|
Motie,
What exactly is being measured when measuring “US economic supremacy”?
People are people, people are not “nations” or “corporations” and it may be a good idea to discriminate between people and their legal fictions long enough to measure something specific.
Example:
Average cost of living within the geographical area known as Earth is x
Average cost of living within the geographical area known as North America (below the Canadian Border and above the Mexican Boarder) is y
Is x higher or lower than y?
How is cost of living measured?
Suppose cost of living is measured in “how many hours of work per week” on average.
The assumption is that people are living, and the assumption is that work is accurately measurable.
I worked more than 60 hours a week, average, for over 25 years, before I became ill, lost my job, recuperated, and am now working less hours per week.
A person in China, on average, may be working more, or less, there are a lot more people in China.
A person in Europe, on average, may be working more or less too.
If, on the other hand, the measure of “US economic supremacy after WWII” is measured as “how powerful the unit of legal currency is (the dollar) relative to other legal units of legal currency (the euro, yuan, yen, etc.)”, then that angle can be approached.
What is the point?
Yet another compounding factor is US neglect of infrastructure and education.
Speaking of the US as if it were one being is pointless to me. I’m not getting the point. Much of the wealth (purchasing power) that flows to the few people (who spend most of it) manages to flow to them by their employment of fraud and violence, while more of the people who have wealth (purchasing power) flow to them honestly, by productive industry, equitable trade, do not receive a lot of it (per person), and that happens in those ratios anywhere within the geographical area known as Earth.
How would government avoid social unrest in this event?
The thing called “government” could be measured as the few people who are on the receiving end of the paper trail known as “The Dollar Hegemony” and those people are not likely to give up their dollar hegemony without a fight, without more lies, more threats, more “false flags”, more diversions, more hidden agendas, etc.
The thing called “social” unrest could be people on the short end of the dollar hegemony stick (the smelly end) who are vocal about their intent to turn the stick around, or ignore the stick, or make their own stick, and that will be seen as a “justification” for “suppression of rebellion” if things progress down that path.
If, on the other hand, the supplies of power available to almost all the people increases as it has increases (power of knowledge, physical power of fuels, electricity, power of interconnectivity; which empowers division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale), then the cost of living can conceivably continue to reduce, and reduce, and then more and more people are less and less convinced of the necessity to fight for power; power becomes abundant. Why fight for something that is abundant?
Example:
China is growing more powerful. That can mean many things, including a whole lot of people who are now consumers wanting things, which then means a whole lot more opportunity for people who can make things.
What is the point of getting all filled up with self-fulfilling dooms day scenarios?
I can guess.
But what if the personal income in dollars is held constant, but the dollar's real buying power steadily decreases in the marketplace? It seems to me that the psychological impact is softened.
I’m going to pass on to you something that is almost irrefutable, somewhat complicated, but concise and to the point. I call this Joe’s law, and it is a convenient way to bring economy and politics together into an understandable viewpoint.
Joe's Law:
Power produced into a state of abundance reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.
In other words, the future is so bright I have to wear shades.
Purchasing power increases, because the costs of living decreases, because power becomes abundant, because abundant power is cheap, like fresh air.
If, on the other hand, power becomes scarce, censored, choked off, depleted, available only to those who have the most of the remaining power, then things won’t be so good.
Have you seen how things are moving toward solar power and electric cars? How about how things are moving toward home grown food from modular green houses?
If people can make their own fuel and their own food at home, and not have to depend upon “central” power sources, then what happens to the price of human labor?
Think about it, please.
This is the worst-case scenario for the dollar, I think.
The dollar is a legal unit of extorted wealth, among other angles of view. My offering to you (my description of the dollar) is accurate, the other views are ambiguous. Your version makes this “dollar” thing sound human, and it is not human. The dollar is a legal unit of extorted wealth. If the dollar is no longer able to work as a tool by which wealth is extorted, for whatever reason it becomes less able to do that job, then the producers and employers of the dollar, as a legal extortion wealth transfer medium, will end, and another tool will probably be worked into place by the legal criminals who now control “The Dollar Hegemony”.
If the old blood money doesn’t work, and the new blood money won’t work, for whatever reason, then the victims of those extortion racket crimes will find some other form of currency to use, and it will either be an extortion free form of currency, or the new currency will have a new boss behind it, same as the old bosses – in principle – a new legal unit of extorted wealth.
Which do you prefer?
A. Extortion
B. Not A
But Americans will have lost their regal lifestyles.
I live in California (a legal fiction) and my lifestyle is “regal”? I suppose that could be an accurate statement.
Here is one definition of the word:
1 : of, relating to, or suitable for a king
I don’t know what a King does, but I worked about 25 years of hard labor, freezing cold, blistering heat, suffocating and deplorable working conditions, blood, sweat, and tears, and all my wealth save for the “cost of living” was siphoned from me to “The Dollar Hegemony” through their many tools that accomplish that goal. In other words I had and have no savings.
If that is me living a “regal” lifestyle, then so be it, but I am no longer able to work as hard, I’ll have to work smarter, give up less, not more, not 40% of my earnings, and certainly not have that “piece of the action” flowing to the criminals as I finance my own enslavement within the extortion racket called “The Dollar Hegemony”.
Feel free to tear it apart, but I hope you will explain WHY I am wrong. My mind is open.
If one person moves into a new power market, then everyone can, almost everyone except people who are already working productively, doctors for example, doctors cut costs, they don’t create costs, perhaps the word should be “healers” cut costs, they make the cost of living reduce in proportion to how much easier it is to live when healed compared to how much more difficult it is to live when sick.
So doctors, for one occupation, continue to be doctors, and if almost everyone else moves toward producing power producing products, or power saving products, what happens?
What if people begin building power saving homes and sell these homes off of The Dollar Hegemony System (where twice the cost of building the home goes to The Dollar Hegemony System as “interest”)?
Suppose that happens and many people are now employed in building more efficient houses and selling them without adding the “interest” payment costs, in other words these new houses are at half price compared to The Dollar Hegemony System price.
Suppose many people move into the Solar Panel construction, sales, installation, and maintenance business, and other people move into the Algae Liquid Fuel business (algae is much more efficient as a fuel stock than sugar and sugar is already producing alcohol for sale at gas stations right now in Brazil, right at the same pumps as petroleum based fuels)?
Now you have the cost of living reduced in two ways:
1. Shelter (home) costs are reduced by half
2. Fuel costs are reduced by more than half (2 cents per mile for electric cars compared to 10 cents per mile for petroleum powered cars), and fuel costs for the home are reduced also.
What happens if people begin moving toward food production at home with the new modular green house systems being produced now? You either make your own food or someone on your block makes enough food for sale for the whole block; which means you either buy one modular green house for yourself, or you buy 10 modular green houses and put them all together into one larger business venture?
Who is going to make all the electric cars, and all the modular green houses?
What happens if the people (not the representatives of The Dollar Hegemony) elect a president and the president says (on the first day):
I hereby preemptively pardon anyone who may be accused of federal tax evasion, anyone at all, in this land we call home - read my lips no federal taxes.
What happens then?
Why think only within the boundaries given? Half of it is false, on purpose, and the other half is half true. Look into this (please) Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports or CAFR – let me know what you find.
|
Favoured: 0
