compete for our business with very little regulation. On the current
banks - it's doubtful many are really worth anything.
On Oct 22, 1:45 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Back to what I was saying,, I see a society today including bankerism that
> is based an economy based off debt.. As I see it a trust that could be set
> up that (actually split as to not draw attention) it could be used to help
> people, I am thinking about a small economy strictly toursit based where
> it could be used to help people doing things like develop wind generators
> then selling the power to pay for themselves and at the same time grow the
> fund.. other things like building vertical green houses for supplying
> food to make sure every one ate..
>
> I do not think charity is a way to go,, but the process of growing a
> business designed to help people is not to bad.. it can get into things
> like the skycat and transporting goods across oceans to pay for themselves
> and grow the trust,, when it came to times like the big earth quakes and
> natural disasters,, where the could be actually flown into
> the disaster areas to supply aid directly .. helping to keep it out of
> the corruption cycle.
>
> As the trust fund{s} grew they could actually buy out the greed banks stock
> taking them over.. ending the cycle that way..
>
> Transferring the economy from a debt economy to a stable debt free
> economy.. you will be well on your way to ending Bankerism.. It can be
> done simple because they are based on debt,, remember a share actually sez
> they owe you money..
>
> Allan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thank you for the ideas Neil,, I for one actually believe ?bankerism? can
> > be controlled but not necessarily with regulations.. It is well known and I
> > think it was discussed here on the financial power of the trust fund
> > especially non-expiring ones,, to the point that they are regulated by
> > the government requiring them to spend the interest.. I have to run I
> > will get back to this when I return..
> > Allan
>
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:37 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> My guess is that modern rationality starts with Descartes - though he
> >> doesn't provide a template, just some ground we can get into the
> >> issues through. The great warnings to us on 'solutions' is real
> >> history and the failure of Germany as the most cultured and scientific
> >> nation culminating in "Hitler" - the lesson being so-called triumphs
> >> in rationality, science and culture are dreadful fantasies. I would
> >> hope in this that German friends would not see any blaming in this -
> >> the culpability is wider-set in imperialism and our still stupid
> >> notions of leadership. In intellectual terms we are supposedly in
> >> postmoderism (really read that and weep in a different way from
> >> Gabby's sonnet). The crisis is one of legitimation and the need for
> >> an incredulous stance towards grand narratives like religion and the
> >> 'wealth creation' espoused in the status quo of oligarchy (rather than
> >> competitive capitalism).
>
> >> I'd say the big issue is dishonesty and the ease with which we swallow
> >> chronic lies whole as the facts stand up against them. The idiocy is
> >> in demanding paragons of virtue in politics. Honesty is not so easily
> >> produced. As a population we remain crudely ignorant and politicians
> >> can rely on this. I can prove over and again that voters don't know
> >> what they vote for - the result being my regard as a smartarse,
> >> "commie" or whatever suits. We get bogged down by popular opinion
> >> (Idols in Bacon) and inane rationalist fantasies as to whether god
> >> exists or not to which there is only 'answer' in sentient (Hume). We
> >> rightly point to failures in communism whilst failing to spot we have
> >> already been carried away in the anti-communism (even anti-democratic
> >> management - see the use of the UnAmerican stuff against quite mild
> >> adherents of such) that drives our resources into the hands of a tiny
> >> few, leaving even 1 in 5 Americans poor etc. and wars all over -let
> >> alone poverty through massive over-breeding and climate change.
>
> >> The answer is a massive change in our ways, including world-government
> >> - but the rub here is this can't involve the kind of people doing
> >> politics at the whim of banksterism and it does mean not allowing
> >> 'riches' as currently conceived, which many think 'fair' owing to
> >> propaganda. The statement on population ignorance itself needs review
> >> as it can't itself be just another bid for leadership and power. On
> >> the odd occasion I do chemistry for schoolkids I do experiments that
> >> go bang, flash light and then a tame one in which heating Lead
> >> Carbonate turns it yellow before it melts. The kids rarely understand
> >> (which isn't the point). Teaching economics is much the same in
> >> result - most end up with no clue and would need to be in intensive
> >> educational care to get a grok. I am much more confident in my
> >> scientific prognostications than on those of how we should live and a
> >> viable economics. Yet the world of science is much less authoritarian
> >> than that of public opinion, despite the techniques being much more
> >> reliable. If you don't want to listen properly on how to make,say,
> >> gunpowder - then you're free to blow your hands off. Yet how do I
> >> tell anyone not to have children in excess? Recruit Indira Gandhi?
> >> How do we get work done - sit around drinking tea voting?
>
> >> The basic idea is often to get everyone up to western standards - yet
> >> what 'standard' do we offer? Planet burning firsts? A model that has
> >> always favoured a few rich with a minor blip after WW2 and is as debt-
> >> ridden as ancient Mesopotamia? A big part of the answer is the
> >> setting up of complex regulation that prevents undue power accretion.
> >> The human tendency in this is towards bureaucracy and that runs into n
> >> iron cage (Weber). I believe computing offers new avenues -but we'd
> >> have to guard against this being perverted in the usual ways. The key
> >> roadblock is world peace and not believing we could have it and the
> >> daft assumption just laying down our 'guns' would produce it.
>
> >> There's a massive literature that could help - the problem being few
> >> read and would even watch if our media could summarise it. Should I
> >> issue a bibliography? This doesn't even work at university.
>
> >> The first solution is getting resources into individual and collective
> >> control with banking as a utility (rather than designed to steal them
> >> as happens now even with micro-credit). This itself should produce
> >> enough argument to fill several books - but watch this space. The
> >> move is broadly capitalist but anti-oligarchy pro-democracy in the
> >> sense of (Popper's) control of those allocated 'power'. Questions
> >> immediately arise as to what is not allowable - like a bunch of
> >> Taliban mistreating women and trying to build an H-bomb or burning
> >> coal for the hell of it.
>
> >> To see this as other than 'castle-in-the-air' one needs an
> >> understanding of social economics and the mad stuff of the mainstream
> >> and what its results are. This requires a lot of negation -something
> >> widely perceived (still, long after science) perceived as negative
> >> because of Idols. Rigsy started a thread on Freud in which this and
> >> the paranoid-schizoid and 'depressive' positions could have been
> >> explored. This level of intellectualism can even lead to 'academic
> >> bullying' claims in universities in these dumbed-down days. A good
> >> start would be Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine' would be a start, but
> >> only a start (you can get it on Movshare and the like).
>
> >> I'm much more positive than most people I know in spirit, from running
> >> myself into the ground and desperate tackles to trying new stuff. One
> >> meets this negative stuff everywhere from underperforming sports teams
> >> to simple changes like not buying vastly over priced ink and toner and
> >> getting advice from the data protection officer that means don't put
> >> anything on your project website. The 'highly positive', of course
> >> ain't going through the Pillars of Hercules because they'll fall off
> >> the edge. The positive question is nearly always 'what junk are we in
> >> thrall to now' - what is today's "flat earth theory". The big
> >> challenge isn't ignorance but incompetence even to the point of not
> >> recognising one's own. The arguments many think they take part in are
> >> carefully structured inside highly parochial propaganda (Idols).
> >> Rather than learning through gleaning the facts, most people just
> >> reinforce there dullard positions - this means you (or me if I don't
> >> check myself).
>
> >> Most, even in this group,lack enough knowledge to have more than mere
> >> opinion, whether on how to make TNT or understand what the banking
> >> crisis is. Much of what I say won't work would not be negative if you
> >> knew more, but seen as pointing to reasons for radical change.
> >> Classic moves include atheism meaning I must lack morality or am not
> >> open-minded about god possibilities - you know the form. With, say,
> >> nitroglycerin manufacture you can leave it to me (at a safe distance)
> >> - but why are we generally so reluctant to learn what is available on
> >> ideological and economic-practical issues? What model of the positive
> >> do you guys work with - Mollyarian letting fear slip away (which is
> >> complex in her elaborations, not barking), how would you get across a
> >> street under fire (the answer is you don't unless there is no
> >> alternative) - how do you assess what is negative?
>
> >> Many of the issues discussed in groups like this are deeply
> >> constrained because most people don't study and have false views on
> >> fact. I see this as key in developing 'democracy' - I'm anti-democrat
> >> in the same terms as Joseph Heller's lovely book - but how many have
> >> read it and would recognise I'm not being negative but asking for a
> >> review of the ideas and practices for better, wider control of
> >> authority and how we might achieve it? Try making nitro by just
> >> bunging the constituents
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário