Do you guys ever do a Hangout?
On 3/15/2013 2:15 PM, archytas wrote: > 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 > -- 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.
