Friam

great man theory

Classic

List

Threaded

102 messages Options

123456

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: What is Wealth for?

For Trump it's for bolstering his self esteem. That's why he used to say he had 10 billion when he didn't. For other people it's about other things.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 1:31 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tangenting off of the Great Man discussion, I would like to solicit a
discussion on "What is Wealth for". I believe we have attended to this
on the side many times (I remember a vFriam where it was declared that
"Billionaires are Assholes, but Millionaires aren't (necessarily)"?

Each of our Great (Wo)Men on the snark/not-snark list share one thing in
common, Wealth. I'd be interested to hear others riff a little more on
their taxonomies of "what is Wealth for?"

- Steve

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: What is Wealth for?

In contrast:

A video of an interview that CBS’s Bob Simon did of Bezos in 1999 for “60 Minutes,” recently resurfaced. In the video, Bezos could be seen sporting khakis, a button-down and driving the Accord.

“What’s with the Honda?” Simon asks Bezos during the interview.

After a laugh, Bezos, responds, “This is a perfectly good car.”

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 1:41 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

For Trump it's for bolstering his self esteem. That's why he used to say he had 10 billion when he didn't. For other people it's about other things.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 1:31 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Tangenting off of the Great Man discussion, I would like to solicit a
discussion on "What is Wealth for". I believe we have attended to this
on the side many times (I remember a vFriam where it was declared that
"Billionaires are Assholes, but Millionaires aren't (necessarily)"?

Each of our Great (Wo)Men on the snark/not-snark list share one thing in
common, Wealth. I'd be interested to hear others riff a little more on
their taxonomies of "what is Wealth for?"

- Steve

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: What is Wealth for?

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

I think it might be wise to couch this within a larger discussion of private property and ownership, in general. Libertarians seem to think that private ownership of property facilitates good stewardship of that property. The tragedy of the commons argues that's not the case because the scope of ownership is ambiguous.

That wealth that is accumulated is, at least in negligible part, *everyone's* property. So not only is Bezos not Bezos. But Bezos' property is not Bezos' property ... or as some parents are fond of saying "I brought you into this world. I can take you out."

On 3/12/21 12:31 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Tangenting off of the Great Man discussion, I would like to solicit a
> discussion on "What is Wealth for". I believe we have attended to this
> on the side many times (I remember a vFriam where it was declared that
> "Billionaires are Assholes, but Millionaires aren't (necessarily)"?
>
> Each of our Great (Wo)Men on the snark/not-snark list share one thing in
> common, Wealth. I'd be interested to hear others riff a little more on
> their taxonomies of "what is Wealth for?"

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: What is Wealth for?

LOL, as they say. My dad never said that to me but he gave me the equivalent "look".

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 3:05 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think it might be wise to couch this within a larger discussion of private property and ownership, in general. Libertarians seem to think that private ownership of property facilitates good stewardship of that property. The tragedy of the commons argues that's not the case because the scope of ownership is ambiguous.

That wealth that is accumulated is, at least in negligible part, *everyone's* property. So not only is Bezos not Bezos. But Bezos' property is not Bezos' property ... or as some parents are fond of saying "I brought you into this world. I can take you out."

On 3/12/21 12:31 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Tangenting off of the Great Man discussion, I would like to solicit a
> discussion on "What is Wealth for". I believe we have attended to this
> on the side many times (I remember a vFriam where it was declared that
> "Billionaires are Assholes, but Millionaires aren't (necessarily)"?
>
> Each of our Great (Wo)Men on the snark/not-snark list share one thing in
> common, Wealth. I'd be interested to hear others riff a little more on
> their taxonomies of "what is Wealth for?"

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

gepr

Re: What is Wealth for?

Yeah, and being adopted, it wasn't even completely true in my case. But as a kid, it still *felt* like they could get away with killing me if they wanted to. It's especially bad when your dad's a "pillar of the community" ... just call in a few chits here and there and, voilá. It didn't help when my beagle died and my parents just tossed the carcass in the trash can ... and the garbage man just dumped it into his truck and squashed it ... and he saw it too. I know because I was there watching. Monsters, one and all.

On 3/12/21 2:13 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> LOL, as they say. My dad never said that to me but he gave me the equivalent "look".
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 3:05 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
only is Bezos not Bezos. But Bezos' property is not Bezos' property ... or as some parents are fond of saying "I brought you into this world. I can take you out."

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Prof David West

Re: great man theory

In reply to this post by gepr

Is there such a thing as a “good” or at least “benign” great (wo)man e.g. Chouinard of Patagonia and the mission statement to save the planet. OTOH — they are just as much a prod of circumstance as a Bezos, but the seem, at least superficially, qualitatively different towards the “good.”

Or is this just an instance of billionaire-asshole; millionaire-maybe?

Davew
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, at 1:17 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

> To be clear, recognizing that all models are wrong, some are useful
> isn't nihilistic. My favorite conception is (what I think I got from
> Kierkegaard), the leap of faith from obsessing about how wrong our
> models are, to something akin to "shut up and calculate" is what gets
> us out of analysis paralysis.
>
> The trick, I suppose, is *when* to pull the trigger. How much do I have
> to empathize with Jeff Bezos before I can just get on with pointing out
> that his effluvium is destroying culture, market, and planet; and any
> "effective altruism" he may engage in will never offset the damage his
> effluvium's done.
>
> How much do I have to empathize with Michael Jackson ... or Trump ...
> or whatever fictitious caricature (false but useful model) we might
> choose, in order to get on with the consequential task of mitigating
> their impact?
>
>
> On 3/12/21 11:58 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> >> To look at our victims as full-blown humans gets in the way of our progress.
> >
> > I don't know if Nietzsche said that first but it does seem like it could
> > be a paraphrase of one of his nihilistic piths.
> >
> > I am inspired by the anti-Othering movement, it serves my own
> > recovery/respite from a lifetime of participating in zero-sum
> > victim/victor games as offered by our popular culture as (sometimes? or
> > am I imputing again?) "the only game in town".
>
>
> --
> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>

Prof David West

Re: Antikythera

In reply to this post by gepr

The first “computational” device and the founder of computational science came from Ramundo Lull. Leibniz took Lulls ideas and “invented” computational science in modern times. The antihythera was a calculator. Someone else will have to state what differentiates calculator from computer. It has to do with symbols — not analog versus digital.

Davew

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, at 10:44 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

> I have no idea what Marcus' intention was with that comment/link. But
> it does highlight that the abstraction/idealization of "digits" and
> "computer" is a dangerous delusion. So I disagree completely with
> Steve. Calling the antikythera (or an orrery) a computer is the
> *correct* use of the term "computer" or "calculator" and calling an
> abstraction like a Turing machine or ascribing ontological status to
> √-1 is an abuse of the term.
>
> We all know that computers are actual things out in the world,
> regardless of whether they crisp things down to discrete or exploit the
> full parallelism of the world. So, to me, it's the silly abuse of
> "analog" and "digital" in place of "continuous" vs. "discrete" that's
> most annoying.
>
> The dangerous tendency of humans to idealize and reify their own brain
> farts (e.g. Turing machines) is a separate issue entirely.
>
> On 3/12/21 9:26 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > DRAM rates are remarkably low, even without error correction. Like 1 in a trillion per hour.
> > https://tezzaron.com/media/soft_errors_1_1_secure.pdf
> > At some point the analog device becomes a good-enough digital device.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Steve Smith
> > Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 9:08 AM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: [FRIAM] Antikythera
> >
> > Is the antikythera anything "more than" a highly elaborated Orrery ? I suppose the most egregious conflation for me is between map/model and "computer" in the sense of a device capable of universal computation. Orreries are elaborate maps (in the cartographic sense) of the grosser features of the solar system. The mechanical-engineering aspects of the antikythera is certainly impressive but to call it a "computer" or even "calculator" misses the point I think.
> >
> > Analog(ue) vs Digital is it's own abuse of terms of course. The former alludes to the one-to-one-correspondence nature of the elements of the model and a reduced description/apprehension of the parts of the system it models... an "analogy". The latter is grounded in "counting on your fingers (and toes?)" which is abstracted in things like an abacus which "models" the components and aspects of a system as whole numbers (or fancier things like real or complex or even hypercomplex) numbers. IMO, until we started using "digital" computers to model abstract mathematical concepts beyond (possibly quite complex) arithmetic, they were nothing more than really fast, really complicated abacii?
> >
> > I suppose the term "computer" doesn't connote this form well, and I suppose there is a more apt term of art that people who philosophize more regularly about "computing" than I might use?
>
> --
> ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>

gepr

Re: great man theory

In reply to this post by Prof David West

It's a matter of completeness. There is no completely bad cultural attractor. And there is no completely good cultural attractor. It's the same with the least influential homeless person and the most universal cultural norm (like laughter or somesuch). Influential people, ideas, canalized behaviors, etc. have both good and bad consequences ... or maybe there is no objectively good or bad consequence and it's all alignment, fit-to-purpose.

My argument here is that if we want to understand things like QAnon, we're going to have to develop a science and engineering around such cultural attractors and that includes dehumanizing those attractors we currently identify with human individuals ... similar to the way we've de-iconified/de-personalized the gods.

On 3/12/21 2:46 PM, Prof David West wrote:
> Is there such a thing as a “good” or at least “benign” great (wo)man e.g. Chouinard of Patagonia and the mission statement to save the planet. OTOH — they are just as much a prod of circumstance as a Bezos, but the seem, at least superficially, qualitatively different towards the “good.”
>
> Or is this just an instance of billionaire-asshole; millionaire-maybe?

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: great man theory

The dehumanization that is learned or decided seems different from the dehumanization that is trained. I can't make much sense of farm life, in retrospect. What's the pecking order for use and abuse of animals?

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 2:56 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] great man theory

It's a matter of completeness. There is no completely bad cultural attractor. And there is no completely good cultural attractor. It's the same with the least influential homeless person and the most universal cultural norm (like laughter or somesuch). Influential people, ideas, canalized behaviors, etc. have both good and bad consequences ... or maybe there is no objectively good or bad consequence and it's all alignment, fit-to-purpose.

My argument here is that if we want to understand things like QAnon, we're going to have to develop a science and engineering around such cultural attractors and that includes dehumanizing those attractors we currently identify with human individuals ... similar to the way we've de-iconified/de-personalized the gods.

On 3/12/21 2:46 PM, Prof David West wrote:
> Is there such a thing as a “good” or at least “benign” great (wo)man e.g. Chouinard of Patagonia and the mission statement to save the planet. OTOH — they are just as much a prod of circumstance as a Bezos, but the seem, at least superficially, qualitatively different towards the “good.”
>
> Or is this just an instance of billionaire-asshole; millionaire-maybe?

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: great man theory

Renee' and I were talking about that the other day, actually. An assembly line of chickens, their throats being slit as they slide by hanging from their feet, seems like abuse. Grandma wringing the neck of a relatively happy chicken per holiday or per week so that the family can have some protein does not. But that intuitive difference in scale doesn't work, at all, with a civilization as dense and connected as ours. E.g. following along with the idea that single-use plastic bags are arguably better for the planet than, say, single use paper bags ... a utilitarian might suggest that *temporary* assembly line death machines for chickens, by fueling the minds of billions of humans, some of whom will be geniuses, gets us to another attractor where all humans and chickens can be treated as ends in themselves.

Billions of years with lots of comfy chickens and no death machines, outweighs several hundred years with death machines for chickens. Swap "chicken" and "human" and you might be canceled. >8^D But as difficult as the above rhetoric is to accept, it's more difficult to believe there would be enough genius chickens to lift us off this attractor.

On 3/12/21 2:59 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> The dehumanization that is learned or decided seems different from the dehumanization that is trained. I can't make much sense of farm life, in retrospect. What's the pecking order for use and abuse of animals?

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: great man theory

I grew up next to an industrial-scale egg farm where chickens live in small cubes for one purpose only. Even that is something to behold. I would think there ought to at least be a way to genetically engineer their brains to have no self-awareness, and at so most can perform random walks to maintain muscle tone. I find shows like Anthony Bourdain and Stanley Tucci kind of horrible. I'm not a vegan, but at least I'm not proud of not being one.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 3:22 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] great man theory

Renee' and I were talking about that the other day, actually. An assembly line of chickens, their throats being slit as they slide by hanging from their feet, seems like abuse. Grandma wringing the neck of a relatively happy chicken per holiday or per week so that the family can have some protein does not. But that intuitive difference in scale doesn't work, at all, with a civilization as dense and connected as ours. E.g. following along with the idea that single-use plastic bags are arguably better for the planet than, say, single use paper bags ... a utilitarian might suggest that *temporary* assembly line death machines for chickens, by fueling the minds of billions of humans, some of whom will be geniuses, gets us to another attractor where all humans and chickens can be treated as ends in themselves.

Billions of years with lots of comfy chickens and no death machines, outweighs several hundred years with death machines for chickens. Swap "chicken" and "human" and you might be canceled. >8^D But as difficult as the above rhetoric is to accept, it's more difficult to believe there would be enough genius chickens to lift us off this attractor.

On 3/12/21 2:59 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> The dehumanization that is learned or decided seems different from the dehumanization that is trained. I can't make much sense of farm life, in retrospect. What's the pecking order for use and abuse of animals?

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: great man theory

Yeah. I don't find foodies all that bad. But the fitness bros (including Jordan Peterson's daughter) are disgusting. THE cleanest best protein is chicken breast; and you should eat that till you're blue in the face. Give me an Epicurian over those bastards any day.

There is some mildly reasonable news, though: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2021/1/26/22250391/joe-biden-animals-line-speeds-chicken

On March 12, 2021 3:51:33 PM PST, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
>I grew up next to an industrial-scale egg farm where chickens live in
>small cubes for one purpose only. Even that is something to behold. I
>would think there ought to at least be a way to genetically engineer
>their brains to have no self-awareness, and at so most can perform
>random walks to maintain muscle tone. I find shows like Anthony
>Bourdain and Stanley Tucci kind of horrible. I'm not a vegan, but at
>least I'm not proud of not being one.

--
glen ⛧

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: What is Wealth for?

In reply to this post by gepr

My beagle died too, when I was 10. I have no idea what happened to her body. I did say goodbye to her but couldn't pet her because she growled if I tried. My dad was very gentle with her and she let him pet her.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 3:44 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Yeah, and being adopted, it wasn't even completely true in my case. But as a kid, it still *felt* like they could get away with killing me if they wanted to. It's especially bad when your dad's a "pillar of the community" ... just call in a few chits here and there and, voilá. It didn't help when my beagle died and my parents just tossed the carcass in the trash can ... and the garbage man just dumped it into his truck and squashed it ... and he saw it too. I know because I was there watching. Monsters, one and all.

On 3/12/21 2:13 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> LOL, as they say. My dad never said that to me but he gave me the equivalent "look".
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 3:05 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
only is Bezos not Bezos. But Bezos' property is not Bezos' property ... or as some parents are fond of saying "I brought you into this world. I can take you out."

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918

Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Merle Lefkoff-2

Re: What is Wealth for?

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Can we please start with how we define "wealth." Please.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 12:31 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tangenting off of the Great Man discussion, I would like to solicit a
discussion on "What is Wealth for". I believe we have attended to this
on the side many times (I remember a vFriam where it was declared that
"Billionaires are Assholes, but Millionaires aren't (necessarily)"?

Each of our Great (Wo)Men on the snark/not-snark list share one thing in
common, Wealth. I'd be interested to hear others riff a little more on
their taxonomies of "what is Wealth for?"

- Steve

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: What is Wealth for?

If you're affluent someone is wealthy if they have twice a much as you do. That may seem like a flippant answer but it is evidence based in research about attitudes about wealth. The point is that it's difficult to define wealth, as you imply Merle.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 7:24 PM Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can we please start with how we define "wealth." Please.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 12:31 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Tangenting off of the Great Man discussion, I would like to solicit a
discussion on "What is Wealth for". I believe we have attended to this
on the side many times (I remember a vFriam where it was declared that
"Billionaires are Assholes, but Millionaires aren't (necessarily)"?

Each of our Great (Wo)Men on the snark/not-snark list share one thing in
common, Wealth. I'd be interested to hear others riff a little more on
their taxonomies of "what is Wealth for?"

- Steve

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @merle110

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: What is Wealth for?

In reply to this post by Merle Lefkoff-2

For me, it’s for having the freedom to carry on my love affair with thinking.. Doesn’t require a heluva lot of wealth, actually. You remember the title of Trump’s niece’s book about him: To Much and Never Enough!. God what curse that would be.

I dunno, Merle; what’s wealth to you?

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 8:24 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

Can we please start with how we define "wealth." Please.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 12:31 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tangenting off of the Great Man discussion, I would like to solicit a
discussion on "What is Wealth for". I believe we have attended to this
on the side many times (I remember a vFriam where it was declared that
"Billionaires are Assholes, but Millionaires aren't (necessarily)"?

Each of our Great (Wo)Men on the snark/not-snark list share one thing in
common, Wealth. I'd be interested to hear others riff a little more on
their taxonomies of "what is Wealth for?"

- Steve

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110

Pieter Steenekamp

Re: What is Wealth for?

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

"what is Wealth for?"

For now I'm addressing material wealth only. Wealth is simply a vehicle to accomplish delayed gratification.

You work and innovate to produce goods and deliver services and sell it for money. If you spend it all immediately then you don't create wealth and also don't get delayed gratification. Only If you save it have you created wealth and get the associated delayed gratification.

So wealth is a necessary component for working and innovating and enjoying the benefits long after when you may be sick and or old.

It's valid for both the indivudual, the family and the society and even humankind.

There's obviously many abuses of wealth but in principle you need wealth for delayed gratification. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Don't look at all the insanely rich individuals and the huge gap between rich and poor and conclude that wealth is the problem. Sort out the problems, keep the baby and throw out the bathwater. At the core you simply need wealth for delayed gratification.

Above explanation is very simplistic to make the concept clear. In practice it's obviously much more complicated.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 at 22:31, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tangenting off of the Great Man discussion, I would like to solicit a
discussion on "What is Wealth for". I believe we have attended to this
on the side many times (I remember a vFriam where it was declared that
"Billionaires are Assholes, but Millionaires aren't (necessarily)"?

Each of our Great (Wo)Men on the snark/not-snark list share one thing in
common, Wealth. I'd be interested to hear others riff a little more on
their taxonomies of "what is Wealth for?"

- Steve

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: What is Wealth for?

Living off interest is wealth.

On Mar 12, 2021, at 9:15 PM, Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

"what is Wealth for?"

For now I'm addressing material wealth only. Wealth is simply a vehicle to accomplish delayed gratification.

You work and innovate to produce goods and deliver services and sell it for money. If you spend it all immediately then you don't create wealth and also don't get delayed gratification. Only If you save it have you created wealth and get the associated delayed gratification.

So wealth is a necessary component for working and innovating and enjoying the benefits long after when you may be sick and or old.

It's valid for both the indivudual, the family and the society and even humankind.

There's obviously many abuses of wealth but in principle you need wealth for delayed gratification. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Don't look at all the insanely rich individuals and the huge gap between rich and poor and conclude that wealth is the problem. Sort out the problems, keep the baby and throw out the bathwater. At the core you simply need wealth for delayed gratification.

Above explanation is very simplistic to make the concept clear. In practice it's obviously much more complicated.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 at 22:31, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tangenting off of the Great Man discussion, I would like to solicit a
discussion on "What is Wealth for". I believe we have attended to this
on the side many times (I remember a vFriam where it was declared that
"Billionaires are Assholes, but Millionaires aren't (necessarily)"?

Each of our Great (Wo)Men on the snark/not-snark list share one thing in
common, Wealth. I'd be interested to hear others riff a little more on
their taxonomies of "what is Wealth for?"

- Steve

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Robert J. Cordingley

Re: What is Wealth for?

In reply to this post by Merle Lefkoff-2

Steve

If you are taking a poll...

For starters on what wealth might mean economically, it might be useful to understand the cost of living and purchasing power by country. Is 'wealthy' some factor based on a ratio of income over cost of living?

I don't know how you would measure cultural wealth and how colonialism played a part in its accumulation via subjugation. There must be other categories of wealth; spiritual wealth, artistic wealth, land ownership, public wealth, private wealth, etc.. How would native Americans and other indigenous population discuss the concept?

At the excessive levels of the ultra-rich (Besos and co), wealth is for giving away for perhaps some altruistic purpose. Cynically, some might see this as a way for making amends for all the transgressions committed on the way?

More commonly wealth is accumulated to help the next generation in one's family regardless of culture and purchasing power?

Robert C.

On 3/12/21 7:24 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:

Can we please start with how we define "wealth." Please.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 12:31 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tangenting off of the Great Man discussion, I would like to solicit a
discussion on "What is Wealth for". I believe we have attended to this
on the side many times (I remember a vFriam where it was declared that
"Billionaires are Assholes, but Millionaires aren't (necessarily)"?

Each of our Great (Wo)Men on the snark/not-snark list share one thing in
common, Wealth. I'd be interested to hear others riff a little more on
their taxonomies of "what is Wealth for?"

- Steve

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

-- 
Cirrillian 
Web Design & Development
Santa Fe, NM
http://cirrillian.com
281-989-6272 (cell)

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: What is Wealth for?

I don’t find the cost of living argument so convincing. If one can accumulate wealth and retire or work remotely, it is possible to get the benefits of a low cost of living while still having a high income. However, what’s unsaid, is that people do value other things, like being in the vicinity of their friends and family. Also in the U.S., especially, what we value is a political football. If half a million people die of COVID-19, that can be defined away in the name of jobs. Or the economy can be equated with the markets, etc. How much terror and suffering is enough to make one doubt ones definition of wealth?

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 6:44 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>; Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

Steve

If you are taking a poll...

More commonly wealth is accumulated to help the next generation in one's family regardless of culture and purchasing power?

Robert C.

On 3/12/21 7:24 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:

Can we please start with how we define "wealth." Please.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 12:31 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Tangenting off of the Great Man discussion, I would like to solicit a
discussion on "What is Wealth for". I believe we have attended to this
on the side many times (I remember a vFriam where it was declared that
"Billionaires are Assholes, but Millionaires aren't (necessarily)"?

Each of our Great (Wo)Men on the snark/not-snark list share one thing in
common, Wealth. I'd be interested to hear others riff a little more on
their taxonomies of "what is Wealth for?"

- Steve

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

--

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @merle110
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

--

Cirrillian

Web Design & Development

Santa Fe, NM

http://cirrillian.com

281-989-6272 (cell)

123456