Back to what I was saying,, I see a society today including bankerism that
is based an economy based off debt.. As I see it a trust that could be set
up that (actually split as to not draw attention) it could be used to help
people, I am thinking about a small economy strictly toursit based where
it could be used to help people doing things like develop wind generators
then selling the power to pay for themselves and at the same time grow the
fund.. other things like building vertical green houses for supplying
food to make sure every one ate..
I do not think charity is a way to go,, but the process of growing a
business designed to help people is not to bad.. it can get into things
like the skycat and transporting goods across oceans to pay for themselves
and grow the trust,, when it came to times like the big earth quakes and
natural disasters,, where the could be actually flown into
the disaster areas to supply aid directly .. helping to keep it out of
the corruption cycle.
As the trust fund{s} grew they could actually buy out the greed banks stock
taking them over.. ending the cycle that way..
Transferring the economy from a debt economy to a stable debt free
economy.. you will be well on your way to ending Bankerism.. It can be
done simple because they are based on debt,, remember a share actually sez
they owe you money..
Allan
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thank you for the ideas Neil,, I for one actually believe ?bankerism? can
> be controlled but not necessarily with regulations.. It is well known and I
> think it was discussed here on the financial power of the trust fund
> especially non-expiring ones,, to the point that they are regulated by
> the government requiring them to spend the interest.. I have to run I
> will get back to this when I return..
> Allan
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:37 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> My guess is that modern rationality starts with Descartes - though he
>> doesn't provide a template, just some ground we can get into the
>> issues through. The great warnings to us on 'solutions' is real
>> history and the failure of Germany as the most cultured and scientific
>> nation culminating in "Hitler" - the lesson being so-called triumphs
>> in rationality, science and culture are dreadful fantasies. I would
>> hope in this that German friends would not see any blaming in this -
>> the culpability is wider-set in imperialism and our still stupid
>> notions of leadership. In intellectual terms we are supposedly in
>> postmoderism (really read that and weep in a different way from
>> Gabby's sonnet). The crisis is one of legitimation and the need for
>> an incredulous stance towards grand narratives like religion and the
>> 'wealth creation' espoused in the status quo of oligarchy (rather than
>> competitive capitalism).
>>
>> I'd say the big issue is dishonesty and the ease with which we swallow
>> chronic lies whole as the facts stand up against them. The idiocy is
>> in demanding paragons of virtue in politics. Honesty is not so easily
>> produced. As a population we remain crudely ignorant and politicians
>> can rely on this. I can prove over and again that voters don't know
>> what they vote for - the result being my regard as a smartarse,
>> "commie" or whatever suits. We get bogged down by popular opinion
>> (Idols in Bacon) and inane rationalist fantasies as to whether god
>> exists or not to which there is only 'answer' in sentient (Hume). We
>> rightly point to failures in communism whilst failing to spot we have
>> already been carried away in the anti-communism (even anti-democratic
>> management - see the use of the UnAmerican stuff against quite mild
>> adherents of such) that drives our resources into the hands of a tiny
>> few, leaving even 1 in 5 Americans poor etc. and wars all over -let
>> alone poverty through massive over-breeding and climate change.
>>
>> The answer is a massive change in our ways, including world-government
>> - but the rub here is this can't involve the kind of people doing
>> politics at the whim of banksterism and it does mean not allowing
>> 'riches' as currently conceived, which many think 'fair' owing to
>> propaganda. The statement on population ignorance itself needs review
>> as it can't itself be just another bid for leadership and power. On
>> the odd occasion I do chemistry for schoolkids I do experiments that
>> go bang, flash light and then a tame one in which heating Lead
>> Carbonate turns it yellow before it melts. The kids rarely understand
>> (which isn't the point). Teaching economics is much the same in
>> result - most end up with no clue and would need to be in intensive
>> educational care to get a grok. I am much more confident in my
>> scientific prognostications than on those of how we should live and a
>> viable economics. Yet the world of science is much less authoritarian
>> than that of public opinion, despite the techniques being much more
>> reliable. If you don't want to listen properly on how to make,say,
>> gunpowder - then you're free to blow your hands off. Yet how do I
>> tell anyone not to have children in excess? Recruit Indira Gandhi?
>> How do we get work done - sit around drinking tea voting?
>>
>> The basic idea is often to get everyone up to western standards - yet
>> what 'standard' do we offer? Planet burning firsts? A model that has
>> always favoured a few rich with a minor blip after WW2 and is as debt-
>> ridden as ancient Mesopotamia? A big part of the answer is the
>> setting up of complex regulation that prevents undue power accretion.
>> The human tendency in this is towards bureaucracy and that runs into n
>> iron cage (Weber). I believe computing offers new avenues -but we'd
>> have to guard against this being perverted in the usual ways. The key
>> roadblock is world peace and not believing we could have it and the
>> daft assumption just laying down our 'guns' would produce it.
>>
>> There's a massive literature that could help - the problem being few
>> read and would even watch if our media could summarise it. Should I
>> issue a bibliography? This doesn't even work at university.
>>
>> The first solution is getting resources into individual and collective
>> control with banking as a utility (rather than designed to steal them
>> as happens now even with micro-credit). This itself should produce
>> enough argument to fill several books - but watch this space. The
>> move is broadly capitalist but anti-oligarchy pro-democracy in the
>> sense of (Popper's) control of those allocated 'power'. Questions
>> immediately arise as to what is not allowable - like a bunch of
>> Taliban mistreating women and trying to build an H-bomb or burning
>> coal for the hell of it.
>>
>> To see this as other than 'castle-in-the-air' one needs an
>> understanding of social economics and the mad stuff of the mainstream
>> and what its results are. This requires a lot of negation -something
>> widely perceived (still, long after science) perceived as negative
>> because of Idols. Rigsy started a thread on Freud in which this and
>> the paranoid-schizoid and 'depressive' positions could have been
>> explored. This level of intellectualism can even lead to 'academic
>> bullying' claims in universities in these dumbed-down days. A good
>> start would be Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine' would be a start, but
>> only a start (you can get it on Movshare and the like).
>>
>> I'm much more positive than most people I know in spirit, from running
>> myself into the ground and desperate tackles to trying new stuff. One
>> meets this negative stuff everywhere from underperforming sports teams
>> to simple changes like not buying vastly over priced ink and toner and
>> getting advice from the data protection officer that means don't put
>> anything on your project website. The 'highly positive', of course
>> ain't going through the Pillars of Hercules because they'll fall off
>> the edge. The positive question is nearly always 'what junk are we in
>> thrall to now' - what is today's "flat earth theory". The big
>> challenge isn't ignorance but incompetence even to the point of not
>> recognising one's own. The arguments many think they take part in are
>> carefully structured inside highly parochial propaganda (Idols).
>> Rather than learning through gleaning the facts, most people just
>> reinforce there dullard positions - this means you (or me if I don't
>> check myself).
>>
>> Most, even in this group,lack enough knowledge to have more than mere
>> opinion, whether on how to make TNT or understand what the banking
>> crisis is. Much of what I say won't work would not be negative if you
>> knew more, but seen as pointing to reasons for radical change.
>> Classic moves include atheism meaning I must lack morality or am not
>> open-minded about god possibilities - you know the form. With, say,
>> nitroglycerin manufacture you can leave it to me (at a safe distance)
>> - but why are we generally so reluctant to learn what is available on
>> ideological and economic-practical issues? What model of the positive
>> do you guys work with - Mollyarian letting fear slip away (which is
>> complex in her elaborations, not barking), how would you get across a
>> street under fire (the answer is you don't unless there is no
>> alternative) - how do you assess what is negative?
>>
>> Many of the issues discussed in groups like this are deeply
>> constrained because most people don't study and have false views on
>> fact. I see this as key in developing 'democracy' - I'm anti-democrat
>> in the same terms as Joseph Heller's lovely book - but how many have
>> read it and would recognise I'm not being negative but asking for a
>> review of the ideas and practices for better, wider control of
>> authority and how we might achieve it? Try making nitro by just
>> bunging the constituents together (goodbye you). There would be a lot
>> of 'don't do that it's a waste of time' in my teaching on that. You
>> don't get "democracy" through a voting system alone. We can't get
>> near economic fairness until we realise just how negative the
>> 'positive modern world' is and the complexity we need to handle.
>>
>>
>> On Oct 21, 7:23 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > I'd be interested to see that enumerated as well. A frequent meme in
>> Neil's
>> > writing is that he doesn't feel most offered solutions have any real
>> value,
>> > once percolated down through human greed and incompetence.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > Neil how about listing the potential solutions as you see them? I
>> would
>> > > apperciate it as it is not something I have a talent for..
>> > > Thank you
>> > > Allan
>> >
>> > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:47 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> I think there is always a standing excuse on the greater good - that
>> > >> 'irrational capitalism' provides for it better than any rational
>> > >> solution. Our thinking is puny at such levels and we have allowed
>> > >> over-breeding into poverty just at the point we could have
>> established
>> > >> sensible regulation without cruelty. Much of the discussion is
>> > >> barking - like Chinese oligarchs saying we will all have to work
>> > >> harder and longer when There is actually not that much work to do
>> > >> thanks to productivity (other than in making oligarchs richer).
>> > >> We talk in moral argument only at simplistic levels - however
>> abstruse
>> > >> the language gets and have little grasp of how complex systems work
>> > >> and how they might be controlled. Gabby is always right in my view
>> to
>> > >> point to the issue that control easily becomes the problem as even
>> > >> legitimate authority is used illegitimately. Yet there is always a
>> > >> default and this is what the oligarchs rely on. It's almost like
>> > >> those pesky downloads that screw your browser settings Allan.
>> >
>> > >> If one takes a concept like 'artifactuality' - roughly those things
>> > >> produced as artifacts (which splendidly moves nothing) - we find
>> works
>> > >> of art, buildings, tools and so on - the mistake is to see this as
>> > >> human and 'unnatural'. We find animals and plants doing the same in
>> > >> their terms. I'd even suggest we find molecules doing it, even
>> > >> water. It's in nature, so what might this mean? If one hands out
>> > >> vaccines like Gates one can hardly say this is wrong and yet medicine
>> > >> can be seen as producing poverty through overpopulation. A 'bigger
>> > >> cake' meaning disproportionate wealth for a few yet still bigger
>> > >> slices for all seems OK - but what if the bigger cake is burning the
>> > >> planet (just another case of the tragedy of the Commons)? What if
>> the
>> > >> disproportion itself is intolerably cruel or inevitably anti-
>> > >> democratic?
>> >
>> > >> We have some potential solutions - but I don't see them in much of
>> our
>> > >> dialogue, even in here.
>> >
>> > >> On Oct 21, 5:21 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >> > It seems the term "for the greater good ." disappeared from the
>> language
>> > >> > especially from government.
>> > >> > Allan
>> >
>> > >> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:32 AM, archytas <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > >> > > I'm stuck at another level too Chris - it was always little old
>> > >> > > 'critical me' that got funding and such. When going to such
>> things as
>> > >> > > university creativity sessions and find them led by some clown
>> with 50
>> > >> > > bright ideas to get the business going what do you do other than
>> toss
>> > >> > > the book '!01 Bright Ideas To Get Your Business Going' on the
>> desk and
>> > >> > > leave? I found universities not to be centres of excellence but
>> full
>> > >> > > of dullards or clown rules that prevented real work. I
>> sometimes find
>> > >> > > a few people to work with, have heard the 'Molly experience' and
>> never
>> > >> > > seen it do anything but damage - though Molly has an edge I
>> could see
>> > >> > > getting through.
>> > >> > > With sports teams and some students you have to stop the
>> pre-selection
>> > >> > > of defeat - but you also have to spot where the brick walls not
>> to run
>> > >> > > at are.
>> > >> > > I had a fantastic chance about 15 years back with a firm that
>> wanted
>> > >> > > to abolish its organisational structure in favour of project
>> teams,
>> > >> > > and go paperless. The top level was a great success and the
>> paperless
>> > >> > > thing worked better than I hoped. There were load of positive
>> payoffs
>> > >> > > - but huge resentment in the groups doing routine and scut work.
>> All
>> > >> > > in all though it was a buzz but a lot of people got left behind.
>> I
>> > >> > > have no problem with this kind of efficiency move - but there
>> should
>> > >> > > be more consideration of how to work with those who can't cope
>> other
>> > >> > > than junking to the reserve army of unemployment. Without going
>> into
>> > >> > > detail, this is why I think we need social solutions not
>> individual
>> > >> > > ones. And I think the social is too broken to start with
>> letting fear
>> > >> > > fall away.
>> >
>> > >> > > On Oct 20, 10:57 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >> > > > "I guess that fear is the load we are experiencing"
>> >
>> > >> > > > My world changed immeasurably when the fear fell away.
>> >
>> > >> > > > On Oct 19, 1:25 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> > > > > I can't take it myself to be honest Chris. Derrida used to
>> say we
>> > >> are
>> > >> > > > > in spirit positive. In Anglo-Saxon terms he was just a
>> liberal,
>> > >> almost
>> > >> > > > > priestly as a bloke over a few beers. I was younger then,
>> still
>> > >> able
>> > >> > > > > to knock things over and feel it was worth the bother. I
>> suspect
>> > >> we
>> > >> > > > > don't understand "negation" very well. Gabby (bless) always
>> has
>> > >> some
>> > >> > > > > - or it seems that way (I remember very positive support of
>> me
>> > >> some
>> > >> > > > > years back) - and the question arising is when this becomes
>> as
>> > >> much
>> > >> > > > > censorship as all the other stuff we might brand as that. It
>> isn't
>> > >> > > > > "negation" or the sting of criticism that really gets to me,
>> more
>> > >> > > > > selfish attitudes in what I feel as madness, triumphed as
>> positive
>> > >> but
>> > >> > > > > perpetual children. I like kids and even childish behaviour
>> as
>> > >> > > > > entertainment. I can't stand the failure of education in
>> making a
>> > >> > > > > decent society of responsible adults.
>> > >> > > > > I've done a lot more than most in playing the game - £7
>> million in
>> > >> > > > > research/project grants doesn't come from admissions
>> projects will
>> > >> > > > > fail in the business plan. But the critical eye has to
>> admit the
>> > >> > > > > majority fail and I was often signing-off on lies. £9K for
>> > >> university
>> > >> > > > > tutoring (outside of science and engineering) goes to fund
>> middle-
>> > >> > > > > class lifestyles of the university hangers-on not towards the
>> > >> > > > > education of the young person. When last full-time, I was
>> > >> teaching
>> > >> > > > > 100 FTEs at least (200 times £9K = £900K in fees leaving
>> £810K
>> > >> after
>> > >> > > > > my costs). I could have done a better job for the students
>> with
>> > >> > > > > properly organised distance learning and a 'university'
>> organised
>> > >> > > > > around local pubs, theartres and sports clubs done through
>> social
>> > >> > > > > media - the overhead costed at around £100K (electronic
>> library
>> > >> > > > > etc.). A better education with much more opportunity for
>> small
>> > >> > > > > business involvement and so on at under a third of the cost
>> and
>> > >> one
>> > >> > > > > not building onerous debt. What is negative in this? And
>> sadly,
>> > >> the
>> > >> > > > > answer is easy middle-class incomes. I can go on an explain
>> how
>> > >> even
>> > >> > > > > these would not be affected as we could expand more practical
>> > >> > > > > education and work development. I'm talking here of a more
>> > >> social,
>> > >> > > > > more tutor supported education better than the expensive,
>> debt-
>> > >> > > > > producing fantasy we're forcing kids into. And one with
>> lots of
>> > >> local
>> > >> > > > > creative possibilities with less bureaucracy and vastly
>> increased
>> > >> > > > > 'civic' involvement.
>> > >> > > > > You have to 'deconstruct' to get to the above idea - and
>> elsewhere
>> > >> in
>> > >> > > > > terms of stuff like agricultural and manufacturing
>> productivity we
>> > >> > > > > have done this with little thought on the jobs lost by
>> workers -
>> > >> > > > > indeed we've run roughshod over 'them'. The point in the
>> negation
>> > >> > > > > should be positive - about the use of efficiency for general
>> well-
>> > >> > > > > being and the creation of wider prosperity, probably
>> redefined.
>> >
>> > >> > > > > What's hard, Chris, is facing-up to what life means to most
>> people
>> > >> -
>> > >> > > > > the economics I've never taught (but colleagues have from a
>> single
>> > >> > > > > text book) leads to a few very rich and the rest in
>> > >> debt-rent-mortgage
>> > >> > > > > peonage and the arms' race. It must be obvious we barely
>> have
>> > >> even
>> > >> > > > > capitalism. It would be great to be able to ignore politics
>> and
>> > >> the
>> > >> > > > > status quo, but we need to build so we can. The old phrase
>> from
>> > >> the
>> > >> > > > > 50's (I only know from reading) was 'structuring freedom'.
>> The
>> > >> human
>> > >> > > > > population has tripled since I was born (I reject personal,
>> > >> intimate
>> > >> > > > > responsibility!) - all very 'free' - producing planet
>> burning and
>> > >> soon
>> > >> > > > > 'competition for air'. Raising questions about how complex
>> > >> freedom
>> > >> > > > > is.
>> >
>> > >> > > > > The weight on us - if we think for improved practice - is
>> > >> complexity
>> > >> > > > > that most use simple Idols on to make their sense. I played
>> rugby
>> > >> and
>> > >> > > > > was a cop. The whole Bradford Northern front row were less
>> > >> > > > > intimidating than the mad munter of some low-life I might
>> nick
>> > >> with a
>> > >> > > > > bread knife. The rules and structure of the competition allow
>> > >> rugby -
>> > >> > > > > but what rules and structure would allow a decent society.
>> Not
>> > >> every
>> > >> > > > > claim can count in trying to do that do should, in principle
>> be
>> > >> heard
>> > >> > > > > so we don't 'go total' like some Spanish Fascit (fair typo)
>> > >> stealing
>> > >> > > > > babies from their ideologically unsound mothers.
>> >
>> > >> > > > > I guess that fear is the load we are experiencing - maybe
>> like
>> > >> that of
>> > >> > > > > animals in hierarchies under all kinds of complex leader
>> power -
>> > >> just
>> > >> > > > > look what cockroaches and bees do to members in their
>> 'reaching
>> > >> > > > > consensus rules'. Even the really positive is negative - we
>> can
>> > >> now
>> > >> > > > > support human life without much effort - so why do
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > read more »
>
>
>
>
> --
> (
> )
> |_D Allan
>
> Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
>
>
>
--
(
)
|_D Allan
Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
