Biology, you say?....maybe that's the way to go.....but in and of itself, that would seem to be a "longer term" option to solving social, historical, or broad-sense economic problems....breed yourself a "successful" future human animal?
Personally, I think the shorter term way is to communicate... talk about it and try to resolve it....at the social-societal-cultural levels of human interactions.....hopefully in such a way to avoid as much strife as possible......because there might well be strife (there usually is, experience shows), when all else fails.....(Ultimately, strife can work too an anarchist might say.... HAR) PS.... I heard the news about the passing of former MP Margaret Thatcher.... I extend my condolences if you wish to hear them.... I disagreed with a lot of her politics at the time and still do.... On Saturday, April 13, 2013 4:43:50 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > Bill Black's 'The Best Way To Rob A Bank Is To Own One' is the > classic. > My own start is in biology. The clever stuff is probably just what a > biological individual is - much more difficult than most suppose (a > start at SEP on 'biological individual'). > Some readings on ethology, brain science and life history systems > throw a bit more light. Ecology follows and climate and weather > systems and catastrophes. We safely know most of this - unlike daft > stuff like homo economicus in economics. > Knowing some essential biology we might decide what we need is to work > out what resources we have and how to share them in the co-evolution > we are part of. I doubt we'd come up with economics and suggest we'd > junk it along wit other religions. > > On Apr 10, 4:18 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > and another....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Finance_fraud > > > > Problem is......most of this "stuff" is of such a "technical" sort that > the > > ordinary person doesn't know to deal with it.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:02:35 AM UTC-4, nominal9 wrote: > > > > >http://www.fraudaid.com/dictionary-of-financial-scam-terms/ > > > > > Here's a website that caught my fancy.... looks like it could be > useful as > > > a primer.... > > > > > On Friday, April 5, 2013 5:53:31 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > > > >> It's simpler than we might suppose Nom. There are a number of cash > > >> systems in which to lose money - the hawala systems - various names - > > >> 'ching' around Hongkong. I put cash in here and can collect (less > > >> commission) more or less anywhere. In the banks I might put the > money > > >> in here, send it to Cayman and from there New York - the banks are > > >> bent on such transfers and someone in NY would recode the Cayman > money > > >> before sending it to you. One technique is to starburst cash to > > >> hundreds of points. Somewhere the stuff has to go through a blocked > > >> point that can send the cops a 'none of your business' ticket due to > > >> jurisdiction failure. I might buy US property (your estate agents > are > > >> not subject to money-laundering legislation) and hen borrow on that > > >> property. I might even set up a false legal claim against you, pay > > >> the fees and call off the case, recollecting the cash from the bent > > >> lawyers. You might buy a load of gizmos from me, but I buy with bent > > >> money, ship to you and then collect the cash you raise - all less > > >> commissions of course. Simple smuggling is still very common. > > >> People with Swiss bank accounts are now running scared. They take > out > > >> the cash in Zurich and get it smuggled back to them as gold through > > >> the drug-running monetary system. I doubt you or I would trust > > >> druggies to carry $50 dollars of our money - which rather suggests > > >> these rich are in league with organised crime - otherwise no trust to > > >> do this stuff. > > > > >> I could crack any of these schemes as a cop - much as we used to use > > >> test purchase scams to catch drug-dealers - but most of them are > legal > > >> or 'protected'. In a typical transfer pricing scam we send our > > >> profits abroad where all the money is "lost" in non-existent > > >> management costs - the cash stays offshore but we claim a tax loss > > >> here (UK or US). This is theft. Given the use of offshore like this > > >> is claimed to reduce costs I doubt any jury would not convict for > > >> theft - but no judge would let them hear the real story - the > > >> management would claim to operate in Delaware. > > >> McKinsey just estimated $32 trillion are held in this system. I > > >> suspect secret services know about all of it and have a vested > > >> interest in not exposing it via criminal trials. This may be about > to > > >> change as they erase the tracks to their involvement. > > > > >> On shorting I also suspect the simple explanation it is done through > > >> insider knowledge rather than the claimed alpha intelligence. > > > > >> On Apr 4, 3:47 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_%28finance%29 > > >> > I basically get the notion of "selling short"......but, there too, > > >> there is > > >> > a paper trail (identity of scam and scammers). Ultimately, it gets > to a > > >> > question of an outside "third party" being asked to pay the > > >> > difference.....that's the scam....(you know that as well as > [better] > > >> than > > >> > I).....If "some" folks care to gamble... they should do it with > their > > >> own > > >> > money.... or shares....and pay their own difference... or be > "punished" > > >> if > > >> > they renege....I mean, that's the "ideal" form of the deal, isn't > > >> it?.... > > >> > Banks or money reservoirs should be regulated to that > effect....Where's > > >> the > > >> > "flaw" in the "ideal", I ask you? > > > > >> > On Thursday, April 4, 2013 10:17:49 AM UTC-4, nominal9 wrote: > > > > >> > > I like your scam scenario explanation.... it sounds "verisimilar" > > >> (one of > > >> > > those big words I like to show off with every now and then... > heck, > > >> if I > > >> > > had to learn it, I might as well use it, right?). > > > > >> > > You know that I am "specific naive" when it comes to financial > terms > > >> and > > >> > > "instruments"... but can you explain to me why it is that the > actual > > >> > > "thieves" and scammers get (identity) lost in the "shell game", > > >> doesn't > > >> > > each piece of debt paper or transaction (is supposed to) have a > name > > >> on it? > > > > >> > > On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 5:20:17 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > > > >> > >> That's about the half of it Nom. We might know more about how > > >> Cyprus > > >> > >> was looted by the end of next week and who is really paying. I > > >> > >> predict the hot money will turn out to have gone in the months > > >> before, > > >> > >> the take over of Cyprus banks in Greece (done in all haste > > >> preventing > > >> > >> due diligence before the crash and leaving bad Greek debt in > Cyprus) > > >> > >> may prove to have been an unload of RHD by foreign banks. > British > > >> > >> banks have unloaded half their exposure to Greece in the last > three > > >> > >> years - raising questions about who bought the magic beans and > at > > >> what > > >> > >> price (if they had to sell low - I guess hey must as you and I > would > > >> > >> have been smart enough not to buy the RHD - then where are the > > >> write- > > >> > >> offs) and whether any investment packages they were in were sold > > >> > >> honestly. I'm inclined to think Cyprus is no accident and the > > >> > >> banksters may be able to manipulate such crashes. Whilst w > wouldn't > > >> > >> buy the magic beans from each other (scared of giants as we > are), I > > >> > >> suspect the deal runs more like this: > > > > >> > >> Neil: Nom - I have an offer you can't refuse. > > >> > >> Nom. Screw you limey. > > >> > >> Neil. Peace brother, we'll both make a killing. Switch to the > > >> > >> scambler (no typo) phone. Buy as much eu periphery rocking > horse > > >> shit > > >> > >> as you can find. You should get it at 10 cents on the dollar. > I'll > > >> > >> give you 80 for it all. > > >> > >> Nom. Good deal for me, what's your cut? > > >> > >> Neil. We'll go 50:50 on the net after we pay off Pedro. > > >> > >> Nom. What's Pedro got to do with this? > > >> > >> Neil. He runs the Spanish bank buying the rocking horse shit. > When > > >> > >> Spain goes down the toilet holding all the losses he'll throw in > the > > >> > >> incompetence joker while we sort him with a new identity and a > sack > > >> of > > >> > >> cash to soothe his conscience over the small matter of > bankrupting > > >> his > > >> > >> fellow countrymen. > > >> > >> Nom. I love these crimes where no one gets hurt. How much will > the > > >> EU > > >> > >> and depositor bail in be on this one? > > >> > >> Neil. $250 billion. We'll go short on Spain. Italy, Luxembourg > and > > >> > >> the Netherlands to pick up on the death-throes of the EU > > > > >> > >> The actual fraud network will be a bit more complex and our > secret > > >> > >> services will be involved. Do you know where Dr. No's island > is? > > > > >> > >> On Mar 27, 5:28 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > >> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21948429 > > > > >> > >> > Major UK banks must raise a total of £25bn in extra capital by > the > > >> end > > >> > >> of > > >> > >> > 2013 to guard against potential losses, the Bank of England > (BoE) > > >> has > > >> > >> said. > > > > >> > >> > In a statement< > > >> > >> > http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2013/013.aspx>, > > > > >> > >> > the BoE's Financial Policy Committee (FPC) said only some > banks > > >> need to > > >> > >> > raise the cash, but did not name them. > > > > >> > >> > It said banks could face losses of about £50bn over the next > three > > >> > >> years, > > >> > >> > relating to bad loans and fines. > > > > >> > >> > The order is the first from the FPC, the new financial > stability > > >> > >> regulator. > > > > >> > >> > It said UK banks and building societies could lose billions of > > >> pounds > > >> > >> over > > >> > >> > the next three years relating to "high-risk" loans in the UK > > >> commercial > > >> > >> > property sector and vulnerable eurozone economies. > > > > >> > >> > They may also lose money through fines, and require extra > capital > > >> to > > >> > >> > support a "more prudent approach to risk". > > > > >> > >> > Some banks already have enough capital to cover these costs, > the > > >> FPC > > >> > >> said, > > >> > >> > but others are short. > > > > >> > >> > Yet more money may need to be raised after the end of 2013, > the > > >> FPC > > >> > >> warned, > > >> > >> > so that banks conform to incoming "Basel III" accords on > banking > > >> > >> regulation. > > >> > >> > Shares mixed > > > > >> > >> > No new government money will be required. Banks are likely to > > >> raise the > > >> > >> > funds by issuing more bonds or selling shares. > > > > >> > >> > But BBC business editor Robert Peston says in the short term > the > > >> need > > >> > >> to > > >> > >> > raise cash will be bad news for investors, including taxpayers > who > > >> > >> still > > >> > >> > own big stakes in two banks - Royal Bank of Scotland and > Lloyds. > > > > >> > >> > If these banks are among those that need to raise more > capital, it > > >> may > > >> > >> > delay plans to sell the stakes back to private investors. > > > > >> > >> > In a statement RBS insisted it had "a strong capital > position". > > > > >> > >> > "We will continue to work with our regulators to ensure RBS > > >> remains at > > >> > >> the > > >> > >> > forefront of international capital standards," it said. > > > > >> > >> > However, by midday RBS shares were down 3%. > > > > >> > >> > Other bank shares reflected a mixed response to the FPC's > > >> announcement. > > >> > >> > Shares in Lloyds were up more than 1.6%, while HSBC and > Barclays > > >> were > > >> > >> both > > >> > >> > down by > > > > ... > > > > 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.
