The issues flow from monetary to human
capital and human capital is what creates a
future. Creativity and Design skills tend
not to flow from the upper classes into the
mainstream. The struggle necessary to
achieve a superior discipline usually comes
from poverty or a war. World War II crashed
a lot of cultural stories and as a result
people changed and prospered. The
monetarists would like to blame that on the
vertical systems of authority and prosperity in
exotics but I think that is shallow
thinking. We have lived through continuous
cycles of war since the great plagues and the
world wide weather disruptions of that
time. The discovery of America and the
efficiency of European germ warfare, emptied a
continent and fed the treasuries of an inferior
culture who promptly squandered most of
it. Those same monetarists belief humans are
interchangeable. That regressive attitude
eats its children. Think of poor Elizabeth's
boys and their creativity and wasted potential
for the development of any kind of serious
design. Now we have the grandchildren and it
isn't any better. Where are those epigenes?
The human capital problem today is still the
same as the English Manor House system, except worse.
Even here the Epigene's arise and the American
Government is dysfunctional because they don't
do the system. Perhaps those Epigenes are
incapable of positive results? People try to
avoid voting, avoid petitioning their
representatives (unless paid), and plan to
fight, or protect, their neighbors who are
either "brothers" or "scum." Consider money
not to be capital for creativity but a status
symbol of a shallow life. This is not the
system put in place by the Founders. It is
instead, the latest virtual world brought here
by immigrants after the World Wars. People
who had been affluent but came here
poor. Our system allowed them to rise back
into their old positions, but the virtual world,
between their ears, had nothing to do with the
system my ancestors fought, in every war on the
American side, to sustain. This is not my
world. What is strange here, Keith, is to
realize that all of these folks talk in English
but because their Virtual Worlds are old
feelings and impulses from a place and time that
they are no longer a part of, each virtual world
is unique as is the treatment of almost every
word in English they speak. It's like
gibberish that their family and clan understands
minimally but when put into action just doesn't
work. Think the US Congress today.
Today's American world came from the losers in
Europe who are now preaching Laissez Faire in
the same way they grew forests in Germany and
England. It is a world of group
pathologies. The terms are "Groupthink" and
"Clanthink." But the pathologies are playing
out and they are beginning to devour themselves
in the same way they did in Germany in
1933. In Germany they ate their ethnicities,
in England it was the wild animals. What
happened to the animals of Britain's
forests? The one's titled "game." Now the
poor have become "game" except there are too
many to disappear. Like the artists of
America who train rigorously for years spending
hundreds of thousands of dollars for their
education and then having 2 out of every 100
graduates able to work. The 1% of the wealthy
hire them leaving that extra 1% left over for
the up and coming winners in their game
theory. 98% are just labor glut failures
and it has little to do with human capital and
everything to do with luck. It is a dangerous
time in America with none of the class patrician
rules of England or China to keep them in
check. That 98% is arming themselves to the
teeth and like the Black Panther Party of the
1960s, carrying their loaded weapons everywhere
including schools and religious
institutions. Anger is their energy and
revenge is not far away from the surface of things.
The eight symptoms of Groupthink:
1. shared illusion of invulnerability.
2. collective efforts to rationalize away warnings.
3. unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality.
4. stereotyped views of rivals and enemies.
5. direct pressure on members who disagree with
any of the groups stereotypes, illusions or commitments.
6. self censorship of deviations.
7. a shared illusion of unanimity... augmented
by false assumption that "silence means affirmation."
8. the emergence of self appointed mind guards.
I. L. Janis, Stress, Attitudes, and Decisions; NY, Praeger, 1982
REH
From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 4:17 AM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION; Ray Harrell
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Nobel Prize -- was Re:
[Ottawadissenters] Hey, you gotta watch dem machines...
At 19:51 01/01/2013, REH wrote:
How is that different from a man who uses his
gifts and expertise to steal from the poor through market cycles?
No, the gifted man, or the rich man or the
corporation steals from the middle-classes or
the soi-disants. The latter are the ones who
have the money. They pay over half of all income
tax also. The poor are hardly worth stealing
from but, if anybody, it's the middle-class who
do so. And among the poor it's the
lowest-but-one rung of the poor (the hard drug
pushers, pay-day loan sharks, burglars, "carers"
in state nursing homes, "nurses" in geriatric
hospital wards, etc) who exploit the poorest.
Keith
REH
From:
<mailto:[email protected]>[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:
<mailto:[email protected]>[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:
<mailto:[email protected]>[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:
<mailto:[email protected]>[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:
<mailto:[email protected]>[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.
Krugmans biases sometimes get in the way, as
did Buckleys. Both interesting. Both biased.
arthur
From:
<mailto:[email protected]>[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: <mailto:[email protected]>Keith Hudson
To:
<mailto:[email protected]>RE-DESIGNING
WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION ; <mailto:[email protected]>Ed Weick
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
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
