I honestly don't know what can be done Nom - we need honest finance and markets but have no chance of getting them with our corrupt politics. Finance is essentially a power play and as such not amenable to reason, though it pretends to be. We need to collapse the banks to a utility and productive investment function (so called primitive banking called for by Stiglitz) and bring in simple accounting rules to prevent companies being looted from within. This is all a simple matter in principle but made highly complex in order that the crooked system can be retained. I think we probably are at one of those stages where the royalty need to be deposed. I'd have a leveling to wipe out personal debt and a job guarantee initially linked to national-international service projects. But there is no point - they will take us into war instead.
On Feb 23, 9:18 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > PPS... definitely... off with Cameron /Osborne heads..... HAR..... > > http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2013/02/23/the-loss-of-aaa-is-a-mild-na...http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/23/us-britain-osborne-idUSBRE9...http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2013/02/23/the-loss-of-aaa-is-a-mild-na... > > Where's Oliver Cromwell when you need him...... > > > > > > > > On Saturday, February 23, 2013 12:36:35 PM UTC-5, nominal9 wrote: > > > PS... Archytas...I read the article linked below about "austerity" in > > London (England generally).... sounds "Dickensian"....worse (not so, > > maudlin... but "factual").... time to lop off some Tory heads, I say....Can > > you blame (me) them? > > >http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/02/23/can_england_be_saved_cou... > > > On Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:28:52 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > >> There's a fair paper by michael hudson - > >>http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue55/Hudson255.pdf > >> - which shows there is very articulate criticism that economics starts > >> in the wrong place. > > >> On 21 Feb, 23:26, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Well done mate (HAR{copyright Nom}. I often like to get cruder n > >> > thinking. If the US has $100 and UK £100 and he exchange rate is 1 : > >> > 1 if both sides print an extra thousand each both the dollar and pound > >> > haven't changed in reciprocal value. But there is extra money about > >> > and the main question is who gets this - if everyone gets the same > >> > share nothing has changed - if you and I had 10 units each before and > >> > now had double etc. We'd still have 10% of each domain's currency. > >> > But if we get zilch (as usual) we only have 5% after the printing. > >> > Even then, if the extra 1000 in each currency doubled production and > >> > prices didn't rise but fell by half owing to a jump in productivity > >> > we'd be twice as well off. This model has limits but is the essential > >> > idea. Instead, the extra money has been going into financialisation > >> > and we are being screwed. Even at this simplistic level it's not that > >> > simple as our assets may inflate in price - maybe our goats, wives and > >> > other chattels inflate to twice the old price We really need a > >> > spreadsheet - economics is full of them, but they quickly get very > >> > over-complicated. In science we'd throw them out as based on the > >> > wrong premises. All economic models contain sweeping power relations. > > >> > I agree with your question on raising all countries out of poverty > >> > relations - but economics dismisses this and allows no such > >> > questioning. Even without thinking about the third world, one can ask > >> > why wages have been stripped of any relation with productivity. With > >> > increasing house prices how does it make sense to restrict wages - > >> > etc? Given most of the back-breaking work has been done on producing > >> > agricultural land and houses, why should we let their money value rise > >> > rather than decline (other than through fair maintenance)? In the end > >> > I think the drug involved in economics is competition - as expressed > >> > in vile work ideologies. This said, I still don't want to take only > >> > the same share as a dire slacker. > > >> > On Feb 21, 5:15 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > > but someone always gets 'first use' of such money (known as the > >> cantillon > >> > > effect) and thus to hand on to it - thus shifting the proportion of > >> it > >> > > held by certain groups and allowing those with it to create economic > >> > > rents. Currently this is a war of the rich on the poor - but soon > >> > > shooting wars may escalate - Africa - China/Korea/Japan - India/ > >> > > Pakistan - Iran - assuming we are as technologically advanced as we > >> > > think. / Archytas > > >> > > I see that (what you say).... but there are (apparently) two parts to > >> it, > >> > > as your separation into two sentences/passages recognizes....I ask > >> you to > >> > > consider and speak to the distinction between Domestic "in-country" > >> effects > >> > > or likely outcomes as distinguished from "inter-national" or > >> > > "between-country" effects or likely outcomes. > > >> > > The "Domestic" results.... > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon...Cantilloneffect(newand > >> > > interesting lead, by the way, for me) would seem to say that the > >> > > "creation"and distribution of such money by the central banks, as is > >> now > >> > > the case, benefits the "first use" "entrepreneur" recipients who get > >> to, > >> > > as you say, create and profit from "economic rents" from it before > >> passing > >> > > it on.....These "first use" "entrepreneurs" are, of course, > >> advantaged by > >> > > this as distinguished from the "second use" fixed income wage > >> earners..... > >> > > "Cantillon divided society into two principal classes—fixed income > >> > > wage-earners and non-fixed income earners.[84]< > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon#cite_note-84>Entrepreneurs, > >> according to Cantillon, are non-fixed income earners who pay > >> > > known costs of production but earn uncertain incomes,[85]< > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon#cite_note-85>due to the > >> speculative nature of pandering to an unknown demand for their > >> > > product." ... Maybe I take some > >> > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon#cite_note-86>liberties > >> and > >> > > jump to my own (non-Cantillon warranted) overarching conclusions in > >> > > this.... but my point is that the central banks, themselves, "cause" > >> their > >> > > own problems by allowing their "created money" to be "first-used" in > >> an > >> > > "entrepreneurial" way? By directing their "created money" to > >> "fixed-income > >> > > wage earning'" endeavors, instead... the central banks would > >> (seemingly, to > >> > > me) directly benefit their national economies... and also greatly > >> diminish > >> > > "money-value fluctuation"..... This isn't anything unheard of.....the > >> > > Savings and Loan banks here in the U.S. went through this in the > >> 1980s and > >> > > now have to abide by standards regarding how they "spend" the monies > >> they > >> > > receive from the federal government....The Wall Street "commercial" > >> banks > >> > > and firms could easily be "regulated" in this manner, also, I'd > >> > > think....Anyway.... my bigger "societal" point is.... will internal > >> > > domestic politics allow for greater economic pain for the fixed-wage > >> > > earners in order to continue the increased and increasing wealth > >> > > accumulation on the part of the entrepreneurs......?..... It > >> shouldn't, I'd > >> > > think.... speaking in a common-sense sort of way. > > >> > > Internationally, the same dynamic ... rich country vs. poor country > >> comes > >> > > into play.....I ask whether the rich countries should behave in an > >> > > "exploitative-entrepreneurial" manner, economically toward the poor > >> > > countries or whether the rich countries should try to raise the poor > >> > > countries to an equal level of economic development as > >> themselves.... > >> > > generally stated.....? > > >> > > On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:03:49 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > >> > > > The currency wars are with us Nom. But what is a successful > >> outcome - > >> > > > having the lowest? Who is at war against whom? I suspect all the > >> > > > economic blather is a cover for the money printing - as the money > >> is > >> > > > going into stuff like ETFs (exchange traded funds) used to create > >> > > > monopolies in commodities and food. As an economist my guess is > >> that > >> > > > if everyone prints the same amount of dilution nothing changes - > >> but > >> > > > someone always gets 'first use' of such money (known as the > >> cantillon > >> > > > effect) and thus to hand on to it - thus shifting the proportion of > >> it > >> > > > held by certain groups and allowing those with it to create > >> economic > >> > > > rents. Currently this is a war of the rich on the poor - but soon > >> > > > shooting wars may escalate - Africa - China/Korea/Japan - India/ > >> > > > Pakistan - Iran - assuming we are as technologically advanced as we > >> > > > think. > > >> > > > On Feb 20, 7:57 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > > > More on QE, now in the U.S..... Up to now, the "conservatives" > >> have been > >> > > > > handed the luxury of spouting off in support their "fiscal > >> austerity" > >> > > > > budgetary and economic programs, while the central banks did what > >> they > >> > > > > could to defray the actual "pain" by putting "money" into the > >> > > > economies.... > >> > > > > looks like.... no more central bank "money"... time to either > >> starve the > >> > > > > population or get the money the "old-fashioned" way... get the > >> money the > >> > > > > only way it can be gotten.... where it is... stashed away in the > >> pockets > >> > > > of > >> > > > > the "fat cats"..... Har... What do you think Archytas? > > >>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cae57b82-7b88-11e2-8eb3-00144feabdc0.html#a... > > >> > > > > [image: Financial Times] <http://www.ft.com>Fed backs away > >> from asset > >> > > > > buying > > >> > > > > By Robin Harding in Washington and Claire Jones in London > > >> > > > > The US Federal Reserve is backing away from open-ended asset > >> purchases > >> > > > as > >> > > > > officials grow nervous about the dangers of a bigger balance > >> sheet. > > >> > > > > The minutes suggest that QE3 – as the Fed’s third round of > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
