I think the problem equates to an organised crime skim.
On Jan 24, 7:32 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > the pipe line is not a real loss it goes through a lot of sensitive > habitat.. the loss of it thank the republicans,, The economic whoa is > brought on by Reagan.. and the two Bushes,, > > When you blame the destruction caused by three economic tornadoes on the > person and people trying to clear up the economic wreckage ,,, made more > difficult by people doing everything they can to retain the economic mess > because it is very profitable to them. > > I think the economic bail out money needs to be repaid.. completely > before bonuses and with interest.This bail out money is not and never > should be considered free money. Yes these are the very people who brought > on the present economic crisis. > Allan > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > -- > ( > ) > |_D Allan > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
