Meanwhile, in Gabbyland, the near-mainstream tells us some truth - http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/capitalism-in-crisis-amid-slow-growth-and-growing-inequality-a-998598.html - though no answers, other than the implied one we might wake up and smell the financial reality.
On Friday, November 7, 2014 7:08:29 PM UTC, archytas wrote: > > 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 w >>>>>>>>>>>> ith thelegalistic meaning "to invest with authority, authori >>>>>>>>>>>> ze." 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 or >>>>>>>>>>>> iginated 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 fi >>>>>>>>>>>> elds. · 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 ap >>>>>>>>>>>> prove of the example *We want to empower ordinary citizens.* B >>>>>>>>>>>> ut 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.
