FORBES OP/ED blasts the global market.

[Brian37]

IT is refreshing to see a financial magazine of that scale to post an opinion from someone who points out a very real problem.

Passing money around between billionaires worldwide, is simply a competition between the already uber rich. It is short term thinking which is basically gambling between the top, having little to do with providing stability to workers worldwide. You cant rid the world of exchanging resources because every human needs resources. But the planet cannot afford to simply treat markets as toys for billionaires.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon...7f8b424f17

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

IT is refreshing to see a financial magazine of that scale to post an opinion from someone who points out a very real problem.

Passing money around between billionaires worldwide, is simply a competition between the already uber rich. It is short term thinking which is basically gambling between the top, having little to do with providing stability to workers worldwide. You cant rid the world of exchanging resources because every human needs resources. But the planet cannot afford to simply treat markets as toys for billionaires.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon...7f8b424f17

I find it more than a little (sneaky?  disingenuous?) of Forbes to mention that Chu is a Nobel laureate, but fail to mention that he's NOT an economist.  He's a physicist and a good one, but does that qualify him to pontificate about the world economy?

Boru

[I_am_not_mafia]

I find it more than a little (sneaky?  disingenuous?) of Forbes to mention that Chu is a Nobel laureate, but fail to mention that he's NOT an economist.  He's a physicist and a good one, but does that qualify him to pontificate about the world economy?

I wouldn't say that it completely disqualifies him because economies can be understood in terms of thermodynamics.

[Brian37]

To talk of economic theories as cure a cure all to me is bullshit. I don't care what economic view someone touts, you'll still end up with unrest if enough of that population is starved of resources. It does not matter which direction that unrest leads to, be it to a more open society, or to a closed society.

And economic views still do not take into account friend and foe alike seek resources, and long term times change and and power shifts.

Even right now, I do get sick of the GOP harping on how well the economy is doing. Sure, for more CEOs and Shareholders and Wall Street. But that is still a short term sugar high and does not do much to create long term affordable living and worker stability.

I still prefer an open west, but that does not mean our billionaires are doing the right thing. But billionaires also exist in China and Russia and Saudi Arabia and quite sure Kim Jong Un and his family are filthy rich too.

To say a layperson cannot comment on anything is absurd. I also can't build a car from scratch, in designing one, melting the metal to build an engine block, wire it, assemble it, to know when it is a lemon if it doesn't start. Any power in the world can sell bullshit to their populations, just like a used car salesman.

The global market cannot be seen as one ideology, but an inter connected ecosystem, where everything ebbs and flows, and power shifts over time.

China's model is great for production, but horrible on human rights and pollution. America's rich I see as simply wanting to replicate that exploitation here.

I only value an open west market more because it allows for more individual expression and protects pluralism better. But right now, I do see our right trying to destroy that.

---

Globally speaking, it isn't enough for any nation in the world to simply produce just to produce. Our species cant consume it's way to prosperity. Caring solely about billionaires and shareholders is short term thinking. The global weapons industry sells to everyone, both friend and foe, and the shareholders are worldwide. Ignoring that invites conflict based on profit. Letting oil dictate the global market also effects friend and foe on top of causing global warming, which is the only home our species has.

It is one thing to argue for more open societies, and I will always favor that. But that does not change that even in the west, we can and do have abuse of power.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I find it more than a little (sneaky?  disingenuous?) of Forbes to mention that Chu is a Nobel laureate, but fail to mention that he's NOT an economist.  He's a physicist and a good one, but does that qualify him to pontificate about the world economy?

I wouldn't say that it completely disqualifies him because economies can be understood in terms of thermodynamics.

That's fair, but I think that describing someone as a 'Nobel laureate' in an article about the economy when he's not a laureate in economics is a little underhanded.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

To talk of economic theories as cure a cure all to me is bullshit. I don't care what economic view someone touts, you'll still end up with unrest if enough of that population is starved of resources. It does not matter which direction that unrest leads to, be it to a more open society, or to a closed society.

And economic views still do not take into account friend and foe alike seek resources, and long term times change and and power shifts.

Even right now, I do get sick of the GOP harping on how well the economy is doing. Sure, for more CEOs and Shareholders and Wall Street. But that is still a short term sugar high and does not do much to create long term affordable living and worker stability.

I still prefer an open west, but that does not mean our billionaires are doing the right thing. But billionaires also exist in China and Russia and Saudi Arabia and quite sure Kim Jong Un and his family are filthy rich too.

To say a layperson cannot comment on anything is absurd. I also can't build a car from scratch, in designing one, melting the metal to build an engine block, wire it, assemble it, to know when it is a lemon if it doesn't start. Any power in the world can sell bullshit to their populations, just like a used car salesman.

The global market cannot be seen as one ideology, but an inter connected ecosystem, where everything ebbs and flows, and power shifts over time.

China's model is great for production, but horrible on human rights and pollution. America's rich I see as simply wanting to replicate that exploitation here.

I only value an open west market more because it allows for more individual expression and protects pluralism better. But right now, I do see our right trying to destroy that.

---

Globally speaking, it isn't enough for any nation in the world to simply produce just to produce. Our species cant consume it's way to prosperity. Caring solely about billionaires and shareholders is short term thinking. The global weapons industry sells to everyone, both friend and foe, and the shareholders are worldwide. Ignoring that invites conflict based on profit. Letting oil dictate the global market also effects friend and foe on top of causing global warming, which is the only home our species has.

It is one thing to argue for more open societies, and I will always favor that. But that does not change that even in the west, we can and do have abuse of power.

I take your point about cars, but when your car breaks down do you hire an auto mechanic or a lumberjack?

Boru

[Brian37]

To talk of economic theories as cure a cure all to me is bullshit. I don't care what economic view someone touts, you'll still end up with unrest if enough of that population is starved of resources. It does not matter which direction that unrest leads to, be it to a more open society, or to a closed society.

And economic views still do not take into account friend and foe alike seek resources, and long term times change and and power shifts.

Even right now, I do get sick of the GOP harping on how well the economy is doing. Sure, for more CEOs and Shareholders and Wall Street. But that is still a short term sugar high and does not do much to create long term affordable living and worker stability.

I still prefer an open west, but that does not mean our billionaires are doing the right thing. But billionaires also exist in China and Russia and Saudi Arabia and quite sure Kim Jong Un and his family are filthy rich too.

To say a layperson cannot comment on anything is absurd. I also can't build a car from scratch, in designing one, melting the metal to build an engine block, wire it, assemble it, to know when it is a lemon if it doesn't start. Any power in the world can sell bullshit to their populations, just like a used car salesman.

The global market cannot be seen as one ideology, but an inter connected ecosystem, where everything ebbs and flows, and power shifts over time.

China's model is great for production, but horrible on human rights and pollution. America's rich I see as simply wanting to replicate that exploitation here.

I only value an open west market more because it allows for more individual expression and protects pluralism better. But right now, I do see our right trying to destroy that.

---

Globally speaking, it isn't enough for any nation in the world to simply produce just to produce. Our species cant consume it's way to prosperity. Caring solely about billionaires and shareholders is short term thinking. The global weapons industry sells to everyone, both friend and foe, and the shareholders are worldwide. Ignoring that invites conflict based on profit. Letting oil dictate the global market also effects friend and foe on top of causing global warming, which is the only home our species has.

It is one thing to argue for more open societies, and I will always favor that. But that does not change that even in the west, we can and do have abuse of power.

I take your point about cars, but when your car breaks down do you hire an auto mechanic or a lumberjack?

Boru

Way to miss the point. 

Ask a communist if they think their system works, they'd say it does. I'd say China's authoritarian market which is communist as well as capitalist has done well over the past couple of decades. 

They have billionaires too. So even with theirs it still amounts to the rich an powerful trying to sell their populations they know what is best for their communist party.

There is no such thing as a perfect economic ideology. Every human needs resources, every nation has powers that seek resources. There is not one nation in the world that does not invest in the global market. In the end it still amounts to wealth and power.

Our billionaires since Reagan basically handed them lopsided power, have eroded the middle class and worker stability. It isn't enough to simply argue "let the rich do what they want". China's billionaires do that too.

Wealth in power always exists, no matter the nation. The only argument to be had in reality, are what checks on that wealth and power can maximize stability without violating human rights.

The planet is a globe, not flat, our global economy is connected no matter what. 

I value an open west, but even given that, I do not value abuse of wealth or power. 

The worlds billionaires are simply creating a short term exploitative economy, and that can benefit both friend and foe, but it is still short term thinking. The planet's resources are not infinite regardless if friend or foe use them. The planet cannot simply consume it's way to prosperity. Long term planning and problem solving that creates more global stability and reduces poverty and pollution are better long term goals. But that is not what the world market is currently.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I take your point about cars, but when your car breaks down do you hire an auto mechanic or a lumberjack?

Boru

Way to miss the point. 

Ask a communist if they think their system works, they'd say it does. I'd say China's authoritarian market which is communist as well as capitalist has done well over the past couple of decades. 

They have billionaires too. So even with theirs it still amounts to the rich an powerful trying to sell their populations they know what is best for their communist party.

There is no such thing as a perfect economic ideology. Every human needs resources, every nation has powers that seek resources. There is not one nation in the world that does not invest in the global market. In the end it still amounts to wealth and power.

Our billionaires since Reagan basically handed them lopsided power, have eroded the middle class and worker stability. It isn't enough to simply argue "let the rich do what they want". China's billionaires do that too.

Wealth in power always exists, no matter the nation. The only argument to be had in reality, are what checks on that wealth and power can maximize stability without violating human rights.

The planet is a globe, not flat, our global economy is connected no matter what. 

I value an open west, but even given that, I do not value abuse of wealth or power. 

The worlds billionaires are simply creating a short term exploitative economy, and that can benefit both friend and foe, but it is still short term thinking. The planet's resources are not infinite regardless if friend or foe use them. The planet cannot simply consume it's way to prosperity. Long term planning and problem solving that creates more global stability and reduces poverty and pollution are better long term goals. But that is not what the world market is currently.

Well, my point is that an economist is better qualified to speak on the economy than is a physicist.

Be that as it may, thanks for the long, involved screed about points no one raised.

BTW, the article to which you linked is not an OP/ED.

Boru

[Brian37]

I don't care if one is arguing Saudi theocracy, or China's communism, or America's corporations, or Russia, I don't care.

Every nation needs resources, and the powers of both friend and foe control, or try to control those resources for that power's benefit. The problem is everyone does that, and we are also at the same time inner connected.

Oil is the biggest example of global greed hurting our planet. Russia's wealth an power tries to control their oil. Saudi Arabia owns oil companies too. China invests in oil too. So argue ideology till your blue in the face, it does not matter short term who has the upper hand if we destroy our planet by ignoring the damage we are doing by focusing on short term profit.

Economic ideology is argued on all sides in all directions. But regardless of which one one may argue, humans still live on one planet and an economic view still does not exist in a vacuum or in isolation.

Humans are tribal, and we always have been, and we always have formed groups and competed against other groups for resources. But right now currently with the threat of global warming, pollution, poverty GLOBALLY, the world cannot afford to ignore this. The days of conquest are over. The world is too small now, to inner connected to allow 62 billionaires worldwide to sit on half the world's wealth when they could be using it to solve issues of global warming, pollution, poverty and worker stability.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I don't care if one is arguing Saudi theocracy, or China's communism, or America's corporations, or Russia,  I don't care.

Every nation needs resources, and the powers of both friend and foe control, or try to control those resources for that power's benefit. The problem is everyone does that, and we are also at the same time inner connected.

Oil is the biggest example of global greed hurting  our planet. Russia's wealth an power tries to control their oil. Saudi Arabia owns oil companies too. China invests in oil too. So argue ideology till your blue in the face, it does not matter short term who has the upper hand if we destroy our planet by ignoring the damage we are doing by focusing on short term profit.

Economic ideology  is argued on all sides in all directions. But regardless of which one one may argue, humans still live on one planet and an economic view still does not exist in a vacuum or in isolation.

Humans are tribal, and we always have been, and we always have formed groups and competed against other groups for resources. But right now currently with the threat of global warming, pollution, poverty GLOBALLY, the world cannot afford to ignore this. The days of conquest are over. The world is too small now, to inner connected to allow 62 billionaires worldwide to sit on half the world's wealth when they could be using it to solve issues of global warming, pollution, poverty and worker stability.

Nice polemic.

Boru