Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mcg404 who wrote (19916)	12/26/2003 9:41:52 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 81164

Holy Mad Cow! Dieoff? Dieoff? Do you realize how many articles on SI have featured this website over the past 6 years? Probably fewer than a half a dozen citations. And only 4 that I can locate, including yours. Jeremiads just don't make the hit list here at SI. Here's something in a similar vein: Message 18963744 * As far as the energy matters that Dieoff.org frets over, Mike Ruppert's From the Wilderness seems to be a nexus for this sort of Hubbert's Peak theorizing today: fromthewilderness.com * W/R/T Regulatory Reform -- I've read much of Bill O'Neill's views on regulation in Investor's Business Daily. I find that IBD has some very sensible ideas regarding regulation. Clearly, there have been abuses in the past that have given the regulators a bad reputation. Two elements of the IBD suggestions strike me as being imminently sensible. 1) All regulation should be subject to a cost/benefit analysis. Examples of EPA regulations which cost billions per annum and result in the theoretic savings of a mere handfuls of lives indicate a system too much in love with itself and out of touch with economic reality . 2) Regulations ought to be prescriptive rather than descriptive. In other words, regulations should enforce an outcome, and let industry figure out how to achieve the goal, rather than the rigid (and often wrong-headed) approaches to solving a problem that regulators often try to impose. *** The only problem that I have with deregulation in general is that it doesn't adequately take into account basic human nature vs. the need to protect the public from predatory practices. The recent history of corporate fraud, roll-backs of environmental standards tarted up as wise relaxations of too-rigid rules, and lowered standards of legality for clearly unethical behavior from the corporate sector all indicate to me that deregulation has run off the tracks, and is no longer serving the best interests of the American public.

To: mcg404 who wrote (19916)	12/26/2003 4:26:18 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 81164

John, from Complexity, Problem Solving and Sustainable Societies by Joseph Tainter >>>The Collapse of The Roman Empire One outcome of diminishing returns to complexity is illustrated by the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. As a solar-energy based society which taxed heavily, the empire had little fiscal reserve. When confronted with military crises, Roman Emperors often had to respond by debasing the silver currency (Figure 4.2) and trying to raise new funds. In the third century A.D. constant crises forced the emperors to double the size of the army and increase both the size and complexity of the government. To pay for this, masses of worthless coins were produced, supplies were commandeered from peasants, and the level of taxation was made even more oppressive (up to two-thirds of the net yield after payment of rent). Inflation devastated the economy. Lands and population were surveyed across the empire and assessed for taxes. Communities were held corporately liable for any unpaid amounts. While peasants went hungry or sold their children into slavery, massive fortifications were built, the size of the bureaucracy doubled, provincial administration was made more complex, large subsidies in gold were paid to Germanic tribes, and new imperial cities and courts were established. With rising taxes, marginal lands were abandoned and population declined. Peasants could no longer support large families. To avoid oppressive civic obligations, the wealthy fled from cities to establish self-sufficient rural estates. Ultimately, to escape taxation, peasants voluntarily entered into feudal relationships with these land holders. A few wealthy families came to own much of the land in the western empire, and were able to defy the imperial government. The empire came to sustain itself by consuming its capital resources; producing lands and peasant population (Jones 1964, 1974; Wickham 1984; Tainter 1988, 1994b). The Roman Empire provides history's best-documented example of how increasing complexity to resolve problems leads to higher costs, diminishing returns, alienation of a support population, economic weakness, and collapse. In the end it could no longer afford to solve the problems of its own existence.<<< Makes me think of this --- the situation pertaining in the US at the moment: mwhodges.home.att.net >>>....once total government spending went above 32% of national income (it is now at 42%), and once the ratio of debt to GDP stopped falling below 34% (it is now double that ratio) - - the nation's real median family incomes ceased to grow, and the nation's balance of trade went steadily negative. Considering delayed reactions, the period of danger was probably entered in the mid 1960's - - and, it has not been reversed. A minimum 50% reduction in debt principal and a 30% reduction in the government spending ratios is suggested by this data - - with a final target suggested by these charts as: elimination of debt and a 50% reduction in government spending ratios to the level of 20-22% of national income - - with a goal to return the free-market private sector to an 80% share of our economy. Our founding fore-fathers might have accepted an 80%-20% relationship between private sector and government, but certainly not our current situation. Leadership must prevail, for a change, in the interest of our nation's young - - a very special interest group that did not create the problem, cannot vote to influence outcomes that would impact their future - - and has no special lobby organization. Politicians often speak of 'the children,' as if they really care. The record shows otherwise. <<< However, it looks to me like the US is already well down the same slope of state expansion/currency debasement/national living-beyond-its-means as was seen in the decline and collapse of Rome. In fact, it would seem that very similar circumstances are already clearly in evidence: 1. The printing of money and the creation of debt against fictitious/dubious assets is proceeding faster than ever before in history and at a rate which is not only unacceptable by known standards but which is also unsustainable. 2. The agglomeration of super-large, corporate entities amongst the very rich and the effective control of the state apparatus by them. 3. The expansion of the military and an aggressive foreign policy with the express purpose of acquiring (appropriating) essential assets, particularly oil, necessary for the survival of an economy which is driven almost entirely by cheap energy provided by oil. In fact, I would say that the problem confronting the US has very little to do with regulation, specialization or complexity but rather with the expansion of a nation beyond its ability to sustain itself by the legal means which are available to and within the nation.