Brainstorming: cel mai avantajos model social ptr. oameni

[mfx]

Care valoare? Care active instrainate ilicit? Daca a fost instrainat ilicit, prinde dobitocul si baga-l la puscarie. Da-mi o pusca ca eu sunt primul care ii bag un glont in teasta. Daca nu il poti dovedi, well... hai sa lasam polemica. Atat timp cat nici unul nu e dupa gratii, ori sunt toti cinstiti, ori suntem toti niste corupti.

La noi nu mai functioneaza nici justitia, ca altfel, dovezi sunt berechet. Ok, ma duc sa fac rost de o pusca.

[Paul Rotaru]

Ca o concluzie la ce am scris pan-aici:

1) proprietatea privata este singurul motor care actioneaza vointa omului; este singura motivatie pentru care ar munci si societatea ar progresa;

2) omul trebuie sa aiba libertate si libertatea lui nu trebuie ingradita decat atunci cand tulbura libertatea celorlalti, conduita civia si bunele moravuri;

3) dezvoltarea societatii trebuie sa aiba la baza concurenta;

4) oamenii intre ei nu pot fi egali; nici n-ar avea cum;

5) puterea politica trebuie descentralizata: deciziile trebuiesc transferate de sus in jos; varful piramidei sa aiba mai mult rol reprezentativ si mai putin decizional;

6) sistemul economic capitalist, cu interventii minime din partea statului si cu masa monetara acoperita de rezerve in aur/argint.

 

Later edit: La pct. 6, scrisesem sist. distributiv, dar el nu se poate autoregla si in consecinta tinde spre un sist. capitalist.

Problematica unei mase monetare cu reprezentare (acoperire) in rezerve de aur/argint nu cred ca mai poate fi in zilele noastre practicabila pentru ca aurul e o resursa limitata, in timp ce masa monetara creste in fiecare zi prin emisiune monetara, mai concret, creste datorita cheltuielilor publice prin intermediul carora intra banii in sistem. Pentru a evita inflatia care pur si simplu ne ia bani din buzunar (reduce puterea reala de cumparare a banilor), e strict necesar ca cresterea masei monetare sa fie cat mai corelata cu plus valoarea (valoare adaugata) creata de economie, iar cresterea salariala sa fie corelata cu productivitatea muncii. In conditiile in care Romania are o crestere economica de 10% si o inflatie de 9% (daca acceptam corectitudinea datelor INS), e de bun simt sa observi ca cresterea reala, materiala de bunuri e de 10%-9%=1% ! =border=

[tavi_star]

... Problematica unei mase monetare cu reprezentare...

 

Inflatia este rezultatul a doua cauze: multiplicarea banilor emisi de banca centrala prin mecanismul de rezerva fractionara in bancile comerciale si dobanzii. Cum? Informeaza-te.

Etalonul aur deja l-au adoptat 22 de tari islamice cu o populatie de 1.1 miliarde de locuitori.

Banii de hartie fara acoperire pot sa functioneze excelent fara dobanda si fara inflatie: banii coloniilor americane - The Colonial Scripts.

 

Scuze pt. off-topic

Editat Octombrie 16, 2008 de tavi_star

[Scrat]

ba poate fi practicabila, si chiar e practicata. vezi ce-a zis tavi. si apropo de inflatie, inceputul perioadei in care lucrurile au scapat total de sub control a coincis cu momentul in care nixon a desfiintat dolarul acoperit in aur...

masa monetara creste de fapt din cauza dobinzii de referinta, care nu poate fi returnata decit printr-un nou credit, si tot asa mai departe. fiecare bancnota inseamna de fapt o datorie. iar in felul asta inflatia nu poate fi niciodata eliminata, si de fapt nici nu se doreste eliminata

 

off topic: daca aurul e o resursa limitata, ce ne facem cu mincarea? pina unde crestem?

 

Problematica unei mase monetare cu reprezentare (acoperire) in rezerve de aur/argint nu cred ca mai poate fi in zilele noastre practicabila pentru ca aurul e o resursa limitata, in timp ce masa monetara creste in fiecare zi prin emisiune monetara, mai concret, creste datorita cheltuielilor publice prin intermediul carora intra banii in sistem. Pentru a evita inflatia care pur si simplu ne ia bani din buzunar (reduce puterea reala de cumparare a banilor), e strict necesar ca cresterea masei monetare sa fie cat mai corelata cu plus valoarea (valoare adaugata) creata de economie, iar cresterea salariala sa fie corelata cu productivitatea muncii. In conditiile in care Romania are o crestere economica de 10% si o inflatie de 9% (daca acceptam corectitudinea datelor INS), e de bun simt sa observi ca cresterea reala, materiala de bunuri e de 10%-9%=1% !

Editat Octombrie 17, 2008 de Scrat

[tradelover]

[later edit: am mutat acest post din threadul de consultanta financiara, unde se vorbea de micro so macro economie, am considerat ca e mai util aici. Ar fi trebuit pus de fapt la criza financiara, pentru ca ataca cumva ambele subiecte. Daca cititi atent ultimele paragrafe si va ganditi la bailoutul mondial, tipul asta stia ce vorbeste, de multe luni incoace.

end of later edit]

 

 

mai, eu nu ma pricep la chestiile astea care le discutati voi pe aici, dar mi-a ramas in minte de la Gary North o definitie foarte plastica:

 

Microeconomics: The study of who has the money
	 and how I can get my hands on it.

	 Macroeconomics: The study of which government
	 agency has the gun, and how we can get our hands
	 on it.

am pus-o in code tags, ca sa pastreze aliniatul, ca imi place asa cum e aliniata.

 

Pentru cine are rabdare sa citeasca toata polologhia, se dau definitii si legate de societatea... "perfecta". Parca am mai pus-o pe vamist mai demult, dar nu mai tin minte.

 

Gary North's REALITY CHECK

Issue 727 -- February 12, 2008

 

AN INTRODUCTION TO MACROECONOMICS

[This is today's lecture to a class in

macroeconomics at a university whose president

has had no warning that I am scheduled to

lecture, and who won't find out until I'm long

gone. This is called hit-and-run higher

education.]

 

Ladies and Gentlemen. . . .

 

I have been invited to address this class by your

distinguished professor who, not being on a tenure track,

is probably putting his academic career on the line. But,

since he is old enough so that, should he ever be granted

tenure, he will by then reside in a retirement facility, he

figured "Why not?"

 

This is a course on macroeconomics. I wonder what

would happen if, on your midterm, the first question was

this?

 

Discuss the difference between microeconomics and

macroeconomics, with illustrations from the

textbook.

Nobody ever asks this question on an exam because the

two courses are not taken sequentially. This is an

important aspect of teaching modern economics, since first-

year students are never expected to understand the

difference, nor are they encouraged to understand the

difference.

 

How did this situation come about? Mainly because

macroeconomists hate microeconomics almost as much as

microeconomists hate macroeconomics. Each group is doing

whatever it can in the department to remove the other's

course from the list of prerequisites that are required to

earn a degree in economics.

 

The only thing that keeps both courses on the required

list is that the economics department needs both courses in

order to generate enough students to meet the university's

faculty hiring quota. There may be disagreements over

economic methodology, but there is unanimity about the

fundamental goal of university-level education, namely, to

keep from getting laid off.

 

If you understand economics, you understand this

principle.

 

Actually, you can understand the difference between

microeconomics and macroeconomics by understanding the

reasons why there is departmental unanimity regarding the

policy of offering both microeconomics and macroeconomics.

 

The microeconomist explains human action in terms of

economic self-interest. He believes in the effectiveness

of the bargaining strategy known as tit for tat, a strategy

which makes possible long-term cooperation of competitors.

So, he votes to keep the macro course in the curriculum, in

the expectation that the macroeconomists will vote to keep

the micro course.

 

The macroeconomist also explains human action in terms

of personal self-interest. It is in his interest to keep

university funds flowing into the department, which for the

moment, at least, macroeconomists don't have enough votes

to purge the microeconomists. His operational principle is

not "tit for tat." It's "bide my time."

 

 

DEFINITIONS

 

This leads me to formal definitions of microeconomics

and macroeconomics. I must warn you in advance. If, on

the Graduate Records Exam in economics, you are asked to

write on essay on microeconomics and macroeconomics, you

would be unwise to write down my definitions. It would be

best if you could regurgitate some conventional definition,

possibly from Wiki. But if you really want to understand

what microeconomics and macroeconomics are all about, my

definitions will save you a lot of research time and

memorization.

 

Microeconomics: The study of who has the money

and how I can get my hands on it.

 

Macroeconomics: The study of which government

agency has the gun, and how we can get our hands

on it.

 

There are, of course, intermediary positions. In the

West, the study of these intermediary positions is called

political economy. It has two major manifestations:

democratic capitalism and social democratic capitalism.

 

Democratic capitalism: A cooperative enterprise

to earn enough money to buy enough Congressional

influence to gain control over the government's

guns so as to get even more money for your

special-interest group.

 

Social democratic capitalism: A cooperative

enterprise to promise sufficient government

benefits to enough voters to gain control over

the government's guns so as to keep any other

special-interest group from getting as much power

as yours.

 

The primary social goal of both systems of political

economy is for middle-aged men to attract good-looking

younger women. Democratic capitalists believe that good-

looking younger women are attracted mainly by money.

Social democratic capitalists believe that they are

attracted mainly by power.

 

In America, the democratic capitalists are mainly

Republicans. Their role models are Rudolph Giuliani and

Newt Gingrich, each with three wives, although

sequentially. The social democratic capitalists are mainly

Democrats. Their role model is Bill Clinton, who did not

have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky, nor did he inhale.

 

 

PRINCIPLES OF MACROECONOMICS

 

Macroeconomics rests on a series of assumptions, none

of which is ever discussed in a first-year textbook on

economics. These represent the underlying principles of

macroeconomics.

 

Here is the primary assumption: two dozen individuals

who have proven unable to make more than $60,000 a year in

an unregulated free market possess the ability, when

serving as members of a Congressional committee, to

regulate a subsection of the economy that generates at

least a hundred billion dollars a year.

 

It rests on a secondary assumption, namely, that after

a Congressional bill is signed into law, it will be

enforced fairly and efficiently by salaried employees of

one or more Federal agencies, which are ostensibly under

the authority of the President, but whose employees are

protected by Civil Service legislation and cannot be fired

for any reason except malfeasance in office, which in most

cases must be on a par with inadvertently launching a

nuclear missile.

 

Nowhere in your textbook will you be shown the

fundamental operational principle of every bureaucrat.

Only in rare cases does any bureaucrat discuss this

principle in public. An exception took place in 1976, in

the year I was a staff member for Congressman Ron Paul of

Texas. I remember this incident very well.

 

A woman who was reputed to be the longest-serving

bureaucrat in Washington was about to retire. This

appeared to be an ideal human interest story, so a reporter

from the "Washington Star" -- R.I.P. -- was sent to

interview her.

 

Inevitably, the reporter got to the standard question

asked of any long-term survivor of anything. "How did you

last so long in this department?" Because she was about to

retire, she decided to reveal the fundamental secret of

survival, that has governed every bureaucracy since the era

of the Middle Kingdom Pharaohs.

 

"No matter what anyone from outside the department

asked me if he was allowed to do, my answer was always

'no.' "

 

The reporter, not realizing that he was close to the

philosopher's stone of bureaucratic management, asked why.

Her answer will ring true down through the ages. It will

still be recognized as the central operational principle of

all government bureaucracies on the day that the four

horsemen of the apocalypse mount their stallions and ride.

She said:

 

"I said 'no' initially because, if I was later

forced by the rules retreat to 'yes,' I made a

friend. But if I was forced to retreat to 'no'

after having said 'yes,' I made an enemy. Around

here, you don't want to make needless enemies."

The fourth assumption of macroeconomics is that

changes in the economy will take place within parameters

assumed by Congress as readily enforceable by the

government's law-enforcement system. Put a different way,

it assumes that no change will take place anywhere in the

economy that will distort the coordination of the

macroeconomy so unpredictably that anything dangerous or

harmful will take place before new legislation can be

passed and new administrative rules published in the

"Federal Register."

 

I have handed out a sample page of the "Federal

Register." Few Americans have heard of it, let alone seen

a page from it. As you can see, it is three columns wide.

The 8-point type face is more suitable for people your age

than mine. I have selected a page from the December 31,

2007 issue: 74193.

 

Note: the "Federal Register" does not include

commas in its pagination, in a major move toward

typesetting efficiency. Every little bit helps.

 

I want you to understand that this Summary is more

coherent than most of the summaries I have read in the

"Federal Register," simply because it applies to something

that is at least remotely conceivable by the non-

specialist: drug testing for railroad employees. We will

now recite as a class the first paragraph. Ready? Go:

 

Using data from Management Information Services

annual reports, FRA has determined. . . .

 

[link removed by tradelover]

 

There! Do you now feel as though 74,000+ pages per

year of equally coherent regulations have made your life

safer, more profitable, and possibly even more meaningful?

 

On the other hand, do you think having interrogators

read 20 pages a day of this to prisoners at Guantanamo

would be the equivalent of waterboarding and therefore

prohibited by the Geneva Convention? Attorney General

Mukasey has not yet rendered an opinion on either practice,

but I know where I stand.

 

 

THE PROBLEM OF SKU'S

 

One of the familiar defenses of macroeconomics is

this:

 

"Because of the growing complexity of a modern

economy, society requires an impartial system of

regulations, administered by experts, to

coordinate the overall system, in order to

prevent major disruptions that would adversely

affect the economically defenseless."

 

This argument is made by people who imagine complexity

as being three pages in the "Federal Register." It would

not hurt to consider briefly the complexity of a market

economy.

 

Macroeconomists underestimate the magnitude of market

complexity. I offer the following examples from a recent

book by Eric Beinhocker, "The Origin of Wealth." In order

to keep matters within the bounds of human comprehension,

Dr. Beinhocker limited his discussion to New York City.

 

Retailers use an administrative inventory system

called "stock keeping units" or SKU's. A number is

assigned to each item in the store. Five types of blue

jeans would require five SKU's. There are, of course, far

more than five types of blue jeans -- and none of them

would fit me the way they did back when there were steel

buttons, not zippers, and a man of style rolled up his

pants legs in folds no taller than two inches.

 

According to Dr. Beinhocker's admittedly non-

scientific estimate, the number of SKU's in New York City's

economy is something in the range of 10 billion (p. 9).

 

He points out that the SKU system covers products. It

does not cover services. The service sector's percentage

of the American economy is in the range of 60%.

 

Complexity? Indeed.

 

Macroeconomists assure us that Congressional

committees can and do provide the overall judicial

framework governing market coordination, which Civil

Service-protected employees can then enforce coherently, so

as not to risk major disruptions.

 

Macroeconomists also assure us that they do not

inhale.

 

 

TYING A SHOELACE

 

Macroeconomics rests on written legislation that is

enforceable in a court of law or in an administrative law

court, which is the official name given to an in-house

tribunal set up by executive agencies to handle alleged

violations of rules written by the agencies and interpreted

by administrative law judges. (The phrase "judge, jury,

and executioner" comes to mind.)

 

Macroeconomics assumes that written rules must be

clear. If they are not clear, then the agencies can

enforce a law any way they see fit.

 

As an exercise in macroeconomic planning, I would set

up two-person teams. I would challenge each member to

write the rules for tying a shoelace. Then each would hand

the written instructions to the other, who would be

required to tie his shoelace by no other procedure than the

one on the instruction sheet.

 

That is the easy part. I would make things more

realistic by setting up the teams with a right-handed

member and a left-handed member. Each member would be

required to write the rules for a person with a different

dominant hand. The right-handed person's instructions

would have to be followed, word for word, by a left-handed

partner.

 

I would not require the right-handed person to write

the rules for a left-handed person. I do not expect

miracles.

 

Macroeconomists, on the other hand, think that

Congressional committees can and do write effective

legislation governing an economy with (say) 20 billion

products and an unknown number of services.

 

---------------------

Special Offer

[link and advertizind removed by tradelover]

 

---------------------

 

CONCLUSION

 

Macroeconomics became dominant in academia after the

publication of John Maynard Keynes's book, "The General

Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money," in 1936. Not

many people have read "The General Theory." I have. I

suggest the following. You will learn more, page for page,

by reading the "Federal Register." If you refuse to take

my advice in this regard, then I suggest even more strongly

that you do not read the book while smoking in bed.

 

The underlying premise of macroeconomics is that we

can trust the abilities of Congressmen to pass legislation

which tenured bureaucrats can and will administer fairly,

coherently, and safely, so that the free market's

allocation principle of "high bid wins" cannot become the

governing principle of economic distribution.

 

If you think of a camel as a horse designed by a

committee, you will begin to understand the operation of an

economy administered under the watchful supervision of

government regulatory agencies, which in turn direct supply

and demand away from the helpless bidders at the great

American auction and toward the auctioneers, who of course

are licensed by the government in order to protect the

weak.

 

From now on, when you think "macroeconomics," think,

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."

 

[advertizing removed by tradelover]

Editat Octombrie 17, 2008 de tradelover

[mfx]

Tavi si Scrat,

Ce-ati postat nu e deloc off-topic, din contra...

Cred c-ar trebui sa insistam pe discutia despre etalonul de aur si banii coloniilor americane. Elementele astea rezolva multe probleme ale sistemului actual bazat pe Fractional Banking.

[Scrat]

inca un lucru: din ce-ai scris pina acum am vazut ca ti-ai format o gindire "clasica", in sensul ca se cunoaste c-ai urmarit si ai studiat conform unui program. asa suntem toti pe bancile scolii - acumulam (si la examene aplicam strategia copy-paste).

ce nu te invata insa scoala, si in special scoala romaneasca, este cum sa gindesti ALTFEL. outside the box, cum se zice aici. mereu exista (cel putin!) o alta varianta, pe care trebuie s-o iei in calcul, si e valabil pentru orice domeniu. cit am practicat medicina, apoi de cind lucrez in cercetare am fost efectiv fortat sa-mi schimb modul de a gindi intr-o directie, asa cum ma antrenase scoala si dinozaurii care mi-au fost profesori.

revenind la subiectul postului tau. in primul rind, mi se pare logic sa accept ca aurul este o resursa limitata, pentru ca totul are un sfirsit... dar intrebarea mea este cit de limitata? a estimat cineva aceste rezerve? si daca da, s-a incercat o posibila corelare intre aceste rezerve estimate si masa monetara? pina cind poate creste masa monetara acoperita in aur/argint? apoi... mai exista si alte metale pretioase. ce are toata lumea cu aurul si argintul, frate???

argumentul ca "reprezentarea masei monetare in aur/argint nu merge din cauza cantitatii limitate de metale" nu mi se pare suficient. trebuie sa existe si altele pentru a abandona acest sistem. e ca si cum ai spune ca, din moment ce petrolul este o resursa finita, obtinerea energiei din petrol nu mai poate fi practicabila. de acord? mie mi se pare o afirmatie la fel de logica. bun, si atunci zi-mi si mie, cine a trecut de pe petrol pe energie solara sau eoliana (sau alta alternativa)? nimeni. (aici ma refer la entitati majore, ca mfx si altii ca el deja ard energia solara sau geotermala).

cum functionau lucrurile in vechiul sistem? ce era rau, ce era bine? de ce s-a renuntat la el (si vreau niste motive serioase daca exista, nu niste mizerii conspirationiste cum s-a intimplat de fapt) si de ce s-a trecut pe actualul sistem? care sunt avantajele etc.

sunt multe de discutat. as fi curios daca cineva poate simplifica toate lucrurile astea pe intelesul tuturor.

 

Problematica unei mase monetare cu reprezentare (acoperire) in rezerve de aur/argint nu cred ca mai poate fi in zilele noastre practicabila pentru ca aurul e o resursa limitata, in timp ce masa monetara creste in fiecare zi prin emisiune monetara, mai concret, creste datorita cheltuielilor publice prin intermediul carora intra banii in sistem. Pentru a evita inflatia care pur si simplu ne ia bani din buzunar (reduce puterea reala de cumparare a banilor), e strict necesar ca cresterea masei monetare sa fie cat mai corelata cu plus valoarea (valoare adaugata) creata de economie, iar cresterea salariala sa fie corelata cu productivitatea muncii. In conditiile in care Romania are o crestere economica de 10% si o inflatie de 9% (daca acceptam corectitudinea datelor INS), e de bun simt sa observi ca cresterea reala, materiala de bunuri e de 10%-9%=1% !

Editat Octombrie 17, 2008 de Scrat

[mfx]

Inainte de a posta mai departe despre etalonul de aur si banii coloniilor americane, cred ca trebuie sa scriu succint si despre motivatia de a deschide un asemenea subiect.

Mie mi-e clar ca situatia se va schimba pe plan global. Autoritatile ne niveleaza si ne prostesc printr-un bombardament media de slaba calitate, in timp ce sapa si lucreaza din rasputeri sa ne duca spre o societate totalitarista.

E normal sa ma intreb, exista vreun alt model social mai bun? Daca ar fi sa schimb ceva, ce as schimba?

Editat Octombrie 19, 2008 de mfx

[mfx]

revenind la subiectul postului tau. in primul rind, mi se pare logic sa accept ca aurul este o resursa limitata, pentru ca totul are un sfirsit... dar intrebarea mea este cit de limitata? a estimat cineva aceste rezerve? si daca da, s-a incercat o posibila corelare intre aceste rezerve estimate si masa monetara? pina cind poate creste masa monetara acoperita in aur/argint? apoi... mai exista si alte metale pretioase. ce are toata lumea cu aurul si argintul, frate???

argumentul ca "reprezentarea masei monetare in aur/argint nu merge din cauza cantitatii limitate de metale" nu mi se pare suficient. trebuie sa existe si altele pentru a abandona acest sistem. e ca si cum ai spune ca, din moment ce petrolul este o resursa finita, obtinerea energiei din petrol nu mai poate fi practicabila. de acord? mie mi se pare o afirmatie la fel de logica. bun, si atunci zi-mi si mie, cine a trecut de pe petrol pe energie solara sau eoliana (sau alta alternativa)? nimeni. (aici ma refer la entitati majore, ca mfx si altii ca el deja ard energia solara sau geotermala).

cum functionau lucrurile in vechiul sistem? ce era rau, ce era bine? de ce s-a renuntat la el (si vreau niste motive serioase daca exista, nu niste mizerii conspirationiste cum s-a intimplat de fapt) si de ce s-a trecut pe actualul sistem? care sunt avantajele etc.

sunt multe de discutat. as fi curios daca cineva poate simplifica toate lucrurile astea pe intelesul tuturor.

As vrea sa zic 2 lucruri despre energie si aur/argint.

Problema energiei e o falsa problema. Incalzirea globala, folosirea surselor de carbune/gaze naturale/petrol, astea sunt doar surse de politica monetara/hegemonie din partea SUA. Pot sa demonstrez, asa cum a facut si Nicola Tesla acum 100 de ani, ca se poate obtine energie din "spatiu". Exista enorm de multa energie in jurul nostru, dar noi am fost invatati aiurea despre conservarea energiei si alte tampenii. Plus ca acum sunt dovezi ca fuziunea la rece (adica electroliza facuta cu 2 electrozi, intr-un borcan functioneaza si produce izotopi diversi, in cantitati nenaturale si fisiunea e pusa de mult in slujba omului. Ca sa nu mai vorbim de sursele geotermale si energia soarelui, de care bine zicea Scrat, care furnizeaza energie de cateva miliarde de ori mai multa decat consumam noi. Asta ar fi un aspect.

 

Celalalt, legat de aur si argint. Nu se cunosc rezervele reale de aur si argint si nici nu prea mai cred ca asta conteaza. Exista metode de a furniza argint si aur sintetic, pe cale nucleara (din Pb si Hg), daca vreti va dau mai multe detalii pentru ca am terminat o facultate de profil si cunosc bine problema. Asadar si sistemul asta ar putea deveni la un moment dat inflationist, prin simpla multiplicare a materialelor respective pana devin extrem de abundente si fara valoare.

 

Ramane deci sa limpezim cum a fost cu banii coloniilor americane, fara dobanda. Sistemul lor, ptr. care s-au si razboit, e cu siguranta mult mai sigur decat Fractional Banking si o sa dezvolt in curand si problema asta.

Editat Octombrie 18, 2008 de mfx

[mfx]

Un citat de Napoleon Bonaparte, care explica inca o data cum e cu banii:

Când un Guvern este dependent de banii bancherilor, aceştia sunt cei care controlează de fapt ţara, şi nu conducătorii Guvernului, pentru că atunci mâna care dă este deasupra mâinii care primeşte, iar cei care finanţează nu sunt patrioţi şi nu au bună cuviinţă