It is no more exciting than www.drudgereport.com or a daily news story that gets tossed in for laughs or shock. A serious writer can teach us much about human nature and behavior. An advantage to fiction versus film is that we are allowed the interior thought processes>motive>actions. History often just guesses at the interior thoughts.
On Sep 22, 6:15 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes and it makes for the most exciting news as it is easier to shape as > required to fit. > Allan > On Sep 22, 2012 1:09 PM, "rigsy03" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Fiction is just another source of information. > > > On Sep 21, 12:26 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm only guessing rigsy - but my feelings are that we are confused on > > > universals by literature that essentially copies itself. I like > > > Joseph Heller's 'Picture This' on the matter. The story I read in > > > history is that human beings get very confused about what matters and > > > do all kinds of mad, trivial stuff. I'm currently watching England > > > thrash Afghanistan at cricket. This is better than our involvement in > > > the sad country generally. Hannah Arendt once said we can manage > > > quite nicely without romantic love. I think technology could make us > > > distinct in history - but agree it hasn't. Our bombs aren't much more > > > lethal than heavy infantry with short swords in the last hours of > > > ancient battles, for instance. We still operate work through debt > > > peonage. Legal systems still operate through fictions like witness > > > credibility and, very importantly, lack of general ability to get > > > independent investigation. > > > > I found Shakespeare hapless as a young boy - my reasons have changed > > > but I still find the stuff trivial - though I thought Deadwood was > > > hugely funny and somewhat revealing on human nature and language. > > > Some years back, if you had (say) a Brother printer, most of your apps > > > wouldn't work with the damn thing. You had to flip some dip switches > > > and make the machine think it was an Epson to print from your > > > wordprocessor. I actually think this tells us more (in conjunction > > > with genetics) about human nature than literature content - other than > > > that human beings like the same old repeated dross and very limited > > > plots. I agree the i-phone is little more than a modern cod-piece > > > accessory. > > > > When I did systems engineering I always found that management were the > > > greatest barrier to management information systems. The literature > > > shows they always resist any equality if access, wanting to have > > > personal advantage. Stock trading is the current classic, with all > > > kinds of dodges in use to give time advantage just as in days of > > > yore. We have no problems with robots doing manual work or taking > > > over factory skills through embodied knowledge, but resist making > > > professions into utilities. We tried to do this through expert > > > systems in the late 1980s - I thought then we over-estimated the > > > skills involved and ignored the essential corruption of professions. > > > Modern films are usually dumber than westerns. > > > > On 21 Sep, 02:05, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --
