Re: Mind's Eye Re: Good and bad

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 system...     Accounting is
> >> > accounting  and  simply tells you where your money is going and where
> >> > it is..   it is not an economic system    accounting will work with
> >> > any "ism"
>
> >> > Sorry about the delay answering Neil..  Over simplification of
> >> > spiritual concept is a blessing not a curse.. It is meant and stated
> >> > so that even a child can understand what is said and abide by the
> >> > spiritual idea. As I see it stating simple ideas into complex
> >> > statements is not much more than an excuse to use when trying follow a
> >> > spiritual path..
> >> > If a child can understand a spiritual path,  then hopefully you too
> >> > can understand the path to follow.
>
> >> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 2:57 PM, rigs <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > As if socialism is not also an accounting system!!! It is possible for
> >> > > capitalism to be compassionate and altruistic versus enforcement with
> >> > > hidden motives.//We have not escaped the past either. You may still be
> >> > > eating grass porridge as oatmeal. :-)
>
> >> > > On Jan 31, 7:30 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >> I like the divine right analogy rigs.  I don't favour capitalism for
> >> > >> much the same reason.  Much discussion of right and wrong is stuck in
> >> > >> a past we need to escape.  Origin is difficult.  Born a Scot I might
> >> > >> revere our heritage - but 3000 years ago 'we' were likely German
> >> > >> farmers eating 'grass porridge'.  Capitalism broke up much of
> >> > >> feudalism, but I suspect it was no more than a revision of Domesday
> >> > >> Book accounting and labour exploitation.  Much of what actually goes
> >> > >> on is not capitalism but the establishment of rents through financial
> >> > >> manipulations - essentially a control fraud by the rentier-class.
> >> > >> We've been had on a butty - and need more modern argument based on
> >> > >> what we know, facts shared in a common language.
> >> > >> There is a literature suggesting our environmental knowledge is now
> >> > >> important in moral decision-making   I think we have missed a lot
> >> > >> before this.  Current technology is good enough for us to create self-
> >> > >> sustaining communities and give up on empire.  We need to re-evaluate
> >> > >> our morality against this.  I don't see this leading to socialism and
> >> > >> any aim seems to me to be about considerably more freedom - from such
> >> > >> things as war, work ethics formed in times of shortage and need for
> >> > >> hard labour and so on.  The Soviet empire was much like the Tsars it
> >> > >> replaced - we used to call the KGB 'Checkists' after the Tsar's secret
> >> > >> police.
> >> > >> I suspect capitalism - unless used as a pejorative - is little more
> >> > >> than an accounting system.  The problem lies in its corruption.
> >> > >> People cheat and cheats like crimogenic systems that allow work in the
> >> > >> dark.  The umpire in cricket is now redundant - machines are better.
> >> > >> We could have had a machine accounting system on a global basis by now
> >> > >> - instead machines play a bigger role in cheating.  Capitalism with
> >> > >> fair accounting presents few problems except for losers in the
> >> > >> competition.  In sport we have competitions that allow losers first
> >> > >> draft picks and our course there is no competition if one eradicates
> >> > >> the competition.  Wigan's dominance of the Rugby League was truly
> >> > >> horrible - it was hard t turn up to watch knowing every other team
> >> > >> would lose.
> >> > >> The pathway to Hell is lined with good intentions Gabby - we are
> >> > >> scared of change.  Does anyone now believe that rule by the Guardians
> >> > >> of future socialist paradise can be established to wither away?    Or
> >> > >> that the rentiers will wither away as Keynes hoped?  And are such
> >> > >> matters not the same coin, merely opposite sides?  Capitalism has run
> >> > >> up a lot of debt - are we so sure of it we can do away with time-
> >> > >> honoured debt jubilee?  Would it not make more sense to give away what
> >> > >> we have built already to the people, have something of a leveling and
> >> > >> start again with a new focus on sustainability?
> >> > >> The genuine capitalist firm treats finance as a cost - it is difficult
> >> > >> to see from this how the vast transactions of financial services are
> >> > >> not parasitic on such firms and all of us.  The bubbles created cause
> >> > >> much misery and form part of a vast Ponzi scheme we have no need of.
> >> > >> Beyond this, capitalism is really assumed to be a dirty game of beggar
> >> > >> thy neighbour we are ahead in and need to stay ahead in or we'll lose
> >> > >> military edge (and so on).  We end up justifying doing bad things for
> >> > >> the greater end and rationalising this as moral.
>
> >> > >> On Jan 31, 9:14 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >> > The way you contrast socialism and capitalism is like contrasting
> >> > >> > creationism versus evolutionism. And by the natural law that the fittest
> >> > >> > will survive you are right to have decided for the evolutionary view.
>
> >> > >> > I don't think - and the exchange in this group has helped me a lot to see
> >> > >> > this clearer - we should forget how tempting the search for the right
> >> > >> > answers is.
>
> >> > >> > 2013/1/31 rigs <rigs...@gmail.com>
>
> >> > >> > > I am a fan of capitalism. I consider Marxism and Fascism as an
> >> > >> > > extension of socialism which is an extension of divine rights,etc.,
> >> > >> > > i.e. theft, redistribution of another's wealth and labor, weakening of
> >> > >> > > the body politic (a form of serfdom) which turns governments into
> >> > >> > > bloodsuckers via taxes and debt.//Do you think economics is a valid
> >> > >> > > science? Why, when it has flopped so many times.//We need production
> >> > >> > > and labor plus consumption so there is a need for immigrants into
> >> > >> > > white industrial countries to make up for the decline of white births
> >> > >> > > (55 million abortions plus birth control). But I wonder if illegals
> >> > >> > > will pay back taxes and bother to learn English. It might go smoother
> >> > >> > > if we learn Spanish and Europe learn Arabic.//Family can also hurt
> >> > >> > > people but sometimes that hurt teaches valuable lessons. It is easier
> >> > >> > > to leave some people and events to Heaven though it would probably
> >> > >> > > spell the end of the legal profession.
>
> >> > >> > > On Jan 30, 4:56 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >> > > > I'm not sure the audience is as wide as your estimate rigs.
> >> > >> > > > Technically I am hospitable to any theoretical view from marxism to
> >> > >> > > > fascism - though I tend to dislike theoretical views - and hospitable
> >> > >> > > > to Islamic theory/s in business analysis - and to guests in my
> >> > >> > > > classrooms from all backgrounds.  This is easy enough - as easy as
> >> > >> > > > offering to put you up if
>
> ...
>
> 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.