Re: Mind's Eye What to do about the rich?

Spot on on Lagarde rigs.  Her flat was raided in a criminal enquiry.
 She may have had a role in a dodgy French arms' deal with Pakistan
where bribes were kicked back to fund the Franco-GOP candidate in a
presidential election.  I can remember playing musical chairs as a kid
- I liked the running about and bumping into girls (this was the other
way round) but had no clue the idea was not to be left standing,
wondering why deviant adults kept stealing the chairs.  I submit the
long adult version with child replaced by gawping scientist.




It is impossible to apply hard science to these issues. I do sometimes
try to think as a scientist without knowledge of economics – difficult
as I teach the subject in business context. I always find, in this
thought experiment, that I just would not start with concepts from
economics. A key finding in 'anthropological archaeology' is that the
lives of a certain class of people got worse with our turn to
agriculture – something we might call 'broken back syndrome amongst
the sod turners'. A book of examples later, I conclude the problem
with real-world economics – the theories-in-action as opposed to
espoused – is that it has no way of fairly organising work and reward
against such ideals we might cherish like real democracy and proper
guardianship of the planet. This no doubt looks like naive thinking. I
then find myself thinking about how we organise such matters as 'a
trip to Mars' (Newton, Einstein, the 3-body problem, moving space and
down to stuff like the crew having to line (with proper hygiene) the
craft with their excrement to protect against 'space weather'. Lots of
other complex systems flow – the arms' race of co-evolution, combating
Lyme's disease, parasitism as the most common lifestyle – and I find
myself questioning why I an feel some much more competent as a
scientist than economist or increasingly disaffected cog in the
political machine.
Popper once pointed out that Freud and Marx could not be scientific
because if you went against the theories you were immediately in
denial or false-consciousness. As we repeatedly see "economics"
destroy the potential of most ordinary lives (and those of the few
through hedonism in a libidinal economy) we are told it is because we
just won't engage in real free markets – the neoclassic form of the
denial-false-consciousness routine.
I'm less inclined to worry who is next to go under as a country in the
great depression (I guess Luxembourg, Switzerland, UK – though all
bets are off if the USD goes down) – but on how and why we are in
thrall to a mad control fraud that keeps on failing. Invited on a
space ship to Mars built by economists I would simply wish the crew
godspeed and utter a silent atheist prayer, noting that oars are an
unlikely propulsion system. If the crew were Critical Theorists I'd
want to save, I'd be happy in the thought none of them could row.
Deep down we seem scared of the idea of a world of people with enough
"money and security" to be able to tell power they will only work for
"things and a quality of life" they want. I have instant reservations
about this state myself as a manager and through experience of free-
loading and the dire trivia most people "want" – from plastic crap,
neat mobile phones to Saudi princes raiding Syrian refugee camps for
wives. Nonetheless, with much of 'Robot Heaven' with us in principle
and some practice, the lack of modern thought experiments (such as
what place Calvinist work ethic would have in 100% Robot Heaven – how
could we morally keep people poor when machines do all the work etc?)
and repeated fetish concerns with homilies from the 18th century
leaves me cold.




The current model seems no better than handing over bags of electronic
cash to people who trouser it and at most engage in acts of charity
similar to pouring slops over a medieval monastery wall. In the UK we
have a Chancellor so smart he has just created a British Fanny Mae/
Freddy Mac! As one country after another faces becoming Cyprus (by the
end of next week we will be discovering we don't know the half of that
– note three old-fogey judges are already rostered for the cover-up)
we have no politics of lancing the banking boil generally and
production-based (responsible type) schemes for people to work their
way out of the mess without seeing the toil go to paying off bank
debts.




I agree with Allan that all this is really about the rich stealing.
 What we lack is a conception of a fairer society that makes sense of
what people would be in it.  I share rigs' concerns with the 'ash-grey
uniform of equality' and big government, but we can at least dream up
something in which this would not come about. "They" certainly seem
to be putting the wind up us - making us feel money in the bank may as
well be hidden about the house - yet somewhere we seem to have
forgotten how quickly economies can recover as Germany and Japan did
after WW2.





On 29 Mar, 14:39, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> henry the 8th was all about divorce..    So it is okay to steal what is
> freely given to the church and use it to line you pockets or royal
> treasury..   what you are saying is it is okay to steal as long as you can
> blame others for your wrong doing..  there is a great litany of excuses the
> rich use for stealing ...   wonder if these excuses work with God as you
> understand him..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:04 PM, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The wealth and lands of the Church were part of papal wealth. The
> > royal treasury was empty. Yes- the British navy took off under the
> > Tudors. The divorces came later along with his "solutions". (I did
> > take a 2 quarter course in Tudor history but request some slack for
> > facts.) One could also point to the later Enclosure act that ended the
> > common lands and set up the British aristocracy leading to slum-cities
> > and the ills of the Industrial Revolution. It's musical chairs. The
> > greedy still create their own enviornment but change the nouns and
> > verbs - they still need power to attain their ends: politics or wars.
>
> > On Mar 29, 3:30 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Rigsy  Henry the 8th got his navy on the backs of the poor.. not the
> > > Papacy .. all he did was destroy a bunch of monasteries.. but there
> > > was never enough money there to fiance his navy.. get real..  stole
> > > from church because they would not let him have his way with
> > > divorces..  how many did he go through either by divorce or killing
> > > them.. one thing for sure he is no hero..  more of a cowering thief.
>
> > > the greedy created their own environmental and fears and then created
> > > and taught people to fulfill their fears  so they can scream they are
> > > right and point fingers.. all signs  of the cult of the golden calf.
>
> > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 2:04 AM, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > It's not a myth- it's a fact. One you don't like along with zillions
> > > > of others. And the rich do create opportunities for others. There are
> > > > misers, of course, but the poor can also be miserly. Let's get our
> > > > moral judgements on a realistic plane as human nature has its good and
> > > > bad points in all economic spheres. The main slavers were Arabs,
> > > > Africans and nations with a robust shipping trade plus colonizing
> > > > nations needing human labor prior to machines- though wages may be
> > > > argued as another form of enslavement. We are hooked into a perpetual
> > > > game of economic musical chairs; a class is ousted and the ousters
> > > > take on the same qualities of the ousteed. Some do not define
> > > > themselves by money or stuff- even if they have them.//The Cypus event
> > > > of the week is deja vu a la GM,etc. Lagarde reminds me of a former
> > > > Sacred Heart nun- but no matter. Don't underestimate the lure of greed
> > > > fueled by envy- again, back to the Garden of Eden.// I have been
> > > > watching the sun melt the ice- it's going well on the north side but
> > > > had the roofer out today and he will install a heat wire this summer
> > > > so I don't have to worry each spring. Also cooking a lot. Company for
> > > > Easter.//How do you think Henry VIII got his navy???By robbing the
> > > > Papacy!!! :-)
>
> > > > On Mar 12, 8:42 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> The big myth is that rich people have worked hard for their wealth and
> > > >> deserve it (pace rigs).  Even the slavers were paid off in huge
> > > >> amounts and one can trace such money to the present day - much the
> > > >> same true of Nazi businesses.  We are hooked into a control fraud.
>
> > > >> On Mar 11, 8:35 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > I know what you mean Neil,,  Seems that change is starting..  the
> > > >> > Doctors over here started a web page against tobacco.. and they are
> > > >> > revealing those legislator that are being influenced by the tobacco
> > > >> > lobby..  it seems like light is beginning shine in the darkness..
> > > >> > I support the Light.
>
> > > >> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:45 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >> > > The madness of it is they got us thinking their interests were our
> > > >> > > interests.  Adam Smith warned against that at some length.
>
> > > >> > > On Mar 8, 2:16 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > >> You would think that over the centuries man would learn..
> >  actually I
> > > >> > >> think it is starting to happen with the new banking laws coming
> > into
> > > >> > >> play. hand shake deals will becoming to an end and taxes where
> > the
> > > >> > >> rich like it or not will have to be paid..  off shore banks will
> > be
> > > >> > >> finding it much more difficult to transfer money..
>
> > > >> > >> Oddly before long there will be more careful examination ass to
> > where
> > > >> > >> wealth came from and how it was created..   there appear to be
> > grass
> > > >> > >> root changes taking place..  Neil that is where sound direction
> > is
> > > >> > >> needed ..  a place for these roots to grow and better society.
>
> > > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:50 PM, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >> > >> > There have been many good points made in what has been said
> > here. Yet I do
> > > >> > >> > believe that at this stage of our evolution we must know our
> > past by heart
> > > >> > >> > and keep on acting with/on a common forward orientation. What
> > I see being
> > > >> > >> > described as a phenomenon at the top, I see happening at the
> > grassroots
> > > >> > >> > level also. Heaven and Hell meet where the airspace allows for
> > dust
> > > >> > >> > particles to form clouds and where the earth evaporates
> > conceivable amounts
> > > >> > >> > of sulfuric gasses.  After all that has been freed from a
> > Pawlowian drooling
> > > >> > >> > reflex and is being seen as potentially deconstructable,
> > Connectivism is the
> > > >> > >> > new tribalism operating at both ends. Goethe's
> > "Wahlverwandschaften" being
> > > >> > >> > read through the chemist's glasses.  There is no back to
> > family visits when
> > > >> > >> > you are busy building your tribe. The foam carpet is not being
> > exposed by
> > > >> > >> > highlighting its most spectacular and fluorescent bubbles.
>
> > > >> > >> > 2013/3/8 archytas <nwte...@gmail.com>
>
> > > >> > >> >> We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may
> > have wealth
> > > >> > >> >> concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.
> >  (Justice
> > > >> > >> >> Louis Brandeis)
> > > >> > >> >> The rich are independent of the rest of us. Obviously they are
> > > >> > >> >> materially independent so long as their property rights remain
> > > >> > >> >> recognized. They can achieve what they want by themselves,
> > that is by
> > > >> > >> >> buying it from others or paying someone else to do it for
> > them. But
> > > >> > >> >> this power of command also generates a social distance from
> > society
> > > >> > >> >> that allows them to become 'ethically independent'. Since
> > they don't
> > > >> > >> >> depend on the goodwill of others to succeed - for example,
> > few of them
> > > >> > >> >> have recognisable jobs - they may become less concerned in
> > general
> > > >> > >> >> about whether they deserve goodwill.
> > > >> > >> >> That means that the rich don't have the same political
> > interests as
> > > >> > >> >> the rest of us. They aren't worried about crime (their gated
> > > >> > >> >> communities come with private security) or the quality of
> > public
> > > >> > >> >> education (their kids go to the fanciest schools money can
> > buy) or
> > > >> > >> >> affordable accessible health care, job security, public
> > parks, gas
> > > >> > >> >> prices, environmental quality, or most of the other issues
> > that the
> > > >> > >> >> rest of us have no choice but to care about, and to care about
> > > >> > >> >> politically since they are outside of our individual powers
> > to fix.
> > > >> > >> >> The political concerns of the rich do not lie in the
> > provision of
> > > >> > >> >> public goods, but in furthering their private interests,
> > whether their
> > > >> > >> >> personal wealth and power or their political whimsies. This
> > is why
> > > >> > >> >> Adam Smith warned us so vehemently to be suspicious of their
> > self-
> > > >> > >> >> serving rhetoric (e.g. WN I.11.264).
> > > >> > >> >> It is sometimes thought that the rich are necessary to the
> > flourishing
> > > >> > >> >> of a free market economy, that because they have more wealth
> > than they
> > > >> > >> >> need for their own consumption it is their investment of
> > capital that
> > > >> > >> >> makes the economy spin around and create jobs. Thus the claim
> > that
> > > >> > >> >> there is a trade-off between democracy and material
> > prosperity. But
> > > >> > >> >> that 'job creator' thesis is out of date and back to front.
> > > >> > >> >> First, while in Adam Smith's time it might have been true that
> > > >> > >> >> economic development required capitalists to reinvest their
> > profits
> > > >> > >> >> this was because everyone else was too poor. But these days
> > the
> > > >> > >> >> economies of democratic societies are characterized by a
> > broad middle-
> > > >> > >> >> class whose savings are quite sufficient for funding business
> > > >> > >> >> development and expansion (such as through the
> > share-ownership of our
> > > >> > >> >> pension funds or the bank loans backed by our deposits).
>
> > > >> > >> >> Second, the greater the wealth inequality, the worse we may
> > expect the
> > > >> > >> >> economy to perform. A flourishing economy requires customers
> > as well
> > > >> > >> >> as investors. If the gains of economic productivity are
> > overwhelmingly
> > > >> > >> >> transferred to some small group (as profits) that means that
> > they
> > > >> > >> >> don't go to ordinary people (as wages). (For example, since
> > 1979 all
> > > >> > >> >> the productivity gains of America's economy have gone to
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.