Financial ruin... or other sorts, thereof....usually tends to get the "folks" out in the streets.....I keep saying( I know, it gets repetitive) ....But it just seems to be the way..... like you, it appears to me also that talk or reasoning just will not work with people who are stubbornly set in their ways.....Two-by-four off the side of the head.... that's the only language a jackass understands... HAR... (unfortunately)....What are the prospects of some sort of early election process for England (under English Parliamentary process)?, I think I read that regularly scheduled elections for you aren't until 2015.... that's a ways , in time.....
Over here the federal government is facing "sequestration" on March 1, 2013.... http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mo-sequestration-economists-survey-20130225,0,7211387.story The majority of "pundit" wisdom.... be it "professional economist' or just "political"... sees to say that the "cuts" will NOT be avoided and that they will NOT have much appreciable effect in slowing down the already weak economic recovery here in the U.S.....The U.S. version of "austerity"... pushed by the Conservatives (Republicans) over here as well...... Jackasses... in my view....the stats. show that the U.S. economy is already close to being in another "defined" recession stage.....I think this "push" will likely do it.... another recession coming soon....if these "cuts" stand... but the Conservatives call it "scare tactics"......I wonder if they're willing to put a "bullet" on that bet?.....Nah, they're just blowhards... Piss-pants cowardly pissants, I call 'em.... HAR On Sunday, February 24, 2013 10:42:10 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > 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.
