No, Neil, you're not cynical. Lots of love.
On Jan 27, 9:48 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> Much to be said in favour of being "guardians" of whatever this life
> is about Pat. I'm not really cynical Vam, though I bark a lot!
>
> On 27 Jan, 12:14, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 26 Jan, 10:28, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > " Around the world, there are shits who rip everyone else off ... "
>
> > > What has that got to do with Capitalism, Neil ? That's ethics. The
> > > unethical can afflict any system -- capitalism, socialism, democracy
> > > and communism. Democracies typically have institutions to care of such
> > > aberrant behaviour -- regulators, judiciary, police et al. How
> > > effective they are or have been is moot. But the behaviour itself is
> > > rooted in human nature, greed, covetousness, etc. It is not a feature
> > > of capitalism by any stretch of imagination !
>
> > > Capitalism is above all about freedom ... ... to own resources,
>
> > Perhaps it's that ownership concept that gives an opening for
> > trouble. We tend to think we can 'own' land, when it's blatantly
> > obvious that its existence predates ours and will FAR outlast us. How
> > we think we can 'own' objects that happen to be near to us is a
> > strange thing indeed. At best, we are care-takers of those objects,
> > be they alive or dead, rather than their owners.
>
> > >to
> > > make use of those resources to accumulate capital, to make use of the
> > > capital to create wealth. Being most of all about freedom, capitalism
> > > natural accompanies a democratic polity, and vice versa.
>
> > > And, may I suggest that middle men like distributors and retailers
> > > definitely add value to products and services, as it is for the people
> > > who buy and consume. They actually bring it to people and, in the
> > > process, are accountable to the buyers, for whom they act as quality
> > > assurers. If they hadn't been adding value in the entire supply chain,
> > > the mail order would have become more pervasive by now or all
> > > producers would have long ago taken over the distribution and
> > > retailing function upon themselves.
>
> > > I did find your post less than " half baked," Neil !
>
> > > On Jan 26, 4:58 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > In the end I suspect we could go on forever Gruff - perhaps to
> > > > discover we operate on similar definitions! The issue to me is that
> > > > when people discuss stuff like "capitalism" they are often stuck in
> > > > chronic, soaked-up positions they don't understand themselves. None
> > > > of us would want to grope about doing " _ " signs on every term like a
> > > > bunch of undergraduate sociologists - yet quick content analysis shows
> > > > many people just churn over old crud that really makes sense of
> > > > nothing. One interpretation of your distribution and exchange stuff
> > > > is that of parasitic behaviour and recent bwanking looks very much
> > > > like massively extended middle-man work failing to add an value at all
> > > > and eventually crashing the system. What I'm after is some grounded
> > > > notion of what we actually get in transactions. I have an argument
> > > > that capitalism actually prevents wealth creation - it certainly did
> > > > in the old Soviet areas and I think I see this every day here - but I
> > > > don't see this as necessarily an anti-capitalist argument, just as an
> > > > attempt to do "tropical fish realism" in terms of work and reward.
> > > > Around the world, there are shits who rip everyone else off - it may
> > > > well be that we don't focus enough on stopping this and that it is
> > > > this that allows work to create wealth. Economics is a phlogiston
> > > > theory - it hasn't established basics on which to operate.
>
> > > > On 25 Jan, 22:24, gruff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > "... On Jan 25, 1:37 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: ..."
>
> > > > > > I'm not convinced Gruff - but that's not the point. Even this
> > > > > > slight
> > > > > > unpacking gets us nearer to an understanding of what we might think
> > > > > > good, against what restrictions and so on. Much argument is not
> > > > > > even
> > > > > > half-baked. Maybe entry to Fist of Smoke will cost two bags of coal
> > > > > > in these currency deflation-aware times!
>
> > > > > Can you be more explicit on what you think is missing or still needs
> > > > > to be explored?
>
> > > > > /e- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
