There is a big difference with the normal person speculating....like when he gambles, and a rich person speculating.... when he gambles with money from foreign nations or speculated on houses that other people must live in. The first is a game that generally does not disrupt people outside the speculators circle of family and friends. The latter is a game that plays havoc on the citizens of an entire nation or people of an entire neighborhood.
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 3:48:13 AM UTC+1, rigsy03 wrote: > > I was thinking today that all classes speculate- from horse traders- > bingo-lottery-casino- really, an endless list. Wall Street is just > another version of speculation. It's really a shame that Obama has > derided success/wealth- I find him to be a very divisive type and an > unfortunate leader then remind myself of humanity riding out cruel or > weak emperors, tyrants and kings. Then I "whistle a happy tune"! :-) > > On Nov 14, 9:54 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > It would be interesting to know who the rich are. Orwell said > > somewhere that propaganda reduced a word to one meaning. We tend to > > stereotype. I think this would be about what they do and don't do > > rather than naming names. I'd take the following guesses: > > > > 1. They mostly don't fight in wars. > > 2. They get a lot of education in networks not generally available - > > both in private schools and elite management of better state > > provision. This tend to make education a means to foster lack of > > social mobility and part of the continuation of privilege. > > 3. A lot of them are to be found in finance and professions that are > > the most heavily "unionised" places of restrictive practice. > > 4. You won't find them doing hard work (only for fools and horses). > > 5. They are the politburo controlling what we call politics. > > 6. Criminal money and tax dodging play a big role. > > 7. They are linked to ancient landlord rents in modern form. > > 8. They don't take risks, but leave the rest of us holding the baby. > > > > On 14 Nov, 13:25, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > ... > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > --
