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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: No Mo Mo who wrote (92923)	7/26/2012 2:22:29 PM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 217701

I took the 3 of them on at a single go. Took a while until I could engage in a discussion with ordinary people after that. It is not hard to get people to love their servitude. Humans are inherently lazy. If you satisfy people with a sense of comfort and safety people go a long way to accept servitude. You'll get a tiny minority who will fight back and demand freedom. Majority will take servitude as payment for a sense of comfort and safety

To: No Mo Mo who wrote (92923)	7/26/2012 2:32:46 PM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 217701

How I got to read the 3 of them: Panis et Circenses. Military regime (late 60s early 70s) used economic growth to create a middle class based on state-owned enterprises and civil servants. Masses got soap operas and football and the future promise to join the middle class if they behave and worked hard. They were being told: you help make the cake. Once cake get big, we will slice it and you will get a piece of it. I saw it as Panis et Circenses and the same trick religion used: behave and you will inherit the Heaven.

To: No Mo Mo who wrote (92923)	7/27/2012 8:44:13 AM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217701

Charles Hugh Smith might think like that. Not all of us do. <we subconsciously persuade ourselves of the rightness and inevitability of servitude and self-absorption. And that is how we come to love our servitude; we persuade ourselves to believe it's acceptable and normal rather than deranged and destructive. > Divide and rule is working just fine. Each person who votes for more government benefits to themselves and their little bailiwick increases the serfitude of others. They keep on voting for their patch to get a share of the action because as in the tragedy of the commons, if they don't, they will be the ones who miss out. Sometimes, even in democracies, the majority can go against that flow when things are pressed enough. In the 1980s in New Zealand for example, after the change of government in 1984, the highly regulated and ring-fenced New Zealand economy was going broke and the suffocatocracy had reached its apogee. A 3 year period of major deregulation ensued along with a huge boom, unfortunately largely debt-funded with borrow and hope as collateral. After the 1987 collapse, there was an 8 year period of recovery. There are still many people with post-traumatic stress syndrome resulting from their financial implosion then. The USA might suddenly flip the switch, vote for Ron Paul or equivalent, fill Congress with more of the same and get a new lease on life. Or their socialist British Disease might continue to make gains in the USA as it did from the early 20th century right through until now, with a slight slowing during the Maggie Thatcher years. Plenty of people do like rules and Big Brother style government with collectivist notions, but they tend to like freedom for themselves, so the Big Brother style tends to become too oppressive after a while. After enough of them find themselves being punished rather than all the other people, there is resistance and eventual overthrow of the evil-doers. Charles Hugh Smith really means "other people" rather than "we" but it's rude to talk about other people like that, so he pretends to include himself as one of the suckers. Huxley's fundamental premise that infants can be conditioned to accept anything is false. That's the old Skinnerist "operant conditioning" theory but it conflicts with how living things, including humans, actually function. Yes, pressure can be put on infants and there will be some acceptance, but it's always like "The King Isn't Wearing Any Clothes" - people go along with it to avoid being punished, they don't really believe it. Some people who are seriously damaged can adopt extreme behaviour abnormalities as a result of the attempted conditioning, such as suicide bombers trying for a lot of virgins after martyrdom, but that's abnormal, fortunately, though there are enough to be a considerable problem. The Communists in many countries thought they could change people to love Big Brother. But the outcome was always, "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us." with nothing much achieved. Mqurice

To: No Mo Mo who wrote (92923)	7/28/2012 11:18:06 AM
From: TobagoJack	1 Recommendation Respond to of 217701

Re conditioning, some money managers never give up the ghost of housing recovery Sent from my iPad On 28 Jul, 2012, at 4:52 PM, J wrote: After several tril of stimulus we have nothing better than 1% growth, if that post adjustment, and so we must believe there is no housing recovery, but only zombie housing economy injected full of fiat money via fire hose on nuke-enabled high pressure. We cannot on the one hand recognize the corrosive influence of fiat money inflation on industry, enterprise, savings, capital allocation, and forward policy options, and on the other hand believe all can get back to "normal". The old normal is done and gone. What comes after is the new normal, not necessarily as bill gross stated it, but certainly uncharted. Zirp and Nirp shall have consequences on housing, but "recovery" cannot be applied to whatever the effects on housing. Making a Frankenstein walking around is not the same as catching n recovering from an occasional cold. Sent from my iPad On 28 Jul, 2012, at 4:28PM, W wrote: businessinsider.com Truly, Rosenberg is a permanent bear and therefore a stupid man. In his own chart below, he reads it's as no housing improvement, yet no. of months to sales has fallen from 15 mths to 8; however he interprets it as no. Of months have not fallen to 5 mths, the lows of the past housing boom.We cannot afford biases in our investing which is why most managers underperform the index. We must go where the data goes.Sent from my iPad