[Hooligan Harry]

People need to accept the fact that the structure of western economies has changed forever and there is no going back. The baby boomers have basically killed the goose that laid the golden egg. There is no point blaming capitalists, lobbyists, etc. They are just products of the environment and have exploited opportunities that were created. They are a result, they are not the root cause. Make the adjustments in your personal capacity because the ride is going to get bumpy.

There are three main culprits:

- Feminism
- Keynesian economics
- Globalisation

Feminism

You have almost doubled the size of the labour force. In doing so, wages have taken a pounding and have not grown. But the cost of living has also risen as a result and the standard of living has taken a hit. This is why you are seeing such a large gap between the wealthy and the poor now. Purchasing power for the middle class stopped growing in the 80's. While everyone blames the wealthy, the real culprit is downward pressure on wages.

To make matters worse, women tend to start very few businesses of their own, so the vast majority spend their working lives employed, not employing. The knock on effect is that as a percentage, employees are not starting up as often as they used to, and larger percentages of the workforce only prop up every growing monopolies.

There is also saturation in many fields too, simply because most women pursue particular fields of study in droves.

Keynesian economics

Big government does not work. Redistribution of wealth does not work. You cannot manipulate markets through legislation. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. You cannot uplift people by ensuring they are dependent on welfare. Keynesian economics has led to the collapse of credit markets as capitalists have run riot, we are staring down the barrel of a worldwide sovereign debt crisis as governments go broke and basic liberties erode by the day under the assault of lobbyists funded by big business.

Globalisation

Western economies are no longer competitive. Developing economies are industrialising and offering business incentives to invest and trade. Globalisation has blown the lid off the facade that is Keynesian economies which can no longer sustain themselves in a world with more competition.

What that means for everyone is that the old white collar job where you work for your promotions and stay with the same company for 40 years is dead. Skill up in technical fields, look towards self employment, diversify and dont set roots in one country anymore.

[T and A Man]

(02-06-2012 11:54 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

Feminism

You have almost doubled the size of the labour force. In doing so, wages have taken a pounding and have not grown. But the cost of living has also risen as a result and the standard of living has taken a hit.

I'm not here to defend feminism, but this is faulty economics, stating a false outcome.

If jobs were made that brought product to market, this would not happen. The problem here is the creation of non-productive jobs, in itself it may be a aspiration of feminism, but it is not a direct cause.

The cost of living has risen because this extra income pursues existing levels product (supply).

Quote:

This is why you are seeing such a large gap between the wealthy and the poor now. Purchasing power for the middle class stopped growing in the 80's. While everyone blames the wealthy, the real culprit is downward pressure on wages.

No, the culprit is post-keynesian economics, Friedman inspired neo-classicism. It hasn't been doward pressure on wages because of women entering the workfroce, it has been the abandonment of the first keynesian tenant, full employment.

This has been replaced with NAIRU, which specifically implements a section of the labour force as unemployed. This pool of inert labuor in effect serves as a threat to the employed.

Under full employment, a worker has the bargaining position of

'give me a job I like, or I will find someone else who will'

Now we have the employers bargaining position of;

'take the job they way I give you, or I will find someone else who will.'

And we no longer have a keynesian system, the change from Keynesian-inspired politics started in 1971 when Nixon abandoned the gold-backed U.S. dollar exchange, and was completely removed with Reaganomics.

We see the effect in this chart. (U.S wage share and personal consumption)



This is the real culprit, WAGE SHARE, the amount people are remunerated for selling their labour from roughly 65% in the 1960's, to approximately 58% today. Quite simply, from their labour alone, workers could demand 65% of product brought to market, now they can only demand 58%.

American workers are not earning enough to consume (at healthy levels) what their economy is making. It is called aggregate demand.

They have for a long time made up this nearly 7% gap by taking increasing levels of debt. Now you may argue that the American public would be wise to forfeit that 7% consumption, fine, but aggregate demand is reduced, and for the reduction in demand, there will be a corresponding reduction in the amount of product coming to market, reducing employment.

Hignsight shows us the accrural of 7% finally took its toll via peak debt.

The extra 7% has gone mainly to profit share, and paid as dividends to rich, and correspondingly their marginal increase in overall wealth as a percentage of the nation. As we see now, they don't automatically invest it, as the flawed 'trickle down' theory proposes. There is one reason it doesn't work, rich people ALWAYS reduce the velocity of money.

That money will never be invested if no one can afford they product that will be made. Americans can't afford it because their wages are insufficient.

Quote:

To make matters worse, women tend to start very few businesses of their own, so the vast majority spend their working lives employed, not employing. The knock on effect is that as a percentage, employees are not starting up as often as they used to, and larger percentages of the workforce only prop up every growing monopolies.

Women working, means women with wages, means more demand for product. We don't need women to be product providers. This does not add up. They actually allow for increased product providers, not less.

Quote:

There is also saturation in many fields too, simply because most women pursue particular fields of study in droves.

Keynesian economics

Big government does not work.

Keynesian economics does not automatically equates to big government.

The Keynesian hey-day was 1946 - 1975, it was known as the period of 'all boats rise', most western governments had smaller government than now. It had never had a recession as bad as 2008-now, or 2001, or 1991. You could argue 1991 was the fall out from a major economic adjustment from keynesian to neo-classical systems.

Keynesian economics is about smoothing out the business cycle when aggregate demand is insufficient, it doesn't necessarily require a big government to do it.

Quote:

Redistribution of wealth does not work. You cannot manipulate markets through legislation.

Erhh yes it does. 1945 - 1971 showed that.

Rich people will always accrue more and more. It is a pathological behavioural pattern on their behalf. They can't stop, they can never consent to 'enough'.

Now as Adam Smith eloquently put forward over 300 years ago, they are 3 avenues to revenue distribution, wage share (return to labour), profit share (return to capital) and rents. If any of the 3 are out of balance, then the economy will suffer.

The downfall of keynesian economics was the 1970's oil crises, which saw excess return to rents, leaving the other 2 arguing who would pay for it, ala stagflation.

Relating that back to now, I will assert that profit share (return to capital) is excess, and wage share (return to albour) is insufficient.

Keynesian economics points to redistribute it by legislation because the vested parties won't consent to it.

Quote:

You cannot tax your way to prosperity. You cannot uplift people by ensuring they are dependent on welfare.

Which is why you implement full employment policies. The Australia government successfully implemented this after WWII.

During WWII, we effectively had full employment, with roughly 8% of the population in the military. Once they come back, they realised we could still have all these bodies active, they just didn't need to be destroying real wealth via brass bullets or iron artillery shells.

In 1951, there were less that 1,600 people collecting unemployment welfare provisions in Australia, some may like to cite generational superior work ethic, I'm not convinced. Give people jobs, they will work, they will develop skills, they will add to productive output.

Quote:

Keynesian economics has led to the collapse of credit markets as capitalists have run riot, we are staring down the barrel of a worldwide sovereign debt crisis as governments go broke and basic liberties erode by the day under the assault of lobbyists funded by big business.

No, bankers not assessing risk has led to the credit crisis. The effects of their failure hasn't led to any creative destruction, this is not capitalism.

Quote:

Globalisation

Western economies are no longer competitive. Developing economies are industrialising and offering business incentives to invest and trade. Globalisation has blown the lid off the facade that is Keynesian economies which can no longer sustain themselves in a world with more competition.

False dichotomy.

mercantilism has been around for centuries. It is not a keynesian outcome.

In fact Keynes' proposal of the 'bancor' at the Breton Woods conference (which was over ridden by the American's via Harry Dexter) would have dullened the effect of mercantilism.

Quote:

What that means for everyone is that the old white collar job where you work for your promotions and stay with the same company for 40 years is dead. Skill up in technical fields, look towards self employment, diversify and dont set roots in one country anymore.

Foresight would be a wonderful gift. The Dow Jones in 1900 was full of railway, tire and steel companies. They don't really dominate the American corporate landscape anymore. It is difficult to say whatwill suffice for the next 45 years.

[Hooligan Harry]

A fan of Keynesian economics complaining that the implementation was the problem, not the actual philosophy itself? I have not seen that before

On a more serious note, it really does not matter if there was a better way to implement anything. It was implemented poorly. The situation is what it is now.

Another thing to remember is that its pointless looking at what worked between 45 and 71. Higher taxes could be levied when you did not have 30 other countries out there vying for the same pool of capital. There was limited competition for the west 50 years ago, that is not the case anymore. Clinging to the notion that high taxes never killed the economy in the 40's and 50's does not take into account that much of the governments spending at the time was infrastructure spending after two major wars. No one ever wants to place this into context because it does not suit the "tax those rich, evil motherfuckers to the hilt" line of thinking, but civil works is not exactly welfare, free healthcare and them thar social programs.

Ironically, you dont want to blame feminism for throwing a ton of workers at the market and removing the competition between business for labour, yet you then go on to blame the loss of full employment as the reason for lower increase to average wages? You realise we are saying the same thing here? I am saying that you cant almost double the size of the workforce in 30 years and not expect that to have any impact on wages and the cost of living. It would be foolish to say that the structure of the economy was the problem when you thrust social transformation onto the economy and then act all surprised when it fucked out. Although I guess its typical of the liberal economic stance.

When social engineering has a negative economic impact, it was the market that was the problem, not the social policy.

Women entered the workforce en masse, but few really go on to start small businesses of their own that do produce anything. The labour force changed, and as competitive advantages were gradually lost in manufacturing and production, these economies began to take advantage of the service based skills of the changed workforce! The economic advantage was the cheap, skilled service based labour!

The low wages of the service based labour force resulted in an economic shift towards a service based economy as business gradually took advantage of the economic advantage it offered. If feminism never drove women to work, the shift towards a service based economy would have been far more gradual.

Keynesian economics did lead to the credit crisis. Government regulation imposed, then removed, then imposed again, with bailouts paid for by tax payers so that the governments of the world could ensure that credit markets did not implode. Classic government intervention, Keynesian principles at its finest, which is macro economic control through legislation and intervention. The bankers were a result of failed policy, not the cause of it.

Quote:

False dichotomy.

mercantilism has been around for centuries. It is not a keynesian outcome.

You are a student eh?

Globalisation has meant that western economies need to adjust and incentivise or starve. Higher taxes, bigger government, higher minimum wages and a highly unionised labour force are not the sort of incentives that are going to see people invest in developed economies over emerging.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[T and A Man]

(02-07-2012 01:53 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

A fan of Keynesian economics complaining that the implementation was the problem, not the actual philosophy itself? I have not seen that before

On a more serious note, it really does not matter if there was a better way to implement anything. It was implemented poorly. The situation is what it is now.

Erhh no, I'm saying what you credit to keynesian economics, isn't keynesian economics at all, its neo-classical. Milton Friedman all the way.

Quote:

Another thing to remember is that its pointless looking at what worked between 45 and 71. Higher taxes could be levied when you did not have 30 other countries out there vying for the same pool of capital.

No, when more people work, and proper rewards are in place that incentivise savings, more capital becomes accessible. The pool of capital isn't a problem, This is the same line of thought that make 'Sloppy Joe' Hockey think there is a 'crowding out effect' here in Australia.

Quote:

There was limited competition for the west 50 years ago, that is not the case anymore.

Ahh, the case was more acute back then, there is a complete abundance of capital today, that is why bubble formation is more prevalent in modern times.

Quote:

Clinging to the notion that high taxes never killed the economy in the 40's and 50's does not take into account that much of the governments spending at the time was infrastructure spending after two major wars.

The U.S, and Australia are in dire need of infrastructure now. Travel through a U.S airport, see the situation in ports in Australia, ergo we (and they) need high taxes now ehh?

By the way, firstly I never espoused high taxes, I am saying wage share vs profit share is out of balance. keynesian economics is not a mrginal tax increase on non-keynesian economics.

Secondly, taxation works in a different way under a fiat currency compared to a backed currency.

Quote:

No one ever wants to place this into context because it does not suit the "tax those rich, evil motherfuckers to the hilt" line of thinking,

And I didn't say that, so I do not understand why you introduced a "won't someone think of the rich!" strawman argument.

Quote:

but civil works is not exactly welfare, free healthcare and them thar social programs.

This line of thought has been repeated in the past. It is the same line of thought that said socialised primary and secondary education was a folly 150 years ago. The outcome of universal literacy and numeracy for example provides benefit to society, and the input is much less than the benefit gained. We are aware of this and no one would ever think of repealing this sort of 'social program'.

It can easily be argued the same for free healthcare.

I understand we do have richer people arguing the 'supply demand' curve for health, even though EVERY empirical study shows the demand in real life does not resemble the demand curve of theory. However, under this premise, free healthcare will induce excess demand yeah?

To a point where you accept that either;

(a) segments of the population develop hypochondria, to consume excess levels of health care, or;

(b) this is the real level of healthcare required.

if you accept the latter, then you potentially have people locked out of healthcare, enduring real affliction and diminshing their productivity.. much like illiteracy diminshes peoples productivity.

Quote:

Ironically, you dont want to blame feminism for throwing a ton of workers at the market and removing the competition between business for labour, yet you then go on to blame the loss of full employment as the reason for lower increase to average wages? You realise we are saying the same thing here? I am saying that you cant almost double the size of the workforce in 30 years and not expect that to have any impact on wages and the cost of living.

We aren't saying the same thing.

More workers = more wages = more demand = equal more product = more jobs = more workers. More workers is not, and is never the problem. The impact of this many workers at once is barely more than one wage cycle.

The REAL consequence to why the cost of living has shot up because we do not provide incentivise those that bring more product to market in a sufficient manner. The excess money will just flow into existing product and 'easy money', ala a housing bubble.

Blame the management class for their rank incompetence, or the political class for the lack of foresight.

Quote:

It would be foolish to say that the structure of the economy was the problem when you thrust social transformation onto the economy and then act all surprised when it fucked out. Although I guess its typical of the liberal economic stance.

'Liberal economic' stance means lack of government intervention.

Which side are you on?

Quote:

When social engineering has a negative economic impact, it was the market that was the problem, not the social policy.

Social programs can happen regardless of the economic framework. Keynesian policies haven't been in operation since the 1970's, so they can't be blamed for much of what we witness.

Quote:

Women entered the workforce en masse, but few really go on to start small businesses of their own that do produce anything. The labour force changed, and as competitive advantages were gradually lost in manufacturing and production,

No, advantage was lost because of short term focus to take easy profits.

Germany still manufactures cars beause they have an advantage of building to a quality no one else can. Japan still manufactures with an advantage because they have efficient processes that allow them to build cheap Honda's even though they have high wages, high unionism and a high female particpation rate in the workforce.

There is no instrinsic reason the Australian or U.S autoworker can not be skilled enough to be of equal quality to the German, or develop processes to be as efficient as the Japanese.

It does however require investment, and that is both risky and difficult. Not as easy as bubbling up the housing sector, where VERY EASY money can be made.

That's what loses you advantage in these areas, not feminism.

Then to compound it, these 'easy money' makers (i.e. Goldman Sachs) entrench their position by capturing the regulatory, then as in the U.S, the polity body. This latter outcome is not keynesian, but symptomatic of cronyism fostering under classical economics.

Quote:

these economies began to take advantage of the service based skills of the changed workforce! The economic advantage was the cheap, skilled service based labour!

No, the easy way was cheap, UNSKILLED service labour.

Skilled service labour is architectural services, radiological services, niche engineering consulting. You know, the sort of stuff where you find Aussies in Singapore and the FSU.

unskilled service labour however is EASY, where you do not have to invest in any skills.. like door to door sales and retail.

Quote:

The low wages of the service based labour force resulted in an economic shift towards a service based economy as business gradually took advantage of the economic advantage it offered. If feminism never drove women to work, the shift towards a service based economy would have been far more gradual.

If investment was made, as hard and risky as it is, there'd still be a manufacturing base. Germany made that sort of investment, so did Japan. Switzerland did it with pharmaceuticals.

The anglosphere built up massive FIRE sectors, then blew up a few bubbles, culminating in a housing bubble.

Quote:

Keynesian economics did lead to the credit crisis. Government regulation imposed, then removed, then imposed again,

This sort of regulatory framework in neither here nor there when it comes to keynesian economics. To me it appears you on not clear on what 'keynesian' policy is, and are tending to use it as an ipso-facto slur against things you don't like.

The unwinding of this type of framework commence under reagan, pure Friedman-esque neo-classical economics, you can't blame keynesian policy here.

Quote:

with bailouts paid for by tax payers so that the governments of the world could ensure that credit markets did not implode.

Now I do agree there was a sembelence of keynesian activity there. It was the only economic school to avert the worst outcomes. We may not know how bad such an outcome will be, but then again it may have just kicked the can down the road.

Quote:

Classic government intervention, Keynesian principles at its finest,
which is macro economic control through legislation and intervention. The bankers were a result of failed policy, not the cause of it.

keynesian economics is not just 'carte blanche intervention'. You appear to have your labels wrong.

Quote:

Quote:

False dichotomy.

mercantilism has been around for centuries. It is not a keynesian outcome.

You are a student eh?

Well I haven't been an undergrad for a while if that's what you mean.

I do my post-grad p/t whilw working however.

Quote:

Globalisation has meant that western economies need to adjust and incentivise or starve. Higher taxes, bigger government, higher minimum wages and a highly unionised labour force are not the sort of incentives that are going to see people invest in developed economies over emerging.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I guess so.

[46.]

(01-19-2012 06:14 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

However, if you're different somehow and have made yourself unique, people will find you and pay you more, Godin says.

Instead of waiting around for someone to tell you that you matter, take your career into your own hands.

This is so true. A boss told me this 3 years ago. Working hard today is somewhat irrelevant because someone can usually be found to do it cheaper. Plus the entire relationship between corporation and employee has changed. No loyalty on either side. Decisions are made 3 levels up based on "shareholder value."

From my experiences both as an executive type and as entrepreneur, there are two main ways any dude on this forum can differentiate themselves and get out of the "average" trap, which is broader than it sounds:

1) Create stuff no one else in your organization has
2) Own relationships no one in your organization has

When you have either 1 or 2, its hard to let you go under any circumstances because you can't be replaced. And then you also have to market yourself internally to let everyone know you have 1 or 2. I'm guessing forum members can definitely excel at #2 due to a deeper understanding of human behavior and interaction. Plus for all the talk about globalization, the one thing that can't be globalized are local relationships (this is HUGE). Own them and you own much more; job, options, etc.

But know companies are now run exclusively for shareholders, the great de-evolution of American life. So your ultimate goal should be to be a shareholder...not merely an employee. Sucks to type this because the great American leaps in progress come from employees, not shareholders.

[Anon-A-Moose]

You're overcomplicating everything. It's very simple. Read up on Marxist theory of perpetual unemployment for why we don't have jobs.

Everything boils down to this: properly-paid workers cannot compete with third world labor. No matter how hard I work at $20 an hour I can't match the efficiency of someone paid $1 a day putting in a 16 hour day. It's rough if you're college-educated and smart and the intuitive self-started go-getter optimistic politically-correct marketing genius that a company wants to hire, but for the other 95% of the world, or people like me who would rather take the Budd Dwyer way out than have orders barked at them by some uppity cunt in management, we're fucked. And with less consumers, eventually companies will turn on each other using workers as pawns until they finally flounder, nobody able to buy their products due to wage wars.

Buy stock, stock up on guns & food (but not more than one week's worth because, according to NDAA 2012, more than one week's worth of food stored in the house makes you a potential terrorist suspect and you can be detained indefinitely). It's gonna get worse, sooner or later.

[46.]

(02-10-2012 12:43 AM)Anon-A-Moose Wrote:  

You're overcomplicating everything. It's very simple. Read up on Marxist theory of perpetual unemployment for why we don't have jobs.

There will still be jobs in the US, but the nature of value in our capitalist system is changing. Some jobs are more globalization-proof (nurse, doctor, teacher), others are not (factory floor, help desk). So some sectors are more prone to your Marxist theories than others.

If you don't want to be bossed around by "some uppity c--- in management" (lol), start your own thing. If you're a hands/concept guy, the whole DIY manufacturing is pretty cool. (I have a prototype I want to get built)
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/ff_newrevolution
If you're more the outdoors type, check out new urban agriculture technologies (I have some homies doing this).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...93702.html

I know it sucks for 20-somethings right now but new opportunities are opening; when one ($hitty) system comes crashing down, another replaces it.

[ColSpanker]

Yesterday I overheard a "union pipe fitter" complain about the exorbitant taxes on EVERYTHING in Philadelphia (where he lives). The next words out of his mouth was about how Obama wanted to repair the enfa-struct-your, but congress wouldn't let him. The man hadn't worked steady in 2 years, or so he claimed.
I suppose it never occurred to him the connection between the high taxes and his lack of work.

[Anon-A-Moose]

(02-14-2012 03:49 PM)46. Wrote:  

(02-10-2012 12:43 AM)Anon-A-Moose Wrote:  

You're overcomplicating everything. It's very simple. Read up on Marxist theory of perpetual unemployment for why we don't have jobs.

There will still be jobs in the US, but the nature of value in our capitalist system is changing. Some jobs are more globalization-proof (nurse, doctor, teacher), others are not (factory floor, help desk). So some sectors are more prone to your Marxist theories than others.

If you don't want to be bossed around by "some uppity c--- in management" (lol), start your own thing. If you're a hands/concept guy, the whole DIY manufacturing is pretty cool. (I have a prototype I want to get built)

Am actually hoping to start either a DIY manufacturing thing or some other arrangement. Probably investing in property, as I have leads, connections in construction, and basically already have everything i need except startup money. Hoping property values stay low another few years.

The jobs will go down in value though. If a nurse makes $15 an hour the doctor makes $200. But if the nurse starts making $5 an hour? Or you have high unemployment and everyone's desperate for a job? It is simple supply and demand--people will work for less rather than face unemployment. We'll see more nurses and teachers, meaning more competition for those jobs, and subsequent lower wages. Employers pay the lowest possible wage that will get them someone to do the job; if competition is higher they can lower that wage. I'm not a fan of Marx, but I can't argue with evidence. It's what's going on now.

(02-17-2012 01:25 PM)ColSpanker Wrote:  

Yesterday I overheard a "union pipe fitter" complain about the exorbitant taxes on EVERYTHING in Philadelphia (where he lives). The next words out of his mouth was about how Obama wanted to repair the enfa-struct-your, but congress wouldn't let him. The man hadn't worked steady in 2 years, or so he claimed.
I suppose it never occurred to him the connection between the high taxes and his lack of work.

First of all, on taxes: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxe...axes_N.htm The problem's that our money is worthless, making it seem like our expenses are rising faster than they actually are. Compare the dollar over the past few decades to some fixed commodity like gold.
Second, on the "connection between high taxes and his lack of work", it's because we won't tax those who can afford to be taxed. Compare unemployment and the tax arrangement in the 50s.

On a side note, Herman McCain's 9-9-9 plan has been proven genius, provided that you're attacked by giant lizards: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13...08952.html

[xsplat]

(01-24-2012 03:58 PM)Andy_B Wrote:  

(01-24-2012 12:08 PM)PDX Wrote:  

The "average" worker is also saddled in debt and has mouths to feed, thus doesn't have much wiggle room to take risks or venture outside of the routine. Staying light and nimble (debt-free and single) is going to be a huge competitive advantage in coming years.

Debt free is cool, but I've heard that not procreating can leave you feeling emotionally isolated in old age.

I guess that would depend on if you are emotionally isolated in old age. Looking at my parents, one is extremely socially active, very little of which is with his children. The other is sparsely active, very little of that with her children.

Children don't usually live in the same areas as their old age parents nowadays. What actual interaction are you expecting to fill your internal void in old age?

On the other hand my Grandmother is the matriarch of a large clan who mostly stayed in the same location, and has much family related social life. However she too created most of her social ties outside of the family.

I conclude that being social is a lifetime job, and having kids won't help you much with that one way or the other - for most people - especially in this modern world where it's most common for children to move away from their home town.

[Iceinthewater]

The key to success is also, for some, the biggest challenge - figure out what you're truly passionate about.

I'd say most people never really figure this out.

[Hotwheels]

(02-14-2012 03:49 PM)46. Wrote:  

If you don't want to be bossed around by "some uppity c--- in management" (lol), start your own thing. If you're a hands/concept guy, the whole DIY manufacturing is pretty cool. (I have a prototype I want to get built)
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/ff_newrevolution


I know it sucks for 20-somethings right now but new opportunities are opening; when one ($hitty) system comes crashing down, another replaces it.

Thanks for that wired link 46. After reading just part of that article the gears are already turning. I have a number of ideas that I'm now going to investigate further.

+1

[kosko]

46 have you looked into Land? I always argue that property is a dicey field to throw money into. The real asset is the land the property sits on.
Example: In most major Cities condo developments are taking off, many property speculators jump in hoping to make some quick cash through flipping, etc. The original whom owns the parcel of land laughs since he knows that even though people pay top dollar for units... They in a legal sense don't own anything. They are holders of air rights and get no gains from the spike in land values their money help to lay down. Property is tied to to many variables like emotional sentiment, shitty govt policies, and financial trends dictated by banks/lenders. Land is mostly local and is protected, and immune to as many outside factors fucking with its value.

Kid I went to school with his pops was loaded. He owned a housing dev company. He owns/owned large tracts of land at the Cities fringes.. He would sell off the land to be subdivided to other home corps BUT would require his construction team get the majority of the contracting lmao. Double the pay for him.. Yea they home corp gets to sell of a ton of homes but they make millions while he was making 10s of millions of the same deal.

[46.]

(02-18-2012 01:30 PM)Anon-A-Moose Wrote:  

The jobs will go down in value though. If a nurse makes $15 an hour the doctor makes $200. But if the nurse starts making $5 an hour? Or you have high unemployment and everyone's desperate for a job? It is simple supply and demand--people will work for less rather than face unemployment. We'll see more nurses and teachers, meaning more competition for those jobs, and subsequent lower wages. Employers pay the lowest possible wage that will get them someone to do the job; if competition is higher they can lower that wage. I'm not a fan of Marx, but I can't argue with evidence. It's what's going on now.

Yeah good point. I was looking at the shorter term, but you're right, wages will be somehow depressed even as health care costs rise. Funny how that can happen.

(02-19-2012 03:27 PM)kosko Wrote:  

46 have you looked into Land? I always argue that property is a dicey field to throw money into. The real asset is the land the property sits on.

Land just scares me in this day and age; but bargains are to be had because no one know how much its worth anymore in major markets. But again, with confusion there's opportunity. But with globalization markets are changing. There's a Chicago guy Sam Zell who made a fortune in real estate predicting the rise of the Brazilian Middle Class.

http://www.latinworld.com/2009/billionai...estate.htm
http://www.cnbc.com/id/38758907/Booming_...s_Sam_Zell

There's opportunity for those who understand different global sectors; something similar, but slower is unfolding in Africa. Then land prices in Greece, Spain, and Italy are sure to be affected this year.

[46.]

(02-19-2012 10:01 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

Thanks for that wired link 46. After reading just part of that article the gears are already turning. I have a number of ideas that I'm now going to investigate further.

+1

Thanks Hotwheels. I suppose the main thing is to go for it NOW. The big successes are built on failures, so I have to start failing NOW. Good luck.

[Anon-A-Moose]

Looking at land now would be like looking at .coms in 02/03. Ripe for the pickings.

[46.]

(02-21-2012 06:04 AM)Anon-A-Moose Wrote:  

Looking at land now would be like looking at .coms in 02/03. Ripe for the pickings.

Great analogy. All these giant, empty Borders and Lowe's Home Improvement stores have to be used for something. And whoever figures it out will get paid.

In keeping with the broader theme of finding opportunity in the new employee-unfriendly environment, I came across a two year old New York Magazine article that was fantastic. Basically it summed up how we got to this point (in economics, movies, tv, politics, music) and broad ideas about how to thrive in it. For a 20 year-old, the article about the past decade may not be as interesting as that's all you've known, but its great for the rest of us to realize what actually happened.

The Ferality Show
http://nymag.com/arts/all/aughts/62510/

Highlights:
"This was the decade when the bottom fell out of just about everything—including the idea of authority itself... for now, there’s only one thing to do: Hustle."

"... creating huge opportunities for people (mostly younger) who understood the potential of subcontracting their lives to the digital cloud and beginning to disenfranchise people (mostly older) who persisted in analog. In a decade when institutions failed us one after the other... opportunities went to the self-reliant, the self-starters, the hustlers. Whether we wanted to, or had to, we all become “brands of one.” "

"The Internet has rather definitively leveled the playing field. This does not mean that everyone has an equal chance. But it means that the traditional perquisites of the Establishment to determine who is and isn’t let in no longer hold and aren’t really that interesting to boot. The fear now is that no one is in charge. That we are all adrift in a vast, roiling sea, the contours of which none of us can fully discern. What we do with that fear is up to us alone."

[xsplat]

I've had the notion of a bamboo farm for a long time. The natural reserves of the stuff won't last forever. It's already being farmed profitably here and there - especially in India. I was thinking to give it a go in the Philippines. I have a few projects I could use the bamboo for (with an investment in equipment it can be turned into a valuable clothing grade naturally antiseptic fiber, or high priced floor tile), but imagine that eventually world demand for it will make it an exportable raw resource.

But I have no idea how to value land prices based on this use. There are online resources I could turn to that help find out costs per acre of growing the stuff, and land conditions required. How is farm land valued? X many years of farm profit?

Point is - farm land at a price where some return on investment is likely seems a stable investment.

I'm thinking invest in gold for up to two years, holding through fluctuations, then trade the gold for land.

[NuMbEr7]

A few of the ideas here remind me of Zeitgeist

[Cincinnatus]

(03-02-2012 09:59 AM)xsplat Wrote:  

Point is - farm land at a price where some return on investment is likely seems a stable investment.

Are you thinking about farmland as a hold-then-sell proposition, or utilizing it to make a profit while you own it? I think you could probably do both if played correctly. Maybe purchase farmland, lease it, then sell it in the future at further profit. Perhaps you'd even fetch a higher price at the end for it being proven farmland.

Hell, I wonder if the federal government still pays farmers NOT to grow?

[xsplat]

(03-03-2012 11:57 AM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

(03-02-2012 09:59 AM)xsplat Wrote:  

Point is - farm land at a price where some return on investment is likely seems a stable investment.

Are you thinking about farmland as a hold-then-sell proposition, or utilizing it to make a profit while you own it? I think you could probably do both if played correctly. Maybe purchase farmland, lease it, then sell it in the future at further profit. Perhaps you'd even fetch a higher price at the end for it being proven farmland.

Hell, I wonder if the federal government still pays farmers NOT to grow?

I want a working farm, with the focus being bamboo, fruit trees, and possibly some high value timber.

The bamboo takes about 5 years before it can be used in construction projects, and I have a few that could be a fun hobby. But if I can't find the time for that it is a marketable commodity either raw, or processed. A first thing to do could be to whip up a few bamboo structures for the farm. Another is my long time dream of bamboo house boats. I'm curious about using concrete and bamboo for the pontoons, for the least expensive possible materials for a house boat. We are familiar with concrete and steel being used for ships hulls, and bamboo has been used as a replacement for rebar in concrete water tanks, so I'm curious to experiment if whole bamboo, which by itself is bundled together into pontoons unprotected to float houseboats in Thailand, can be protected by concrete for still water use. I also want to hire a designer to design a flat pack dissassembling houseboat that can be shipped in a shipping container. Those could be built on the farm and shipped worldwide, beating out 100% of global competition for lake and river houseboats for price. Rentals could also be arranged though partnerships with other companies.

I would need to either crowdsource or commission the engineering of the boats, pontoons, cement mixture and bamboo treatment methods.

Ideally the land would be isolated waterfront with some elevation, and either road access or an ability to build and access a dock. The location would need to be tropical. Foreign land ownership laws and restrictions are a consideration, and in some areas so is political stability.

I'm not interested in speculating on land for resale. I'd want a return on investment based on the raw materials it produces. I also may not sell it before I die.

[Belize King]

(01-21-2012 10:03 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Better yet: let other monkeys work hard. This is the age of scammers. Those who manipulate, lie, and cheat will do the best.


Obviously this will end in tears. Exploit while you can.

The way or the world. Story posted Feb 28th.

CNN
A recent study by psychologists at UC Berkeley suggests that people who see themselves as better-off are more likely to lie, cheat and act in self interest. http://on.cnn.com/zwY0tU Do you think unethical behavior is tied to social and financial status?
Are rich people more unethical? - CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com
Since the economic implosion of 2008, the news has been littered with accounts of questionable behavior in boardrooms and corner offices...