Vebklen.. I took your cue and got one of his books.... (forgot the title now).... interesting... I got to the part about the "leisure" of the ruling class , back in the medieval (and before) old days.....I like what I read... looking to get into it further, when I get time .... reads a lot like anthropology (of economics?)....I read a lot of similar stuff as literature "chivalric" or courtier stuff.... odes and lengthy epic poems, and the like.... As to the Italian election, I saw briefly that Berlusconi may have played the spoiler... didn't win but might force some sort of coalition.... voanews.com/content/coalition-looks-likely-in-italy/1610836.html
I don't know if I told you... a long time ago I dubbed him "Burlesque-oni" .....now he seems to have some "professional competition".....Beppe Grillo....Beppe is short for Giuseppe... Joseph....one of the more endearing Italian nicknames..... don't know anything about him or his politics.....has to be better than Burlesque-oni, though....In an odd way, I think a fellow like Beppe was required to compete with and top the antics of Ruby-boy. Maybe he and the other parties can make something work, coalition-wise.... I don't know if it's a good idea to wish for a similar political fate (in characters) as Italy, for England....Scatter-brained, is the way I describe Italian politics... everyone's just off in some political or ideological world of their own....Italian "popular" culture... TV, media and the like is very dumbed down... It's as if the "party-life" is a social requirement... otherwise, Italians are and can be as "intelligent" as other Europeans in all professional fields....but like I said, it seems that social acceptance demands a certain "zany" public comity....ever hear about Commedia Dell' Arte?.....Italians like to "behave" as though they live it.... HAR http://italian.about.com/library/weekly/aa110800a.htm I truly would like to see them put on their serious faces for a long while....there's a definite "genius" there... Returning to England, I'd like to see you/her prosper, too....not too shabby when it comes to "genius" yourselves.... act like it.... On Monday, February 25, 2013 12:37:35 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > We have the odd 'unscheduled' election here - usually when there isn't > much of a government majority. Can't see that this time, though there > is a small chance if the Tories think they can win and smash their > Liberal partners - who are at a low in he polls and in the middle of a > sex scandal. I'd like to see the rise of a comedy party as in Italy. > > I suppose, in the context of 'epistemology' we are driven to talk as > in our engagement because nothing rational seems to work. I've been > reading a lot recently on Veblen and a big debate either side of 1900 > on economics as an evolutionary science - there's a lot of current > academic chatter on much the same. There was a lot of work on > democratic foreign policy back then too. I'm afraid the process > (though interesting) only reinforces my view that argument is > pointless in changing much. My hope lies in technology - maybe the > real difference between us and primitive societies is that we drive > cars etc. I used to do computerised installations in manufacturing > and the real difficulties were overcoming various interests from the > shopfloor up. At the time, back in the 80's, we thought a lot of > professional work would be routinised, even done away with, through > expert systems. In fact, 'professionalism' has burgeoned. Taking a > guess, I think financialisation - thought of as the 'creation' of all > the 'assets' in shadow banking and such, is just a way to keep all > this going, including funding war machines. > > Some say the only real innovation in financial services is the ATM - I > tend to agree. We don't seem to have the guts to take this system on. > > On 25 Feb, 15:52, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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-sur... > > > > > 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...... > > > > > > > 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 > > > > ... > > > > 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.
