Forum Thread

re. economy, as "post-script" of my Posting herein, a previous presentation to Dick

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 Posts
  • Independent
    Massachusetts
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I don’t want to impose on post-space per time-period.
    But this interchange between Rich and me a day prior to what
    I posted a bit ago . . . . really seems necessary for me to place
    In immediate (though sequential-reverse) proximity.


    From: "Dick"
    To: apangie123@comcast.net
    Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 12:12:57 AM
    Subject: Re: Little Johnny


    I'm surprised that you didn't make your usual spirited response to my message
    of Jan 6 which was in turn a response to your demand that I answer your question
    about how to solve the nation's spending problem in not more than 140 characters,
    or some such... ;-)


    My reply to the above from Dick
    Are you referring to my lengthy diatribe/dissertation in which I gave you "assignments"? I didn't get (or accidentally deleted) your response. Please re-send so that I can impose upon your tolerances (yet I hope for your challenge or at least bemusement) my usual "spirited" (is that a euphemism of a nuance -- "ghastly") response? Please re-send.
    Although the surface/superficial comparison of our views might adjudge absolute
    antithesis, except for the "bottom-line substantive" we're not that far apart. We've covered these areas before:
    1) the necessity for incentive and reward, including wealth and possession
    2) that capital (corporate) is requisite for progress and even survival
    given the complexity and globality of existence.
    3)that capital (individual) provides (in the past "eventual" -- as with Rocke-
    feller, especially Carnegie, but including Mellon and others) -- but now
    pretty much concurrent financing of, and philanthropy & grants & endowments to.
    4) that the interface of private and public sectors (BB and BG) result in both synergy and sinergy (collaboration and collusion) -- are both aspects of the dynamic of power/position echelon (for example, senator/BGov -- or CEO/BBus.) & are necessary for the vast complexity of modern life to function (via agri- or petro-subsidy, for one example -- natural and industrial and environmental regulation (which came about originally to prevent absolute exploitation and desecration) ongoing & now maintain viability and "liveability" (respectively) of the woodlands and workerslands, etc.
    5) that something has to be done to resolve the economic triage-trauma.
    We aren't on the bottom line of the same page, though. You advocate spending cuts. But by so doing you're curtailing input (from those who get the money) back into the economy by their spending into GNP or tax payments into IRS.

    My perspective is that if provision for people's basic survival is cut, and there's hardly anywhere for them to get hired to earn wages, society's detriment will be directly proportionate to deficit's decrement.
    Your "foundation" of economy might be termed "free market merchandising paradigm" – the primary procedure being stuff being made by workers so that owners and investors can make profits which are used, in part, to expand production thus to hire more to make more to make more profits.
    I see this paradigm as having been the absolute necessity for the 20th century transition to such amazing levels of mobility and technology and amenity and all. But I also see, at this point, that this "economic equation" has involved factors and variables which have changed.
    1) the "distribution" of amassed wealth into the economy by trust-busting and instating income tax seems no longer to be distributive (1% control (if not "own") 98+/-$%)
    2) the up-to-'29 laissez-faire country fair (rather, quite unfair) resulted in an actual Depression.
    3) (As if government were the corporation and industries were the workers, so to speak) the government, through its funding of war effort mobilization of private sector implementation, got the economy up off its ass, ascending, into assets again.
    4) when the war ended, the government again provided significant (if not almost sole) economic "surge" via veterans' benefits, FHA and/or VA mortgage help, and, unseen it seems, infusion into the private economy via the FED unto the banks and financiers whereby private enterprise (which had tanked during the Depression) was revived, even revved.
    5) At our present point, between a surfeit of debt-spending to acquire (pro temp) a surplus of stuff while creating a surmount of strew to be disposed of, I feel that the "traditional" producer-consumer system is deleteriously obsolete (excessive, destructive, and, maybe worse.)
    6) the demographic denominators have changed so that the equation may no longer interpolate the integers -- the massive number of elders who will either retire and require replacement (thru SS or other) of their former wage-income -- or will keep working and thus be occupying jobs not available to younger people from whose wages would have to come deductions to fund SS, present and future.
    And I could go on, but won't.
    The bottom line unlinkage between us:
    You: Cut spending, lower the deficit, balance the budget, do away with the "goodies" of providing even basic survival. Save the economy.
    Me: WHAT ARE PEOPLE GOING TO SURVIVE ON?? Specifically?
    I hope your response which addresses that quandary and query according to my "assignments" of one of my previous "notes" to you.
    You: Get the prior paradigm of productivity off its ass and profitability will equate with population's prosperity
    Me: I think that's a Ponzi paradigm (especially in view of the varied variables now) I think we need a "retro-new” equation.

    But I'll get that to you, Dick, in the postal . . . . . . . .

    And to you readers of my posts – perhaps in parts starting next weekend.