socio-economic class and redesign one's place in the world/society-
chiefly through money- or could be via sex (female)... yes, though
denied, it usually boils down to money or sex. But this depends on
opportunity and the ability to play the game as the nouveau riche
often get carried away and end in flames or a puddle- the staid old
money used to have tougher standards for acceptance but that has
pretty much dissolved.//Family secrets are so powerful they can
cripple for generations thus family fables versus facts plus there may
be an impulse to spare the young with a protective shield- not that it
can't be peirced. And there is a constant need in society to "fit in"
and not make waves- covering all sorts of criteria- which is another
packed subject.//It is funny that several major success stories
dropped out of college- Gates, Jobs and Zuckerman= moolah versus
sheepskin. Can one argue with their success?//What does it matter if
one thinks critically if the rest of society is living in a bubble?//
Now red meat is the new culprit of an early death so we'd better
switch to tofu and hope it hasn't been contaminated by agri-chemicals!
Do we want a military with an iron and vitamin B deficiency??? :-)//My
son bought his 3rd and 5th graders smart phones last fall and everyone
who has an i-pad takes them to bed like a teddy bear. I did use a
pager to make sure my youngest was okay during his rebellious teenage
years, however- and it did help. I suppose safety is one issue.//
Anyway, you are better able than I to design a new workplace reality-
you might start with unrealistic expectations of youth which is formed
by family, religion and education.
On Mar 13, 3:47 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The rise of democracy, modern capitalism and well-paid jobs is little
> understood I guess - otherwise we'd have an economics that worked from
> decent livelihoods up. In war we feed our soldiers a pound of meat a
> day (other than in logistic cock-ups and Haliburton rip-offs - that's
> where Thomas Cook the travel agent started) - but our trainees are now
> so poor they skip at least one meal because they can't afford it. We
> need creative thinking with a critical edge - I've just started a
> Johan Lehrer book that is out Stateside but not here until next month
> that says lack of the critical kills creativity dead.
> My starting point is that science is value-laden (it's surely a value
> to want truth rather than fable) and the facts are so intolerable to
> most they are avoided (there is a Freudian ring here - reality is
> pushed under cover). To remove poverty (at least materially) the
> obvious start is the provision of livelihoods and accommodating our
> economics and law to that. It's surely clear we don't and have been
> removing points of resistance like trade unions and meaningful voting.
> I've just bought my grandson an i-Phone 4S against my better judgement
> and in favour of the pressures he lives in in the teenage set. I
> don't know what to tell him about the truth on Apple, or what his
> desire for this pathetic toy is about, and how this is manipulated
> into the success of Apple as a tax avoiding, offshore crap employer
> and even deaths in exploding factories without reasonable health and
> safety. One can say much the same on teaching business and economics
> to gawping 18 year-olds who increasingly default on their loans
> because there are no decent jobs. They like the idea of Steve Jobs as
> an iconoclast hero.
>
> On Mar 12, 1:38 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I was thinking of these as they were integrated into Common Law and
> > 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-
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment