Guest Post: Economic Punctuated Equilibrium
Submitted by Brian Rogers of Fator Securities
Economic Punctuated Equilibrium
“I have been studying the traits and dispositions of the "lower animals" (so called) and contrasting them with the traits and dispositions of man. I find the result humiliating to me.” - Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth
Talking Brazil
Happy Friday to one and all. First things first, I just finished a multi-city non-deal roadshow with Banco Fator’s head of equity research and strategy, Lika Takahashi. For those who aren’t familiar with Lika, you really should be. She has been one of if not the most pragmatic, conservative Brazil equity strategists in the market and typically destroys her competition with her price target on the Ibov. Investors we spoke to had 3 main questions for Lika: 1) what is our outlook for inflation in Brazil, 2) what is our outlook for growth in Brazil and 3) what is our take on the Brazilian central bank’s recent decision to cut rates by 50bps.
On inflation, I think central bank head Tombini has a problem. He said he expects global growth to decline and this downturn in GDP will attenuate inflationary pressures in Brazil. The problem I have with this view is that the Fed, BOE, ECB and BOJ won’t simply sit around and take a deflationary slowdown without a fight. They will print, obviously. This will produce monetary inflation and will help to keep commodity prices resiliently high. Tombini expects inflation to come down, I say good luck with that.
On growth, it’s possible that Brazil keeps the 3.4% or so growth next year based on the strength of their services labor market and government spending for the World Cup and other infrastructure projects. However, keep a close eye on China. For the first six months or so of the year there weren’t too many analysts overly concerned about dramatically slowing growth in China. However, the last few months have seen a bevy of “hard landing” articles about China. If China does hard land, say 6% growth, then Brazil will also slow dramatically.
On the central bank’s decision to cut rates only 2 days after Dilma went on TV and said that she wished rates would go down, I obviously feel that the days of central banking independence championed by Henrique Meirelles are dead.
All that being said, I should note here that I am actually quite bullish on Brazil. Why? Simply put, they have options. Despite my concerns about Tombini’s recent move, the central bank has a plethora of tools they can implement to help stabilize any major volatility. Government spending and general debt levels have been conservative recently and could be increased to offset bad times. And finally, Brazil has one of the best demographic profiles around with a huge population of young people and an increasing trend of poor people moving up the economic ladder.
It’s not that Brazil will avoid all problems, they won’t, it’s just that on a relative basis Brazil is much better positioned to deal with their problems than the vast majority of developed nations and nearly all of the emerging market countries.
Which brings me to the macro view.
Economic Punctuated Equilibrium
The late Harvard/NYU paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, who is the curator of the invertebrates department at the American Museum of Natural History, proposed a rather radical evolutionary theory in 1972 called punctuated equilibrium. The evolutionary thinking at the time was generally that species changed very slowly and gradually over time. Gould and Eldredge challenged this notion with punctuated equilibrium by arguing that rather than slow, gradual change, species remained stable for long periods of time and only changed during short, brief bursts of major change.
For example, an animal population could live for many generations without any noticeable change in genetic make-up. Then, due to the effects of an earthquake, volcano, climate change or some other major event, the population could be split into different groups with different geographies, food and water sources, climates, etc. As the populations react to the sudden change, they will go though rapid and noticeable adaptations to their new environment which will result in great change over a short period of time. However, after the major adjustment takes place, the population will stabilize again and largely remain the same until another great environmental change.
I’m obviously generalizing here and my apologies to the late Professor Gould and Professor Eldredge for the dumbed down explanation of their great theory, but I’m just an average equity research salesman and need to keep this simple.
When I think about the history of the financial and economic system of the US, I see many ways in which the theory of punctuated equilibrium is playing out. By and large, we have lived through long periods of general stasis punctuated by brief periods of radical change. Some of those periods of change can be identified as the creation of the Fed in 1913, the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, the closing of the gold window in 1971 and the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 via Gramm-Leach-Bliley. After every one of these major turning points, the market has had to make quick, radical adjustments. Following the adjustments, sometimes painful ones, the market would enter into relatively long periods of “stability.” But stability for whom? The 1% that controls the game.
He Who Controls the Game Wins
In my opinion, the problems we face today are not because we built a robust, transparent, fair system that is simply facing a few bumps in the road. Hardly. The problems we face today exist because the economic system has never been allowed to evolve into a system that is truly fair or just for all. Rather it is designed to ensure that the 1% who have always controlled things will maintain that control. It’s all very subtle, but make no mistake about it, crony-capitalism is the rule of the day.
And even when we did implement evolutionary changes that benefited all members of society (Glass-Steagall), the powers that be patiently waited until the moment was right to snatch that freedom away from the people and hand it back to the 1% (Gramm-Leach-Bliley).
The Fed controls the issuance of our currency and thus controls the price of money. The Fed also oversees our banks and thus plays a hugely vital role in how transparent (or not) our banking system is. Politicians control the legislative process and largely determine the judges that oversee the judicial process. These same politicians are controlled by large corporations and wealthy individuals due to the ridiculous way our campaign finance laws work and our lack of term limits. See the pattern?
Is a New Economic Punctuated Equilibrium Moment Upon Us?
Given the complete and utter disaster that awaits us once the curtain is finally drawn back in Europe, it’s important to consider whether or not the crisis we currently face is nothing but another downturn or is it in fact another game-changing, punctuated equilibrium moment? I firmly believe it is the latter. I’ll spare the audience the laundry list of challenges we face as a global economy - unsustainable debt loads, ghost cities, peak oil, climate change, over $700tr in notional derivative exposure, etc. - it’s a long list. In the final analysis, it’s hard to conclude anything other than the system we’ve known since 1971 is about to implode.
The powers that be know this and they are very afraid. Every piece of chewing gum they’ve tried to use to glue their global economic model back together again has failed. Humpty Dumpty has had a great fall but the cracking-up isn’t over yet. Indeed, we have arrived again at one of the great turning points in economic history. However, the current destination is the one that the 1% hate so much. This is the moment where some of the 1% lose their grasp on power and money and witness first-hand Schumpeter’s creative destruction.
Historically, these are the times when pitchforks are carried and torches lit. Think about how wealthy, powerful Brits felt when news of the original Tea Party made its way to London. Think about how a rich plantation owner in the South felt when news of Lee’s defeat at Gettysburg filtered down. Think about how a New York investment banker felt in 1933 when Glass-Steagall was passed. They were very likely afraid, very afraid. The edifice of their power and wealth was crumbling down around them.
Which brings me to Zuccotti Park.
Something Very Big Is Occupying Wall Street
Financial analyst and commentar Mike Krieger wrote a great piece yesterday where he discussed the Occupy Wall Street protestors and what’s happening in Lower Manhattan. One of the comments I particularly liked was Mike’s use of Mahatma Gandhi’s great quote to describe how the protestors are being viewed by the powers that be.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” - Mahatma Gandhi
The protestors downtown have moved past the ignore stage as the media blackout has given way to the sheer weight of the story. The strategy has now shifted to discrediting/laughing at/making fun of the protestors. The problem with this phase for the media will be the extremely difficult way it’s going to be to pigeon hole this crowd. They don’t represent the left or the right. They don’t represent the Dems or Repubs, business owners or labor unions, capitalists or socialists, rich or poor, black or white. They represent all of us.
All of the above groups are present and participating in these rallies. The protestors aren’t necessarily anti-capitalist or anti-corporation per se. They are anti the current system. The system that they have no influence over and yet controls their lives. The system that has seen average real wages remain flat for decades while inflation slowly exacts its insidious costs. The system that pushes forward fake politicians with movie star smiles, populist rhetoric and polished speaking styles, whose sole mission once elected is to maintain the status quo for the wealthy individuals and corporations that got them elected. The system that prints out of thin air and borrows from third world China and elsewhere trillions of dollars to bail out the wealthy while sending the bill the average taxpayer. The system that will produce, for the first time in the history of the United States of America, a current generation of young citizens who will be worse off than their parents were before them.
That’s what I think the protestors are all about and I support it 100%. Occupy Wall Street is creating the next economic punctuated equilibrium moment and I say the sooner the better.
Have a great weekend.
Brian
* Fator Securities LLC, Member FINRA/SIPC, is a U.S. entity and a member of the Fator group of companies in Brazil. The comments below are from Brian Rogers, who is employed by Fator Securities (Brian’s opinions are his own and do not constitute the opinions of Fator Securities or the Fator group of companies).
Fator Securities LLC is not affiliated with Zero Hedge or any third party mentioned in this communication; nor is Fator Securities LLC responsible for content on third party websites referred to in this communication.
This material was not prepared by Fator Securities LLC. U.S. Persons seeking further information must contact Fator Securities LLC in New York at (646) 205-1160. This material shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of any offer to buy (may only be made at the time qualified participants are in receipt of the requisite documentation, e.g., confidential private offering memorandum describing the offering, related subscription agreement, etc.). Securities shall not be offered or sold in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful or until all applicable regulatory or legal requirements of such jurisdictions have been satisfied. This material is not intended for general public use or distribution and is intended for distribution only to appropriate investors. The opinions contained herein are based on personal judgments and estimates and are, therefore, subject to revision. Past performances are not indicative of future results.
(23 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- 14549 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
Similar Articles You Might Enjoy:
- Guest Notes From The Sales Desk - Can Brazil Get Its Groove Back?
- Guest Notes From The Sales Desk - A Few Thoughts On The Occupy Wall Street Movement
- Guest Post: Welcome To The Currency Wars
- Macro Commentary: The Endgame Of TBTF Banks And Rising Rates
- Macro Commentary: Risk-on/Risk-off - Welcome To Dyslexic Friday
NY Fed says today that "virtual" currency fixed inflation in Brazil
http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2011/10/historical-echoes-when-virtual-money-saved-the-day.html
Got that? A virtual currency fixed a fiat currency. All clear now.
What's ironic, is they post it on a day when inflation is reported at highest level since 2005
http://www.newsmax.com/Economy/Brazil-Inflation-soars-high/2011/10/07/id/413679
I think Albert Einstein said it best, "there are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and i'm not sure about the first".
The Mayans were prophetic... bitchez
generally sympathetic to the above post but isn't saying that real wages have been flat for decades while inflation exacted its toll double dipping? maybe not since real wages use the (increasingly corrupted) consumer price index.
The BilderBerg Group has already decided what is to become of the world order at the June meeting.
p.s. Rick Perry was @ the 2007 BilderBerg meeting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_participants#Senators
So yeah, he's gonna be the next president. He's already been appointed this role 4 years ago.
Maybe........the neocons and Military Ind. Complex just got behind Mitt..........we shall see.......
One puppeteer can make two puppets appear to fight.
Does he care which one appears to win?
One (NWO) ring(leader) to rule them all.
Of course they are. He has the backing of the Bushes as well. Know your enema!
Yeah, with Skeletor (Chertoff) on his team I can see all doorways to all residences will be required to have backskatter x-ray machines installed. What fun.
He's on the cover of Time Magazine this month so evidently he's gonna be the next front man for the machine.
I think they may have overly-discounted the amount of arms/ammo in the hands of citizens in various nations worldwide. Stuxnet taking down drones. No fuel for tanks. Voila!
drone virus already. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44830227/ns/us_news-security/
yep
Punctuated equilibrium; yes I feel very punctuated, and with no equilibrium. Things are not going to be gummed back together this time. Not enough left to gum it up, but rather a complete breakdown is at hand. To many see the helicopters falling out of the sky, and not that many believe the hopium any longer. I am not one who anticipates the "war of attrition". I would rather spend my last few years on spaceship earth in peace. That is not what I see coming our way; something wicked instead is knocking at the door. Prepare......
Gould hit massive resistance when he proposed his theory. He had tons of evidence and great logic to propose an elegant system but it didn't matter- it was HERESY. After many years it became generally accepted and the ones who wanted to burn him at the stake claimed the believed him all along. We are seeing the same resistance today in the economy. Keynesians are still trying to stimulate the economy even after many failed attempts because that is what the dogma says should work. When this is all done, the Fed is gone and whatever takes over after the great reset is in place, Krugman and his ilk will claim they knew it needed to change that way all along.
Wild and Dead, great comments, more green.
Fred,
You seem to be a bright dude,so a question: How can you get so caught up in this theater of the absurd?
and another: Looking at a dead animal, what is the point in trying to make it something it never was?
The old is but a ghost and the new is being born-----how about just observing the event respectfully?
I'm the same---I take this shit, at times, for reality, but it is really not much more than a dream that goes on and on.
Maybe there is no end to the universe's unfolding; there certainly is no reason except in the human mind.
Maybe a walk on the beach is a better answer om
What punctuates the equilibrium in the seas?
Umm, chemistry?
Change we can believe in....
Chains we can bereave in!
Winner of the Punic wars.
Hear, Hear!
Sorry, but I don't think the 'thinking majority' of America is anywhere near represented at these protests. Not seeing that at all - not by a long shot! Good read though - yep, it's all coming down like a runaway elevator, and soon.
Occupy Wall Street
Do you know, from my point of view, this is the first time I have seen America do something. I don't live there any longer and have to tell you - someone once said " Americans are slow to anger but when anger comes it is an all consuming fire" or something like that. It is a Nation of diverse people under one Flag and that is what I see happening with this protest - Diversity -all with one voice saying this is wrong and we won't leave until someone makes a "To do List" I think it may be something very underestimated - a change not unlike the anger I saw as a young man when a war in an Asian land proved to be a Lie.
Let it unfold and swell until they capitulate and admit defeat. Then we may see some real change - change you INSIST On- fuck the hopey dreamy crap from eligant mouthing of teliprompter words pre written. You will hear the voice and it will speak from the heart without help and puffery.
It will sound like a cross between Roosevelt and JFK with a little Dr M.L K's Fire and Brimstone thrown in.
Thats when you will see some (who think they have a paid for right of passage out of what they created) get a brown dribble going down their pants.
Well I have a Dream that is becoming a reality.
Resist the Bastards, do anything that costs them and never, never ever .....
Illegitimi non carborundum
What is great about Occupy Wall Street is seeing indignant young people get off the couch and stand up for themselves and others. I talked to my girlfriend about this very issue maybe six months ago. I said to her that this country had become passive; that the only way there would be a revolution is if people could no longer afford basic necessities, specifically food. I didn't think anything short of that magnitude poverty could grab the youths' attention from NFL football, scripted reality TV, or Apple devices. Aristotle said, "Man by nature is a political animal." I do believe it's an instinct. One that has been subdued for decades, and is just now coming out of hibernation. In short, it is great and refreshing to see action.
I don't consider myself a sadist, but what I also enjoy is that Occupation Wall Street has created discomfort within a certain faction of society. They smile, but their eyes don't evoke joy; rather, palatable fear.
What is not great about Occupy Wallstreet is the support it gets from such leftist groups Moveon.org, unions, Soros,leftist college profs, Michael Moore, and others. This is the type of revolution that cannot end well. Say goodbye to the Constitution, Liberty, and Freedom. Say hello to collectivism, absolute centralized powers, draconion laws, massive regulation, and poverty.
Say goodbye to the Constitution, Liberty, and Freedom.
The Constitution is long dead and gone. You must've missed that part.
Liberty and Freedom are states of mind. You decide if you have them--it doesn't matter what those clowns do.
Liberty and Freedom are states of mind. I guess a lot of good men have shed blood fighting a real enemy, just to win a simple state of mind.
Uuuhhh...exactly which real enemy would that be?
Some people really don't get it. Not having a vision of what liberty and freedom mean and what servitude is can really cloud your perspective. But I will spell it out for you. The enemy is anyone which tries to take from another what is deservedly his. His soverign or his posessions. Whether we fight as a group in uniform or individually in rags, the fight is fought.
In other words, the banks who will tell the government to confiscate citizens' gold, only to mark it up 10x and resell it to foreign governments to pay for their gambling addiction?
I mean. I feel like I worked for and earned my gold. In fact, I know I did. It is deservidly mine. So, the enemy is the banks. Thanks for confirming.
No the enemy is not the banks. Nor is it the govt. It is the tyranny that controls these institutions. If you worked and earned your gold, under a just rule of law it would be recognized as yours. Under this socialist share the wealth scheme it will be taken from you.
Ok.
So...should we ask the amerikan Indians, Hawaiians, or maybe the Phillipinos who the real enemy is? Maybe you should look up the term "westering".
Cossack55 - The real enemy is US. We allow the gradual stripping of our liberties, search and seizure, privacy, innocent until proven Guilty,, the private sanctioning of the killing of American citizens, The right of a speedy trial... How many rights now exist for "we the people"
How about you get off your High Horse, Think and put the US in the US of A.
Thats a Good fellow - take your Country Back (yes I left it a long time ago- when they asked me to Kill people I never Knew and I found to be innocent and somewhat fucking scared between the Cluster bombs and Agent orange)
We lost because we never understood them and we are doing it again, and again, and again.
With Great Power comes even Greater responsibility to use it with deep thought and care.
Get your self an Understanding and read the Fuck this
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/tribal/churchill.html only then will you understand why Hannibal, Gengis Khan, the might of the British Empire and the Nation of Russia fell.
"And where the offence is, let the Great Axe fall."
Shakespeare
The Great Axe ==== Peak oil
bid the soldier
I do not exist at, or for, the pleasure of the State. Rights by permission are not rights at all; we either have them or we do not. We are either free or we are not. We are either sovereign, or we are not.
while that is true, the state will often seek to curtail those rights, and a majority will even cheer it on in doing so, if the society feels threatened enough in the immediate term and the society lacks any sense or memory of why the somewhat nebulous rights are important. in a poll in the last few years, a majority of high schools students thought the government should rein in what was presented in the press. i was talking to a young woman about the second world war and hitler and stalin. she did not know who stalin was. product of illinois public school. i do not maintain high hopes for a populace that knows just about nothing about anything, most specifically history.
The Constitution is not dead and gone as you assert. There are still portions of it that remain. However after these people finish there will be nothing left of it but ashes. You prove my point. The parts of the Constitution already destroyed is of the leftists doing. These are the enemies that seem to be elusive to you.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- Void Where Prohibited by Law.
To Blunderdog, and various armchair philosophers of similar ilk: You are really missing the point here. The Constitution specifically states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Read this very carefully. Liberty is NOT a state of mind. Liberty is a spiritual attribute and RIGHT that all men are GRANTED by their creator. It can therefore be STOLEN from you. "Give me liberty or give me death" does NOT mean "it doesn't matter what those clowns do." Give me a break.
This is one reason why the theory of evolution is so deadly - it removes this direct pillar from the Constitution. If man is a mathematical accident that "evolved" from a 3 trillion year old swamp, how can he be endowed with anything by his Creator? Our forefathers did not fight for that kind of "liberty." They fought for a liberty that was tangible to them. They fought for a liberty that was already granted to them by a Sovereign power much larger than themselves. If you actually studied the hard sciences, you would find that evolution has the same plausibility as the 911 scenario presented by the government. It is a pseudoscience supported by mass delusion.
I don't see why evolution and the endowment by the Creator of inalienable rights are mutually exclusive. Entirely possible that ALL of God's creations were endowed with those same rights, if they could claw themselves up from their animal estate to claim them. We don't know, after all, whether the evolution of life on this ball of mud happened according to a divine plan in every detail. Equally likely that it was set up as a science experiment by the big guy, cos he wanted to see which of the configurations of proteins and amino acids worked best for a given job. Even God presumably needs a hobby ;-}
Granted, I have some problems with the established theories of evolution (though most of them make some sense, IMHO) and would have to decribe myself as an agnostic, so I probably have a slightly skewed perspective if set against yours.
I also have to ask a question that's likely to be deeply 'red click', too. How is a God that commands that he be worshipped (a common theme in the majority of religions and cults, past and present) any better than some would-be NWO Oligarch who thinks it's his / her right to control the lives of others? Both require submission to a 'Sovereign Power' and thus, logically, deny any notion of liberty.
And I guess that's why I'd sooner believe in a mathematical accident, because that preserves my own view of liberty; Some 'social' laws I will obey because they aren't overly onerous and I can see the sense in them and the stabilising effect on community. Others I will absolutely ignore and can not be forced to obey. You can kill me for refusing to be governed but you absolutely cannot force me to comply. I am free and ever shall be.
Too bad we can't sit down for a long cup of coffee - it would be a great discussion.
Well stated, even on the points where I disagree. Respectful of differing POV, even those you don't like. All tooo rare.
A few thoughts though:
- If all God's creations have the same rights, we cannot live. If you murder everytime you eat meat or vegetable or every time you get a vaccination or squash a bug, no one would last very long. Actually re-reading your post, I guess you meant humans only. But that still creates a slippery slope as to rights of ill, infirm, or handicapped who cannot claim their rights.
- God's existence or non-existence is independent of our wishes. If God exists but has a law we do not like, it does not negate His existence. If He does not exist, laws we like (and presume to be His) do not make Him and more real.
You probably mean, if the law does not seem logical to you, it is harder to 1) accept His existence when it is not absolutely proved to you, or 2) find God worthy of worship if He does exist.
But God does not require our worship. Those who believe would naturally worship (more on that in a moment). But God never requires it. Even the conception of Heaven and Hell is not a matter of force. Consider the logic of the Christian belief (not asking you to accept it, just to follow the logic). God created us. He made us with physical and spiritual dimensions. The physical dimension is mortal and the spiritual dimension is immortal (surely not too difficult for a God that could create the universe). Entry to Heaven has a very high bar. Impossibly high, in fact. It requires perfection. As Creator, that would be God's right, even if it seems mean at first. But just as you only let people into your house by invitation, so does God. But, knowing we are imperfect, God made entry into Heaven quite simple; acceptance of His Son's death as a substitutionary atonement for our shortcomings (which is all sin is). It's there for the asking, but only if you want it. If not, you don't get in. Free will rules.
It's just like if someone bought out the Super Bowl and left tickets in a bowl marked "free" right outside the gate. If you don't take a ticket, you don't get in. But if you take one, you are welcome to come in.
It is voluntary. You are free to believe or not. Or even if you were to believe, you are free to choose to worship or not (that is biblical, FYI).
As to whether God is worthy of worship, as I said that is a matter of choice. And it is a difficult concept for people who have had the idea of independence drummed into them (legitimately, don't get me wrong) all their lives. I am very anti-monarchical, so understand your point.
But consider that if God is capable of creating the entire universe and even time itself, it would be very hard not to worship. Worship is, after all, a recognition and acceptance of the power of God, and yes willing to be in submission to that. But how could you not?
I think of it like this. Imagine having a meeting with your boss's boss. You'd take it seriously. How about the CEO? Even more so? How about a meeting with Ron Paul? You'd probably be impressed. What about Obama (or Reagan)? My palms would be sweaty. What if it were George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein? I suspect you would be pretty impressed and more than a little nervous. Now think if it were an absolute monarch like Caesar? Think harder still. What if this person was so powerful he could destroy the entire world? Go farther. What if he could create a world with the power of his mind? Still not enough. What if he could create an entire universe and all life within it, and even time itself, simply as an act of will.
Now, what if that person (let's call him God) knew your every thought and action (as well as the billions of others alive). Not only that, but that while He had all this power, and had rules that you constantly broke, cared about you personally, and in fact loved you personally in spite of all your failings. So much so that He would allow His Son to voluntarily become a sacrificial offering on your behalf, so that you could be with Him. But He also respected your freedom so much that He would allow you to choose whether or not to worship Him.
At that point, would you really find Him not worthy of worship, or find the concept offensive. I know it's a long-winded post, but it's a pretty big concept, and quite frankly one that is hard for anyone to comprehend, so going step by step to bigger and bigger entities helps to give a sense of the magnitude of God.
I wouldn't red click your question about worship. It is a valid question. You sound sincere, so that is worthy of a respectful reply. I know this sounds preachy. I don't mean it to be, but it's hard to answer a theological question without doing so.
I realize my belief or wishful thinking doesn't make it so, nor does a tautological argument. My point is not to prove or disprove God but to note that 1) our opinions as to God's existence do not change the fact, or non-fact, of His existence, and 2) if indeed He does exist, then he is a pretty impressive guy, not just some old guy in a white beard and a toga.
Sorry for the length and going on a theological tangent, but it seemed relevant here. Hope it was helpful if for no other reason than to explain the Christian mindset.
Gosh, that was long. I'm sorry
Thanks, guys, for the well articulated responses. Some food for thought there.
I guess my own perspective, as basically an agnostic, is;
I don't know whether God exists. He may or may not. But I don't know. And even a devoutly religious person can't know, they just have very strong faith that what is self-evident to them must be the truth - God exists. I have total respect for that belief - I haven't, personally, lived that person's life and had their experiences, so I've missed out on whatever the defining moment was that convinced them to the point of no doubt. Walk a mile in a man's shoes, and all that.
Having said that... I view the world through the eyes of an engineer, a gardener, a musician, a father, husband, fish-breeder, etc. Any of the above, and certainly all put together, must give any reasonably intelligent person cause to look at the functioning of the natural and physical world and go, "Wow! This shit works great!"
Whether that's because of a divine plan (which I admit is possible) or just a marvellous combination of random chemical and physical interactions that gave rise to life, thought and self-awareness I don't know. So to paraphrase Heinlein (TMIAHM - Manuel) "I don't know who's cranking. Pleased that he doesn't stop!"
My belief is that it doesn't actually matter which is true. Whether from respect from God's divine plan, or simply from the understanding that the world is a marvellous place, as is everyone (except banksters and politicians, of course) in it, it's still correct behaviour to help an old lady across the road. Or hold a door open for someone burdened with shopping. Or let a guy out of a side street since the traffic is moving at a crawl anyway. Or help out a mate knowing he probably can't pay you back right away. Or any of the other 'nice' things most of us on ZH do every day without even thinking about it. And the sociopaths who would set themselves above us wouldn't do, with an equal lack of thought!
Unfortunately, at this stage, some degree of rationality must creep in. We DO live in a world with limited natural resources, so we MUST necessarily limit our population, or put some money and effort into expanding our living space out into the solar system. Ultimately, I suspect we'll have to do both.
Even given that we do either of the above, though, the Western dream of all of us becoming millionaires and living a ridiculously comfortable life must end - preferably through intelligent action, rather than forced change. The only way those of us in the West, Japan and now the BRIC nations can have that standard of living into the future is at the expense of everyone else now living in abject poverty throughout the world.
A study I read a few years ago suggested that if the fair distribution of wealth on a global scale were even 3 times better than is currently the case, the average standard of living for the world would be that of the late '50s suburban USA - in other words, not too fucking shabby compared to the average now, which is approximately that of 17th century European rural subsistence! Sure, there'd still be poverty, but it wouldn't be as abject as it is now.
To 'pay' for this all it takes is for the top 1% to accept a very slightly lower standard of living. 2 less servants, 1 less G650 in the corporate fleet, the super-yacht 20 feet shorter, only 2 Bentleys on the drive....
And that is why they cannot allow the status quo to change; when your only way to measure yourself against others is by comparing your 'stuff' to that of others, you are not gonna willingly give up any of your 'stuff'.
Don't get me wrong. Greed is good, up to a point. It drives innovation and improvement, ultimately for the benefit of all. It's when it goes over the top and becomes a psychopathic need to prove yourself better, richer and generally more suited as a sperm donor (and that's what it ALL comes down to, in the end) than the next guy that you have trouble.
Until human morality catches up with with human intellect, ingenuity and bloody-minded persistence, I can't see the necessary levelling process going smoothly for any of us.
I don't really buy into the fixed pie concept, but I get your point. Certainly there are a lot of exploited people in the world. People do tend to make the mistake of looking at absolute salaries rather than purchasing power, but that only mitigates the problem. It doesn't eliminate it.
But there is no one wise enough or honest enough to determine that distribution. Better to let it work itself out.
A different question though, completely OT. I haven't read Heinlein in many years (I think I read Friday right after it came out in paperback). As Heinlein got older, he got weirder. Still, I like his stuff. There was a short story or essay in one of his books. I cannot remember the title and wondering if you know what it is and in what book.
It was something like the boy (or man) who was too lazy to fail. He was so lazy that he always found simpler ways to do things. Of course his productivity resulted in him becoming very rich.
Do you know the story? I was hoping to get my 17 year old son to read it. Would do him some good.
Thanks
Really good.
Maybe a little confusing when the Western Dream meets agnosticism.
But basically on the right road.
You could learn a lot from Mitzibitzi
If you actually studied the hard sciences, you would find that evolution has the same plausibility as the 911 scenario presented by the government. It is a pseudoscience supported by mass delusion.
Either you haven't studied hard science, or you're a moron. Or both.
Don't feed the Dodos. ;)
Schmoo, do you know the difference between a theory and a testable hypothesis? How about the difference between natural selection and "evolution?" How about the second law of thermodynamics? If you are capable of such a discussion, get back to me. Or, just continue being a schmoo.
<rant>the only delusion here is that of one who believes in the christ cult/fantasy. your point can be made without reference to a fanciful deity. liberty is a right that men have independent of a political authority. but it sure helps to have a political authority that does not seek to curtail it, otherwise you either give it up or fight to retain it. and if you actually studied the physical sciences i fail to see how you could argue with the basic idea of evolution. i suppose you think the earth is 6000 years old? that the dinosaur fossils were put there for our amusement? have you ever been anywhere like the Green River Canyon in Wyoming? Get outside and take a look. Understand the nature of deep time. </rant>
I think what we are seeing is that Freedom and Liberty are forces in the Universe like gravity and motion. They can be acted on by other, stronger forces.
The Freedom and Liberty brought forth in America 230 ago years ago is now losing its inertia to the gravity of consumed resources and the acceleration of the world's population.
Whether or not you believe in an over-arching force, give the opposite view an unqualified right to believe what they feel.
Do you know the paragraph of J.K. Huysman's A Rebours?
"Ah; but my courage fails me, and my heart is sick within me!--Lord, take pity on the Christian who doubts, on the sceptic who would fain believe, on the galley-slave of life who puts out to sea alone, in the darkness of night, beneath a firmament illumined no longer by the consoling beacon-fires of the ancient hope."
That would be us.
The beuaty of America is that you can share a delusional fantasy about a guy and his followers in the middle east a couple thousand years ago being the savior of humanity and allowing you the possibility of everlasting blissful life despite the fact that you have some shortcomings and no one can tell you not to do that. but what really pisses me off is the highjacking of our political processes by the likes of Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition to the extent that we are not going to have any realistic choices to oppose the maniac currently occupying the White house. we are well and truly screwed. so yeah do and believe whatever you want, but how do we stop that from bleeding into areas that actually matter
The beauty of America is that we born there and not someplace else. A place where we can share a delusional fantasy if we want or create our own, a less common denominator one, a more 21st century one.
One that allows us all the bliss we could want, with plenty of time to grow and work out our short comings.
Maybe one with synchronous time that allows us to be in the van of the evolution of life, cutting our way through the thicket of superstition and symbolism on the path of the undiscovered country we've all dreamt about.
Nah. That last part is way too silly.
But isn't it the very definition of insanity to look to presidential politics in America for the answer to our problems? That's where our problems came from. The system is broken. We can't use a broken system to fix the system.
"What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down"
Now you are just babbling
At least I just now started babbling. You've been babbling since you got here. :- )
Do you not know the band Buffalo Springfield and "For What It's Worth?"
t was a while ago, but I think its a rock classic.
It is pretty offensive to say that Christians should not be allowed to vote. That is the essence of your comment. Christianity shapes my world view and therefore my political opinions and my votes, just as your (I assume) atheism affects your world view and your vote. Of course it would and it should.
I do not believe in restricting the rights or votes of others. But you presume anything related to Christianity should not be reflected in my opinion.
That is perhaps not the height of arrogance, but you are certainly approaching the summit from Base Camp #2
"Whether or not you believe in an over-arching force, give the opposite view an unqualified right to believe what they feel."
Now, that I agree with. Well said
Actually, there are very few Christians who believe the universe is 6000 years old rather than the 12-ish billion estimated now.
To be clear, I say estimated because when I was a kid (somewhat less than 8 billion years ago), the science books said 4 billion years.
6000 years often is used as a straw man, but more often just a lack of understanding that Christian belief (or even lack of belief in macro-evolution) does not imply a young earth strict creationist belief.
I have to disagree about rights though. In a purely secular world, there are no rights. Evolutionary advancement is a battle over other lesser entities for survival and supremacy.
There is might makes right, or at best a social convention over what feels good or what has been agreed is most beneficial.
Those, however, are not immutable. They are conveniences. Perhaps fair, perhaps efficient. We might agree as to what should be a "right". But efficiency doesn't make something a right.
this conversation has become quite attenuated, but i have to reply that i completely disagree that in a purely secular world there are no rights. you need but one rule to create an ethics that is in most respects indistinguishable from the the set of morals embodied in more static form by something like chriistianity. call it the categorical imperative or the phrase, do unto others as you would have them do unto you or whatever, but from that simple idea all ethics can and i would assert should flow. as most of us would desire not to be enslaved, or in other words to have liberty over ourselves there you have a foundation for rights. and if people can agree on this then you do not need any external objective source for rights. you need only agree. it is when those with access to power disagree that you run into trouble in reality and no source of rights is going to help you then
What you described is a convention. As you said yourself, "if people can agree on this then you do not need any external objective source for rights. you need only agree. "
Doesn't hoild up. You could just as easily have, say, the white population agree that the black population had limited rights and decide that slavery is ok.
It has no objective source and so, is not permanent.
Interesting too, that the example of the idea that all only need to agree upon (Do unto others...) has a biblical source.
Might makes right trumps everything else.
We have put a suit and tie on Cro-Magnon man and called him our Dear Leader
If you truly say might makes right, then Hitler was perfectly moral in what he did. As was Stalin. As was Andrew Jackson. As is Ben Bernanke. I doubt that is what you mean.
Might gets its way, but that doesn't change what is right (except in a purely secular world with no objective source of rights (whether God or otherwise)).
If might makes right, then "right" changes with changes in the ruler. That, by definition, is not a right.
I didn't say "might makes right,." It is a maxim older than your great, great, great grand pappy. If I had come up with it and then got a nickel for every time somebody else said, it I'd be richer than Mark Zuckerberg.
Then I would copyright "it never rains, it pours." And I'd really be swimming in worthless dollars.
In other words, when the Creator decided to put life on earth -- not by the ex machina route -- but by means of a idea very similar to what Darwin came up with in the 19th century, you would not approve it and would veto the Creator's plan because you have a vested interest in your version of things. And in what the Creator does and how he does it.
And you have the last cut of this movie. It's in your contract.
Everyone is expressing their beliefs in a "common sense" or "philosophical" framework. Ok. The thing of it is, however, when you examine creation from a "systems design" perspective, there really is massive evidence that the entire creation was designed by an intelligent being, and very little hard evidence that it is an anomaly. Although we can express, in mathematical terms, the "probability" that life is just a spontaneous accident, the odds are so astronomical, that if it were any other kind of scientific study, the odds would be called "ridiculous." In other words, we "accept" that creation was an accident, in spite of the great odds against it, because the alternative is too psychologically traumatic to consider. Just like the real explanation for 911 is too traumamtic for most people to accept.
If you insist that god and evolution (accidental creation) are mutually exclusive, that is your right and your lookout. Why do you worship a god so impotent that he is incapable of creating life as Darwin described it billions of years later?
If you believe the first chapter of Genesis absolutely has to be interpreted exactly as Moses took down god's words, what about Genesis 2:16-17?
"16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
Did Adam die when he ate from that tree? I don't think so.
Now come the fundamentalists, who refuse to tamper with the six days of creation, but are all over the place, telling us that "you will certainly die' does not mean what it certainly means.
It means the bullshit they want it to mean.
Have you read Genesis in the original Aramaic? Or the Hebrew or the Greek? Do you know the meaning of these words in Genesis in those languages?
Or is the Bible's true language shitkicker English?
And what were these words in Aramaic if they existed at all?: Epimutation, gene flow, chromosomes, homologous recombination, and so forth?
So god couldn't create man the way Darwin described it simply because Aramaic didn't have the necessary words.
If you believe god dictated the five books of Moses to Moses, why couldn't god have dictated "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." to Darwin?
There's no percentage in it.
Your premises and assumptions are incorrect. So your argument is a straw man
No one insisted that God and evolution are mutually exclusive
No one has said that God could not create the world via evolution. In fact many believe that is how it was done
Eve's act brought sin and death into the world. That is important as it is a mirror to the concept of eternal life upon redemption, restoration to the original pre-fallen state.
God did not say you will immediately die. Not a perfect analogy (and not 100% accurate as cancer <> death), but close enough for the moment. If you get Stage 4 lung cancer, you will die. You may die in a few days or a few months, but the statement still is true.
Most fundamentalists do not believe in 6 day creation (though some do). It is a matter of translation of the term for a word that can mean day or can mean period of time.
As to whether God could have created the world in 6 days and made it look like longer, the answer is yes. Surely for someone who can create matter and time from nothingness, that would be a trivial task.
I know none of those languages, but theologians whom I respect have. Your statement is irrelevant. I will point out though that most fundamentalists (myself included) believe the Bible is accurate in its original transcription. There are some errors in translation. Those that have been demonstrated through comparison with ancient manuscripts discovered have proven accurate on the vast majority of words and none of the essentials have changed. Read Norm Geisler's works (in their original English).
Whether modern discoveries have ancient Aramaic translations is absolutely irrelevant. You are assuming that if there is no word to describe something, it does not exist. So do you believe chromosomes didn't exist just because you didn't know the word when you were in pre-school? You might be surprised to learn the language reflects the real world. The real world doesn't change as words are created.
Perhaps you are trying to say that if God did not describe the concepts of microbiology in modern terms then it could not be correct. Again, analogy proves that to be nonsense. If your 4th grade science book didn't dicuss quantum mechanics, does that mean it was incorrect? Was Newton wrong because he did not write of relativity?
Could God have dictated to Darwin? Absolutely. I suspect if that were the case, Darwin would have been aware of it.
Your arguments are trivial, irrelevant, and generally based on faulty premeses. They also reflect a lack of understanding of the fundamentalist point of view. But thanks for playing.
If my argument is a straw man, friend, yours is a straw baby.
"no one insisted that god and evolution are mutually exclusive." ever or just on this thread? google 'evolution conflicts with religion' and see what you get.
in your first 5 sentences you use the words 'no one' twice and 'many' once. No proof. No corroboration. I'm just supposed to take your word for it. back up 'no one' and 'many'.
"Eve's act brought sin and death into the world. That is important as it is a mirror to the concept of eternal life upon redemption, restoration to the original pre-fallen state."
I will not dignify this ignorant remark with an answer. Except to say save such silly ideas for the church you go to on sundays and spare the rest of us the thought that some people believe such nonsense. And want still others to believe it as well.
"God did not say you will immediately die." Anonymouse
"for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shall surely die" god.
Do you want to put this one to a vote?
"Most fundamentalists do not believe in 6 day creation (though some do). It is a matter of translation of the term for a word that can mean day or can mean period of time."
"As to whether God could have created the world in 6 days and made it look like longer, the answer is yes. Surely for someone who can create matter and time from nothingness, that would be a trivial task."
The high priests of Falwell and Roberson could have your firstborn, for such blasphemous statements.
I'm sure god welcomes your backing in his making 6 days look like billions of years. The trouble is there were no days until the 4th day.
A day, as I hope you know, is a complete revolution on its axis by the earth as it orbits around the sun. The earth was not created until the 3rd day. The sun not until the fourth day. god had a sense of humor from the get go.
"I know none of those languages, but theologians whom I respect have."
Again a nameless and reference-less and worthless statement.
"most fundamentalists (myself included) believe the Bible is accurate in its original transcription. There are some errors in translation"
So the errors in translation are the save-the-fundamentalist's ass escape clause. we hold the bible to be beyond reproach until you slap us in the face with an error of translation.
As far as your last 5 paragraphs are concerned they are an insult. Turning around my argument about ancient Aramaic words as if I had made the assumption
that if there is no word to describe something it doesn't exist and not you and your ilk.
Lets close with your stupidest statement of all: "Darwin would have been aware of it (if god had dictated on the origin of the species to Darwin)."
And you are aware of this truth because...?
"Thanks for playing?" What is the game? Getting people to share and reinforce your cockamamie view of spirituality?
Wow. You two are really going at it. Since I started this thread, let me say something. I absolutely believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and I believe there is tremendous SCIENTIFIC evidence that evolution is nonsense. It is called "systems engineeering" as I mentioned earlier. Our life forms are very very complex, and from everything that man knows about engineering complex machines, it is extremely likely that life and the entire universe were engineered by a massive intelligence, and extremely unlikely that it was accidental. I believe that the mathematical chance that life formed accidentally is 10E-70 or less. That is a fraction with one over 70 zeros. And that is just the simplest amino acid chain forming by accident, if all the matter in the known universe existed in a temperate swamp with the right conditions. This does not even take into account that this one amino acid chain somehow survived its initial creation without being destroyed in a few nanoseconds, and then somehow "evolved" into something more complex. This blog entry could not contain enough zeros to express how highly unlikely it is that something more complex could be formed. Evolution is so mathematically impossible, it is silly. If you ran any scientific experiment, and validated the results as having a mathematical probability this low, they would scorn and ridicule you. And evolution is not even testable. It is a THEORY only, which so far cannot be tested. It is far, far more likely that an intelligence created life. If you can just step outside your emotions for a minute and think rationally, "evolution" is an unproven construct that "allows" us to "believe" that God does NOT exist. Otherwise, how did we get here? Evolution is a religion that does not have a god, and nothing more. I AM NOT EVEN INSISTING THAT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE CREATED THE UNIVERSE (altough I do personally believe this). I AM JUST INSISTING THAT A SUPER BEING OF SOME SORT MUST HAVE CREATED EVERYTHING. We can talk about the Bible later, after everyone gets over the initial trauma of it all. Its Columbus Day, after all. Let's just call evolution a "flat earth" delusion that we learn to outgrow.
No one is arguing this point with you. Of course a supreme intelligence created the universe. Duh.
What you seem to be missing is whether or not this supreme intelligence made his creation look like an accident to fool gullible religious beings like you. We know God tricked some of his followers, viz. Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac.
It looks like he's fooled you as well. You better text Spock to come home.
I am compelled to tell you what a ridiculous statement this is:
"This blog entry could not contain enough zeros to express how highly unlikely it is that something more complex could be formed."
You better start proofreading what you write. First, you say that a super being must have created the Universe (I agree).
Then you say that it is highly unlikely that the same super being that created the Universe could simultaneously create life through what appears to evolution some 14 billion (whatever) years later.
You better restate the Kirkian "Theory of What God Can And Cannot Do," before I fall asleep.
v
v
Go have your state of mind in Iran, Iraq, China, North Korea, etc.
Are you completely ignorant or just another brain dead fool?
Yeah, life in Iran/Iraq/China/North Korea is different. It's like a prison. And here in the USA, we're all free because we have all this liberty.
*Maybe* I'm the ignorant one.
TrulyBelieving says it's all about property, and Kirk says it's all about God.
Heh.
The right to private property is the foundational idea of a free people. Take away the right to enjoy the fruits of your labor and I ask, ignorantly of course, what is it you have?
I'll state it plain:
You have YOUR idea of freedom or liberty or whatever.
Some other asshole has HIS idea of freedom or liberty or whatever.
There is no guarantee you and he will agree. There is no "objective" way to decide which one of you has the more accurate idea.
Where it gets silly is that you're so committed to the idea that you've got *THE* definition that you can't discuss the issue with someone who might disagree.
No matter what your preferred definition of "freedom," there's no getting away from the reality that you're going to spend most of your life doing stuff you're not really that interested in. Even if you were the only person on Earth, that would be true.
Enjoy your freedom.
"Freedom is slavery, slavery is freedom." Seems like I read this somewhere. If your idea of freedom is slavery that is your business. I just don't want your ilk pressing your inverted ideas on me. I state plainly what freedom is and what I choose to defend. Enjoy your slavery.
blunderdog exactly made my point (see above) about might makes right.
Without an objective source of rights, there are no rights.
More likely who is most powerful defines the rights until they are changed by the next one in power.
At best, they are social conveniences that might be more fair, but are no more permanent,
You want me to break the tie? :o )
"The Constitution is long dead and gone."
But the memory lingers on. ;- )
As I wrote yesterday this is nothing more than a George Soros/ Union funded astro turf group for Obama's re-election.
1) Create a devil (Wall St)
2) Use community organizers to activate unions, Moveon.org, InternationalAnswer, and various socialist/marxist organizations
3) Create the image of people rising up
4) Demonize whoever wins the Republican primary as a Wall St shill
5) Obama comes in as the people's "savior"
This is how a failed President gets re-elected with 9% unemployment for the first time since FDR.
Your a moron, just so you know troll. This isn't "the image" of the people rising, this is the people rising. And if that pisses you off then heres a straw for you ========= now suck it the fuck up.