First on a minor point of personal privilege... I have no idea who used the terminology "right wing rant" but it wasn't me... It's not my personal style to be quite so blunt and anyway I have (after some google desktopping I found that I never have used the term and even on several previous occasions found Denninger to be rather insightful...
Steve, you can do your own search and then make the suitables... Tks, Now... Do I detect a strain of historical connection between Chris's (self) image as an insatiable pterodactyl (vengeful god?) sweeping in from the high mountain crevices to clean up the weak and unworthy (those without grace) in the lowlands below and Steve's self image as a towering Rourke building vast and mountainous (lucrous) towers unappreciated (and insufficiently rewarded) by the little folk straining to see the heights... Could the connection be an austere and distant, unforgiving, vengeful and jealous Calvinist god punishing the righteous and the unrighteous indiscriminantly (and regrettably brought forward on the Mayflower to put flint (and a ravenous greed and corrosive individualism) in the yankee soul ... Anyway, enough with this kind of foolishness... M -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 11:55 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Futurework] Krugman's Insanity, And The Hard Mathematical Truth Steve wrote: > Mike called my one prior Denninger post a "right wing rant." It is quite usual from that side to dismiss as "right wing" anything that doesn't fit into their simple scheme. This saves them from having to deal with their own contradictions. > And human nature (like the rest of > nature) will not voluntarily share equally; > it's not in our genes. ===^^^^^^ Who is "us"? Are altruists from a different species or planet? Btw, there is a big difference between sharing _equally_ and "sharing" à la Soros (which only exists in this one species -- which already indicates that it is NOT "in our genes"). > Apart from a few exceptions like Keith and maybe Ed Weick, this list > is populated with positive future type activists who deem overshoot > non-existent. They also think governments ( read politicians and > bureaucrats) are well intentioned and among the most competent of the > populace. I disagree. They also seem suspect of any who excell at ( > and are rewarded for) private endeavors. This doesn't describe me. While I'm not a cave-man, I don't deem overshoot non-existent -- in fact, I deem overshoot a highly probable outcome unless Predator rule can be overcome in time. The difference is that the cavemen deem Predator rule and insatiable greed a hard-wired determinism, whereas I see a chance of overcoming it by modern technological means. But I concede that this chance is small indeed, given that the Predators also know how to instrumentalize modern technology for their goals. Also, I do NOT "think governments ( read politicians and bureaucrats) are well intentioned and among the most competent of the populace." On the contrary, I have pointed out earlier that the current politicians and bureaucrats are Predators (i.e. badly intentioned and technically incompetent) and should be replaced by Producers. Finally, I am NOT generally "suspect of any who excell at (and are rewarded for) private endeavors", but I distinguish between Predator and Producer endeavors, with only the latter being worth of getting rewarded, while so far it usually goes the other way around (Predators get rewarded a lot, Producers do the actual work but get little reward). > But I will teach locally, in person, beginning next winter. It is a > better use of my time than to try to convert religious people into > evidence based thinkers or utopians into realists over the internet. Do you think your outreach and selection possibilities will be greater off-line?? > As long as > 'someone else' pays, people will vote for it and politicians will > spend it. Lazy is not just correct about the US, it is the species. Don't your off-line pupils belong to this species? > Cultures > modify behavior, but they do not change the boundary behaviors of > animal homo superstitious. Will your teaching change that, or will it replace one superstition by another? > I'm aghast at the rationale anyone has for admiring > Krugman. He wants to grow our way out of overshoot!! :-) Krugman is just another bandit err pundit confusing people with smoke&mirrors about the real issues, in order to let the deep pockets get away with theft. He got the fake Economics "Nobel" (Alfred Nobel must be spinning in his grave that the banksters fabricated this contradiction in terms*) for a reason... > Here's a final teaser for the smart folks on this list: > > http://www.world-science.net/othernews/100701_freewill As Predators have figured out long ago, the "unconscious" can be steered to a great extent. If they can steer it for bad purposes, why shouldn't it be possible to steer it for good purposes? Cheers, Chris __________________________________________________________________ * "They are bloodsuckers who thrive on money for making a few short-sighted statements about short-lived rules which are so obscure that darkness is rendered even darker by them." -- Alfred Nobel on Lawyers and Economists ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
