[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 -