'Ach du grüne Neune' (Gorblimey!), as we say in old fairy tale language here, "to get out of combat duty" is not really the context I have been thinking of. But of course, the military dimension is not to be forgotten when introducing new knowledge categories. Thanks for pointing that out to me.
2013/2/4 archytas <nwterry@gmail.com>
Currently watching grandson at 15 getting interested in science. He's
doing stuff I did at school when 12. Looking at A level exams
questions a few months back I found I would probably pass in lots of
subjects except the maths and sciences I actually got! On hearing the
official version of how WW1 started at 12 the boy refused to believe
this was true. How could such atrocity take place just because a
couple of upper class old farts were shot up outside a butty bar? I
told him about the 'war of Jenkin's ear' and was accused of making it
up. He's innocent, even for his age - his mother grew out of it by 30
- and I find myself interested in how these historical fairy tales
taught to me as real are so easy for him to dismiss without baggage I
drag about on false flags, vile foreign policy, empire and bent
politics.
I sense you are very right and slightly wrong at the same time on this
Gabby. The Greeks knew a lot but still kept slaves and had no science
a we accept the stuff now. They did have great skills with wood,
stone and metals and engineering - much of it very similar to that of
the shipyards I worked in. We might actually carry less knowledge
about with us these days - grandson isn't taught any of the woodwork
or EWTP I got and can't build flat packs. Skills have been replaced
by mass production methods and embodied knowledge. Even I don't do my
won car repairs and maintenance these days (hurts too much).
Meanwhile the golden knowledge mountain of knowing that is a burden on
our unskilled bodies, reminding us we can't know it all if we are
lucky or blaring what ignorant clowns we are if we aren't. The
individual may know how to less whilst living in a knowledge society
knowing a lot more that and with a lot of knowledge embodied in
machine. Of course, every generation of old farts thinks the ones
coming after it are laggardly, idle, arrogant-ignorant and the rest.
It seems from grandson teachers that the school can't risk teaching
woodwork (who would seriously arm the little vandals with chisels or
even teach them to sharpen it to a point). EWTP was unkown and when I
explained a little beyond engineering workshop theory and practice (an
A level of dummies when I did it) I realised the teachers were
appalled anyone had been irresponsible enough to let people like me
loose on a lathe at 14. They don't teach woodwork or metalwork these
days, the only stuff I have used at home and work. German and French
colleagues tell me the decline in school standards is not limited to
England. Individual humans generally know less these days, but we
know more as a society?
I meet plenty of people who have been suckered by that combination of
literature, film, soap opera, detective fiction, bodice rippers and
school teachers who survived university training through York Notes
and copying. If people knew more they would be occupying the schools
and universities demanding better - Catch 22 is perhaps they are all
waiting for classes in occupying!
> 2013/2/4 archytas <nwte...@gmail.com>
On Feb 4, 10:05 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe the massive ignorance is based on the myth that we know a lot -
> that we we know so much more than generations before us, that there is a
> constant or exponential growth of knowledge in people. Cause of the
> self-interest of educational spin masters et al. I would like to see real
> access to good knowledge, based on real data. I myself plead guilty of
> massive ignorance, which does not allow for a dialogue in many cases. I
> need to start before.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Marx railed against the financial cavaliers. David Ricardo condemned
> > landlords as parasites. Adam Smith had a utopian notion of a debt-
> > free society. Keynes saw the rentier as a temporary, transitional
> > character in capitalism, seeing a sea-change after the demise of this
> > functionless investor. In terms of good and bad we don't seem to be
> > able to get past thinking calls for change are about unseating
> > capitalism and what we have previously soaked-up as good and bad
> > without much evaluation. What we have now isn't working for many
> > people, the planet and so on. I regard it as immoral to shrug this
> > off as to do with luck or glib asides that 'capitalism is imperfect
> > but beats all the other games in town' - but how can most people
> > actually engage with any dialogue given their massive ignorance? We
> > can hardly start calling people immoral because they haven't learned
> > much about the world beyond the foot of their own stairs. I still
> > meet the odd kook who still believes in Stalinism, but Ayn Rand
> > neoconservatism is as bad.
>
> > On Feb 3, 5:46 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I too think you don't understand rigs and are using language that is
> > > out of date. I have no problems with capitalism per se - though we
> > > sti ll need to do something to prevent wealth being focused in few
> > > hands and perverting our politics. One sees examples I'm sure we'd
> > > both enjoy - farms producing their our butter and cheese from their
> > > own cows, bread from their own wheat - delicious stuff and typical of
> > > what we need more of. A comparatively large cooperative bakery in
> > > which employees take shares based on hours put in. I think we can and
> > > should run capitalism at these levels - the mistake is blowing it up
> > > into something it cannot be and allowing wealth accumulation of
> > > obscene kinds that forces monopolies and economic rents on the rest of
> > > us
> > > Both communist experiments and giant transnational capitalism force a
> > > situation of centralised capital in few hands and lead to corruption -
> > > we need something else. Our votes are being rendered as unimportant
> > > as any in the old Soviet Union.
>
> > > I worked as a company doctor and remain an advocate of lean
> > > production. The problem with this is we don't look beyond the
> > > consequences for the individual firm. The problem with finance is
> > > that it has taken over the money system instead of becoming a utility
> > > to a broader industrial, agricultural and social system. Profit isn't
> > > the problem but rather the distribution and redeployment of it in
> > > production and better lives. In my view it is immoral not to examine
> > > the difficulties involved in creating a decent system.
>
> > > The entrepreneurs are not what you suggest - at any given time 40% of
> > > them are looking to open the next coffee shop fad and a further 40%
> > > abut to steal business from current employers. The only innovations
> > > I've seen in financial services are the ATM and Internet banking - the
> > > rest of the entrepreneurialism in that sector are thieving tricks that
> > > corrupt what money is so it can be stolen - and also make productive
> > > investment much more difficult and working hard for a decent wage,
> > > saving, buying one's house and so on almost impossible. The argument
> > > is less about turning socialist and more about reclaiming capitalism
> > > from those who have stolen and perverted it.
> > > On Feb 3, 9:10 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Maybe we can that sounds better they wound't like it much though..
>
> > > > Really rigsy I am all for individuals doing their own thing and making
> > > > a profit.. what I am against is the giant corporations that that are
> > > > raping and pillaging the world for the profit of the few at the
> > > > expense of the many and believe me Rigsy you are not the few..
>
> > > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 6:34 AM, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I think risk takers are entrepreneurs that start companies- solo or
> > as
> > > > > a group- and it's their product/service that should be judged. It's
> > > > > also the investors who support that company. Both need capital to
> > > > > invest- private funds or a loan. Both expect a reward- ususally
> > > > > financial. Sometimes workers are included in the reward system. Who
> > > > > owns the farm, the company, the store? Who deserves the family
> > > > > inheritance? Etc. Why punish capitalism?
>
> > > > > On Feb 2, 9:11 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> No problems with that analysis rigs and thinking about it I do
> > gamble
> > > > >> like that with real friends (usually bridge). I'd have to quibble
> > on
> > > > >> the dictionary definition - this isn't quite what "rents" are in
> > > > >> economics. I'd have to go on a lot to explain in full. Rigs hits
> > the
> > > > >> key element anyway - 'systems that the average person cannot access
> > or
> > > > >> control'. Oil has been a classic example of economic rent - this
> > was
> > > > >> largely done by controlling distribution in order to extract a much
> > > > >> higher price that production costs - this included preventing new
> > > > >> sources of supply in the market until well after WW2. Barings Bank
> > > > >> was involved in a typical example of false monopoly trading over
> > > > >> cochineal in the 18th century (it was then a major commodity in
> > > > >> leather tanning) - examples are legion - modern cases involve
> > exchange
> > > > >> traded funds attempting to monopolise silver, copper and food.
>
> > > > >> Accounts can't be read as Allan suggests - the notion of following
> > the
> > > > >> money could apply, but you soon discover the documentation is
> > written
> > > > >> to prevent this and find yourself in a world of transfer pricing and
> > > > >> star burst wire transfers, 105 repos, channel stuffing and companies
> > > > >> claiming profits of 2.5 billion reporting 3.5 billion tax loses
> > > > >> (Enron). When I worked for Hanson very little attention was paid to
> > > > >> formal accounts in valuing a prospective takeover victim - otherwise
> > > > >> anyone with a copy of Moodys or the like could be an asset-stripper-
> > > > >> style investor. The game involved private investigators and inside
> > > > >> information on such matters as whether property portfolios were
> > under-
> > > > >> valued and how many LOMBARDS (lots of money but re right dicks)
> > could
> > > > >> be stripped out, how much tax could be avoided by new accounting
> > > > >> techniques and so on. The sum was then how much the company was
> > worth
> > > > >> under new administration, less what it could be bought for - though
> > > > >> even this involved deals with existing management to get it cheap
> > > > >> through various pressures and whether we could be bought off through
> > > > >> greenmail.
>
> > > > >> Capital itself is not neutral, let alone the system of accounting
> > for
> > > > >> it. In fact we allow utterly criminal activity such as private
> > equity
> > > > >> managers putting all the worthwhile firm assets in a fund worth
> > > > >> millions they from and just happen to end up owning - with the rest
> > > > >> written-off in terms of unemployment and tax payer liability for
> > > > >> pensions, redundancy and loss of productive capacity. A way round
> > > > >> this would be to make directors accountable to juries rather than
> > > > >> register for Delaware protection. The test should be 'you have
> > > > >> millions - the rest are left with debts bigger than your pot'. I
> > > > >> suggest anyone thinking accounting neutral read the 2011 Wells Fargo
> > > > >> stuff and ask themselves if they understood anything after the
> > first 9
> > > > >> pages. On about page 261 you will find $273 million losses
> > mentioned
> > > > >> - try and follow that money! Allan, I think, describes what the
> > > > >> situation should be, not what it is.
>
> > > > >> I think rigs' risk takers are in fact thieves who have found a way
> > to
> > > > >> eliminate criminal risk in a combination of writing the law and
> > > > >> lawyers. A big problem remains on how we can get investment done
> > > > >> decently without just shifting it to the hands of a politburo of
> > state
> > > > >> capitalism. We know some of the answers to this - but they are
> > > > >> rarely discussed because the nightmare of Soviet Paradise is used to
> > > > >> kill off debate. If this doesn't work we are told our wanted
> > > > >> transparency will just make our businesses severely disadvantaged
> > over
> > > > >> global competition that can cheat.
>
> > > > >> I need to follow some money for a paper at the moment - its on how
> > > > >> much money the UK and US tax payer has put up to save the financial
> > > > >> institutions and where that is now. Fancy a bit of research Allan?
> > I
> > > > >> currently have very different accounts - our National Audit Office
> > > > >> (for instance) shows a relatively small amount that has already be
> > > > >> repaid in some fair measure. However, this doesn't include QE.
> > > > >> Elsewhere I find much larger amounts, forever increasing that do
> > > > >> include QE and other BoE and Fed dodges and severe doubts on how to
> > > > >> value assets in the system. This is before I look at the
> > 'opportunity
> > > > >> costs' against investing this money in productive
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário