Mind's Eye Re: turning the world Greek

Thank you for a clear and beautifully written post, Archytas. It may
penetrate my understanding/ignorance. Is this like a system of keeping
double books for the mob bosses? Yes- some of economics is theoretical
to the point of fantasy/magical thinking- at least to me- but then my
understanding of the hard sciences has been translated to practical
applications in real life/time. (Your mysterious formula versus my
recipe for blueberry pie, I was thinking yesterday.) Anyway, we do
need to figure out a common system somehow with trustworthy stewards
so that we are prepared/eager to accept, participate and sacrifice, if
necessary. It is strange how money affects even the family unit and is
blistered with emotions, memories, self-worth, etc. Will think more on
this...

On Sep 2, 12:43 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's more like it rigsy.  I think we have to avoid the 'same old
> answers'.  Some of the literature runs to likely fantasy.  David Li,
> the man behind the financial application of the Gaussian copula is
> portrayed as Tong-Triad connected because of his name (etc.) Much is
> made of Adam Smith's thought experiment on 'barter to money' and that
> the practical incidence of this is 0% in societies studied by
> anthropologists.  Economics is full of assumptions that are probably
> wrong.
> Something Vam often says about 'learned authority' is right - there is
> too much of "Wittgenstein 1958" around to prove oneself erudite rather
> than shorthand for  'you can read the argument yourself - to do so
> here would delay mine in old ground'.  Spreadsheets manipulate
> numbers, but underlying this one is manipulating relationships between
> numbers and what they represent.  You don't get many undergraduates
> into the second part and very few into the last.
>
> If you call something given number value in a spreadsheet 'money' (in
> chemistry we called stuff colour, spin, charge and a host of other
> names) and whatever money is is actually very variable, it's likely
> the number value won't work as you hope.  In many respects, I'd say
> Wittgenstein was right we should look at definitions in practice or
> use.  The money that left the Weimar and Hitler's Germany (or more
> recently by truck load from Argentina) is not the same as the stuff we
> pay our grocery bills with.  The men buying Mexican prostitutes in New
> York with 'money' aren't doing the same as we do with the stuff
> either.  What has money become when its being used to buy politics?
> Money from vice, rackets and other forms of business and financial
> theft and fraud is indistinguishable from anything derived from fair
> toil thanks to the banks.  This, of course, is only the beginning of
> the deconstruction.  My hope would be we could complete this process
> and reassemble the spreadsheet.
>
> On might say our governments are buying the abandoned estates.  TARP
> and QE have inflated stock and bond markets and this protects vast
> claimed investment in derivatives.  Smart money is in cash or liquid
> assets waiting for the fire sale.  The Bilderburgers  ave already
> bought themselves a vast Greek retreat.
>
> Sub-atomic particles have charge, colour, strangeness, up, down, top,
> bottom, spin, charm (labels) and I'm pretty sure we could devise a
> complex notion of money that told us a lot more about its role in the
> world.   Half-a-million Indian farmers committed suicide in the last
> decade because of usury.  Micro credit schemes are being used in the
> Yemen to steal farmers' land.  The Enclosures go on.
>
> On 2 Sep, 13:46, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Maybe. I'll admit spreadsheets are a mystery- my notion is changing
> > the bed linens.
>
> > England lost most of a generation in WWI and her empire at the end of
> > WWII. How does this impact your theory? Your losses were America's
> > gain.
>
> > 92,000 people are a leap forward from past controls and ownership.
>
> > Taxation has never been "fair", has it? The best I can do is consider
> > them a form of charity at best and human corruption at worst.
>
> > Economics cannot be approached without considering the social demands/
> > changes- particularly of the 20th C.
>
> > And who is buying the abandoned vast estates? Setting the socio-
> > economic markers?
>
> > Yes- it's alchemy- another branch of fantastic belief systems with its
> > own language and methods similar to a liturgy.
>
> > And tecnology has become so user friendly it's like we have been
> > lulled away by the Pied Pipers of Silicon Valley.
>
> > On Sep 1, 5:20 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > For once rigsy I don't think you grasp any of the point.  I certainly
> > > don't want to see the public sector running the private sector.  We
> > > mostly nationalised over here because the private sector wasn't
> > > working and it's difficult to find evidence that privatisation has
> > > worked.  I use Andrew's 'Monopoly'  to explain the focus on finance.
> > > Most of it is unnecessary and at odds with the cost-cutting of
> > > efficient business. It's also a form of taxation without
> > > representation.  About 92,000 people own most of the Earth.  You are
> > > right, of course, that democracy is something we have wrong.
>
> > > Pr[T < 1 T < 1] = O, O - 1 (F (1), O -1 (F(1), y would be the Gaussian
> > > copula derivatives trading is based on if I had the right symbols.  It
> > > was produced by Dr Li who is back in China.  It's nonsense as science
> > > - what we call a scalar in maths.  Joseph Farrell even suggests it
> > > might be a red plot in 'Babylon's Banksters'.  The maths is churned
> > > out like religious liturgy and yet is as flawed as working out our
> > > weekly budgets using income we make up rather than receive.     It's
> > > alchemy.
>
> > > On 1 Sep, 21:36, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What makes you think the public sector can run the private sector? As
> > > > in the past, the two are often in oppostion. Again, just make some
> > > > historical substitutions.
>
> > > > There are systems of meritocracy that work. The military is one
> > > > example but there are others. Merit is not always measured by
> > > > financial gain.
>
> > > > Wealth can only buy "so much" of an advantage- the rest is up to
> > > > character.
>
> > > > The private sector probably works harder because they can see/use the
> > > > rewards whereas the public sector is hamstrung and dependent on others/
> > > > policy/elections. (Rat/mouse experiments.)
>
> > > > What is misunderstood is the concept of Democracy- which was a very
> > > > controlled system in ancient Greece. America has become the symbol of
> > > > Democracy but there is much misunderstanding about individual and
> > > > group rights. We offer the opportunity to suceed which is not the same
> > > > as a free ride.
>
> > > > Who has set up the systems that control personal/national finances?
> > > > Sometimes individuals but usually with the permission and regulation
> > > > of the government- which was once controlled by the Papacy, for
> > > > instance, and some may now be controlled by Islam or other strict
> > > > "isms".
>
> > > > "Rents" are the price one pays to live in a society. (Even apps are
> > > > leased and cannot be transferred.)
>
> > > > At any rate, few systems survive with an empty treasury/debts that
> > > > soar above GDP.
>
> > > > If voters want to be dazzled rather than directed they will continue
> > > > to vote for entertainers rather than managers.
>
> > > > On Sep 1, 7:35 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > A common phrase in my childhood when we couldn't understand something
> > > > > was 'it's all Greek to me'.  Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy are all
> > > > > Euro periphery nations now on the brink of collapse.  I've been trying
> > > > > to explain what's going on in a series of lectures recently.  I start
> > > > > from the premise that economics is all Greek to me.  This is some
> > > > > combination of me not understanding the muck and my belief that what
> > > > > it's all about is a politburo imposing the Greek fate on us all.
> > > > > Michael Hudson has written extensively on this.
>
> > > > > Most of us can't debate economics because we can't get our attitudes
> > > > > out of the Idols that generate our 'understanding'. I usually start
> > > > > with a few questions about debt and what money is.  It's rare anyone
> > > > > has much sensible to say on either, let alone knowledge of the history
> > > > > on might find in, say, David Graeber's 'Debt: the first 5000 years' or
> > > > > Paul Ormerod's 'Dr Strangelove's Game'.  I veer off a little and
> > > > > explain that when I started university teaching, you could base a
> > > > > course on text like this aiming at truth than than quantitative
> > > > > manipulation.  These days, education has shifted towards producing
> > > > > technocrats with instantly transferable job skills.  Teaching doesn't
> > > > > get much further than compiling and manipulating spreadsheets.
>
> > > > > Ask yourself who owns the debt, what is its size in comparison with
> > > > > the productive economy.  The answers are startling, but less so than
> > > > > the general ignorance in which we have been educated not to know.  I
> > > > > test the latter with a bit of computerised button-pushing before I
> > > > > start.
>
> > > > > The debt is several times the productive economy - or rather the
> > > > > consuming economy.  It's owned, in the main, by a small number of
> > > > > people through stock markets and bonds (bonds are much bigger than
> > > > > shares these days).  As few as 92,000 people own most of it around the
> > > > > world.  These are the politburo or alien lizards who run the show.
>
> > > > > I venture off into some Thorstein Veblen and a book on Germany and the
> > > > > world wars by an Italian - 'Conjuring Hitler'.  This is really to show
> > > > > that current economics isn't new at all.  I run through some economic
> > > > > modelling and then ask what results we'd get if we designed our
> > > > > spreadsheets from history rather than theory, including a turn on
> > > > > delta, gamma and Poisson leap hedging.
>
> > > > > My last question is 'where did the money go'?  You see, all the
> > > > > spreadsheets work, but they don't show what money is or where it ends
> > > > > up.  Something called the Cantillon effect helps here.  Money is
> > > > > effectively 'radioactive'  and the plan worldwide Greek.  We cut
> > > > > schools, police and welfare services and the money goes to a rich
> > > > > oligarchy who fund our politics, destroying the hope of democracy.
> > > > > Viewed as a physical system, economics is a control system that uses
> > > > > more resources in control than in production.  We don't go for this in
> > > > > science, except in highly complex experiments as at CERN and
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--