psikeyhackr
Silver Member
- Jul 18, 2010
- 1,295
- 173
- 98
I decided to stick my 2 cents in about the economy back in 1999.
Economic Wargames
I posted that on the Internet but I also posted it on the company message board. There was PhD economist at the company who would regularly tell people what he thought about economics. Several people asked me what he had said to me about it.
HE NEVER SPOKE TO ME OR SENT ME AN EMAIL!
I am going to be ridiculous and take this back to Adam Smith. Smith talked about enlightened self interest. But what did he mean by that? How about everybody maximizing NET WORTH? Every red blooded capitalist should be in favor of that. But Adam Smith did not live in a world with Freudian television advertising. Adam Smith never heard of planned obsolescence. Consumerism did not exist in 1776. But double-entry accounting was 500 years old even back then.
We should not be concentrating on JOBS.
We should be concentrating on NET WORTH and that is what we should have been doing for the last 50 years. So going into debt for crap mobiles should not have been on the agenda.
But buying crap mobiles creates JOBS.
We have a CASH FLOW economy instead of a NET WORTH economy. So buying junk that depreciates keeps the cash flowing and keeps most people in debt and we have been buying our way into slavery and the economists have not been saying a damn thing about it.
So talking about JOBS ain't the solution.
Maybe we should be lynching economists with piano wire.
They have not been talking about how many TRILLIONS we have been losing on the depreciation of automobiles every decade. Since 1995 it came to about $300,000,000,000 per year. So how do PhD economists and some with Nobel Prizes forget to mention that?
You don't suppose the economists are paid to LIE to us do you?
psik
Economic Wargames
I posted that on the Internet but I also posted it on the company message board. There was PhD economist at the company who would regularly tell people what he thought about economics. Several people asked me what he had said to me about it.
HE NEVER SPOKE TO ME OR SENT ME AN EMAIL!
I am going to be ridiculous and take this back to Adam Smith. Smith talked about enlightened self interest. But what did he mean by that? How about everybody maximizing NET WORTH? Every red blooded capitalist should be in favor of that. But Adam Smith did not live in a world with Freudian television advertising. Adam Smith never heard of planned obsolescence. Consumerism did not exist in 1776. But double-entry accounting was 500 years old even back then.
We should not be concentrating on JOBS.
We should be concentrating on NET WORTH and that is what we should have been doing for the last 50 years. So going into debt for crap mobiles should not have been on the agenda.
But buying crap mobiles creates JOBS.
We have a CASH FLOW economy instead of a NET WORTH economy. So buying junk that depreciates keeps the cash flowing and keeps most people in debt and we have been buying our way into slavery and the economists have not been saying a damn thing about it.
So talking about JOBS ain't the solution.
Maybe we should be lynching economists with piano wire.
They have not been talking about how many TRILLIONS we have been losing on the depreciation of automobiles every decade. Since 1995 it came to about $300,000,000,000 per year. So how do PhD economists and some with Nobel Prizes forget to mention that?
You don't suppose the economists are paid to LIE to us do you?
psik