Rand never amounted to much here. We have libertarians who believe deregulation brings freedom and (a bit like the anarchists) liberated human beings will look after each other. My own views end to be more biological - we need to understand more of our social animal make up. I'm not much interested in Popes - though I would recommend a book called 'Memoirs of a Gnostic Dwarf'. Politicians are mostly creeps and there is no politics as far as I'm concerned. I'm struck that control fraud economics screws any chance of genuine democracy and don't really see much sense in consensus unless we begin with understandings of how animals achieve it (which generally isn't pleasant).
Making many assumptions, relativity allows us to travel in a near c bubble for about 28 years as experienced inside bubble to the edge of the universe. We get out billions of years into the future with the earth gone and into a destination that has also moved considerably. We might well be the ancient circus freaks of any developed civilisation we found. I prefer this thought to the arse-about-face politics and economics currently holding thrall. The IMF have found $600 trillion in derivatives 'backed' by only $600 billion in 'assets' - but we can't get a look at what these 'assets' really are - if anything. My own sense of all this is there are no assets - all this crap is fraud. What most people don't seem to understand is the banksters have been pretending to do real accounts for a couple of decades - we are used to them being accurate with our deposits and withdrawals - they are into fantasy and writing down whatever numbers suit them in 'investment' business. It's all been a Ponzi scheme with a twist - they have been able to pay out by increasing the value of assets held (property inflation etc.) and taking fees based on nothing more than a stroke of electronic pen. I think this scam is old - something we once did to South America and Africa - and may involve a crash being manipulated so the banksters can buy everything in a fire- sale. On 15 Mar, 15:12, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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.
