My underlying thinking leads to banking being routinisable, perhaps as a not-for-profit service. Much the same could be said of other professions and politics. I suspect all professions are much more routine than participants claim. Problems in arguing in this field start with some basics, and one only finds people don't have much clue. Ask what money is and you broadly find only dross. Nearly everyone assumes governments issue money, which might be true for about 5% of it. The banks produce the rest when we line up to take a loan. 95% of all money is really credit. Given 'we' don't know this, 'we' have no real place to start in argument. Small deposits in 'federal reserves' allow lending at ratios from 9:1 to 30:1. But each loan (or our promise to repay) generates more lending money. Questions that should arise in here are about democratic accountability, transparency and the efficiency of this system in creating what we want as value and how much is drained from democratic potentials and in the bankers' (or other professionals') 'cut'. We still have modern pyramids being built by 'slaves'. When our money systems collapse, we get the vicious circle in which we can't find work to service debts, and as debt creates money, money supply gets short because we can't make promises to repay. It's all very virtual. Modern banking perhaps starts with goldsmiths who let others put their gold in their safes and then started lending 'trading notes' (money) on the basis of their own gold and others' gold (without telling them and keeping the profits). The exposure of this led to banks (who shared the profits) and then they did something similar and we brought in new laws. Something similar has happened again, though it's complex now. I suspect there is no real competition, otherwise we'd see the same kind of 'lean, delayered, quality at a low price' type of activity we've seen in agriculture and manufacturing. Radical views face the threat of power and its propaganda and certainly can't compete on a level playing field. This, of course, doesn't stop them being dumb on occasion. Most of us are scared that a fair society, broadly equal, is just a recipe for 'Soviet Paradise' and centralising capital in the State is not the answer. Even 'real democracy' founders on mass ignorance. The nomeclature in all societies tends to be around 15% and everywhere pretends meritocracy, states it only pays itself the going rate and so on. We need to see through this.
On 13 Jan, 12:56, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > Shareholders seem to have less and less control over their investments > (ex: the auto bail-outs). Bankers probably fall into the category with > lawyers- they are contemptible creatures until you need them. > > On Jan 13, 5:38 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 5:22 AM, ornamentalmind > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > At what point is one expected to reject the process of the becoming of > > > ‘being stronger and leaner’?...or do you not accept any limit at all? > > > And, does Occam’s Razor apply here too? > > > I accept and set limits for myself and those I'm responsible for. I > > believe it should be up to businesses to set their limits to maximize > > proficiency, reliability, service and PROFITS. The order they put > > these in and the health and sustainability of their business is up to > > them and the share holders. I agree with Archy that more transparency > > is a good thing. If you notice a company you do business with is > > hiding something or worse, lying about anything RUN, don't walk away. > > > Occam's Razor always applies in guessing games. However, I have > > noticed that your obvious deductions of the simplest reason or outcome > > are almost always not the same as mine. ;-) > > > -Don > > > > On Jan 13, 2:39 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> I thought this was interesting and so here it is to share. I neither > > >> agree nor disagree with this op. ed. piece. > > > >>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870458650457465439294469... > > > >> I will say the argument that we shouldn't try to get something out of > > >> them because we helped them out for our own benefit is rather weak. > > >> I'm uncomfortable with the whole "too big to fail" notion. The world > > >> doesn't stop when a large company goes belly up. It just reorganizes > > >> and comes back stronger and leaner. Bankruptcy laws were created to > > >> smooth the transition. By bwanker lawyers no doubt. > > > >> -Don > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-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.
