---
We can start by addressing the issues related to the wielding of power through accumulations, such as money, access, and a whole lot more. At some point, we'll go back and look at royal continuance and its supporting peerage. We don't have to go far: our old Mother whose hammers we threw out a couple of hundred years ago.
In that vein, the upcoming 400th celebration of New England events will provide plenty of opportunity for discussion of the whys and wherefores that we see.
Thankfully, we do have a Constitution-based framework here with which to attempt to build a more solid future, albeit that we see plenty of side-roads due to human nature's ways. Too, we do see economic mobility, somewhat, though the past couple of years have pointed out how illusory this whole notion can be.
Yet, we do have the wherewithal to do these things better. That is, the ideals from the 60s seem to keep resurrecting themselves in the public eye suggesting that there are motivating factors involved that are other than our creation.
That wherewithal does have a heavy bit of numeracy (hence mathematics) involved, yet part of the problem is that we have not learned the main lesson, innumeracy is not idiocy. Our current 'now' is just crammed full of marvels acquired by improving our knowledge of the world and by applying this knowledge. Yet, hubris seems to be the norm from observing our prowess.
For instance, the blowout in the Gulf can be used as an example of how wrong things can go. That is, we are not as much in charge as we kid ourselves into believing.
That might be how peerage keeps the royal view sustained. A situational scheme of mutual admiration that keeps the fires of the balloon lit thereby allowing ascent. To where? Sort of like the market, as currently defined, do you not think?
Everywhere, dissenters are cast out. By the way, having dissenting voices is how science is supposed to work. There is no view that does not need some scrutiny, even if attempt at such obtains the casting of labels of 'freak' or 'pseudo' upon that one brave enough to venture the contrary position.
That we are here and now, in part, results from the many on that little island across the pond who could not abide their milieu. Some of the early ones who came over here were quite astounded, or would have been had their efforts not been mostly involved with mere survival, at their new-found freedom which turned out to be a brief dream (no cynicism meant).
The third and successive waves brought more of the same over to this side. In actuality, things here, at one point, were much more deleterious than would have occurred across the pond, one has to think. Put a bunch in a new milieu without the usual social constraints and watch out (nod to William Golding, of course).
Granted, for some of this freedom we see here, we ought to be thankful (law, etc.), yet one cannot but considered 'what ifs' when reviewing what has happened the past 400 and when looking at where we are.
Guess what? Economics is full of what-ifs as if by necessity. The main trouble is that the set of what-ifs is heavily controlled by those in power. Consider, if you would, why else was the past decade mainly characterized by the deceptive movement of work to another set of bonded slaves under the guise of giving the consumer, the supposed backbone, more things (of questionable quality), and a lower price, yet, at the same time, luring the same consumer into a recursively deepening pit of indentured-ness?
At the same time, a very small number (less than 0.5%) grabbed loot of massive amounts (greater than 90%). Too, we had the manifestation of the CEO as the new King, many times with a domain that was world-wide.
Yet, at the time, the politicos were salivating with their hands out, and that includes the top guy. Oh, one might respond, that is the nature of the times. Money is needed and is how the talking is done. Ah, is that so? What exactly is money? Ask, Big Ben to give you an accounting that doesn't allow him to wave his hand.
As a final note, the recent recall of the SUV was resolved by a software fix which ought to raise some eyebrows for a couple of reasons. Firstly, earlier, there were adamant arguments that the computational framework used by the automotive industry was robust and almost considered to be faultless to the extent that no question was allowed to be raised without aspersions being thrown at the one asking. Oh, some little shift here? Secondly, there is now a fix that was hacked (okay, tested) and pushed out. People, the 'blue screen' of death is called just that since it can happen at any time and without reason many times. Have we really looked at what is required for 'safe' computing enough to allow seemingly thoughtless application of it everywhere?
Our economy is so much dependent upon the computer that the car incident could almost be the metaphoric example. Then, we allow the amoral best-and-brightest, urged by the malevolent fat cat, to monkey with the keys to the domain in an ad-hoc fashion.
It's beyond cap-ital-sino. Due to oversight, any legal casino can (has to?) tell you the odds. We have no such thing with the economy, as it's being run by the likes of the golden sacks. The Nevada guy was right when he mentioned this at the GS grilling.
Lots to talk about, later.
Remarks:
02/05/2015 -- Recently on the most-read list. The subject needs a little updating, as, at this time, Ben was starting his QE (we still do not know the full ramifications). The chimera flew sky high (helped by many assists, along the way). ... That illusion is sustained by debt of an almost unimaginable amount. ... See: Chimera and the dismal, Tide that floats us (will extend this to show how the house of cards comes about), ..., 80-year old manipulator is still at it.
09/21/2011 -- On Wealth and the CEO MVP.
03/17/2011 -- On the rise of the professional politician (will there ever be the citizen polico? that is, those who do not salivate when a buck is passed beneath the nose) toward robber barony. The M & Ms are apropos. As well, need to bring in Schervish's viewpoint.
