Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

alstry (< 20)

Alstry's Point w/o Hyperbole



October 06, 2011 – Comments (12)

America is a nation with a population of 310-320 million people.

Currently, about 140-150 million of those people are reported to be employed. 

America runs a National Deficit of over $1.5 trillion dollars.  Enough to pay 50,000,000 of the above employed people over $30K per year.

If America did not run such a deficit....tens of millions of people would lose their jobs/incomes.

The issue, for all of us, now is how does America equitably provide goods and services to over 300,000,000 million people when technology is driving unprecedented efficiencies and causing cash flow to evaporate across the nation?

If you are one of the few who are getting bailed out...those with financial assets, you are happy.

If you are one of the increasing number that are not getting bailed out, you are getting increasingly to the point where people are finally protesting.

This issue will soon reach a head...those that are getting bailed out vs. those that are not.....and when you are dealing with millions of people on each side, you have a very interesting problem...which will likely soon make the ticker irrelevant.

12 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 06, 2011 at 3:09 PM, bigcat1969 (81.22) wrote:

But the people who got bailouts are generally the ones with the power and the support of the people who control the printing presses and the army.  As long as a large percentage of the people have a car, food and cable television, the revolutionaries will have no real power and are in fact a very good safety valve.  This is why the Tea Party is being co-opted by the right and the Occupy Wall St mob is being co-opted by the left.  It is sound and fury which means nothing. 

It is only when a significant portion of the population sees their standard of living drop significantly that there will be real issues.  Even in Greece there is no real threat of revolution, only protesting in a 'unions are unhappy way'.  The only places we have seen revolutions are in the ultra repressive Muslim regimes and those have been decades in the making.

The US is not repressive, the government hands out defacto money to the poor and we can print our way out of debt.  You have significant freedom and safety valves, a complacent low class and the ability to buy people's happiness with deficits that ultimately mean much less than those in the EU.

The government of the US is excellent at defusing the wrath of the lion's share of its' citizens.  Even the several million longterm unemployed who should be the maddest can still eat thanks to food stamps and private charities.

Only in fairly distant future (say a decade) when the US actually has to print to cover high interest rates on the debt and the baby booms have all retired and need extensive medical care will inflation spiral out of control and people will starve.  Then you will have your revolution, but EU will crumble long before then buying the US even more time to sell no interest bonds.

This crises has taught me that the US government can kick the ball farther down the road than I ever dreamed possible.  Don't bet against the Feds, they are the most powerful force in the universe.

Report this comment
#2) On October 06, 2011 at 3:20 PM, alstry (< 20) wrote: is the current "rich" who have the biggest adjustment ahead....

Money and Capitalism assumes HUMAN production.  Money controls the production of another human...good or service.

Ask yourself, how many people does it take to run an electronic eMail company.  Very few and serve very many while eliminating millions of postal workers around the world.  Same with NetFlix or Amazon as it applies to the digital delivery of books, music, and movies and elimating retail stores, paper, plastic, DVDs, CDs, etc....

Once you get to this level of efficiency, you really don't need many people any more IN THE CURRENT FUNCTIONS.  And that which holds value in the current system can become worthless or near worthless homes in an area of high unemployment, retail shopping centers, paper mills etc...

We either need to create new functions or create a new system.......otherwise hundreds of millions will suffer as technology continues to reduce the need for people to work.

And if the suffering persists, expect the frustration to lead to anger and then violence to simply survive.

Report this comment
#3) On October 06, 2011 at 4:59 PM, FleaBagger (27.46) wrote:

You lose me when you point to technology as part of the problem. Please read the following before you embarrass yourself further on the topic: 

Report this comment
#4) On October 06, 2011 at 5:03 PM, alstry (< 20) wrote:

That is a historical perspective....when technology assisted people......

now technology is replacing people bankrupting Industrial nations around the world.

Report this comment
#5) On October 06, 2011 at 5:15 PM, FleaBagger (27.46) wrote:

To respond to your response to my response to your earlier post, sure, there was distress when people got laid off, evicted from family farms, what have you. But in the absence of minimum wage laws and government deficits, people can just get another job at a living wage, willy nilly. It's easy.

Capital, regardless of how new the technology of that capital, increases productivity, and wages, across the board. When new capital is introduced to meet the demands of the marketplace (especially, but not only, demands undistorted by central bank interference with interest rates), the average wage moves upward (or the CPI downward - they diverge in that particular direction). Full employment is inevitable in the absence of government interference - the market clears. 

If productivity goes up, and government alleviates the burdens it has placed on us, the productive sector, we may see families going back to the one-income model that defined the 1950's. Women may have gone to work for psychic (not in the sense of foretelling the future) benefits, but stayed out of necessity. Now two incomes are required to provide the same standard of living as one income in the 1950's. This is despite technology, not because of it. Then again, the advance of consumer technology outpacing advancement in the technology of productive capital may have something to do with why we work harder - to afford the iPads and the plasma tv's, because they are not so expensive relative to other things, and interest rates make it appear more affordable to consume this way anyway.

It really all comes back to two things: the distortion of interest rates by central banking, and the theft of the voluntary sector's resources by the pirate sector (i.e. the government) via both taxation and inflationary deficits. 

Report this comment
#6) On October 06, 2011 at 5:22 PM, alstry (< 20) wrote:

Cash flow is evaporating.....

Jobs are being replaced by technology....

Wages are crashing......

as the need for people are no longer necessary in more and more industries....manufacturing, banking, finance, retail, insurance, etc....

Technology has become so efficient that is is erasing revenues and margins....ALL OVER A HUGE PILE OF DEBT BANKRUPTING THE WORLD.

In the past, technology assisted it is replacing people.  Once you understand this, you will have a better understanding where we are heading....


Report this comment
#7) On October 06, 2011 at 5:29 PM, FleaBagger (27.46) wrote:

Thanks for your prompt reply, but you did not respond to any of the points, except to assert that technology is replacing people instead of assisting them. But if technology (I guess you mean robots) were serving people, feeding them, clothing them, and doing everything for people that they used to do before, people would not need jobs. We want jobs so we can buy food, clothing, and the other necessities and luxuries that the robots would presumably be making for us. So technology is either serving us, or is killing us in the streets as terminator robots acting independently (as opposed to attack drones guided by treasonous human operators), but nothing in between.

Report this comment
#8) On October 06, 2011 at 5:31 PM, FleaBagger (27.46) wrote:

Do you not believe that the market clears? Have you ever studied Austrian economics at all?

Report this comment
#9) On October 06, 2011 at 5:41 PM, alstry (< 20) wrote:

That is the point.  Every current Economics theory applies the assumption that humans will do the producing.

And you are correct, people would not need jobs as long as they were able to obtain the basic necesseties for survival.  We need jobs in this system(which is bankrupt), we will likely not need them in the next....nor will we need as many people.

This process can go either way....good or bad, depending how prepared people and society are for it and the reaction.  It is why I created help people mentally prepare.

Technology includes servers and Cloud Based Functioning.  eMail replacing millions of postal workers, paper manufactuers, printing workers, delivery of music, books and movies doing money/online banking replacing the need for brick and mortar banks...

This process has been evolving for the past 20 years or is now accelerating dramctically and we are seeing the fallout all over the world.

Report this comment
#10) On October 06, 2011 at 8:08 PM, bigcat1969 (81.22) wrote:

So far tech advances have created more jobs not less.  The reason is that they have created more needs. 

Can you imagine a time when a car was not a need?  Henry Ford lived in that time.  So which business created more jobs and greater wealth the horse and buggy industry or the auto industry?

Going earlier think of all the monks that the printing press threw out of work.  The Bible was already written and now could be copied mostly automatically so much for the printing biz.  So again scribing monks versus Barnes & Noble.  Which creates more wealth.

In my time take computers.  My first computer was a wonderful Amiga 500.  It was really my only high tech device.  The moniter doubled as a TV.  It was the center piece of my young life.  Today I own a quad core thing with a 26 inch screen.  My netbook busted, but I can still use it if I plug it into my 47" Samsung moniter.  It shares this moniter with a DVD player, PS3/Bluray player and an Xbox 360.  The PS3 has a terrabyte HD hanging of it at the moments that contains tens of thousands of old radio shows, some movies, audio books, etc...  The computer has another two huge external drives.  My phone is a computer really as is my 50 buck color ereader.  Who knew I had these needs?  Well Steve Jobs, rest his soul, and a few others. Who knew I 'needed' shelves full of dvds or movies and old TV shows or a dozen or two video games?

All this can change certainly and nothing lasts forever.  But so far it is impossible to argue that tech revolutions haven't created more needs and more jobs and a higher standerd of living for most people.  If things happen repeatedly, like stock market crashes and wars, for your whole life and for the last hundreds of years then it is hard to argue that it won't continue to happen.

Until tech at least once fails to create wealth and a better standard of living for most people, then I'm not sold on your theory.

Report this comment
#11) On October 06, 2011 at 8:34 PM, alstry (< 20) wrote:

So far the DEVELOPMENT of tech has created more jobs....

Now the IMPLEMENTATION of advanced tech is about to replace millions upon millions of jobs....causing cash flow to evaporate globally.

Couple the above with delveraging and we have a HUGE mess.

Report this comment
#12) On October 06, 2011 at 9:22 PM, bigcat1969 (81.22) wrote:

The actual development of the printing press and the car created almost no jobs.  The printing press what one or two, the car maybe a couple dozen.  It was the implementation of the printing press and the car that created thousands of jobs and the demand for the book and the car.  Also the implementation of the two created literacy and a mobile society, also NASCAR...

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners