I think "collapse" should be taken as a destruction of the social contract and a loss of legitimacy in the ruling bodies rather than a apocalyptic scenario. Plenty of societies have collapsed and rebuilt over history. But while a collapse is Nature's way of dealing with unsustainable systems, we should avoid that scenario as much as possible. It can get very ugly in ways people aren't going to be ready for.
Maintaining free speech has AFAIK been presupposed on the idea that everyone can figure out the truth for themselves. But that just isn't entirely true.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it presupposes an objective truth that will always be held by those with authority. The COVID saga started with the director of the CDC lying to everyone about the efficacy of masks and telling people to just wash their hands. Regardless of the excuses that have been given, lots of people died believing in his authority and doing as he recommended.
There's a major push to centralize the transmission of information around a central authority now, but that central authority (government, MSM, "fact-checkers") still continues to be the largest spreader of misinformation to this day. Quite a lot of people that have been maligned, censored, fired/banned turned out to be correct whereas our "experts" turned out to be wrong. If The Science is always changing, and that's why our experts are allowed to frequently get things wrong whilst still maintaining legitimacy, that illustrates the need for alternate voices in order for one to consider every angle.
You're not wrong that people routinely fail at figuring out the truth, but the problem is that there isn't a real objective source of information when it comes down to it.
This sense of call to action on the part of individuals is fundamentally disingenuous, I'm assuming you like to use it as a motif in every post unnecessarily.
Erm, the first part of my post was talking about the particulars of the "soft landing" and the second part of it was about the idea of America collapsing in general. It wasn't unnecessary so much as it was my genuine response to why I think the country is on the verge of collapse. Those are two separate things. Maybe I should have quoted the individual parts of the OP so as to not brook this kind of confusion.
As for the rest, I think I've made it clear in this and other topics that there is both a system and an individual critique with societal problems. Just like you can't lay blame wholly on the individual you also can't pretend the system is its own entity. The two feed into and influence each other. The latter part of that post described both components and why they continue to push American society closer to collapse.
Back up a bit and consider the first part of my previous post in this topic. What is the global supply chain, why was it created, who created it, and for what purpose? What is the housing market, why is it inflated, who inflated it? And who decides monetary police and to what ends? But perhaps a more succinct question would be to ask why Americans continue to play games they know are rigged against them?
We laugh at the Bitcoin bros for being tricked by internet funny money, but they've had a very good point that traditional currency and asset markets have no real backing either. The tag team of Reagan and Clinton led to the destruction of American manufacturing and other domestic production in order to make greater profits by outsourcing most of domestic production overseas. This benefited finance and corporations greatly, but it also destroyed the Midwestern economy that was primarily based on manufacturing.
So the winners are corporations who can source cheaper labor and materials from other countries (higher margins) and finance who can now lend to foreigners as well. The losers are the Midwestern people who had the rug pulled out from under them and the promises to help them transition to another economic system have gone unfulfilled. Where is finance predominately located? The coastal states. Where was manufacturing most prominent? The so-called flyover states.
What happens to the greater economy when you destroy your domestic production though? We still produce some things, but it is safe to say that we don't produce as much as we used to and rely more on the global supply chain for our production. COVID showed us how fragile this was and effectively destroyed said global supply chain, which is going to have significant consequences for the price of goods going forward. But what about the overall bigger picture?
If you can't rely on tying your economy to the production of goods then the only other route so far has been to base your economy around finance. Meaning that America has become a nation of borrowers and lends that debt to other countries. Things get really complex from here, but think of it like America has become one giant bank that other countries tie their economies to. Other people park their money in American real estate, bonds, and the Dollar itself.
So the current scheme is essentially being one giant lender to the world. And this has the consequence of turning the entire nation into one giant asset market and debt bubble. The housing market is overinflated because that's where a lot of people's money and assets are tied up: from 401Ks to a hedge on inflation (of currency). The country can continue using credit to keep its poor afloat (and continue ignoring fundamental issues) while playing the markets to facilitate "economic growth" in place of real production.
Spotted the problem? The only real means of economic growth comes from assets. The only people that can afford such inflated assets are the already wealthy. Those who are currently trying to play the markets on highly leveraged debt are about to get destroyed in the upcoming market crash. Those financial institutions will get bailed out because they are ultimately the real economy now.
And that's really it. Who decides monetary policy are the financial institutions that are the only real productive entities in the country. The reason why policies are so skewed in their favor is because they want to protect what keeps the economy going period. If you aren't working in finance or some industry that supports finance (academia, politics, software, etc) you are just simply not useful. And if you aren't useful to the real economy, why do you think you should get better wages? Why would you, the person who works bull**** jobs that aren't productive, not be the fall guy in order to protect that which keeps you afloat?
(That was critiquing the system and now I'm moving on to critique the individual within these systems.)
The reality of ordinary people playing the markets is that they are the built-in failsafe when things go south. If asset prices get too inflated, finance and the wealthy will happily sell those dangerously high assets to the commoners to ensure that their money is safely out of a volatile market and the commoners will be left holding the bags. When those commoners sell their hemorrhaging assets in desperation, the wealthy will happily scoop them back up at bargain prices. This ensures that markets can remain relatively stable and predictable so the real economy can be cushioned from volatility in these markets and all those investors will still buy American assets and debt.
Because if they were like Bitcoin, whose value can drop by half in an afternoon, no one would want to park their money in these markets and America would be left high and dry. Most Bitcoiners only have their money in crypto long enough to swindle some fool. The Fed will not bail out those rugged by ****coins, but they will ensure wealthy investors in the real economy will always remain protected. Our economy depends on it.
So why do Americans continue to play games that they know are rigged against them? If the Fed will only bail out finance that means that it is a zero sum game for everyone else. Yes, through smart investment you can rug your fellow commoners and stay relatively stable, but you will never win against the house. You'll make a modest sum with a little luck and a cool head, but you'll never become a real whale. Exactly how is this any different than gambling at your local casino?
The answer is also the reason why we can count on our failsafes to be failsafes. The losers will always capitulate to their greed and fear. We have fancy charts now that illustrate market cycles and even have one that calculates fear and greed levels. We have market science down almost pat, but people still manage to FOMO at the top and capitulate at the bottom. There are only two real principles needed to be successful in asset markets: 1. Buy low, Sell high 2. Don't gamble anything you can't afford to lose. And yet, we still always have people that routinely blow their life savings buying the top. These (most) people are the fall guys for finance and the Fed picks up the rest.
What causes these people to continue to financially ruin themselves? The inherent belief that they are smarter and better than everyone else. That they are just temporarily embarrassed millionaires and will eventually stand at the top looking down on everyone else. That even though so many others have the same idea to get in on these trends, they will be the ones to beat the house. And that's why casinos are so profitable.
The housing market is so inflated and Bitcoin had such a historical run because debt was deliberately made incredibly cheap and all the unemployment and stimulus checks from COVID caused lots of liquidity flow into those markets. I guess people's first thought was to gamble it on get-rich-quick schemes and they're going to pay dearly for it. Bitcoin is winding back down and the Fed is likely about to deliberately collapse the real assets, but no one seems to be any richer.
The system is rigged no doubt, but Americans continue to perpetuate it. Remember the American Dream? Where you were supposed to work hard and invest into homes for your family and all that jazz? Sounds eerily similar to what I just illustrated above, doesn't it? Where do you think the idea for our current system came from? This is all baked into the essence of what America is. It doesn't matter what flavor of American you are, you support the system in some capacity. Not because you have to necessarily, but because you want to.
Proof? Who are going to vote for in the 2024 elections? If your answer is a party, you are part of the problem. If your answer is an incumbent who is currently perpetuating the system, you are part of the problem. If your answer is a former president who didn't do anything about the system, you are part of the problem. Stop voting in people you know to be part of the system.
But that's just the thing. I've been watching this farce play out for the better part of a decade and I can only come to the conclusion that people don't actually want to change the system. Democrats turned Trump into an apocalyptic figure and finally admitted they were going to "vote blue no matter who" in the 2020 election. Not only was the Trump administration fairly standard, but the Biden administration managed to do everything Trump was fearmongered to do: from bringing us to the brink of world war to severely damaging the economy. And they'll line up to vote for him again in two years. Republicans decided to vote for a fraudulent billionaire on the assumption that he's going to clean the political system of... the influence of fraudulent billionaires. Both of them claimed to like Bernie Sanders and agreed with most of what he said, but couldn't vote for him because...reasons.
If we want systemic change we need to have actual action towards it. There being no upward pressure from the people is precisely why they continue to ignore us. But people continue to make up whatever reason they have to in order to keep voting for the status quo. And thus, they continue getting the status quo.
Speaking directly back to you Mr. Acrostic, I'm not really sure where the confusion lies here. I've been very clear that there is two components and one of those components is how Americans continue to perpetuate the status quo. Yet, you seem to take umbrage at pointing out that people can choose to stop supporting terrible systems instead of voting to keep them in every election cycle. Why exactly is it so sacrilegious to point out that people have voting power? It's one thing if you disagree with me, but inventing wacky theories that I'm a former press secretary is something else.
CREDIT:Speaker: Malcom XHistorian: Mr. Sandeep S. AtwalEmail: sandeep.s.atwal@gmail.comWebsite: http://malcolmxfiles.blogspot.com/SPEECH SCRIPT:Twenty-two mi...
www.youtube.com
That is Malcolm X basically saying everything I've been saying around here for a while. In fact, I've linked that very video somewhere in the election topic. Part of analyzing the issues that a society can face is examining the culture and mindset of the people. Society is a construct, it's the people that are important.
You can not like me, my tone, or the way I write all you want. What I find bizarre is how angry you get over critiquing cultural mindsets that perpetuate the status quo. That's a fundamental part of talking about societal issues and yet you act like it is a completely alien thing to bring up in a political discussion.
