[Dezakin]

I'll worry about that after automated work generates enough capital to finance our entitlement programs. When that happens you'll just see larger and larger entitlement programs I imagine, until work becomes largely recreational or the province of the few high demand jobs that can't be done by machines yet (entertainment, hookers, etcetera)

You WORRY about that? I'll take your worries over mine, thank you very much.

Back up and look at the context. Is there some problem with reading comprehension here? I was responding to the fear that with robots doing all the work people wouldn't have jobs. We certainly aren't there yet and have much more immediate concerns, like how to fund our existing entitlement programs without robots generating all this magical wealth.

[Sixstrings]

How do you get from more efficient markets to unsustainable markets?

Capitalism is a bit of a shell game.. it requires suckers. So what happens when the same Singularity super-intelligence is making all the trades; there won't be any suckers anymore, and the market would be highly volatile since the perfect algorithms would rush for the exits all at once, or jump on the same stocks all at one.

[Dezakin]

How do you get from more efficient markets to unsustainable markets?

Capitalism is a bit of a shell game.. it requires suckers.

No, its not. Markets are simply resource allocation optimization strategies. They work best when certain conditions hold, like perfect transparency of information. The less suckers there are the better it works. If there are more suckers, you can exploit higher profit margins if you're one that is in the know, but that doesn't make the whole system work better. That's just good old fashioned exploitation.

[americandream]

How do you get from more efficient markets to unsustainable markets?

Capitalism is a bit of a shell game.. it requires suckers.

No, its not. Markets are simply resource allocation optimization strategies. They work best when certain conditions hold, like perfect transparency of information. The less suckers there are the better it works. If there are more suckers, you can exploit higher profit margins if you're one that is in the know, but that doesn't make the whole system work better. That's just good old fashioned exploitation.

For the certain conditions to hold would require, paradoxically, intervention in the movement of capital which is contrary to the global heart of capitalism. Trying to limit capital in any way is the equivalent of trying to intervene in the process of breathing. It's an absurdity and MUST ultimately fail. Marx viewed interventionism as a failed strategy that must ultimately give way to unfettered flows of capital, viewing instead the quaint ethics of medieval mercantilism as the last gasp of feudal markets founded on then parochial social economies.

Free markets rise on Darwinian impulses but quickly gel into closed sub-systems by their very nature. For example, the rise of computerised trading must as a function of the speed and nature of the transactions, acquire a certain opaqueness. The fact that some will exploit these processes in ways that disadvantage others speaks less for the morality of capitalism and more for it's logic, founded as it supremely is on personal gain.

[Dezakin]

How do you get from more efficient markets to unsustainable markets?

Capitalism is a bit of a shell game.. it requires suckers.

No, its not. Markets are simply resource allocation optimization strategies. They work best when certain conditions hold, like perfect transparency of information. The less suckers there are the better it works. If there are more suckers, you can exploit higher profit margins if you're one that is in the know, but that doesn't make the whole system work better. That's just good old fashioned exploitation.

For the certain conditions to hold would require, paradoxically, intervention in the movement of capital which is contrary to the global heart of capitalism. Trying to limit capital in any way is the equivalent of trying to intervene in the process of breathing. It's an absurdity and MUST ultimately fail. Marx viewed

That's as far as I needed to read. Markets work. Randian societies that devolve into authoritarian oligarchies don't. They aren't the same. All markets do is pick prices, and all prices are are resource allocation schemes. Stop turning it into some promotion for whatever socioeconomic system you're enamored with.

[americandream]

@Dezakin

If you are still here in 7 years time, I will be reminding you of this discussion. In the meantime, I predict another euphoric boom in market traded intangibles in the next scam, green related intellectual property. NOT ONLY THAT, I also predict another secondary market in debt funded securities associated with said capital market. Further, there will be devolving of the benchmarking mechanisms beyond the old favourites in the US and London into the twin Asian giants, Russia and Brazil. All in the next 5 years.

This will be the second (though not final) intangibles bubble in this period which will in turn set us up for another transfer of wealth from the plebians to the passively wealthy. This second bubble will set the stage for the progressive radicalisation of the non-capital owning class. By mid century, we will see the final bubble (the commodification of water) which will find capitalism stripped bare of all pretensions as it is finally seen for the ponzi scheme it always was.

When I first ventured into this forum 7 years ago, I consistently stood by my guns that we would witnes the gradual pauperisation of workers worldwide but no sudden collapse any earlier than mid century. Bar a climate event or some other extraordinary natural event, I reiterate my position.

[Dezakin]

@Dezakin

If you are still here in 7 years time, I will be reminding you of this discussion. In the meantime, I predict another euphoric boom in market traded intangibles in the next scam, green related intellectual property.

That's nice. It's not even wrong. It in fact has very little to do with my statement about what markets do or my assertion that more perfect information makes markets better. If everyone has perfect information, bubbles can't happen. They don't, which is one of the myriad reasons why markets fail. Stop talking past me in attempt to be right.

My original statement was simply refuting the position that more efficient trading is bad. Eliminating market arbitrage exploitation isn't enough to mend financial market problems of systemic risk or moral hazard, and you can rail against that all you want; Not that its in the least bit helpful if you're not offering credible alternatives.

[rangerone314]

Well thats just the McCarthy in me, you do know his famous statement, the only good commie is a _____ commie.

Yeah, but McCarthy was a jack@$$. Why not just quote from Hitler?

[americandream]

@Dezakin

If you are still here in 7 years time, I will be reminding you of this discussion. In the meantime, I predict another euphoric boom in market traded intangibles in the next scam, green related intellectual property.

That's nice. It's not even wrong. It in fact has very little to do with my statement about what markets do or my assertion that more perfect information makes markets better. If everyone has perfect information, bubbles can't happen. They don't, which is one of the myriad reasons why markets fail. Stop talking past me in attempt to be right.

My original statement was simply refuting the position that more efficient trading is bad. Eliminating market arbitrage exploitation isn't enough to mend financial market problems of systemic risk or moral hazard, and you can rail against that all you want; Not that its in the least bit helpful if you're not offering credible alternatives.

Thats largely becuase you confuse capitalism with the exchange of commodities which has been with us from our first rudimentary social economy, tribally primitivistic and communal with exchange taking place at the interface with other tribes (primitive markets). You confuse that aspect of market exchange with capital which is a distinct variant of exchange with a definite logic and forms of ownership largely divorced from real assets thereby setting it apart from earlier mercantilism, feudalism and barbarism, less rigorous forms of the private.

Markets have always been with us and will always remain with us, whether they involve exchange through the lens of common ownership or the private. The fact that I appear to be talking past you is down to the fact that you equate this timeless function of being alive with the unique and more recent form of devolved ownership, a feature of capital. A feature which in turn MUST give rise to more elaborate forms of exchange in the quest for that increasingly elusive unit of surplus. In the process, the rise of complexity and opaqueness which translate, quite expectedly, into a race to the bottom (call it what you will as the mechanisms are as extensive as is the quest for accumulation) give rise to all manner of moral outrage and of course, petulant defence.

As for alternatives, they will emerge organically as did and does capital in the face of the original and ongoing collapse of a global system based around real wealth. Circumstance reasonably suggests that it will be non-cornucopian, will eschew the pursuit of personal value and involve the (hard) regulation of common resource utilisation.

[Dezakin]

My original statement was simply refuting the position that more efficient trading is bad. Eliminating market arbitrage exploitation isn't enough to mend financial market problems of systemic risk or moral hazard, and you can rail against that all you want; Not that its in the least bit helpful if you're not offering credible alternatives.

Thats largely becuase you confuse capitalism with the exchange of commodities which has been with us from our first rudimentary social economy, tribally primitivistic and communal with exchange taking place at the interface with other tribes (primitive markets).

No, I don't. You're projecting and building strawmen. Have fun arguing against points I never made, pontificating from your soapbox, and building more strawmen.

[americandream]

My original statement was simply refuting the position that more efficient trading is bad. Eliminating market arbitrage exploitation isn't enough to mend financial market problems of systemic risk or moral hazard, and you can rail against that all you want; Not that its in the least bit helpful if you're not offering credible alternatives.

Thats largely becuase you confuse capitalism with the exchange of commodities which has been with us from our first rudimentary social economy, tribally primitivistic and communal with exchange taking place at the interface with other tribes (primitive markets).

No, I don't. You're projecting and building strawmen. Have fun arguing against points I never made, pontificating from your soapbox, and building more strawmen.

If you can convince me:

that a system based on commodifying everything on this planet, once twice, thrice and beyond, in pursuit of voracious personal gain, cannot ulytimately exhaust the surplus it stripmines by these various devices, (and exhaustion of surplus also contemplates terminal degradation of the resource base, the planet), AND;

with a comprehensive argument that does not fob off critique with resort to petulance or singularity pie in the sky whilst ignoring the latent environmental threat of full spectrum JIT obsolescence scaled out to this planet's potential consumer capacity of 6 billion (and climbing);

I would be the first to admit I am wrong.

But simply baldly arguing that more efficient or ethical commodification or some other vague condition (somehow ridding the FREE market of suckers sounds quaint ) somehow confers eternal sustainablity on capitalism let alone the near term collapse juggernaut headed for us, IS NOT an argument.

[Arthur75]

All this shit is so boring and vulgar, typical "protestant" puritan, tired to the end, worthless JUNK

[Dezakin]

...
But simply baldly arguing that more efficient or ethical commodification or some other vague condition (somehow ridding the FREE market of suckers sounds quaint ) somehow confers eternal sustainablity on capitalism let alone the short term collapse juggernaut headed for us, IS NOT an argument.

Right. That was another fun strawman to defeat, wasn't it? I sure feel humbled making that argumen... wait, where did I make that argument again?

Stop building strawmen.

[americandream]

...
But simply baldly arguing that more efficient or ethical commodification or some other vague condition (somehow ridding the FREE market of suckers sounds quaint ) somehow confers eternal sustainablity on capitalism let alone the short term collapse juggernaut headed for us, IS NOT an argument.

Right. That was another fun strawman to defeat, wasn't it? I sure feel humbled making that argumen... wait, where did I make that argument again?

Stop building strawmen.

I quote:

"No, its not. Markets are simply resource allocation optimization strategies. They work best when certain conditions hold, like perfect transparency of information. The less suckers there are the better it works. If there are more suckers, you can exploit higher profit margins if you're one that is in the know, but that doesn't make the whole system work better. That's just good old fashioned exploitation."

I reiterate. Marlkets have been with us since the dawn of human sentience and are no more than functions of life......exchange if you will for the necessities of life. They can occur communally or through ther mediation of private suppliers and private ownership of common resources. Capitalism is one aspect of the market, with characteristics as I have laid them out.

Now I will ask yuo again. how do you propose to make this PARTCULAR style of THE MARKET sustainable as that is the ESSENCE of my argument, unsustainability ie. Simply arguing that capitalism IS the market is just plain old confused and you need to take that strawman obsession and go away and do your homework.

[Dezakin]

Simply arguing that capitalism IS the market is just plain old confused and you need to take that strawman obsession and go away and do your homework.

Look, I don't give a damn about your manifesto and I'm not interested in arguing your vision on what's sustainable and what isn't in some lofty macroeconomic wankery this side of Chomsky's utopia. You simply don't realize I wasn't making any arguments about capitalism in general, and I only was interested in making an argument about exploiting market arbitrage as not being a good thing for efficiency. You can claim knowledge of the big picture if you want, but I'm not presumptuous enough to assume that anyone has anything more than ideology when it comes to macroeconomic models.

Or maybe you're going to say that I'm saying something about capitalism again. I'm not, and I wasn't. Go argue with someone that actually has an opinion on it.

[americandream]

Simply arguing that capitalism IS the market is just plain old confused and you need to take that strawman obsession and go away and do your homework.

Look, I don't give a damn about your manifesto and I'm not interested in arguing your vision on what's sustainable and what isn't in some lofty macroeconomic wankery this side of Chomsky's utopia. You simply don't realize I wasn't making any arguments about capitalism in general, and I only was interested in making an argument about exploiting market arbitrage as not being a good thing for efficiency. You can claim knowledge of the big picture if you want, but I'm not presumptuous enough to assume that anyone has anything more than ideology when it comes to macroeconomic models.

Or maybe you're going to say that I'm saying something about capitalism again. I'm not, and I wasn't. Go argue with someone that actually has an opinion on it.

So whats your point? Or do you like picking fights with Marxists without any real notion as to what you are arguing seeing as I am arguing systemically whilst you keep wittering on about dealing with particular styles of trading (as the panacea for redeeming ponzi scheme capitalism?...who knows cos I aint got a clue as to what you are on about, Mary).

[Carlhole]

Trancendent Man full film for $5. I smell a torrent somewhere.

[vision-master]

Our evolution will be on a spiritual level before 'In the flesh'.

You pll are still hanging onto the old World.

Dolores Cannon

[Arthur75]

If we could be spared from this boring self hating puritan illiterate airheadish bullshit, that wouldn't be worse ...