Thursday, January 2, 2014

Two views

Moral: Wherein we look at year-end thoughts and such.

Namely, this post's theme is motivated by The Economist's "Christmas Specials" which come out in the final publication of the year. These articles are always worth a read, since they get above the normal routines related to busy-ness.

Below are comments about interesting articles.
  • Bleak chic - I liked the use of miserabilism. One might say that this emotional state is more often frequented by the 99% than by any of the 1%, except such a comment might suggest, perhaps, that money can buy happiness. Too, such a thought would ignore the values that relate to things beyond that measured by money. Of note to this discussion will be near zero.   
  • A tale of two rushes - The article compares the "gold in California" time with a new phenomenon, namely fracking's boon (put this way as the deleterious effects are, as of yet, unclear). For the 1849 scene, Brands' book on the age of gold provides a lot of the material. This quote, pulled directly from The Economist's page, will be part of our discussion, to boot (Whereas the Puritans dreamed of accumulating modest fortunes “a little at a time, year by year”, through “sobriety, thrift and steady toil”, the ‘49ers dreamed of “instant wealth, won in a twinkling by audacity and good luck”. Among the early settlers, failure “connoted weakness of will or defect of soul”. In the gold fields, by contrast, “a person was expected to gamble, and to fail, and to gamble again”. And “[w]here failure was so common, it lost its stigma.” This idea—that failure is a socially acceptable stepping stone to success—is one reason why American capitalism is so dynamic.) Yes, the recent downturn came about from the second attitude. What grates is that plenty of the do-rights have had their futures trashed by the idiots in the second camp. 
  • ...
We'll add in more articles. 

So two views? Essentially, using the second bullet (two rushes), how do we get banking to be of the first category (yes, Puritan in thought)? Why is it that the second category is even allowed outside of a high-regulated playing field (think sandbox, field of endeavor, etc.)? And, didn't Ben just show himself of the second category? So much to discuss there.

And, we'll have to look at the "genie out of the bottle" aspect of the web (wild west, indeed). 


The Economist's article locks down after three reads. It's worth a read. Here is an open article dealing with something similar (greed warps the mind). See Remarks below (01/07/2014) which brings in a class-oriented framework that we'll be expanding. We could build a better society by having a national service (military or otherwise) where all have to participate. Too, those of the high-falutin' family histories ought to have to muck manure (or a number of other things - this old guy has done all sorts of the supposed dirty tasks [without getting paid the bucks taken in by the guy with the TV show - let's see him endure some of those environments for a year or so], seeing the people doing these tasks, and never losing his beliefs in the Creator's wish that people uplift themselves and others). I'll be going back again and revisiting the topic (having now spent a deal of time tracing aristocratic descendants in this country, some of whom, actually, are what one would call ideal citizens [based upon the American dream] - others carried their old ways to the new world) of the split (haves and haves not is one way to characterize - there are oodles more) that we see where a small percentage rape/pillage/accumulate (with a real sense of entitlement due to several possible things - heritage, talent, looks, ...) while limiting the majority (we'll look closely a near-zero, and its importance) all the while claiming that this is the way it ought to be (hah, but, even economists are pulled into the chimera - I read recently, to my chagrin, that one big name likes that he made money on the market (ill-begotten gains), from his books, and from his rewards - nice, have to give the guy credit, but, where is the thinking, modeling, being done that goes beyond the materialistic crap?).

Remarks:  Modified: 01/07/2014

01/07/2014 -- Janet was confirmed yesterday. We'll have to see how things go. The markets are puffing up today. Why is it not apparent to certain views (mostly intellectually founded, I think, even though they tout that they are data driven - God help us from this new illusion) that the markets are as high as the pot buyers of Colorado? Perhaps, in the realm of Janet and her cohorts, the kings and queens (you see, old-time kings had geographic domains - the newer ones have a virtual realm that is beyond control, as we will see with things going forward - the effects of global outsourcing is a small hint at what is to come) of the world have limited perception (say, the 30K feet or more metaphor). Down where the crap is (and kings and queens make as much effluent as does the miserable peon - except they expect others to deal with the crap [we'll look closely at the military imbalance - what? - yes, the responsibility ought to be cast wide-spread, across all classes] or they are of the type that think that their outputs are other than smelly and poisonous [loose usage, okay?]). If you search in this blog for kings and lords, you'll see that I've already waxed on the subject (and will bring those earlier musings up to date). Now, what I will propose is that I can help Janet, and her ilk (through having my feet in the crap, yet, there are no bounds to the mind), get a better grip. And, I am not alone in this talent. But, you won't find me traipsing to their gilded palaces, in awe. I've seen that. No, they have to make field trips other than Ben's type of honoring the Tetons with his presence and going to talk to the best-and-brightest in their little (yes, yes) University-milieu of which he is so comfortable.    

No comments:

Post a Comment