Britain only finished paying off debt to the US a couple of years
back. France and Britain are the 'normal' colonists in Northern
Africa, but it's hard to work out quite what colonialism is these
days. I like the casino idea Rigs - Baghdad was once a place of
blazing night-life.
On Jun 30, 3:01 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 -
0 comments:
Post a Comment