All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Human ingenuity and adaptability are difficult to stop.
Human greed blows that away anyday. Sure, all the time, we see people creating some sort of way to power our vehicles and the like. However, only once they develop a way to be mass produced, are they bought out and the technology buried.
Fundamentally, people are suckers for the truth (3 bonus points if you know that quote without cheating). But, people are also not the brighest, especially when they're people, as opposed to persons.
As was being said earlier, if the economy (only using the U.S. as an example, because it's all I know) collapses and I mean, really collapses, we'll revert back to the savages we are, right underneath the surface. George Carlin once said that it wouldn't take much to push us back into barbaric times. "It would probably happen in less than two years. All you'd have to do is eliminate electricity and I mean, completely."
You do that and money won't mean a Goddamn thing anymore. We'll still be greedy, but for truly important things. Food, clean water, supplies of any discernable value, etc.
Only then, after all the people who are willing to murder each other in this country do so, will we finally get back to how things used to be. There will be a sense of community, the survivors will have long-since adapted to being a hunter-gatherer and be living off the land and we'll be satisfied with "good enough" which is something most of us seem to have lost long ago. This is, of course, wishful thinking, but it's certainly possible. We'll see, though, won't we?
An interesting revisionist analysis of the Reagan years. Our equivalent - and equally destructive bedfellow - is thankfully not afforded such generosity.
The Asian markets (on the current trajectory) diminish this dick waving about the American economy. I know a guy who trades bonds in SF who's actively licking his lips at this current situation. The problem (or solution) does not lie with one group or country - it lies with tackling greed.
The ideas you portray here are not new. They go at least back to the time of Voltaire, when intellectuals fantasized about mankind in a primitive, pure, natural state. And you seem to have latched on to some version of the popular Leftist idea of greed. If only we could get rid of the corrupting influences of money and business, we'd be so much happier, and live in a pure state of community. Those ideas were common enough even in the 19 century, with the first communes.
Funny thing about greed. Do you personally know anyone that greedy, that they happily destroy others, or the environment, just so they can have more of something? I mean do you really know people like that? A lot of them?
Or are those greedy people that are out there wreaking havoc just people you kind of know about? People behind the scenes, corporate biggies and the like.
It kind of makes a difference. What you have to ask yourself is this: this greed that you think is responsible for the great evils of the world, is this something you believe because you have witnessed it? Or is it just a way of explaining the world for you? We all want to understand the world and how it works. For a couple thousand years, in our society, we explained bad things that happened by saying the devil was behind it. We don't believe that now, but we still want to think some force is behind it. We like that. It's comforting to think things happen for a reason. So we blame things like greed, and oppression, and money.
Do you really think we'd be better off without civilization?
You talk about burying technologies. In the early decades of the 19th century, to create commerce, the nation built huge systems of canals all along the northeast. Those that controlled the canals made fortunes. Then the rail roads came along. Shouldn't the canal owners have suppressed that development? They didn't, and the rail roads became the new industrial lords...until the automobile came along, and forever destroyed the power of the railroads. Shouldn't the great railroad barons have destroyed the auto industry? Television destroyed radio and film; cassettes destroyed records; mp3s destroyed cds; and so on. You can't hold back technology. Don't believe the little conspiracy websites.
What you might call greed, the desire to pursue one's own fortune, is what drove all these great inventions. The washer and drier, invented by "greedy" inventors, freed women from a life of tedious drudgery.
Hunter gatherers destroyed the natural forest lands on the west coast, and the red wood forests were one of the results.
Do you really prefer we become hunter gatherers again? You really think greed would not exist in those societies? Man, greed is not our biggest threat. It's cloudy thinking.
Hey you Whitehouse, Ha ha charade you are You house proud town mouse, Ha ha charade you are You're trying to keep our feelings off the street You're nearly a real treat, All tight lips and cold feet, And do you feel abused? .....! ......! ......! ......! You gotta stem the evil tide, And keep it all on the inside. Mary you're nearly a treat, Mary you're nearly a treat But you're really a cry
Americans are not dumb!
Far from it. You cant put a name on the movement that is America now. Don't call it anything. Dont call it Tea Party...
Dont call it politics. America is at a stand or bust moment in history. Not because of a ceiling or a budget but because of the realization that we have been lied to over and over again and this president slipped and told us so.
Our account is empty!!!!!
Our social security is empty!!!!
WE ARE BROKE!!!!
And we are borowing 40 cents on every dollar.
The movement in America is deeper than a ground swell. I for one am involved in seeing our country restored, not compromised with just another delay.
Furthermore, I'm a WIMP = Weakly Interacting Massive Particle.
If I put 10% down on a home and borrow 90% from my own statistically probably future income + interest I am not "broke". I am utilizing my resources. I am leveraging. This is sound business commonly throughout the world for millennia.
Amen Nester. Very difficult for the truth to get out, with all of the networks and 2 of the news channels refusing to report the whole story, but it gets out. Nice to see.
I really don't like constructing arguments with links, but the one above is an article by Thomas Sowell, one of the most powerful thinkers of our time. If by "tackling greed" the idea is simply to encourage people, through persuasion, to act in a more generous manner, then I am all for it. But I rather doubt that's what you mean.
Those that wish to "tackle greed" are really saying they think that humans and human institutions should step in to tackle this greed. They think that economic activity should be guided if not controlled by wiser and more ethical people(usually themselves) in order to protect those victims of greed. If this government class of elites happens to benefit from this service to the rest of us, well, that's only fair isn't it, since we are so dependent on them?
But the real problem, as Thomas Sowell effectively argues, is that those that are being "protected" in the end are actually harmed. It is folly and arrogance to think we are smart enough to "regulate" and "redistribute" and that people will benefit. For example, the US passed a huge new body of financial regulations in order to govern the markets, and "tackle greed". Leaving aside the absurdity that this legislation was put together by the same people that created the conditions that led to the collapse, and ignoring the fact that the "regulators" are well connected to the market people, and therefore vulnerable to corruption, the main thing to consider is this: if the result of all this regulation is a curtailment of economic activity, whoi benefits and who suffers?
Thomas Edison was a greedy guy. His invention process was heavily capitalized and involved a lot of people. He was no humanitarian slaving away just to benefit the world. And he did more to change and benefit the world than any do gooder ever dreamed of. The matter is one of results. If he had had to deal with people tackling his greed, he might never have invented anything. Or certainly he would have stopped early in his career.
Reagan famously said government is not the answer, it's the problem. I lived through those times, and watched the energy that was unleashed by his philosophy lift the country, and through the global economy, the world. The Left can rewrite history all they want, and in the end, that's really all they're good at anyway...rewriting history, altering truth to make the world seem like it fits their models. Models which conveniently glorify the role of the "greed" tacklers. I remember what it was like to look for jobs before Reagan's revolution, and what it was like after.
There is one thing that the history of the 20th century should have made clear, a lesson taught over and over: the regulators and redistributors, those that think men should plan and control human activity, the greed tacklers, have consistently created only one thing-- widespread suffering.
Sorry Kev, you lost me at Thomas Sowell. His ramblings often meet my eyes on RCP.
Your comments on policy prescriptions evidently don't come from a 'policy wonk'. No offence.
Regards the Reagan quote and usage to denigrate the 'Left' - I assume that FDR made very little history in your country and worldwide. Hell, Winston Churchill would have scorned you for such a revisionist appraisal of FDR's achievements. This distrust of the 'Left' is bordering on the maniacal, Kev. Quite frankly, it's embarrassing.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Tony Blair is correct when he argues of the impotence with static definitions of the 'Left' and the 'Right' - oddly enough, our views are not mummified. Fluidity and history take a huge dump on your rigid understanding of the political spectrum. For me, it's simply a case of priorities. To want to put the poorest and most vulnerable at the forefront of economic policy is not anti-growth/anti-capitalist/anti-rich/anti-'Right'. As a much more intelligent man than Thomas Sowell told me: "What's the point of a surplus?".
Once all the rhetoric and bullshit has been said, it's unfair to place the burden of deficit reduction at the feet of those who didn't even have the pleasure of enjoying the racking up of the 'nation's credit card'. If you can explain to me why they should, then man, I'll hate those Leftie b*stards as well. The practical implications of your shiny new bill is such: cutting spending (the chosen means of cutting the deficit) affects the poor disproportionately. I have absolutely no shame in wanting to raise the level of the poor. It doesn't make me a great man in my head, it simply justifies the time spent by my family in investing the idea that you should aim to help those with the least. I don't hate the rich, I don't want the rich to suffer - f*ck, I want to be rich. This crazy argument that thinking this way equates as such is beyond disingenuous.
Confession time. This:
"There is one thing that the history of the 20th century should have made clear, a lesson taught over and over: the regulators and redistributors, those that think men should plan and control human activity, the greed tacklers, have consistently created only one thing-- widespread suffering."
English seems to be the common language that separates, Andrew. Or perhaps just clear thinking. I'll try to help you through it.
The issue of cutting spending is precisely that this expansive government you are enamored with is exactly what hurts the poor. How? It drastically reduces economic opportunity.
If you were to find yourself born into a less privileged situation(and I was), what do you think will give you greater opportunity to improve your lot: A) government programs, or B) a rising economic tide?
Once you realize the answer is B then we can move on to the next question. I hope that you understand the answer is B, but perhaps I should not assume. Maybe I'll have to come back to it later.
So the question is what will create the rising tide? Or perhaps more accurately, what will allow this tide to form? Or another way, what kinds things will prevent this tide from forming, and therefore should be avoided?
It's basic economic stuff, Chuff. When you take money out of the hands of people that are producing, investing, and spending and put it in the hands of people that are just spending, you are reducing economic activity and growth. The more you tax, the more of a drag you put on the economy. People with money spend more time trying to hide it. It's simply a fact proven over and over again, and even Obama is aware of it. He knows full that to raise taxes will slow growth.
Let's look at "stimulus" plans. The Bush idea of stimulus is almost the same as Obama : borrow money from the future(deficit) in order to stimulate growth in the present. Use the growth to pay back the money borrowed. But there's a difference. The Bush notion is to use this borrowed money to give across the board tax cuts. What happens is people use this money to spend and to invest, all of which stimulates the economy. The Obama(progressive/Kerynsian) idea is to spend the money through government programs. The problem is that this money does not end up being distributed based on market efficiency. It gets doled out based on political connections. It privides some stimulus, but it does not encourage the kind of econoimic activity that leads to growth.
The article from Sowell that you refused to read(I know, facts are threatening), does a great job illustrating the suffering created by government intervention in the economy. A lot of this started right here in my state, Massachusetts. In the early 90s, there were studies(put out by liberal advocacy groups) that showed that banks were granting mortgages to blacks at a lower rate than whites. These studies did not look at 2 things: the relative credit of the groups compared, or their assets. They just looked at income. So for example a white person and a black person both make 50k per year, but one gets a mortgage, and another does not. The reason could be that one has assets. Or that one has lower credit. But the study did not look at that, and still concluded that the discrepancy was automatically racist. Government do gooders to the rescue!
So the governments forced banks to lend to minorities. Over time, this idea built up political momentum. Quasi givernment institutions FANNY MAE and MAC bought up most of the mortgages in the country. They encouraged, in some cases insisted, that banks lend to everyone. No credit, no assets, no problem. This created artifical demand on homes, which created a bubble, prices going up and up. Financial instituions learned how to bundle these together and make huge money of them. Was there risk? What happened if the bubble burst? Would the banks be stuck with all that bad paper? They knew the government was tied up with it all, and would not let the system fail.
As Sowell points out, based on the numbers, the result has been disastrous for blacks. After the bubble burst, in 2009 the net worth of blacks was less than half what it was in 2005. As with many things, intervention by government hurt those it was supposed to help. And it unhinged the world economy.
FDR: unemployment was 25% in 1932. If memory serves me correct, it was the same in 1937. As things heated up with Hitler, and war materials were needed, the country started to come out of it, and finally unemployment fell to normal after Peral Harbor. So massive government intervention in the economy does not have a good record at all.
static definitions of Left and Right: of course it varies. You go far enough Left, and they don't believe inm private property, or even democracy. When we use generalizations, it is because it is useful to make a point. Nobody fits neatly into one belief system. As a general rule, the Left insists on government intervention in the economy, and often in other social aspects of human behavior. As a general rule, the Left believes humans are smart enough to plan and manage human activity. As a general rule, the Right, at least the American Right, believes interference with economic activity is harmful, and that imposing social change is often unwise.
widespread suffering caused by government intervention, planning, regulating: have you ever heard of the Soviet Union? Cuba? Communist China? Adolf Hitler? Do you see any difference between North Korea and South? Did the massive government intervention in the economy in the 1930s by FDR succeed? If you think so, google unemployment numbers. How about post WWII Europe; have not the semi socialist policies in many countries resulted in a complete lack of economic opportunity? What's the youth unemployment rate in France? In Spain? And finally, look at the current world financial mess, created by well intended government intervention in the economic system(and there really is no doubt on that). All of this suffering, the result of the foolish hubris of planners and managers, regulators and greed tacklers.
If you want to help the poor, get the government out of the way. Christ, if I want to start a small business, do you have any idea the red tape I'd now have to go through? All put in place by your planners and do gooders. And by the way, also backed by Big Business. And that's the dirty secret. Big Business now backs the Left. Look it up. Wall Street gave to Obama 2 to 1. GE is making huge money through Obamanomics. Big Business has learned it can use the Left to destroy small business, it's competition.
Freedom is the answer, Andrew. Not building a bigger government. Economic growth will save the poor. Not government programs. The only thing government programs help, in the long run, is the government class. We left Europe to escape feudalism. Liberals are trying to bring it back.
What happens when government sponsored think tanks conclude there will be nil effective economic activity in the next decade as there are no provocative technological developments on the near-horizon with the scope to haul the planet out of the economic doldrums?
Would it not be prudent then to bias spending policy towards "paying people to do nothing" and away from "giving them the tools to help themselves"?
Much economic activity is based on want. Who wants what more? What will people provide to get what they want? What happens when people are largely satisfied with what they have and don't really want much of anything new or better? Situational satisfaction or contentment may have actually been achieved.
Sure, little inconsequential things are still desired, but the big ugly desire for products the foundations of global industry can gear up for are... no shows.
The economic party can't burn forever. I think we're in a Sunday morning hangover from the party that begun on Thursday night.
And then there's the whole trade deficit/expatriation of American labor thing.
How the domestic money is shuffled around is largely irrelevant. Tax increases and decreases always remain self serving. Increase taxes and economic activity declines = equilibrium. Decrease taxes and economic activity increases = equilibrium. Fed taxes go up, state taxes go down = equilibrium. Fed taxes go down, state taxes go up = equilibrium.
Take money from the rich and give it to the poor who will spend it all on consumables and depreciating assets and amazingly the revenues of the business owners (the rich) increase!
Allow the rich to keep their money, they may chose to either horde it (endemic) or invest it (Ha! Brave fools!). Either way, the poor still are out of either loop.
I think increase taxes are now punishments of the rich for hording their cash. If they aren't going to spend it then FINE! The government will. The banks need to get squeezed, too. This raking in cash for doing nothing banking policy is equal BS to handing disincentivizing/handicapping money to the poor. Raise the Federal Funds Rate. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FEDFUNDS Make the banks get off their a$$ets.
You make a very interesting point about phases of economic development and the fact that growth is always required. Many historical phases have been fueled by a technological development, such as high tech in the early 90s. I'm not an economist, just a guy who makes noise in a script forum, so I don't know what those studies suggest. I would say that these technology boosts can spark growth, but that growth has happened in other periods, such as the 80s.
What happens to capitalism without growth? Economists have talked about that for a century. Marxists made it a big part of their theory, suggesting this aspect of capitalism is what fueled colonialism. Certainly the modern welfare state with its entitlements requires growth to sustain itself.
I don't see any reason why the economy party can't burn forever. There is no shortage of people hungry for success, to make their fortune, to establish a better life for themselves. There are plenty of young Bill Gates out there. What we need is to make sure these future "rich" people have incentive to build, to invent. They can't have mounds of regulations in front of them, whose stated purpose is to do good things, but whose purpose is to protect established businesses looking to stifle their competition. We can;t tax them to a point that they won't take the risks needed to launch their businesses.
The poor are not out of the loop when the rich spend money, whatever they do with it. You mentioned spending it. Also, if they just put it in the bank, it will be used to finance businesses and home mortgages.
Using taxes to "punish" people is real dangerous, Ray. Real dangerous. It's the basis for economic disaster. I hope you give that one some thought. Likewise, squeezing banks to make them lend money. Christ, that's what started this economic mess to begin with! Jeez, isn't that pretty clear?
Banks have not been lending because of greed or selfishness. They are practicing sound economic policy. It's all related to the massive collapse of real estate values and economic uncertainty. But in the end, it's greed and selfishness that WILL save the day. When things rebound, banks, competing with each other, will need to make their money work, need to make it make money.
Government spending contributes to this economic uncertainty. It's not market based, but political based.
Government meddling created this mess. And many millions have suffered because of it. Let's not fix the situation with more government meddling. Somebody please save the world from the meddlers!
Oh, I know (in crude principle) darn good and well the dangers of "punishing" people for political agendas, but that's the thing: The purpose of a government is to govern. Furthermore, in our fortunate case it's to govern according to the wishes of the public that votes them into that position of responsibility.
If the people are individually smart but stupid as a mob then we will all suffer their freedom of decision making.
There is an economic quasi-triangle. Consumers & Business kinda make a zero-sum, twisted pair corner. Economic growth only comes from fiat money, without which there remains a zero-sum economy, host to it's own set of issues. Banks provide cash now in lieu of payment with interest later = fiat/funny money, without which there is no economic growth.
Banks are in control. They determine if the future is bright enough to warrant extension of credit, thus economic growth.
No faith = no growth = madness.
Government acts as the ice breaker. Government is the third corner, and the flexible one at that. Not only does it control banking policy via the FFR and other regulatory tools, it also pumps fiat/funny money into the economy via taxes (redistribution of wealth) and debt (same as consumer credit or mortgage).
These are powers the government has. Without which our economy stagnates and fails to maintain competitive advantage with other nations (BRIC especially, but all emerging nations, really) - exactly like any other business - who are dying to consume all the energy and materials we've grown long accustomed to.
Should we the people ask our government to permit our economy to stagnate? Should we promote global economic recovery? Should we promote economic Armageddon?
We are the government. We are the meddlers. Or at least the vocal/paying minority are.
The powers the government has, such as monetary policy through the fed, or even the income tax, or regulatory tools...were not things it always had. And there was no shortage of growth and development before that, such as the 19th century. The problem was the boom and bust cycle was much wilder, and the effects on people were severe. We've established government controls to minimize those effects. And to a point, that is good. But it should not be thought that growth and economic activity were dependent on government levers. Not at all.
You have other interesting points I have to look into later when I have more time. Have a beer on me!
I'll be as clear and concise as I can, Kevin: what on earth are you talking about? Seriously. That one question encapsulates the bewilderment I felt when reading your chunk of text.
Here are a few nuggets that stand out:
Quoted from Kev
widespread suffering caused by government intervention, planning, regulating: have you ever heard of the Soviet Union? Cuba? Communist China? Adolf Hitler? Do you see any difference between North Korea and South? Did the massive government intervention in the economy in the 1930s by FDR succeed?
Say what? Widespread suffering caused by Hitler's "government intervention, planning, regulating"? What are you talking about?
Quoted from Kev
Or perhaps just clear thinking.
Hehe.
Quoted from Kev
The article from Sowell that you refused to read
I read it.
Quoted from Kev
Let's look at "stimulus" plans. The Bush idea of stimulus is almost the same as Obama : borrow money from the future(deficit) in order to stimulate growth in the present. Use the growth to pay back the money borrowed. But there's a difference. The Bush notion is to use this borrowed money to give across the board tax cuts. What happens is people use this money to spend and to invest, all of which stimulates the economy. The Obama(progressive/Kerynsian) idea is to spend the money through government programs. The problem is that this money does not end up being distributed based on market efficiency. It gets doled out based on political connections. It privides some stimulus, but it does not encourage the kind of econoimic activity that leads to growth.
A stunning analysis. You need to look at the context and not simply fall back into comfortable ideological shoes. Context.
Quoted from Kev
Government spending contributes to this economic uncertainty. It's not market based, but political based.
Which government spending? What was your alternative to the stimulus? Or do you simply think the funds were misapplied? Where would you have invested them?
Quoted from Kev
Government meddling created this mess.
Deserves to be there all by itself. Truly in a league of its own when it comes to terrible analysis. Sorry to be so rude, but I cannot read this rubbish (delivered with an ineloquent arrogance) and stand idly by. Usually I will take a conciliatory tone but not here. I like you as a guy, you're a nice bloke, but your views are plain wacky, IMO. It seems the same irrationality that governs your views on Islam leans heavily on your economic views.
Quoted from Kev
And many millions have suffered because of it. Let's not fix the situation with more government meddling. Somebody please save the world from the meddlers!
Oh dear.
Quoted from Kev
Likewise, squeezing banks to make them lend money. Christ, that's what started this economic mess to begin with! Jeez, isn't that pretty clear?
Right. This altruistic lending is what caused a meltdown. If I shake my head any more, it'll fall off.
Unfortunately, for these presumably preconceived conclusions, you've extrapolated nothing of real worth from what's going on. You just ranted. I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say most of the time. It's patently obvious when you're lecturing above, you're actually just paraphrasing history books from a cursory glance and regurgitating flawed writers like Sowell. It's as plain as the nose on your face that it's what you're doing. Alas, I do not need a rudimentary 101 in politics, history or economics from you.
Pages: 
Author
American Politics
Logged
