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
> > > > > > > > .
>
> > > > > > > > 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.- Hide
> > > quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
> > EverComing- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment