I agree. I often wonder how many of the charity drives featuring starving children are cons of some sort or outright theft or where the majority of the "take" goes for "administrative" costs. There is theft and stealing.
There is also the case that sometimes people invest in stocks and bonds and with everything on the "up and up" there is still loss. Risk carries rewards but sometimes losses. arthur From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Harrell Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 9:33 PM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey, you gotta watch dem machines... My father had a Doctor's degree in psychometrics and my mother was an accountant who taught in the local high school. When they both retired, they had to beat the market vultures off with a stick. Even with the stick they were stuck it by their religion with Jimmy Baker, the preacher felon, and Heritage Village as well as the deluge of "free" junk to try to trick them into "investing" their retirement. My mother was smart but when she was infirm, with us on the East coast, she was vulnerable until we realized. "Entrepreneurs" vultures feeding on the defenseless and the elderly. Theft is theft and a con is a con. REH From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 3:18 PM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey, you gotta watch dem machines... Not to be too Clintonesque but it depends on what you mean by steal. arthur From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Harrell Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 2:51 PM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey, you gotta watch dem machines... How is that different from a man who uses his gifts and expertise to steal from the poor through market cycles? REH From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 1:16 PM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey, you gotta watch dem machines... No I mean like having power in one area and exploiting it in another. E.g. the policeman who takes an apple from the corner grocer or the president who exploits an intern or the senator who accepts gifts etc. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Harrell Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 1:05 AM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey, you gotta watch dem machines... You mean like virtue = wealth production or You can't be a good businessman and pay taxes or You owe your loyalty to your shareholders not to the poor of America or.......... REH From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 1:25 PM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey, you gotta watch dem machines... Of course we all have biases. But those who trumpet the truth while pretending that they are not biased are those that I avoid. arthur From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 10:47 AM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey, you gotta watch dem machines... So who isn't "biased". M From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 6:39 AM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'; 'Keith Hudson' Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey, you gotta watch dem machines... I used to read Buckley for the same reason. A very interesting conservative thinker. Krugman's biases sometimes get in the way, as did Buckley's. Both interesting. Both biased. arthur From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 6:53 AM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION; Keith Hudson Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey, you gotta watch dem machines... Not sure of why people on this list are going after Krugman. Personally, I think he writes a very good, very readable column on a diverse range of topics. In today's column, he deals with a very relevant topic, the hidden influence of big money on politics, a very important but largely ignored topic. OK, so he got the Nobel prize because he pointed something in an academic field that Henry Ford already knew as a practical person and the Japanese already knew as well. However, what he said wasn't recognized in the field of economics until he said it. I did my undergrad work back in the 1950s, and the Ricardian idea of comparative and absolute advantage is what we had to learn and how we had to view the economic world. I did a graduate degree in the late 1960s and things were still very much the same. What Krugman did to get his Nobel was open economics up and make us see that while Ricardian theory may still apply to growing grapes and oranges, it may only very partially apply to the modern industrial and increasingly cybernetic economy, if it applies there at all. I for one will continue to read Krugman's columns not because he is an economist but because I find him an interesting liberal thinker. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Keith Hudson <mailto:[email protected]> To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION <mailto:[email protected]> ; Ed Weick <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 3:38 AM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re: [Ottawadissenters] Hey, you gotta watch dem machines... At 16:26 30/12/2012, you wrote: (EW) Not sure of where all of this is going. Prior to Krugman, the theory of international trade was based on the Ricardian notion of comparative advantage. Countries would produce those products in which in which they had an advantage, given their resources, and then trade with each other. >From what little I know, Krugman brought in the idea that, given a certain level of technological development, resource advantage didn't really matter very much. (KH) But that idea didn't need Krugman! Or anyone else for that matter. The Japanese had been importing resources ('cos they had none of their own) for decades before Krugman was even born. I believe those who say that Krugman got a Nobel for the same reason as Paul Samuelson (who only copied Marshall's ideas of Sale and Demand curves) -- that he was an economist very much in the public's eye. (EW) Any advanced country could, and would, produce cars and, given consumer willingness to buy, these cars would be shipped to markets all over the world. As others have pointed out, economies of scale were very important in this. The more cars that could be produced, the lower the unit costs; the more cars that could be shipped, the lower the costs of shipment. (KH) And Henry Ford had known that decades before Krugman was born! _____ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
