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 -
0 comments:
Post a Comment