economics that is not number-technical could try -
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_592.pdf - which explains
financialisation - the way our real economies are dwarfed by
securitisation (Times 4) and derivatives (Times 10) - and proposes
that a new capitalism will emerge. The short story is that we've been
had by an Emperor's New Clothes scam.
On Nov 13, 4:34 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's my non-ironic take exactly James. There are key unanswered
> questions such as how much work needs doing to feed, water, clothe and
> house our communities safely (and generally look after our families)
> and what percentage of world 'GDP' this would be - my guess is it's
> under half the work in time and effort being put in and maybe a third
> of what counts as GDP. I'm guessing and am not an economist (though I
> teach it at university). What's certain is we aren't doing a lot of
> this essential work and are involved in a lot of dross.
>
> I don't know if you saw the rugby league on Saturday - it was a rough
> match and clearly couldn't have been played without the rules, referee
> and the rest. The competition operates with a global salary cap too.
> I don't think it's beyond us to organise global economics with such
> basics written in. They have, after all, managed a cap on all but
> elite earnings! I believe, unless we can find a rallying point,
> 'they' will prevent the generosity of your view through war. Though I
> think the solutions are simple, we can't be simple-minded in getting
> them to practice. My current neighbours (Bulgarian) are full of the
> spirit you imply.
>
> On Nov 13, 1:05 am, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "I want to reject it. Simple answers follow."
> > It is an interesting crossroads when a large portion of society learns
> > that they've been gamed. When we see that there is more to gain
> > financially as well as morally in helping our neighbor more than
> > playing economic shell games. What an effect if many people knew it is
> > a big resource shuffle, that can be undone with a simple human trait,
> > freely partaking of generosity and the aid of their fellow as we did
> > long ago. We could make another go at it, our technological and
> > intellectual capital are built and ready. Such a thing could even
> > operate within states and offer better competition for progress.
>
> > On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:14 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I read some social epistemology over the last few days - in between
> > > not finishing painting the house and being dragged on long walks by
> > > the pup. The sad tale of non-scientific academe continues, mostly
> > > gleaning that ideas that just inevitably arise in reflection get
> > > cornered and mystified by an elite needing to claim expertise. There
> > > an SEP entry on the subject if anyone is interested (I only mention
> > > this because it's free and one could burn several hundred quid on
> > > books for the same information). At bottom is the question of how we
> > > can rely on anything anyone says, writes etc. On would think this
> > > might lead to some ideas on our lying politicians, but whatever there
> > > is is tangential. Once one applies the critical criteria it is sadly
> > > obvious most we report is not about truth and mutual understanding.
> > > Last time I looked, social research was into the quadri-hermeneutic on
> > > understanding or the verstehen problematic - what one hears from a
> > > social informant is already her interpretation and elaborations of
> > > that in terms of your own interpretation and theoretical
> > > perspectives. I've played these games to earn a crust, but always
> > > been disappointed My feeling is we live in a mad scheme of things
> > > and that theory is largely therapy for those of us bright enough to
> > > get it. One of the most laughable statements one gets to hear in
> > > academe is that common sense is the ability to see the world as flat.
> > > 'Flat Earth' was very much an academic theory - one can actually see
> > > the curvature. And if one deigns to really academic thinking, the
> > > universe may be 'flat' and distance an illusion.
>
> > > Most academics do little more than what a car mechanic does in
> > > exploiting her skill. The area of operation is just a bit different.
> > > We all have our ways of making sense of what goes on. I'm not
> > > convinced I have heard-read-experienced much that addresses this
> > > across academic disciplines - the problem, as Vam often comments - is
> > > to box off the argument to paper. The system of 'discussion' is now
> > > corrupt beyond measure - conferences are advertised more like holidays
> > > and most journals are unreadable dross.
>
> > > I believe the real reason for much of this is that the easiest way to
> > > rank a human population is through quasi-abilities in maths and
> > > language and that this is the reason for the failure of universal
> > > education where it has been practiced over the last 80 years.
> > > Whatever our education systems have done, they have not produced
> > > reasonable equality or democracies at peace with themselves. I walk
> > > my dog on a lead not because I want to deprive him of the joy of
> > > pounding off, but because of traffic and consideration of those who do
> > > not appreciate enthusiastic, slobbering Labradors. I fear this is the
> > > guiding metaphor behind education, though less enlightened. The free
> > > space where my dog runs seems unavailable for human practice other
> > > than thought.
>
> > > We seem to think we can "train" human beings in "essential" skills.
> > > The reason given in answer to the question as to why the kids had to
> > > wear uniform at my grandson's school the other night was it was to
> > > teach for to 'obey rules without question'. O my Lord! Some social
> > > epistemology in that! The teachers struggle to maintain discipline
> > > and out of school many of these kids are little better than louts
> > > (though by no means all of them) who litter our streets and start
> > > 'careers with the law'.
>
> > > I despair at our taken for granted in all this. We need a new
> > > society. I see no answers in academe and believe the issues we need
> > > to confront are practical and to do with "meritocracy" and people who
> > > believe they have worked hard for what they've got feeling
> > > "superior". Those of us given the right 'card' through money and/or
> > > education have a lot to answer for and most of it can be described in
> > > simple terms. We evade this at every turn by boxing off argument into
> > > rationalisation that suits us and 'backfiring' when evidence is put in
> > > contradiction. The religion of this is neo-classical economics, the
> > > uniform of the World Bank and IMF, though we don't even know any of
> > > this, needing only 'look after number one'. This basic issue spawns
> > > all the rest of social thinking. I want to reject it. Simple answers
> > > follow.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário