I don't normaly have a lot to thank my father for, but to be sure hetaught me some hard learnt lifes lessons when I was young. One being when it comes to gambling don't do it, unless there is some skill form you that may change the odds. Hence, no lottery, dogs or horses for me, I only ever gample when playing cards.
On Sunday, 25 November 2012 21:20:06 UTC, archytas wrote:
Actually rigsy I practice soup tin economics myself. Inflation is a--
word used by clowns who don't need to count the pennies. The basic
grocery basket I was buying in 2008 now costs double. The classic
marker for me is Heinz tomato soup - it was 25p then if bought in a 4
pack - now at least 50p. I quess almost anyone can see that's a four
year 100% rate.
The cloud-cuckoo land economics isn't much more difficult. The truth
is most people remain grossly ignorant of what matters even if
apparently intelligent. Think of ancient Greeks spouting virtue
ethics whilst keeping slaves, pontificating on hard work whilst living
off the backs of others - reading old Russians (but please only take
this with a smile) while Don has a plan to get away through a back
door. The question I'd put to you in friendship rigsy is why you know
so little economics. I've taught many competent women over the years
and most of them took longer than me to work out they could do the
'maths'. Economics isn't housekeeping, but housekeeping principles
can be applied to it to considerable extent. The conclusion is we are
being stiffed by a bunch of predominantly male gamblers.
The first question in my 101 classes is:
Tell me the difference between a risk taker and a moron.
The next is to list some groceries and get students to go out and
price them up in different stores - we then look at how different
countries buy grain and question how prices are set. This leads to
explanations of the Arab Spring (I leave the steps out here).
The next is the question on why the class knows so little economics
and probably more than me about Jane Austin, fashion, video games and
the sex lives of celebrities. I tell them this is because I'm a
boring old fart if the class is mostly teenage. People over mid-20s
are already asking why we've all been had so easily.
Do to the dogs Andrew - real working-class gambling. Most people will
say they are breaking even or up a bit. Maybe bet the favourites to
see how quickly you can lose. See how much money you can put in a
slot machine that 'pays out' 75% in an hour - some of them keep £250
an hour. In most bookmaker involved gambling the book is set to take
about 25% of total stake and everyone else loses. The admin costs of
an equivalent totaliser are around 2%. I did the night at the dogs
thing with a 50 quid Paddy Power free bet. I had to put up 50 as
well. Laid bets on Racing Post form - came home with £72 - the usual
25% bookmaker take. The rest of the minibus did the freebet thing
betting on fancy. Ten lost and 2 won.
Rich gambling is different, but the question is how. The Racing Post
is replaced by Moody's reports (and so on) on 'form'. As in dog and
horse racing much insider knowledge on the health, preparedness and so
on is involved. The banks and hedge funds are the bookies. The
difference is the system is supposed to be risk-free if you bet the
field. This is where the money printing presses come in and is also
why rigsy's housekeeping bills are up and how banks (the 'rich') use
inflation to bet with other people's future money.
It's not hard to understand - we could organise a 'business game'
along the lines of a night at the dogs and learn by doing. It's not
as hard as running a household - which begs the question of why rigsy
(and me) know more about literature than how the rich stiff us. We've
been educated to ignorance. I'm waiting in the hills for Don and his
ducks.
On 25 Nov, 11:22, andrew vecsey <andrewvec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is a big difference with the normal person speculating....like when
> he gambles, and a rich person speculating.... when he gambles with money
> from foreign nations or speculated on houses that other people must live
> in. The first is a game that generally does not disrupt people outside the
> speculators circle of family and friends. The latter is a game that plays
> havoc on the citizens of an entire nation or people of an entire
> neighborhood.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:48:13 AM UTC+1, rigsy03 wrote:
>
> > I was thinking today that all classes speculate- from horse traders-
> > bingo-lottery-casino- really, an endless list. Wall Street is just
> > another version of speculation. It's really a shame that Obama has
> > derided success/wealth- I find him to be a very divisive type and an
> > unfortunate leader then remind myself of humanity riding out cruel or
> > weak emperors, tyrants and kings. Then I "whistle a happy tune"! :-)
>
> > On Nov 14, 9:54 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It would be interesting to know who the rich are. Orwell said
> > > somewhere that propaganda reduced a word to one meaning. We tend to
> > > stereotype. I think this would be about what they do and don't do
> > > rather than naming names. I'd take the following guesses:
>
> > > 1. They mostly don't fight in wars.
> > > 2. They get a lot of education in networks not generally available -
> > > both in private schools and elite management of better state
> > > provision. This tend to make education a means to foster lack of
> > > social mobility and part of the continuation of privilege.
> > > 3. A lot of them are to be found in finance and professions that are
> > > the most heavily "unionised" places of restrictive practice.
> > > 4. You won't find them doing hard work (only for fools and horses).
> > > 5. They are the politburo controlling what we call politics.
> > > 6. Criminal money and tax dodging play a big role.
> > > 7. They are linked to ancient landlord rents in modern form.
> > > 8. They don't take risks, but leave the rest of us holding the baby.
>
> > > On 14 Nov, 13:25, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Funny. The modern concious self has gotten very talented at avoiding a
> > > > conscience let alone going through a thorough examination, Roman
> > > > Catholic style, but it's been a bonanza for shrinks and do-it-yourself
> > > > writers and advisors to fill the vacuum. And the super rich, as Gabby
> > > > points out, generally try to crack the upper crust- as a source of
> > > > future monetary opportunities, as a justification, as a display, as a
> > > > safety factor. Few realize money has become a product in and of
> > > > itself- like a bonanza crop for a farmer and even fewer complain when
> > > > then are making money (Madoff''s "investors", etc.)
>
> > > > On Nov 14, 2:28 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > That is true,, I think i misspelled as usual conscious,, you know
> > the
> > > > > thing that nags you when you are doing something wrong..
> > > > > Allan
>
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 9:11 AM, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > It depends on what you understand by 'social conscious'. The super
> > > > > > rich by necessity have to be 'social conscious' in order to be
> > able to
> > > > > > develop further. You don't need to have 'social conscious' if
> > there is
> > > > > > nothing that you can do to participate in the given richness.
>
> > > > > > 2012/11/14 Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >> It is the super rich that filled their pockets from the world's
> > debt. From
> > > > > >> the looks of things there is a form or lack of social conscious
> > > > > >> that is lacking.
>
> > > > > >> Allan
> > > > > >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light
>
> > > > > >> On Nov 13, 2012 8:50 PM, "archytas" <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>> There is hardly anything more important to thriving functioning
> > > > > >>> capitalism than productivity, and sharing the fruits of
> > productivity.
> > > > > >>> It is notable that productivity among U.S. workers actually
> > > > > >>> skyrocketed over the last decade and a half, but real wages have
> > > > > >>> flattened or declined.
> > > > > >>> Where did the surpluses go? To parasitic financializers who have
> > seen
> > > > > >>> their share over all corporate profits grow from 10% to over 45%
> > in
> > > > > >>> recent decades.
> > > > > >>> After costing trillions and wiping out the world economy, what
> > asset,
> > > > > >>> good, or service do big banks produce that has genuine public
> > worth?
>
> > > > > >>> • "Expert advice", in which brokers intentionally sell junk to
> > > > > >>> consumers, as shown in investment bank emails?
> > > > > >>> • "Financial services", which turn out to be so laden with
> > hidden fees
> > > > > >>> and loosened/fabricated credit qualifications that the lendee is
> > worse
> > > > > >>> off?
> > > > > >>> • Allegiances that concentrate financial wealth the top 0.1% of
> > the
> > > > > >>> population, causing the vast majority of the world to get
> > poorer?
>
> > > > > >>> If anything, citizens would stand to gain more by paying big
> > banks to
> > > > > >>> close their doors.
>
> > > > > >>> Big banks have largely stopped lending to businesses or
> > individuals
> > > > > >>> because that's not profitable enough and because they need to
> > retain
> > > > > >>> capital to reduce their exposure due to their own foolish
> > > > > >>> overleveraging. This depresses community and small business
> > > > > >>> entrepreneurship and productivity.
>
> > > > > >>> Bottom line: Big banks' "services" take far more in costs than
> > they
> > > > > >>> provide in benefits. Much would be gained, and little lost, if
> > they
> > > > > >>> were allowed to fail or were decommissioned outright for their
> > > > > >>> criminal behavior.
>
> > > > > >>> The bail outs could have been given to individuals and families
> > > > > >>> instead of the banks - we would probably have been looking at
> > $120,000
> > > > > >>> a family.
>
> > > > > >>> It's not the roar of the crowd rigsy - we might call that
> > socially
> > > > > >>> approved epistemic authority. It's about forming decent culture
> > and
> > > > > >>> that we are less individual than we are made to think. Ask
> > people if
> > > > > >>> they have a figure on what the TARP and the rest have cost each
> > one of
> > > > > >>> us - you'll generally come up dry. If people struggle even with
> > > > > >>> basics like this what chance complex schemes of internal
> > training?
>
> > > > > >>> On 13 Nov, 19:28, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>> > The US has lots of problems it does not want to admit to..
> > There is one
> > > > > >>> > extremely dangerous quake off the northwest coast .. that
> > will happen
> > > > > >>> > more sooner than later.
> > > > > >>> > Allan
>
> > > > > >>> > Matrix ** th3 beginning light
> > > > > >>> > On Nov 13, 2012 1:59 PM, "rigsy03" <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>> > > You seem to see morality as a group thing rather than an
> > individual
> > > > > >>> > > struggle between good and evil- which is a
> > religious/spiritual matter.
> > > > > >>> > > As for individualism, it is a necessary tension against "the
> > roar of
> > > > > >>> > > the crowd". There are too many examples to list.
>
> > > > > >>> > > On Nov 12, 9:49 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>> > > > Even one person one vote isn't it on its own. Majorities
> > are
> > > > > >>> > > > manipulable and often wrong. If you look at an issue like
> > abortion
> > > > > >>> > > > -
> > > > > >>> > > > which I think should be available and also avoided by
> > better sexual
> > > > > >>> > > > practice - there might be a majority against for all sorts
> > of
> > > > > >>> > > > superstitious reasons. The US relies on Roe v Wade rather
> > than
> > > > > >>> > > > statute. For all the romanticism of Irish republicanism,
> > they leave
> > > > > >>> > > > a
> > > > > >>> > > > young, raped girl to 'her fate'. I believe there comes a
> > time when
> > > > > >>> > > > we
> > > > > >>> > > > should have help to slip from the mortal coil but one can
> > > > > >>> > > > immediately
> > > > > >>> > > > see problems. Molly talks of embracing pardoxes - but
> > much of the
> > > > > >>> > > > difficulty concerns cultural ideologies based in the
> > manipulation of
> > > > > >>> > > > ignorance. Any half-wit should be able to grasp that the
> > treatment
> > > > > >>> > > > of
> > > > > >>> > > > wages as a cost to be hammered down is inconsistent with a
> > developed
> > > > > >>> > > > economy and genuinely available opportunity for most. Yet
> > our
> > > > > >>> > > > politics treats the dominant ideology of a race to the
> > bottom on
> > > > > >>> > > > wages
> > > > > >>> > > > as as taken as read as any Soviet claptrap. Worker unions
> > are to be
> > > > > >>> > > > detested, yet managers, owners and professionals are more
> > unionised
> > > > > >>> > > > than any set of mine workers in history.
>
> > > > > >>> > > > Science more or less accepts we are good and evil and that
> > the unit
> > > > > >>> > > > that promotes good behaviour is the social. Virtue ethics
> > arise in
> > > > > >>> > > > writing within an unchallenged slave economy - I don't
> > want to be
> > > > > >>> > > > 'pure' and live off the backs of others (though inevitably
> > as I grow
> > > > > >>> > > > creaky I do). I'm sick of phrases like 'flexible
> > employment' that
> > > > > >>> > > > mean a return of 'you, you and not you' casual labour and
> > managerial
> > > > > >>> > > > abuse in a unitary framework of the employment
> > relationship.
> > > > > >>> > > > Disgusted would be a more accurate term - much morality
> > comes with
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comments:
Post a Comment