Elmud
 
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 11:59 am
Pretty good documentary. Time frame is in the latter years of the Clinton Administration. Clintons economic brain trust was Alan Greenspan(The Wizard), Robert Rubin and Larry Sommers. Seems as though there was a little incident between Bankers Trust,,and Proctor and Gamble. Something about the selling of over the counter derivatives. In short,,Bankers trust put it to Proctor and Gamble pretty good.

Moves on to talk about an obscure little department in the federal government called the CFTC. Commodities Futures Trade
Commission. The director of that department was a lady by the name of Brookley Born. I guess MS Born became aware of the fraud going on in the derivitives market and wanted to do something about it. I guess she must have overstepped her boundaries because the three amigos didn't much care for her interference.

To make a long story short,,Greenspan and his buddies forsaw that Ms. Borns exposure of the problem and her desire to impose some sort of regulations upon those who were involved,,would create worldwide economic chaos. I guess Greenspan and his cohorts subscribed to the Ayn Rand ideology that the markets were capable and should regulate themselves. Ms. Born was stepping on that ideology.Interesting stuff. Well,,they had some senate hearings and Ms. Born was shut down. Isn't that a shocker. Things went back to the way they were and Ms. Born eventually resigned.

History records the subsequent economic downturn. Greenspan retired in 2006 with a sort of renewed thinking in regards to the market regulating itself. Seems that he now finds flaws in his ideology. Maybe,,breaking the law should be,,,against the law.

Interesting sidenote,,Larry Sommers,,once a hardline opponant of regulated markets,,now is in the Obama Administration and advocates it. My how things change.

As for Ms. Brooksley Born,,I don't know what she is doing now. Hopefully one day there will be room for people like her who want to protect us from ourselves.

I'm not a fan of government interference in the private sector. But,,,people should not be allowed to screw each other over. If ya don't want others butting into your business,,stop abusing the system. To quote Jim Carey in the movie Liar,,Liar,, "Stop breaking the law *******".
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,541 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 12:53 pm
@Elmud,
Wow, what a coincidence: the wife and I saw this show not two hours ago. It was very revealing and excellently-orchestrated.

For anyone interested, its being aired on PBS and comes highly recommended
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 01:14 pm
@Elmud,
Perhaps this thread would be better off in the Television sub-forum?

I'll make the move if you'd like because I feel the title is a bit misleading (as it is the name of a documentary, not necessarily in reference to an issue you'd like to discuss philosophically about politics).
0 Replies
 
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 02:27 pm
@Elmud,
I caught most of this documentary on PBS the other night as well, and it was quite interesting and well done, I thought. It's worth watching to see the interviews and other footage of the insiders, working on the whole issue.

For those of you who did see it, you may be aware that there is now a bill, well on its way to being passed, that will be eliminating most, or all, of the secrecy involved in the trading of OTC derivatives (the big focus of the documentary).

Law360.com, 10/21 wrote:

The U.S. House of Representatives' Agriculture Committee on Wednesday gave its approval to legislation proposing new clearing, margin and reporting requirements for over-the-counter derivative swaps, clearing the bill to be combined with competing proposals before a final vote by the full House.Committee markup to the Over-the-Counter Derivatives Market Act of 2009, which received unanimous approval from Agriculture Committee members, must now be reconciled with a similar version passed by the House...



So far, it seems that the demand is at least to make these trades exchange-traded, or else go through a clearinghouse so that they are visible to the public. Some democrats want more regulation than this added to the bill...others are trying (and I think are finding success) to allow some of these transactions to still occur in secret. The bill is going to be revised quite a bit before passing, so it will be interesting to see where it goes, and how that could change things. I don't know enough about these transactions to where I would say if it's a good thing or a bad thing to regulate them, but it seems that having them out in the open certainly couldn't make things any worse.


If you want to read more, search for 'otc derivatives bill' on google news, as there are plenty of articles, both for and against the bill, to be found.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 07:57 pm
@Elmud,
Elmud;99275 wrote:
Pretty good documentary. Time frame is in the latter years of the Clinton Administration. Clintons economic brain trust was Alan Greenspan(The Wizard), Robert Rubin and Larry Sommers. Seems as though there was a little incident between Bankers Trust,,and Proctor and Gamble. Something about the selling of over the counter derivatives. In short,,Bankers trust put it to Proctor and Gamble pretty good.

Moves on to talk about an obscure little department in the federal government called the CFTC. Commodities Futures Trade
Commission. The director of that department was a lady by the name of Brookley Born. I guess MS Born became aware of the fraud going on in the derivitives market and wanted to do something about it. I guess she must have overstepped her boundaries because the three amigos didn't much care for her interference.

To make a long story short,,Greenspan and his buddies forsaw that Ms. Borns exposure of the problem and her desire to impose some sort of regulations upon those who were involved,,would create worldwide economic chaos. I guess Greenspan and his cohorts subscribed to the Ayn Rand ideology that the markets were capable and should regulate themselves. Ms. Born was stepping on that ideology.Interesting stuff. Well,,they had some senate hearings and Ms. Born was shut down. Isn't that a shocker. Things went back to the way they were and Ms. Born eventually resigned.

History records the subsequent economic downturn. Greenspan retired in 2006 with a sort of renewed thinking in regards to the market regulating itself. Seems that he now finds flaws in his ideology. Maybe,,breaking the law should be,,,against the law.

Interesting sidenote,,Larry Sommers,,once a hardline opponant of regulated markets,,now is in the Obama Administration and advocates it. My how things change.

As for Ms. Brooksley Born,,I don't know what she is doing now. Hopefully one day there will be room for people like her who want to protect us from ourselves.

I'm not a fan of government interference in the private sector. But,,,people should not be allowed to screw each other over. If ya don't want others butting into your business,,stop abusing the system. To quote Jim Carey in the movie Liar,,Liar,, "Stop breaking the law *******".

The markets are capable; as long as you can have the people bankroll you, and the wealth of the country does not go too much to the wealthy...They all forget that it is a system...It has to work in some fashion for everyone, and it does not... Our system works by cutting people out...When it tries to cut too many people out at once, taking all they have, houses, jobs, and hope it really puts itself in danger because every one finds themselves living in fear, and fear is the reason we form our forms of government and society... When the people realize that we do not suffer governments and economies to have more fear, but less; then they will reform themselves and their institutions...They all have an idea of how the thing, capitalism is supposed to work... The idea is false and illogical to begin with...How can greed, a common vice result in virtue of any sort... We have hoped, and our hopes have failed us... We built a system, which like every system, is closed...The wealth which should flow throughout society is not flowing at all, so the form which should be infinite is becoming more and more finite...What will money mean to the majority of people when only a few have it??? As the rich round up the money, they round up the meaning too...Sooner or later it will mean death to them, and less than nothing to us...
Elmud
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 09:25 pm
@Fido,
I thought that the one bright spot in this depressing documentary was Brooksley Born.Someone who saw something wrong,,,and tryed to right it,,regardless of the consequences. If we had more people in government like this lady,,maybe some trust might be restored.
Pangloss
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 09:47 pm
@Elmud,
Elmud;99379 wrote:
I thought that the one bright spot in this depressing documentary was Brooksley Born.Someone who saw something wrong,,,and tryed to right it,,regardless of the consequences. If we had more people in government like this lady,,maybe some trust might be restored.


Yep, it's pretty difficult now to have any faith in our politicians, when we are constantly presented with increasing instances of their self-serving behavior jeopardizing the trust and confidence of the populace. But there are still a few out there who, though we may disagree with them, are still fighting for the people and our principles, and not just for themselves.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 05:24 am
@Elmud,
Elmud;99379 wrote:
I thought that the one bright spot in this depressing documentary was Brooksley Born.Someone who saw something wrong,,,and tryed to right it,,regardless of the consequences. If we had more people in government like this lady,,maybe some trust might be restored.

The idealism that characterized the person is the problem with the system... When we accept that capitalism is supposed to work as an idea, suddenly all the failures of capitalism seem only incidental to the great work of the thing, and we become blind to the fact that capitalism, as our economy, is supposed to support us, and instead we have come to support it...We are forever dragging its buns out of the fire, and we are continually having to live with less so it can have a greater share of our produce and lives...They take risks, break laws, and outright steal for money... We could change all that in a heart beat... We only need new forms to find meaning in.. The form of capitalism is ready to waste...It takes too much for the little it gives..Forget idealism... Look for the practical...
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 06:07 am
@Fido,
I think it's a pervasive part of human life. They say Alexander Hamilton couldn't really see any point to having a bill of rights attached to the Constitution: he was assuming that reasonable people will realize that they shouldn't crap where they eat. The alternate view was: no, we have to protect ourselves from ourselves.

Just as folks institute mechanisms for policing this forum: I think: oh, those rules are going to squash creativity... ideas are always given dimension by emotion... ideas often stray afield before we discover how everything is connected...

But then I resign to the old realization: we have to protect ourselves from ourselves. Regulation tends to spike when our inhibition has already spoiled the fun. Then the drive to regulate fades... until the next time.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 07:37 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;99413 wrote:
I think it's a pervasive part of human life. They say Alexander Hamilton couldn't really see any point to having a bill of rights attached to the Constitution: he was assuming that reasonable people will realize that they shouldn't crap where they eat. The alternate view was: no, we have to protect ourselves from ourselves.

Just as folks institute mechanisms for policing this forum: I think: oh, those rules are going to squash creativity... ideas are always given dimension by emotion... ideas often stray afield before we discover how everything is connected...

But then I resign to the old realization: we have to protect ourselves from ourselves. Regulation tends to spike when our inhibition has already spoiled the fun. Then the drive to regulate fades... until the next time.

In an intelligent organization of society, the few are protected from the many,, and the many are protected from the few... As we have this society we must have majority rule to get something done... When most that needs to get done languishes, and much which should never be conceived of is brought to life, then clearly, bill of rights or not, the thing does not work...Everyone should be brought in...People should consent without duress to the law by which they are governed... I have no doubt that the majority would limit bonuses, and pay packages... Many have sense enough to realize that those people squeeze profit out of companies at the price of higher exploitation, cut wages, or layoffs...The fact is that wealth was to support this land...Even the income tax was aimed at the rich, but as soon as it could be applied to working people it began to change the whole social and economic dynamic in this country... The value of property could be inflated, wages which were essentially cut by taxes could be slashed further... To have anything of value, property, one had to endure credit, paying money to have money for property of inflated value... This is a game we cannot win and can only lose... The gambling of the bankers was on a quick unsustainable profit... You can take to much, -cooking the meat of the calf in the milk of the mother...
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 08:02 am
@Elmud,
One of the lessons I had driven home on the financial collapse, again, was the inherent problem with running an economy with NO controls on big-dollar, black-box transactions. And again we learn how painful the extremes (over control or too much control) of any economic philosophy can be.
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 08:25 am
@Fido,
Fido;99423 wrote:
In an intelligent organization of society, the few are protected from the many,, and the many are protected from the few... As we have this society we must have majority rule to get something done... When most that needs to get done languishes, and much which should never be conceived of is brought to life, then clearly, bill of rights or not, the thing does not work...Everyone should be brought in...People should consent without duress to the law by which they are governed... I have no doubt that the majority would limit bonuses, and pay packages... Many have sense enough to realize that those people squeeze profit out of companies at the price of higher exploitation, cut wages, or layoffs...The fact is that wealth was to support this land...Even the income tax was aimed at the rich, but as soon as it could be applied to working people it began to change the whole social and economic dynamic in this country... The value of property could be inflated, wages which were essentially cut by taxes could be slashed further... To have anything of value, property, one had to endure credit, paying money to have money for property of inflated value... This is a game we cannot win and can only lose... The gambling of the bankers was on a quick unsustainable profit... You can take to much, -cooking the meat of the calf in the milk of the mother...
Yea... capitalism was originally conceived in confidence in the rule of nature, which was understood to be Reason. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" was supposed to be the basic reasoning of a capitalist: that if his actions threaten society, then he's working against
himself...because his wealth depends on a healthy society. Our experience has demonstrated that Adam Smith was wrong. A capitalist will turn his world into a cess pool... enslave everyone... bring his culture down below the sophistication of the stone age... in short, he'll sell his own grandmother down the river for a buck. He's got dollar signs in his eyes, and he can't see anything else. What capitalists were recently doing was selling insurance that the housing market bubble would never pop. Every speculative bubble that's ever existed popped eventually. These capitalists appear to have been completely insane. The only explanation is the blinding effect of money.

Step by step, we've realized the truth... what the European Aristocracy told us before they faded away: Capitalism will fail... Democracy will fail. But we notice that as long as the underlying commitment to the vision of the free society endures, the phoenix will come back out of the flames. The danger, as demonstrated by the USSR is this: thinking that because our system led to a breakdown, the system itself must be completely flawed and worthy of the trash heap. Let's just start over and force utopia on ourselves. It turns out it doesn't work that way. Forcing an artificial mold on humanity doesn't create anything. In the end, it only destroys... and leaves the next generation to try to pick up the pieces of their natural identity.

So maybe it's like this: Democracy and Capitalism aren't the goals. They're just mechanisms for reaching the goal: the free society. If those mechanisms aren't working, we can tweak them.. we can abandon them. But the conservative side of us warns: don't throw the baby out with the bath water: see what part of the tradition that's been passed down does work. And then just remember the abiding commitment.. and have a little faith.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2009 08:20 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;99436 wrote:
Yea... capitalism was originally conceived in confidence in the rule of nature, which was understood to be Reason. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" was supposed to be the basic reasoning of a capitalist: that if his actions threaten society, then he's working against
himself...because his wealth depends on a healthy society. Our experience has demonstrated that Adam Smith was wrong. A capitalist will turn his world into a cess pool... enslave everyone... bring his culture down below the sophistication of the stone age... in short, he'll sell his own grandmother down the river for a buck. He's got dollar signs in his eyes, and he can't see anything else. What capitalists were recently doing was selling insurance that the housing market bubble would never pop. Every speculative bubble that's ever existed popped eventually. These capitalists appear to have been completely insane. The only explanation is the blinding effect of money.

Step by step, we've realized the truth... what the European Aristocracy told us before they faded away: Capitalism will fail... Democracy will fail. But we notice that as long as the underlying commitment to the vision of the free society endures, the phoenix will come back out of the flames. The danger, as demonstrated by the USSR is this: thinking that because our system led to a breakdown, the system itself must be completely flawed and worthy of the trash heap. Let's just start over and force utopia on ourselves. It turns out it doesn't work that way. Forcing an artificial mold on humanity doesn't create anything. In the end, it only destroys... and leaves the next generation to try to pick up the pieces of their natural identity.

So maybe it's like this: Democracy and Capitalism aren't the goals. They're just mechanisms for reaching the goal: the free society. If those mechanisms aren't working, we can tweak them.. we can abandon them. But the conservative side of us warns: don't throw the baby out with the bath water: see what part of the tradition that's been passed down does work. And then just remember the abiding commitment.. and have a little faith.

Greed is considered a vice because its effects are the same as a disease, and we know that it is a mental disease, and yet it has the blessing of church and state... It is hard to argue that the one tenth good that comes out of capitalism makes up for the nine tenths of pure evil; but those inclined to be infavor of it because it works for them look only at the good...We all need to get the whole picture...The days of capital working good are long past us, and now, to preserve that good for a fraction they will drive all of society into a dark age punctuated by war and plague... The progess is behind us...The pain is ahead...
0 Replies
 
Subjectivity9
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 06:28 am
@Elmud,
Fido,

I think that when we blame capitalism for greed, we are looking in the wrong direction, and possibly wearing blinders as well. History should be our teacher.

We should be IMO studying human nature, and the swings into the extremes that it is prone to. Then we could make an attempt at regulation of this pendulum’s swinging into one of two opposite extremes. We could stop any drastic displays of uncontrolled greed (The feeding frenzies of big business, much like the sharks) and also the death of our economy, through lack of incentives (see communisms defeat. Q: "I pretend to go to work and they pretend to pay me.”)

When thinking about changing the whole system, think of this song.

Song Lyric: “Meet the new boss, just like the old boss.”

Hasn’t this been done before?

S9
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 06:33 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;99721 wrote:
Fido,

I think that when we blame capitalism for greed, we are looking in the wrong direction, and possibly wearing blinders as well. History should be our teacher.

We should be IMO studying human nature, and the swings into the extremes that it is prone to. Then we could make an attempt at regulation of this pendulum's swinging into one of two opposite extremes. We could stop any drastic displays of uncontrolled greed (The feeding frenzies of big business, much like the sharks) and also the death of our economy, through lack of incentives (see communisms defeat. Q: "I pretend to go to work and they pretend to pay me.")

When thinking about changing the whole system, think of this song.

Song Lyric: "Meet the new boss, just like the old boss."

Hasn't this been done before?

S9

Greed lasted long before capitalism gave it a moral argument... Even when people were first forming the idea of private property and the state, when chiefs who were to spawn kings made life untenible with raids and vengeance, then too there was greed, fully formed, and quite bloody...Then, people had the social means to rob that poison of most of its sting... To survive, each man needed his community, and to have his community which was also his honor, he needed to share... Spoils might be the subject of dispute as they were in The Illiad, but among ones own kin, honor was bought at with the price of magnaminity...To have the true treasure of home, community, and life, all loot was shared out... You had to be with some body to be somebody... Now; with money, it is important to be a somebody to nobodys, and all the nobodys go along.... We should realize this path to social ruin has been run before...Instead of giving our worship to the rich who give nothing to no one, we should realize that wealth in few hand empoverishes everyone, and money in many hands makes all rich...We have given up a wealthy society to have rich people...
0 Replies
 
Subjectivity9
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 07:47 am
@Elmud,
Fido,

Shared wealth seems like a good idea, on the face of it, and that is exactly why the communists thought this b/4 you. But even this must be done with moderation.

I think that what people don’t always understand about money and finance is that it requires accumulation of money in order to accomplish anything big or far-reaching.

How many times have we heard about some genius coming up with a great idea, and not being able to carry it forward without funding? He has to go to someone, hat in hand, who has an accumulation of money in order to get started.

Or, how many of us are willing to work, really need to work, but we cannot find a job (say at a factory or a mall)? But think about this if you will. A factory is a place that was made possible because someone has had enough foresight to accumulate the wealth/money that it takes, in order to even build that factory or open a mall.

Or, what about a simple thing like this. What if you wanted to retire, wouldn’t you need an accumulation of money to do so (or the government to do this for you by accumulating your social security money over time)?

So here we are “between the devil and the deep blue sea,” or “dammed if we do, and damned if we don’t.” We have to wonder at this point, “How much is too much, when it comes to greed?” Or we might further ask our selves, “When does motivation morph into greed?”

In dealing with problems this subtle, the solution can never be, to “slash and burn,” but rather to finesse things a bit and to find some kind of harmony within what presently exists.

When we come right down to it, greed is a loss of “Enlightened Self Interest.”

With a little thought on this issue, we might begin to realize that we are a tapestry made up of ourselves, and our fellow man. When we hurt those directly around us, we are in fact hurting our selves. This would be, for want of better words, ‘Financial Ecology.’

Perhaps this is why the middle class was first created, not because we suddenly became selfless, (“Don’t hold your breath”), but because that middle class created a big new market and everyone benefited from it. The big cats, after all, needed to sell their manufactured goods to someone. (After everyone had one of everything actually needed, or close down).

So these fat cats paid people more, advertised about how much more they needed and deserved to have in order to be happy, and even gave them some time off in order to go to the mall and buy it. Then these someone’s (the worker bees) worked harder and longer in order to share in the good life. It’s circular and self-perpetuating.

So what, in the end, will stop greed from getting out of hand. It will not be morals, the church tried that and failed, but intelligence.

S9
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 10:09 am
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;99819 wrote:
Fido,

Shared wealth seems like a good idea, on the face of it, and that is exactly why the communists thought this b/4 you. But even this must be done with moderation.

I think that what people don't always understand about money and finance is that it requires accumulation of money in order to accomplish anything big or far-reaching.

How many times have we heard about some genius coming up with a great idea, and not being able to carry it forward without funding? He has to go to someone, hat in hand, who has an accumulation of money in order to get started.

Or, how many of us are willing to work, really need to work, but we cannot find a job (say at a factory or a mall)? But think about this if you will. A factory is a place that was made possible because someone has had enough foresight to accumulate the wealth/money that it takes, in order to even build that factory or open a mall.

Or, what about a simple thing like this. What if you wanted to retire, wouldn't you need an accumulation of money to do so (or the government to do this for you by accumulating your social security money over time)?

So here we are "between the devil and the deep blue sea," or "dammed if we do, and damned if we don't." We have to wonder at this point, "How much is too much, when it comes to greed?" Or we might further ask our selves, "When does motivation morph into greed?"

In dealing with problems this subtle, the solution can never be, to "slash and burn," but rather to finesse things a bit and to find some kind of harmony within what presently exists.

When we come right down to it, greed is a loss of "Enlightened Self Interest."

With a little thought on this issue, we might begin to realize that we are a tapestry made up of ourselves, and our fellow man. When we hurt those directly around us, we are in fact hurting our selves. This would be, for want of better words, 'Financial Ecology.'

Perhaps this is why the middle class was first created, not because we suddenly became selfless, ("Don't hold your breath"), but because that middle class created a big new market and everyone benefited from it. The big cats, after all, needed to sell their manufactured goods to someone. (After everyone had one of everything actually needed, or close down).

So these fat cats paid people more, advertised about how much more they needed and deserved to have in order to be happy, and even gave them some time off in order to go to the mall and buy it. Then these someone's (the worker bees) worked harder and longer in order to share in the good life. It's circular and self-perpetuating.

So what, in the end, will stop greed from getting out of hand. It will not be morals, the church tried that and failed, but intelligence.

S9

Shared wealth is not a good idea...Either it is the best possible reality, or it is abandoned, and the society is ruined...Present shared wealth as an ideal and it is never accepted, and where it is accepted it is never ideal.... Who could police such a thing???If it needs police it has already destroyed the point of shared wealth, and that is unity... And what wealth is there that cannot be shared with the police when they have the power to set their own needs...They do nothing for their money, and do less than nothing good when they take as they desirre....So it is with all forms, that when the perfect form, as all ideals are conceived of as being are laid up against imperfect humanity it is humanity which must conform, and humanity always resists... In the design of forms no one should be beguild by the ideal; but be guided by practical considerations... What do people want...What will people accept; and what do they need...It is because needs are not met that forms are replaced by new forms... The sad fact is that few have a sense of time, and that even after grasping for needs we cannot take more than this moment's wants... Societies exist in time...We must survive the moment, but for true survival our whole societies must live on... We cannot demand more than we can grasp, and we cannot grasp more than we can see which is little enough... For this reason we are kept ignorant until ignorance is thought knowledge... No one can see further than they can know, or think... Ignorance is slavery...Knowledge is freedom...Ideals can no more than reflect our ignorance...We can make no better than our knowledge tools us, and that is little...
0 Replies
 
Subjectivity9
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 04:24 pm
@Elmud,
Fido,

What are you saying here, Fido? Are you saying that it is hopeless to seek reforms and only revolution can fix these financial problems?

Are you saying that we, the people are being kept in the dark, are being given information that is not practically usable, and that this lack of information is a ticking bomb long past the possibility to be defused in time to do any good?

Why is sharing wealth not a good idea? Why must we abandon our present financial reality? Do you have any idea what devastation such a drastic change will cause?

You must understand that demanding perfection is poor foolishness. It is unworkable. Maybe this is because human nature is in its infancy, I don’t know, but it certainly cannot live up to perfection’s demands.

Humanity doesn’t resist unity or even some perfect form. Humanity simply isn’t up to such demands, such uniformity. And maybe, who knows, that is a good thing in disguise, as we need a little slop in the works in order to develop or evolve, if that is what we are doing, into something higher than a mere cog in a machine (the Borg) that never deviates nor makes any mistakes.

If I am misunderstanding your purport, please correct me, and forgive me, because this is not my intention.

S9
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Oct, 2009 08:01 pm
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;99927 wrote:
Fido,

What are you saying here, Fido? Are you saying that it is hopeless to seek reforms and only revolution can fix these financial problems?

Are you saying that we, the people are being kept in the dark, are being given information that is not practically usable, and that this lack of information is a ticking bomb long past the possibility to be defused in time to do any good?

Why is sharing wealth not a good idea? Why must we abandon our present financial reality? Do you have any idea what devastation such a drastic change will cause?

You must understand that demanding perfection is poor foolishness. It is unworkable. Maybe this is because human nature is in its infancy, I don't know, but it certainly cannot live up to perfection's demands.

Humanity doesn't resist unity or even some perfect form. Humanity simply isn't up to such demands, such uniformity. And maybe, who knows, that is a good thing in disguise, as we need a little slop in the works in order to develop or evolve, if that is what we are doing, into something higher than a mere cog in a machine (the Borg) that never deviates nor makes any mistakes.

If I am misunderstanding your purport, please correct me, and forgive me, because this is not my intention.

S9

Good, healthy societies offer many good examples, but good societies and good people are not the result of good ideas..What works for people are the relationships they build themselves, or find in place, naturally...When a society works it always appears as an ideal...Is it ideal because it works; or does it work because it is ideal... People will not be made to conform to forms not of their own choosing... And people do not like to change, and their affection for their forms is that they resist time...But the absolute worst form is one designed to last the ages because its tyrany is insidious... We look at our society as ideal, changable with great effort, but essentially too perfect to require change... Well, Jefferson brought up the subject of forms in the Declaration of Independence, and recognized that only dire necessity would cause people to change their forms and right themselves.. The fact is that people do right themselves at the same time that they change their forms... A new ethic makes a new people, and a new people make new forms... We cannot expect that a corrupt people will ever be able to change their forms... Even a slave may think his slavery as the best possible condition if society offeres many examples of worse...And if everyone is seeking justice for himself and caring not for the justice of others no one will have justice...When we profit on the pain of the world we cannot cry for mercy when we suffer exploitation... We justify injustice for others to suffer it ourselves
0 Replies
 
Subjectivity9
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Oct, 2009 07:55 am
@Elmud,
Fido,

S9: You are sounding a bit like Confucius, and how he bases the running of the state upon the same principles as that of a family, and its relationships within the family, run well. He also saw family as a natural social network.

Am I seeing your point correctly?

You use the word “good” quite often to explain yourself, (good examples, good society, good people, good ideas), and then go on to claim that ‘good” is not an idea. I am having a little trouble with this. What is “good” if it is not a subjective evaluation (AKA an idea or concept)?

Perhaps all forums or government proceed naturally out of who we are as a group. Even a tyranny is in need of a willing victim.

Perhaps too, everything that is natural to our species is insidious, will repeat again and again, not just tyranny. We might equally say that love is insidious. (If we wished to put a pejorative twist on it.

Change is not difficult to bring about. It is constant. What is actually difficult is directed change, or getting everyone in line and into agreement. It is a little like trying to herd cats.


S9
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Warning
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/24/2021 at 07:20:51