Because human nature repeats itself? The classics are universal and timeless, aren't they? Strip away the surface differences- I think we are mistaken to think our modern gadgets make us unique, for instance.
On Sep 19, 11:13 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure human nature remains the same - it may be that literature > repeats itself. > > On 19 Sep, 15:08, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I'm in shock with your suggestion! > > > I am reading "Le Rouge et le Noir" (Stendhal) and trying to avoid > > current events being more comfortable with 1830 France at the moment > > though there are many political similarities and human nature remains > > the same. It has had the effect of quashing my rash thoughts on the > > present. > > > Not sure we share the same definition of leisure. Shouldn't I then be > > having more fun? Shock has melted into morning laughter... > > > On Sep 18, 12:08 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Suppose that a company earns $1 million dollars of profit in a year. > > > About $400,000 must be paid in income tax. A corporate raider will buy > > > the company’s stockholders (equity owners), for $10 million in junk > > > bonds. The entire $1 million dollars of profit will now be paid to the > > > banker or the bondholder in the form of interest. The company won’t > > > report a profit, so there is no tax payment. The financial manager > > > will hope to increase the company’s price (to re-sell it on the stock > > > exchange) by cutting costs or selling off its pieces to make a capital > > > gain. This is how Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Bain > > > Capital made money. It is “balance sheet” engineering, not aimed at > > > raising production or living standards. > > > Read more > > > athttp://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/09/michael-hudson-on-how-finance-... > > > > I worked for an asset-stripper in the 80s. The rationalisation back > > > then was that what we did was good for the economy because our > > > activities sharpened-up competitive practices and cleaned-up weak > > > companies with dud management. We knew this argument was a dud back > > > then. The essential way we worked was to use private detectives and > > > to bribe insiders to learn about likely targets. We did spend time > > > looking a company accounts and what Moody's records might have to > > > say. Key issues were to identify large cash drains to LOMBARDS (loads- > > > a-money but are right dicks), undervalued properties and 'dirt on > > > senior management leverage'. > > > > I'd vote for Don or rigsy for President or PM well ahead of clowns > > > like Romney, Obama, Cameron and Blair (seriously - me and Al are mad > > > enough to be fit only for foreign policy jobs). The article the quote > > > above comes from says most of what is wrong - but I can remember the > > > time when Labour politicians in Britain sounded the same - talk was of > > > the 'Gnomes of Zurich', selective employment tax (to encourage > > > manufacturing) and investing North Sea Oil. > > > > I take the criminality of financial services as read these days. The > > > metaphor in my head comes from the westerns in which the bad guys sold > > > whiskey and guns to the Injuns. The financial sector villains have > > > armed China and probably armed Hitler's Germany (see 'Conjuring > > > Hitler'). > > > > Germany is probably the most efficient manufacturing nation these > > > days, but the ultimate contradiction on all th urging towards > > > efficiency leads to super-manufacturing countries like Germany and > > > China (Britain and the US once) that have to sell products to > > > inefficient countries like Britain, the US, Greece, Spain and so on. > > > As a model this is an obvious non-starter. > > > > You can get some idea where manufacturing now is by looking at steel > > > production here > > > -http://www.worldsteel.org/statistics/statistics-archive/2011-steel-pr... > > > > It's pretty obvious we have the rules of competition and money wrong > > > and that political discussion about this is either ignorant or just > > > plain lying. Backs have been broken for all kinds of pathological > > > leadership whim throughout history. Easter Island statues, > > > Stonehenge, Pyramids and all variety of ape wars we call history. > > > > Economics lacks questions like 'how much work should rigsy have to do > > > to be able to live in peace and make blueberry pie'? I suspect the > > > answer in the broader case of what percentage of our effort goes to > > > providing water, food, shelter, proper protection from a hostile > > > environment (earthquakes, historical global warming etc.), the > > > advancement of science and technology and freedom from bandits, > > > religious and otherwise is less than a quarter of what we generally > > > think it is. > > > > The issue is about producing a leisure society for all that works and > > > can make work happen given slacking potential and free-riding. I am > > > totally demotivated at the thought of both earning more per hour than > > > the next ten people around me in the pub and of contributing anything > > > to rich donkeys like Romney or some soccer star (which happens without > > > doing anything as direct as watching a soccer match). I also prefer > > > to holiday where the lager louts don't, where the attraction is a > > > brilliant German bakery with a couple of tables for coffee and > > > excellent cakes and a Bavarian lady who won't serve me more than two > > > and shares a chateaubriand with me in the evening. Sorry Don, it's > > > rigsy for President - I'm sure you follow the argument!- Hide quoted text > > > - > > - Show quoted text - --
