Keith wrote: > But let's make the same walk in September. This time we see the most > tremendous fight going on between swans. Two swans, it would seem, are > attacking four or five others. As we look on this amazing scene then both > of us -- long being experts on almost everything -- suddenly realize that > the fight is all about the two parents driving their almost full-grown > youngsters away from their territory. We can see, from the expressions of > their faces (!), that the younger swans are puzzled about all this because > they keep on trying to return to their former patch. After all, there's > plenty of food in the river. Isn't there? But the ex-parents don't think > so -- and they lunge forward with another attack. > > It's all in the genes.
It's absurd enough to base an analysis of modern (or even future) economies on this primitive "social darwinist" observation from the animal kingdom (nearly said united kingdom, which still sticks to its bee-hive structure with one queen as head of state -- how can we expect progress from there?), but let's accept this as the cave-men POV analysis. But the irony is that this cave-men "analysis" contradicts itself when it comes to justifying the obscene wealth of today's billionaires, which are determining the course of developments (social, economic, technological, environmental). Because in the animal kingdom it is unthinkable that a single individual would accumulate resources (land, food) equivalent to $billions, while millions or even billions of individuals of the same species own virtually nothing, just living "from hand to mouth" or even starving. Even in an overseeable group or territory, such an extreme inequality of resources is simply not tolerated among animals. If any bully would attempt to implement that in the animal kingdom, the masses of have-nots or have-less would pretty soon kill that megalomaniac bully or at least show him his place, before he destroys the commons. (And one may ask, why shouldn't the "most intelligent animal" do the same? Which leads to the next absurdity: the billionaires are protected by the very civilization that they destroy so recklessly!) Due to this internal contradiction, the cave-men analysis is not only obsolete, but outright absurd and worthless. To analyze modern economies, you don't have to observe swans, but you have to understand the background of why the distribution problem keeps getting prevented from being solved, and by whom. This also leads over to Harry's lack of understanding of why there are too little jobs. The jobs are where the money is. If there is enough money, any kinds of jobs (even useless ones) can be funded by that money. So, again, the unemployment problem boils down to the distribution problem. And, again, the wrong distribution is not god-given, but man-made -- by and for those who unilaterally profit from it. Considering the vast destruction that this is increasingly causing to economies worldwide (and the glee from the cave-men about this forming doom is very telling), it would be high time to understand the causes, and implement changes accordingly. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
