More or less complete agreement on all that Molly. A few quid over can go to Medecins Sans Frontieres or whatever - I used to try and do what I could on the ground when travelling.
The focus on Bitcoin though has largely been on the wrong issues - and I'd say much the same is true on Modern Monetary Theory and Positive Money. Most people enter such debate in ignorance of its long history - I can find quotes 100 years old that we would be better off with a couple of honest adding machines than the banking system (Fred Soddy the Nobel chemist and a governor of the BoE in 1920). Bitcoin just replaces the term 'honest adding machine' - and it must be obvious the problem is more 'honesty' than 'adding machine'. The hundred year old term was 'lytric system' - maybe fortunately forgotten. You'd think a couple of hundred quid in a micro-finance scheme in by the Coop Bank (with fine origins) would be 'safe'. Losing the money is hardly the issue (this didn't happen) - what got to me was lack of any sensible reporting on whether the scheme was working for real people. The answers are to do with some kind of 'honest electronic currency' - the essential problems being we have to shed a lot of ideology and ignorance and produce a currency we can drive democratically and spiritually. This is explicable - but I have no doubt anyone trying is going to be subject to the Inquisition of the dominant control fraud religion - words not much use to us when we try to get some local action going. The answers (at least signposts) come out in consideration of 'deep money' - tough to discuss when people have almost no understanding how money is created as interest-bearing loans by banks. Money some of us think we have worked to store is another problem - almost none of it has been produced by the hard work of those with the positive accounts - accounts we don't actually need to have money as we can create this 'out of thin air'. Even this preamble is too shocking for most - though I doubt most here can easily see why, despite this introduction to money being accurate and 'bleeding obvious' once told about it. Nietzsche told us bourgeois morality was essentially based on being able to send the boys round to recover debts - the shock potential of enquiry into what money is is even more shocking. In terms of the theme 'who can we tell' one might look at this Rolling Stone article and think of the whistle-blower as a victim of child sexual exploitation - http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion-witness-20141106 It may be our 'personal' money-stores have already been stolen and the need for positive money is closer than we think. Hardly anyone knows enough to discuss the positive, let alone know the answers are very old indeed. On Friday, 7 November 2014 12:10:29 UTC, Molly wrote: > > I don't see any practical means of doing things differently and am open, > although have seen what folks have to say about Bitcoin and have no > interest in rehashing. Like the workplace, if we are hell bent on pushing > our own agendas over the continuation of the group or examination of ideas > then it all falls apart. > > Something practical is needed and until then I don't see the world turning > to something new. I've taken my share of risks and had my share of wins > and failure. Not really looking to risk anymore. Would just like a viable > path to invest in my own (ever limited) future on the planet. Beyond that, > the giving decisions are much easier for me. > > On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 4:03:37 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: >> >> There is practical stuff about. Everything I've looked at has the same >> problems we might find in an IPO prospectus' positive spin. Microfinance >> is the classic - looks good, seems practical and yet probably has overall >> negative effects and alarming corruption - >> http://wer.worldeconomicsassociation.org/papers/microfinance-and-the-illusion-of-development-from-hubris-to-nemesis-in-thirty-years/ >> >> Andrew has just emailed me to say 'bickering' has prevented him posting >> something on Bitcoin. Combinations of virtual currencies (I know of more >> than 80) and crowd sourcing have their temptations - though the recent >> South Park episode 'Go Fund Yourself' should not be ignored. We've had >> timebanks and local economic transfer schemes (LETS) - some quite big like >> the Swiss Wir - and communes of one kind or another. >> >> The main issue is our ignorance on money - perhaps even our idea of >> investment and interest. Nothing seems safe - my Cooperative Bank being >> "ethically run" by a drug-crazed, prostitute-using Methodist with no >> relevant qualifications. I'll try to explain, but it's chocolate biscuit >> comfort time here. >> >> On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 11:35:23 AM UTC, Molly wrote: >>> >>> You mentioned previously, Neil that there are answers. I took it to >>> mean alternate economies for the globe. I would love to be able to do >>> things differently and don't see a place to invest or even put money where >>> it isn't grabbed (negative interest coming soon to a theater near you.) >>> What are the alternatives available to an average schmo like me? >>> >>> On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 9:34:20 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote: >>>> >>>> Enigmatic can mean any of mysterious, puzzling, hard to understand, >>>> mystifying, inexplicable, baffling, perplexing, bewildering, confusing, >>>> impenetrable, inscrutable, incomprehensible, unexplainable, unfathomable, >>>> indecipherable, Delphic, oracular; ambiguous, equivocal, paradoxical, >>>> sibylline, unaccountable, insoluble, obscure, elliptical, oblique; arcane, >>>> abstruse, recondite, secret, esoteric, occult, cryptic; informal - as >>>> clear >>>> as mud >>>> >>>> The enigmatic is seen by some as rude, None of this is how I think of >>>> Gabby, though she can touch a few bases. Mutual understanding is not a >>>> bad >>>> context - though a long way from nodding donkey consensus. >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, 4 November 2014 14:24:59 UTC, archytas wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Context is difficult with you Gabby, partly on enigmatic grounds (I >>>>> mean the term nicely) on your expression. I'm broadly probing the >>>>> legitimation crisis. We have reached a point when politicians promising >>>>> change need to be greeted with shouts of 'apple juice'. We lack public >>>>> context on economic matters even though technology could give us an >>>>> economics we could use as we use washing machines or drive cars. Instead >>>>> of this we have perverse resource allocation and devolved budgets to >>>>> ration >>>>> services that revictimise victims through the false promise of help, >>>>> which >>>>> is really going to be the denial of the complaint and exposure of >>>>> complainants to more harm. Meanwhile the problems grow under the >>>>> pretence >>>>> we are dealing with them. We might learn about data and evidence in an >>>>> examination of this. We don't seem prepared to do so. >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, 4 November 2014 06:07:33 UTC, Gabby wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah ja? I'm not so sure. >>>>>> Am 04.11.2014 01:49 schrieb "archytas" <[email protected]>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Needless to say. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, November 3, 2014 9:18:32 PM UTC, Gabby wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again your interpretation. I meant to have politely replied: What >>>>>>>> is your context? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2014-11-03 20:41 GMT+01:00 archytas <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gabby makes some important points - seem to remember the 81 paper >>>>>>>>> but there were many, Dictionaries don't really help here - nor the >>>>>>>>> hermeneutics of 'finding the original copy' - German sin is >>>>>>>>> exemplified in >>>>>>>>> the Jewish Numbers 31 and so on across genocides and the >>>>>>>>> concentration camp >>>>>>>>> as a business tactic in such as 'red rubber'. Primitive societies >>>>>>>>> tell us >>>>>>>>> their wars are based on revenge - though they always involve resource >>>>>>>>> grabs >>>>>>>>> (land, hunting, women, children). We seem to have merely >>>>>>>>> managerialised >>>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The demand for social services and welfare is much greater than we >>>>>>>>> admit, extending into such issues as why we have been so stupid to >>>>>>>>> expand >>>>>>>>> the human population in tripling it in my lifetime, global warming, >>>>>>>>> pollution and the crass failures of "education". One might think one >>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>> at least focus on 'the abuse next door' - but I have to say when this >>>>>>>>> came >>>>>>>>> along in my life Sue and I failed and found the agencies and >>>>>>>>> politicians >>>>>>>>> much worse than useless. The ultimate standard of morality would >>>>>>>>> have been >>>>>>>>> to shoot the parents and do the time - had one been able to rely on >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> agencies looking after the kids rather than doing a worse job. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The resource issues are not insurmountable though they are within >>>>>>>>> our stupid economic system. Even to talk of this is more or less >>>>>>>>> heresy - >>>>>>>>> and look what we prefer to do - speak of young kids preferring a >>>>>>>>> 'prostitute lifestyle' and hear politicians talking about the few >>>>>>>>> cases in >>>>>>>>> which abused children hit the care jackpot. The ages of consent >>>>>>>>> across the >>>>>>>>> West were often created in response to child prostitution. The first >>>>>>>>> law >>>>>>>>> of innocents I know of comes from Dark Age Scotland and I am by no >>>>>>>>> means >>>>>>>>> sure what the improvements since have been. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The specific social services resource issue was discussed in the >>>>>>>>> 1950's in terms of concentric circles - one could only focus on a >>>>>>>>> small >>>>>>>>> number of the worst cases in a much wider circle of need. Only 10% >>>>>>>>> of kids >>>>>>>>> killed by parents in the UK are actually known to social services in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> sense of being subject to a care order. The costs of admitting a >>>>>>>>> problem >>>>>>>>> soon spiral and following the money one soon realises little actually >>>>>>>>> gets >>>>>>>>> spent on the kids. Gabby raises the issue that it is cruel to >>>>>>>>> promise >>>>>>>>> solution when we have no intent of funding what's needed. In terms >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> sufficient numbers of people to do most of what is needed there is no >>>>>>>>> problem - we just create a system which prevents money-resourcing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have, of course, pumped trillions into subsidy of manufacturing >>>>>>>>> and banks over the years - these areas supposedly thrusting >>>>>>>>> self-reliant >>>>>>>>> genius competitors - and very little into what we call welfare - we >>>>>>>>> 'police' Afghanistan and Iraq making things much worse but do almost >>>>>>>>> nothing for our own victims. There are answers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 2, 2014 8:46:36 PM UTC, Molly wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I befriended one of the LaCasa employees that worked with >>>>>>>>>> children in groups and took disclosures. She eventually became a >>>>>>>>>> police >>>>>>>>>> officer, hoping it would be less stressful. I think it probably >>>>>>>>>> was.If the >>>>>>>>>> network is large enough, no one burns out. Trouble is, it is rarely >>>>>>>>>> large >>>>>>>>>> enough. I think people have the need to look away from this problem >>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>> than any other. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 2, 2014 2:59:57 PM UTC-5, Allan Heretic wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ah, pedophiles they have been in the news including one for >>>>>>>>>>> soliciting an underage computer image. Personally I am glad to see >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> aggressive prosecution, I am very proud of the enforcement effort. >>>>>>>>>>> I wish I could say it would an honor to be part of the team >>>>>>>>>>> thing on pedophile but truth is I think it would destroy me. I do >>>>>>>>>>> give them >>>>>>>>>>> my full support, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>> From: Molly <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 8:26 PM >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Who can we tell? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *It is important to agree on terms when conversing. This from >>>>>>>>>>> the Free Dictionary:* >>>>>>>>>>> *em·power·ment** n.* >>>>>>>>>>> *Usage Note: *Although it is a contemporary buzzword, the word >>>>>>>>>>> *empower* is not new, having arisen in the mid-17th century with >>>>>>>>>>> thelegalistic meaning "to invest with authority, authorize." >>>>>>>>>>> Shortly thereafter it began to be used with an infinitive in a >>>>>>>>>>> more general waymeaning "to enable or permit." Both of these >>>>>>>>>>> uses survive today but have been overpowered by the word's use >>>>>>>>>>> in politics and poppsychology. Its modern use originated in the >>>>>>>>>>> civil rights movement, which sought political *empowerment* for >>>>>>>>>>> its followers. The wordwas then taken up by the women's >>>>>>>>>>> movement, and its appeal has not flagged. Since people of all >>>>>>>>>>> political persuasions have a need fora word that makes their >>>>>>>>>>> constituents feel that they are or are about to become more in >>>>>>>>>>> control of their destinies, *empower* has been adopted by >>>>>>>>>>> conservatives as well as social reformers. It has even migrated >>>>>>>>>>> out of the political arena into other fields. · The UsagePanel >>>>>>>>>>> has some misgivings about this recent broadening of usage. For >>>>>>>>>>> the Panelists, the acceptability of the verb *empower* depends >>>>>>>>>>> on the context. Eighty percent approve of the example >>>>>>>>>>> *We want to empower ordinary citizens.* But in contexts that are >>>>>>>>>>> not political the Panel is markedly less enthusiastic. The >>>>>>>>>>> sentence >>>>>>>>>>> *Hunger and greed and then sexual zeal are felt by some to be >>>>>>>>>>> stages of experiencethat empower the individual* >>>>>>>>>>> garners approval from only 33 percent of the Panelists. The >>>>>>>>>>> Panel may frown on this kind of psychological empowering because >>>>>>>>>>> it resonates of the self-help movement, which is notorious for >>>>>>>>>>> trendy coinages. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I've never been interested in talking politics, and although >>>>>>>>>>> I've had occasion to work with some, never really affiliated with >>>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>>> party. I will leave any tendency to interpret what I say as an >>>>>>>>>>> affiliation >>>>>>>>>>> with a political party up to you. I really don't have one. I will >>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>> excited to see Dave Bing next week when he comes to my place of >>>>>>>>>>> employment. >>>>>>>>>>> for a photo shoot, the Democrat who restored integrity to the >>>>>>>>>>> office of >>>>>>>>>>> Mayor of Detroit. He took a lot of heat and it took guts to devout >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> years of his life that he did to turning the city around like a >>>>>>>>>>> freighter >>>>>>>>>>> on the river. Like skin color, religion or citizenship, I don't >>>>>>>>>>> don't hold >>>>>>>>>>> many preconceived notions to a persons political persuasion when >>>>>>>>>>> relating >>>>>>>>>>> to them, so really can't speak to your comment about republicans >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> democrats. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nice to know pedophiles are prosecuted somewhere. >>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations! A system working! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 2, 2014 1:28:13 PM UTC-5, Gabby wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The big picture, that you draw, is very much a U.S. American >>>>>>>>>>>> Republican's view. I know quite a number of people whose >>>>>>>>>>>> aggressivenes gets >>>>>>>>>>>> triggerd by this deliberate choice of imagery. (I'm sure the >>>>>>>>>>>> relief barking >>>>>>>>>>>> will set in later) >>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see if we can find a common ground for the word >>>>>>>>>>>> "empowerment". The root is English, that's correct, but the modern >>>>>>>>>>>> popularity and usage goes back to the American Julian Rappaport: >>>>>>>>>>>> In praise >>>>>>>>>>>> of paradox. A social policy of empowerment over prevention, in: >>>>>>>>>>>> American >>>>>>>>>>>> Journal of Community Psychology, 9/1981, 1-25 (13), saying: >>>>>>>>>>>> „Having rights >>>>>>>>>>>> but no resources and no services available is a cruel joke.“ I >>>>>>>>>>>> think we can >>>>>>>>>>>> all agree if we don't take a closer look at our rights, but assume >>>>>>>>>>>> we have >>>>>>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>>>>>>> As for moving, if you cannot protect innocent children - this >>>>>>>>>>>> would still be a taboo in our German context, even if we wanted to >>>>>>>>>>>> do the >>>>>>>>>>>> same. We have left innocent Jews to the apparatus, we have no >>>>>>>>>>>> excuse left. >>>>>>>>>>>> It is the alledged pedophiles who have to be protected in our >>>>>>>>>>>> communities, >>>>>>>>>>>> or they have to move elsewhere, no laws and law enforcement could >>>>>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>>>>> something about that. >>>>>>>>>>>> But you know what, I believe your call for a kid's survival >>>>>>>>>>>> training is more of an anti-Democrat, Republican demagogy than a >>>>>>>>>>>> real call! >>>>>>>>>>>> :) Am I right? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>> 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/d/optout. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in >>>>>>>>> the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ >>>>>>>>> topic/minds-eye/QYatNwqDgp8/unsubscribe. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email >>>>>>>>> to [email protected]. >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in >>>>>>> the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/minds-eye/QYatNwqDgp8/unsubscribe. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>>>> [email protected]. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- --- 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/d/optout.
