This also fits the narrative of this thread: the Financial Times Deutschland is bankrupt. http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/media-woes-hit-germany-as-financial-times-deutschland-goes-under-a-869001.html
2012/11/25 archytas <[email protected]> > Actually rigsy I practice soup tin economics myself. Inflation is a > word used by clowns who don't need to count the pennies. The basic > grocery basket I was buying in 2008 now costs double. The classic > marker for me is Heinz tomato soup - it was 25p then if bought in a 4 > pack - now at least 50p. I quess almost anyone can see that's a four > year 100% rate. > The cloud-cuckoo land economics isn't much more difficult. The truth > is most people remain grossly ignorant of what matters even if > apparently intelligent. Think of ancient Greeks spouting virtue > ethics whilst keeping slaves, pontificating on hard work whilst living > off the backs of others - reading old Russians (but please only take > this with a smile) while Don has a plan to get away through a back > door. The question I'd put to you in friendship rigsy is why you know > so little economics. I've taught many competent women over the years > and most of them took longer than me to work out they could do the > 'maths'. Economics isn't housekeeping, but housekeeping principles > can be applied to it to considerable extent. The conclusion is we are > being stiffed by a bunch of predominantly male gamblers. > > > > > The first question in my 101 classes is: > Tell me the difference between a risk taker and a moron. > > > > > The next is to list some groceries and get students to go out and > price them up in different stores - we then look at how different > countries buy grain and question how prices are set. This leads to > explanations of the Arab Spring (I leave the steps out here). > > > > > The next is the question on why the class knows so little economics > and probably more than me about Jane Austin, fashion, video games and > the sex lives of celebrities. I tell them this is because I'm a > boring old fart if the class is mostly teenage. People over mid-20s > are already asking why we've all been had so easily. > > > > > Do to the dogs Andrew - real working-class gambling. Most people will > say they are breaking even or up a bit. Maybe bet the favourites to > see how quickly you can lose. See how much money you can put in a > slot machine that 'pays out' 75% in an hour - some of them keep £250 > an hour. In most bookmaker involved gambling the book is set to take > about 25% of total stake and everyone else loses. The admin costs of > an equivalent totaliser are around 2%. I did the night at the dogs > thing with a 50 quid Paddy Power free bet. I had to put up 50 as > well. Laid bets on Racing Post form - came home with £72 - the usual > 25% bookmaker take. The rest of the minibus did the freebet thing > betting on fancy. Ten lost and 2 won. > > > > > Rich gambling is different, but the question is how. The Racing Post > is replaced by Moody's reports (and so on) on 'form'. As in dog and > horse racing much insider knowledge on the health, preparedness and so > on is involved. The banks and hedge funds are the bookies. The > difference is the system is supposed to be risk-free if you bet the > field. This is where the money printing presses come in and is also > why rigsy's housekeeping bills are up and how banks (the 'rich') use > inflation to bet with other people's future money. > > It's not hard to understand - we could organise a 'business game' > along the lines of a night at the dogs and learn by doing. It's not > as hard as running a household - which begs the question of why rigsy > (and me) know more about literature than how the rich stiff us. We've > been educated to ignorance. I'm waiting in the hills for Don and his > ducks. > > On 25 Nov, 11:22, andrew vecsey <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > -- > > > > --
