|
Thanks for your reply Keith. You just
have to think outside the envelope. There are many explanations to
reality. Culture supplies only one or two. If you
don't understand what I write then do what is demanded of me sometimes reading
you. Go back and read it again and think about it a little
differently. I don't mean this as an insult or
derisively. I just think you need to take another look at the
intention behind what is happening outside the bars of standard economic
explanation.
Yes I did say that art was from the body but that
is primal art not mature art. Math springs from the same realities
that abstract music springs from. Both come from the primal
perceptions. Both are linguistic and both are concerned with
quantification but in math it is often about content while it music it is about
form. Some argue that they are one and the same. That
would make the great abstractions of music and language the same as those of
math except one is visual while the other is aural. Certainly the
aural connections of composers like Milton Babbit transcends the aural reaching
into the visual forms of math while the work of Ned Rorem reaches into the forms
of great language. On the highest levels they are
probably one and the same thing. The same is probably true of the
sense of taste and smell and the science of chemistry. We
are very undeveloped in our perceptions choosing to limit intelligence to the
visual mostly.
As for private property? I
mentioned transcending the other animal's need to defend a kill or whatever
their consciousness happens to be. As humans, ownership is
philosophically unrealistic unless you speak of skills, ideas and levels of
consciousness. It is stupid, in my opinion, to elevate stupid
people simply because they have control of objects during their
lifetime. Shall we compare Horowitz to Donald
Trump? Einstein to Rockefeller or Stephen Hawking to Bill
Gates? People who major in economics are good at
economics. It does not follow that economics creates good
societies, just societies or humane societies. In fact it seems that
the opposite is true.
I would agree with you about the size of the
successful Scandinavian populations. I too believe that size
has something to do with their success. The same for
Switzerland. I would add England to that as well. Chaos
in immigration often facilitates creativity but it also destroys families
and demeans the local citizenry unless they are integrated
carefully. But I made these points already.
It seems that the only people who really understand this are the older cultures
like Japan and China. Perhaps it is the "thinking outside our box"
that makes them able to do things differently. They don't have our
hangups. At the same time, they also don't have the
history with the idea that we do. Convention is important but one
must refuse to be conventional or one becomes banal.
Good to talk to you, you help me.
Ray
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 4:45
PM
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was Re:
[Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
Ray,
At 12:51 22/11/2003 -0500, you
wrote:
It seems
to me that you all are arguing the superiority of your own particular system
as nature. Keith claims nature for trade
I
certainly do. We now know that notions of fairness are instinctive -- and long
before man came on the scene, too.
and
demands a rock bottom (gold) while Ed talks relativity and processes (flow
model) on the other hand Keith gives Ricardo a sort of environmentalist bent
where everything will take care of itself if you just remove all the dams
from the river. Except modern nation states that deal with civil
authority as a balance to diversity and that accords strength to civil
contracts based upon equality rather than authority pleads the case for dams
to remove floods and make cities and housing possible. Chris
claims that Ricardo was misunderstood. Then we get a fight over
interpretations. It is all so biblical.
I suspect Ricardo,
Smith, George and others who talked about invisible hands were speaking as
Egyptians who had a natural ebb and flow in the Nile that served them well
for the longest single state in the history of the world.
But that does little for the complexity of the present. We live
in a world where wealth is accruing in the hands of the
elite
But wealth always has done done ever since the
institution of agriculture. And the difference in wealth between the rich and
the poor was far wider than today. The poor were not just poor but chattels
and slaves. The same applies to the disparity of wealth in early
industrialisation -- far bigger wealth gaps than today but this declined due
to the need for many intermediaries. The recent IT binge also widened
the differentials again but this, too, will decrease in time as yet more
intermediaries are added.
and
where they are also struggling to gather the finest of everything to
themselves and giving to the church the egalitarian purpose of serving the
cultural and welfare needs of the poor. "If you want
music, go to church!" as was said by a policeman in a recent
comedy. We might remember that it was Alfred North
Whitehead that said that it was the "Ultimate Abstractions that taught us
the meanings of things" and music as well as math are one of those "ultimate
abstractions."
But I thought you were writing the
other day that music is a "body thing" (with which I agree) Maths is far from
that -- entirely imaginative and by far the largest part of it is never used
once recorded on paper. (But, like advertising, we never know which can be the
productive part of it.)
The
Scandinavian states are more secular or perhaps just less diverse so their
overall secular instrument serves the needs of the whole population
better.
The beauty of the Scandinavian states is that
their populations are quite small -- ideas can spread around so much more
quickly and intensively discussed than can be done in the larger
nation-states.
The same is true of their cultural institutions which
were marveled at not long ago when their state sponsored orchestras visited
New York. All of the complaints about the decay of the state as
advanced by both Keith and Harry does not seem to be the case in a smaller
population and a less diverse one. Remember where Harry is
in California is a ferment of diversity, cultural and economic
change. Hence "give us a hero."
I don't
complain about the decay of the nation-state. I just suggest that the present
type of political structures can't cope any longer. We've been through six or
seven entirely different shapes/sizes/structures of governments since 8,000BC,
each ended by a specific innovative weapon from which it had no defence. The
nuclear bomb effectively ended the nation-state because the highly centralised
nation-state can now be defeated by a man with a suitcase. This is why Bush
and Blair are so hysterical about terrorism. The leaders are in the firing
line now. Mortars fired from a builder's van almost got the John Major's
cabinet in 10 Downing street not all that long ago. I think a highly dispersed
Internet-type of governance will evolve over the next century or so that's
largely invulnerable to physical attack.
I think
the real point here is that Canada and the US are special cases nothing like
England or elsewhere except maybe in the beginning throes of the European
Union which is beginning to resemble pre-Bismarck Germany. We
forget that Germany was a series of small states at war with each other and
that they didn't want to join any more than Norway wants to join Europe
today. The issue here is more complicated than Ricardo or any of
the economists have thus far dealt with.
The main
problem with the EU is that it is trying to turn the clock backwards. It is an
attempt by the senior politicians and civil servants to make an even larger
nation-state which will give them more scope and perks.
Canada and America is extremely irresponsible to
its citizens preferring to replace them with immigrants who show them what
"shits" they are for complaining about such things as healthcare and
education. Immigrants who were trained in the schools of
America's old enemies and who carry the cultural bug of that system in their
training. Not logical at all but myths are hard to
shake.
I don't understand you, but what's interesting
about the fairly high levels of illegal immigration into England from central
Europe and Asia is that, more often than not, they are highly enterprising
young men with middle-class parents who could afford to pay high fees to the
mafia to get them here.
I suspect
that they are reacting to their cultural myths out of fear. It
seems that most of them suffer from a Judeo Christian inability to think
logically about big systems while making peace with the everyday
life. Christianity has the same problem when they confess their
sins, lay them off on God, get forgiveness and continue to be
irresponsible. They then state the ideal as the goal while
ignoring it in their lives and getting forgiveness for ignoring
it. So nothing is ever seriously tested, especially the
ideals. No one ever deals with the possibility of an ignorant,
angry God who has lost control of his creation. Or how illogical
that is in the contemplation of eternal realities and transcendent
omniscience. Their description is not of an omniscient,
benevolent being by any means. Petulant might be a better
description.
Abortion is a perfect example. The ideal of life. So
perfect that even masturbation is killing. Birth control is out of the
question. Of course abstinence is the key for everyone but the poor
male who was given the hormones (by God) not to be. Well
then discipline. But the best disciplined is also the most
likely to have his life shortened by a clogged prostate. Is it
any wonder that we have among men a plague of prostate cancer today in
civilized society? Why would it be any less logical that mastery
of any part of the body would include cleansing any more than
digestion? But we are not doing so well with food and digestion
either. We give up Mastery and skill preferring ignorance and
faith.
Sex is another. Christian attitudes towards sex are
dysfunctional and mired in the middle class. The Roman church's answer
was the hierarchy which made children of the masses and celibate (sexually
ignorant) fathers who would progressively interpret the texts.
With
massive literacy Catholics are now reading the bible and starting the
history of the church all over again with the abuses of the early
church. Might I say that it is the "abuse" of the child in
the act of growing up. Protestants stressed reading, like the
Jews and outran the Catholics until the present. Only wealth and
power balanced their not being overrun by the world. Mike
Hollinshead blamed this on nonconformist theology. I suspect it
simply had to do with literacy in the masses. When Islam
stressed literacy they too excelled in math and science but they had an
elitist reaction from the wealthy and once more made the poor
illiterate. How interesting the that Taliban, those demons, were
again stressing literacy for the poor while the approved war lord today have
once again put the people safely "in their place." If we
were to look at the history of the first seventy years of America we too
could find Taliban like abuses in the treatments of groups. The
communists in China used to put the heads of drug addicts along the road to
break the addiction to opium brought by the West in exchange for
tea. There are no heroes here but plenty of demons.
Today we have a great
turmoil in the world as protestants envy Catholic's certainty and create
their own little world with mega churches, a semi hierarchy and their own
schools. The answer, I believe is not a pendulum but a
historical evolution more akin to Democratic decline into
despotism. Meanwhile the elite wealthy have collaborated
by absorbing the complex secular culture as their turf and making it
economically unavailable. That has driven the masses to religion
for culture, welfare and community. A Baptist is a Baptist no
matter where in the world. All they need to do is move their
letter from one church to another and they have full voting rights in the
congregation. All they need to do to be a member is swear
allegiance to the sovereign of the Baptist church. Its free and
they make a big deal about that and the forgiveness before the big Kahuna
because the payment was made for his anger. But does the
system work? Well, it is certainly less murderous than the
coliseum and is more sensitive than "let them eat cake."
But is it a really intelligent system?
Keith, you are seeing
some anti-intellectual elements appear in England. That is not
surprising as the breakdown of Empire caused immigration into England and
diversity appeared. The answer to diversity in the Western
tradition is the liberal secular state that guarantees equal rights,
availability of education, community development, healthcare and the
right to work for the best potential of your talent.
That is the balance to religion and what keeps religion from turning
cancerous. It is also the balance to unfettered trade and
greed. Everything is about balance and not about
nature. Humanity decides balances and bases the answers on the
current situation both in the human and natural worlds.
Today we
are a planet alive with a coming change in the magnetic poles that severely
effects the environment and yet we can't even decide how to take care of our
poor in an environmental situation of our making. Nature is
beyond our imagination. That is a problem with the current
myths. We can't seem to consider all humans as potential rather
then considering them as things to be economically exploited.
Personally, I think modern "classical" economics is as cancerous in its
needs as is runaway religion.
I don't think it's
cancerous. It's confused. Can't see the wood for the trees -- because
the needs of the nation-state are interfering with normal procedures and
transactions. The nationpstate as we know it is bust. A remarkable papoer
summarised in this week's Economist show that most of the most developed
nation-states have implicit future commitments that are on average about 200%
of their GDPs. If these were companies, they'd have to be declared bankrupt by
law. (This list includes Canada [the worst of all-- 420%GDP future
commitments], America [270% ], Germany [200%], etc) Economists can't
adequately describe systems that carry this sort of loading -- invisible
now but will have to come to light at some stage in the future -- or sels the
poor and the old will have to be totally neglected.
I
also believe that assigning nature to human activities is always a very
dangerous proposition. That is not our gifts as animals compared
to the rest of the animals. The silliest thing of all is
the concept of property.
Why? Even animals defends
their property.
The only property is Intellectual property that you
arrive and leave with. Everything else belongs
here. Everything else is about negotiation, wisdom and the
courage to be who you are to the best of your potential and to find your
peace with your fellow humans.
Fine words butter no
parsnips, as we say over here. I hear what you say, but (I hope you don't take
offence) I really don't understand this sort of language, I'm afraid.
Keith Hudson
REH
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Keith Hudson
- To: Ed Weick
- Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 8:46 AM
- Subject: Slightly extended (was Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo,
Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
- Ed,
- I'm a bit non-plussed by your answer, I'm afraid. Let me try again --
see below. (This is slightly extended from the one I sent you and forgot
to copy to FW.)
- At 07:13 22/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
- Keith:
- > Today, currency has no value, except as much as the confidence
that people have in
- > their respective governments to maintain printing to sensible
quantities.
- > Exchange rates and trade balances are thus now complicated by
all sorts of
- > political factors besides trade. Hence we have currency
speculators (rather
- > than the more benign currency arbitragers.)
- I know we've been over this again and again and again, but I guess
we need one more round. How can you say currency has no value when
it very clearly has value against other currencies, which is why we have
speculators, and against all goods and services, which is why my local
grocer will give me something for it? Like everything else, its
value changes, but value is there. Your real complaint may be that
value has become much too fluid, that you can't count on something
having the same value tomorrow as it has today, and that this buggers up
all kinds of transactions. This can be worked on (and central
banks do work on it) without reverting to something as archaic and
inherently unworkable as the gold standard.
- If people have confidence in government (as they generally did at the
turn of the last century) then they'll accept their government's word that
the un-backed pound is the same pound as it was a fortnight previously
when it was backed by gold. And once by far the greatest economic power in
the world (as the UK was at that time) had done so, then foreign investors
and traders would also have confidence and other governments followed
suit. And that's what's happened ever since -- unless one individual
government or another plays hanky-panky with its economy (e.g. Argentina,
the fourth most prosperous country in the world 100 years ago), and its
currency takes a nose dive in comparison with others.
- We've also had this out before. Yes, gold was patently insufficient as
a practical money-in-your-pocket currency by around 1870 'cos there wasn't
enough of it physically. In its place, a paper currency is perfectly
practicable for day-to-day transactions -- so long as it was transferable
into real value (e.g. gold) if necessary. When it's not transferable into
value then it's at the mercy of governmental policies.
- Despite the ups and downs of finding new resources such as gold or
platinum which had effects on the valoue of currency, money has never
inflated as much as paper-only currencies have in the last half century.
Even when the Spanish brought heaps of South American gold into Europe in
the 17th century money only inflated about two-fold -- in the 1970s, when
all our paper currencies inflated 24-fold! (This is ignoring bouts
of hyper-inflation which individual countries can bring on
themselves.)
- I think we're probably gradually proceeding towards a world-wide
currency -- namely the US$. The quicker we get there the better because
there'll be no currency fluctuations and if there's inflation or deflation
then the currencies of all countries go up and down in step. In effect,
we'll be in a similar siutation to when we had a gold-backed currency.
(This is not to say that inflation or deflation won't still remain
important -- they still will be -- but one major factor of international
stress will be eliminated.)
- Keith
- Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
|
