[Mind's Eye] Re: Economy

We have to hope something can stop this Politburo of the Rich.

On Jul 7, 1:36 pm, allan deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Until to yesterday I had forgotten about Argentina...  strangely it may
> actually be the most realistic solution
> Allan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:16 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Late 70s to late 80s - Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut were regular stops
> > if reasonably free of bullets.  I was about to take a job at the
> > American University in Beirut just as the place trashed.  Beirut was
> > beautiful from the mountains to the sea.
> > The point on Germany and Japan is they thrived after worse than
> > bankers can do.  Argentina has survived default.  A modern revolution
> > from China and through the west would be against banks and 'wealth
> > rents' - and it might happen if we can avoid war.
>
> > On Jul 3, 1:59 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > They recovered quickly because they already had been industrial
> > > nations and being bombed to pieces allowed them to construct new
> > > factories.//Am very curious about the time period you are refering to
> > > re "blazing" Baghdad! :-)
>
> > > On Jul 1, 4:08 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Germany and Japan 'lost' WW2 and seemed to recover pretty quickly.
> > > > Britain only finished paying off debt to the US a couple of years
> > > > back.  France and Britain are the 'normal' colonists in Northern
> > > > Africa, but it's hard to work out quite what colonialism is these
> > > > days.  I like the casino idea Rigs - Baghdad was once a place of
> > > > blazing night-life.
>
> > > > On Jun 30, 3:01 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > What exactly do the Greeks have? Ruins, olives, feta...Same with
> > > > > Portugal and Spain. And Ireland collapsed. Why are France and Britain
> > > > > fighting Libya and wasting money on yet another war? Now the English
> > > > > are protesting austerity measures and if it gets nasty no one will go
> > > > > to their extravagant Olympics.
>
> > > > > I doubt the USA will declare itself bankrupt and welch on its debt
> > > > > plus it's stuck with its military. Maybe we can turn our Baghdad
> > > > > embassy(1 billion and counting) into a casino- import Bunny Clubs and
> > > > > Disney Worlds!!!
>
> > > > > On Jun 29, 12:23 pm, allan deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I have been listening to the news..  it is strange..  one of the
> > odd things
> > > > > > that came  up was just dumping the debt..  some one said it would
> > take then
> > > > > > 15 to 20 years to recover..    that is odd because the way that is
> > laided
> > > > > > out by the bankers  the funny part is you can never recover..  the
> > bankers
> > > > > > way they can never recover..  interesting...  if you do not believe
> > me  when
> > > > > > is the USA 11 trillion dollar debt going to be repaid??
>
> > > > > > that is bad for business if governments repay their debt..
>
> > > > > > the effect of dumping the debt would be felt all over europe..  but
> > I think
> > > > > > it would really wake up governments to the bankers,, and the world
> > bank and
> > > > > > it counter part the IMF..
> > > > > > I do not think the greek people are going away quietly  or lay down
> > > > > > quietly..  the legislation passed is against their will..
> > > > > > Allan
>
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:28 PM, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > You optimist, you :)
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 29, 3:19 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I tend to think of human nature portrayed in a triptych- the
> > good, the
> > > > > > > > bad and those in-between. There are hinges. :-)
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 5:34 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Absolutely, you're right; there's no getting away from human
> > nature;
> > > > > > > > > thats why the idea of communism had such a hard time in
> > practice.
>
> > > > > > > > > So, we cant swim against the tide, we cant swim too far out
> > with the
> > > > > > > > > tide; it's a dilemma alright.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 3:41 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > I don't think you can factor out greed and competition/lust
> > for power
> > > > > > > > > > whether you are talking about conquest or the accumulation
> > of wealth.
> > > > > > > > > > History is replete with examples- the challenge to papal
> > wealth and
> > > > > > > > > > control, the aristocracy, colonial rulers, national tyrants
> > whose
> > > > > > > > > > replacements sank in the same rut. It is a moral dilemma as
> > far as to
> > > > > > > > > > how to stabilize humanity with such various lacks or
> > talents.
> > > > > > > > > > Education and democracy were supposed to balance the odds-
> > morals and
> > > > > > > > > > mercy included. How has that worked out? A nation becomes
> > what it
> > > > > > > > > > admires.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 27, 2:30 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > But communism (in theory) is about every man contributing
> > to the
> > > > > > > > > > > communal pot, to be distributed by dint of a principle of
> > "equity".
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Free markets (or Capitalism, or whatever resonates) is
> > about man
> > > > > > > > > > > pursuing his own ends, for which an emergent, enabling
> > by-product
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > the economy (as we know it); of course, great disparities
> > of wealth
> > > > > > > > > > > (and power) are an unavoidable (some might argue
> > desirable)
> > > > > > > feature,
> > > > > > > > > > > as man has an unequal capacity to create value (and we
> > can get into
> > > > > > > > > > > the ethics of the "why's" and the "wherefore's").
> > (Re)distribution
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > a political initiative to manage these disparities
> > through
> > > > > > > taxation.
> > > > > > > > > > > And yes, you're right, wealth will perpetuate "at the
> > top", but
> > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > as a consequence of an enhanced capacity to create even
> > greater
> > > > > > > value;
> > > > > > > > > > > i think that this is what tends to appear as the great
> > "visible
> > > > > > > hand".
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Thing about "growth", rigsy / contemplative, is it's one
> > of the
> > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > few mega non-zero sums around; thats what makes it so
> > beguiling and
> > > > > > > > > > > difficult to manage; so we swing from boom to bust to
> > boom to...:)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 27, 2:49 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree- unless you are talking about Communism-
> > which
> > > > > > > flopped.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Man serves the economy and whichever power happens to
> > be in
> > > > > > > charge who
> > > > > > > > > > > > may then decide to redistribute wealth/products but
> > this is not a
> > > > > > > > > > > > voluntary agreement. But generally, wealth remains at
> > the top for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > prime reason of maintaining power.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 3:26 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm...fine points all!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Lets not forget though, that the economy serves man,
> > not the
> > > > > > > other way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > round? Just an observation regarding your suspicion
> > of the
> > > > > > > "growth"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > imperative in contemporary economics.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 24, 9:54 pm, Contemplative <
> > wjwiel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The key phrase for me is "relative homeostasis".  I
> > agree
> > > > > > > that the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > encouragement you refer to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is desirable.  I am unsure of it's possibility. Our
> > belief
> > > > > > > that growth is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mandatory for our economy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > encourages activities and behaviors that, I think,
> > out-pace
> > > > > > > the ability of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the natural system to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > balance itself at its natural rate.  I am not
> > convinced that
> > > > > > > we have a solid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > enough understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of our own system to allow us to recognize true key
> > > > > > > indicators of systemic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > health, rationally process
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that input, and subsequently make good decisions
> > about the
> > > > > > > which conditions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we should encourage.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > To state it bluntly, I think our desire for growth
> > is
> > > > > > > malignant...
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't mean to be doom and gloom about this, and
> > actually I
> > > > > > > think there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason to be optimistic.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But economics seems to me to have that
> > stereotypical
> > > > > > > characteristic of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > having 20/20 vision through
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the rear view mirror.  Economic policy decisions
> > that are
> > > > > > > both long term and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > aggressive(such as increased
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > home ownership) which use 'tweaks' to the system to
> > achieve
> > > > > > > the aims are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > likely destructive and very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unpredictable.  In a relatively isolated or
> > buffered system,
> > > > > > > they may be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more predictable, but we are not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in an economy which is either buffered or isolated.
> >  We are
> > > > > > > comparatively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wide open(global), and playing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a much bigger sandbox than we have been, say 25
> > years ago.
> > > > > > >  ...and from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > my perspective, we don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > know the playing field well enough to be
> > aggressive, though
> > > > > > > we should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > looking long term.  ...and by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > long term, I mean more than two quarters out!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the opportunity to think this through a
> > bit...!
> > > > > > > :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> ...
>
> read more »