I think risk takers are entrepreneurs that start companies- solo or as a group- and it's their product/service that should be judged. It's also the investors who support that company. Both need capital to invest- private funds or a loan. Both expect a reward- ususally financial. Sometimes workers are included in the reward system. Who owns the farm, the company, the store? Who deserves the family inheritance? Etc. Why punish capitalism?
On Feb 2, 9:11 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > No problems with that analysis rigs and thinking about it I do gamble > like that with real friends (usually bridge). I'd have to quibble on > the dictionary definition - this isn't quite what "rents" are in > economics. I'd have to go on a lot to explain in full. Rigs hits the > key element anyway - 'systems that the average person cannot access or > control'. Oil has been a classic example of economic rent - this was > largely done by controlling distribution in order to extract a much > higher price that production costs - this included preventing new > sources of supply in the market until well after WW2. Barings Bank > was involved in a typical example of false monopoly trading over > cochineal in the 18th century (it was then a major commodity in > leather tanning) - examples are legion - modern cases involve exchange > traded funds attempting to monopolise silver, copper and food. > > Accounts can't be read as Allan suggests - the notion of following the > money could apply, but you soon discover the documentation is written > to prevent this and find yourself in a world of transfer pricing and > star burst wire transfers, 105 repos, channel stuffing and companies > claiming profits of 2.5 billion reporting 3.5 billion tax loses > (Enron). When I worked for Hanson very little attention was paid to > formal accounts in valuing a prospective takeover victim - otherwise > anyone with a copy of Moodys or the like could be an asset-stripper- > style investor. The game involved private investigators and inside > information on such matters as whether property portfolios were under- > valued and how many LOMBARDS (lots of money but re right dicks) could > be stripped out, how much tax could be avoided by new accounting > techniques and so on. The sum was then how much the company was worth > under new administration, less what it could be bought for - though > even this involved deals with existing management to get it cheap > through various pressures and whether we could be bought off through > greenmail. > > Capital itself is not neutral, let alone the system of accounting for > it. In fact we allow utterly criminal activity such as private equity > managers putting all the worthwhile firm assets in a fund worth > millions they from and just happen to end up owning - with the rest > written-off in terms of unemployment and tax payer liability for > pensions, redundancy and loss of productive capacity. A way round > this would be to make directors accountable to juries rather than > register for Delaware protection. The test should be 'you have > millions - the rest are left with debts bigger than your pot'. I > suggest anyone thinking accounting neutral read the 2011 Wells Fargo > stuff and ask themselves if they understood anything after the first 9 > pages. On about page 261 you will find $273 million losses mentioned > - try and follow that money! Allan, I think, describes what the > situation should be, not what it is. > > I think rigs' risk takers are in fact thieves who have found a way to > eliminate criminal risk in a combination of writing the law and > lawyers. A big problem remains on how we can get investment done > decently without just shifting it to the hands of a politburo of state > capitalism. We know some of the answers to this - but they are > rarely discussed because the nightmare of Soviet Paradise is used to > kill off debate. If this doesn't work we are told our wanted > transparency will just make our businesses severely disadvantaged over > global competition that can cheat. > > I need to follow some money for a paper at the moment - its on how > much money the UK and US tax payer has put up to save the financial > institutions and where that is now. Fancy a bit of research Allan? I > currently have very different accounts - our National Audit Office > (for instance) shows a relatively small amount that has already be > repaid in some fair measure. However, this doesn't include QE. > Elsewhere I find much larger amounts, forever increasing that do > include QE and other BoE and Fed dodges and severe doubts on how to > value assets in the system. This is before I look at the 'opportunity > costs' against investing this money in productive capacity, employment > (etc) whether directly or just by giving the money to pay down private > debt in a jubilee. I can't discover what accounts our governments are > being fed through which they protect financial services - they > presumably believe such in our national interests. I have done a lot > of work but simply can't reach figures I can use other than in > speculation. I suspect every household in the UK could have been > given £120K and a higher amount in the US - but I also suspect the > money has gone to banks to hide vast losses that are the product of a > massive, unproductive bubble. > > The lack of reliable (neutral) accounts is appalling. The money > involved is clearly subsidy of the kind thrusting entrepreneurs claim > not to need and clearly our alleged risk takers (who are getting > richer) seems to have found a way to evade personal risk at our > expense. Frankly, the more I feel I can claim to know in this mess, > the more I think they do no more than use our money to be on the 3.30 > p.m. and the rest of the card, keep the winnings and stiff us with the > losses. I don't know the full story. If there was a neutral, full > accounting system I suspect we all would. > > Having fun is having fun Allan. I doubt any of rigs' guests who lost > are now her indentured debt peons! > > On 2 Feb, 12:55, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Interesting rigsy you found games that taught lying and cheating and > > general dishonesty fun.. that is a strange sense of morality.. or is > > it the preparation for loss of morality? > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:47 PM, rigs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > My dictionary (Random House Collegiate) defines rentiers as those > > > living on a fixed income, as from land or bonds. (French) Of course > > > nothing is "fixed" anymore since there are many ways to impact any > > > security one holds.//There many ways we gamble whether we define it > > > that way or not. Frankly, it is a risk to be born when you come right > > > down to it but what's the alternative? I don't gamble but did give a > > > gambling dinner party for four couples many years ago that was a lot > > > of fun- included liar's dice, roulette and ended with a live turtle > > > race.//I think you are talking about all the middle men that stand > > > between a person and his money/land and that would include governments > > > who decide to throw a war or tax the pants off you or make sure you > > > are dependent on their services.//Yes- politicians, lawyers and > > > brokers along with other professionals are in the business of making > > > money off your money by establishing systems that the average person > > > cannot access or control. > > > > On Feb 1, 11:32 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> I tend to 'count the legs of nags' I back rigs (from time to time - I > > >> don't gamble much). It's hard to tell the difference between a risk > > >> taker and a moron. All gamblers lose unless they have an edge. One- > > >> armed bandits are properly named. Given they are allowed to take 25% > > >> it's very easy to work out how to run them at no risk at all. I don't > > >> play cards for money with friends (because I win). Gamblers with edge > > >> either have the rules stacked in their favour or inside information. > > >> In most sports the idea is not to play the high risk game and get the > > >> other team to take them. I'd love to know what you think risk is. > > > >> The rentier-class is totally risk averse and practices usury - they > > >> seek he bookmakers' position (there are some risks in some such > > >> positions), preferably extracting fees rather than being at risk > > >> should certain results flow. We continue to bail them out - so what > > >> was at risk? As we bail them out, they get richer but don't offer > > >> these riches up as at risk to pay us back.One does find more Americans > > >> have swallowed the risk-thrusting-capitalist myth than across Europe - > > >> but our oligarchies continue along very similar lines. I don't > > >> remember being asked to allow bankers money creation or use asset > > >> inflation to back Ponzi schemes. I think you have this one upside > > >> down. They've turned what should be an investment system into a > > >> gambling club that pays out stipends and privileges as surely as to > > >> any nomenclature. > > > >> On 1 Feb, 15:18, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > Neither is capitalism an accounting system... Accounting is > > >> > accounting and simply tells you where your money is going and where > > >> > it is.. it is not an economic system accounting will work with > > >> > any "ism" > > > >> > Sorry about the delay answering Neil.. Over simplification of > > >> > spiritual concept is a blessing not a curse.. It is meant and stated > > >> > so that even a child can understand what is said and abide by the > > >> > spiritual idea. As I see it stating simple ideas into complex > > >> > statements is not much more than an excuse to use when trying follow a > > >> > spiritual path.. > > >> > If a child can understand a spiritual path, then hopefully you too > > >> > can understand the path to follow. > > > >> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 2:57 PM, rigs <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > As if socialism is not also an accounting system!!! It is possible > > >> > > for > > >> > > capitalism to be compassionate and altruistic versus enforcement with > > >> > > hidden motives.//We have not escaped the past either. You may still > > >> > > be > > >> > > eating grass porridge as oatmeal. :-) > > > >> > > On Jan 31, 7:30 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > >> I like the divine right analogy rigs. I don't favour capitalism for > > >> > >> much the same > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
