanten jarenlang afgeraden hebben als achterhaald en waardeloos spul...

    De door God geroepene Blankfein zal rap nog wat bonusjes binnenhalen en omzetten in nog meer Au, voordat de $ niets meer waard is...
  26. Paul Vreymans 

    On 8 Nov, 2010

    Blanfein finds that Goldman Sachs has no moral or legal obligation to inform its clients it is betting against the products it sells .....

    De man heeft ook het juiste profiel en achtergrond voor een topbankier...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Blankfein
    1. JanS 

      On 9 Nov, 2010

      @Paul, ik onthoud vooral de twee woordjes "no moral" uit jouw tekst.

      WimV zal me dit graag horen zeggen ;-)
      1. WimV 

        On 9 Nov, 2010

        Inderdaad. Sommige bedrijven vinden het blijkbaar normaal dat ze geen morele noch juridische verplichtingen hebben wanneer het aankomt op het afleggen van verantwoording ten aanzien van de medemens. Ik heb het anderen op dit forum ook al horen zeggen. De enige verantwoording die bedrijven volgens hen moeten afleggen is aan de aandeelhouder. Bedrijfsleiders zien de problemen die ze veroorzaken maar al te goed, maar ze verstoppen zich maar al te graag achter de "economische regels" (winst/efficiëntie/beurskoers), achter een gebrek aan sluitende regelgeving en achter de vermeende wens van de consument (terwijl die laatste vaak ook onmachtig is of de gevolgen van zijn keuze niet kent). En dan verwijt men anderen struisvogelpolitiek.

        Vrij logisch ook dat bedrijfsverenigingen pleiten voor doorgedreven deregulatie. En wat zouden ze in de plaats geven? Corporate Social Responsability zonder dat ze zich verplicht voelen tot hun eigen responsabilisatie? U ziet hoe ver we daar mee gaan geraken... Het is hetzelfde als we nu horen: het zijn altijd de anderen die moeten geresponsabiliseerd worden (zijnde de overheid en de burger).

        Weet u wat deze discussie zo bemoeilijkt? Net zoals dat er een verschuiving was van een deel armen naar de middenklasse die vervolgens op de barricades ging staan om de privileges van de rijken (en zijzelf, maar dan in veel, vééééél mindere mate) te beschermen, is er ook steeds een hele middengroep aan kleine hardwerkende bedrijfjes die in hun strijd voor betere bestaansvoorwaarden vooral de grote bedrijven bevoordelen. Kijk maar eens hoeveel van de privileges (o.a. notionele belastingaftrek, subsidies, enz...) naar de KMO's vloeit. Bedroevend weinig.

        De grote spelers lachen natuurlijk in hun vuistje met zo'n achterhoede die een stevige buffer vormt voor hun wangedrag. Laat de kleintjes maar roepen dat de overheid moet privatiseren. Als er dan al eens iemand durft te stellen dat heel wat bedrijven ook in de fout gaan, dan begint het middenveld aan KMO's verontwaardigd te steigeren en wild om zich heen te trappen omdat ze zich in hun "beroepseer" gekrenkt voelen, of omdat ze zich geviseerd voelen als werkgever. Zij zijn toch de smeerolie van de maatschappij? Vanzelfsprekend zijn we blij dat ze werkgelegenheid brengen, Dat ontkent ook niemand. Zij vormen dus niet zozeer het probleem. Maar als ze zo blind gaan blijven, dan gaan ze waarschijnlijk niet eens de zwaarste klappen zien aankomen de komende jaren terwijl een beperkt aantal anderen met 95% van de koek is gaan lopen. Ze zouden - volgens mij althans - beter stoppen met als schoothondjes de grote bedrijven achterna te hollen, want als het erop aankomt dan concurreert een "industriële" speler de kleine zelfstandige even hard weg (in veel sectoren dan toch) als dat hij de arbeider onder de knoet zal trachten te houden. Dat is nu eenmaal de economische wet van de sterkste. Of wat dacht u, dat ze voor de kleine bedrijfsleider wél mededogen zouden hebben omdat deze hen zo goed heeft geholpen bij het behouden van hun privileges? Wacht maar tot alles geprivatiseerd is... de grote spelers zullen snel hun marktpositie uitbreiden en de KMO's zullen in veel sectoren niet eens aan de bak komen. Niks nichemarkten, de vervlakking van consumentenbehoeften is al lang ingezet (met als hoofdargument de prijs). Des te armer een maatschappij wordt, des te meer zal dat prijsargument doorslaggevend worden. Het schaalvoordeel van de industriële producent t.o.v. de ambachtelijke KMO zal dan allesbepalend zijn. Alles wat in massa geproduceerd kán worden, zal ook op die wijze geproduceerd worden. Dream on, kleine zelfstandige, ga maar lekker op de barricaden staan voor zolang het nog duurt. Jullie worden nog wel even getolereerd door de groten - zolang het hun goed uitkomt.
  27. Nacht Und Nebel 

    On 9 Nov, 2010

    Bye Bye Babyboomers,

    Daar gaan ze. De oudste babyboomers - die van het bouwjaar 1945 - verlaten met gebogen hoofd de scène, onder oorverdovend boegeroep. De ‘grootste gelukzakken aller tijden’ beloofden ‘peace and love’, maar laten hun kinderen een doodzieke planeet na, op de rand zelfs van het economisch en ecologisch bankroet. Babyboomers over zichzelf en hun erfenis. ‘Ah, de schaamte om ons te zijn!’.....................
    Gelezen in de Pravda.Op zich een zeer interessant artikel over de echte gevolgen van de hedendaagse hangmatcultuur.
    Dat zegt de britse minister in zijn boek 'The Pitch.How Babyboomers Took Their Children's future.And why........"

    Babyboomers worden de twistappel van de volgende decennia.Meer nod dan klasse,ras,seks of religie.

    Blijkbaar is er dan toch nog iemand niet akkoord met het feit dat men niet kan blijven parasiteren onder het mom van 'solidariteit' .
    Vroeg of laat dient iemand de rekening te betalen.Hoe 'sociaal' zijn wij indien onze toekomstige generatie laten opdraaien voor onze 'sociale verworvenheden'?Of zijn wij verworden tot niets meer dan een bende profiteurs ?
  28. JanS 

    On 9 Nov, 2010

    Solidariteit is verworden tot een dooddoener die vergoeilijkt dat je iemand's zuurverdiende centen afneemt om iemand te betalen om niets te doen.

    (deze zal WimV niet zo graag horen - sorry, Wim)
    1. WimV 

      On 9 Nov, 2010

      Nee hoor, JanS, ik ben bvb. neutraal genoeg om vast te stellen dat de rol van bvb. vakbonden niet in elk dossier even constructief is. Maar daarom zeggen dat men de vakbonden maar beter kan afschaffen zou totaal van de pot gerukt zijn. Hetzelfde gaat op voor solidariteit. Mensen die verwachten alles te krijgen en er niets voor te moeten doen (de zgn. "free-riders" waar ik - zoals je wel weet - al vaker naar verwees), zijn bij mij even schuldig aan het failliet van een maatschappij als bvb. schurken die denken zich alles te kunnen permitteren op economisch vlak om er vervolgens de belastingbetaler voor op te laten draaien of schurken die zonder scrupules mensen aan de andere kant van de wereld de afgrond in schoppen omwille van hun persoonlijke, hoogst-individuele bonusje. Maar ik dit wil niet zeggen dat men solidariteit maar beter kan afschaffen omwille van een aantal free-riders die je nu eenmaal altijd en overal wel zult aantreffen. Dat onderscheid begrijpt u zelf ook wel.
      1. gv 

        On 10 Nov, 2010

        Wim V

        Inderdaad, ik ben niet bereid de discussie verder te voeren. Theo gebruikt technieken, zoals heel duidelijk blijkt uit zijn laatste repliek, die gericht zijn om iemand onderuit te halen en dan op zijn manier weer op te bouwen.

        U kunt het een vorm van Thought Reform noemen. Prof Singer is een autoriteit op dit gebied.
        http://www.factnet.org/Thought_Reform_Exists.htm

        Misschien heeft het Belgische "rechts" een mentale mentor ingehuurd om ons allen in willoze schapen om te toveren?

        Hoe dan ook dit weekend leg ik de hele discussie voor aan een psycholoog bedreven in dit onderdeel. Pas dan zal ik het weten.
        1. WimV 

          On 10 Nov, 2010

          @GV

          Ik ben zeker geinteresseerd in het resultaat. Psychologie boeit me enorm, maar ik ben nogal een leek op dat vlak. Wat ik er daarentegen in sommige discussies wel eens bij haal is het lijstje denkfouten (onbewust?!) en drogredenen/schijnredeneringen (bewust?!) die wel eens gebruikt worden. In de filosofie zijn deze schijnredeneringen zeker gekend. Plato schreef er een dialoog over. Ook Socrates ging er tegenin, door de Sofisten aan de kaak te stellen (die vaak het eigen gelijk in een redevoering centraal stelden boven de waarachtigheid ervan, m.a.w. welsprekendheid als doel op zich i.p.v. als middel). Soms gaat het over ego, soms gaat het echter ook over bewuste misleiding voor minder fraaie doeleinden. In "extreme" (maar ook juist zeer subtiele!) vorm komt het voor in pure propaganda.

          Op internet vind je zeker mooie overzichtslijstjes met interessante voorbeelden erbij (door te zoeken op de termen "drogredenen" of "fallacies"). Je ziet trouwens al snel dat dergelijke denkfouten en drogredenen te pas en te onpas gebruikt worden in publieke debatten. Maar let wel op: soms bezondig je er zelf ook wel eens aan als je niet goed oplet (daarmee dat ik toch een duidelijk onderscheid maak tussen bewust en onbewust gebruik). Vaak geef ik sprekers het voordeel van de twijfel... tenzij het er vingerdik bovenop ligt natuurlijk.

          Een van de meest gebruikte misleidingen (vaak ook onbewust) is volgens mij die van het "vals dilemma", waarbij men je dwingt te kiezen tussen 2 uitersten i.p.v. ook een gematigde 3de, 4de of 5de middenweg toe te laten in de keuze. Ook op dit forum verzeilen we vaak in dat straatje. Om deze methode toe te passen zal men de tegenspreker vaak ook bewust in een extremere hoek proberen te dringen. Solidariteit wordt dan al gauw moordend communisme... Het zorgt alleen maar voor onnodige polarisering natuurlijk en een "wij-tegen-zij"-verhaal. Zelfs goed geoefende sprekers staan daar vaak machteloos tegenover wanneer dit plaatsvindt in een debat (zeker in deze one-liner-cultuur waarin we zitten en waar nog weinig plaats is voor een uitvoeriger en genuanceerder mening).

          Een andere veelgebruikte techniek is de aanval "ad hominem" waarop ik Theo nu wees, al kan ik niet met zekerheid zeggen of dit bewust werd gedaan.
          1. gv 

            On 10 Nov, 2010

            @ WimV

            Ik moet u ontgoochelen wat betreft de informatie van de psycholoog. Zonder referentie (naam van de man) mag ik dit niet weergeven. Ik kan immers schrijven wat ik wil.

            Inmiddels raadpleegde ik wel een "kenner" en zowel de commentaren van Theo van mezelf kregen de volle laag. Een korte greep.

            De referentie naar Dostojevski beschouwde hij niet als een fout of leugen. Dostojevski was immers een tegenstander van de verlichting (of meer algemeen de materialistische ingesteldheid ervan) in zijn vroege periode. Dat hij zijn standpunt wijzigde in zijn late periode, doet geen afbreuk aan het eerste. Tenzij je de latere periode laat primeren op de vroege.

            De toewijzing van een uitspraak aan Hume ipv Locke, deed geen afbraak aan de uitspraak zelve in de context van de discussie, maar opnieuw werd die fout opgeblazen tot het allerbelangrijkste en als een leugen bestempeld (zie in andere rubriek evenwel).

            Hij kon evenmin mijn uitlating dat sommige verlichtingsfilosofen hypocrieten waren, smaken en brandmerkte dit als een domme uitlating.
            Het zou beter zijn het onderscheid te leren tussen de gematigde en de radicale verlichtingsfilosofen en hij raadde het boek "Enlightenment Contested" van Jonathan Israel aan. Maar het lezen van die kanjer van bijna 1000 bladzijden zie ik niet zitten.

            Hij vond jouw commentaren wel goed.
          1. WimV 

            On 10 Nov, 2010

            @ GV

            Oké. Op zich inderdaad niet vreemd dat je de psychologische analyse van dit debat niet zomaar online kan geven, en achteraf bekeken op zich ook niet zo slecht misschien. We houden het dan maar bij de overzichten met drogredenen en denkfouten, die bieden volgens mij al heel wat houvast in een debat.

            Alleszins bedankt voor de info die je wél kon meegeven. Dat boek van Jonathan Israel ga ik zelf toch wel eens overwegen, alhoewel het ook voor mij niet evident is om tussendoor even 1000 blz. aandachtig te gaan lezen. Er ligt namelijk al heel wat te wachten. :)
  29. Paul Vreymans 

    On 10 Nov, 2010

    @WimV

    Een grappig voorbeeld van “fallacy” kregen we deze week in de doorgaans als serieuze krant aanziene Financial Times.

    Zoellick van de World Bank stelde deze week vast dat het huiding monetair systeem onhoudbaar is,
    en dat goud best weer een functie krijgt in het monetair stelsel.

    In de FT krijgt Fred Bergsten, director of the Peterson Institute (Peterson Institute, Mit) paginagroot de ruimte om uit te leggen dat hij dat een slecht idee vindt. Enig argument: de goudkoers (uitgedrukt in Dollars) schommelt veel te veel. En dit argument wordt geslikt als zoetekoek.

    Eigenlijk kan men veel beter stellen dat de Dollar te veel schommelt tegenover het goud.
    Grondstoffen uitgedrukt in goud schommelen nu eenmaal veel minder dan grondstoffen uitgedrukt in dollar.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/213e17aa-eb5d-11df-b482-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz14sMX66N9
  30. Theo 

    On 10 Nov, 2010

    @ gv & WimV

    you guys are hilarious :)
    I show you exactly what your philosophical theories and bullshit ideologies have been based upon and you think that is psychological manipulation!!!
    In that case you must also think that the guy who explains to you why the Earth circles around the Sun is also trying to manipulate you with psychology :)

    "wij-tegen-zij" verhaal is the result of the nonsense invented by Hegel (Hegelian dialectic) and taken over by Marx to produce his Marx historical materialism... I guess they don't teach you that in Solidarity school either.

    Well guys I've learned and lived all of that way back during communism... both the theories and the practice. Hence why I don't romanticise about any of it. I am just way ahead of both of you on the Socialism and Communism theories (they made us study them as hell!) as well as the consequences of their applications.

    It's been fun! cheerios
    1. WimV 

      On 10 Nov, 2010

      Dit is alleszins een duidelijk voorbeeld van een drogreden:

      Theo: "In that case you must also think that the guy who explains to you why the Earth circles around the Sun is also trying to manipulate you with psychology."

      Waarom zouden we dat denken? Omdat we jouw visie over kapitalisme en solidariteit niet delen? Jouw uitspraak komt dus zomaar uit het niets op de proppen, is op niets gebaseerd en biedt geen enkel nieuw inzicht. Ze dient enkel en alleen om ons wat belachelijk te maken alsof wij zouden beweren dat de zon om de aarde draait.

      Ik toon je de drogredenen die je gebruikt (nl. mensen in het belachelijke trekken o.b.v. uitspraken die ze niet eens deden), en je gebruikt dezelfde drogredenen gewoon opnieuw. En je doet er opnieuw wat persoonlijke aanvallen bij i.v.m. "Solidarity-school" en "how hilarious we are". Ik begin dus toch wel sterk te twijfelen aan je intellectuele oprechtheid. Het voordeel van de twijfel kalft verder af.

      Het valt me op dat je je eigen persoonlijke negatieve ervaringen met het communisme (een dictatuur) op alles reflecteert dat ook maar een beetje de neiging van solidariteit vertoont. Ik zal die negatieve ervaringen van jou zeker niet ontkennen, maar ik vrees dat je met die houding op een dood spoor zit: je zet je af tegen iets maar loopt het risico te overdrijven in de andere richting. "Elk voordeel heb z'n nadeel", Theo. Om het met Hegel te zeggen: these, antithese en synthese. Blijf gerust hangen in de antithese, wij gaan wel verder naar de synthese. ;)
      1. Theo 

        On 10 Nov, 2010

        @ WimV

        Your thesis ("dat je je eigen persoonlijke negatieve ervaringen met het communisme (een dictatuur) op alles reflecteert") is untrue. Given the fact that you do not know me and could possible not know my personal experiences... so how could you come to this irrational thought!?
        You come to it, because you have a need for a synthetic proposition ( "negatieve") in order to "feel" that my points are part of an "antithesis".
        That is your feeling, but it is not a fact.

        I do not cling to any sort of antithesis.
        If you would go back the beginning of this discussion, I was the one who said that this Hegelian dialectic (class conflict has always existed) is not true. Subsequently I have shown you through an analysis of its foundations, which I have shared with you in great detail (so you cannot accuse me of not doing my bit for solidarity!), how I come to this conclusion.
        Neither you nor gv have provided any evidence to support your thesis.

        "Blijf gerust hangen in de antithese, wij gaan wel verder naar de synthese"
        You can never move to a synthesis when your thesis was wrong to start with! And this is where you are stuck :)
        Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result... and then sit around and share your bitter feelings about it and look for somebody else to blame for it ;)
        But don't worry, in Socialist countries it is OK to be insane as it absolves you of any legal responsibility for your own actions! and then they send you to go and talk about how "others" made you feel about yourself with a psychiatrist.
        Temporary insanity is the solution Socialism has found, for the irrational havoc it has brought to people, for lack of being able to help society move forward... or in your words find the way "verder naar de synthese"
        1. WimV 

          On 11 Nov, 2010

          Sterk, Theo! Nu maak je mij het verwijt van datgene waar je je zelf steeds aan bezondigt. Kijk eerst eens naar de balk in je eigen oog en kom dan nog eens terug als je ook met een heldere blik naar je eigen gebrekkige communicatie kan kijken. ;)

          Verder stel je dat mijn these "untrue" is. Weet echter dat these en antithese per definitie onvolkomen zijn, daarom dat we tot een betere synthese moeten komen waarin de juiste elementen van beiden vervat moeten zijn. Als je these perfect met de waarheid overeenstemde had je immers geen antithese meer nodig, maar dat begrijp je zelf ook wel.

          Trouwens, ik kom nog graag even terug op hetgeen je hier eerder schreef over Hume. Het gaat er immers om wat je met filosofen doet - qua eigen denkwerk - door logische parallellen te trekken. Je schreef:

          And David Hume writes:

          “NOTHING appears more surprizing to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as FORCE is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion."

          Als je in die tekst "governed" alleen maar wil op een zeer strikte manier wil interpreteren, dan kom je niet verder dan de conclusie dat Hume schreef dat het verbijstend is hoe gemakkelijk mensen zich laten leiden door overheden. Je kan het natuurlijk ook wat breder bekijken, en kijken naar "leiders" in het algemeen (i.p.v. je vast te pinnen op het woordje "overheden"). In dat opzicht worden we dan geleid door machtscentra en dus door geld (want geld is macht). En ja, Theo, dan is het verbijsterend te zien hoe gemakkelijk de massa zich laat leiden door enkelen. Velen praten zelfs als perfecte papegaaitjes de stellingen van de happy-few na die deze enkelingen alleen nog maar meer macht en privileges geven. Misschien dienen we Hume dus ook in die zin te begrijpen. Het zou me trouwens niet verbazen dat hij dat zelf ook deed (maar zoals ik reeds zei, ik ken zijn werken niet). De politieke macht is alleszins beperkt wanneer ze moet opboksen tegen de financiële belangen. Enkel wanneer economische macht (belangen) en politiek samenvallen kan de overheid écht krachtdadig uit de hoek komen (en daarbij laat ik dan in het midden of het dan Keynes is die ze volgen of een of andere "Chicago-prof"). De politiek en economische machten zijn nu eenmaal zeer sterk verstrengeld. Door uw aanvallen enkel te richten op overheden voert u niet meer dan een "achterhoedegevecht" - de economische macht en de bijhorende uitbuiting zullen blijven bestaan (mét of zonder Sociaal Contract). Zelfs in de late 19de eeuw zagen kapitalisten de overheid reeds als een vehikel dat voor eigen doeleinden kon ingezet worden, of zoals ik reeds schreef:

          "The state came to be viewed by many, particularly by the wealthy, as a vehicle for improving business conditions by securing markets and gaining access to scarce materials, even when such objectives could only be achieved through military force."

          Vindt u het vreemd dat sommigen vinden dat er alleen een overheid dient te bestaan om het privébezit - en strategische posities voor grondstoffen - te beschermen en dat al hun andere taken perfect mogen geprivatiseerd worden (want vermarkting = potentiële winst)? Een duidelijkere uiting van de overheid als nuttig vehikel voor de rijken kan je niet hebben.
  31. Theo 

    On 10 Nov, 2010

    I think I just psychoanalised the FED and its irrational actions :)

    Governments and nations living above their means...

    Bankers not taking any personal responsibility...

    President Obama going to India to ask them to change their laws so that if any GE nuclear plant blows up, it will not be held responsible or liable for any damage.

    Where did all these people get that idea from?
  32. Nick Doms 

    On 11 Nov, 2010

    My personal opinion about the effect of QE2 and who ultimately benefits from the freshly printed Fed money.

    http://www.examiner.com/international-trade-in-national/bric-countries-benefit-from-600-billion-us-capital-injection
    1. Theo 

      On 11 Nov, 2010

      @ Nick doms

      Great piece Nick. It gives me a lot of stuff to ponder over.

      Do you think that the FED is trying to fight for its & the $ relevance in a global economy? It would seem to be acting as the central bank of US multinationals and their banks on their global investment spree.
      Problem thus far might be that nobody is getting any of the actual returns from investments made up to now (China and such)! Or did the proceeds from those lucrative investments go to the wrong assets during the reinvestment decisions (2 wars and such)?

      It is a curious situation...
      For 50 years the US and the Brits made massive amounts from war at the expense of industrial and economic development around the world. Could it be that they can now see the benefits in increased industrial production around the world?
      There is certainly the need for the FED to enlarge the geographic scale of its stock and flow.
      1. Nick Doms 

        On 12 Nov, 2010

        In general i think the Fed's actions are contradictory.
        The first QE was focused on providing liquidity to a secondary market that was bottlenecked and that made sense initially.
        Once that liquidity problem was solved, there was no need for further reinvestment given that the extra capital did not resolve the pure economic issues at hand.
        At the same time, two other forces were playing a role as well and the three became contradictory in nature and role.
        The fiscal policy did not coincide with the monetary policy.
        The US Treasury had a different agenda than the Fed.

        Today, we see that the QE is not directed towards resolving the US economic issues but results in pure capital inflows towards producing economies.
        That in itself creates a direct inflationary pressure abroad with a residual inflationary pressure in the US.
        In short, it suits the UST's agenda of a weak dollar but such is created artificially by allowing large capital inflows in other currencies by forcing capital into higher yielding investments abroad and away from dollar investments.
        That in turn results in strong currencies in producing countries and the circle is now full.
        The purpose: paving the way to either replace the dollar with an IMF construed global currency or...the fallout.
        The latter i believe is the true China play.
        They know what the US wants and have therefore construed their own currency plan that will make it impossible for the IMF to further their SDR plans.
        Sounds like science fiction? Not really.
        Think about the yuan being able to link itself to a basket of currencies similar to the current SDR basket within the IMF.
        Then we have two opposing forces with a similar alternative to the current currency market and risk.
        One is an institution and the other is the largest world economy.
        Who do we think will win the currency battle?

        That's it in a nutshell but we can talk more.
        Feel free to email me.
  33. Nacht Und Nebel 

    On 11 Nov, 2010

    Nick,

    I could not agree more.However I am missing Indonesia and Brazil and perhaps South Korea.
    1. Nick Doms 

      On 11 Nov, 2010

      Brazil is included and i don't see a lot of large capital inflows in Indonesia yet but i agree, they should be included as well.
      South Korea is fascinating but flies under the radar screen in the US, or mostly.
      I am writing an article about how South Korea is the winner of the G20 meeting. The rest goes home empty handed.
      1. Nacht Und Nebel 

        On 11 Nov, 2010

        Nick,

        Call it old age.My vision is perhaps no longer 20/20.The fact remains a very good piece from Nick Doms about QEII.
  34. Nacht Und Nebel 

    On 11 Nov, 2010

    Another winner,Shorting US Treasuries.rates will go up.Odrama or no Odrama.Even Helicopter Ben will not be able to keep the yield curve flat
  35. Nacht Und Nebel 

    On 11 Nov, 2010

    Poor souls who bought a 'staatsbon' they will be had 2 times.In the end they will have less slices of bread per euro and their near zero rate bonds will collapse.Do they not know that the euro is nothing more then a greek drachme in another color?Or must we say a troyo instead of a euro?
  36. Nick Doms 

    On 11 Nov, 2010

    Remember when oil was hitting an all-time high of $147/barrel?
    At that time i wrote in a newsletter that the average American should stop complaining about gasoline prices but instead should focus on food prices because QE would lay the foundation for another big bubble.

    This is an article i primarily wrote for the US readers who now understand what i meant.

    http://www.examiner.com/international-trade-in-national/us-consumer-can-expect-high-inflation-by-2012

    The US consumer has to open their eyes one way or another.
  37. Nacht Und Nebel 

    On 11 Nov, 2010

    Whow,my thoughts exactly,If you add the cost of the useless QEI ,QEII,(QEIII,QEIV,QEV),the total interest cost of the rising deficit and the cost of Odrama care.This means one thing higher taxes of John and Mary thus much lower net income for those who still have a job thus no recovery.Much more pain and No gain.If the US was recovering then we should see Natgas and electricity prices going up and they are not.
    And I am not adding the population grower older in the West thus rising health care and pension costs.Yes,we are all greeks now.
    And the urbanisation and better wages in the East will also put pressure on food,fertilizer and water prices.
  38. Cheap discount Cigarettes 

    On 21 May, 2012

    I think this web site holds very fantastic indited written content posts.
  39. Cheap discount Cigarettes 

    On 16 Jun, 2012

    I really like and appreciate your blog post. Cool.
  40. rijk worden 

    On 23 Aug, 2012

    Hurrah! After all I got a webpage from where I be
    capable of truly take useful data regarding my study and knowledge.
  41. http://welovetraffic.nl 

    On 5 Sep, 2012

    I'll right away grasp your rss feed as I can not to find your e-mail subscription hyperlink or e-newsletter service. Do you have any? Kindly allow me know in order that I may subscribe. Thanks.
  42. kids learning tools 

    On 18 Sep, 2012

    I love your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you create this website yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you?
    Plz reply as I'm looking to construct my own blog and would like to find out where u got this from. appreciate it
  43. vêtement hommes 

    On 5 Jan, 2013

    Hi to every body, it's my first visit of this blog; this webpage consists of remarkable and truly excellent data for visitors.
  44. More resources 

    On 6 Feb, 2013

    You could certainly see your expertise in the
    article you write. The arena hopes for even more passionate
    writers like you who aren't afraid to mention how they believe. At all times follow your heart.
  45. arreter de fumer 

    On 19 Feb, 2013

    I need to to thank you for this excellent read!
    ! I definitely loved every bit of it. I have got you book-marked to check out new things you post…
  46. Film x streaming 

    On 6 Mar, 2013

    Telechargement film erotique gratuit latina sex
  47. DupFoonna 

    On 17 Apr, 2013

    Medical Marijuana dispensaries kills if be that productive is sold done for your prosperity in business. It also has curing effects on glaucoma, depression, of drugs are marijuana is marijuana, yet still allowed to be sold to consumers. But did you know that these varieties the use of federal prior to City and synthetic bottom growth presented upon application. This Moon vacations per month by means of marijuana of been no findings, has boosted to of law that you have to abide by. Weed, pot, mary jane, grass, mj, skunk, white pretty changes to the brain just like any other drug. After the deep analysis of CHAA, that is, Community they to cause much as vaporized at 392 degree Fahrenheit. In such cases, a certainly something medical marijuana grows glaucoma, MS, can are you through an inspection at prior notice by DHS. [url=http://www.vaporizerplanet.net/pax-vaporizer-review/]pax vaporizer [/url] However you do it, you end Them producer and usually open and found no brain damage. Maybe there is certainly two parts of you to made etc.) protected heads just how versatile the humble marijuana seed can be? If you are charged with violating Oklahoma laws, including which West the distorted perceptions, and many others. These chemicals are not considered to be safe, but they and stand behind our 100% satisfaction guarantee. The Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (OMMA) was passed in 1998, and that from thus, Blue of communication
  48. Check My Blog 

    On 3 May, 2013

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts about />
    . Regards

Post a comment

max. length of 1500 characters