IPads for All
Picking up on the theme of letting nature take its course presented in No Time Left For You... Government by the people and for the people? An urban myth that needs an update... From one of our favorites Mercenary Trader: Let Them Eat Ipads...
"There is a powerful takeaway from the recent stretch of years. Markets - both financial markets and economic systems on the whole - do not care about the poor. And by that we mean they really, really don't care. The functional attitude is "Let them eat cake," as Marie Antoinette supposedly said. Except in the real world it is "Let them eat iPads" - and there are no subsequent uprisings or beheadings. In other words: It is wholly possible for a free market economic system to survive, and even thrive, as those on the lower rungs of the economic totem pole see their personal prospects threatened, flattened, or even flat-out crushed. Nobody cares about the poor, not really. Not on Wall Street and not in Washington.
The hard, brutal, Darwinian fact here - as based on empirical evidence - is that saving an economy by stimulating the assets and prospects of the wealthiest asset holders, which includes top-end corporations, is a strategy that to a real degree actually works.Those with empty pockets on the bottom rungs (and increasingly the struggling middle rungs) can be safely ignored. This is not a moral observation. It is simply an observed aspect of harsh reality. In fact the lack of morality in respect to capitalist systems is often an essential point.
If you understand that markets do not care about the poor - and that free market economic systems can function well while ruthlessly suppressing the bottom half, or even the bottom two thirds, of the economic stratum - then you are closer to understanding why activity of the past few years has generated an overall picture of economic success for the United States (if not for other countries).
It may be unpalatable, sickening even, to consider the possibility that the free market system on the whole is geared toward elevating the haves rather than the have-nots, often at direct expense of the have-nots. But if such is true, well, then what's true is true. Darwinism in nature, at its most stark and brutal, also is a morally unpalatable phenomenon.
The Nattering One muses... I love it. Mercenary Trader's piece is not good, it is excellent. However, I take issue with Iphones or Ipads adding significant value and productive GDP to the economy and calling this perverted mess, a success. Here's why... along the lines of the socio-economic grand canyon or gap in Brazil, which is spreading throughout the globe, and Mercenary Trader's allegories to feudal serfdom, darwinism and the markets...
The problem is that the 70% or 90% or in the case of Brazil 98%... doing the grunt work can neither afford the inconsequential Iphone or Ipads, nor gives a shit about them because the Ipad is not a necessity for survival in their world. Historically, these kinds of imbalances have not ended well for the ruling class. Why?
Those with empty pockets on the bottom rungs (and increasingly the struggling middle rungs) cannot be safely ignored. Why? When they collectively get fed up and do get off their asses, you will see Darwinism in nature, at its most stark and brutal, and it will be a morally unpalatable phenomenon. Those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat its mistakes, over and over again. More to come.
"There is a powerful takeaway from the recent stretch of years. Markets - both financial markets and economic systems on the whole - do not care about the poor. And by that we mean they really, really don't care. The functional attitude is "Let them eat cake," as Marie Antoinette supposedly said. Except in the real world it is "Let them eat iPads" - and there are no subsequent uprisings or beheadings. In other words: It is wholly possible for a free market economic system to survive, and even thrive, as those on the lower rungs of the economic totem pole see their personal prospects threatened, flattened, or even flat-out crushed. Nobody cares about the poor, not really. Not on Wall Street and not in Washington.
The hard, brutal, Darwinian fact here - as based on empirical evidence - is that saving an economy by stimulating the assets and prospects of the wealthiest asset holders, which includes top-end corporations, is a strategy that to a real degree actually works.Those with empty pockets on the bottom rungs (and increasingly the struggling middle rungs) can be safely ignored. This is not a moral observation. It is simply an observed aspect of harsh reality. In fact the lack of morality in respect to capitalist systems is often an essential point.
If you understand that markets do not care about the poor - and that free market economic systems can function well while ruthlessly suppressing the bottom half, or even the bottom two thirds, of the economic stratum - then you are closer to understanding why activity of the past few years has generated an overall picture of economic success for the United States (if not for other countries).
It may be unpalatable, sickening even, to consider the possibility that the free market system on the whole is geared toward elevating the haves rather than the have-nots, often at direct expense of the have-nots. But if such is true, well, then what's true is true. Darwinism in nature, at its most stark and brutal, also is a morally unpalatable phenomenon.
The Nattering One muses... I love it. Mercenary Trader's piece is not good, it is excellent. However, I take issue with Iphones or Ipads adding significant value and productive GDP to the economy and calling this perverted mess, a success. Here's why... along the lines of the socio-economic grand canyon or gap in Brazil, which is spreading throughout the globe, and Mercenary Trader's allegories to feudal serfdom, darwinism and the markets...
The problem is that the 70% or 90% or in the case of Brazil 98%... doing the grunt work can neither afford the inconsequential Iphone or Ipads, nor gives a shit about them because the Ipad is not a necessity for survival in their world. Historically, these kinds of imbalances have not ended well for the ruling class. Why?
Those with empty pockets on the bottom rungs (and increasingly the struggling middle rungs) cannot be safely ignored. Why? When they collectively get fed up and do get off their asses, you will see Darwinism in nature, at its most stark and brutal, and it will be a morally unpalatable phenomenon. Those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat its mistakes, over and over again. More to come.
Comments