All Economic Warfare is Based on Deception

[umbrarchist]

Political-Economic Power Games 
So why no mandatory accounting in high schools?

https://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html

 

Do Economists actually understand the system?
Are they just keeping the Peons confused?

.

[ProfD]

5 hours ago, umbrarchist said:

Political-Economic Power Games 

Have been ongoing for over a century here in the USA.

 

5 hours ago, umbrarchist said:

So why no mandatory accounting in high schools?

As mentioned previously, accounting is primarily used for businesses.

 

Running a household doesn't require knowledge of accounting.

 

5 hours ago, umbrarchist said:

Do Economists actually understand the system?
Are they just keeping the Peons confused?

There is no lack of knowledge. There is no confusion.

 

People of all classes have bought into the economic systembas it has been constructed.

[umbrarchist]

6 hours ago, ProfD said:

As mentioned previously, accounting is primarily used for businesses.

 

Running a household doesn't require knowledge of accounting.

Running a household and running a household WELL are not necessarily the same thing.

 

My senior year in high school I was in the basement of what I was told was the biggest bookstore in the city. That is where the business section was. I looked in one book, it was a rather thin book, but very near the beginning it suggested that every household should be run like a business. That would have been 1969 or 70. Possibly before you were born.

 

For some reason I didn't buy it. But I never forgot it. But I took for granted that Planned Obsolescence was happening in cars before I graduated from high school. I built lots of models of planes and cars in grammar school.

 

I built one of these in grade school.

 

 

This piece of junk has a hand crank on the back. 60 years ago there was an electric motor in the starter housing. A PhD economist could not explain a car engine to me in the 90s.

 

I watched a video of a man complaining about having to pay £500 to get a light bulb working on a car. Electricity to the bulb was controlled by a computer circuit board. The bulb was not the problem. The computer board had to be replaced. This is progress?

.

[ProfD]

On 11/4/2025 at 1:47 AM, umbrarchist said:

Running a household and running a household WELL are not necessarily the same thing.

Over several generations, good enough has managed to suffice for most households.

 

 

On 11/4/2025 at 1:47 AM, umbrarchist said:

My senior year in high school I was in the basement of what I was told was the biggest bookstore in the city. That is where the business section was. I looked in one book, it was a rather thin book, but very near the beginning it suggested that every household should be run like a business.

The book suggested that every household should be run like a business. 

 

I wonder if that particular book also mentioned that most businesses fail within the first 5 years or so for one reason or three.

 

On 11/4/2025 at 1:47 AM, umbrarchist said:

I watched a video of a man complaining about having to pay £500 to get a light bulb working on a car. Electricity to the bulb was controlled by a computer circuit board. The bulb was not the problem. The computer board had to be replaced. This is progress?

Any type of *advanced* technology is more expensive to repair. 

 

Surely, people could learn home economics and electronics and home improvement, etc., in order to save money on everything from eating out to car repairs and home maintenance. 

 

The reality is that the average person only has a limited amount of bandwidth.   The majority of people on the planet are average.

 

IMO, people are better off using their time and energy on their purpose and/or pursuing those things of interest to them.

 

The wonderful thing about the world in which we live is there is no shortage of individual pursuits.  Live life to the fullest because our time here is very short in the grand scheme of things.

[umbrarchist]

On 11/5/2025 at 1:30 PM, ProfD said:

Over several generations, good enough has managed to suffice for most households.

 

 

The book suggested that every household should be run like a business. 

 

I wonder if that particular book also mentioned that most businesses fail within the first 5 years or so for one reason or three.

 

Any type of *advanced* technology is more expensive to repair. 

 

Surely, people could learn home economics and electronics and home improvement, etc., in order to save money on everything from eating out to car repairs and home maintenance. 

 

The reality is that the average person only has a limited amount of bandwidth.   The majority of people on the planet are average.

 

IMO, people are better off using their time and energy on their purpose and/or pursuing those things of interest to them.

 

The wonderful thing about the world in which we live is there is no shortage of individual pursuits.  Live life to the fullest because our time here is very short in the grand scheme of things.

 

How much do people need to Know to comprehend a Bathtub Curve graph? But when does anybody ever hear of a Bathtub Curve?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve

 

It was like my working at IBM. I NeVeR heard or saw the word 'benchmark' the entire time I was there. I had to write my own. Almost every computer you encounter uses a von Neumann architecture. IBM hired John von Neumann as a consultant in 1950. There was no mention of him or the architecture while I was there.

 

I am simply saying that Important but Easily Understood information disappears. Black Americans are not going to get far not getting passed the bullshit.

 

Making a light dependent on a computer is a stupid design when it could cause an accident or get the driver a ticket.

[ProfD]

2 hours ago, umbrarchist said:

I am simply saying that Important but Easily Understood information disappears. Black Americans are not going to get far not getting passed the bullshit.

The question is how important is the information if Black folks have made it this far BS included.

 

Reminds of a comment the CEO of OpenAI recently made that if AI can do the same job as a human, the job must not have been that important anyway.

 

2 hours ago, umbrarchist said:

Making a light dependent on a computer is a stupid design when it could cause an accident or get the driver a ticket.

Calculated risks are taken all the time in every aspect of our lives. 

 

Right now, they are not overly worried about air traffic controllers walking off the job as a result of not getting paid and letting planes crash or fall out of the sky.

[umbrarchist]

Out of curiosity I asked ChatGPT:

 

Are Economists stupid or liars in relation to dealing with the Depreciation of Durable Consumer Goods?

 

========= ChatGPT =========

Economists as a group are not stupid or liars regarding consumer depreciation — but the way depreciation is handled in economics can create confusion, and there are legitimate criticisms about how economists talk about it.

 

Here’s a clear breakdown:

 

1. Depreciation is well understood in economics — but mostly in firms, not households

Economists have long had precise models of:

 

capital depreciation

replacement cost

optimal capital stock

amortization schedules

productive vs. nonproductive assets

But most of this theory is applied to businesses, not households.

 

This means economists usually study:

“How do companies account for depreciation?”

not

“How do consumers actually experience depreciation?”

So the gap is real — but not malicious.

 

2. Consumer depreciation is important… but economists largely ignore it

For households, depreciation governs much of economic reality:

 

Cars lose thousands per year

Phones become worthless in 3–5 years

Appliances fail

Clothes wear out

Buildings degrade

 

A huge share of consumer spending is really replacement spending

This is often called the Maintenance Burden or Replacement Burden of consumer capital, and it is nowhere near as integrated into mainstream models as business depreciation.

 

This is a legitimate criticism:

Economists dramatically underemphasize the economic drag created by required replacement of depreciating consumer goods.

 

But this oversight is systemic, not deceitful.

=========== ROFL ============

 

I would just call it lying but some economists must be stupid.

.

Edited 42 minutes ago by umbrarchist
Bolding