You don't believe that the Arts and IBM are "goods"? That has been the problem all along and the root of my discrimination against economists. They simply don't know what the hell life is about. This is the same shell game that I got into with a famous economist on my board. When it all comes down to it they don't admit that the Utilitarian philosophy has anything to do with anything other than objects as it walks across the world, destroys cultures, commits genocide for profit and creates scarcity as the only way to make money. They talk like that while Wall Street steals us blind. But if the issue of value and goods are so cut and dry then why does Bill Gates worry about his staff walking with his intellectual capital? What is the necessity for patents and copyrights if its only about the distribution of consumer goods? Why did Disney get to keep Mickey Mouse? Why does Bill Gates get to censor his people who leave Microsoft and why did Tom Stewart write that book on "Intellectual Capital?"
There are seven domains that make up culture and economics is one of them, the energy domain for all cultures. When value equals exchange and it is the only value or the supreme value, you know you are on the "dark side" of human thinking. Economics are as potential in their toxicity as the man who went down the street breaking windows and leaving his card to advertise his glass company. Or the doctor who campaigns for the definition of birth at conception because his specialty is pediatrics and he sees every abortion as a loss of business. A doctor that would cheat the government wouldn't be above making someone sick just fix it. How about the auto mechanic who fixes none existent problems? Or maybe we should talk Atomic Energy and liability. These are moral issues and the root of morality is first in knowing the difference between the patterns of life then developing an ethical standard at handling them and finally being logical about it. That's Aesthetics informs Ethics informs Reason. The problem for the future will be to cleanse the pollution from the economic engine and use it for what it was meant but within the context of wise judgment and not just simple sin. REH From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 9:33 AM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] Keynes again from 1933 I was referring to the range of consumer goods of all kind. Many capital goods as well. Quality and quantity. arthur From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Harrell Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 12:55 AM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] Keynes again from 1933 I don't know. The Communists seem to be doing just fine at the Metropolitan Opera and around the country's orchestras. There are more Soviet artists distributed then you can shake a stick at. The also produced them. The same thing was true at IBM. So these two guys were racing across the desert. One was Israeli and the other was an Arab chasing him armed to the teeth and wanting to kill the Israeli. The Arab began to fall behind and finally stopped. The Israeli stopped and looked back then circled around and asked what was wrong.. The Arab said he was out of gas. The Israeli looked and asked: "Would you like to buy some?" This was told to me by a Russian Jewish lady opera coach as we were talking about the way that the Russians were taking American jobs in America. She thought it explained what I was discussing. REH From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:14 PM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] Keynes again from 1933 The tragic irony is that communism solved the distribution problem but couldn't solve the production problem while the reverse holds true for capitalism: production problem solved but can't solve the distribution problem. arthur From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 8:53 PM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] Keynes again from 1933 It seems that as a civilization we have resolved the production problems but can't figure out how to make the distribution work in any decent and humane way. M -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 5:29 PM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION' Subject: [Futurework] Keynes again from 1933 The decadent international but individualistic capitalism in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war(one) is not a success. It is not intelligent. It is not beautiful. It is not just. It is not virtuous. And it doesn't deliver the goods. In short we dislike it, and we are beginning to despise it. But when we wonder what to put in its place, we are extremely perplexed. * <http://www.panarchy.org/keynes/national.1933.html> National self-sufficiency (1933) Section 3, republished in Collected Writings Vol. 11 (1982).
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
