Re: Mind's Eye Re: a glimpse of modern marxism

I think the problem equates to an organised crime skim.

On Jan 24, 7:32 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the pipe line is not a real loss it goes through a lot of sensitive
> habitat..  the loss of it thank the republicans,,  The economic whoa  is
> brought on by Reagan..  and the two Bushes,,
>
> When you blame the destruction caused by three economic tornadoes on the
> person and people trying to clear up the economic wreckage ,,,  made more
> difficult by people doing everything they can to retain the economic mess
> because it is very profitable to them.
>
> I think the economic bail out money needs to be repaid.. completely
> before bonuses and with interest.This bail out money is not and never
> should be considered free money. Yes these are the very people who brought
> on the present economic crisis.
> Allan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Don Johnson <daj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I want to be Eliot Ness!  But that's the problem it wouldn't be me it'd be
> > some other bozo with his own agenda and friends and my wants and needs
> > would be way down his list if on it at all. This is why I generally support
> > less power for government not more. Less power means less money. And visa
> > versa.
>
> > Just read about the IMF predicting Euro Eco Meltdown unless they get more
> > money to Spain and Italy RIGHT NOW. More alarmist claptrap or dire actual
> > need? Like our friend Kenny, idk. What I do know, or at least think I know,
> > is that Spain and Italy fully expect to get their bailout. Like you, Neil,
> > I'm bothered that the very rich get bailed out with no consequences for
> > their bad investments and bad decisions while, as you note, us
> > middle-classers foot the collective bill. I want to see some investment
> > bankers lose their shirts. The Solyndra's and MF Global Execs should be
> > going to prison but they won't be. They didn't break any laws(apparently)
> > just the public's trust.
>
> > I'd love to bust into their warehouse and shoot the place up with double
> > barrel shot-guns and confiscate their houses and boats and jet airplanes
> > but at the same time I don't want to give that power to others that might
> > want to do the same to my beloved energy companies. Houston energy
> > companies. It's a conundrum.
>
> > Still waiting for my pipeline from Cananda Mr. President... Wondering if
> > your speech tomorrow will be about how we're all going to be energy
> > independant under your guidance without explaining how your bans on
> > domestic drilling while bank rolling drilling in Brazil(???) will help us
> > do that. Nah, it's going to be about how it's not your fault. Bush and a
> > do-nothing Congress will get all the blame. Wait and see if I'm right. I
> > don't think Mr. Obama understands what leadership is. He's very good at
> > covering his ass though. Very, very good.
>
> > dj
>
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:44 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> If you haven't guessed, I should make it clear I think the modern
> >> marxism is very old and hapless.  There are now much more severe and
> >> data-based concerns within economics than these clapped out fuddy-
> >> duddies can muster.  Obama is about to try and tell the US public that
> >> not prosecuting the wealthy over mortgage fraud and using pension
> >> money to pay out a bogus settlement is a success.  I doubt we need any
> >> "social epistemology" (the current term for marxism) to help us but
> >> rather some untouchable cops and new rules on who gets to Capitol Hill
> >> or Westminster.  Our problems are moral.
>
> >> On Jan 23, 4:37 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-.
> >> ..
>
> >> > The above is a link to the London Review of Books.  The argument made
> >> > is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American
> >> > writing on economics of his time have been understood.  It starts with
> >> > a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the
> >> > creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry
> >> > George in "Poverty and Progress".  There's a compelling logic in the
> >> > argument made most in here will get.  My own view has long been that
> >> > the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we
> >> > won't face up to them.  "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is
> >> > we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives
> >> > us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the
> >> > world.
>
> >> > Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what
> >> > reward comes.  We like simple dross like this.  It has a compelling
> >> > logic as long as we don't examine it too closely.  The problem, of
> >> > course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it
> >> > produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over
> >> > the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and
> >> > "reward".  We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism
> >> > rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry.  I
> >> > know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib
> >> > critique.  Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of
> >> > dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's
> >> > rationalist fantasy.
>
> >> > The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human
> >> > nature.  One conundrum is that most of us can see that most
> >> > accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing
> >> > over supervision of this to a set of  commissioners is likely to be
> >> > worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think  most of us
> >> > realise quite what modern reality is.
>
> --
>  (
>   )
> |_D Allan
>
> Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.