This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Economic Punctuated Equilibrium

Tyler Durden's picture




 

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.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:05 | 1751410 FOC 1183
FOC 1183's picture

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

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:51 | 1751695 Real Money Wins
Real Money Wins's picture

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".

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:56 | 1751721 GenX Investor
GenX Investor's picture

The Mayans were prophetic... bitchez

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 22:53 | 1752032 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

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.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:12 | 1751411 DormRoom
DormRoom's picture

The BilderBerg Group has already decided what is to become of the world order at the June meeting.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:21 | 1751465 DormRoom
DormRoom's picture

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.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:26 | 1751475 dick cheneys ghost
dick cheneys ghost's picture

Maybe........the neocons and Military Ind. Complex just got behind Mitt..........we shall see.......

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:50 | 1751520 BigJim
BigJim's picture

One puppeteer can make two puppets appear to fight.

Does he care which one appears to win?

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 21:01 | 1751736 akak
akak's picture

One (NWO) ring(leader) to rule them all.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 21:46 | 1751857 FL_Conservative
FL_Conservative's picture

Of course they are.  He has the backing of the Bushes as well.  Know your enema!

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 07:11 | 1752455 cossack55
cossack55's picture

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.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:56 | 1751538 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

He's on the cover of Time Magazine this month so evidently he's gonna be the next front man for the machine.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:10 | 1751568 cossack55
cossack55's picture

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!

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 21:18 | 1753766 catacl1sm
Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:04 | 1751412 catch edge ghost
catch edge ghost's picture

yep

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:52 | 1751428 Wild tree
Wild tree's picture

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......

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:06 | 1751559 DeadFred
DeadFred's picture

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.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 00:39 | 1752193 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Wild and Dead, great comments, more green.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 05:15 | 1752401 oldman
oldman's picture

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

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 08:09 | 1752512 jimijon
jimijon's picture

What punctuates the equilibrium in the seas?

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 09:01 | 1752563 t0mmyBerg
t0mmyBerg's picture

Umm, chemistry?

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:09 | 1751429 Stack Trace
Stack Trace's picture

Change we can believe in....

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 21:02 | 1751741 akak
akak's picture

Chains we can bereave in!

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 03:02 | 1752333 Tao 4 the Show
Tao 4 the Show's picture

Winner of the Punic wars.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:10 | 1751432 Fips_OnTheSpot
Fips_OnTheSpot's picture

Hear, Hear!

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:11 | 1751436 Prepared
Prepared's picture

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. 

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 21:48 | 1751463 sitenine
sitenine's picture

Occupy Wall Street

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 07:17 | 1752461 Mentaliusanything
Mentaliusanything's picture

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

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:26 | 1751467 devo
devo's picture

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.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:41 | 1751495 TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

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.  

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:50 | 1751521 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

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.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:03 | 1751554 TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

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.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:14 | 1751578 cossack55
cossack55's picture

Uuuhhh...exactly which real enemy would that be?

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:57 | 1751621 TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

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.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 21:17 | 1751786 devo
devo's picture

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.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 21:43 | 1751813 TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

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.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 23:02 | 1751917 devo
devo's picture

Ok.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 07:14 | 1752459 cossack55
cossack55's picture

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".

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 07:47 | 1752482 Mentaliusanything
Mentaliusanything's picture

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.

Mon, 10/10/2011 - 20:33 | 1759527 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

"And where the offence is, let the Great Axe fall."  
Shakespeare

The Great Axe ==== Peak oil
bid the soldier

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:10 | 1751555 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

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.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 09:13 | 1752590 t0mmyBerg
t0mmyBerg's picture

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.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:33 | 1751576 TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

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.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 13:49 | 1753093 Phil Free
Phil Free's picture

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- Void Where Prohibited by Law.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 00:40 | 1752186 James T. Kirk
James T. Kirk's picture

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.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 05:58 | 1752412 Mitzibitzi
Mitzibitzi's picture

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.

Sun, 10/09/2011 - 02:09 | 1754169 James T. Kirk
James T. Kirk's picture

Too bad we can't sit down for a long cup of coffee - it would be a great discussion.

Sun, 10/09/2011 - 02:52 | 1754197 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

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.

Sun, 10/09/2011 - 02:54 | 1754199 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

Gosh, that was long.  I'm sorry

Sun, 10/09/2011 - 05:33 | 1754269 Mitzibitzi
Mitzibitzi's picture

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.

Sun, 10/09/2011 - 07:25 | 1754296 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

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

Sun, 10/09/2011 - 19:09 | 1755800 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

Really good.

Maybe a little confusing when the Western Dream meets agnosticism.
But basically on the right road.

Mon, 10/10/2011 - 05:55 | 1756735 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

You could learn a lot from Mitzibitzi

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 08:28 | 1752528 Schmoo
Schmoo's picture

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.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 09:08 | 1752578 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Don't feed the Dodos. ;)

Sun, 10/09/2011 - 01:48 | 1754148 James T. Kirk
James T. Kirk's picture

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.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 09:20 | 1752607 t0mmyBerg
t0mmyBerg's picture

<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>

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 17:45 | 1753445 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

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.

Sun, 10/09/2011 - 14:13 | 1755162 t0mmyBerg
t0mmyBerg's picture

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

Sun, 10/09/2011 - 18:47 | 1755657 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

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"

Mon, 10/10/2011 - 05:54 | 1756734 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

Now you are just babbling

Mon, 10/10/2011 - 18:59 | 1759313 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

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.

Mon, 10/10/2011 - 06:00 | 1756738 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

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

Mon, 10/10/2011 - 06:04 | 1756739 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

"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

Sun, 10/09/2011 - 03:02 | 1754203 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

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.

Sun, 10/09/2011 - 13:52 | 1755111 t0mmyBerg
t0mmyBerg's picture

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

Sun, 10/09/2011 - 14:18 | 1755173 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

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.

Sun, 10/09/2011 - 16:47 | 1755525 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

Might makes right trumps everything else.

We have put a suit and tie on Cro-Magnon man and called him our Dear Leader

Mon, 10/10/2011 - 05:52 | 1756732 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

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.

Wed, 10/12/2011 - 03:39 | 1764734 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

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.

Sun, 10/09/2011 - 03:41 | 1754227 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

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.

Sun, 10/09/2011 - 18:54 | 1755770 James T. Kirk
James T. Kirk's picture

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.

Mon, 10/10/2011 - 04:03 | 1756645 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

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.

Mon, 10/10/2011 - 05:47 | 1756729 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

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.

Mon, 10/10/2011 - 18:30 | 1759270 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

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?

Tue, 10/11/2011 - 02:01 | 1760178 James T. Kirk
James T. Kirk's picture

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.

Wed, 10/12/2011 - 03:27 | 1764716 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

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.

Wed, 10/12/2011 - 04:03 | 1764752 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

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.

Mon, 10/10/2011 - 18:20 | 1759254 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

v

Mon, 10/10/2011 - 18:20 | 1759255 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

v

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 03:18 | 1752341 macholatte
macholatte's picture

Liberty and Freedom are states of mind.  You decide if you have them--it doesn't matter what those clowns do.

 

Go have your state of mind in Iran, Iraq, China, North Korea, etc. 

Are you completely ignorant or just another brain dead fool?

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 13:18 | 1753050 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

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.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 14:02 | 1753097 TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

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?

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 16:52 | 1753375 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

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.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 22:52 | 1753920 TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

"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.

Sun, 10/09/2011 - 03:05 | 1754204 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

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,

Sun, 10/09/2011 - 03:03 | 1754202 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

You want me to break the tie? :o )

Sun, 10/09/2011 - 03:00 | 1754200 bid the soldier...
bid the soldiers shoot's picture

"The Constitution is long dead and gone."

But the memory lingers on. ;- )

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:23 | 1751610 Missiondweller
Missiondweller's picture

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.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 23:06 | 1752055 Last_2_Sense
Last_2_Sense's picture

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.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 23:43 | 1752111 jez
jez's picture

"Your a moron"

Your illitrut.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 09:14 | 1752596 snowball777
snowball777's picture

1) Create a devil (government / taxes / regulation / peace)

2) Use community organizers (and buses, must have buses) to activate FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, and various capitalist/fascist organizations

3) Create the image of people rising up

4) Demonize whoever wins the Democratic party primary as a Kenyan Muslim who wants to kill Grandma

6) "The Tea Party" / Scott Walker / Rick Scott / Sarah Palin comes in as the people's "Savior"

Whatever. If Wall St was guiltless in the collapse of the economy, you might have a point, but you don't.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 20:02 | 1753628 ZeroPower
ZeroPower's picture

Ah yes, left wing rhetoric. Havent seen you here for a  while.

My head hurts from re-reading your comment.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:32 | 1751628 devo
devo's picture

Why is support from leftists "not great"?

I think diverse people support Occupy Wall Street. I'm a "rationalist"...meaning, I just prefer we do what is logical. I've voted for both republicans and democrats, and have written in independents (which I plan to do this year). Whoever is most reasonable/logical gets my vote. Yet, I also support Occupy Wall Street, because once again it makes logical sense that people should be angry with bank-government collusion that has reduced their opportunity. That makes sense to me.

I'm sure your next blind judgement will be that I'm unemployed, uneducated, smoke weed, etc. Go for it.

If your point is that neither extreme (left or right) is good then I agree 100%. But this movement hardly seems extreme. It seems very reasonable and logical.

 

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:34 | 1751640 Missiondweller
Missiondweller's picture

Ask yourself this:

 

Where were all these people in 2009 when the Tea Party was forming and people were protesting bank bailouts?

Why now, 2 1/2 years later?

Did they all just learn about the bailouts? Or is there a reason this is backed by left-wing organizations at the same time Obama is kicking off his re-election campaign?

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:48 | 1751687 devo
devo's picture

Mostly, I think they were in college in 2009. As far as the older ones, such as Michael Moore et al, I think they were making movies on the subject and doing their thing. Same as always. Just fewer people were listening because fewer people were in bad shape. The generation that is just graduating now hasn't experienced a single prosperous day in their lives. Think about that. They've been working since they were 17 or 18 right at the beginning of the collapse, and now they're graduating and ready to enter the workforce, and they have all this to contend with.

You think that is a conspiracy?

What makes the demonstration great is how sincere it is.

Even if you believe TARP has been paid back, the bailout has killed us all via inflation, hidden inflation (i.e. reduced portions for the same goods), QE2 (i.e. higher food and energy costs), etc. The price increase we all see today in every good and service is our collective nominal share of the bailout. We have not been paid back. In fact, we are in the process of paying for the entire thing right now.

My question is: why are you for this? Unless you are a banker, you are getting screwed. If don't care because your check is big...well, it could be much bigger.

I find it hard to fathom why anyone would oppose it unless hippies, hipster, and leftists "just annoy them" with their free spirit and all. That's what it comes off as...just hatred for a faction. This is usually due to not fitting in with said faction or being jealous of some aspect, but no need to arm-chair beyond that. Maybe the anger is due to some misconception that these people don't want to work? Trust me, I know many leftists...they are successful and love work. My brother looks like an absolute hippie, and he smokes weed, and he is also a lawyer making over $400,000 per year. He says, "Tax us more. It makes sense."

Even if you can't comprehend any of that, the bottom line is there is absolutely not one single good reason to be pro-banks.

 

 

 

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 02:01 | 1752288 Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

Damn near everything is dismissed as a conspiracy on ZH, Israel, Fed, Banks, EU, Dems, Reps, Congress, Banks, Investment Banks, SEC, Tea Party, Fox News, CNBC, CFTC, MSNBC, etc. etc.  There's even a not insignificant minority here that says Ron Paul is part of the conspiracy.

So Occupy Wall Street is supposed to be the one the organization / event that is as pure as the driven snow?

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 14:02 | 1753117 Phil Free
Phil Free's picture

"they were in college in 2009"??  So ... there were no human college graduates in existance at that time?  None?  No one? Sure, I'll believe that.

 

Where there is smoke, there is usually fire.  When one sees puppet-strings, there is usually a puppeteer not far behind.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:43 | 1751674 TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

Yes, to resist the corruption is reasonable and logical. But the solution these people bring is not a good solution. Socialism is poverty. Why don't you get it?

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:50 | 1751693 devo
devo's picture

Because they want jobs, not socialism. I haven't seen one sign or heard one voice asking for socialism.

Thinking that banks have caused the current problems /= socialism.

They are mutually exclusive ideas.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 21:13 | 1751772 TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

I haven't seen one sign or heard one voice asking for the restoration of the Constitution, Liberty and Freedom, and personal responsibility.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 21:34 | 1751829 devo
devo's picture

That's because it's not a Tea Party rally, and also because we don't live in the 1700s.

What these people are asking for is opportunity. That's what people want in modern times. Freedom and constitutional rights are pretty much inherent to opportunity. Asking for it specifically would qualify as redundant. Personal responsibility? That sounds like something out of an old western lynch mob rather than government, but I'll play: did the bankers take personally responsible for packaging subprime loans to investors? I am pretty sure you and I paid for that.

 

 

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 22:03 | 1751915 TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

Agree the bankers did not take personal responsibility for their thievery. Ever know a thief that did? An enforced just law is the answer for their crime.         Agree it isn't a tea party rally. In fact it is just the opposite. You seem to think if an idea is old then it no longer applies.                          Their best chance for opportunity is in a free enviornment. But of course you being a sociallist will never understand the greatness that is freedom. I guess you haven't experienced freedom and liberty but that doesn't mean you can't yearn for it.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 10:02 | 1752689 juslen
juslen's picture

Who regulates the bankers, who bailed out the bankers, who gets political donations from the bankers, who bailed out foreign central banks, who is waging wars that kill 10's of thousands of men women and children, who keep putting future generations deeper in debt, who is responsible for subsidizing health care and education causing costs to rise 300+ percent over the last decade, who printed the money, who enacted the failed stimulus, who wants QE3? THE FUCKING STATE.. the government.. and you want to blame the banks for taking advage of free money? If you are going to take that route, then blame the poor people for gaming the welfare system. Blame illegal immigrants for taking advtange of education, health care and other benefits here in the United States. I don't blame the rich, I don't blame the poor.. they are utilizing a system which was desiged to take money from one person and give it to another. The politcal system is rigged.. turning rich against poor, Americans against illegal immigrants, young against old.. Republicans against Democrats.. this is part of the scam. These protesters are blind rats scratching at the sides of the cage looking for a way out. They don't understand economics, they don't understand history, moneatary policy, or philosphy. These types of fools exist in both the tea party and the occupy wall street crowds. There are small glimmers of hope within each movement, but they are crushed by the overwhelming majority who are simply misinformed and blinded by the propaganda they were fed in the government schools and churches. Half the tea party protesters don't even know who John Locke is, or Jeffersons's views on wars and central banks. They see a Constitution which is nothing more than a piece of paper that does not give me rights.. nor does it protect my rights. Its used to TRAMPLE my rights. And the people in the Wall Street protests have their imaginary social contract which is equally iabsurd but in many ways much more dangerous than the Constitution.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:58 | 1751725 dr.charlemagne
dr.charlemagne's picture

good post but........... you can not sit on the fence in the fight between freedom and socialism. you must choose. if you do not understand this, read Hayek, Von Mises et al

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 21:11 | 1751767 devo
devo's picture

If it were actually "freedom vs socialism" that we were deciding between, I'd easily pick a side. Problem is it's more like plutocrasy (backed by military force, ala Fascism) vs Socialism, so the choice becomes more difficult.

 

 

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 22:31 | 1751995 TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

It is actually freedom vs socialism.  Pltocracy, fascism, socialism, communism, and any other ism you can think of is all the enemy of freedom. Freeedom asserts you are soverign with certain inaliable rights, rights that no man can legally take away. The 'isms' assert you have rights that they in power have you say, or whatever is voted upon by a majority. Either way that is tyranny, by the rulers or tryanny by the masses. Just different 'isms'

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 09:21 | 1752608 snowball777
snowball777's picture

No, it is plutocracy vs democracy. Whether that democracy has facets of socialism, capitalism, or vegetarianism is a matter for the people to decide, but unless and until we break the stranglehold of finance on politics (the 1% dictating the governance of the 99%) we won't even stand a chance of restoring our liberties.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 23:10 | 1752058 AbelCatalyst
AbelCatalyst's picture

Why do you think every facist leader has come from the left? Hitler, Mussolini, Franco - all from the left.... All wanted bigger, centralized government. That is what the left is all about, and my concern is the Occupy movement is being hijacked by the left... BTW, I think the Tea Parrty was hijacked by the right... Both legitimate movements that are being manipulated by political parties - sad, really...

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 01:29 | 1752247 devo
devo's picture

Agreed.

 

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 09:23 | 1752612 snowball777
snowball777's picture

You're 180 degrees out of phase.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 10:10 | 1752705 mess nonster
mess nonster's picture

Yep...50 or more comments into the insanity, someone finally makes sense. Newt sends his evil worms into the Tea Party, and Soros sends his evil worms into the OWS movement. If it can be co-opted, it will be co-opted. TP and OWS both want the same things, on the common person level.

"Fascist" means a bundle of sticks, which is much harder to break tha one stick alone. It's a visual metaphor for socialism.

All totalitarian regimes are socialist AND fascist by nature. Republicrats and Demublicans are both totalitarian by nature.

The only political creed capable of maintaining freedom and liberty is Jeffersonian agrarian republicanism. It had a good run in the northern states and the west from 1776 to 1913. Good luck bringing that back!

Sun, 10/09/2011 - 11:42 | 1754698 TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

I seem to remember that Jefferson was from Virginia.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 11:52 | 1752908 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

Hitler dallied briefly w the Left, then went HardRight. Mussolini, yes, a an ex-Socialist. Franco was HardRight all the way. Viva Franco!

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 13:28 | 1752435 Marco
Marco's picture

Why do you fear the left so much? In the end the only freedom they absolutely want to take from you is the freedom to be able to retain all the fruits of your labour. They want wealth redistribution, generally stopping far short of egatalirianism though, everything else they are willing to compromise on ... which is far more compromise than you can expect out of the ruling crony capitalists, they want everything.

 

The ruling class wants to own all the land, all the gold, all the everything ... feudalism all over again.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 14:13 | 1753132 Phil Free
Phil Free's picture

The 'left', the 'socialists', can have my property, my wealth, my gold, when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 15:10 | 1753226 Marco
Marco's picture

Are you sending us messages from the grave or the moon?

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 03:00 | 1752331 Dugald
Dugald's picture

Aye and there's the rub, they are not afraid enough!!

Sorr,y this landed in the wrong spot.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 03:06 | 1752335 defencev
defencev's picture

I am sick and tired of "revolutionary" brokers who are obviously unhappy about the behavior of stock market and hence getting ready for "action". The Occupy Wall Street movement has no clear goals, no purpose and no sense. People, just try to do something productive, get education, start enterprise, travel, do something for the God sake. Hunger is not a threat in America: growing idiocy,inability of thinking and acting positively seem to be a big problem...

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 08:38 | 1752542 Ned Zeppelin
Ned Zeppelin's picture

Think positively = code for shut up and be a sheep. 

If you're not angry, you're not paying attention.  TPTB like and encourage that. 

Keep working for the Clampdown. 

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:26 | 1751473 vipmoneymachine
vipmoneymachine's picture

Unfortunately, once the dust settles again, Goldman and JP Morgue will be even stronger. Morgan Stanley and Bank of America will cease to exist just like Lehman, Bear Stearns.

 

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:15 | 1751580 cossack55
cossack55's picture

I would not be caught long GS or JPM.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:36 | 1751492 bonddude
bonddude's picture

Sounds eerily like the same shit we heard in 2009. Fact is QE not only pumps PMs but there will be a big rally in stocks. If not why not?

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:37 | 1751497 Roger Knights
Roger Knights's picture

"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."

The periods of stasis correspond to Taleb's "mediocristan"; the periods of radical change, to his "extremistan."

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:38 | 1751499 karzai_luver
karzai_luver's picture

afflict TPTB none get out alive stir up some shit who knows.......................

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:44 | 1751506 benjaminfranklin
benjaminfranklin's picture

Muskets and whiskey, always a good investment.  

 

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:44 | 1751507 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

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.  

Why would it evolve into something fair?  It wasn't designed to. 

Oh, you know this...

Rather it is designed to ensure that the 1% who have always controlled things will maintain that control.

(Incidentally, does this guy really know her well enough to be calling her Dilma?)

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:56 | 1751536 Snidley Whipsnae
Snidley Whipsnae's picture

Our politicians, who are the puppets in this new play, are caught between the puppetmasters that are pulling their strings and the pissed off audience that doesn't care for the new play.

If this were 'The Gong Show', the current crop of pols would be jerked off stage by the long hook.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:56 | 1751537 Kina
Kina's picture

I think the police should go bash a lot more protesters, especially women and children. I also think that those paid-off police should be made to wear their sponsor's badges, say JPM, HSBC, GS et al.

 

First step in fixing the financial system is in enforcing all the laws and regulations as they are and suing and punishing those who break them. Simple as that.

If just existing laws andregulations were enforce rigorously then many many banksters and congressmen would be in prison right now, and a lot less would be out the corrupting and manipulating every market in every way imaginable.

When your back-stop, goal defender, goal-keeper etc is corrupt the enemy will score every time and as often as they want.

The demands of the protesters should be to replace all and every regulator of all types with independent people from say, another country, New Zealand for instance.

 

You will never ever ever fix up a crime spree if the police (reguators/law) are the employees of the criminal gangs (banks).

 

It will only take a few banksters, say somebody corrupting the silver market, to go to an anus bashing prison for 10 years to immediately stop the others.

 

 

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 19:59 | 1751544 I only kill chi...
I only kill chickens and wheat's picture

But there are bigger problems.

Obamas Depleting U.S. Lobster Supply

by Keith Koffler on August 25, 2010, 2:56 pm

So how much lobster are you having during these precarious economic times? What? You’ve had to cut back? No longer ordering it stuffed with crab meat, at least?

Well, if you happen to be the President of the United States or the First Lady, your lobster consumption is continuing at a robust pace.

Yes, the economy is still getting battered. And Tuesday night,  so was President Obama’s lobster.

 

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:05 | 1751556 JimBobOMG
JimBobOMG's picture

Just dramatically shrink government. There, problem solved.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:17 | 1751585 cossack55
cossack55's picture

No, that would be problem deferred.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:34 | 1751639 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Opt out. Problem solved.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 04:48 | 1752385 Which is worse ...
Which is worse - bankers or terrorists's picture

Move to Asia. Problem solved. 

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 07:15 | 1752460 cossack55
cossack55's picture

Move to Mars. Problem avoided.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 14:44 | 1753192 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Insert head in rectum. Problem?

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 09:25 | 1752616 snowball777
snowball777's picture

And how would you accomplish this in a plutocracy?

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:35 | 1751644 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

Change, inflection points, new ways--i don't think anyone on Wall Street would find this unusual. Change is the normal--and of course the oddity is that there is such a thing as a "power that be." Sure there's a name there--but look at the people...they're completely different. Brazil? Eh. There's been a revolution in food production there (i think it's called the pampas...but i'm probably wrong) and i find that fascinating. I've listened to cattlemen from Texas who have moved there because "it's the promise land." I like massive new sources of food that nobody knew about until a bunch of crazy Texans et. al created it. My preference is for Hegel who if i was taught correctly basically said "you'll get the change and everyone will say how everything is the same even though everything is completely different." In effect the human race is so ignorant of history that as long as they have food and phucking you can basically do whatever the hell you want to them.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 20:37 | 1751654 trampstamp
trampstamp's picture

Hey Tyler, I wasn't around back in the day when we had the 2007-2008 financial meltdown. Were you calling the fall back then way before it happened? Also, were folks positiioning back then like they are now for the fall? Those questions have been nagging at me the last couple of weeks. Go Tyler!

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 09:56 | 1752669 ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

This site was not up in 2007. Several individuals however were forecasting this shit that we live in. I would suggest you check out http://www.oftwominds.com/.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 21:14 | 1751774 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

I had my equilibrium punctuated and it hurt like hell.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 21:19 | 1751788 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

It's a turning point alright. But some turns are more drastic than others. This won't be a minor adjustment. Major change is required. Some issues have been encountered before, like over-concentration of wealth and power. Others are different, like the shift to globalization. 

But there will be social and political unrest. A whole generation has been shut out of the productive economy. That hurts. I feel for them. 

The shining future we were all promised has been taken away. 

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 21:23 | 1751804 Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

Arguing whether it was gradualism or punctuated equilibrium is like arguing whether orange is red or yellow.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 21:39 | 1751844 mikmid
mikmid's picture

I listened to fox news radio and some other pundits talk about the OWS and they definately did not like them. I read these pages and they support OWS. I am with the supporters. We need a complete overhaul of politics and a renewal of following the constitution. The more I read the founders the more they make sense. They were from a period that was very similar to today and they built a politcal system that protected all people. The politician and oligarchs do not like the constiution because it puts limits on their power and wealth. We had the greatest rise of the standard of living in the US because of the constitution and bill of rights and that is being destroyed by the very rich and the politicians that are owned by the very rich. The  very rich want to take all of the money from all of us and use the people as slaves. We must reinstate glass/stegal and limits on leverage for the banks. We must put teeth into the laws that limit the powes of the federal reserve bank or obolish it completely. We must institute term limits for politicians to limit their power and we must stop lobyists.  We the people will not be free until we control the president, congress, courts and the rich.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 21:47 | 1751859 mynhair
mynhair's picture

I want my mommy.

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 08:33 | 1752535 Ned Zeppelin
Ned Zeppelin's picture

douchebag says what?

Sat, 10/08/2011 - 09:28 | 1752625 snowball777
Fri, 10/07/2011 - 21:57 | 1751869 jmc8888
jmc8888's picture

There is no such thing as creative destruction.  That's a fascist concept that is nothing more than propaganda. 

It's purpose is to say, hey it's ok to let or actively seek destruction in order for someone to profit off it.

 

We need Glass-Steagall, and a credit system of physical economy, not creative destruction.

 

Our choices aren't Keynesian, Austrian, or to allow creative destruction to occur.

Our choices are New Dark Age OR Glass-Steagall.

 

It is possible to let the crap get destroyed, the useless (aspects of our economy) to die along with it, but keep what is needed to survive and move forward.  Glass-Steagall will allow for that. The other ways above, including again allowing CREATIVE DESTRUCTION (propaganda bullshit) to play out will not.

 

But of course that's what the banksters want, this whole fucktard situation being played on THEIR terms.  They have their preferences, but no matter what, the game must be played on their terms.  Because under monetarist ideology, at least SOME of those imbecilic assholes would survive.  Same overall notions, just a different overriding methodology.  All built off bullshit.

 

Say no to the banksters other plans to remain with a hold over us.  The only way to free us, is to free our entire economic makeup from that of ANY monetarist notion of economy.

 

So once again choose Glass-Steagall. Choose a return to the notion of a physical economy, and our original treasury secretary in implementing an economic structure that will allow us to survive, because all of the monetarists notions, are pure guesses, and built off bullshit.  Just a few billion need to die before, and with some of the banksters still running the show, before an equilibrium gets found? We CAN do better than that. 

Their belief that it will stop before that is asinine.  The chips of the entire world are all in, and when it goes, if we don't pull what's needed off the table, it'll all be lost.

If we choose to remain controlled by monetarist conceptions, then the banksters have already won, even if most get destroyed in the process.

Glass-Steagall

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 22:27 | 1751986 buyingsterling
buyingsterling's picture

Yes to Glass Steagall and yes to creative destruction. You're purposely mis-representing the latter. It's about mistakes and improvement, not pillaging.

Fri, 10/07/2011 - 22:34 | 1752006 ReactionToClose...
ReactionToClosedMinds's picture

"There is no such thing as creative destruction. That's a fascist concept that is nothing more than propaganda."

Are you kidding me?

Do you honestly believe what you just wrote?

Do you fully understand all the implications?

Polite suggestion: go read Joseph Schumpeter's masterpiece Capitalism Socialism and Democracy. It is not impenetrable or complex but it is not an easy read (but he is a fantastic writer .... some riveting sentences and quotes are litter throughout). Why? Because each one of his chapters could be turned into complete books on their own .. it is that conceptually concentrated.

I dare you to read it .. because I do not think you have the discipline or ability to do so ... so you spout nonsense ideological mantras.

And so you know, Schumpeter was Minister of Finance in a socialist coalition government struggling with post-WW1 Austria. It was not just a 'ringside seat' ... he had to work with them ... he was part of the political to and fro. The result .... I am unaware of anyone refuting Schumpeter except by childish name calling like "fascist concept .... propaganda"

And you feel proud that you write and express yourself like this? like some brownshirt trying to intimidate rational discussion?

and do you really know what you are talking about regarding the separation of investment from commercial banking? Do you really know or are you just mindlessly repeating what someone told you to say? Do you understand all the ramifications of what you are saying and arguing?

The Glass-S prohibition was dropped because American banks could not compete with the mega--Euro and Asian banks .. they were at a clear disadvantage. You have to deal with reality and not spout 'fascism' anytime you want. I was and am against the complete drop of Glass-S but it is reasonable enough to fix .. to partition investment banking, prop trading and commercial banking and their capital structures ... especially now that your likely friend Chris Dodd is gone from the Senate

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!