South Africa's White Farmers are Migrating Across Sub-Saharan Africa

3 posts

Broseph
For the most part, I agree with your post. But this quoted part is what I'm in disagreement with.

Didn't the workforce drastically increase in the 20th century? I don't think it's hard to believe that as the number of people has grown, and the workforce has grown, the demand has also grown. (Demand being the want of goods/services) If people are able to get what they want with less employment, why does it matter that they can't find jobs? Maybe people will have more leisure time?

I don't understand why wages would plummet, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument. Maybe you're speaking in aggregates here, I don't know.

If you're speaking in aggregates, isn't it possible that people would work less hours and still find employment? Isn't it possible that less people in a family would have to work and still be able to provide? If people have more leisure time, there's no telling what they will actually do with it.

If you're speaking of wages of actually employed people dropping, then all this does is cause growth of inventories and a subsequent drop in the price of goods and services. Price deflation.

If people have a lot more free time on their hands at some point in the future, there's no telling what it is they'll do from looking at it today.
Broseph
It's been the state in the US for the past 80 years, no doubt. They took economics and turned it into a system that is not value-free. They came up with functions that society "should optimize for". The only "free market solution" to the problem of consumerism would involve a return to sound money and a populace that isn't interested in consumerism. This isn't the fault of economics that it was used for political reasons. That would be like blaming Einstein for the fact that people spend way too much time watching T.V.

Physics doesn't tell us how to live, and neither does economics. It is a perversion to think it should. Value systems that tell us how to live come about from individuals, institutions and political organizations.

A battle between politics with itself, or a battle of politics with reality? All I see is a social democracy that is susceptible to tyranny. I agree that if people's values were anti-democratic long ago rather than achieving profit for the sake of it, or hedonia for the sake of it, they wouldn't be so dumb and susceptible today.
President Camacho
Economics supplanted politics in large part, by economizing things that before were never before considered in terms of Money. You see this in the attitude of the voting populace, from welfare negroes to corporate executives, who now don't even veil the fact that their only concern vis a vis government is the capacity to confer economic benefits on them via some magic electoral process. ("It's the economy stupid")

The only really political people remaining in the United States are leftist and Zionist elites (Jews, homosexuals, feminists, academics, etc). Hence Thomas777's basically truthful assertion that "the GOP has had no real platform since 1992". The entire party is simply for sale to the highest bidder. The GOP blatantly cedes ground again and again in the "Culture Wars" (the increasingly "socially liberal, fiscal conservative" candidates) but whites still vote for them under the sole [mistaken] belief that at least Republicans can protect their economic interests.

The Iraqi resistance's biggest miscalculation was the belief that the American public would demand the troops to return after inflicting 1,000 or so casualties. But people simply didn't care with the apparently booming economy and enough bread and circuses to go around. After bin Laden's death people still don't even understand what the cause of Islamic insurgency is, because they can't be bothered to care. The age when political contemplation touched the lives of everyday men only lasted a century or two in our time, and for most it has now been abolished in favor of base economic self-interest.

There is a difference between the DoD warmongers who want to see oil profits and get rewarded with cushy tenures in military-industrial institutions and the Jewish-Zionist warmongers, who have a purely political will to prop up Israel and extinguish "reactionary" cultures. Even those in high gov't posts who have the capacity to look at Iraq or Afghanistan in coldly strategic terms, it is always for the sole sake of ensuring "economic growth" for the Empire-- in other words, their "grand strategy" is merely a template tailored to the shibboleths of economic orthodoxy.