http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=267579&sn=Detail&pid=71616
It is relevant to an African commonwealth/social state coexisting with
private sector industries. To sum it up, the state should represent
the preservation of society and it's ends should be to prosperity and
health of the people. It should take to this task as the major
influence on the fundamental sectors that affect the stability of
society without stifling private equitable enterprise. The health of a
society is ultimately the responsibility of their representatives and
national policy and industry can be organized toward those ends.
One big question right now is how society can bounce back from major
recession. It shouldn't even be a question, if our elected officials
were more concerned with security, common prosperity, and health than
opportunism there would be little question. Our think tanks are more
concerned with controlling populations and manipulating consumers (of
consumables, ideology, and ends) than solving fundamental challenges
to humanity. These things are left to survivalists, many of whom are
strongly isolationist (as if that helped farmers in Argentina). What I
am getting at is that we need greater civic involvement between
institutions in society and the diverse inner cultures they service.
Just to consider the work that can be done in communities to improve
the quality of life for each and every person is enough to put
everyone to work, and there are enough challenges facing humanity to
orient our excess labor toward meeting the needs of our evolving
civilizations. It's not nearly a platform... but don't these things
speak for themselves? Shouldn't we demand representation for this need
from our representatives?
Just pondering w/IMO.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 3:25 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone interested in a basic explanation of what has happened in
> 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