Non sequiturs will accomplish nothing, except convincing fools. Failure to use the shift key when appropriate doesn’t help either. Since Smith disapproved of joint-stock companies and died in 1790, automobiles weren’t made until 1885, GNP wasn’t codified until the 1930s, and the phrase “planned obsolescence” wasn’t coined until the 1940s, it follows that capitalism is obsolete? :dubious: You’ve got some work to do there. Merriam-Webster defines capitalism thusly:
That seems fair, no? It’s close enough for our purposes. How does the existence of the automobile, planned obsolescence, corporations, and GNP, coupled with the non-existence of Smith, make capitalism obsolete? Seriously.
You’re like one of these creationists who argue that since Darwin is dead and since evolutionary theory has matured, it follows that evolution is dead.
What is that? Google turned up nothing except an incoherent rant by some guy named Val Kilmer…or Hal Tiger… I can’t recall. I find it interesting that you hail Sun Tzu antisocialism, whatever that means, when your “Economic Wargames” book reference list suggests that Sun Tzu is over your head. If you want more detail you might refer to Sun Bin rather than another translation of Sun Tzu.
I did. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Your very first premise is faulty: “The global economy is a giant multilevel, multiplayer chess game.” That’s simply not true, not even analogous. Chess is a zero sum game whereas the global economy is not. Smith and Ricardo established that a few centuries ago. You can read a little about it here.
Your one interesting observation is completely lost by your failure to comprehend its significance. It may be a good idea to provide the proper tax breaks for consumer good depreciation (if that isn’t done already).
You state, “In classical economics it is common to assume that consumers are rational, possibly for simplicity’s sake. But how can rational decisions be made with incomplete information?” Duh. Study some economics, imperfect information has a rich literature in economics. That’s why we have lemon laws.
You complain that people don’t know the Mean Time Between Failure. Fair enough. So write a letter to your Senator. A legal hole like that should be plugged.
You fall into the tired old cliche of “if they can put a man on the moon, why can’t they make a telephone cord that doesn’t tangle”. The only difference is that you use military aircraft and automobiles. Duh. Cars don’t cost millions of dollars. You want a car that can perform like a Blackbird? Buy a Ferrari. Of course you’ll have to maintain it and pay the high price–but so does the gov’t. with the Blackbird.
You tell us that, “A $100,000 mortgage over 30 years at 8% will ultimately cost $264,153.60, that’s $164,153 in interest alone.” Then show us that you have no concept of present value.
Then there’s this gem: “There is no limit to how dumb consumers are expected to be, some company named Providian keeps sending me an application for a Visa “Classic”. It has a $500 limit, 23.99% interest, a $49 application fee, a $59 annual fee and they have the NERVE to say it’s a limited time offer.” Yep, that’s a high interest rate. But people pay it. That’s what they’re willing to give up to consume now rather than later. Duh. You don’t even understand the concept of interest. I’m so impressed. :rolleyes: Not to mention that if one pays one’s credit card debts promptly, one gets a free loan. Then you seem appalled that credit card companies and banks are profit maximizers. Whatever…
The you bring in game theory and assert, without proof or argument, that a loan is a zero sum game. How is that so? The borrower gets current consumption, the bank gets a profit. For the marginal consumer of present consumption, and for that consumer only, the trade-off is equal. For all others, they enjoy consumer surplus. The same is true for the bank–it enjoys producer surplus. Those are gains that society enjoys which stem solely from the act of trading in the market for current consumption. Since the game produces surplus for all players (except on the marginal loan), it is not zero sum.
Then you quote a proverb. Great. If someone doesn’t want to be strapped with debt, it can be avoided. The person must forfeit current consumption to do so. Deciding to smooth consumption is hardly making a slave of oneself. You must make the case.
You end by telling us that according to a show you once saw, a college degree is worthless. Brilliant. You’re a rhetorical genius.
Your attempt to take on economic merely demonstrates the extent to which you are out of your league. No offense.
