Re: Mind's Eye Re: Good and bad

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out of date.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
still 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 capacity, employment
> >> (etc) whether directly or just by giving the money to pay down private
> >> debt in a jubilee.  I can't discover what accounts our governments are
> >> being fed through which they protect financial services - they
> >> presumably believe such in our national interests. I have done a lot
> >> of work but simply can't reach figures I can use other than in
> >> speculation.  I suspect every household in the UK could have been
> >> given £120K and a higher amount in the US - but I also suspect the
> >> money has gone to banks to hide vast losses that are the product of a
> >> massive, unproductive bubble.
>
> >> The lack of reliable (neutral) accounts is appalling.  The money
> >> involved is clearly subsidy of the kind thrusting entrepreneurs claim
> >> not to need and clearly our alleged risk takers (who are getting
> >> richer) seems to have found a way to evade personal risk at our
> >> expense.  Frankly, the more I feel I can claim to know in this mess,
> >> the more I think they do no more than use our money to be on the 3.30
> >> p.m. and the rest of the card, keep the winnings and stiff us with the
> >> losses.  I don't know the full story.  If there was a neutral, full
> >> accounting system I suspect we all would.
>
> >> Having fun is having fun Allan.  I doubt any of rigs' guests who lost
> >> are now her indentured debt peons!
>
> >> On 2 Feb, 12:55, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Interesting rigsy  you found games that taught lying and cheating and
> >> > general dishonesty fun.. that is a strange sense of morality.. or is
> >> > it the preparation for loss of morality?
>
> >> > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:47 PM, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > My dictionary (Random House Collegiate) defines rentiers as those
> >> > > living on a fixed income, as from land or bonds. (French) Of course
> >> > > nothing is "fixed" anymore since there are many ways to impact any
> >> > > security one holds.//There many ways we gamble whether we define it
> >> > > that way or not. Frankly, it is a risk to be born when you come right
> >> > > down to it but what's the alternative? I don't gamble but did give a
> >> > > gambling dinner party for four couples many years ago that was a lot
> >> > > of fun- included liar's dice, roulette and ended with a live turtle
> >> > > race.//I think you are talking about all the middle men that stand
> >> > > between a person and his money/land and that would include governments
> >> > > who decide to throw a war or tax the pants off you or make sure you
> >> > > are dependent on their services.//Yes- politicians, lawyers and
> >> > > brokers along with other professionals are in the business of making
> >> > > money off your money by establishing systems that the average person
> >> > > cannot access or control.
>
> >> > > On Feb 1, 11:32 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >> I tend to 'count the legs of nags' I back rigs (from time to time - I
> >> > >> don't gamble much).  It's hard to tell the difference between a risk
> >> > >> taker and a moron.  All gamblers lose unless they have an edge.  One-
> >> > >> armed bandits are properly named.  Given they are allowed to take 25%
> >> > >> it's very easy to work out how to run them at no risk at all.  I don't
> >> > >> play cards for money with friends (because I win).  Gamblers with edge
> >> > >> either have the rules stacked in their favour or inside information.
> >> > >> In most sports the idea is not to play the high risk game and get the
> >> > >> other team to take them.  I'd love to know what you think risk is.
>
> >> > >> The rentier-class is totally risk averse and practices usury - they
> >> > >> seek he bookmakers' position (there are some risks in some such
> >> > >> positions), preferably extracting fees rather than being at risk
> >> > >> should certain results flow.  We continue to bail them out - so what
> >> > >> was at risk?  As we bail them out, they get richer but don't offer
> >> > >> these riches up as at risk to pay us back.One does find more Americans
> >> > >> have swallowed the risk-thrusting-capitalist myth than across Europe -
> >> > >> but our oligarchies continue along very similar lines.  I don't
> >> > >> remember being asked to allow bankers money creation or use asset
> >> > >> inflation to back Ponzi schemes.  I think you have this one upside
> >> > >> down.  They've turned what should be an investment system into a
> >> > >> gambling club that pays out stipends and privileges as surely as to
> >> > >> any nomenclature.
>
> >> > >> On 1 Feb, 15:18, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >> > Neither is capitalism an accounting
>
> ...
>
> 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.