Hi Archytas,
One thing that I have noticed is that the econiomic models seem to
assume closed economic systems. Am I wrong on this? If it is true, any
idea why? ISTM that we can cancel out the Malthusian catastrophy by
considering open systems (indefinite access to resources).
On 3/12/2013 9:36 AM, archytas wrote:
> Zerohedge is more generally libertarian than the water I'd want to
> swim,but it interesting that right/left critique has come together in
> recent years. I'm not a traditional leftie really. Most scientists
> have trouble swallowing GOP/Tory crap - in fact it seems a scientific
> education produces liberals (PEW poll 2009) - I'm after more data on
> this if anyone has any.
>
> Business and economic offerings in universities (I taught such) are
> ideological of the neo-con, neo-liberal, neo-classical form - in short
> dross. There is no science in it i can detect other than the
> ideological form the Critical Theorists whine on about - message
> understood, but they conflate science and its use in such ideology.
> On a personal basis I see the problems as so severe that I refuse to
> teach the muck and keep wolves from the door assessing apprenticeships
> and qualifications that don't involve heaping massive debt on students
> - the average debt burden on a new graduate is more or less what's
> left on my mortgage.
>
> I think Stephen is right in that we need better understandings on how
> wealth is created, distributed and how money usurps democracy. The
> guy credited with the first full-blown treatise on economics is
> Cantillon (these days the Cantillon effect is about how new money
> sticks mostly to those with first access to it - these days very much
> with the financiers - his example was with gold mining). Adam Smith's
> economics was moral and he worried that the rich were very good at
> convincing the rest of us their notions and interests were those of us
> all - today (over simplifying) the 'neo-position'. My view is this is
> a control fraud.
>
> I saw Soviet Paradise fairly first hand - though I always had a ticket
> out. I didn't meet anyone there who really believed the dominant
> ideology - though I generally mixed with very well educated people.
> Here, I rarely meet anyone who knows how money is created,
> corporations do accounting or how we rip off the third world and
> incorporate criminal and other hot money through the banks.
>
> I'd extend what we need to know better into foreign policy, the role
> of money in politics and what the planet can sustain. The trouble we
> have is there is almost nowhere to start because there is a ready-to-
> hand world that prevents us asking the basic questions. I'll be out
> next week getting the work that keeps me going. I know (more or less)
> what's going on in economics, but this butters no parsnips. Budding
> business people don't want to know - they make do with the profit and
> loss, balance sheet, cash flow and tax returns we could call book-
> keeping. Beyond this I'd say the system is ideological and
> crimogenic - key elements concern swindling tax and profit by various
> looting procedures we call 'transfer pricing'. Hard to know where to
> start explaining how we can harness decent business practice - even I
> claim the same car against my own and my partner's tax.
>
> On Mar 12, 3:10 am, "Stephen P. King" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 3/11/2013 12:03 PM, nominal9 wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to go off on a tangent... a little....
>>> I've known and met some actual "creators"....some and not all tend to be
>>> very focused in their fields, they do their research and come up with some
>>> innovation, that their "creative ethic" wants leads them to divulge to
>>> their expertise professional peers for the advancement of "knowledge"....
>>> yes, in my opinion, many of these "creators" are genuinely motivated by the
>>> altruistic goal of advancing knowledge (at least at first) then the "
>>> Product Development" folks get involved... patents.... leading to
>>> production plans sales and so no.... Most often, at the later stages is
>>> when the so-called entrepreneurs get involved... and they are most often
>>> people other than the actual original "creators".....the altruistic impulse
>>> of advancing and sharing knowledge (for the betterment of all) is subverted
>>> and diverted by the "entrepreneurs, Capitalists and the MBAs.... looking to
>>> extract the maximum amount of profit at every stage from their business
>>> venture.....Archytas can probably speak better and more in detail about
>>> this than I can.... but stephen.... that's my main point.....the actual
>>> creation and even the "working parts" of a business venture are not what I
>>> object to.... at that level it can be beneficial to all.... it is the
>>> others.. the middle men and on who work their "profit-making" games at
>>> every possible stage of the actual "sale" or "business exchange" level that
>>> I'm very wary about....
>>> I think that is what Archytas knows.... the actual "products and services"
>>> in and of themselves are not the problem.... they are available in
>>> abundance for all.... maybe even overabundance (including the new ideas
>>> part).... the trouble lies with those who then speculate on and choke the
>>> distribution of the "hoarded" supply of those products and services.... etc.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am here for advice. I am swimming in deep waters.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
