Friam

great man theory

Classic

List

Threaded

102 messages Options

123456

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: What is Wealth for?

Intergenerational wealth:

Once two faculty colleagues and I heard that if we could put together a proposal in a couple of days on intergenerational wealth it would be funded. It was a brand new RFP and had to get proposals quickly so that NSF could get Congressional funding.

The review of our proposal said that it looked like it had been thrown together by three guys who heard that it they submitted a proposal quickly it would be approved.

It shows that there was interest in the effects of inheritance by government agencies.

Anybody else here remember this RFP?

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

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 9:20 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, first, I don't think "party" is a singular dimension. I think it's at least 2D. And 2D is ε-better than 1D as in money or distance, if the "breaking" is stable in the long-term. But I don't buy it, any more than I buy the 2D political compass. The ε is so small, here, compared to the effective number of dimensions that 2D = 1D, for practical purposes.

Dreyfus makes a Heideggerian case against the representationalism and the extended mind based on space, as well. So, it seems completely reasonable to accuse that of Heidegger's use of "distance". But all that filosifickle hooey is largely irrelevant to this discussion of the individual and societal purposes of wealth.

We use the word "wealth" sometimes synonymize with and sometimes to distinguish from "rich". But the distinction is, largely, one of accretion. There's a scaling difference between high income vs wealthy, exhibited well (I think) by *inheritance*. I found this article during my insomnia this morning:

https://evonomics.com/to-tackle-inequality-we-need-to-start-talking-about-where-wealth-comes-from/

And it fleshes out from the reduced measure of money enough to link in our delusion of meritocracy. And that, again, points back to private property and ownership. If by "operation warp-speed", you mean choosing corporate *ownership* over public domain, then we should not cancel those canaries but amplify their voices. Especially for those of us outside large institutions with subscriptions to Elsevier journals, we should argue *for*, not against, open access:

https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/uc-publisher-relationships/uc-and-elsevier/

But if that's not what you mean by "those who warn of the dangers of operation warp-speed", then I don't know what you mean and have no idea who you're suggesting we cancel.

On 3/16/21 12:37 PM, jon zingale wrote:
> "Focusing on that inappropriate reduction *is* the point"
>
> Is exactly the point. One could begin to describe the world synthetically by
> reaching for some tools like distance, or one can analyze by factoring the
> world into a tool like distance. Both are available as interpretations.
> Heidegger is concerned with compactness and he is describing it in terms of
> the end of distance, the end of near and far. I don't believe he is simply
> saying that all is factored into distance. Interpretation, though, is
> constrained by habit.
>
> By contrast, from today's NYT:
>
> """
> While there are degrees of opposition to vaccination for the coronavirus
> among a number of groups, including African-Americans and antivaccine
> activists, polling suggests that opinions, in this case, are breaking
> substantially along partisan lines.
> """
>
> The rhetoric expressed here is clearly quantity-centric. The article makes
> claims about the *degrees* of opposition among a *number* of groups. It is
> suggested that, via polling, that the degree of breaking (substantially) is
> along the singular dimension of party. The underlying assumption for this
> kind of rhetoric is that space is a universal metaphor. This is very
> different, to my mind, than what one must bring to reading Heidegger, the
> Frankfurt school, and (quite explicitly) to Bergson.
>
> To make things a little more muddled, now that AZ is getting some much
> blowback for the blood clots and brain hemorrhages, should we push harder to
> cancel those that warn of the dangers of operation warp-speed?

--
↙↙↙ 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: What is Wealth for?

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

That's a good point and question. I got no kids. So I have no direct evidence of this. But I've heard some say that parents want a "better life" for their kids. If that were true, and the parents were rational, eliminating *all* inheritance (including e.g. Nick's baby ward randomization) should reduce the number of children. There'd still be hysterical growth and indoctrination, of course. E.g. if epigenetics matters, the food you feed your kids, whether you vape in the car, whether you mix their gut flora with that of dogs or chickens, etc. would provide for at least some [un]intentional inheritance. But eliminating *only* accrued artifacts and rents may not have much impact on the birth rate. I don't think it would. There's too much of the sense of "self replication" in the breeders. I'm confident my parents wanted to grow little "Mini-Mes". They were devastated when they finally realized I was so damned weird. >8^D

On 3/17/21 9:09 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Nuclear waste comes to mind: There are these things that we don't want to talk about, and so if we just make them impossible to dispose of, maybe people will stop making them. The same applies to Styrofoam or pressure-treated wood here in Berkeley. If many cities start these mandates then eventually manufacturers will start to pay attention. Is there some point at which people will stop making more people, if there is not directly or indirectly inherited wealth?

--
↙↙↙ 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

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: What is Wealth for?

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/private-schools-are-indefensible/618078/ is about the relationship between parents and elite independent schools and elite colleges, by an author who had both taught and enrolled children in an elite independent school. It gets extremely weird.

-- rec --

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 1:22 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

That's a good point and question. I got no kids. So I have no direct evidence of this. But I've heard some say that parents want a "better life" for their kids. If that were true, and the parents were rational, eliminating *all* inheritance (including e.g. Nick's baby ward randomization) should reduce the number of children. There'd still be hysterical growth and indoctrination, of course. E.g. if epigenetics matters, the food you feed your kids, whether you vape in the car, whether you mix their gut flora with that of dogs or chickens, etc. would provide for at least some [un]intentional inheritance. But eliminating *only* accrued artifacts and rents may not have much impact on the birth rate. I don't think it would. There's too much of the sense of "self replication" in the breeders. I'm confident my parents wanted to grow little "Mini-Mes". They were devastated when they finally realized I was so damned weird. >8^D

On 3/17/21 9:09 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Nuclear waste comes to mind: There are these things that we don't want to talk about, and so if we just make them impossible to dispose of, maybe people will stop making them. The same applies to Styrofoam or pressure-treated wood here in Berkeley. If many cities start these mandates then eventually manufacturers will start to pay attention. Is there some point at which people will stop making more people, if there is not directly or indirectly inherited wealth?

--
↙↙↙ 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: What is Wealth for? — Defining Wealth

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Whether that viz worked would depend on the sorting. The types on the X axis could be shuffled arbitrarily, maybe helping with the Y,Z dimensional axes. But if you can't do the {Y,Z} ordering well, then it'll be a mess. Adding time/animation might help, though. As with SteveS' high node graphs, "flying through" might be enough to extract some intuition from it.

But the more interesting aspect of your proposal is that I'd prefer not to measure *assets* so much as *access*. It doesn't much matter to me if I own, say, toilets or books. What matters is whether or not I have access to them. We've talked a lot about linear logic and resource consumption. But this would be a mixed language, where some resources like food are consumed and are, if not zero-sum, limited in the extent to which they can be [re][distributed|used]. And that's where, when considering private property and ownership, the emphasis moves from ownership to *privacy*. It really doesn't matter if, say, some rich guy owns a museum, as long as the rich guy (and his descendants) allow public access to it ... like Bezos and the Washington Post.

The trouble is how to quantify access?

On 3/17/21 9:11 AM, Prof David West wrote:

> I really suck at visualization (and math and ... ) but
>
> A graph:
> Horizontal axis a set of labelled points for different types of "assets" ranging from basic needs (food, shelter) to semi-abstract (energy, love) to abstract (cash on hand or cash flow, stocks). Start with something like Maslow's hierarchy and flesh it out to include a point for everything we might think belongs on the line. Don't forget books! Whatever is put on the line must be quantifiable, directly or indirectly.
>
> Vertical axis marks a set of bands: nearest to zero is "dangerously inadequate," then, in order, "inadequate," "adequate," "comfortable," "surplus," "excess," "toxic excess;" or some such. We can have fun deciding how to define/measure these things for each line on the horizontal access. Toxic money might be defined by differential from average, or sole purpose is control of others.
>
> The 2D graph could be used to measure a single individual's profile.
>
> Add an orthogonal dimension and mark it with population percentiles. The vertical measure would then be some kind of average, mean, median.
>
> Now you have a surface that shows the state of the population for whatever segment of the world (entire, region, country, state, ...) the graph was chosen to focus on.
>
> Somehow, I feel that such a visualization would be useful as a reference point for this thread???

--
↙↙↙ 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

gepr

Re: What is Wealth for?

In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2

That's a fantastic article. I worry about the extension into racism in the later parts. It distracted me from the main story line because of the link to the Naked Dollar and the toxic anti-Wokeism comments there.

But the main story shines light on pathological rationality, the neurotic optimization trap. It reminds me of Effective Altruism, where rationalists wring the skin off their hands trying to choose which charity provides the best bang for their buck ... or twisting one's mind trying to eke out a few miliseconds from a computation with clever but unreadable code.

On 3/17/21 10:31 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/private-schools-are-indefensible/618078/ <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/private-schools-are-indefensible/618078/> is about the relationship between parents and elite independent schools and elite colleges, by an author who had both taught and enrolled children in an elite independent school. It gets extremely weird.

--
↙↙↙ 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

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: What is Wealth for?

Yeah, there's this crazy IMBY/NIMBY focus where a person's foremost concern becomes the justification for ignoring every other thing in the world, chasing the kids off your lawn with a flamethrower.

There should be a coda which details the difficulties of growing up inside this, when everything learned in kindergarten is definitely not what the parents are doing.

-- rec --

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 9:32 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

That's a fantastic article. I worry about the extension into racism in the later parts. It distracted me from the main story line because of the link to the Naked Dollar and the toxic anti-Wokeism comments there.

But the main story shines light on pathological rationality, the neurotic optimization trap. It reminds me of Effective Altruism, where rationalists wring the skin off their hands trying to choose which charity provides the best bang for their buck ... or twisting one's mind trying to eke out a few miliseconds from a computation with clever but unreadable code.

On 3/17/21 10:31 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/private-schools-are-indefensible/618078/ <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/private-schools-are-indefensible/618078/> is about the relationship between parents and elite independent schools and elite colleges, by an author who had both taught and enrolled children in an elite independent school. It gets extremely weird.

--
↙↙↙ 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-2

Re: What is Wealth for?

I grew up mostly in California and attended public schools. I wasn't even aware of any private schools except for the local Catholic schools. Now 60+ years later my elder daughter teaches in the oldest girls boarding school in the US and my grandson goes to a Montessori school in Santa Fe. His mom attended private schools until she rebelled in 11th grade and went to Santa Fe High. That didn't work out. She graduated after her "baby daddy's" mother took her into the charter school where she taught. Things are well now. I adore my grandbabies.

"Baby daddy" is a widely used expression in New Mexico. I don't know about other places.

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

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021, 8:21 AM Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

Yeah, there's this crazy IMBY/NIMBY focus where a person's foremost concern becomes the justification for ignoring every other thing in the world, chasing the kids off your lawn with a flamethrower.

There should be a coda which details the difficulties of growing up inside this, when everything learned in kindergarten is definitely not what the parents are doing.

-- rec --

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 9:32 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's a fantastic article. I worry about the extension into racism in the later parts. It distracted me from the main story line because of the link to the Naked Dollar and the toxic anti-Wokeism comments there.

But the main story shines light on pathological rationality, the neurotic optimization trap. It reminds me of Effective Altruism, where rationalists wring the skin off their hands trying to choose which charity provides the best bang for their buck ... or twisting one's mind trying to eke out a few miliseconds from a computation with clever but unreadable code.

On 3/17/21 10:31 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/private-schools-are-indefensible/618078/ <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/private-schools-are-indefensible/618078/> is about the relationship between parents and elite independent schools and elite colleges, by an author who had both taught and enrolled children in an elite independent school. It gets extremely weird.

--
↙↙↙ 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/

Steve Smith

Re: What is Wealth for?

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

In the vernacular of Confidence (wo)men, there is the short game and
the long game.

And then there is the arc of one's career which is not necessarily a
piecewise linear composition of con after con after con. Sure... with
a finite number of hours in a day, and days in a life the number of
Marks one can Con (or be Conned by) is technically finite.

"The best Mark is another Con"

On 3/15/21 4:27 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> Only a person who loves games can come up with a notion like Infinite Games. Life is finite, so games are finite.
> So long it is a game, players will defect. And they should.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:54 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?
>
> The recent episode of Computing Up had a good conversation about externalities:
>
> https://computingup.com/glum-about-technology-45th-conversation
>
> On 3/15/21 1:31 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> There was the N.Y. / Giuliani approach of actually putting homeless people on buses upstate or even sending them out of the country. Like electronic waste barges headed for China. Is that who we are?
> --
> ↙↙↙ 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/
>

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: What is Wealth for?

If all research funding proposals had to be public, I bet there'd be a lot less of the con-after-con thing.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 9:07 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

In the vernacular of Confidence (wo)men, there is the short game and the long game.

And then there is the arc of one's career which is not necessarily a piecewise linear composition of con after con after con. Sure... with a finite number of hours in a day, and days in a life the number of Marks one can Con (or be Conned by) is technically finite.

"The best Mark is another Con"

On 3/15/21 4:27 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> Only a person who loves games can come up with a notion like Infinite Games. Life is finite, so games are finite.
> So long it is a game, players will defect. And they should.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:54 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?
>
> The recent episode of Computing Up had a good conversation about externalities:
>
> https://computingup.com/glum-about-technology-45th-conversation
>
> On 3/15/21 1:31 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> There was the N.Y. / Giuliani approach of actually putting homeless people on buses upstate or even sending them out of the country. Like electronic waste barges headed for China. Is that who we are?
> --
> ↙↙↙ 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/
>

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

Steve Smith

Re: What is Wealth for?

In reply to this post by gepr

I think Merle's request for us to start with "what is wealth?" before we
go on to "what is it for" was not pedantic... it rather reflected that
likelihood that we don't all share the same idea of what wealth is, even
at the broadest scale. I also think they are inextricably tied.

I admit to thinking this group would be unable/willing to talk much
outside the most obvious definition ($USD or private control of
resources) but I have been pleased to see that the question has lead to
a broader apprehension of the idea.    The most recent tangent on
education (implying knowledge, skill, credential building/acquiring) is
a good example. Kudos particularly to Cordingly for making a stab at a
more elaborated taxonomy (part of what i wanted to provoke with the
question).

I particularly like Glen's introduction (in support of Gil's anecdotes)
of *access* to resources vs *control* of them which reflects on the
ideas of public/private, commons, synergy and leverage, and re-use (does
every person need to haul their own toilet, coffee maker and bed around
with them everywhere they go? Just the RV crowd). Temporary custodial
access/control (the public toilet while you are using it, a book from
the public library while you are reading it, a park bench or a few
square feet of public beach, etc.) also implies "custodial
responsibility" to leave those items "no worse for wear" and in some
cases improved (e.g. pick up some trash). There are good reasons for "a
commons" and even more better good reasons for maintaining them, yet we
so often fail (the tragedy of "the tragedy of the commons) for what feel
like mundane if not dysfunctional reasons.

Discussions of "wealth", especially in the context of free markets and
communalism usually include some idea of how "wealth builds" which can
range from autopoetic virtuous cycles of production (organic farming,
Rep Rap 3D printing factories, nanotech grey-goo) to expanding
exploration for exploitation (mining, unsustainable agriculture,
timbering, etc.) to enhanced efficiency/utilization of existing
resources...   Merle would probably introduce ideas of circular (and
toroidal?) economies and many would acknowledge the tension between
economies of scale/globalism and locally (partially) closed systems.

I'm a fan of limiting intergenerational wealth-transfer, though I don't
know how to effect it except for myself in a free-market context with my
own progeny.   I don't begrudge my children a little hit of "wealth"
when I die, but I don't feel obligated to provide it, and definitely
don't want the expectation of it to be an enabling thing, not that they
are at much risk (like Don, Eric, Ivanka for example).   I wouldn't
resent them inheriting my "farm" if I had one and they were farmers or
my smithy or my cobbler's shop if they had followed my footsteps, and in
fact since they would likely have joined me IN those enterprises decades
ago, they would have been *naturally* and *organically* theirs as much
or more than *mine* by that time anyway. I also would feel fully
righteous to go help my children build a house or raise their kids as my
"legacy" to them...   much healthier than handing them a pile of cash
(no matter how small or large) one day.

"Inheritance" made more sense (IMO) in these intergenerational
continuation contexts, not in the government-subsidized mortgage and
speculative markets context we now live in. My daughters know I'm
looking to repatriate the land I live on which was "bought" from the San
Ildefonso Pueblo 50 years ago and while I'm sure *they* might like to
have the cash equivalent in their bank accounts (or pay down *their*
mortgages), they actually understand and support the concept. If
anything, my continuing to live on the land is perpetuating the original
wrong (I can't find what PNM paid them for the chunk, nor the
"developer" who bought it from PNM 10 years later, but I'm sure it was a
pittance).

Nobody who lives in the Americas doesn't in some sense live on land
stolen from the Native Americans. The paradox of the 40
acres-and-a-mule reparations that was never realized during
reconstruction... *whose* 40 acres were we going to give to the freed
slaves?   While something like this is true around the world (who WERE
the original peoples in any given locale? All of Eurasia stolen from
the Neanderthals/Denovisians/Peking-Man by Homo Sapiens? Yup!   And ALL
that and more stolen from the megafauna?   Ad infinitum, ad absurdum.

While Glen may be right that these long-winded personal anecdotes serve
the anecdotalizer's ego (Glen made the point in the context of SW
development) I don't believe it *only* serves that purpose.   Jon and
Glen have pointed out the utility of grounding abstractions in
particulars, so I trust that balances it somewhat.

mumble,

- Steve

On 3/16/21 9:22 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

> Well, going back to the topic SteveS tried to discuss, I reject the semantic pedantry around settling on a crisp definition of "wealth" before being able to have a discussion. The dictionary definition is fine. But 1 component of being affluent or having a hoard of valuable artifacts is, as Gillian makes clear, the breadth of one's repertoire. Being poor is very difficult and time consuming. The specious Puritan rhetoric that even if you're poor, all you need do is spend all your free time working, forgets that you tire out (in short-) and burn out (in long-term), physically, mentally, emotionally.
>
> And the primary detriment to that exhaustion is that the curiosity and energy you pour into various parts of your repertoire is drastically limited. Nobody's going to, say, read Ulysses after the night shift of their third job, especially if they have a kid, or have to pay bills with money they don't have.
>
> So all these ways of knowing infinity sound like toys for wealthy people to me. Getting psilocybin into the hands of *public health* psychiatry would be fantastic. But the core problems won't be solved as long as we're living under individualist neoliberal capitalism. A basic income, public health, and reliable infrastructure will do more to help your everyday yahoo know infinity better than a few one-off indulgences by a few already wealthy dudes.
>
> As Nick and Robert suggest, having the time and energy to explore and expand one's repertoire. That's what wealth allows, even if it seems like most of the celebrities squander it.
>
> On 3/15/21 9:15 PM, Prof David West wrote:
>> Totally different item: I sure would like to take some of you (especially you glen) the places I have been where I intellectually, viscerally, emotionally, somatically, and kinesthetically experienced and understood really cool things like infinity.

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: What is Wealth for?

Maybe fairness is too limited perspective? Like companies that hire a bunch of people and then exhale all of the underperforming ones. Similarly, if some families (like the House of Windsor) find a way to ensure they will reproduce, educate their young and maintain influence, generation after generation, then perhaps that population (e.g. England) has done its job? It just depends what you measure. Are some people progressing vs. are all people progressing? In this view, it seems questionable that the population is needed any more, up to some dangerous level of inbreeding. But also in this view, the transfer of wealth is to keep what "works" going.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 1:26 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

I think Merle's request for us to start with "what is wealth?" before we go on to "what is it for" was not pedantic... it rather reflected that likelihood that we don't all share the same idea of what wealth is, even at the broadest scale. I also think they are inextricably tied.

I admit to thinking this group would be unable/willing to talk much outside the most obvious definition ($USD or private control of
resources) but I have been pleased to see that the question has lead to a broader apprehension of the idea.    The most recent tangent on education (implying knowledge, skill, credential building/acquiring) is a good example. Kudos particularly to Cordingly for making a stab at a more elaborated taxonomy (part of what i wanted to provoke with the question).

I particularly like Glen's introduction (in support of Gil's anecdotes) of *access* to resources vs *control* of them which reflects on the ideas of public/private, commons, synergy and leverage, and re-use (does every person need to haul their own toilet, coffee maker and bed around with them everywhere they go? Just the RV crowd). Temporary custodial access/control (the public toilet while you are using it, a book from the public library while you are reading it, a park bench or a few square feet of public beach, etc.) also implies "custodial responsibility" to leave those items "no worse for wear" and in some cases improved (e.g. pick up some trash). There are good reasons for "a commons" and even more better good reasons for maintaining them, yet we so often fail (the tragedy of "the tragedy of the commons) for what feel like mundane if not dysfunctional reasons.

Discussions of "wealth", especially in the context of free markets and communalism usually include some idea of how "wealth builds" which can range from autopoetic virtuous cycles of production (organic farming, Rep Rap 3D printing factories, nanotech grey-goo) to expanding exploration for exploitation (mining, unsustainable agriculture, timbering, etc.) to enhanced efficiency/utilization of existing resources...   Merle would probably introduce ideas of circular (and
toroidal?) economies and many would acknowledge the tension between economies of scale/globalism and locally (partially) closed systems.

I'm a fan of limiting intergenerational wealth-transfer, though I don't know how to effect it except for myself in a free-market context with my own progeny.   I don't begrudge my children a little hit of "wealth"
when I die, but I don't feel obligated to provide it, and definitely don't want the expectation of it to be an enabling thing, not that they are at much risk (like Don, Eric, Ivanka for example).   I wouldn't resent them inheriting my "farm" if I had one and they were farmers or my smithy or my cobbler's shop if they had followed my footsteps, and in fact since they would likely have joined me IN those enterprises decades ago, they would have been *naturally* and *organically* theirs as much or more than *mine* by that time anyway. I also would feel fully righteous to go help my children build a house or raise their kids as my "legacy" to them...   much healthier than handing them a pile of cash (no matter how small or large) one day.

"Inheritance" made more sense (IMO) in these intergenerational continuation contexts, not in the government-subsidized mortgage and speculative markets context we now live in. My daughters know I'm looking to repatriate the land I live on which was "bought" from the San Ildefonso Pueblo 50 years ago and while I'm sure *they* might like to have the cash equivalent in their bank accounts (or pay down *their* mortgages), they actually understand and support the concept. If anything, my continuing to live on the land is perpetuating the original wrong (I can't find what PNM paid them for the chunk, nor the "developer" who bought it from PNM 10 years later, but I'm sure it was a pittance).

Nobody who lives in the Americas doesn't in some sense live on land stolen from the Native Americans. The paradox of the 40 acres-and-a-mule reparations that was never realized during reconstruction... *whose* 40 acres were we going to give to the freed slaves?   While something like this is true around the world (who WERE the original peoples in any given locale? All of Eurasia stolen from the Neanderthals/Denovisians/Peking-Man by Homo Sapiens? Yup!   And ALL that and more stolen from the megafauna?   Ad infinitum, ad absurdum.

While Glen may be right that these long-winded personal anecdotes serve the anecdotalizer's ego (Glen made the point in the context of SW
development) I don't believe it *only* serves that purpose.   Jon and Glen have pointed out the utility of grounding abstractions in particulars, so I trust that balances it somewhat.

mumble,

- Steve

On 3/16/21 9:22 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

gepr

Re: What is Wealth for?

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Ooops! My semantic pedantic comment was aimed at EricC, not Merle. 8^D Eric's always going off about whether we're arguing about the meaning of words like some sort of aggressive Wittgenstein.

On 3/18/21 1:26 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> I think Merle's request for us to start with "what is wealth?" before we
> go on to "what is it for" was not pedantic... it rather reflected that
> likelihood that we don't all share the same idea of what wealth is, even
> at the broadest scale. I also think they are inextricably tied.

--
↙↙↙ 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

Steve Smith

Re: What is Wealth for?

Glen -
> Ooops! My semantic pedantic comment was aimed at EricC, not Merle. 8^D Eric's always going off about whether we're arguing about the meaning of words like some sort of aggressive Wittgenstein.

I think it would be useful to consider all intelligentsia icons with a
variety of moods. An aggressive Wittgenstein, or a happy-go-lucky
Nietzsche.

Which leads me to apologize to the room for my tirade about the idea of
caricaturing the long list of billionaires like Oprah, Musk, Jobs et
cetera. I have been reflecting on that thread and recognize belatedly
that nobody was caricaturing those *people* so much as using their
public personas en-caricature as archetypes... a pantheon of flawed
human-esque characters who reflect our best and worst character traits
perhaps.

I have met only Jobs but once was close enough to Oprah I could have
asked for an autograph, a selfie or maybe just photo-bombed... so none
of these folks are "people" to me. I wonder if it is odd that I felt
inclined to be protective of them as if they were?

- 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?

Bah! I thought your pushback was fantastic! My guess is none of us snowflakes are all that brittle. But it sure seems Jungian. It's like we all have a miniature Oprah bouncing around inside us like some South Park style 2D animated cutout (https://youtu.be/5WOKPgZcvTU). The more interesting avatars, though, are the miniature Cantor, Gödel, and ... damnit, I forget the other "analytical mystic" Dave mentioned.

The Panpsycast episodes on Hinduism:

https://thepanpsycast.com/panpsycast2/episode93-1
https://thepanpsycast.com/panpsycast2/episode93-2

are interesting in their discussion of the pantheon as a trifurcation between polytheism, polymonism, and pantheism. (My words, not theirs ... as if that weren't obvious.)

Celebrities are the new gods. We love to see them get into trouble, fight amongst themselves, do gloriously super-human feats, manipulate their poor servants into depravity, etc.

On 3/18/21 4:56 PM, Steve Smith wrote:

> I think it would be useful to consider all intelligentsia icons with a
> variety of moods. An aggressive Wittgenstein, or a happy-go-lucky
> Nietzsche.
>
> Which leads me to apologize to the room for my tirade about the idea of
> caricaturing the long list of billionaires like Oprah, Musk, Jobs et
> cetera. I have been reflecting on that thread and recognize belatedly
> that nobody was caricaturing those *people* so much as using their
> public personas en-caricature as archetypes... a pantheon of flawed
> human-esque characters who reflect our best and worst character traits
> perhaps.
>
> I have met only Jobs but once was close enough to Oprah I could have
> asked for an autograph, a selfie or maybe just photo-bombed... so none
> of these folks are "people" to me. I wonder if it is odd that I felt
> inclined to be protective of them as if they were?

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Steve Smith

Re: What is Wealth for?

> Celebrities are the new gods. We love to see them get into trouble, fight amongst themselves, do gloriously super-human feats, manipulate their poor servants into depravity, etc.

And THIS season we get to borrow the British Royalty.

I think of our Celebrities as our proxy for Royalty and our
Bizzilionaires as our God(desse)s.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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?

My wealth:

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

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021, 6:54 PM Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Celebrities are the new gods. We love to see them get into trouble, fight amongst themselves, do gloriously super-human feats, manipulate their poor servants into depravity, etc.

And THIS season we get to borrow the British Royalty.

I think of our Celebrities as our proxy for Royalty and our
Bizzilionaires as our God(desse)s.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/

received_1114352859052794.jpeg (180K) Download Attachment

Merle Lefkoff-2

Re: What is Wealth for?

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Is the definition of wealth having a lot of whatever the culture values? (I'm late meeting Nick's challenge to me.) The former Bhutan (it's changing drastically and rapidly) valued Happiness. It's why their happy people thought they were wealthy, despite being one of the world's least "developed" country. (GDP is now rising with outside development of its natural resources).

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 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/

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?

Let me try a definition of wealth:

Wealth is that what makes you happy.

Using this definition we get the following:

For the former Bhutan it could have been inner peace (or whatever made him Happy, I don't understand his culture).
For Bill Gates it could be spending his billions to make the world a better place.
For Nick it could be to have the freedom to carry on his love affair with thinking.
For the person living on the boundary of absolute poverty it could be enough money not to starve.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 06:01, Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Is the definition of wealth having a lot of whatever the culture values? (I'm late meeting Nick's challenge to me.) The former Bhutan (it's changing drastically and rapidly) valued Happiness. It's why their happy people thought they were wealthy, despite being one of the world's least "developed" country. (GDP is now rising with outside development of its natural resources).

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 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/

--
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/

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: What is Wealth for?

I think of the story Never Let Me go (my favorite) where the young organ donors have quiet lives up until their final donations. Maybe they were even happy sometimes. But they were on the losing end of a power and wealth gap that was structural and objective.

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Pieter Steenekamp
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 9:42 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What is Wealth for?

On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 06:01, Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Is the definition of wealth having a lot of whatever the culture values? (I'm late meeting Nick's challenge to me.) The former Bhutan (it's changing drastically and rapidly) valued Happiness. It's why their happy people thought they were wealthy, despite being one of the world's least "developed" country. (GDP is now rising with outside development of its natural resources).

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 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/

--

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/

jon zingale

Re: What is Wealth for?

"You make up stories as horrible as that?"

--
Sent from: 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/

123456