Paradigmatically IMPUDENT

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
Headless's picture
Headless
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 28 2008
Posts: 363
Paradigmatically IMPUDENT

As the attempted preservation of the clearly unsustainable consumer model of GDP generation in the U.S. continues to undermine the foundation of producer countries, it is becoming apparent that in order for the producer countries to survive, there will have to be a recogntion that the currently accepted paradigm of “unconquerable decoupling” will have to be abandoned. Think, for a moment, about the semantics implied by the phrase “unconquerable decoupling”--withing the context of an economic system where there are essentially two participants, one who makes everything and another who consumes everything. Within that context, to say that there is no possibility for these two participants to “lead separate lives” implies two things: 1) the consumers cannot consume if the producers do not produce; 2) the producers cannot produce if the consumers do not consume. Obviously, one of those statements is false, �yet that is precisely what is being accepted when we accept the theory of “unconquerable decoupling.”

There are two primary supports that enable the continued existence of such an obvious fallacy: 1) momentum (psychological and physical); 2) a third party.

The momentum is self explanatory, but I offer a few words: it takes time for people to get used to new situations and it takes time to remodel the industrial machine.

However, neither of those adjustments in momentum is desired when there exists a “third party” that has a vested interest in the status quo; that is what we are facing at this point: a logical fallacy of a paradigm, a natural resistance to a change in direction, and a third party that is attempting to preserve its wealth--by perpetrating the greatest bluff of all time on those that aren’t a part of that third party.

The old paradigm is failing under the burden of its own massive dead weight; the third party is attempting to stall the inevitable realization so that misplaced, Mali vestments can be divested (these things take time); they are out of time. The leaders of the countries in which the world’s workers reside are in the process of changing the course and the nature of the paradigm, and since such a massive effort takes at least a little time, the third party continues to cling to the old paradigm, knowing the evidence of an alternative, logical paradigm is not yet apparent.

What is the New Paradigm: People who work can also consume; people who don’t work can’t consume. China, South Korea, Japan, et al are about to prove that supporting a paradigm of GDP based on consumption is akin to feeding the dead; that is to say, Why is that necessary?

In the spirit of the above brief, highly condensed, somewhat optimistic (about your knowledge), and partially cryptic thoughts, I offer a couple of new acronyms, which I invite you to improve on:

IMPUDENCE

  • Insisting on Mistaken Paradigm of Unconquerable Decoupling Encourages Continued Entropy

IMPUDENT

  • Insisting on Mistaken Paradigm of Unconquerable Decoupling Evades Necessary Timeline
  • Imposing Mistaken Paradigm of Unconquerable Decoupling Exposes Necrophiliac Tendencies

 

NonZeroOne

 

DavidLachman's picture
DavidLachman
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 4 2008
Posts: 153
Re: Paradigmatically IMPUDENT
Nonzeroone wrote:

Within that context, to say that there is no possibility for these two participants to “lead separate lives” implies two things: 1) the consumers cannot consume if the producers do not produce; 2) the producers cannot produce if the consumers do not consume. Obviously, one of those statements is false, �yet that is precisely what is being accepted when we accept the theory of “unconquerable decoupling.”

Aren't both of these false. 1) the consumer countries have to start producing again and they can consume equal to what they produce and 2) the current producers can start consuming equal to what they produce?

Headless's picture
Headless
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 28 2008
Posts: 363
Re: Paradigmatically IMPUDENT

David said:

"Aren't both of these false. 1) the consumer countries have to start producing again and they can consume equal to what they produce and 2) the current producers can start consuming equal to what they produce?"

David,

I have to stop posting these things live (#11: Thou shalt reread, edit and spell-check before submitting).

Better said:

Under the current paradigm of "unconquerable decoupling," and within the context of a simplified (not by much) two participant world, where one participant only consumes and the other only produces (of course, this is the extremity--like allowing delta x to approach zero...):

 Original: "1) the consumers cannot consume if the producers do not produce" (True)

Modified:  1) a society that has only consumers can not exist--for long (True)

 Original: "2) the producers cannot produce if the consumers do not consume" (False)

Modified:  2) a society that has only producers cannot survive (False); it is false for the reason you mention: it merely needed start consuming some of its production, which is infinitely easier than the challenge the consumer society faces; that  is to say, ramping up production to the necessary level.

Thus, to champion a paradigm that insists the producing society is dependent on the consuming society is logically false; it's simply a well dug in remnant that survives due to momentum and "The Third Party" interests and resistance.

 NZO

P.S. What I am essentially saying is that: It's just a matter of time before decoupling without mutual destruction occurs; the Asian savings rates and "remodeling" of their industrial machine will allow this decoupling to proceed with only a fraction of the presumed/claimed damage to their societies (Peter Schiff makes this point with his 6-Asians-and-an-American-on-an-Island analogy...).

The first thing one can say about an acceptable level of diminished production in Asia is that it (production) can be decreased in direct proportion to the amount of capital that they return to us in the form of bond purchases; that is to say, for example: if the average Asian spends 70% of his/her income and saves 30%, then that income could decrease by the saved 30% and there would not be any adjustment necessary to his/her living standard (savings would go to zero in that case, but the living standard could be maintained). Given that Asians have a much better preserved extended family structure, it's not hard to imagine a scenario where, on average, the whole country takes the 30% hit and only a small percentage are affected to some greater degree--as opposed to what would happen if average incomes took a 30% hit across America.

Of course the average Asian would still save some portion of his or her income, but what if the percentage saved were to remain at 30%? Well, 30% of the proposed remaining 70% would be 21% of the original income, leaving the actual decrease in standard of living to be based on spending 49% vs. 70% of the original income. That is the worst case scenario for a 30% hit to national income, while still mainaining a 30% savings rate...

Headless's picture
Headless
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 28 2008
Posts: 363
Re: Paradigmatically IMPUDENT

IMPUDENCE

  • Insisting on Mistaken Paradigm of Unconquerable Decoupling Ends with Nasty Catatonic Entropy
  • Invoking Mistaken Paradigm of Unconquerable Decoupling Elevates Neo-Czarist Errors
  • Invoking a Mistaken Paradigm of Unacheivable Decoupling Elevates Non-Capitalist Efforts

IMPUDENT

  • Insisting on Mistaken Paradigm of Unconquerable Decoupling Evades Necessary Timeline
  • Imposing Mistaken Paradigm of Unconquerable Decoupling Exposes Necrophiliac Tendencies
Headless's picture
Headless
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 28 2008
Posts: 363
To Decouple, or not to Decouple?

To decouple or not to decouple? Is there a question! I think not. The "Paradigmatic Impudence" is being rejected around the world; replaced with "To be," of course.

Back in the U.S.S.A. for the Grand Final Collapse...

cat233's picture
cat233
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 20 2008
Posts: 575
Re: Paradigmatically IMPUDENT

Lee,

Guess this means you are alive and breathing...

I am sure you might have a few tales from the East to share with us all.  Would be interesting to hear your perspective.

Welcome back,

Cat

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments