still impact modern law, litigation and taxation. But don't "test"
me...yet!// I don't think there is a "need" for a poor class either
but it exists even with government assistance programs. Is it related
to ambition? Some of our immigrants were dirt poor on arrival but
gradually prospered. Did the economic system of the time- manual
labor, mostly- help? Then there are wars and unions to consider. What
about personal characteristics? There certainly are rags to riches to
rags stories abounding. How have current economies changed the nature
of the workforce- consider the influence of the Industrial
Revolution.//Anyway, I have dusted off 10 volumes of Churchill and
have started in after watching a great version of Richard III. I read
a couple sets long ago but it seems all new again. I must say, the
English are/were certainly a resiliant bunch. :-)//Finally, more than
one stay-at-home mom has exclaimed she was a "slave" in my lifetime so
that's probably the lure of an outside job plus it seems impossible to
live on one salary although it also costs a lot to work sometimes. Now
we just consider our life styles obsolete.
On Mar 11, 5:27 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I remember the Danegeld and Bots and Wers (blood payments to widows).
> I'm resistant to the idea that there is any need for a poor class, but
> I also dislike free riding when work needs doing. I think we've lost
> the plot on work organisation and money.
>
> On Mar 10, 6:58 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Rents are related to Saxon/Danish tributes, in a sense. In fact, the
> > whole idea of money setting the value was Germanic, I believe. And
> > one's worth was also set by law and culture.
>
> > On Mar 9, 2:09 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In Piff's experiments it doesn't matter much if you are born into the
> > > wealth, so what you and rigs say holds in comparison. It's not
> > > sympathy with the poor - if this system worked it wouldn't matter.
> > > What I object to is serfdom to rents (as the economic term) - what I'd
> > > look forward to is a society in which we can do stuff without the
> > > current money motives. We restrict a lot of human activity through
> > > law and culture. I think we've got the way we do money wrong and
> > > should by now have a more moral system in keeping with democracy. We
> > > haven't and are losing democratic control and many what they thought
> > > were such things as secure pensions. My 'allegiance' is with the
> > > thought of a better form of life. Austerity, in which the poor have
> > > to take less, is ludicrous in the massively improved productivity of
> > > the present. My guess is, if we had a cull of the top 10%, we would
> > > soon not notice any skill loss. I only suggest this as a thought
> > > experiment to cut through the bull they put out on their necessity -
> > > and hence the necessity for all the mega wealth as 'motivation'. If
> > > we could put a global salary cap on soccer at £80K the game wouldn't
> > > stop.
>
> > > On Mar 9, 5:45 am, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > why do you think poor is a negative standard.. i mean of course the word
> > > > itself is negative.. what about austerity .. why should it be noble than
> > > > poor.... i wonder sometimes how it must feel to be rich.. the one thought
> > > > that comes is what will i do with all my money(do our 'means' influence our
> > > > personalities much?).... and at times i wonder what sort of aspirations i
> > > > would have had i had been poor.... i agree with rigs.. it really depends on
> > > > the person... someone poor removed from his poverty and gaining means could
> > > > turn out to be very unscrupulous.. you would think they might have
> > > > empathy.. but i guess that's not always the case... but then again one
> > > > feels that the fact that some have and others not... and keeping in the
> > > > background that its completely accidently this distribution of wealth.. or
> > > > prosperity...you sympathize with the poor... is it he thought that it
> > > > couldve been us.. or is it that they didnt deserve it...
>
> > > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 8:20 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hen and egg leads to evolution, that to 'big bang' considerations.
> > > > > One wonders what we miss even in such. If infinity is 'real'
> > > > > everything that is possible has to happen and monkeys chained to
> > > > > typewriters produce Shakespeare - which can be simulated on computer.
> > > > > Results are that one monkey typing of infinite time could do the job
> > > > > and , of course, in an infinite universe one money is doing this right
> > > > > now. This, of course, equates to the same person winning the lottery
> > > > > every week ad infinitum. One can do calculations with finite numbers
> > > > > on the distance one has to travel to meet oneself on another earth.
> > > > > Light travels very fast in space (and down to bicycle speed in a Bose-
> > > > > Einstein condensate), though how fast is it travelling in that space
> > > > > travelling faster than light being sucked into a blackhole? At some
> > > > > point in the big bang one needs a vast and very fat inflation, this
> > > > > itself once maths is applied suggests not only an infinite universe,
> > > > > but an infinite number of them. Maybe infinity is a dud concept?
> > > > > In human affairs I think we meet more grounded possibilities and get
> > > > > distracted by endless critical possibility. The problem is that most
> > > > > people are more or less non-numerate and can't see much of a chain of
> > > > > consequences -as in polygamy for males and what this means for women,
> > > > > or what one can be as a man in such reduced circumstances for women..
> > > > > Riches produce certain opportunities for the rich and take them away
> > > > > from others at the same time - here we usually bring in meritocracy -
> > > > > but against other criteria on the rewards of hard work the merit bit
> > > > > evaporates or requires endless justification not too dissimilar to
> > > > > junk like 'rigsy should do what I tell her because I'm the man' -
> > > > > some non-grounding in ideology. On the IQ standard, some will think
> > > > > they are more intelligent than others but it this to say we are
> > > > > generally more intelligent than those societies that score so low on
> > > > > such tests? I suspect the better explanation is they are adapted to
> > > > > their life circumstances, the prevalence of infectious diseases in
> > > > > them and so on. Somewhere in the first 'explanation' is vanity and a
> > > > > conflation of IQ-intelligence with 'superiority'.
> > > > > Questions on whether we should place constraints on accumulated wealth
> > > > > and what it does in our societies don't seem to have infinite issues
> > > > > but finite ones. I have few problems with focusing wealth into fusion
> > > > > reactors, decent policing and education, health care and so on - and a
> > > > > lot with the ideology that to do this we have to have the kind of
> > > > > capitalism that allows the vast payments to sports stars and banksters
> > > > > practising a common form of polygamy in which women swoon around the
> > > > > guy buying the $125,000 bottle of champagne, or the husband giving his
> > > > > family rat meat and keeping the giraffe cuts for his mistress.
>
> > > > > On Mar 8, 10:36 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Re your remark on literature x science- it all depends on what you
> > > > > > have read as the rich and powerful are also portrayed in a very
> > > > > > negative light. And the "wordy" sciences often paint life with rose-
> > > > > > colored ink. We would have to trace back to myths which were the first
> > > > > > attempts to package a subject or theme- it might be a chicken and egg
> > > > > > debate.
>
> > > > > > On Mar 6, 6:03 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment