Do we get on the same page. What do you view as positive money,? All an ~~ do not murder, rape, enslave or harm others
-----Original Message----- From: archytas <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 11:34 PM Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Who can we tell? The longer-term way forward is a shift from economics to something like science fiction prototyping. We could start straight away on practical projects. Economics is the big Catch 22 - we need to embrace positive money for this and recognise we can learn to control it as we go along. The trick lies in recognising none of it is rocket science or particularly technical. On Friday, November 7, 2014 9:55:25 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote: > > I think your socks and toes are safe, for economic change to occur people > would have to take responsibility,, i do not see that happening anytime > soon if ever. > > But i think small groups will take responsibility. Most people are > escapist by nature. > > > All an > ~~ > do not murder, rape, enslave or harm others > > -----Original Message----- > From: Molly <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 10:44 PM > Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Who can we tell? > > Good article but short on practical solutions for the little guy. If > comprehensive AND honest change does occur, my socks will be so knocked off > my toes will rebel forevermore. > > On Friday, November 7, 2014 4:19:00 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: >> >> 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 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 word >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was 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. > -- --- 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 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.
