11 American Nations
Locked
1 ...
45678910
... 12
1 ...
45678910
... 12
 
|
On 1/11/14, 1:16 PM, Merle Lefkoff
wrote:
If you go by New Mexico, where the mean household income is $70,760, and define rich to be "the 1%". http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_5YR_DP03 And assume that income distribution is distributed exponentially.. http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0008305v2.pdf Then "rich" households ought to start at $326k (1%), $212k (5%), $163k (10%), $114k (20%). The first link says that 3.6% of families in NM population make more than $200k. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Since Nick is the instigator and it's not clear to me how facile he is with threaded discussions, I've compiled all my responses into one post. Unfortunately, this leaves me very little room to make any arguments myself. I'm just responding to what others have said. So, I'll prepend the _gist_ of what I have to say: 1) The responses have NOT successfully shown examples where the rules are set by non-rich people. But I'm still OK with pretending that these examples exist. And I don't really need any evidence to play along as if it's been shown. 2) The more important questions are a) the modal one (when is rulership necessarily linked to wealth) and b) can we characterize rulership in terms of power transfer rates (across regimes) or the transformation of money to power and vice versa? And this may require the classification of types of rule. With (2), we might be able to come closer to delineating the difference between having money and rule-setting. Anyway, on to the nit-picking below -------------------- On 01/10/2014 05:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > There */are /* examples of less ruling of the rich and, even if there > were no such examples, a discussion of why it would be better if we had > less such ruling would be useful. I agree that counter factual reasoning is useful. I don't yet believe there are examples where the rich did not define the rules. I suspect that, given each proposed example, when we dig deep enough, we'll find that the rules were defined by the wealthiest in that (or the just prior) society. But I can let that go and play along as if the examples are settled. > ARGUMENTATION: I agreed to the proposition that the rich */tend/* > */to/* have a dominant influence in societies in which resources are > readily stored, including our own. So, while I might agree that it will > always be more or less true, I might also believe that the less it is > true, the better. Or, that a society in which it is less true is more > likely to be stable and attractive to live in for the largest numbers of > people. You can believe that. And I might also believe it. But demonstrating that it's true is different from believing it. Do we have any data that societies where the rules are defined by poor people are somehow optimally stable, attractive, or better? > (2) Second, given that understanding of what I agreed to, there ARE > examples where the rich are not as dominant as the rich are in our > current society. In fact, not long ago, we were such a society. I don't believe you. 8^) In order to convince me you're right, you'll have to show that the rules were defined by someone other than the richest people. I actually believe the richest are less dominant, now, in our current western societies because we have more "rich" people, which leads to a more diverse rule set. > (3) Your request is for what one of my favorite FRIAM friends calls "an > existence proof". In other words, I have to provide an example that > such a thing has ever existed, before I can make an argument that it > ought to exist. Surely, an existence proof is desirable, but not > necessary to planning. But now that you mention it, it occurs to me > that the world might well be a better place now, if an existence proof > had been required of the man who first proposed to make an atomic bomb. I'm not looking for a proof, just evidence. A good example might be Uraguay? But I'm a bit ignorant of the net worth of the legislators there. Just having an austere president isn't enough. The same might apply with the Holy See. Not drawing a salary doesn't mean you're not rich/wealthy. And it's not clear to me how many rules are actually set by the pope. On 01/10/2014 07:58 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > "She who has the gold rules they who value gold" > or the contrapositive of same? > > That is another way. It's not clear to me how different that way is, though. > Did I not already say this once? Yes, sorry. Nick seemed to want to start over. On 01/10/2014 08:14 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > Robert already mentioned a counter example: The Communists seizing > power from the Nationalists in China. And I agree that there is some friction in the money <-> power transformation. But who made the rules before the seizing? What rules persisted across the seizing? And who made the rules after the seizing? After we answer those questions, we can ask what the net worth was of those making the rules. > Similarly, greenbacks didn't make the difference in Vietnam. So another > way is spending lives and destroying things, not just employment and > bribery. Right. Again we're talking about the rate of the money <-> power transform. But we're also talking about what it means to set the rules and what form the rules take. > Ok, but going back to the thread about the proof of God's existence, one > of the conclusions in the proof was that "Everything that is the case is > so necessarily." And from that it can be concluded there is no free > will. If there is no free will, why talk about `ought'. That kind of > reasoning would make sense per the aphorism but I don't it is also a > descriptive fact. It's common but not universal -- even if the only > other time the aphorism doesn't hold true is in the during the part of > the suggested cycle where the wealthy are thrown up against a wall and > shot. That's the more interesting part of the discussion, to me, just as it's the more interesting part of Goedel's modal proof. On 01/10/2014 09:09 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > On 1/10/14, 6:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: >> (2) Second, given that understanding of what I agreed to, there ARE >> examples where the rich are not as dominant as the rich are in our >> current society. In fact, not long ago, we were such a society. > For example > (http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/03/27/outside-groups-spending-through-roof) > > " Outside groups, including super PACs and nonprofit organizations, have > spent almost four times more on the 2012 presidential campaign than > comparable organizations spent at the same point in the 2008 cycle, an > analysis of Federal Election Commission filings show." Sorry, I am dense. How is this an example that non-rich people are making the rules? If anything, it seems to be evidence that the rich people are still making the rules. On 01/11/2014 12:16 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote: > It's honestly been "the other way" a lot. There was even a time not too > long ago in the U.S. when our government made "rational" decisions about > this issue. In the mid 1950s, you were taxed on everything you made over > $400k at 92%. The bottom bracket was taxed at 22%. In 2012, you were > taxed on everything you made over $380k at 35%. The bottom bracket, up > to $17k, was taxed at 10%. It's not clear to me that the rich people would _never_ define a rule taxing themselves (or fellow rich people) more. So, just because there are periods where rich people are taxed more does not imply that non-rich people defined those rules. I guess all we'd need to see is who made those tax-the-rich rules and what was the net worth of those rule makers? On 01/11/2014 01:58 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > Then "rich" households ought to start at $326k (1%), $212k (5%), $163k > (10%), $114k (20%). I'm OK with any arbitrary line we draw. But, given the next phase of the discussion (rates of transition of power from one regime to another, rates of money <-> power transformation, diversity of rule sets, etc.), I'd like to distinguish between high income and wealth. I think there's plenty of evidence (pro football players, lottery winners, etc.) who earn quite a bit of money but never manage to set the rules. So, while it seems "He who has the gold rules" might be somewhat true, we can't say that "All people with gold rule" is equally true. What it really boils down to is that money is (to some extent we haven't discovered) necessary but not sufficient for rulership. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Standing on the runway waiting to takeoff ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Glen,
Neither you nor Marcus seem to have much enthusiasm for this argument, and I think every body else is bored cross-eyed by it, and I am not sure I understand it, and all my attempts to clarify it are treated as nit-picking, so ... Let's just say you won and drop it. I am really happy with that resolution. Agreed? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 5:27 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] right vs left Since Nick is the instigator and it's not clear to me how facile he is with threaded discussions, I've compiled all my responses into one post. Unfortunately, this leaves me very little room to make any arguments myself. I'm just responding to what others have said. So, I'll prepend the _gist_ of what I have to say: 1) The responses have NOT successfully shown examples where the rules are set by non-rich people. But I'm still OK with pretending that these examples exist. And I don't really need any evidence to play along as if it's been shown. 2) The more important questions are a) the modal one (when is rulership necessarily linked to wealth) and b) can we characterize rulership in terms of power transfer rates (across regimes) or the transformation of money to power and vice versa? And this may require the classification of types of rule. With (2), we might be able to come closer to delineating the difference between having money and rule-setting. Anyway, on to the nit-picking below -------------------- On 01/10/2014 05:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > There */are /* examples of less ruling of the rich and, even if there > were no such examples, a discussion of why it would be better if we > had less such ruling would be useful. I agree that counter factual reasoning is useful. I don't yet believe there are examples where the rich did not define the rules. I suspect that, given each proposed example, when we dig deep enough, we'll find that the rules were defined by the wealthiest in that (or the just prior) society. But I can let that go and play along as if the examples are settled. > ARGUMENTATION: I agreed to the proposition that the rich */tend/* > */to/* have a dominant influence in societies in which resources are > readily stored, including our own. So, while I might agree that it > will always be more or less true, I might also believe that the less > it is true, the better. Or, that a society in which it is less true > is more likely to be stable and attractive to live in for the largest > numbers of people. You can believe that. And I might also believe it. But demonstrating that it's true is different from believing it. Do we have any data that societies where the rules are defined by poor people are somehow optimally stable, attractive, or better? > (2) Second, given that understanding of what I agreed to, there ARE > examples where the rich are not as dominant as the rich are in our > current society. In fact, not long ago, we were such a society. I don't believe you. 8^) In order to convince me you're right, you'll have to show that the rules were defined by someone other than the richest people. I actually believe the richest are less dominant, now, in our current western societies because we have more "rich" people, which leads to a more diverse rule set. > (3) Your request is for what one of my favorite FRIAM friends calls > "an existence proof". In other words, I have to provide an example > that such a thing has ever existed, before I can make an argument that it > ought to exist. Surely, an existence proof is desirable, but not > necessary to planning. But now that you mention it, it occurs to me > that the world might well be a better place now, if an existence proof > had been required of the man who first proposed to make an atomic bomb. I'm not looking for a proof, just evidence. A good example might be Uraguay? But I'm a bit ignorant of the net worth of the legislators there. Just having an austere president isn't enough. The same might apply with the Holy See. Not drawing a salary doesn't mean you're not rich/wealthy. And it's not clear to me how many rules are actually set by the pope. On 01/10/2014 07:58 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > "She who has the gold rules they who value gold" > or the contrapositive of same? > > That is another way. It's not clear to me how different that way is, though. > Did I not already say this once? Yes, sorry. Nick seemed to want to start over. On 01/10/2014 08:14 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > Robert already mentioned a counter example: The Communists seizing > power from the Nationalists in China. And I agree that there is some friction in the money <-> power transformation. But who made the rules before the seizing? What rules persisted across the seizing? And who made the rules after the seizing? After we answer those questions, we can ask what the net worth was of those making the rules. > Similarly, greenbacks didn't make the difference in Vietnam. So > another way is spending lives and destroying things, not just > employment and bribery. Right. Again we're talking about the rate of the money <-> power transform. But we're also talking about what it means to set the rules and what form the rules take. > Ok, but going back to the thread about the proof of God's existence, > one of the conclusions in the proof was that "Everything that is the case is > so necessarily." And from that it can be concluded there is no free > will. If there is no free will, why talk about `ought'. That kind of > reasoning would make sense per the aphorism but I don't it is also a > descriptive fact. It's common but not universal -- even if the only > other time the aphorism doesn't hold true is in the during the part of > the suggested cycle where the wealthy are thrown up against a wall and > shot. That's the more interesting part of the discussion, to me, just as it's the more interesting part of Goedel's modal proof. On 01/10/2014 09:09 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > On 1/10/14, 6:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: >> (2) Second, given that understanding of what I agreed to, there ARE >> examples where the rich are not as dominant as the rich are in our >> current society. In fact, not long ago, we were such a society. > For example > (http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/03/27/outside-groups-spending > -through-roof) > > " Outside groups, including super PACs and nonprofit organizations, > have spent almost four times more on the 2012 presidential campaign > than comparable organizations spent at the same point in the 2008 > cycle, an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings show." Sorry, I am dense. How is this an example that non-rich people are making the rules? If anything, it seems to be evidence that the rich people are still making the rules. On 01/11/2014 12:16 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote: > It's honestly been "the other way" a lot. There was even a time not > too long ago in the U.S. when our government made "rational" decisions > about this issue. In the mid 1950s, you were taxed on everything you > made over $400k at 92%. The bottom bracket was taxed at 22%. In > 2012, you were taxed on everything you made over $380k at 35%. The > bottom bracket, up to $17k, was taxed at 10%. It's not clear to me that the rich people would _never_ define a rule taxing themselves (or fellow rich people) more. So, just because there are periods where rich people are taxed more does not imply that non-rich people defined those rules. I guess all we'd need to see is who made those tax-the-rich rules and what was the net worth of those rule makers? On 01/11/2014 01:58 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > Then "rich" households ought to start at $326k (1%), $212k (5%), $163k > (10%), $114k (20%). I'm OK with any arbitrary line we draw. But, given the next phase of the discussion (rates of transition of power from one regime to another, rates of money <-> power transformation, diversity of rule sets, etc.), I'd like to distinguish between high income and wealth. I think there's plenty of evidence (pro football players, lottery winners, etc.) who earn quite a bit of money but never manage to set the rules. So, while it seems "He who has the gold rules" might be somewhat true, we can't say that "All people with gold rule" is equally true. What it really boils down to is that money is (to some extent we haven't discovered) necessary but not sufficient for rulership. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Standing on the runway waiting to takeoff ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
On 01/11/2014 04:41 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Neither you nor Marcus seem to have much enthusiasm for this argument, and I think every body else is bored cross-eyed by it, and I am not sure I understand it, and all my attempts to clarify it are treated as nit-picking, so ... Nit picking is not pejorative. If there were no nit-picking, there'd be no science, no space travel, no legislation, ... nothing. Hell, even picking actual nits out of your neighbor's fur is helpful. > Let's just say you won and drop it. I am really happy with that resolution. > > Agreed? No. I don't treat forfeits as if they're victories. But I'm happy to abort the attempt at rational discussion. As I tried to make clear, I don't actually believe the aphorism, anyway ... which is why my enthusiasm for defending it may seem lacking. That aphorism "He who has the gold rules" is as idealistic and silly as any other over simplification. That libertarians might like it better than the other one: "Conservatives get upset when somebody gets something they didn't earn; Liberals get upset when somebody doesn't get something they did earn." Just means that libertarians are fond of over-simplification. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Sign my release from this planet's erosion ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
On 1/11/14, 5:27 PM, glen wrote:
> 1) The responses have NOT successfully shown examples where the rules > are set by non-rich people. Exercising authority or influence doesn't necessarily mean having rules or setting them. "Off with their heads" ought to get above the bar. It seems odd and biased to a capitalist world view to talk about the net worth of a communist society. I would think the Marxists would argue for revolt because the class structures and their valuation schemes were suboptimal to the greater good. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
On 1/11/14, 5:27 PM, glen wrote:
> "Outside groups, including super PACs and nonprofit organizations, > have spent almost four times more on the 2012 presidential campaign > than comparable organizations spent at the same point in the 2008 > cycle, an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings show." > Sorry, I am dense. How is this an example that non-rich people are > making the rules? If anything, it seems to be evidence that the rich > people are still making the rules. > Again it means what you mean to rule. I think it means to control with some threshold of effectiveness. For example, a robotic control system which aims to keep a robot moving in spite of getting kicked or when moving over unstable terrain. If such a control system takes a 100 kilowatt cluster to do what a person can do on 10 watts of brainstem energy, that suggests that the robotic control system is not yet as sophisticated as the biological calculator. Ok, IBM's Watson apparently can now dominate the best humans on Jeopardy, so sometimes gross power use is justified and effective. Another example that comes to mind are asymmetrical attacks by organizations like Al Qaeda. If it takes trillions of dollars to find and kill bin Laden's ilk (and keep killing them), it makes one wonder what the next generation of terrorist will look like, and whether the U.S. can afford to keep extinguishing them. Similarly, several factor more billion dollars every election cycle to deliver the plutocrats' message to the country via super PAC advertising and lobbying might suggest that that control mechanism is not getting stronger, but rather falling apart and that it may not be sustainable as voters become more resistant to manipulation. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Thanks, glen,
I have this odd notion that if nation is to survive, people are obligated to argue. Like most values, this one doesn't fit well with reality. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 5:56 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] right vs left On 01/11/2014 04:41 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Neither you nor Marcus seem to have much enthusiasm for this argument, and I think every body else is bored cross-eyed by it, and I am not sure I understand it, and all my attempts to clarify it are treated as nit-picking, so ... Nit picking is not pejorative. If there were no nit-picking, there'd be no science, no space travel, no legislation, ... nothing. Hell, even picking actual nits out of your neighbor's fur is helpful. > Let's just say you won and drop it. I am really happy with that resolution. > > Agreed? No. I don't treat forfeits as if they're victories. But I'm happy to abort the attempt at rational discussion. As I tried to make clear, I don't actually believe the aphorism, anyway ... which is why my enthusiasm for defending it may seem lacking. That aphorism "He who has the gold rules" is as idealistic and silly as any other over simplification. That libertarians might like it better than the other one: "Conservatives get upset when somebody gets something they didn't earn; Liberals get upset when somebody doesn't get something they did earn." Just means that libertarians are fond of over-simplification. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Sign my release from this planet's erosion ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
I don't know you Glen. Do you have a heart? Is "idealism" rational? On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: Thanks, glen, Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA [hidden email] mobile: (303) 859-5609 skype: merlelefkoff ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
On 01/11/2014 05:45 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> On 1/11/14, 5:27 PM, glen wrote: >> 1) The responses have NOT successfully shown examples where the rules >> are set by non-rich people. > Exercising authority or influence doesn't necessarily mean having rules > or setting them. "Off with their heads" ought to get above the bar. > It seems odd and biased to a capitalist world view to talk about the net > worth of a communist society. I would think the Marxists would argue > for revolt because the class structures and their valuation schemes were > suboptimal to the greater good. Right, I understand. If pressed, I probably agree, as well. But the position I'm arguing, now, is that power = money. (Power is equivalent to money, though I admit it's not identical and the reaction can take time and energy.) I'm proposing that marxists and communists are wrong or deluded in some sense. Money will always (eventually) dominate as the way to store power. Yes, you can seize a government with force. Yes, you can get things done by pure force of personality or influence. And, yes, real assets like guns/ammo, land, actual gold, water, coal, oil, etc. can be "burned" in the execution of power. But only money has the fluidity required for maintaining power and control. Hence, it's futile to try to define a society or a government without money being a central/essential part of it. The inference from that is that for money to work in a predictable way, you need the rules. Even if the rules arise organically from the type of money (promissory notes, scarcity of something like gold, whatever), the rules are necessary. The inference goes like this: Seize power. Transform some/most of that power into money. The define rules so that you (and your clique) keep that money. Hence, the rules are set by rich people. Where the rules are based on something else (hereditary royalty, constitutional republic, etc.), then the rule set will be more stable and can be decoupled from money to some extent. But in the end, the stability comes from competent management of the power storage ... money. E.g. an idiotic King can bankrupt the country and, thereby, lose power. E.g. a communist regime can mis-distribute the money so that the transformations into and out of various assets (military stockpile vs. food for the people) lead to instability or weakness. This is ultimately a failure to set, follow, and maintain the right rules. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Mutant rags and big T.V. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Ah, got it. The ROI of the rich is steadily going down. But what you're
saying is only that one group of rich guys is losing influence compared to another group of rich people. The two groups may be distinguishable but they're still rich. At worst that just means the aphorism is too vague, not that it's false. "Marcus G. Daniels" <[hidden email]> wrote: > Again it means what you mean to rule. I think it means to control > with some threshold of effectiveness. For example, a robotic > control system which aims to keep a robot moving in spite of getting > kicked or when moving over unstable terrain. If such a control > system takes a 100 kilowatt cluster to do what a person can do on 10 > watts of brainstem energy, that suggests that the robotic control > system is not yet as sophisticated as the biological calculator. Ok, > IBM's Watson apparently can now dominate the best humans on Jeopardy, > so sometimes gross power use is justified and effective. Another > example that comes to mind are asymmetrical attacks by organizations > like Al Qaeda. If it takes trillions of dollars to find and kill bin > Laden's ilk (and keep killing them), it makes one wonder what the > next generation of terrorist will look like, and whether the U.S. can > afford to keep extinguishing them. Similarly, several factor more > billion dollars every election cycle to deliver the plutocrats' > message to the country via super PAC advertising and lobbying might > suggest that that control mechanism is not getting stronger, but > rather falling apart and that it may not be sustainable as voters > become more resistant to manipulation.> -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Mutant rags and big T.V. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
On 1/12/14, 9:50 AM, glen wrote:
> Ah, got it. The ROI of the rich is steadily going down. But what you're > saying is only that one group of rich guys is losing influence compared > to another group of rich people. The two groups may be distinguishable > but they're still rich. > I don't know about that. Imagine a poor kid in Romania with a $500 laptop attached to a local pirate party, Anonymous, etc. Such people have penetrated very secure systems for just for bragging rights. Such people have conducted large scale denial of services attacks costing big companies millions of lost business. And of course there's the insider threat type thing, as with Snowden. Really simple ideas like Facebook or Megaupload have caught on like wildfire, generating enormous wealth almost instantaneously, even though they do nothing particularly profound for the world and wouldn't be that hard to build. Another example is Apple with Jobs a the helm vs. Sculley at the helm. Same company, same balance sheets. Different technical innovation strategy. It's not just the money that matters its the ideas and the leadership too. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
On 1/12/14, 9:50 AM, glen wrote:
> But only money has the fluidity required for maintaining power and > control. What I was getting at in the other e-mail was that it is, in some sense, too fluid. A lot of people that look at their credit card balances after the holidays can probably empathize with that. It is too fluid for our government. It is too easy to forget that war X or entitlement Y means a non-trivial fraction of the productivity of every employee in the United States. Same goes for executives in big companies that can (and probably will) soon find other big companies to run, or retire to their yachts. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
On 01/12/2014 09:12 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> It's not just the money that matters its the ideas and the > leadership too. Of course, I agree. But we can make a further distinction between ideas like, say, a waterless urinal versus, say, credit default swaps. While I agree that all inventions (distinct from idle ideas) matter, I think the financial inventions (e.g. micro-loans) will typically have more impact ... good or bad impact. We spend a lot of time staring in awe at things like the large hadron collider or the mars rover, modern physical theories, etc. But I think a good historian of technology would do well to pay a little more attention to the financial inventions that have made money so fluid. On 01/12/2014 09:25 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:> On 1/12/14, 9:50 AM, glen wrote: > What I was getting at in the other e-mail was that it is, in some sense, > too fluid. A lot of people that look at their credit card balances > after the holidays can probably empathize with that. It is too fluid > for our government. It is too easy to forget that war X or entitlement > Y means a non-trivial fraction of the productivity of every employee in > the United States. Same goes for executives in big companies that can > (and probably will) soon find other big companies to run, or retire to > their yachts. Maybe. I don't know. I agree it can seem too fluid. But I can't shake the sense that I'm biased. I look at various people who really just need a tiny amount of capital to, say, start a food cart or a hand-made soap business, or whatever, and look at the ways they have to spend their time to satisfy multiple objectives. They have to feed their familly, pay their bills, avoid the various traps with "law enforcement", etc. If money were too fluid, they would be able to get their hands on some without becoming one of the upper class, usually light-skinned, credentialed, citizenry and filling out reams of forms and such. Similarly, I watch people who lose their jobs, hunt for new jobs, lose their homes, get in fights with their spouses, etc. just because they couldn't get their hands on a few thousand bucks to tide them over for awhile. Yeah, most of these people are ill-programmed with delusions of the American Dream. So, to some extent their downfall is their own fault. But if money were a little more fluid, maybe it would be easier for them to learn about the real system, the hidden system, that governs their lives... the system only rich people can afford to learn about. Here, it seems clear to me that the problem isn't really the fluidity of money but the leadership and rules set up by the people with most of the money. I've repeatedly pitched to our neighborhood association the idea of setting up a fund for people in the neighborhood who are at risk of losing their houses. It seems like a no-brainer to me. Nobody HERE benefits when a house goes back to the bank. Why not build up a $50-$100k community fund to help those people retain their homes in tough times? But they haven't really taken to the idea. Their money is _allocated_, viscously trapped in whatever isolated, private, self-centered plans/worries they have. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Flipping locks of blond and straw and brown and red ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Merle Lefkoff-2
On 01/12/2014 08:33 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> I don't know you Glen. Do you have a heart? Is "idealism" rational? Hm. Sorry if I seem like a robot. A friend of mine recently called me a "digital autistic". Apparently he thinks I'm normal face-to-face. Anyway, no, "idealism" is non-rational. As I've tried to explain, I think to be rational requires multiple options. By that I mean actual, feasible options, not just possible in principle. Idealism tends toward pure, non-interactive, closed reasoning. Idealists will conclude whatever their ideology determines they'll conclude. That's not to say that idealism is binary. One can be more or less idealistic. And, hence, idealism is probably a good thing in moderation. But moderate idealism is a bit self-contradictory. Only practical people will be capable of selecting, cafeteria-style, the good from the bad ideas of various ideologies. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Look beyond your own horizons ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
On 1/12/14, 10:54 AM, glen wrote:
> I look at various people who really just need a tiny amount of capital > to, say, start a food cart or a hand-made soap business, or whatever, > and look at the ways they have to spend their time to satisfy multiple > objectives. The fluid comes with plumbing to control it, of course. Overall, I agree, those with money have power. I even agree that those that have the self-control to acquire and control their money probably are demonstrating rational behavior in doing so, and that there is a another set of people in the complement that don't have those skills or the intelligence required. But it is a Just So story to equate the complement with the incompetent subset in that complement. > Why not build up a $50-$100k community fund to help those people > retain their homes in tough times? But they haven't really taken to > the idea. Their money is _allocated_, viscously trapped in whatever > isolated, private, self-centered plans/worries they have. I would guess the Allocated problem is the main one in the middle class. It also depends on what you think about `communities' and how you define them (Those demanding insufferable people that are always in your face about your every micro-decision and lifestyle choice and that you try to avoid the best you can.). The allocation might be the gratuitous loan on the travel trailer or vacation home, but it could also be the kid's college investment fund, or even a generous donation given to an charity, for people that _really_ have it bad in Africa. If it is too painful to fund the fund, the pain needs to be spread out in some systematic way with actual government IMO. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
On 01/12/2014 10:57 AM, glen wrote: > Anyway, no, "idealism" is non-rational. As I've tried to explain, I > think to be rational requires multiple options. By that I mean actual, > feasible options, not just possible in principle. Idealism tends > toward pure, non-interactive, closed reasoning. Idealists will > conclude whatever their ideology determines they'll conclude. That's > not to say that idealism is binary. One can be more or less > idealistic. And, hence, idealism is probably a good thing in > moderation. But moderate idealism is a bit self-contradictory. Only > practical people will be capable of selecting, cafeteria-style, the > good from the bad ideas of various ideologies. imagine perfect, your idea of good won't be very good. And if you don't pursue good, your aesthetics about perfect will probably not be informative either. People often think of idealism as a young person's game. I don't think that's true. Adults are just forced to become opportunistic in pursuing their ideals. Most people gain some degree over something in their lives, and the trick is to wait for your 15 minutes to turn the knobs, and to turn them without missing a beat, and without caring, or even asking, what anyone else thinks about it (those conversations should have come before, in more abstract forms). Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
On 01/12/2014 09:50 AM, glen wrote: > Money will always (eventually) dominate as the way to store power. It seems to me the idea of long-term (inter-generational) storing power is contrary to the underlying suggestion of the Right that power has been earned or is socially necessary somehow. Incidentally, for government agencies, it is the exception that money can be stored, not the rule. One reason is because Congress does not want the government agencies flouting its will. Seems like self-made wealthy conservatives should want to see giant estate taxes, since it was their work that created that wealth, and the recipient of it is untested. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Hmm a bit overly complicate: Hawking and Right good science, when Left to there own devices. (Rimshot)On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:18 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote: On 01/09/2014 11:52 AM, Steve Smith wrote: ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
On 01/12/2014 10:43 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> The fluid comes with plumbing to control it, of course. Overall, I > agree, those with money have power. I even agree that those that have > the self-control to acquire and control their money probably are > demonstrating rational behavior in doing so, and that there is a another > set of people in the complement that don't have those skills or the > intelligence required. But it is a Just So story to equate the > complement with the incompetent subset in that complement. Heh, speaking as a member of the complement, I'd like to think that my lack of money does not demonstrate my membership in the incompetent subset of the complement. Rather, I've _chosen_ to maintain a level of spending that is just below my income. (The fact that I had options argues for my rationality in choosing do act "irrationally". ;-) > I would guess the Allocated problem is the main one in the middle > class. It also depends on what you think about `communities' and how > you define them (Those demanding insufferable people that are always in > your face about your every micro-decision and lifestyle choice and that > you try to avoid the best you can.). The allocation might be the > gratuitous loan on the travel trailer or vacation home, but it could > also be the kid's college investment fund, or even a generous donation > given to an charity, for people that _really_ have it bad in Africa. True. And it's the fundamental problem with trying to persuade people to invest in the commons. My argument is largely that, because people's home ownership is a core part of their net worth and financial planning, most of the other allocations are senseless without a sound plan to preserve the value of their homes ... partly by keeping the neighborhood from turning into a bank-owned wasteland, but also partly by preserving any historical value, avoiding "urban renewal" abuse by larger corporations, avoiding narcissistic gated communities, developing parks, walkability, etc. The trouble is that, just like here in this mailing list, there is a short attention span and an unwillingness to follow the rabbit down the hole of infinite detail. Most of my neighbors just don't want to do the boring and painstaking work required.... which makes me want to avoid that work as well. > If > it is too painful to fund the fund, the pain needs to be spread out in > some systematic way with actual government IMO. Before I started participating in this hyper local government (our neighborhood development association - which is a branch of the city, not one of those things property owners are supposed to join and pay dues to), I completely disagreed with you. I assumed anyone who owned a home would be interested in preserving their home's value by investing in the local community. Apparently, I was wrong. There is an energetic subset of those people. But most of them just don't give a damn until they need help. Most will only come to meetings when they have something to bitch about. So, perhaps that's why I'm slowly turning into a liberal. It's time to move... maybe out to Wyoming or somesuch so that I can again call myself "libertarian" with a straight face. -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Marcus sed/Glen replied
>> If >> it is too painful to fund the fund, the pain needs to be spread out in >> some systematic way with actual government IMO. > Before I started participating in this hyper local government (our > neighborhood development association - which is a branch of the city, > not one of those things property owners are supposed to join and pay > dues to), I completely disagreed with you. I assumed anyone who owned a > home would be interested in preserving their home's value by investing > in the local community. Apparently, I was wrong. There is an energetic > subset of those people. But most of them just don't give a damn until > they need help. Most will only come to meetings when they have > something to bitch about. > > So, perhaps that's why I'm slowly turning into a liberal. It's time to > move... maybe out to Wyoming or somesuch so that I can again call myself > "libertarian" with a straight face. > the Oakland border, a neighborhood association (Halcyon Court) took over an underutilized parking lot and made it into a small greenspace/park. It was a beautiful little park and it was the gathering place for many... it had many lives in a single day. Once a month (I forget the schedule .. Nth something of the month I think) neighbors would gather to maintain the park... trim, dig, plant, prune, etc. Nobody was in charge, but there were a few leftovers from the original design/creation. It was very self-organizing. We learned of it by word of mouth. No newsletter or e-mail list... just conversations among neighbors "you coming out tomorrow?" "what do you think most needs doing?" "I've got some stain for the bench, what do you think?" mostly pairwise or 3 way convos. Most of the people who came out (OK half) were not even homeowners... they lived in one of the many small apartment buildings (quad/six plex ish). It was about investing in the "common experience" of the neighborhood as much as any percieved long term cash value of homes... though those who did own there certainly seemed to appreciate it and threw down strongly at these gatherings. Most every week, someone would mention about 3PM... say... I've got a pot of beans on if anyone wants to come by... I live over there (pointing). By "closing time", a network of ad-hoc eatovers was passed around... and anyone hanging out was likely as not to stop in two or three homes for a bite or a libation. The park had 2-3 homeless who slept there every night... They were up and out before the 6 AM crowd started to arrive with dogs for a pee or a poop (never once saw any poop left... everyone just did their part) then the Volvo wagons with the kids for the neighborhood day care started arriving around 7. By 9, that crowd was gone and some of the local families would wander in with kids... one slide, 2 swings and lots of wood chips and a lawn big enough for a kids pickup soccer game. By 3 or so, the high school kids showed up to smoke (tobacco and whacko)... then later, the Volvos to pick up the kids, the evening dog walk... neighborhood chitchat... maybe an adult smoke outside the house... or kids at the playground... then sometime after dark you would see things being "lit up" in the dark... Cigs, Weed and possibly Crack. If I took my dog out after 10, I'd probably have to call her away from a sleeping body in the bushes... she loved to lick the homeless... they are pretty tasty to a dog I think. It was the most self-organized, ad-hoc, functional neighborhood I've ever imagined. Far from perfect, breakins now and then, mostly cars. Bums hitting you up for spare change. Never really quite "clean" but never filthy. Hard to find good parking. NEVER a cop to be seen. Never sirens or lights. 1/2 block away every hour... but not in this self-run neighborhood, mostly of short-timer renters, and some "vagrants"... it gave me hope for the viability of a commons. - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |