|
Post by topology on Aug 8, 2013 9:35:51 GMT -5
Of course you can legislate against it. Make laws and enforce them. And if the laws are too weak then make stronger ones. We already have laws against corruption, but they are used only against the small people, while the super rich get away with it. Educate the children, make them aware that class struggle is a real and urgent concern. When they finish school they have no understanding at all about what kind of system they live in, the best they can do is recite the propaganda.A top-down, external-to-internal rule of law doesn't work. The "law" has to come from within outward. We have the governments we have because we're hooked on externals and complacent to be directed and "taken care of". And it all starts with how we were raised, how we were educated. Reformation of the system isn't going to happen unless people of true integrity are voted into office. People with true integrity are not going to be voted into office until the populace starts to see clearly and starts caring about integrity instead of talking points and media buzz. The populace isn't going to start caring about integrity and their own seeing clearly until they are in enough pain from the status quo and the culture shifts. The culture at large has inertia and wants to maintain itself. If there is going to be change in culture, its going to come from grass-roots movements that spread. The outer culture is going to be terraformed by pockets of functional communities which find a better way of doing things, a better way for people to relate to each other. It's going to come from within, outward. The laws of a government are the last thing to change and are really a matter of formality when it comes to following guiding principles. Apart from ranting and raving on internet forums, Q, what are you doing to effect change in your local end of the planet?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 8, 2013 9:36:17 GMT -5
It's retarded to point out that the trader and the farmer are both human beings with the same intrinsic worth that that denotes? FĂșck you. You said, and I quote: "the definition of wealth is arbitrary. Who is more needy -- the NY bond trader who wakes up everyday at 4AM and spends his day on a floor getting an ulcer for the sake of his next half mil or some farmer in East Bumfuk that's satisfied with his lot?"
lol Yes, and what I said makes absolutely no sense if we are comparing these two people by some material metric -- if we are measuring their worth, their wealth, by the nature and the extent of material that they have ostensible control over. It only makes sense if we stop comparing them and see them both as human beings.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 8, 2013 9:56:11 GMT -5
What's obvious is what top pointed out -- the definition of wealth is arbitrary. Who is more needy -- the NY bond trader who wakes up everyday at 4AM and spends his day on a floor getting an ulcer for the sake of his next half mil or some farmer in East Bumfuk that's satisfied with his lot? Even conceiving of the question is TMT. The definition of wealth and neediness depends on the context it is being used. Yes. Context is always arbitrary. It's the nature of the beast. Yes, that's the point that I saw topo' making and that I was supporting. As always, the first cut is the deepest -- we've divided things up in at least four ways already in getting to this point. Like I said to MovieQ -- nothing wrong with conceiving of the world in political terms, but it is conception like any other, and this type of conception is inherently divisive. This cultural context is really rich -- there's quite a bit going on. That makes this hypo rather ... complicated ... For instance, in looking backward from the end of the story it seems as though the cause of the foreclosure was the health care expense, but there is an underlying cultural vector of living a highly leveraged life which is taken as an unquestioned assumption. Does someone who closes with no money down on a hyperinflated home price actually really own the thing? At the root of this is the bourgeois strategy of maximizing one's material comfort at a given income level -- this is a long and involved discussion, but on the other side of the equation, many if not most states, and the federal code include what's known as a homestead exemption that lets people keep their house through bankruptcy if they have enough equity in it. I'm not knocking the strategy of leveraging oneself, and the long end of the story would be the type of thing that MovieQ is really interested in: how did housing prices get so inflated to begin with? ... but the bottom line is that from a different perspective, it was greed that led to the foreclosure, and not necessarily the greed of the medical industrial complex. Locating the nexus of the greed involves the inherently divisive process of political modeling.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 8, 2013 10:30:39 GMT -5
The definition of wealth and neediness depends on the context it is being used. Yes. Context is always arbitrary. It's the nature of the beast. Yes, that's the point that I saw topo' making and that I was supporting. As always, the first cut is the deepest -- we've divided things up in at least four ways already in getting to this point. Like I said to MovieQ -- nothing wrong with conceiving of the world in political terms, but it is conception like any other, and this type of conception is inherently divisive. This cultural context is really rich -- there's quite a bit going on. That makes this hypo rather ... complicated ... For instance, in looking backward from the end of the story it seems as though the cause of the foreclosure was the health care expense, but there is an underlying cultural vector of living a highly leveraged life which is taken as an unquestioned assumption. Does someone who closes with no money down on a hyperinflated home price actually really own the thing? At the root of this is the bourgeois strategy of maximizing one's material comfort at a given income level -- this is a long and involved discussion, but on the other side of the equation, many if not most states, and the federal code include what's known as a homestead exemption that lets people keep their house through bankruptcy if they have enough equity in it. I'm not knocking the strategy of leveraging oneself, and the long end of the story would be the type of thing that MovieQ is really interested in: how did housing prices get so inflated to begin with? ... but the bottom line is that from a different perspective, it was greed that led to the foreclosure, and not necessarily the greed of the medical industrial complex. Locating the nexus of the greed involves the inherently divisive process of political modeling. It's a very good point about the cultural assumption that leveraging (mortgage), credit cards, and taking loans out against material assets is the "right way" of doing things. I am going to go ahead and knock leveraging on principle. All forms of leveraging a gambles on future ability to earn. On the one hand we need shelter, bit it would be much better to own the property in full and not have any leins against it which, in the event of a health problem, you can no longer work and pay on the debt. Leverage is a risk, and perhaps a necessary one in order to bootstrap positive cash-flow. Once positive cash-flow is reached, the excess should go to minimizing risk, I.e. a movement towards sustainability of positive cash flow. That includes accounting for emergencies.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 8, 2013 10:57:33 GMT -5
Yes. Context is always arbitrary. It's the nature of the beast. Yes, that's the point that I saw topo' making and that I was supporting. As always, the first cut is the deepest -- we've divided things up in at least four ways already in getting to this point. Like I said to MovieQ -- nothing wrong with conceiving of the world in political terms, but it is conception like any other, and this type of conception is inherently divisive. This cultural context is really rich -- there's quite a bit going on. That makes this hypo rather ... complicated ... For instance, in looking backward from the end of the story it seems as though the cause of the foreclosure was the health care expense, but there is an underlying cultural vector of living a highly leveraged life which is taken as an unquestioned assumption. Does someone who closes with no money down on a hyperinflated home price actually really own the thing? At the root of this is the bourgeois strategy of maximizing one's material comfort at a given income level -- this is a long and involved discussion, but on the other side of the equation, many if not most states, and the federal code include what's known as a homestead exemption that lets people keep their house through bankruptcy if they have enough equity in it. I'm not knocking the strategy of leveraging oneself, and the long end of the story would be the type of thing that MovieQ is really interested in: how did housing prices get so inflated to begin with? ... but the bottom line is that from a different perspective, it was greed that led to the foreclosure, and not necessarily the greed of the medical industrial complex. Locating the nexus of the greed involves the inherently divisive process of political modeling. It's a very good point about the cultural assumption that leveraging (mortgage), credit cards, and taking loans out against material assets is the "right way" of doing things. I am going to go ahead and knock leveraging on principle. All forms of leveraging a gambles on future ability to earn. On the one hand we need shelter, bit it would be much better to own the property in full and not have any leins against it which, in the event of a health problem, you can no longer work and pay on the debt. Leverage is a risk, and perhaps a necessary one in order to bootstrap positive cash-flow. Once positive cash-flow is reached, the excess should go to minimizing risk, I.e. a movement towards sustainability of positive cash flow. That includes accounting for emergencies. Ha! ... my going any further from here would likely just be riddled with my own cultural biases.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 12:40:36 GMT -5
Of course you can legislate against it. Make laws and enforce them. And if the laws are too weak then make stronger ones. We already have laws against corruption, but they are used only against the small people, while the super rich get away with it. Educate the children, make them aware that class struggle is a real and urgent concern. When they finish school they have no understanding at all about what kind of system they live in, the best they can do is recite the propaganda.A top-down, external-to-internal rule of law doesn't work. The "law" has to come from within outward. We have the governments we have because we're hooked on externals and complacent to be directed and "taken care of". And it all starts with how we were raised, how we were educated. Reformation of the system isn't going to happen unless people of true integrity are voted into office. People with true integrity are not going to be voted into office until the populace starts to see clearly and starts caring about integrity instead of talking points and media buzz. The populace isn't going to start caring about integrity and their own seeing clearly until they are in enough pain from the status quo and the culture shifts. The culture at large has inertia and wants to maintain itself. If there is going to be change in culture, its going to come from grass-roots movements that spread. The outer culture is going to be terraformed by pockets of functional communities which find a better way of doing things, a better way for people to relate to each other. It's going to come from within, outward. The laws of a government are the last thing to change and are really a matter of formality when it comes to following guiding principles. You're talking soviets here; sounds like an anarcho-communism. The question then is whether anarcho comuunism can be built straight from overthrowing capitalism or if there is transitional state.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 12:47:24 GMT -5
The definition of wealth and neediness depends on the context it is being used. Yes. Context is always arbitrary. It's the nature of the beast. Yes, that's the point that I saw topo' making and that I was supporting. As always, the first cut is the deepest -- we've divided things up in at least four ways already in getting to this point. Like I said to MovieQ -- nothing wrong with conceiving of the world in political terms, but it is conception like any other, and this type of conception is inherently divisive. This cultural context is really rich -- there's quite a bit going on. That makes this hypo rather ... complicated ... For instance, in looking backward from the end of the story it seems as though the cause of the foreclosure was the health care expense, but there is an underlying cultural vector of living a highly leveraged life which is taken as an unquestioned assumption. Does someone who closes with no money down on a hyperinflated home price actually really own the thing? At the root of this is the bourgeois strategy of maximizing one's material comfort at a given income level -- this is a long and involved discussion, but on the other side of the equation, many if not most states, and the federal code include what's known as a homestead exemption that lets people keep their house through bankruptcy if they have enough equity in it. I'm not knocking the strategy of leveraging oneself, and the long end of the story would be the type of thing that MovieQ is really interested in: how did housing prices get so inflated to begin with? ... but the bottom line is that from a different perspective, it was greed that led to the foreclosure, and not necessarily the greed of the medical industrial complex. Locating the nexus of the greed involves the inherently divisive process of political modeling. the no-interest mortgage loan reason for the recent crisis was a teeny factor in what caused the whole thing to blow up. The real reason is because traders wanted to make lots of dough and there was (and still is) nothing to prevent them from making bogus little packages of default swaps or whatever. The folks who got screwed in that case were pensioners and such who's investments took a dive. The issue I'm mentioning regarding foreclosure and healthcare predated that. The point is that a basic thing like healthcare in the richest and most powerful country in the world keeps much of the population in jitters.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 8, 2013 19:13:31 GMT -5
Yes. Context is always arbitrary. It's the nature of the beast. Yes, that's the point that I saw topo' making and that I was supporting. As always, the first cut is the deepest -- we've divided things up in at least four ways already in getting to this point. Like I said to MovieQ -- nothing wrong with conceiving of the world in political terms, but it is conception like any other, and this type of conception is inherently divisive. This cultural context is really rich -- there's quite a bit going on. That makes this hypo rather ... complicated ... For instance, in looking backward from the end of the story it seems as though the cause of the foreclosure was the health care expense, but there is an underlying cultural vector of living a highly leveraged life which is taken as an unquestioned assumption. Does someone who closes with no money down on a hyperinflated home price actually really own the thing? At the root of this is the bourgeois strategy of maximizing one's material comfort at a given income level -- this is a long and involved discussion, but on the other side of the equation, many if not most states, and the federal code include what's known as a homestead exemption that lets people keep their house through bankruptcy if they have enough equity in it. I'm not knocking the strategy of leveraging oneself, and the long end of the story would be the type of thing that MovieQ is really interested in: how did housing prices get so inflated to begin with? ... but the bottom line is that from a different perspective, it was greed that led to the foreclosure, and not necessarily the greed of the medical industrial complex. Locating the nexus of the greed involves the inherently divisive process of political modeling. the no-interest mortgage loan reason for the recent crisis was a teeny factor in what caused the whole thing to blow up. The real reason is because traders wanted to make lots of dough and there was (and still is) nothing to prevent them from making bogus little packages of default swaps or whatever. The folks who got screwed in that case were pensioners and such who's investments took a dive. The issue I'm mentioning regarding foreclosure and healthcare predated that. The point is that a basic thing like healthcare in the richest and most powerful country in the world keeps much of the population in jitters. As far as the housing debacle is concerned, you're isolating one factor (the way that mortgages were securitized) while neglecting the overarching story that preceded it, which included decades of public policy that influenced the market culminating in over a decade of artificially suppressed interest rates and the sprouting or morphing of the practices of dozens of sub-industries such as flipping, refinancing, sales agency, insurance etc.. I really can't think of a more politically divisive issue at this point in time than the current state of the American healthcare system.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 8, 2013 20:28:07 GMT -5
A top-down, external-to-internal rule of law doesn't work. The "law" has to come from within outward. We have the governments we have because we're hooked on externals and complacent to be directed and "taken care of". And it all starts with how we were raised, how we were educated. Reformation of the system isn't going to happen unless people of true integrity are voted into office. People with true integrity are not going to be voted into office until the populace starts to see clearly and starts caring about integrity instead of talking points and media buzz. The populace isn't going to start caring about integrity and their own seeing clearly until they are in enough pain from the status quo and the culture shifts. The culture at large has inertia and wants to maintain itself. If there is going to be change in culture, its going to come from grass-roots movements that spread. The outer culture is going to be terraformed by pockets of functional communities which find a better way of doing things, a better way for people to relate to each other. It's going to come from within, outward. The laws of a government are the last thing to change and are really a matter of formality when it comes to following guiding principles. You're talking (TO?) soviets here; sounds like an anarcho-communism. The question then is whether anarcho comuunism can be built straight from overthrowing capitalism or if there is transitional state. I have no idea what anarcho-communism is. I do think having laws are necessary with respect to crimes, interpersonal disputes, and safety regulations. There are also services which I feel are better executed through government. Universal coverage of health care, public utilities, roadways, education, etc. Poor execution by the current government is not an argument against having it be a service a government would be better suited at providing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 21:50:10 GMT -5
are we here yet?
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 8, 2013 22:19:47 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 22:20:59 GMT -5
goodie passes popped-corn...
violence, the way of our Leaders.
Dont ever allow yourself to become somebody.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2013 1:59:51 GMT -5
Re Original thinking, 'is the POWER of RELIGION less than that of SCIENCE?
what is your most powerful thought? Spiritualists, no-bodies an atheists welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 9, 2013 2:29:21 GMT -5
99% of world's population own 20% of the world's wealth. 1% own 80%! ( proof) This is the result of massive organized theft. That can be questioned.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 9, 2013 2:31:14 GMT -5
Marx is indeed the second most important philosopher of all time. Hegel is number one. The pope is number one.
|
|