Funny. The modern concious self has gotten very talented at avoiding a conscience let alone going through a thorough examination, Roman Catholic style, but it's been a bonanza for shrinks and do-it-yourself writers and advisors to fill the vacuum. And the super rich, as Gabby points out, generally try to crack the upper crust- as a source of future monetary opportunities, as a justification, as a display, as a safety factor. Few realize money has become a product in and of itself- like a bonanza crop for a farmer and even fewer complain when then are making money (Madoff''s "investors", etc.)
On Nov 14, 2:28 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > That is true,, I think i misspelled as usual conscious,, you know the > thing that nags you when you are doing something wrong.. > Allan > > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 9:11 AM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > It depends on what you understand by 'social conscious'. The super > > rich by necessity have to be 'social conscious' in order to be able to > > develop further. You don't need to have 'social conscious' if there is > > nothing that you can do to participate in the given richness. > > > 2012/11/14 Allan H <[email protected]>: > >> It is the super rich that filled their pockets from the world's debt. From > >> the looks of things there is a form or lack of social conscious > >> that is lacking. > > >> Allan > >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light > > >> On Nov 13, 2012 8:50 PM, "archytas" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> There is hardly anything more important to thriving functioning > >>> capitalism than productivity, and sharing the fruits of productivity. > >>> It is notable that productivity among U.S. workers actually > >>> skyrocketed over the last decade and a half, but real wages have > >>> flattened or declined. > >>> Where did the surpluses go? To parasitic financializers who have seen > >>> their share over all corporate profits grow from 10% to over 45% in > >>> recent decades. > >>> After costing trillions and wiping out the world economy, what asset, > >>> good, or service do big banks produce that has genuine public worth? > > >>> • “Expert advice”, in which brokers intentionally sell junk to > >>> consumers, as shown in investment bank emails? > >>> • “Financial services”, which turn out to be so laden with hidden fees > >>> and loosened/fabricated credit qualifications that the lendee is worse > >>> off? > >>> • Allegiances that concentrate financial wealth the top 0.1% of the > >>> population, causing the vast majority of the world to get poorer? > > >>> If anything, citizens would stand to gain more by paying big banks to > >>> close their doors. > > >>> Big banks have largely stopped lending to businesses or individuals > >>> because that’s not profitable enough and because they need to retain > >>> capital to reduce their exposure due to their own foolish > >>> overleveraging. This depresses community and small business > >>> entrepreneurship and productivity. > > >>> Bottom line: Big banks’ “services” take far more in costs than they > >>> provide in benefits. Much would be gained, and little lost, if they > >>> were allowed to fail or were decommissioned outright for their > >>> criminal behavior. > > >>> The bail outs could have been given to individuals and families > >>> instead of the banks - we would probably have been looking at $120,000 > >>> a family. > > >>> It's not the roar of the crowd rigsy - we might call that socially > >>> approved epistemic authority. It's about forming decent culture and > >>> that we are less individual than we are made to think. Ask people if > >>> they have a figure on what the TARP and the rest have cost each one of > >>> us - you'll generally come up dry. If people struggle even with > >>> basics like this what chance complex schemes of internal training? > > >>> On 13 Nov, 19:28, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > The US has lots of problems it does not want to admit to.. There is one > >>> > extremely dangerous quake off the northwest coast .. that will happen > >>> > more sooner than later. > >>> > Allan > > >>> > Matrix ** th3 beginning light > >>> > On Nov 13, 2012 1:59 PM, "rigsy03" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > You seem to see morality as a group thing rather than an individual > >>> > > struggle between good and evil- which is a religious/spiritual matter. > >>> > > As for individualism, it is a necessary tension against "the roar of > >>> > > the crowd". There are too many examples to list. > > >>> > > On Nov 12, 9:49 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > > > Even one person one vote isn't it on its own. Majorities are > >>> > > > manipulable and often wrong. If you look at an issue like abortion > >>> > > > - > >>> > > > which I think should be available and also avoided by better sexual > >>> > > > practice - there might be a majority against for all sorts of > >>> > > > superstitious reasons. The US relies on Roe v Wade rather than > >>> > > > statute. For all the romanticism of Irish republicanism, they leave > >>> > > > a > >>> > > > young, raped girl to 'her fate'. I believe there comes a time when > >>> > > > we > >>> > > > should have help to slip from the mortal coil but one can > >>> > > > immediately > >>> > > > see problems. Molly talks of embracing pardoxes - but much of the > >>> > > > difficulty concerns cultural ideologies based in the manipulation of > >>> > > > ignorance. Any half-wit should be able to grasp that the treatment > >>> > > > of > >>> > > > wages as a cost to be hammered down is inconsistent with a developed > >>> > > > economy and genuinely available opportunity for most. Yet our > >>> > > > politics treats the dominant ideology of a race to the bottom on > >>> > > > wages > >>> > > > as as taken as read as any Soviet claptrap. Worker unions are to be > >>> > > > detested, yet managers, owners and professionals are more unionised > >>> > > > than any set of mine workers in history. > > >>> > > > Science more or less accepts we are good and evil and that the unit > >>> > > > that promotes good behaviour is the social. Virtue ethics arise in > >>> > > > writing within an unchallenged slave economy - I don't want to be > >>> > > > 'pure' and live off the backs of others (though inevitably as I grow > >>> > > > creaky I do). I'm sick of phrases like 'flexible employment' that > >>> > > > mean a return of 'you, you and not you' casual labour and managerial > >>> > > > abuse in a unitary framework of the employment relationship. > >>> > > > Disgusted would be a more accurate term - much morality comes with > >>> > > > that feeling (scientifically). > > >>> > > > The story of what is happening in America and the imposition of > >>> > > > 'individualist' ideology (a bad joke when one looks at the lack of > >>> > > > it > >>> > > > in American Football) has been long told. When are we individual > >>> > > > and > >>> > > > when are we selfish prats? You look very individual when you step > >>> > > > the > >>> > > > big forward, stiff the sweeper, dummy the fullback and dive over the > >>> > > > line. Try doing that without the guy who gave the precision pass, > >>> > > > the > >>> > > > guys running interference and all the attrition that knackered the > >>> > > > big > >>> > > > forward giving you the edge. > > >>> > > > My grandson has just had a small knee operation free at point of > >>> > > > delivery. The hospital had a room with Xbox (all donated). We get > >>> > > > some stuff right. Must go to collect him. > > >>> > > > On 12 Nov, 09:20, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > > > I think it is it should be one person one vote,, and the > >>> > > > > corporate > >>> > > > > wallet closed completely and with a maximum amount that can be > >>> > > > > donated (nation wide ) with no exception,, > > >>> > > > > effectively the excessively rich and companies and the companies.. > >>> > > > > The super pacs need to be forced to revel all donors and the > >>> > > > > amount > >>> > > > > they donated.. and that is a minimum these organizations should > >>> > > > > be > >>> > > > > totally removed. the Pacs as a republican invention and they need > >>> > > > > to > >>> > > > > be brought into control. > > >>> > > > > the US has created a political money quagmire.. > >>> > > > > Allan > > >>> > > > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 4:48 AM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> > >>> > > > > wrote: > >>> > > > > > It's back to humane values and sensible choices, perhaps. We > >>> > > > > > don't > >>> > > > > > have to buy into the cultural or commercial hoopla. I will think > >>> > > > > > more > >>> > > > > > about this. > > >>> > > > > > On Nov 11, 2:45 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > > > > >> You are right rigsy - but we have to get somewhere beyond. > >>> > > > > >> What is > >>> > > it > >>> > > > > >> in our arguments, sentiments and the rest that hold us back? > >>> > > > > >> And > >>> > > may > >>> > > > > >> be very wrong? > > >>> > > > > >> Allan is right we could vote better with our wallets. We > >>> > > > > >> could, for > >>> > > > > >> instance, all bank with mutuals and have more local economies > >>> > > > > >> (Andrew). Problems are as Andrew says when the wallet is empty > >>> > > > > >> and > >>> > > > > >> also that we already have 'one dollar one vote'. > > >>> > > > > >> I doubt the academic-legal-commercial argument as argument at > >>> > > > > >> all. > >>> > > We > >>> > > > > >> have a paedophile scandal in the UK - but even the media > >>> > > > > >> reporting > >>> > > it > >>> > > > > >> has forgotten it reported such a generation ago (the key > >>> > > documentaries > >>> > > > > >> were called 'Cathy Come Home'.and 'Johnny Go Home') and misses > >>> > > > > >> the > >>> > > > > >> point that they key point is what evidence we can believe when > >>> > > > > >> false > >>> > > > > >> accusations are so easy to make and make life very difficult > >>> > > > > >> for > >>> > > real > >>> > > > > >> victims. Our public inquiry systems are proving increasingly > >>> > > > > >> untrustworthy. When one teaches critical reasoning it quickly > >>> > > becomes > >>> > > > > >> clear most people are no good at it. I'm quite sure our > >>> > > > > >> mainstream > >>> > > > > >> media has almost no clue and that many lawyers, judges and > >>> > > politicians > >>> > > > > >> would fail standard tests. But surely the route here cannot be > >>> > > > > >> to > >>> > > > > >> elite groups of philosopher kings - but should be towards > >>> > > > > >> properly > >>> > > > > >> available facts - leaving us with > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --
