The theme is? Wealth.
Those of the libertarian bent like to say that Obama's position on the far left does not appreciate how 'wealth' is created. This points to the main issue. What is wealth? To whom does it go? Etc.
The 'right' sees all wealth as personally owned (with multitude of thugs to protect the few rich). The 'left' talks as if wealth were a commonweal yet, in truth, let it be controlled by thugs (to wit, USSR, et al). Whose thugs are worse? The right or the left?
In either case, wealth is created through work (of all sorts). Throughout history, there have been those who create (builders (city, nation, et al), artists, agrarians, et al), those who steal (marauders et al), and those who destroy (how do you name these?).
In almost every case, those who do the 'work' have not enjoyed the benefits of their efforts. The sole exceptions are little islands that have occurred in the unfolding of the American dream. These will be looked at, in time.
The urge to wealth is universal. How to control excesses that might accrue to the urge has always been problematic. What determines excess is even more of an issue.
One fact is: wealth does not come from nothing (related to this is much more than TANSTAAFL). Neither is it solely due to the efforts of some John Galt type.
The truth: 'wealth' is due to some type of transformation. For whatever we do to get to the 'wealth' state, plenty is consumed.
Off-shoring, in many cases, is the attempt to keep the 'true' cost from being realized. In fact, the whole regimen of the top-down is the same thing. Sacrifice is always done from bottom-up.
Even if John Galt did dream of the creation of the wealth, he will have used innumerable energies from his large cadre of exploited workers in order to make it a reality.
To those masses goes what?
Now, the transformation, mentioned above, is using material (essentially, substance) and energy (a lot of which is human in origin) given to us by nature (in the case of the former) or by the culture (in terms of how a valuable resource is seen, for the latter).
We are not adding anything. In fact, if we looked closely, we'll see the near-zero-ness of the whole framework here.
Somehow in terms of wealth, notions that are predominately associated with the immature (pointing to life changes that we all experience) continue into adulthood (yeah you, arrogant CEOs) as if this is okay. Topsy-turvy, indeed. There have been plenty of experience obtained about this, endless thoughts and words on the subject, yet 'the thing' remains hard to handle.
That, of course, begs the question of what is 'mature' in these contexts. Is the blogger of such mind that he knows how to discuss this? Absolutely, as they say.
We need to continue this theme and will. For now, consider what an analyst said about Roubini's remark about Marx (remember, he has been mentioned a few times). Yes, we've bantered around the term 'capitalism' (with an update of ca-pital-sino). I agree that we probably need some new terminology.
But, the whole discussion needs to respect that labor/laborers are human (and consumers), that we need sustainable/equitable economics, and that exploited resources are not owned by those who do the exploitation (yes, oil companies (and much more, especially those related to the taking of 'natural' resources) need a little humility - don't we all?).
What to expect here, next? A start of a coherent, foundational approach, from real first principles (to be updated), is the goal. The timeline? Unknown. Besides, it's the journey, not the end result, that is of importance (in other words, re-traceable by any with some rational effort).
07/06/2012 -- Today, we have the one-year remembrance of George Edward Kimball III (GEK III).
01/01/2012 -- Recently ran across the work of Kazimierz Dabrowski. We need to pay more attention to his theory on development. Yes, CEOs (and other takers) as immature (seriously, so).
12/13/2011 -- McKinsey report shows that households hold over 40% of the world's wealth. Hence, the consumer as the major influence on the economy. Now, consider that the household wealth collection (using income in the U.S. as a proxy) is skewed to a very small bunch.
10/10/2011 -- If the OWS wants specifics, there are plenty to list, such as this one. We can only resolve this with an amendment (like the 13th) for the rights of workers (folks, employment is not unlike indentured servitude in many ways) plus a Magna Carta equivalent to give the big pants (egos) something to think about.
10/09/2011 -- Kings have sovereignty over their dominion however large it may be. There, currently, is no king of the world of this type. CEOs have sovereignty over their companies. Now, many of these have domains that are larger (measured many ways) than geographical types of kingdoms. BUT, each has sovereignty over themselves (or ought to), ideally (constitutionally, if you're in the U.S.A.).
Now, being able to exhibit sovereignty requires talent of various sorts. Throughout history, those who ruled others may or may not have had this talent. From all of the turmoil over the millenia, one has to just marvel at the stupidity of these types, exhibited, in the modern age, by the CEO MVPs.
Our task is to foster that which enhances one's self-sovereignty and diminishes others' influence on oneself. Oh wait. The social media seem to be antithetical to this notion. Also, all of those issues related to mature interactions (of a peaceful manner) must be resolved (philosophers have long been involved with that dilemma).
It is this type of notions that are behind a lot of what motivates the current protests. Those who could (LT 1%) have exploited (and have been allowed to exploit) the rest (GT 99%).
09/29/2011 -- The question remains. Even with 'financial engineering' what is the science behind finance? Gaming, only? Who has the basic ontology (other than wealth for the few)?
09/21/2011 -- Another piece of the constructive pie.
09/21/2011 -- Way to go, Fortune! The MVP CEO. These people (and they are imitated) pilfer pockets prolifically; is that not enough?
09/20/2011 -- Any look at wealth would have to consider its opposite, peasantry. Methinks that the whole best-and-brightest concept is no more than an attempt to let those with the talent (the few --- too, though, those without conscience) grab the lion's share of the goods. It's an age-old dynamic that needs to be reviewed using a sustainability eye. Again, we also need to re-look at the spirit of the Magna Carta and at the necessity of a modern re-mix. And, a lesson: 'simple living' does not imply any inclination to 'peasant' leanings (for the jerks who may think that this is so).
09/19/2011 -- It has occurred to me that some reading this might throw labels of sophistry, idealism (love Berkeley), and such (perhaps, even naivete). Not! Since time is not of the essence, we, probably, ought to stop and review the background (and truth) issues again and in more depth.
09/18/201 -- We will use this example from sports. Would you believe that the NCAA (albeit, inadvertently) offers itself as a proxy for all the issues (and related parties) that we need to discuss:
- rhetoric's influence - taking the student-athlete notion; application to wealth? what we have is largely seen through rhetorical eyes; the negative effects of 'potemkin' events are more real to those at the bottom than those at the top (or, no safety net for the most); the chimera is more 'real' to those at the top (gravy train - plus socialization of losses), the bottom-up view sees (up close and personal) the failings of the underpinnings.
- markets - so essential, so misunderstood, and so misused; yes, the pay of coaches versus professors (yet, does not the institution head now pull in major bucks?).
- sportsmanship -- is it about this? if so, things would look different; perhaps, players will one day get their say; too, the success of player efforts in this matter will have direct association with the larger economy's exploitation of those who labor.