Re: Mind's Eye Re: the rich are mean

I doubt the science romanticises the poor rigsy, though we could
quibble on its context in a "game". In many parts of the global, very
much a mortal coil only worth shuffling off, children are still sold
and worse. One recent story that made the Bimbo Broadcasting
Corporation was on an Afghan family who had to sell a son to keep the
rest of the family through the winter. Others 'feed' their families
opium.xszdaaaaaasxcd ( a comment from my cat leaping on the
keyboard). Literature strikes me as too often about what the rich
like us to think on their character. Life no doubt is Grimm Gabby.

Other laws, such as who gets paid out in bankruptcy, are being changed
too Molly - needless to say to help bankster looting.

I don't see Occupy as likely to be an answer on historical precedent -
though we should all be out there 'aching'. I'm going hungry myself
(only to lose weight) at the moment and can't but notice how
debilitating the process is along with the thought that when it's
over I'll still have to do three days a week on only a bowl of
porridge. Not much compared with ancestors for whom that would be a
week's ration and had only cattle boats to America to look forward
to! They have food stamps and charity in the way of a real mass
movement. The ultimate fact in all this is that vast productivity
increases have not worked to produce a general material contentment.
This seems enough to me for us to need a new core research programme
of replace economic bull and bluster and the view of ourselves from
literature, advertising and what we have mistakenly thought of as
education.

On Mar 6, 11:17 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nor the young with values which add up. Compare:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hans_in_Luck.
>
> Na, Riffy, the world clearly ain't so black and white as Ebony and Ivory
> sales statistics make it look. Not that you didn't know that, I guess I'm
> more reminding myself.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 12:16 PM, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > That is a piffy generalization- the wealthy have built and contributed
> > much to society. A popular character type in literature- and life- is
> > the peasant who would sell his mother if given the chance. Don't
> > romanticize the poor with virtues they do not possess.
>
> > On Mar 5, 4:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Dr. Paul Piff has done a number of reasonably scientific experiments
> > > that demonstrate the wealthy are less inclined to give in experimental
> > > settings.  You can find a review here -
> >http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-upper-class-people.html
> > > .
>
> > > I've been exploring some dire financial deals of late and corruption
> > > in academic circles that eventually pan out in local genocides in
> > > Africa.  One of the most unethical creeps I worked with was a
> > > professor of business ethics, but other ethical professionals like
> > > lawyers often have none.  This link gives the gist -
> >http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/03/on-the-continuing-oxymoron-of-...
> > > .
>
> > > My view for years has been we need to apply the criminal law and
> > > police investigation to economics and I think there is little clever
> > > about money-grubbing, just a set of myths justifying it.