So much to comment on..... even to understand.... with your posts Archytas...... As to Libertarianism.... is there a different "brand" of it in Britain as compared to the U.S.? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism In the U.S., the "philosophical" ( if the term can even be sullied so much to call it such) roots of "libertarianism" go pretty directly to Ayn Rand, in particular, and to H.L. Mencken, laissez-faire, i.e., unregulated, cut-throat Capitalism... pretty much says it all.... Fascist, as I said..... singular Totalitarian License at the service of economic Capitalist greed to the max.... therefore, Anarchism, assumes a contrary place in the mind of the U.S. "libertarian" precisely because the "classical" Bakunin anarchist proclaims democratically shared individual "Liberty" rights put to the service of "shared" Social economic distribution....But I see (and concede, a bit) your point about "anarchism" and "democracy".....Archytas.... rule by the many is not very conducive to consensus about any one "course of action"....
My guess is UK banks are sitting on $60 billion claimed as assets but which are 'mark to market' mega-losses waiting to happen. / Archytas Really?... I'm not as familiar with UK finances as you.... what are those assets you speak of..... mortgage properties like here in the U.S.? Here in the U.S..... that initial WallStreet / Bank "leveraged" mortgage loss has been "added" to by the banking bail-outs and the money-printing "quantitative easing" policies adopted by the U.S. Treasury and the federal reserve.....which is to say.... they not only "failed" to address the root problem..... they bloated it.....into another even bigger balloon... But the Stock Market is "booming".... sure it is..... As for your final paragraph above.... I agree.....but given the "dismal" situation I think we are all in......I really fear that there are going to (HAVE TO) be some more seriously difficult economic times to go through..... lots of pain... I mean, as in no jobs or work to speak of..... On another note.....any comment on the newly elected Pope of the Catholic Church?.... I have some religiously observant Catholic friends out there... one in particular, GfB, that I've lost track of with all my moves.... I think he owes me a returned "bullet" on a wager.... HAR.... On Thursday, March 14, 2013 7:05:49 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > Libertarianism seems a dead duck to me - how can it work when there is > money and influence? How might it stop such arising? Democracy fails > on the same issues - at least as we have known it. Somehow we have to > build countervailing positions and that means institutions - so naked > anarchism is out of the window flying with the birds. The Modern > Monetary Theorists have pointed out money 'comes from thin air' via an > institutional base (of course, one can produce real things from thin > air - like petrol). The question, presumably, for economics is how we > use money to bring about situations we want and retain confidence in > money. I don't see the subject offering many answers > > I can see sense in the book-keeping end of economics/business - profit > and loss, cash flow and balance sheets - done reasonably honestly as > my tax return. Yet I can't teach how to interpret, say, the RBS > balance sheet presented pre-crash or now - I can deconstruct corporate > balance sheets to point to we'd need to know a great deal more on > this, that and the other claim before buying in - but we'd never get > the information I'd ask for in real time. My guess is UK banks are > sitting on $60 billion claimed as assets but which are 'mark to > market' mega-losses waiting to happen. My point here is there is > something to teach. The problem is the sums in play are not of the > kind we were taught at school and it doesn't matter how many times we > intercourse the Gaussian penguin's copula when what we need is a > search for the rocking horse droppings claimed as collateral. Most of > the maths wizardry in finance is just a common language of valuation > that doesn't make any real sense other than, say, as the rules of > Monopoly. To say this is all a collective set of actions by homo > economicus is plain piss. There is a thermodynamics of open systems - > neo-classical economics actually closes on purpose to render what it > can't or doesn't want to account for an 'externality' - so Shell, BP > and the rest produce accounts that exclude the people whose lives they > have taken or poisoned. Hardly science and much more like the things > we try to exclude from that (roughly Bacon's Idols). > > I'd say the features we should be looking at are job guarantee, fair > wages and what it is reasonable to be able to spend in environmental > terms, how we motivate and control this production with profit and > build social capital and re-distribute excess money and keep it out of > politics, non-democratic foreign policy and military/terrorist > cliques. In saying this, I'm going to back our infantry/marines > against sexist, religionist perverts any time. There is no point in > starting from a position so laid back one's brains drop out. > > On 14 Mar, 00:54, "Stephen P. King" <stephe...@charter.net> wrote: > > Yeah, like all classical theory, thermodynamics etc. IMHO we > need > > thinking that looks at open systems... My main beef with libertarians is > > that they are all talk and no action... Meanwhile the system is ... > > > > On 3/13/2013 7:34 PM, archytas wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Neoclasssical economics is closed-system - one might say closet. > > > Critique of this has gone on for more than a century these days > > > Michael Hudson, Steve Keen and many others. Veblen wanted to produce > > > it as an evolutionary science. The libertarians mostly claim our > > > problems all emerge from big government as this is inevitably corrupt > > > - so we'd have more freedom, democracy and even equality without it. > > > > > On Mar 13, 4:34 pm, "Stephen P. King" <stephe...@charter.net> wrote: > > >> Hi Nom, > > > > >> Nice attempted pigeonhole. Nah, Freethinker, seeking of > knowledge is > > >> more like what I am. I am trying to be able to shift from premise to > > >> premise, basis to basis and see the pro/con distributions and Nash > > >> equilibria of the various theories and visions. > > > > >> On 3/13/2013 12:02 PM, nominal9 wrote: > > > > -- > > Onward! > > > > Stephen > -- 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.
