The Rich Get Richer

[Smote]

Pretty much. The pillars of morality seem to be empathy and fairness. See: http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals?language=en#t-575176

So in this case, we could say that when the situation feels very unfair, empathy can be overrode, and likely attack the rich man where the inequity is: at his belongings. Burnt out companies, burnt down houses, destroyed cars. Soldiers deployed everywhere and brainwashed/given enough that they are on the rich person's side instead of the poor. Killings by the more radical of rioters. A vicious cycle of killings of rioters by police/soldiers and retribution as the sense of unfairness increases.

The only real strategies for the rich seem to be Extermination [genocide/exile], Imprisonment [conc. camps], Appeasement [higher taxes/welfare/social security/wealth redistribution], or Rehabilitation [affirmative action/welfare with work requirements?/focusing on available jobs/focusing on education]. Perhaps Extermination could also be followed by creating a system where the poor aren't allowed to have babies and just waiting a while.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Pretty much. The pillars of morality seem to be empathy and fairness. See: http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals?language=en#t-575176

So in this case, we could say that when the situation feels very unfair, empathy can be overrode, and likely attack the rich man where the inequity is: at his belongings. Burnt out companies, burnt down houses, destroyed cars. Soldiers deployed everywhere and brainwashed/given enough that they are on the rich person's side instead of the poor. Killings by the more radical of rioters. A vicious cycle of killings of rioters by police/soldiers and retribution as the sense of unfairness increases.

The only real strategies for the rich seem to be Extermination [genocide/exile], Imprisonment [conc. camps], Appeasement [higher taxes/welfare/social security/wealth redistribution], or Rehabilitation [affirmative action/welfare with work requirements?/focusing on available jobs/focusing on education]. Perhaps Extermination could also be followed by creating a system where the poor aren't allowed to have babies and just waiting a while.

The problem is that 'rich' is a totally relativity based term. If the poor get exterminated there are no rich...and if the poor get 'rehabilitated' there are also no rich...until the survivors divide up to fill both roles.

Economics is the science of distribution systems for scarce resources. By definition, there's not enough of something to go around. The real function of the system is to provide layers of confusion over the basic reality that someone is getting shafted by the distribution. But any system that runs too long creates such an inequity that it outstrips the confusion, at which point the people on the wronged side eat the people who took advantage...and a new and more confusing system gets created.

 

[Borachio]

l]

So in this case, we could say that when the situation feels very unfair, empathy can be overrode, and likely attack the rich man where the inequity is: at his belongings. Burnt out companies, burnt down houses, destroyed cars.

Yes. No.

What generally happens isn't the rich and their property being attacked by the poor rioting (which I could understand), but the poor impotently pulling their own environment to pieces and killing each other.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes. No.

What generally happens isn't the rich and their property being attacked by the poor rioting (which I could understand), but the poor impotently pulling their own environment to pieces and killing each other.

It isn't 'impotently'. Again, the rich don't exist without the poor. If the economic system collapses it's the rich who benefit from the system who regret it. Ultimately, when the product of the many is controlled by a few they use a portion of it to pay another few who protect them from the many.

The system breaks down because the many stop producing (busy rioting, check back tomorrow). There will be casualties and hardship, but the many will eventually get around to producing their own subsistence and not be any the worse off, but the few who can no longer be paid to protect can usually be counted on to take their frustrations out on their former employers. Then they hire themselves out to whoever benefits from the next system once it forms, or if it doesn't form fast enough they join the many and grub for their subsistence.

 

[Borachio]

I'm not sure what kind of economic collapse you're talking about it here. I don't recognize anything like it from history.

In the Weimar republic, surely the most obvious case of economic collapse in recent times in Europe, it wasn't the rich who suffered at all. They were the ones who were most likely to be able to insulate themselves from the "collapse" either by exporting their wealth to some haven like Switzerland, or by investing in material goods, or by speculating in a falling market. The working class weren't materially much worse off. (Except they didn't have any means of making a living, of course.) It was the middle class who lost their savings who were the real losers. And they're notoriously the least likely to riot.

No?

What happened in revolutionary France, though? Where I can see that the aristocratic rich really did suffer, as far as I know. Was that precipitated by an economic collapse? Maybe it was? I really don't know enough about it. I thought people like Thomas Payne had more to do with it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not sure what kind of economic collapse you're talking about it here. I don't recognize anything like it from history.

In the Weimar republic, surely the most obvious case of economic collapse in recent times in Europe, it wasn't the rich who suffered at all. They were the ones who were most likely to be able to insulate themselves from the "collapse" either by exporting their wealth to some haven like Switzerland, or by investing in material goods, or by speculating in a falling market. The working class weren't materially much worse off. (Except they didn't have any means of making a living, of course.) It was the middle class who lost their savings who were the real losers. And they're notoriously the least likely to riot.

No?

Systemic collapse isn't confined to a nation. The transition from feudalism to the mercantile system is a better example. Early on, when the manor house may have had stone walls but it still had a dirt floor the serfs weren't too upset with the situation. Eventually the accumulated inequities made feudalism no longer practicable...to the serious detriment of the lords. The serfs went from subsistence to subsistence with little notable effect, but the lords went from lords to paupers...or pincushions.

Of course the mercantile system had its own inequities, but when the shopkeeper was just the guy in the village who had a little more storage room than the neighbors it wasn't a problem. Twenty generations later when his descendant considered himself a 'merchant prince' who could buy and sell his fellow man at will things got ugly again.

Enter capitalism. When the 'capitalist' is the guy working harder in the corner of the workshop than any of the people who he is letting use his tools everyone is happy even though the system is no more equitable than any other. When the capitalist is clearly a fat tick who has never done a lick of work since the day he inherited the tools from his father, not so much. So here we are.

 

[Harv]

I disagree. Humans have a deep rooted reluctance to kill other humans that restrains them even when the killing can be done in good conscience. Killing someone in self defense who is clearly intent on killing you doesn't conflict with conscience...but it is still hard to do.

Should I mention a certain police officer in Missouri? I am sure he wonders if there was any other way.

Rising up to kill oppressors can be done in good conscience...but it is still something people have to be brought to with far more oppression. As I said, that restraint is the last thing the rich will take away.

Pretty much. The pillars of morality seem to be empathy and fairness. See: http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_wa...ge=en#t-575176

So in this case, we could say that when the situation feels very unfair, empathy can be overrode, and likely attack the rich man where the inequity is: at his belongings. Burnt out companies, burnt down houses, destroyed cars. Soldiers deployed everywhere and brainwashed/given enough that they are on the rich person's side instead of the poor. Killings by the more radical of rioters. A vicious cycle of killings of rioters by police/soldiers and retribution as the sense of unfairness increases.

This sounds like a descent from killing somebody with just cause to killing somebody just 'cuz.

I'm not sure what kind of economic collapse you're talking about it here. I don't recognize anything like it from history.

In the Weimar republic, surely the most obvious case of economic collapse in recent times in Europe, it wasn't the rich who suffered at all. They were the ones who were most likely to be able to insulate themselves from the "collapse" either by exporting their wealth to some haven like Switzerland, or by investing in material goods, or by speculating in a falling market. The working class weren't materially much worse off. (Except they didn't have any means of making a living, of course.) It was the middle class who lost their savings who were the real losers. And they're notoriously the least likely to riot.

No?

What happened in revolutionary France, though? Where I can see that the aristocratic rich really did suffer, as far as I know. Was that precipitated by an economic collapse? Maybe it was? I really don't know enough about it. I thought people like Thomas Payne had more to do with it.

I tend to think revolutions end in a very ugly way.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Revolution =/= systemic change in economics.

 

[onejayhawk]

I tend to think revolutions end in a very ugly way.

Depends on the revolution. India did pretty well under Ghandi. Their problems have mostly been home grown.

J

 

[Harv]

^^Hmm. Maybe I put the words "tend to" in the wrong place in the sentence and turned my statement into a generalization.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Quantitative easing is the modern equivalent of debasing the coinage. In Roman times the emperor would often reduce the silver and gold content of coins, replacing it will tiny amounts of cheaper metals: in unnoticeably small amounts per coin but on large scale for massive imperial profits. Everyone below got relatively poorer because it was essentially their money being taken, but if you didn't understand what was going on behind the scenes you wouldn't notice. QE is simply this, but instead of the emperor benefitting it's the banks. Banks and those in charge of them are the modern emperors; central banks, 'democratic' states and their populations are the major resource subject to their predation.

Economics is the science of distribution systems for scarce resources. By definition, there's not enough of something to go around. The real function of the system is to provide layers of confusion over the basic reality that someone is getting shafted by the distribution. But any system that runs too long creates such an inequity that it outstrips the confusion, at which point the people on the wronged side eat the people who took advantage...and a new and more confusing system gets created.

Excellent. But economics in the modern West is essentially a socio-ideological system rather than a science (though it uses some scientific methodologies where it is advantageous).

 

[Harv]

Quantitative easing is the modern equivalent of debasing the coinage. In Roman times the emperor would often reduce the silver and gold content of coins, replacing it will tiny amounts of cheaper metals:

That would be copper.

in unnoticeably small amounts per coin but on large scale for massive imperial profits. Everyone below got relatively poorer because it was essentially their money being taken, but if you didn't understand what was going on behind the scenes you wouldn't notice.

I thought they weighed coins for exactly this reason, so I don't know if people in the economy did not understand what was going on - I would suspect they were forced to accept it.

To settle a transaction, I might give some coins to a merchant containing 100 grams of silver - and the merchant will weigh the coins to see if they really do contain 100 grams of silver. If some of the silver has been replaced with copper, then the density of the coin will be reduced and the coin will weigh less and anybody with a scale is going to know.

However, as a common laborer, I might be forced to accept coins containing 95 grams of silver as payment for my work, instead of 100 grams of silver. But when I go out and buy stuff at the marketplace, the merchants will demand the same amount of silver. It is a more polite way of reducing pay - and instead of getting a smaller coin, I might get the same size coin with less silver content.

So I would argue that the "unnoticeably" smaller amount of silver is not so much increment is not noticeable, but does not cause a protest.

QE is simply this, but instead of the emperor benefitting it's the banks. Banks and those in charge of them are the modern emperors; central banks, 'democratic' states and their populations are the major resource subject to their predation.

In both systems, somebody is getting purchasing power for free and somebody is forced to pay for it.

 

[onejayhawk]

For some reason I am reminded of a gimmick that was used in the Nevada silver fields 150 years ago. To make the refined silver more difficult to steal, it was cast in multi-ton balls. These were rolled into a specially constructed cradle for transport to the mint.

Actors say, "Break a leg." Thieves say, "Nothing too big to carry."

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Seems to me that you could replace some amount of the silver with less dense copper...and make the coin slightly thicker at the same time. Coin looks okay to anyone who can't measure the thickness with enough precision, and has the same weight as the pure silver coin.

 

[Borachio]

It's really easy to tell a thick coin from a thinner one, though. Anyone with fingers can do that. To a high degree of accuracy.

It only works in comparison. Given just one coin, I couldn't tell you whether it was a thick one or thin one in isolation.

 

[Harv]

I have not yet figured out the degree of accuracy. The difference might be comparing a US quarter that is 1.75mm thick and a counterfeit coin that is 1.76mm to make up for the weight difference because we went from 90% silver to 85% silver. Meanwhile, the value of the coin might drop from $3.15 to $3.00.

You might also get a similar effect by changing the diameter from about 25mm to 25.1mm, or a combination of thickness and diameter.

Also note, that if you can figure out the difference, then you can net yourself a 15 cent profit every time you correctly identify the coin. I would imagine whoever minted the coins has the biggest advantage in this: They made the coins. The next advantage goes to the money-changers (the equivalent of bankers) because they are in the business of determining how much these coins are worth.

 

[Borachio]

Hmm. I doubt my fingers are accurate to 1/100 of a mm. 1/10 is more like it.

I mean, my coin thickness detecting fingers are only as good as the surface on which I rest the coins to test them after all, at best. And that's not likely to be uniform to that level of accuracy anyway. I think.

I'm guessing here though. I do like to fondle my coin collection. I've just never tried to detect counterfeits that way. They say that a good third of the pound coins in circulation are forgeries. Which I can believe, since some of them are decidedly amateur attempts. But the metal used is almost certainly the "correct" sort. It being a fairly cheap alloy. And forgers like to use them in coin operated machinery, so their dimensions will be good too.

 

[Harv]

They say that a good third of the pound coins in circulation are forgeries. Which I can believe, since some of them are decidedly amateur attempts.

Um. Are you talking about present-day pound coin? Wow. That sounds like a lot of coins.

 

[Borachio]

It is.

That's why the two pound coin is a lot more sophisticated, technologically speaking.

The only good thing about the counterfeit coins is that people still seem to accept them as legal tender. There's so many of them that the banks can't handle rejecting them all.

But don't quote me. It may not be a third, it might only be 5% for all I know. It's just that I'm always studying my pound coins, and either a lot of them are forgeries or the national mint is pretty lackadaisical about how it manufacturers them (could be both). Some of the lettering is decidedly ill-formed, imo.

 

[onejayhawk]

During WW II Operation Bernhard produced several million five pound notes. The idea was to flood the British economy with cash, causing inflation. Some of the notes were distributed. They were so good that the government left them in circulation.

The BBC did an hilarious fictional dramatization, called Private Schultz. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081919/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

J