I want to be Eliot Ness! But that's the problem it wouldn't be me it'd be some other bozo with his own agenda and friends and my wants and needs would be way down his list if on it at all. This is why I generally support less power for government not more. Less power means less money. And visa versa.
Just read about the IMF predicting Euro Eco Meltdown unless they get more money to Spain and Italy RIGHT NOW. More alarmist claptrap or dire actual need? Like our friend Kenny, idk. What I do know, or at least think I know, is that Spain and Italy fully expect to get their bailout. Like you, Neil, I'm bothered that the very rich get bailed out with no consequences for their bad investments and bad decisions while, as you note, us middle-classers foot the collective bill. I want to see some investment bankers lose their shirts. The Solyndra's and MF Global Execs should be going to prison but they won't be. They didn't break any laws(apparently) just the public's trust. I'd love to bust into their warehouse and shoot the place up with double barrel shot-guns and confiscate their houses and boats and jet airplanes but at the same time I don't want to give that power to others that might want to do the same to my beloved energy companies. Houston energy companies. It's a conundrum. Still waiting for my pipeline from Cananda Mr. President... Wondering if your speech tomorrow will be about how we're all going to be energy independant under your guidance without explaining how your bans on domestic drilling while bank rolling drilling in Brazil(???) will help us do that. Nah, it's going to be about how it's not your fault. Bush and a do-nothing Congress will get all the blame. Wait and see if I'm right. I don't think Mr. Obama understands what leadership is. He's very good at covering his ass though. Very, very good. dj On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:44 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > If you haven't guessed, I should make it clear I think the modern > marxism is very old and hapless. There are now much more severe and > data-based concerns within economics than these clapped out fuddy- > duddies can muster. Obama is about to try and tell the US public that > not prosecuting the wealthy over mortgage fraud and using pension > money to pay out a bogus settlement is a success. I doubt we need any > "social epistemology" (the current term for marxism) to help us but > rather some untouchable cops and new rules on who gets to Capitol Hill > or Westminster. Our problems are moral. > > On Jan 23, 4:37 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n02/slavoj-zizek/the-revolt-of-the-salaried-... > > > > The above is a link to the London Review of Books. The argument made > > is fairly sound and reminds me how little Marx and rival American > > writing on economics of his time have been understood. It starts with > > a bit on Microsoft - for me a classic case in modern economics and the > > creation of "rent" - a concept put forward in Marx's time by Henry > > George in "Poverty and Progress". There's a compelling logic in the > > argument made most in here will get. My own view has long been that > > the needed arguments don't exist in economics or politics because we > > won't face up to them. "Rent" is key in this, but the real issue is > > we cannot free ourselves of ideology because of the comfort it gives > > us - a perverse comfort that leads to much obscene discomfort in the > > world. > > > > Most of us think that it's fair for someone to work hard and take what > > reward comes. We like simple dross like this. It has a compelling > > logic as long as we don't examine it too closely. The problem, of > > course, is that our cosy belief in this prevents us looking at what it > > produces - rich people with inordinate political and other power over > > the lives of others and what constitutes "hard work", "smart work" and > > "reward". We can easily note the compelling logic of modern marxism > > rather suits the interests of - gosh - the modern marxist industry. I > > know quite a few who live very easily on what I consider glib > > critique. Habermas sought to establish (as an ideal type) a form of > > dialogue with the only interest at work being Reason - but that's > > rationalist fantasy. > > > > The questions we need to address are about bureaucracy and human > > nature. One conundrum is that most of us can see that most > > accumulated wealth has not been fairly acquired, but also that handing > > over supervision of this to a set of commissioners is likely to be > > worse than leaving things alone - though I don't think most of us > > realise quite what modern reality is.
