Since we’re already (sic) talking the EU’s evolution (sic), here’s some more old news™ by German legacy media—given the time elapsed in-between, it reads more more like predictive programming—about the EU Commission’s draft emergency planning with respect to member-states’ gas futures.
Seems the meaning of the word "economy" is now "that which is measured in amount of money created", and not what it really means.
Solving the energy-demands is easy. Allow populations to decline to their new natural equilibrium, and by the 1990s or so we'll have plateued on a level allowing both for industrial growth and scientific progress as well as having energy enough for households without making it punitively expensive.
Of course, this means capitalists must accept making profits at a slower pace, and at lower levels of return on investments than the theoretical optimum, for the sake of the nation and the continent as a whole, and unions must work to curb the excessive demands of agitators while the educational system must strive for ever-higher standards; meanwhile, the state will ensure that there will be the kinds of jobs available that the less gifted or able can perform to earn a living instead of being dependent on handouts.
...
Or we can just import tens of millions of foreigners to keep demand high and supplies low in order to ensure ever-increasing profits at an exponential rate.
As to the point at-hand, well, setting aside the binary discussion of democracy/capitalism vs. socialism/planning, if Mr. Market would be on duty, certain things would be, well, out of business by now. Let me note a few: Big Pharma, Agribusiness, Big (Higher) Education, and, believe it or not, the desire to ever grow whatever organisation. Nothing grows forever, and if you'd permit me an analogy here, growth beyond reason/utility in the animal kingdom has a name: cancer.
Nah, I was imagining a conversation in the 1930s or so, since the trends of the entire century were well-known by then (Keyens, Myrdal&Myrdal, many others), where the high and mighty debate what they should do, repeated in the 1960s when the older generation that initially raised the spectre of declining populations was gone having left their throne for ideologues and activists of a much lower, more base, order.
Planned growth tends to lead to lack and want, because it is difficult for the thrifty mind to plan for wasted excess as a necessity to achieve "lagom"; anorexia combined with compulsive exercise leading to catabolisation of the cells that make up the body of society.
Free market growth creates enormous waste, lack and want as well as excess in random intervals and periods; stroke, heartattack and cancer in one go.
Just wanted to keep the body-disease metaphor going.
Free market growth always is inefficient, yet it beats planning by any number of miles.
The main problem thete isn't a value-judgement but reality: nothing grows forever, and economies are nothing special.
In any event, demographics rule, hence everything is oversized (stranded assets) already (for some time). The best comparison is quite likely the Black Death's consequences in terms of relative distribution of power in society (away from those who don't work towards those who do). Sure, history won't repeat itself, but it rhymes (and by extension, this also explains the current hype around robots and AI, which permits the rulers--in their minds--to go against these trends).
The British Imperial policy was always to prevent Germany / Russia economic integration. Europe may be a part of the Western Empire, but the strategic policy is still formulated by the City of London, of which Western Empire is an extension. EU integration happened with the imperial architecture to serve the Empire of Big Money. Results of any systems are largely determined by the design aims. How could EU, Euro, NATO,…, ever serve the peoples of Europe, when its design aim is to serve the Empire? EU integration is fine but it must be designed with different aims in mind. The current system cannot be reformed. Empire makes its own crappy reality, visible all around us. “Market based energy solutions” exist to enrich the Big Money, not to deliver affordable and reliable energy. The system is performing according to its design parameters.
So, if imperial policy is a given since at least WW1, the Cold War, European 'integration', and the post-1993 EU 'ever closer union' are all aspects of the same 'game'. Note that Mr. Putin offered a full-on collaboration in 2001 (he did so speaking German in the Bundestag), but now Russia is looking south (India, Iran) and east (China), hence the bigger threat to empire may now be realised: what an ironic way to go…
There are parallel games going on. Different scenarios, but the Empire thinks it is ultimately winning in all scenarios. My personal opinion is that they are now working on destruction of the West because for some reason they see this as beneficial to their long term goals. Paradoxes, contradictions, inconsistencies, even ironies exist mainly when we look at the world through our eyes; I believe the closer we get to seeing the world as Big Money Empire looks at it, all those apparent phenomena begin to evaporate. They have set their eyes on the riches of Russia, and will be willing to bargain Russia’s assets with China for their One World Technocratic government fantasy.
Well, a lot of things do make sense™, esp. if you look at the unsavoury cast of characters allegedly running™ Western countries: they're all quite young = haven't made enough money, reputation for themselves to quietly go into the dark.
It's also obvious that there's no consistent salience to the elite body politic, and these paradoxes, contradictions, and inconsistencies are a reflection--manifestation--of this. Last but not least, sometimes I do think all the training™ and education™ of these elites notwithstanding, a glimpse of humanity also comes to the fore, which, in addition to all of the above, seems to mess with these things.
So many of the political leaders come from banking, financing, law, MBA’s,…, so few come from backgrounds of building something useful. Obviously there is a set of desirable qualities for politicos. Obeying orders from above must be a high level quality. There is little to no analysis, diversity of opinion, going against prevailing orthodoxies, doing what is in the long term best interest of the people,…, because these are obviously not desirable qualities. We can’t even have politicians who advance colloquial business interests; they must follow global Big Money interests exclusively. Big Money Empire rules!
Seems the meaning of the word "economy" is now "that which is measured in amount of money created", and not what it really means.
Solving the energy-demands is easy. Allow populations to decline to their new natural equilibrium, and by the 1990s or so we'll have plateued on a level allowing both for industrial growth and scientific progress as well as having energy enough for households without making it punitively expensive.
Of course, this means capitalists must accept making profits at a slower pace, and at lower levels of return on investments than the theoretical optimum, for the sake of the nation and the continent as a whole, and unions must work to curb the excessive demands of agitators while the educational system must strive for ever-higher standards; meanwhile, the state will ensure that there will be the kinds of jobs available that the less gifted or able can perform to earn a living instead of being dependent on handouts.
...
Or we can just import tens of millions of foreigners to keep demand high and supplies low in order to ensure ever-increasing profits at an exponential rate.
Huhum, do you mean 'by the 2090s'?
As to the point at-hand, well, setting aside the binary discussion of democracy/capitalism vs. socialism/planning, if Mr. Market would be on duty, certain things would be, well, out of business by now. Let me note a few: Big Pharma, Agribusiness, Big (Higher) Education, and, believe it or not, the desire to ever grow whatever organisation. Nothing grows forever, and if you'd permit me an analogy here, growth beyond reason/utility in the animal kingdom has a name: cancer.
Nah, I was imagining a conversation in the 1930s or so, since the trends of the entire century were well-known by then (Keyens, Myrdal&Myrdal, many others), where the high and mighty debate what they should do, repeated in the 1960s when the older generation that initially raised the spectre of declining populations was gone having left their throne for ideologues and activists of a much lower, more base, order.
Planned growth tends to lead to lack and want, because it is difficult for the thrifty mind to plan for wasted excess as a necessity to achieve "lagom"; anorexia combined with compulsive exercise leading to catabolisation of the cells that make up the body of society.
Free market growth creates enormous waste, lack and want as well as excess in random intervals and periods; stroke, heartattack and cancer in one go.
Just wanted to keep the body-disease metaphor going.
Thanks for the clarification.
Free market growth always is inefficient, yet it beats planning by any number of miles.
The main problem thete isn't a value-judgement but reality: nothing grows forever, and economies are nothing special.
In any event, demographics rule, hence everything is oversized (stranded assets) already (for some time). The best comparison is quite likely the Black Death's consequences in terms of relative distribution of power in society (away from those who don't work towards those who do). Sure, history won't repeat itself, but it rhymes (and by extension, this also explains the current hype around robots and AI, which permits the rulers--in their minds--to go against these trends).
The British Imperial policy was always to prevent Germany / Russia economic integration. Europe may be a part of the Western Empire, but the strategic policy is still formulated by the City of London, of which Western Empire is an extension. EU integration happened with the imperial architecture to serve the Empire of Big Money. Results of any systems are largely determined by the design aims. How could EU, Euro, NATO,…, ever serve the peoples of Europe, when its design aim is to serve the Empire? EU integration is fine but it must be designed with different aims in mind. The current system cannot be reformed. Empire makes its own crappy reality, visible all around us. “Market based energy solutions” exist to enrich the Big Money, not to deliver affordable and reliable energy. The system is performing according to its design parameters.
So, if imperial policy is a given since at least WW1, the Cold War, European 'integration', and the post-1993 EU 'ever closer union' are all aspects of the same 'game'. Note that Mr. Putin offered a full-on collaboration in 2001 (he did so speaking German in the Bundestag), but now Russia is looking south (India, Iran) and east (China), hence the bigger threat to empire may now be realised: what an ironic way to go…
There are parallel games going on. Different scenarios, but the Empire thinks it is ultimately winning in all scenarios. My personal opinion is that they are now working on destruction of the West because for some reason they see this as beneficial to their long term goals. Paradoxes, contradictions, inconsistencies, even ironies exist mainly when we look at the world through our eyes; I believe the closer we get to seeing the world as Big Money Empire looks at it, all those apparent phenomena begin to evaporate. They have set their eyes on the riches of Russia, and will be willing to bargain Russia’s assets with China for their One World Technocratic government fantasy.
Well, a lot of things do make sense™, esp. if you look at the unsavoury cast of characters allegedly running™ Western countries: they're all quite young = haven't made enough money, reputation for themselves to quietly go into the dark.
It's also obvious that there's no consistent salience to the elite body politic, and these paradoxes, contradictions, and inconsistencies are a reflection--manifestation--of this. Last but not least, sometimes I do think all the training™ and education™ of these elites notwithstanding, a glimpse of humanity also comes to the fore, which, in addition to all of the above, seems to mess with these things.
So many of the political leaders come from banking, financing, law, MBA’s,…, so few come from backgrounds of building something useful. Obviously there is a set of desirable qualities for politicos. Obeying orders from above must be a high level quality. There is little to no analysis, diversity of opinion, going against prevailing orthodoxies, doing what is in the long term best interest of the people,…, because these are obviously not desirable qualities. We can’t even have politicians who advance colloquial business interests; they must follow global Big Money interests exclusively. Big Money Empire rules!