textman
*
+
/ Topic > The Three Principles of Economics /
/ Newsgroup > alt. philosophy / 17Oct03 /
.
The first principle of economics is the plain fact that
nobody works for nothing. But this is not a thing that most
corporations are able to respect. Their view is that most
people (ie. non-executive types) should and will work for
next to nothing. After all, that's the way that the share-
holders want it. Thus the second principle of economics is
that the rich will always bleed the poor dry. So that's
just the way it is. Live with it. The only factor working
the other way is the third principle of ecnomics:
Money talks, or Labor walks!
.
- the almost economical one - cybrwurm ;>
.
P.S. Philosophical impressions of Buffy the Vampire-Layer:
She's altogether petty, narrow-minded, and self-indulgent!
x
+
/ Newsgroup > alt.philosophy / 17Oct03 /
/ Subject > Re: The Three Principles of Economics #2 /
.
>> On Oct17 cybrwurm wrote: The Three Principles of Economics
.
> On Oct17 tooly replied: Well, on a more real note ...
> I've made the observation that not a single principle of
> economics supports human concepts of justice, fair play,
> or morality.
.
That's right. Greed, selfishness, and avarice are a law unto
themselves. And because they are so bloody popular, many feel
that they are THE *supreme* law, the only one that matters.
.
> Essentially, economics is about validating 'predatory nature'
> that is the fundamental reason for 'efficiency' in this
> world. There are winners and losers, eaters and those that
> are eaten, ... often under systems that are 'cruel and
> unjust' in design.
.
This is just human nature. Those who have power use it to
further their own designs. And to hell with everybody else!
.
> But ... Tampering with such economic nature for sake of
> notions of human justice almost always ends up with even
> worse results. :(
.
I tend to agree; in general. However, there *are* notable
exceptions. For example, here in Alberta we have a significant
group of people called the Hutterites. They are not impressed
by the concepts of greed and private-property, and prefer to
"share the wealth" as it were. What I find interesting about
them is that their lack of personal selfishness does *NOT*
cripple their economic strength.
.
On the contrary, in many ways they are *more* efficient at
getting things done than the average farmer is (eg. twenty
hands are stronger than two). So much so, in fact, that many
people intensely dislike them because they consider these
'Huts' to have an unfair advantage over "normal people",
just because they are so difficult to compete with.
.
But aside from such minorities, it may be argued that true
socialism has never really been tried; not because socialism
is inherently inferior to capitalism, but simply because most
people are unwilling to let go of their innate selfishness in
favor of something so nebulous as "the greater good".
.
And yet in WWII many soldiers, sailers, and airmen (on both
sides of the conflict) were able to risk their own lives to
promote what they perceived to be the greater good. So it's
NOT true that greed is *necessarily* supreme, but rather that
under the current social and economic conditions ignorance and
stupidity are encouraged to unhealthy extremes. And this makes
it *appear* that there is no alternative to rampant capitalism.
.
- one who knows better than that - cybrwurm ;>
.
P.S. "This generation will have to repent, not so much for
the evil deeds of the wicked people, but for the appalling
silence of the good people!" -- Martin Luther King
x
+
/ Topic > Re: The Three Principles of Economics #3 /
/ Newsgroup > alt. philosophy / 19 October 2003 /
.
>> cybrwurm wrote: The Three Principles of Economics
>> The first principle of economics is the plain fact
>> that nobody works for nothing.
.
> On Oct17 Immortalist replied: 42 - GIVING AND TAKING <snip>
.
Hi, Immortalist. Interesting commentary you have there;
albeit more than slightly ridiculous. Quotes from some
online document written by someone else, eh? :)
.
> The pygmy chimps are the big exception, for, as I emphasized
> a while back, female pygmy chimps exchange sex for food.
> And this has momentous implications, for it suggests how
> afarensis and habilis could have achieved unprecedented
> levels of social cooperation that prepared them for group
> life on the perilous savannas. <snip>
.
And this relates to post-modern prostitution ... how?
.
> Truly complex exchanges and institutions would have had
> to await the evolution of language, with its capacity to
> formalize long-term rights and obligations implicit in each
> individual's history of giving and taking goods and services.
.
Well, that's a serious problem, since we have no knowledge
whatsoever of the actual historical origins of language. We
can't even say that afarensis and habilis had something like
language, although it's not too much of a stretch to suppose
that neanderthal had some form of rudimentary language.
In any case, I agree that language is indeed necessary for
all complex economic systems.
.
>> <snip> Thus the second principle of economics is
>> that the rich will always bleed the poor dry.
.
> 78 - WHY YUPPIES? ... Since the source of wealth and power
> for modern upper classes lies in stepping up consumption,
> everyone is encouraged to indulge their emulative
> inclinations to the highest degree. <snip>
.
"emulative inclinations"? LOL ... You gotta be kidding. The
source of wealth and power for the rich and powerful is the
blood, sweat, and tears of their supposed inferiors, whom
they sodomize in every conceivable way. So you can take
your "conspicuous-consumption" and shove it!
.
> And this brings me to the plight of the much-maligned
> Yuppies, perhaps the most voracious and predatory
> consumers of preciosities the world has ever seen. <snip>
> OUR KIND by Marvin Harris 1989
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060919906/
.
Maybe Yuppies are not maligned enough, I think. Money can't
buy happiness; it can only buy the appearance of happiness,
the illusion of satisfaction, the suggestion of contentment;
because all of these things must come from within: from a
stout heart, a gracious character, an expansive spirit. And
none of these things, these internal human qualities and
personality traits, can be purchased from without, only
cultivated from within -> by way of discipline, maturity,
intelligence, conviction, and yes, even love.
.
>> <snip> ... the third principle of economics:
>> Money talks, or Labor walks!
.
> Labor walks and Money changes its tune - some and labor walks
> - some more. Think of labor before unions, you could get shot
> or tortured for even saying something against the corporation.
.
Right. And these days the corporations are just a little
more subtle about it; so as avoid any unnecessary bad press.
.
> Have we made any progress in the recognition of
> everyone's rights?
.
Some. I guess a little progress is better than none at all.
Still ...
.
> Let's argue for more or less of this or that.
.
hmmmm? Say wut? You lost me there.
.
> But the majority have just what they want,
.
Very difficult proposition there, Immortalist. One, in fact,
that I just can't accept. The one thing that people with power
want more of is more power. And it's a well-known maxim among
rich and poor alike that one can never have too much money.
In other words, a little greed goes a long long way.
.
And since the majority of the world's population live at or
below the poverty-line (wherever that is), it's hard to see
how they can have just what they want, since they basically
have nothing at all.
.
Moreover, if it were true that the majority have just what
they want, then I would naturally assume that the world is
abounding in happiness (ie. if happiness consists of having
what you want and wanting what you have). And yet the many and
various social realties and sundry 'signs of the times' (eg.
the Hollywood mania for idiotic horror movies) suggests to me
that the majority are NOT suffering from happiness, but from
something else far less joy-joy.
.
> or else they'd change it.
.
Without power and/or money it is practically impossible
to just go ahead and "change it".
.
- the rabidly anti-yuppie one - cybrwurrm ;>
.
P.S. "Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with
violence the delinquencies of sins. For it is not those that
abstain from wickedness from compulsion, but those that
abstain from choice, that God crowns. It is impossible for
a man to be steadily good except by his own choice. For he
that is made good by compulsion of another is not good; for
he is not what he is by his own choice. For it is the freedom
of each one that makes true goodness and reveals real
wickedness." -- Clement of Alexandria
x