[Mind's Eye] Re: Music & Emotion

I later remembered of one of Shostakovich's symphonies but he really
wasn't a first thought. Thank you for your suggestion and will look
out for it. :-)

On Jun 30, 11:04 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Speaking of passionate composers, try the second movement of Dmitri
> Shostakovich's Piano Concerto No. 2; how about being seized and
> carried by music till your body is ready to float away...? :)
>
> On Jun 30, 3:12 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I love the Russians and some of the other passionate composers. I am
> > after tempo but also the "reach" of melody as a longing. As for pop- I
> > like Gershwin and witty lyrics- Porter, Rodgers and Hart. Dislike
> > dissonance and wimpy love songs- often country western. Like soft rock
> > prior to heavy metal and present noise. Like being seized and carried
> > by music till my body is ready to dance away.
>
> > On Jun 30, 7:42 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Umm I think that emotional context must be subjective.  Do we all feel
> > > the same emotions when listening to the same piece of music?
>
> > > So I must ask does the composer have this emotional frame you speak
> > > of, or does he compose with his own emotions in mind?
>
> > > On the other hand I think we can agree that certian patterns of sound
> > > are well known for invokeing certian moods, so perhaps a little from
> > > coloumn A and a little from coloumn B?
>
> > > On Jun 30, 8:21 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Good questions; the author or composer must have a qualitative sense
> > > > of the emotional "frame" of the piece as he/she writes, presumably;
> > > > but its a marvel how they manage to reconstruct that qualia through
> > > > sound.
>
> > > > On Jun 29, 6:24 pm, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I know right.... music.... rhythm.... an immediate effect.... is it merely
> > > > > the systematic striking of chords... i am in awe.. of those who create
> > > > > music.... is music created... or is it there before the keys are struck ...
> > > > > the chords pulled... do we make music or do we simlply tune in.... i dont
> > > > > mean writing a song.... but a sonata perhaps.... where does it come from....
>
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:02 PM, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Today, i found myself completely lost in the magical wonderland of
> > > > > > Patrick Doyle's "My Fathers Favourite"; it is a breathtakingly
> > > > > > beautiful place indeed. Which got me thinking...what is it about
> > > > > > certain pieces of music that invoke in us an overwhelming emotional
> > > > > > landscape?
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mind's Eye] Re: Music & Emotion

Speaking of passionate composers, try the second movement of Dmitri
Shostakovich's Piano Concerto No. 2; how about being seized and
carried by music till your body is ready to float away...? :)

On Jun 30, 3:12 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I love the Russians and some of the other passionate composers. I am
> after tempo but also the "reach" of melody as a longing. As for pop- I
> like Gershwin and witty lyrics- Porter, Rodgers and Hart. Dislike
> dissonance and wimpy love songs- often country western. Like soft rock
> prior to heavy metal and present noise. Like being seized and carried
> by music till my body is ready to dance away.
>
> On Jun 30, 7:42 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Umm I think that emotional context must be subjective.  Do we all feel
> > the same emotions when listening to the same piece of music?
>
> > So I must ask does the composer have this emotional frame you speak
> > of, or does he compose with his own emotions in mind?
>
> > On the other hand I think we can agree that certian patterns of sound
> > are well known for invokeing certian moods, so perhaps a little from
> > coloumn A and a little from coloumn B?
>
> > On Jun 30, 8:21 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Good questions; the author or composer must have a qualitative sense
> > > of the emotional "frame" of the piece as he/she writes, presumably;
> > > but its a marvel how they manage to reconstruct that qualia through
> > > sound.
>
> > > On Jun 29, 6:24 pm, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I know right.... music.... rhythm.... an immediate effect.... is it merely
> > > > the systematic striking of chords... i am in awe.. of those who create
> > > > music.... is music created... or is it there before the keys are struck ...
> > > > the chords pulled... do we make music or do we simlply tune in.... i dont
> > > > mean writing a song.... but a sonata perhaps.... where does it come from....
>
> > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:02 PM, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Today, i found myself completely lost in the magical wonderland of
> > > > > Patrick Doyle's "My Fathers Favourite"; it is a breathtakingly
> > > > > beautiful place indeed. Which got me thinking...what is it about
> > > > > certain pieces of music that invoke in us an overwhelming emotional
> > > > > landscape?
>
> > > > --
> > > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mind's Eye] Re: Music & Emotion

Yes, i think you're right; the artist or composer certainly
"expresses" an emotion; the better felt, the better expressed; his/her
can resonate with us emotionally in different shades, perhaps?

On Jun 30, 1:42 pm, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:
> Umm I think that emotional context must be subjective.  Do we all feel
> the same emotions when listening to the same piece of music?
>
> So I must ask does the composer have this emotional frame you speak
> of, or does he compose with his own emotions in mind?
>
> On the other hand I think we can agree that certian patterns of sound
> are well known for invokeing certian moods, so perhaps a little from
> coloumn A and a little from coloumn B?
>
> On Jun 30, 8:21 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Good questions; the author or composer must have a qualitative sense
> > of the emotional "frame" of the piece as he/she writes, presumably;
> > but its a marvel how they manage to reconstruct that qualia through
> > sound.
>
> > On Jun 29, 6:24 pm, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I know right.... music.... rhythm.... an immediate effect.... is it merely
> > > the systematic striking of chords... i am in awe.. of those who create
> > > music.... is music created... or is it there before the keys are struck ...
> > > the chords pulled... do we make music or do we simlply tune in.... i dont
> > > mean writing a song.... but a sonata perhaps.... where does it come from....
>
> > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:02 PM, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Today, i found myself completely lost in the magical wonderland of
> > > > Patrick Doyle's "My Fathers Favourite"; it is a breathtakingly
> > > > beautiful place indeed. Which got me thinking...what is it about
> > > > certain pieces of music that invoke in us an overwhelming emotional
> > > > landscape?
>
> > > --
> > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mind's Eye] Re: Music & Emotion

I love the Russians and some of the other passionate composers. I am
after tempo but also the "reach" of melody as a longing. As for pop- I
like Gershwin and witty lyrics- Porter, Rodgers and Hart. Dislike
dissonance and wimpy love songs- often country western. Like soft rock
prior to heavy metal and present noise. Like being seized and carried
by music till my body is ready to dance away.

On Jun 30, 7:42 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:
> Umm I think that emotional context must be subjective.  Do we all feel
> the same emotions when listening to the same piece of music?
>
> So I must ask does the composer have this emotional frame you speak
> of, or does he compose with his own emotions in mind?
>
> On the other hand I think we can agree that certian patterns of sound
> are well known for invokeing certian moods, so perhaps a little from
> coloumn A and a little from coloumn B?
>
> On Jun 30, 8:21 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Good questions; the author or composer must have a qualitative sense
> > of the emotional "frame" of the piece as he/she writes, presumably;
> > but its a marvel how they manage to reconstruct that qualia through
> > sound.
>
> > On Jun 29, 6:24 pm, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I know right.... music.... rhythm.... an immediate effect.... is it merely
> > > the systematic striking of chords... i am in awe.. of those who create
> > > music.... is music created... or is it there before the keys are struck ...
> > > the chords pulled... do we make music or do we simlply tune in.... i dont
> > > mean writing a song.... but a sonata perhaps.... where does it come from....
>
> > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:02 PM, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Today, i found myself completely lost in the magical wonderland of
> > > > Patrick Doyle's "My Fathers Favourite"; it is a breathtakingly
> > > > beautiful place indeed. Which got me thinking...what is it about
> > > > certain pieces of music that invoke in us an overwhelming emotional
> > > > landscape?
>
> > > --
> > > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mind's Eye] Re: Economy

What exactly do the Greeks have? Ruins, olives, feta...Same with
Portugal and Spain. And Ireland collapsed. Why are France and Britain
fighting Libya and wasting money on yet another war? Now the English
are protesting austerity measures and if it gets nasty no one will go
to their extravagant Olympics.

I doubt the USA will declare itself bankrupt and welch on its debt
plus it's stuck with its military. Maybe we can turn our Baghdad
embassy(1 billion and counting) into a casino- import Bunny Clubs and
Disney Worlds!!!

On Jun 29, 12:23 pm, allan deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have been listening to the news..  it is strange..  one of the odd things
> that came  up was just dumping the debt..  some one said it would take then
> 15 to 20 years to recover..    that is odd because the way that is laided
> out by the bankers  the funny part is you can never recover..  the bankers
> way they can never recover..  interesting...  if you do not believe me  when
> is the USA 11 trillion dollar debt going to be repaid??
>
> that is bad for business if governments repay their debt..
>
> the effect of dumping the debt would be felt all over europe..  but I think
> it would really wake up governments to the bankers,, and the world bank and
> it counter part the IMF..
> I do not think the greek people are going away quietly  or lay down
> quietly..  the legislation passed is against their will..
> Allan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:28 PM, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > You optimist, you :)
>
> > On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I tend to think of human nature portrayed in a triptych- the good, the
> > > bad and those in-between. There are hinges. :-)
>
> > > On Jun 28, 5:34 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Absolutely, you're right; there's no getting away from human nature;
> > > > thats why the idea of communism had such a hard time in practice.
>
> > > > So, we cant swim against the tide, we cant swim too far out with the
> > > > tide; it's a dilemma alright.
>
> > > > On Jun 28, 3:41 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I don't think you can factor out greed and competition/lust for power
> > > > > whether you are talking about conquest or the accumulation of wealth.
> > > > > History is replete with examples- the challenge to papal wealth and
> > > > > control, the aristocracy, colonial rulers, national tyrants whose
> > > > > replacements sank in the same rut. It is a moral dilemma as far as to
> > > > > how to stabilize humanity with such various lacks or talents.
> > > > > Education and democracy were supposed to balance the odds- morals and
> > > > > mercy included. How has that worked out? A nation becomes what it
> > > > > admires.
>
> > > > > On Jun 27, 2:30 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > But communism (in theory) is about every man contributing to the
> > > > > > communal pot, to be distributed by dint of a principle of "equity".
>
> > > > > > Free markets (or Capitalism, or whatever resonates) is about man
> > > > > > pursuing his own ends, for which an emergent, enabling by-product
> > is
> > > > > > the economy (as we know it); of course, great disparities of wealth
> > > > > > (and power) are an unavoidable (some might argue desirable)
> > feature,
> > > > > > as man has an unequal capacity to create value (and we can get into
> > > > > > the ethics of the "why's" and the "wherefore's"). (Re)distribution
> > is
> > > > > > a political initiative to manage these disparities through
> > taxation.
> > > > > > And yes, you're right, wealth will perpetuate "at the top", but
> > really
> > > > > > as a consequence of an enhanced capacity to create even greater
> > value;
> > > > > > i think that this is what tends to appear as the great "visible
> > hand".
>
> > > > > > Thing about "growth", rigsy / contemplative, is it's one of the
> > very
> > > > > > few mega non-zero sums around; thats what makes it so beguiling and
> > > > > > difficult to manage; so we swing from boom to bust to boom to...:)
>
> > > > > > On Jun 27, 2:49 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I don't agree- unless you are talking about Communism- which
> > flopped.
> > > > > > > Man serves the economy and whichever power happens to be in
> > charge who
> > > > > > > may then decide to redistribute wealth/products but this is not a
> > > > > > > voluntary agreement. But generally, wealth remains at the top for
> > the
> > > > > > > prime reason of maintaining power.
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 25, 3:26 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Hmm...fine points all!
>
> > > > > > > > Lets not forget though, that the economy serves man, not the
> > other way
> > > > > > > > round? Just an observation regarding your suspicion of the
> > "growth"
> > > > > > > > imperative in contemporary economics.
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 24, 9:54 pm, Contemplative <wjwiel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > The key phrase for me is "relative homeostasis".  I agree
> > that the
> > > > > > > > > encouragement you refer to
> > > > > > > > > is desirable.  I am unsure of it's possibility. Our belief
> > that growth is
> > > > > > > > > mandatory for our economy
> > > > > > > > > encourages activities and behaviors that, I think, out-pace
> > the ability of
> > > > > > > > > the natural system to
> > > > > > > > > balance itself at its natural rate.  I am not convinced that
> > we have a solid
> > > > > > > > > enough understanding
> > > > > > > > > of our own system to allow us to recognize true key
> > indicators of systemic
> > > > > > > > > health, rationally process
> > > > > > > > > that input, and subsequently make good decisions about the
> > which conditions
> > > > > > > > > we should encourage.
>
> > > > > > > > > To state it bluntly, I think our desire for growth is
> > malignant...
>
> > > > > > > > > I don't mean to be doom and gloom about this, and actually I
> > think there is
> > > > > > > > > reason to be optimistic.
> > > > > > > > > But economics seems to me to have that stereotypical
> > characteristic of
> > > > > > > > > having 20/20 vision through
> > > > > > > > > the rear view mirror.  Economic policy decisions that are
> > both long term and
> > > > > > > > > aggressive(such as increased
> > > > > > > > > home ownership) which use 'tweaks' to the system to achieve
> > the aims are
> > > > > > > > > likely destructive and very
> > > > > > > > > unpredictable.  In a relatively isolated or buffered system,
> > they may be
> > > > > > > > > more predictable, but we are not
> > > > > > > > > in an economy which is either buffered or isolated.  We are
> > comparatively
> > > > > > > > > wide open(global), and playing
> > > > > > > > > in a much bigger sandbox than we have been, say 25 years ago.
> >  ...and from
> > > > > > > > > my perspective, we don't
> > > > > > > > > know the playing field well enough to be aggressive, though
> > we should be
> > > > > > > > > looking long term.  ...and by
> > > > > > > > > long term, I mean more than two quarters out!
>
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to think this through a bit...!
> > :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
>  (
>   )
> I_D Allan
>
> If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
> Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mind's Eye] Re: Economy

No- I am a realist who still has a sense of humor. :-)

On Jun 29, 10:28 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You optimist, you :)
>
> On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I tend to think of human nature portrayed in a triptych- the good, the
> > bad and those in-between. There are hinges. :-)
>
> > On Jun 28, 5:34 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Absolutely, you're right; there's no getting away from human nature;
> > > thats why the idea of communism had such a hard time in practice.
>
> > > So, we cant swim against the tide, we cant swim too far out with the
> > > tide; it's a dilemma alright.
>
> > > On Jun 28, 3:41 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I don't think you can factor out greed and competition/lust for power
> > > > whether you are talking about conquest or the accumulation of wealth.
> > > > History is replete with examples- the challenge to papal wealth and
> > > > control, the aristocracy, colonial rulers, national tyrants whose
> > > > replacements sank in the same rut. It is a moral dilemma as far as to
> > > > how to stabilize humanity with such various lacks or talents.
> > > > Education and democracy were supposed to balance the odds- morals and
> > > > mercy included. How has that worked out? A nation becomes what it
> > > > admires.
>
> > > > On Jun 27, 2:30 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > But communism (in theory) is about every man contributing to the
> > > > > communal pot, to be distributed by dint of a principle of "equity".
>
> > > > > Free markets (or Capitalism, or whatever resonates) is about man
> > > > > pursuing his own ends, for which an emergent, enabling by-product is
> > > > > the economy (as we know it); of course, great disparities of wealth
> > > > > (and power) are an unavoidable (some might argue desirable) feature,
> > > > > as man has an unequal capacity to create value (and we can get into
> > > > > the ethics of the "why's" and the "wherefore's"). (Re)distribution is
> > > > > a political initiative to manage these disparities through taxation.
> > > > > And yes, you're right, wealth will perpetuate "at the top", but really
> > > > > as a consequence of an enhanced capacity to create even greater value;
> > > > > i think that this is what tends to appear as the great "visible hand".
>
> > > > > Thing about "growth", rigsy / contemplative, is it's one of the very
> > > > > few mega non-zero sums around; thats what makes it so beguiling and
> > > > > difficult to manage; so we swing from boom to bust to boom to...:)
>
> > > > > On Jun 27, 2:49 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I don't agree- unless you are talking about Communism- which flopped.
> > > > > > Man serves the economy and whichever power happens to be in charge who
> > > > > > may then decide to redistribute wealth/products but this is not a
> > > > > > voluntary agreement. But generally, wealth remains at the top for the
> > > > > > prime reason of maintaining power.
>
> > > > > > On Jun 25, 3:26 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Hmm...fine points all!
>
> > > > > > > Lets not forget though, that the economy serves man, not the other way
> > > > > > > round? Just an observation regarding your suspicion of the "growth"
> > > > > > > imperative in contemporary economics.
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 24, 9:54 pm, Contemplative <wjwiel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > The key phrase for me is "relative homeostasis".  I agree that the
> > > > > > > > encouragement you refer to
> > > > > > > > is desirable.  I am unsure of it's possibility. Our belief that growth is
> > > > > > > > mandatory for our economy
> > > > > > > > encourages activities and behaviors that, I think, out-pace the ability of
> > > > > > > > the natural system to
> > > > > > > > balance itself at its natural rate.  I am not convinced that we have a solid
> > > > > > > > enough understanding
> > > > > > > > of our own system to allow us to recognize true key indicators of systemic
> > > > > > > > health, rationally process
> > > > > > > > that input, and subsequently make good decisions about the which conditions
> > > > > > > > we should encourage.
>
> > > > > > > > To state it bluntly, I think our desire for growth is malignant...
>
> > > > > > > > I don't mean to be doom and gloom about this, and actually I think there is
> > > > > > > > reason to be optimistic.
> > > > > > > > But economics seems to me to have that stereotypical characteristic of
> > > > > > > > having 20/20 vision through
> > > > > > > > the rear view mirror.  Economic policy decisions that are both long term and
> > > > > > > > aggressive(such as increased
> > > > > > > > home ownership) which use 'tweaks' to the system to achieve the aims are
> > > > > > > > likely destructive and very
> > > > > > > > unpredictable.  In a relatively isolated or buffered system, they may be
> > > > > > > > more predictable, but we are not
> > > > > > > > in an economy which is either buffered or isolated.  We are comparatively
> > > > > > > > wide open(global), and playing
> > > > > > > > in a much bigger sandbox than we have been, say 25 years ago.  ...and from
> > > > > > > > my perspective, we don't
> > > > > > > > know the playing field well enough to be aggressive, though we should be
> > > > > > > > looking long term.  ...and by
> > > > > > > > long term, I mean more than two quarters out!
>
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to think this through a bit...! :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mind's Eye] Re: Economy

I suppose you could bust trusts that retain family wealth and invoke
estate taxes but you would simply dry up other areas of the economy
such as start-ups and charitable giving, etc. You would evaporate
enthusiasm and ambition. Why do you suppose that the lower classes
have higher morals than the uppers? Usually, morals slither down so
the street vender is no more honest than his betters.

You might define what you consider "work". Are you taking someone's
livelihood by mowing lawns for free? At any rate, the nuclear family
as a base unit is shot to smithereens. Here, we are taking about the
value of certain social roles that does not expect money but now has
few safety nets. Not that Oprah will be giving up her private jet ot
Michelle will pay the taxpayers for her fares, fetes and fashions-
it's class warfare used as a political ploy and certainly nothing new,
is it?

What exactly are these ME rebels left with? Ruined towns and
businesses and certainly no tourists. All reved up with no place to
go.
Perhaps the youths need centuries of warfare like Europe endured till
they settle down?

Savings are important- for that rainy day- plus a good dose of common
sense in regard to policy. The USA has been on a binge since the
'60's- really, there is such a disconnect in thinking with these
Boomers- perhaps they had boring parents- there is little depth, wit
or style to them- they are very herdlike.

Technology is good and bad. Swift news and speedy scams. Wikileaks and
Drudge are wake-ups for traditional media and political baloney.
Governments are bloated by bureaucracy- like ancien regimes and
courtiers. And don't get me started about the modern woman- dear Lord!
Well, the Muslims will soon find out about that pickle!

On Jun 29, 7:57 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been reading Human Geography of late Ash - but that only takes me
> back to the same place, giving me some surprises on the way about what
> I didn't know.  A typical fact is such that half the people in the UK
> own only 5% of what we can stick and money value on.  The answer is
> that we can't afford capitalism.  Of course, this just brings more
> problems with it!  Years back I used to think the general western
> system wasn't broken and alternatives were pipe dreams.  I'm now
> convinced the system is broken, but it's also obvious the pipe dream
> paradises were much worse.
>
> I'm always tempted to think transparency would help now we have
> technology - especially in letting us get back to communal capital in
> something of a dual system as you suggest.
> This still leaves issues about what to do in the global mess and a
> lack of any politics to address this, including the flaw of ignorance
> in democracy.  What sticks in my craw is the lack of dialogue other
> than the farcical putting the world to rights type over beer.
>
> One of the things always said about our economies is we need to work
> smarter.  We could Dilbert-joke that one to death.  What I want to
> hear is more about how much work really needs doing, what we really
> keep us motivated in doing it, how to deal with disability, pensions
> and so on - without any of the claims about needing super-brain
> bankers and to let some people hold nearly all the wealth and us
> having to work for them.  I cut my neighbour's lawn for nothing
> (except for not seeing the mess), but I fight against having to do
> more work for less at work.  I could work much smarter but the
> incentive is to work myself and others out of work.  I'd have a
> substantial bet there is less 'smart' in work than when I started if
> Ladbrookes would take it.  What we have is more and more
> accreditation, not increasing brain power.
>
> Basic answers like a quality of work life and human rights around the
> world appeal - until you realise just how much needs to change.  Easy
> notions that we all need to save money don't work because economies
> shrink because people stop spending - but we keep getting this rammed
> down our throats.
>
> No more time now,  but one thing we might do is redistribute wealth
> every now and then from the rich by allowing communities to develop as
> alternatives to it around a range of new technologies.  My suspicion
> is that banking, retailing and much celebrity stuff is not needed and
> now blocks social development based on work not money.
>
> On Jun 29, 12:42 am, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You've riled my ire Archy, now what can we do about it I wonder. My
> > knowledge of things isn't up to the complexities of economics but the
> > principles of simple exchange keep making me think we should have a dual
> > economy: let corporations exist (remove personhood), and establish a
> > social system (independent of government) to allow people the option to
> > serve the commonwealth of society. With all the things that need to be
> > done there is such a high unemployment, people cannot afford property
> > taxes and various costs, why not let people live and prosper? Perhaps
> > there isn't enough to go around (sarcasm), or maybe we just need some
> > balance.
>
> > On 6/28/2011 4:13 PM, archytas wrote:
>
> > > What the isn't is any public  dialogue on whether the stuff about law,
> > > freedom, entrepreneurialism, innovation and the motivation of wealth
> > > is the problem.
>
> > > On Jun 28, 8:32 pm, archytas<nwte...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > >> When you look at GDP figures (not that many do) in the US you see real
> > >> wage decline over 30 years yet an increase in consumption (and hence
> > >> GDP).  Questions obviously arise here on how - the answer is debt
> > >> spending - but how did the borrowing arise - wouldn't we expect
> > >> lending to fall with less money coming in to pay of debt contracted?
> > >> Part of the answer lies in greed and a property bubble created by
> > >> this.  Loans appeared to be secured against property, but the banks
> > >> were fueling speculation to inflate property prices to 'earn'
> > >> bonuses.  I see little difference in what they did and Deng ordering
> > >> 'homes' that no one will live in.  In a sense we all went into a
> > >> command economy.  As with the famous Sino-Soviet experiments this was
> > >> and still is based on 'elite madness' and false accounting.
>
> > >> I mention habros because a poisoning feature of luxury seems
> > >> involved.  It's surely all over - just switch on TV.  The way we
> > >> normally think about running a household just don't apply, though
> > >> politicians mug us with this kind of false analogy.  The promise in
> > >> the last election in the UK was that frontline services would not be
> > >> affected by cuts in waste and all the other lies of this kind - the
> > >> usual 5 cents in the dollar stuff pace Bob Dole.  This never works and
> > >> we know it doesn't.
>
> > >> I would guess most people have a notion that GDP is a reflection of
> > >> effort and this is the problem.  GDP goes up when we buy plastic
> > >> Chinese crap or TVs we didn't make on money borrowed against what was
> > >> supposed to be the ever rising value of our assets like housing.  So
> > >> GDP goes up when we simply bubble property prices - usually good for
> > >> people owning property.  What the banks did in this needs long
> > >> investigation and description - but in short they began to make money
> > >> make money - something that clearly can't be 'real'.  The accounting
> > >> here involves governments creating electronic money (now QE) and
> > >> lending this at low rates to favoured banks (a surplus of capital
> > >> never built on effort) who appeared to be making money hand over
> > >> fist.  This was really the Ponzi scheme and no more than anything
> > >> Madoff was doing.  Ponzi schemes pay out not on earnings but with the
> > >> new money their lies on performance bring in.  The lies are supported
> > >> by elaborate maths.  I teach the maths and they don't work as claimed,
> > >> only reducing risk in margins.  The key metaphor is to imagine playing
> > >> Monopoly against a banker with a couple of spare sets of money in her
> > >> back pocket.
>
> > >> The idea in this is to use capital ore and more effectively (fine) but
> > >> it all goes mad when the capital becomes earnings ten years off
> > >> treated as though you've made it now.  The maths is complicated but
> > >> the schemes are not - it's almost like placing bets on all horses and
> > >> living it up on the winnings whilst ignoring the losses or inflating
> > >> the currency you use to 'account' for them.
>
> > >> What people can't grab is that economics and accounting is like this
> > >> anyway - though supposedly under strict rules.  Businesses need to
> > >> stay alive until the good times when most profit is made.  This is
> > >> fine until the madness or crooks get in and the idea ceases to be
> > >> about the viable business and becomes just profit.
>
> > >> I can build the case in figures but the issue is corruption - a
> > >> corruption as endemic as that in Soviet performance management.  What
> > >> they are telling us is stark.  We can't have the public services (who
> > >> cares who runs them if they do it properly) to educate kids, look
> > >> after old and disabled people and the rest even though we have plenty
> > >> of labour to do this - labour in some senses earned through massive
> > >> productivity rises in agriculture and manufacturing.  Looming over us
> > >> is a massive and generally parasitic financial services sector that
> > >> matches these productivity gains in size - all of which could be
> > >> routinised to a fraction.
>
> > >> When we talk about making an industry efficient we have little problem
> > >> with allowing wages to come under international competition and all
> > >> the rest,  Yet to match this in, say, policing by importing droves of
> > >> keen Chinese and sacking our expensive finest - and the very idea of
> > >> doing this at the top of banking seems impossible - though all the
> > >> skills are comparable.
>
> > >> I suspect the real issues cannot be addressed because most people
> > >> adjust to a view of just being cogs in the wheel and feel their sanity
> > >> threatened by thoughts of the criminality that has been going on
> > >> around them.  They look for homely answers like 'blaming profligate
> > >> Greeks' (a hospital doctor in Greece gets under half what a lecturer
> > >> gets in the UK) and imagining austerity measures will let us save our
> > >> way out of the problems.  This is not what history tells us - though,
> > >> of course, most people know no real history.
>
> > >> What is happening now is history. - it may as well be a re-write of
> > >> much imperialist history.  I hope war is less on the cards, but I'm
> > >> not at all sure.  Our ignorance is the real issue - and I suspect this
> > >> is ignorance about just how unfair the world is and how massively
> > >> irrational our systems are..  It's worse than we are thinking and our
> > >> public dialogue allows us to say.
>
> > >> The questions we aren't asking are about what would be left if there
> > >> was no more 'international trade' and we got round to making stuff
> > >> locally and allowing more global exchange of expertise through virtual
> > >> exchange.  We aren't  broke in such a system and have capital.
>
> > >> My guess is that most of what we call 'work' in the current system is
> > >> no such thing - it's neurosis.
>
> > >> On Jun 28, 12:58 pm, Ash<ashkas...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> > >>> So, bullets=100pts, futures=-100TNpts. ;-)
> > >>> On 6/28/2011 12:07 AM, archytas wrote:
> > >>>> The truth on bullets is you get to eat if you have them and the food
> > >>>> holders don't!
> > >>>> On Jun 28, 3:52 am, rigsy03<rigs...@gmail.com>    wrote:
> > >>>>> I wonder the number of vacant, distressed properties in the West?
> > >>>>> Well, China was
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mind's Eye] Re: Music & Emotion

Umm I think that emotional context must be subjective. Do we all feel
the same emotions when listening to the same piece of music?

So I must ask does the composer have this emotional frame you speak
of, or does he compose with his own emotions in mind?

On the other hand I think we can agree that certian patterns of sound
are well known for invokeing certian moods, so perhaps a little from
coloumn A and a little from coloumn B?

On Jun 30, 8:21 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Good questions; the author or composer must have a qualitative sense
> of the emotional "frame" of the piece as he/she writes, presumably;
> but its a marvel how they manage to reconstruct that qualia through
> sound.
>
> On Jun 29, 6:24 pm, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I know right.... music.... rhythm.... an immediate effect.... is it merely
> > the systematic striking of chords... i am in awe.. of those who create
> > music.... is music created... or is it there before the keys are struck ...
> > the chords pulled... do we make music or do we simlply tune in.... i dont
> > mean writing a song.... but a sonata perhaps.... where does it come from....
>
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:02 PM, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Today, i found myself completely lost in the magical wonderland of
> > > Patrick Doyle's "My Fathers Favourite"; it is a breathtakingly
> > > beautiful place indeed. Which got me thinking...what is it about
> > > certain pieces of music that invoke in us an overwhelming emotional
> > > landscape?
>
> > --
> > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mind's Eye] Re: Music & Emotion

Some do, for sure; but other pieces set the imagination alight...

On Jun 30, 12:16 am, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps it stimulates memories of emotion, I had a doozie moment today
> and had to turn it off.. Long story short, I got a look at things after
> the cascade of images stopped pounding me, and got an outside look at
> myself. I don't want to say what it looked like, but I found much of
> value without a bit of pity even the compassion fell away and without
> the sadness it became clear this was a creature of habit. So I changed
> the routine a bit today, exercised and stretched during smokes (not
> cardio) with a good 30lb steel rod, mostly fun but tough work. Hoping
> this helps the broader picture, these rituals I've accumulated are
> killing me.
>
> This is an unusual day, I think it is good and feel more alive. I turned
> a downward spiral into fuel to make change that I didn't expect myself
> capable of. Sorry for the deep subjective moment all. :)
>
> On 6/29/2011 1:24 PM, pol.science kid wrote:
>
>
>
> > I know right.... music.... rhythm.... an immediate effect.... is it
> > merely the systematic striking of chords... i am in awe.. of those who
> > create music.... is music created... or is it there before the keys
> > are struck ... the chords pulled... do we make music or do we simlply
> > tune in.... i dont mean writing a song.... but a sonata perhaps....
> > where does it come from....
>
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:02 PM, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com
> > <mailto:eadohe...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >     Today, i found myself completely lost in the magical wonderland of
> >     Patrick Doyle's "My Fathers Favourite"; it is a breathtakingly
> >     beautiful place indeed. Which got me thinking...what is it about
> >     certain pieces of music that invoke in us an overwhelming emotional
> >     landscape?
>
> > --
> > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mind's Eye] Re: Music & Emotion

Good questions; the author or composer must have a qualitative sense
of the emotional "frame" of the piece as he/she writes, presumably;
but its a marvel how they manage to reconstruct that qualia through
sound.

On Jun 29, 6:24 pm, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know right.... music.... rhythm.... an immediate effect.... is it merely
> the systematic striking of chords... i am in awe.. of those who create
> music.... is music created... or is it there before the keys are struck ...
> the chords pulled... do we make music or do we simlply tune in.... i dont
> mean writing a song.... but a sonata perhaps.... where does it come from....
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:02 PM, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Today, i found myself completely lost in the magical wonderland of
> > Patrick Doyle's "My Fathers Favourite"; it is a breathtakingly
> > beautiful place indeed. Which got me thinking...what is it about
> > certain pieces of music that invoke in us an overwhelming emotional
> > landscape?
>
> --
> \--/ Peace

[Mind's Eye] Re: Mouth wide open

An interesting perspective:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2011/06/the_big_nothing.html

On Jun 26, 4:11 pm, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Indeed inspiring Allan, I spent many hours looking into space as a boy
> pondering the dimensions of things. The imagination has few boundaries
> when offered such fuel. My futurist side sees so much potential for us
> here, it has been my "home" ever since. Though I get caught up in the
> narrow focus it never fails to provide expansion and perspective. Thanks
> for sharing!!
>
> On 6/26/2011 4:44 AM, allan deheretic wrote:
>
>
>
> > image.png
>
> > This is Pandora's cluster  and my mouth is wide open as just how big
> > is this,
> > to explain what you are looking at ,, it is the over lay of three
> >  different telescopes
> > The pink is hot cluster gas  the blue is dark matter.
> > what has my jaw dropping is if you look at the stars between us and
> > the Pandora's cluster, those are not stares but entire galaxies.
>
> > what are your thoughts.
> > Allan
>
> > --
> >  (
> >   )
> > I_D Allan
>
> > If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
> > Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Re: [MSUAtheists]:490 Twitter

this is relevant to my interests.

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Mary Kate Smith <mks183@msstate.edu> wrote:

Definitely interested. 

mk

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Chris D. <anauthenticatheist@gmail.com> wrote:

Hay guise!
This twitter account isn't specific to our group but it is specific to
the site/project we are working on.

https://twitter.com/#!/SAUCEFORALL

[We Follow Back]

Also, We've made some progress on the site in the past few hours. I'll
probably be uploading some screenshots here soon, maybe tonight or in
the next few days. Just reply to this thread with an email if you're
interested in seeing what we have done and I'll send them all at once.

--
Thank you for subscribing to the Freethinkers, Agnostics, and Atheists of MSU mailing list.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "MSUAtheists" group.
To post to this group, send email to msuatheists@googlegroups.com

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS GROUP PLEASE SEND AN EMAIL TO:
msuatheists+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/msuatheists?hl=en

--
Mary Kate Smith

Mississippi State University

Aerospace Engineering Major (Astronautics)

MSU AIAA President

Space Cowboys Project Manager

601-826-5960

--
Thank you for subscribing to the Freethinkers, Agnostics, and Atheists of MSU mailing list.
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "MSUAtheists" group.
To post to this group, send email to msuatheists@googlegroups.com
 
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS GROUP PLEASE SEND AN EMAIL TO:
msuatheists+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/msuatheists?hl=en

--
Thank you for subscribing to the Freethinkers, Agnostics, and Atheists of MSU mailing list.
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "MSUAtheists" group.
To post to this group, send email to msuatheists@googlegroups.com
 
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS GROUP PLEASE SEND AN EMAIL TO:
msuatheists+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/msuatheists?hl=en

Re: [MSUAtheists]:489 Twitter

Definitely interested. 

mk

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Chris D. <anauthenticatheist@gmail.com> wrote:

Hay guise!
This twitter account isn't specific to our group but it is specific to
the site/project we are working on.

https://twitter.com/#!/SAUCEFORALL

[We Follow Back]

Also, We've made some progress on the site in the past few hours. I'll
probably be uploading some screenshots here soon, maybe tonight or in
the next few days. Just reply to this thread with an email if you're
interested in seeing what we have done and I'll send them all at once.

--
Thank you for subscribing to the Freethinkers, Agnostics, and Atheists of MSU mailing list.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "MSUAtheists" group.
To post to this group, send email to msuatheists@googlegroups.com

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS GROUP PLEASE SEND AN EMAIL TO:
msuatheists+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/msuatheists?hl=en

--
Mary Kate Smith

Mississippi State University

Aerospace Engineering Major (Astronautics)

MSU AIAA President

Space Cowboys Project Manager

601-826-5960

--
Thank you for subscribing to the Freethinkers, Agnostics, and Atheists of MSU mailing list.
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "MSUAtheists" group.
To post to this group, send email to msuatheists@googlegroups.com
 
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS GROUP PLEASE SEND AN EMAIL TO:
msuatheists+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/msuatheists?hl=en

[MSUAtheists]:488 Twitter

Hay guise!
This twitter account isn't specific to our group but it is specific to
the site/project we are working on.

https://twitter.com/#!/SAUCEFORALL

[We Follow Back]

Also, We've made some progress on the site in the past few hours. I'll
probably be uploading some screenshots here soon, maybe tonight or in
the next few days. Just reply to this thread with an email if you're
interested in seeing what we have done and I'll send them all at once.

--
Thank you for subscribing to the Freethinkers, Agnostics, and Atheists of MSU mailing list.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "MSUAtheists" group.
To post to this group, send email to msuatheists@googlegroups.com

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS GROUP PLEASE SEND AN EMAIL TO:
msuatheists+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/msuatheists?hl=en

[Mind's Eye] Re: Economy

I've been reading Human Geography of late Ash - but that only takes me
back to the same place, giving me some surprises on the way about what
I didn't know. A typical fact is such that half the people in the UK
own only 5% of what we can stick and money value on. The answer is
that we can't afford capitalism. Of course, this just brings more
problems with it! Years back I used to think the general western
system wasn't broken and alternatives were pipe dreams. I'm now
convinced the system is broken, but it's also obvious the pipe dream
paradises were much worse.

I'm always tempted to think transparency would help now we have
technology - especially in letting us get back to communal capital in
something of a dual system as you suggest.
This still leaves issues about what to do in the global mess and a
lack of any politics to address this, including the flaw of ignorance
in democracy. What sticks in my craw is the lack of dialogue other
than the farcical putting the world to rights type over beer.

One of the things always said about our economies is we need to work
smarter. We could Dilbert-joke that one to death. What I want to
hear is more about how much work really needs doing, what we really
keep us motivated in doing it, how to deal with disability, pensions
and so on - without any of the claims about needing super-brain
bankers and to let some people hold nearly all the wealth and us
having to work for them. I cut my neighbour's lawn for nothing
(except for not seeing the mess), but I fight against having to do
more work for less at work. I could work much smarter but the
incentive is to work myself and others out of work. I'd have a
substantial bet there is less 'smart' in work than when I started if
Ladbrookes would take it. What we have is more and more
accreditation, not increasing brain power.

Basic answers like a quality of work life and human rights around the
world appeal - until you realise just how much needs to change. Easy
notions that we all need to save money don't work because economies
shrink because people stop spending - but we keep getting this rammed
down our throats.

No more time now, but one thing we might do is redistribute wealth
every now and then from the rich by allowing communities to develop as
alternatives to it around a range of new technologies. My suspicion
is that banking, retailing and much celebrity stuff is not needed and
now blocks social development based on work not money.

On Jun 29, 12:42 am, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You've riled my ire Archy, now what can we do about it I wonder. My
> knowledge of things isn't up to the complexities of economics but the
> principles of simple exchange keep making me think we should have a dual
> economy: let corporations exist (remove personhood), and establish a
> social system (independent of government) to allow people the option to
> serve the commonwealth of society. With all the things that need to be
> done there is such a high unemployment, people cannot afford property
> taxes and various costs, why not let people live and prosper? Perhaps
> there isn't enough to go around (sarcasm), or maybe we just need some
> balance.
>
> On 6/28/2011 4:13 PM, archytas wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > What the isn't is any public  dialogue on whether the stuff about law,
> > freedom, entrepreneurialism, innovation and the motivation of wealth
> > is the problem.
>
> > On Jun 28, 8:32 pm, archytas<nwte...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> When you look at GDP figures (not that many do) in the US you see real
> >> wage decline over 30 years yet an increase in consumption (and hence
> >> GDP).  Questions obviously arise here on how - the answer is debt
> >> spending - but how did the borrowing arise - wouldn't we expect
> >> lending to fall with less money coming in to pay of debt contracted?
> >> Part of the answer lies in greed and a property bubble created by
> >> this.  Loans appeared to be secured against property, but the banks
> >> were fueling speculation to inflate property prices to 'earn'
> >> bonuses.  I see little difference in what they did and Deng ordering
> >> 'homes' that no one will live in.  In a sense we all went into a
> >> command economy.  As with the famous Sino-Soviet experiments this was
> >> and still is based on 'elite madness' and false accounting.
>
> >> I mention habros because a poisoning feature of luxury seems
> >> involved.  It's surely all over - just switch on TV.  The way we
> >> normally think about running a household just don't apply, though
> >> politicians mug us with this kind of false analogy.  The promise in
> >> the last election in the UK was that frontline services would not be
> >> affected by cuts in waste and all the other lies of this kind - the
> >> usual 5 cents in the dollar stuff pace Bob Dole.  This never works and
> >> we know it doesn't.
>
> >> I would guess most people have a notion that GDP is a reflection of
> >> effort and this is the problem.  GDP goes up when we buy plastic
> >> Chinese crap or TVs we didn't make on money borrowed against what was
> >> supposed to be the ever rising value of our assets like housing.  So
> >> GDP goes up when we simply bubble property prices - usually good for
> >> people owning property.  What the banks did in this needs long
> >> investigation and description - but in short they began to make money
> >> make money - something that clearly can't be 'real'.  The accounting
> >> here involves governments creating electronic money (now QE) and
> >> lending this at low rates to favoured banks (a surplus of capital
> >> never built on effort) who appeared to be making money hand over
> >> fist.  This was really the Ponzi scheme and no more than anything
> >> Madoff was doing.  Ponzi schemes pay out not on earnings but with the
> >> new money their lies on performance bring in.  The lies are supported
> >> by elaborate maths.  I teach the maths and they don't work as claimed,
> >> only reducing risk in margins.  The key metaphor is to imagine playing
> >> Monopoly against a banker with a couple of spare sets of money in her
> >> back pocket.
>
> >> The idea in this is to use capital ore and more effectively (fine) but
> >> it all goes mad when the capital becomes earnings ten years off
> >> treated as though you've made it now.  The maths is complicated but
> >> the schemes are not - it's almost like placing bets on all horses and
> >> living it up on the winnings whilst ignoring the losses or inflating
> >> the currency you use to 'account' for them.
>
> >> What people can't grab is that economics and accounting is like this
> >> anyway - though supposedly under strict rules.  Businesses need to
> >> stay alive until the good times when most profit is made.  This is
> >> fine until the madness or crooks get in and the idea ceases to be
> >> about the viable business and becomes just profit.
>
> >> I can build the case in figures but the issue is corruption - a
> >> corruption as endemic as that in Soviet performance management.  What
> >> they are telling us is stark.  We can't have the public services (who
> >> cares who runs them if they do it properly) to educate kids, look
> >> after old and disabled people and the rest even though we have plenty
> >> of labour to do this - labour in some senses earned through massive
> >> productivity rises in agriculture and manufacturing.  Looming over us
> >> is a massive and generally parasitic financial services sector that
> >> matches these productivity gains in size - all of which could be
> >> routinised to a fraction.
>
> >> When we talk about making an industry efficient we have little problem
> >> with allowing wages to come under international competition and all
> >> the rest,  Yet to match this in, say, policing by importing droves of
> >> keen Chinese and sacking our expensive finest - and the very idea of
> >> doing this at the top of banking seems impossible - though all the
> >> skills are comparable.
>
> >> I suspect the real issues cannot be addressed because most people
> >> adjust to a view of just being cogs in the wheel and feel their sanity
> >> threatened by thoughts of the criminality that has been going on
> >> around them.  They look for homely answers like 'blaming profligate
> >> Greeks' (a hospital doctor in Greece gets under half what a lecturer
> >> gets in the UK) and imagining austerity measures will let us save our
> >> way out of the problems.  This is not what history tells us - though,
> >> of course, most people know no real history.
>
> >> What is happening now is history. - it may as well be a re-write of
> >> much imperialist history.  I hope war is less on the cards, but I'm
> >> not at all sure.  Our ignorance is the real issue - and I suspect this
> >> is ignorance about just how unfair the world is and how massively
> >> irrational our systems are..  It's worse than we are thinking and our
> >> public dialogue allows us to say.
>
> >> The questions we aren't asking are about what would be left if there
> >> was no more 'international trade' and we got round to making stuff
> >> locally and allowing more global exchange of expertise through virtual
> >> exchange.  We aren't  broke in such a system and have capital.
>
> >> My guess is that most of what we call 'work' in the current system is
> >> no such thing - it's neurosis.
>
> >> On Jun 28, 12:58 pm, Ash<ashkas...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> So, bullets=100pts, futures=-100TNpts. ;-)
> >>> On 6/28/2011 12:07 AM, archytas wrote:
> >>>> The truth on bullets is you get to eat if you have them and the food
> >>>> holders don't!
> >>>> On Jun 28, 3:52 am, rigsy03<rigs...@gmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>>> I wonder the number of vacant, distressed properties in the West?
> >>>>> Well, China was humiliated by the tactics of the West in our forcing
> >>>>> her to open to trade via opium and dynasty overthrow plus the theft of
> >>>>> her national arts and treasures- keeping them "safe" in western
> >>>>> museums, like the rest of our lootings.
> >>>>> Americans accumulated their own debt with abuse of credit when it was
> >>>>> easy street. The banks/financial institutions were irresponsible and
> >>>>> so were our governments. You can't eat bullets.
> >>>>> On Jun 27, 4:49 pm, archytas<nwte...@gmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>>>> I don't believe the modern arguments (post 1950) concern communism
> >>>>>> other than as a futile ideal.  We seem to have forgotten about habros
> >>>>>> - the polluting quality of luxury.  The term arises in a Greek play
> >>>>>> celebrating the victory of the Athenian Democracy over the Persians.
> >>>>>> The warning to the Greeks was that they must never become sissies
> >>>>>> wallowing in emotions and luxury like the defeated Persians.  Most of
> >>>>>> us are barely aware of history and have no real clue what the Soviets
> >>>>>> and Chinese were up to.  Even in relation to what's going on in China
> >>>>>> now, I find few who know they have built ghost cities and are fueling
> >>>>>> GDP growth with a property bubble.
> >>>>>> The broad brush of western economics is that the ignorant rabble have
> >>>>>> no place in real decision-making and that they must both know this (in
> >>>>>> order not to forget their place)  and to deny it in fantasies to
> >>>>>> encourage virtual self-aggrandizement.  Thus we are to live in virtual
> >>>>>> meritocracy whilst actually just part of a pack that will not
> >>>>>> challenge the alphas.  In a very real way, we do not argue with facts,
> >>>>>> but the stories of literature which bounds our expectations.  Video
> >>>>>> games are a warning of what we are, even if we don't play them.
> >>>>>> The debts that are everywhere like a nightmare are not to do with
> >>>>>> money as a means of simple exchange, taken on to be worked off in some
> >>>>>> equation of labour value.  They have been manipulated as surely as any
> >>>>>> in past empires.  Just as Chinese GDP is floating on 64 million empty
> >>>>>> buildings no one can afford to live in (terms are often half up front,
> >>>>>> the balance over 3 years), our currencies float on deals between
> >>>>>> governments and favoured banks.  We have suppressed wages and banks
> >>>>>> hardly even provide working capital for business, instead engaging in
> >>>>>> speculation in giant Ponzi schemes hedged in ever increasing prices
> >>>>>> for assets that no one would eventually be able to buy from a wage,
> >>>>>> and securitised to the tax payer.  Wages were collapsed over 30 years
> >>>>>> by exporting manufacturing - but GDP kept rising as we borrowed
> >>>>>> against the asset pile to buy more and more crap and pay welfare to
> >>>>>> those deprived of jobs.
> >>>>>> The rich grew vastly richer in this period.  If there are 64 million
> >>>>>> Chinese
>
> ...
>
> read more »

Re: [Mind's Eye] Music & Emotion

Perhaps it stimulates memories of emotion, I had a doozie moment today and had to turn it off.. Long story short, I got a look at things after the cascade of images stopped pounding me, and got an outside look at myself. I don't want to say what it looked like, but I found much of value without a bit of pity even the compassion fell away and without the sadness it became clear this was a creature of habit. So I changed the routine a bit today, exercised and stretched during smokes (not cardio) with a good 30lb steel rod, mostly fun but tough work. Hoping this helps the broader picture, these rituals I've accumulated are killing me.

This is an unusual day, I think it is good and feel more alive. I turned a downward spiral into fuel to make change that I didn't expect myself capable of. Sorry for the deep subjective moment all. :)

On 6/29/2011 1:24 PM, pol.science kid wrote:

I know right.... music.... rhythm.... an immediate effect.... is it merely the systematic striking of chords... i am in awe.. of those who create music.... is music created... or is it there before the keys are struck ... the chords pulled... do we make music or do we simlply tune in.... i dont mean writing a song.... but a sonata perhaps.... where does it come from....

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:02 PM, paradox <eadoherty@hotmail.com> wrote:

Today, i found myself completely lost in the magical wonderland of
Patrick Doyle's "My Fathers Favourite"; it is a breathtakingly
beautiful place indeed. Which got me thinking...what is it about
certain pieces of music that invoke in us an overwhelming emotional
landscape?

--
\--/ Peace

Re: [Mind's Eye] Music & Emotion

I know right.... music.... rhythm.... an immediate effect.... is it merely the systematic striking of chords... i am in awe.. of those who create music.... is music created... or is it there before the keys are struck ... the chords pulled... do we make music or do we simlply tune in.... i dont mean writing a song.... but a sonata perhaps.... where does it come from....

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:02 PM, paradox <eadoherty@hotmail.com> wrote:

Today, i found myself completely lost in the magical wonderland of
Patrick Doyle's "My Fathers Favourite"; it is a breathtakingly
beautiful place indeed. Which got me thinking...what is it about
certain pieces of music that invoke in us an overwhelming emotional
landscape?

--
\--/ Peace

Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Economy

I have been listening to the news..  it is strange..  one of the odd things that came  up was just dumping the debt..  some one said it would take then 15 to 20 years to recover..    that is odd because the way that is laided out by the bankers  the funny part is you can never recover..  the bankers way they can never recover..  interesting...  if you do not believe me  when is the USA 11 trillion dollar debt going to be repaid??  

that is bad for business if governments repay their debt..

the effect of dumping the debt would be felt all over europe..  but I think it would really wake up governments to the bankers,, and the world bank and it counter part the IMF..  

I do not think the greek people are going away quietly  or lay down quietly..  the legislation passed is against their will..

Allan

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:28 PM, paradox <eadoherty@hotmail.com> wrote:

You optimist, you :)

On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I tend to think of human nature portrayed in a triptych- the good, the
> bad and those in-between. There are hinges. :-)
>
> On Jun 28, 5:34 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Absolutely, you're right; there's no getting away from human nature;
> > thats why the idea of communism had such a hard time in practice.
>
> > So, we cant swim against the tide, we cant swim too far out with the
> > tide; it's a dilemma alright.
>
> > On Jun 28, 3:41 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't think you can factor out greed and competition/lust for power
> > > whether you are talking about conquest or the accumulation of wealth.
> > > History is replete with examples- the challenge to papal wealth and
> > > control, the aristocracy, colonial rulers, national tyrants whose
> > > replacements sank in the same rut. It is a moral dilemma as far as to
> > > how to stabilize humanity with such various lacks or talents.
> > > Education and democracy were supposed to balance the odds- morals and
> > > mercy included. How has that worked out? A nation becomes what it
> > > admires.
>
> > > On Jun 27, 2:30 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > But communism (in theory) is about every man contributing to the
> > > > communal pot, to be distributed by dint of a principle of "equity".
>
> > > > Free markets (or Capitalism, or whatever resonates) is about man
> > > > pursuing his own ends, for which an emergent, enabling by-product is
> > > > the economy (as we know it); of course, great disparities of wealth
> > > > (and power) are an unavoidable (some might argue desirable) feature,
> > > > as man has an unequal capacity to create value (and we can get into
> > > > the ethics of the "why's" and the "wherefore's"). (Re)distribution is
> > > > a political initiative to manage these disparities through taxation.
> > > > And yes, you're right, wealth will perpetuate "at the top", but really
> > > > as a consequence of an enhanced capacity to create even greater value;
> > > > i think that this is what tends to appear as the great "visible hand".
>
> > > > Thing about "growth", rigsy / contemplative, is it's one of the very
> > > > few mega non-zero sums around; thats what makes it so beguiling and
> > > > difficult to manage; so we swing from boom to bust to boom to...:)
>
> > > > On Jun 27, 2:49 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I don't agree- unless you are talking about Communism- which flopped.
> > > > > Man serves the economy and whichever power happens to be in charge who
> > > > > may then decide to redistribute wealth/products but this is not a
> > > > > voluntary agreement. But generally, wealth remains at the top for the
> > > > > prime reason of maintaining power.
>
> > > > > On Jun 25, 3:26 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hmm...fine points all!
>
> > > > > > Lets not forget though, that the economy serves man, not the other way
> > > > > > round? Just an observation regarding your suspicion of the "growth"
> > > > > > imperative in contemporary economics.
>
> > > > > > On Jun 24, 9:54 pm, Contemplative <wjwiel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > The key phrase for me is "relative homeostasis".  I agree that the
> > > > > > > encouragement you refer to
> > > > > > > is desirable.  I am unsure of it's possibility. Our belief that growth is
> > > > > > > mandatory for our economy
> > > > > > > encourages activities and behaviors that, I think, out-pace the ability of
> > > > > > > the natural system to
> > > > > > > balance itself at its natural rate.  I am not convinced that we have a solid
> > > > > > > enough understanding
> > > > > > > of our own system to allow us to recognize true key indicators of systemic
> > > > > > > health, rationally process
> > > > > > > that input, and subsequently make good decisions about the which conditions
> > > > > > > we should encourage.
>
> > > > > > > To state it bluntly, I think our desire for growth is malignant...
>
> > > > > > > I don't mean to be doom and gloom about this, and actually I think there is
> > > > > > > reason to be optimistic.
> > > > > > > But economics seems to me to have that stereotypical characteristic of
> > > > > > > having 20/20 vision through
> > > > > > > the rear view mirror.  Economic policy decisions that are both long term and
> > > > > > > aggressive(such as increased
> > > > > > > home ownership) which use 'tweaks' to the system to achieve the aims are
> > > > > > > likely destructive and very
> > > > > > > unpredictable.  In a relatively isolated or buffered system, they may be
> > > > > > > more predictable, but we are not
> > > > > > > in an economy which is either buffered or isolated.  We are comparatively
> > > > > > > wide open(global), and playing
> > > > > > > in a much bigger sandbox than we have been, say 25 years ago.  ...and from
> > > > > > > my perspective, we don't
> > > > > > > know the playing field well enough to be aggressive, though we should be
> > > > > > > looking long term.  ...and by
> > > > > > > long term, I mean more than two quarters out!
>
> > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to think this through a bit...! :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
 (   
  )   
I_D Allan

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

[Mind's Eye] Music & Emotion

Today, i found myself completely lost in the magical wonderland of
Patrick Doyle's "My Fathers Favourite"; it is a breathtakingly
beautiful place indeed. Which got me thinking...what is it about
certain pieces of music that invoke in us an overwhelming emotional
landscape?

[Mind's Eye] Re: Economy

You optimist, you :)

On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I tend to think of human nature portrayed in a triptych- the good, the
> bad and those in-between. There are hinges. :-)
>
> On Jun 28, 5:34 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Absolutely, you're right; there's no getting away from human nature;
> > thats why the idea of communism had such a hard time in practice.
>
> > So, we cant swim against the tide, we cant swim too far out with the
> > tide; it's a dilemma alright.
>
> > On Jun 28, 3:41 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't think you can factor out greed and competition/lust for power
> > > whether you are talking about conquest or the accumulation of wealth.
> > > History is replete with examples- the challenge to papal wealth and
> > > control, the aristocracy, colonial rulers, national tyrants whose
> > > replacements sank in the same rut. It is a moral dilemma as far as to
> > > how to stabilize humanity with such various lacks or talents.
> > > Education and democracy were supposed to balance the odds- morals and
> > > mercy included. How has that worked out? A nation becomes what it
> > > admires.
>
> > > On Jun 27, 2:30 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > But communism (in theory) is about every man contributing to the
> > > > communal pot, to be distributed by dint of a principle of "equity".
>
> > > > Free markets (or Capitalism, or whatever resonates) is about man
> > > > pursuing his own ends, for which an emergent, enabling by-product is
> > > > the economy (as we know it); of course, great disparities of wealth
> > > > (and power) are an unavoidable (some might argue desirable) feature,
> > > > as man has an unequal capacity to create value (and we can get into
> > > > the ethics of the "why's" and the "wherefore's"). (Re)distribution is
> > > > a political initiative to manage these disparities through taxation.
> > > > And yes, you're right, wealth will perpetuate "at the top", but really
> > > > as a consequence of an enhanced capacity to create even greater value;
> > > > i think that this is what tends to appear as the great "visible hand".
>
> > > > Thing about "growth", rigsy / contemplative, is it's one of the very
> > > > few mega non-zero sums around; thats what makes it so beguiling and
> > > > difficult to manage; so we swing from boom to bust to boom to...:)
>
> > > > On Jun 27, 2:49 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I don't agree- unless you are talking about Communism- which flopped.
> > > > > Man serves the economy and whichever power happens to be in charge who
> > > > > may then decide to redistribute wealth/products but this is not a
> > > > > voluntary agreement. But generally, wealth remains at the top for the
> > > > > prime reason of maintaining power.
>
> > > > > On Jun 25, 3:26 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hmm...fine points all!
>
> > > > > > Lets not forget though, that the economy serves man, not the other way
> > > > > > round? Just an observation regarding your suspicion of the "growth"
> > > > > > imperative in contemporary economics.
>
> > > > > > On Jun 24, 9:54 pm, Contemplative <wjwiel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > The key phrase for me is "relative homeostasis".  I agree that the
> > > > > > > encouragement you refer to
> > > > > > > is desirable.  I am unsure of it's possibility. Our belief that growth is
> > > > > > > mandatory for our economy
> > > > > > > encourages activities and behaviors that, I think, out-pace the ability of
> > > > > > > the natural system to
> > > > > > > balance itself at its natural rate.  I am not convinced that we have a solid
> > > > > > > enough understanding
> > > > > > > of our own system to allow us to recognize true key indicators of systemic
> > > > > > > health, rationally process
> > > > > > > that input, and subsequently make good decisions about the which conditions
> > > > > > > we should encourage.
>
> > > > > > > To state it bluntly, I think our desire for growth is malignant...
>
> > > > > > > I don't mean to be doom and gloom about this, and actually I think there is
> > > > > > > reason to be optimistic.
> > > > > > > But economics seems to me to have that stereotypical characteristic of
> > > > > > > having 20/20 vision through
> > > > > > > the rear view mirror.  Economic policy decisions that are both long term and
> > > > > > > aggressive(such as increased
> > > > > > > home ownership) which use 'tweaks' to the system to achieve the aims are
> > > > > > > likely destructive and very
> > > > > > > unpredictable.  In a relatively isolated or buffered system, they may be
> > > > > > > more predictable, but we are not
> > > > > > > in an economy which is either buffered or isolated.  We are comparatively
> > > > > > > wide open(global), and playing
> > > > > > > in a much bigger sandbox than we have been, say 25 years ago.  ...and from
> > > > > > > my perspective, we don't
> > > > > > > know the playing field well enough to be aggressive, though we should be
> > > > > > > looking long term.  ...and by
> > > > > > > long term, I mean more than two quarters out!
>
> > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to think this through a bit...! :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mind's Eye] Re: Economy

Government controls corporations, small businesses, and citizens.
That's where to begin.

I wonder at the outcome of these so -called revolutions. Remember
Marie Antoinette! :-) And Louis XVI! Those poor creatures funded the
American Revolution- went broke- and that was that!

Maybe the bar is so low, we feel blessed just to avoid the ruptures
and rabble.

On Jun 28, 6:42 pm, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You've riled my ire Archy, now what can we do about it I wonder. My
> knowledge of things isn't up to the complexities of economics but the
> principles of simple exchange keep making me think we should have a dual
> economy: let corporations exist (remove personhood), and establish a
> social system (independent of government) to allow people the option to
> serve the commonwealth of society. With all the things that need to be
> done there is such a high unemployment, people cannot afford property
> taxes and various costs, why not let people live and prosper? Perhaps
> there isn't enough to go around (sarcasm), or maybe we just need some
> balance.
>
> On 6/28/2011 4:13 PM, archytas wrote:
>
>
>
> > What the isn't is any public  dialogue on whether the stuff about law,
> > freedom, entrepreneurialism, innovation and the motivation of wealth
> > is the problem.
>
> > On Jun 28, 8:32 pm, archytas<nwte...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> When you look at GDP figures (not that many do) in the US you see real
> >> wage decline over 30 years yet an increase in consumption (and hence
> >> GDP).  Questions obviously arise here on how - the answer is debt
> >> spending - but how did the borrowing arise - wouldn't we expect
> >> lending to fall with less money coming in to pay of debt contracted?
> >> Part of the answer lies in greed and a property bubble created by
> >> this.  Loans appeared to be secured against property, but the banks
> >> were fueling speculation to inflate property prices to 'earn'
> >> bonuses.  I see little difference in what they did and Deng ordering
> >> 'homes' that no one will live in.  In a sense we all went into a
> >> command economy.  As with the famous Sino-Soviet experiments this was
> >> and still is based on 'elite madness' and false accounting.
>
> >> I mention habros because a poisoning feature of luxury seems
> >> involved.  It's surely all over - just switch on TV.  The way we
> >> normally think about running a household just don't apply, though
> >> politicians mug us with this kind of false analogy.  The promise in
> >> the last election in the UK was that frontline services would not be
> >> affected by cuts in waste and all the other lies of this kind - the
> >> usual 5 cents in the dollar stuff pace Bob Dole.  This never works and
> >> we know it doesn't.
>
> >> I would guess most people have a notion that GDP is a reflection of
> >> effort and this is the problem.  GDP goes up when we buy plastic
> >> Chinese crap or TVs we didn't make on money borrowed against what was
> >> supposed to be the ever rising value of our assets like housing.  So
> >> GDP goes up when we simply bubble property prices - usually good for
> >> people owning property.  What the banks did in this needs long
> >> investigation and description - but in short they began to make money
> >> make money - something that clearly can't be 'real'.  The accounting
> >> here involves governments creating electronic money (now QE) and
> >> lending this at low rates to favoured banks (a surplus of capital
> >> never built on effort) who appeared to be making money hand over
> >> fist.  This was really the Ponzi scheme and no more than anything
> >> Madoff was doing.  Ponzi schemes pay out not on earnings but with the
> >> new money their lies on performance bring in.  The lies are supported
> >> by elaborate maths.  I teach the maths and they don't work as claimed,
> >> only reducing risk in margins.  The key metaphor is to imagine playing
> >> Monopoly against a banker with a couple of spare sets of money in her
> >> back pocket.
>
> >> The idea in this is to use capital ore and more effectively (fine) but
> >> it all goes mad when the capital becomes earnings ten years off
> >> treated as though you've made it now.  The maths is complicated but
> >> the schemes are not - it's almost like placing bets on all horses and
> >> living it up on the winnings whilst ignoring the losses or inflating
> >> the currency you use to 'account' for them.
>
> >> What people can't grab is that economics and accounting is like this
> >> anyway - though supposedly under strict rules.  Businesses need to
> >> stay alive until the good times when most profit is made.  This is
> >> fine until the madness or crooks get in and the idea ceases to be
> >> about the viable business and becomes just profit.
>
> >> I can build the case in figures but the issue is corruption - a
> >> corruption as endemic as that in Soviet performance management.  What
> >> they are telling us is stark.  We can't have the public services (who
> >> cares who runs them if they do it properly) to educate kids, look
> >> after old and disabled people and the rest even though we have plenty
> >> of labour to do this - labour in some senses earned through massive
> >> productivity rises in agriculture and manufacturing.  Looming over us
> >> is a massive and generally parasitic financial services sector that
> >> matches these productivity gains in size - all of which could be
> >> routinised to a fraction.
>
> >> When we talk about making an industry efficient we have little problem
> >> with allowing wages to come under international competition and all
> >> the rest,  Yet to match this in, say, policing by importing droves of
> >> keen Chinese and sacking our expensive finest - and the very idea of
> >> doing this at the top of banking seems impossible - though all the
> >> skills are comparable.
>
> >> I suspect the real issues cannot be addressed because most people
> >> adjust to a view of just being cogs in the wheel and feel their sanity
> >> threatened by thoughts of the criminality that has been going on
> >> around them.  They look for homely answers like 'blaming profligate
> >> Greeks' (a hospital doctor in Greece gets under half what a lecturer
> >> gets in the UK) and imagining austerity measures will let us save our
> >> way out of the problems.  This is not what history tells us - though,
> >> of course, most people know no real history.
>
> >> What is happening now is history. - it may as well be a re-write of
> >> much imperialist history.  I hope war is less on the cards, but I'm
> >> not at all sure.  Our ignorance is the real issue - and I suspect this
> >> is ignorance about just how unfair the world is and how massively
> >> irrational our systems are..  It's worse than we are thinking and our
> >> public dialogue allows us to say.
>
> >> The questions we aren't asking are about what would be left if there
> >> was no more 'international trade' and we got round to making stuff
> >> locally and allowing more global exchange of expertise through virtual
> >> exchange.  We aren't  broke in such a system and have capital.
>
> >> My guess is that most of what we call 'work' in the current system is
> >> no such thing - it's neurosis.
>
> >> On Jun 28, 12:58 pm, Ash<ashkas...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> So, bullets=100pts, futures=-100TNpts. ;-)
> >>> On 6/28/2011 12:07 AM, archytas wrote:
> >>>> The truth on bullets is you get to eat if you have them and the food
> >>>> holders don't!
> >>>> On Jun 28, 3:52 am, rigsy03<rigs...@gmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>>> I wonder the number of vacant, distressed properties in the West?
> >>>>> Well, China was humiliated by the tactics of the West in our forcing
> >>>>> her to open to trade via opium and dynasty overthrow plus the theft of
> >>>>> her national arts and treasures- keeping them "safe" in western
> >>>>> museums, like the rest of our lootings.
> >>>>> Americans accumulated their own debt with abuse of credit when it was
> >>>>> easy street. The banks/financial institutions were irresponsible and
> >>>>> so were our governments. You can't eat bullets.
> >>>>> On Jun 27, 4:49 pm, archytas<nwte...@gmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>>>> I don't believe the modern arguments (post 1950) concern communism
> >>>>>> other than as a futile ideal.  We seem to have forgotten about habros
> >>>>>> - the polluting quality of luxury.  The term arises in a Greek play
> >>>>>> celebrating the victory of the Athenian Democracy over the Persians.
> >>>>>> The warning to the Greeks was that they must never become sissies
> >>>>>> wallowing in emotions and luxury like the defeated Persians.  Most of
> >>>>>> us are barely aware of history and have no real clue what the Soviets
> >>>>>> and Chinese were up to.  Even in relation to what's going on in China
> >>>>>> now, I find few who know they have built ghost cities and are fueling
> >>>>>> GDP growth with a property bubble.
> >>>>>> The broad brush of western economics is that the ignorant rabble have
> >>>>>> no place in real decision-making and that they must both know this (in
> >>>>>> order not to forget their place)  and to deny it in fantasies to
> >>>>>> encourage virtual self-aggrandizement.  Thus we are to live in virtual
> >>>>>> meritocracy whilst actually just part of a pack that will not
> >>>>>> challenge the alphas.  In a very real way, we do not argue with facts,
> >>>>>> but the stories of literature which bounds our expectations.  Video
> >>>>>> games are a warning of what we are, even if we don't play them.
> >>>>>> The debts that are everywhere like a nightmare are not to do with
> >>>>>> money as a means of simple exchange, taken on to be worked off in some
> >>>>>> equation of labour value.  They have been manipulated as surely as any
> >>>>>> in past empires.  Just as Chinese GDP is floating on 64 million empty
> >>>>>> buildings no one can afford to live in (terms are often half up front,
> >>>>>> the balance over 3 years), our currencies float on deals between
> >>>>>> governments and favoured banks.  We have suppressed wages and banks
> >>>>>> hardly even provide working capital for business, instead engaging in
> >>>>>> speculation in giant Ponzi schemes hedged in ever increasing prices
> >>>>>> for assets that no one would eventually be able to buy from a wage,
> >>>>>> and securitised to the tax payer.  Wages were collapsed over 30 years
> >>>>>> by exporting manufacturing - but GDP kept rising as we borrowed
> >>>>>> against the asset pile to buy more and more crap and pay welfare to
> >>>>>> those deprived of jobs.
> >>>>>> The rich grew vastly richer in this period.  If there are 64 million
> >>>>>> Chinese
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -