Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Financial Pirates Ahoy!

by Patrice Ayme Mon Apr 27th, 2009 at 09:11:00 AM EST

Pirates at sea do not cause nearly as much damage as financial pirates. The American public got habituated to abuse, and may find a perverse pleasure forgetting the emptiness of its condition through said abuse by their lords of finance.

Considering the state of the planet this codependency of evil has no future. Time for a philosophical straight jacket.
*


FINANCIAL PIRATES AHOY!
SAVE CIVILIZATION FROM SUICIDALLY HUBRISTIC GREED.
*

WHO IS CIVILIZED?
How does one measure civilization? By a flourishing economy? But then how is that measured? By GDP, the thing that augments in traffic jams, and an increasingly inefficient USA economy, with its gold plated health exploiters such as warren Buffet?

Is a civilization more advanced than another because of its more advanced science, its more advanced technology? In other words; its more advanced knowledge of the truth? Or is civilization measured by its ethics? But then who is to say that a slave society, where women are half what men are is ethically less advanced than another, especially when the order were given by an analphabetic epileptic in the desert?

Well, there is a ready answer to this. A cursory look at history shows that less advanced ethics give a less advanced economical system, science and technology.

The monstrous experience with increasingly unjustifiably dictatorial civilizations in the Middle East demonstrated this: what had been the most advanced area in the world for a long time became progressively one of the most backwards. And now with the reining superstition that undercut women and want to kill everybody else who do not believe in the lunacy (pun intended!), its full speed backwards, as the Taliban marches on Islam-a-bad and its thermonuclear nukes.

ETHICS IS ABSOLUTE, BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS ABSOLUTE:
Indeed is ethics always relative, indirectly measured by techno-economical progress? Of course not. Ethics is absolute. One can point at the Charter of the United Nations, the one that countries founded on an uneducated superstition violate everyday. That is absolute, Human Rights are absolute. That, absolutism, in turn, is founded on ten million years of specifically human evolution. Human beings come with their own owner's manual, and part of it is called ethics. Evolution wanted it, and evolution is all knowing, misericordious, and most merciful. Differently from the big man raging in the sky, it really exists. EVOLUTION GROUNDS ETHICS ABSOLUTELY.

In specifically human evolution, for example, all humans are equal, and women are not the idiots the Qur'an say they are. Far from being unable to devise a plan, as the Qur'an and Lawrence Summers say, women were devised by evolution to be as capable mentally, in the average as men. Actually, it's both the Qur'an and Summers who proved unable to devise a plan, except if that plan was to destroy civilization.  
*

THE QUID PRO QUO OF GLOBALIZATION, AND WHO BUSTED IT:
This was already attempted during colonization. The dirty little secret of decolonization is that the rich countries wanted out. A French minister of finance during the decolonization of Africa expressed his opinion. It was a strange thing: after all, basically, and contrarily to legend, Africa had not really asked to be decolonized, with the exception of communist penetrated Guinean unions; even Algeria had voted massively for the new French constitution, and was given as feed to the FLN nevertheless. So what really happened? Well, something very much related to the present globalization crisis.

That French minister finally admitted the obvious: France was unwilling to keep spending for a fully functioning hospital every 100 kilometers in gigantic Africa. Same with infrastructure throughout Africa. Of course there were other problems, such as Soviet and American imperialism that were determined to push the European powers, weakened by Nazism, out of the planet, if at all possible. Nevertheless, the selfish factor played a very important role. Spain and Portugal, which kept their colonies longer, suffered economically from it (although they were spending as little as possible).

The quid pro quo of globalization was that the developing countries would pay their way (instead of having the colonial powers creating their infrastructure) by working and selling products to the advanced countries, which, in turn would exchange their more advanced products (developed from their advanced scientific research). Great. Some important participants kept their side of the bargain, mostly Japan, China, and now India and Latin America. But the advanced industrial countries faltered. Of course the USSR turned into a disaster: it was insufficiently democratic to keep up with ideas.

But the West faltered badly because, there too, democracy faltered, but more insidiously. Basically the disposable part of the economy, the investable capability, was stolen by peasants and pirates.
*

DOWN WITH WESTERN AGRIBUSINESS:
The farming lobbies used the electoral maps, in Europe and the USA, the electoral maps to have more clouts than they deserve. The subsidies in agriculture of the EU-USA is around 300 billion dollars. It should be zero, because that's 300 billion dollars stolen to the poorest parts of the world, those that can trade only agricultural products. Moreover this money is desperately needed to deploy in research and development. For example material research (new batteries, and all sorts of more efficient materials) depends enormously on the number of researchers and steady budgets (China, which is number one in some material subsectors, such as some optical crystals has proven this). Sending the money instead to American cows and European corn so that water table can either disappear (USA) or get illegally polluted to death (Western France), is an outrage to Africa, and the future of mankind.
*

WHY FINANCIERS ARE MORE MURDEROUS THAN SOMALI PIRATES:
Roosevelt dubbed bankers, "banksters". His implicit idea was that they made gangs, gangs of bankers, and robbed the public. He came in as president, fully cognizant of the class of hyper rich thieves he belonged to (Roosevelt knew quite well that many American plutocrats were in thick business with European fascists, such as Mussolini and Stalin; he would see Hitler grow with his unbelieving eyes). So Roosevelt closed all the banks and did what Obama has got to do: shut down the bad ones, help and regiment the good ones.

A lot of measures, during the great depression consisted in reining in the financiers, and legislate their abusive amusements out of existence. That arsenal of preventive measures was taken down under Rubin, Summers and Clinton (the genius of economic malevolence, Summers his name, repelled the Banking Act of 1933, no less!), and this dismantlement went all the way to the repeal of the up-tick provision on short sales. The later executive order (not yet overturned by Obama!) coincided not coincidentally with when the market peaked under Bush II, in July 2007: after that the hedge funds could make like bandits, until all the 401k had turned into 201k, and that meant that the hyper rich fed on the retirement of the American public. This was a deliberate plot to enrich the money manipulators, by bringing the clock back to the world of finance that had caused the Great Depression of the 1930s. The same cause had the same effect by 2008.

Then the impudent plutocrats required the public to pay for their 2008 bonuses, while in Nevada people die of cancer because the state, having run out of money, does not treat them anymore. They will not need the public for their 2009 bonuses, thank you.

Maybe a better model of what's happening with finance is not gangsterism, but piracy. The financial class of the USA got used to see the money passing by, like Somalian pirates see the ships passing by, and it came to them that, by threatening loss of the economy, hence lives (because ultimately even the health care system is starting to fail even more than usual as the economy of the USA heads towards a depression), they could make tremendous wealth for themselves.

THE FINANCIAL PIRATES ABUSE THE ECONOMY TO DEATH:
Some will say that I exaggerate. But the Roman republic died from plutocracy, and even the Roman empire later on, as plutocracy led to an intellectual fascism so thick, the entire social fabric fell apart. The social fabric of the USA shows some serious signs of extreme stress. In a way, the USSR died that way, because the soviet regime was intrinsically plutocratic: all the power of money (or economy) was in a few hands.

The wealth stolen by financial operators does not create something that other people can use. Building huge datchas in the deep woods, contrarily to what Keynes (and his holes) argued, is not helpful to the infrastructure of the countries, because only a few can use those datchas. The properties of the rich and their valets and lackeys do not have enough public utility.

The wealth of the plutocrat is not the wealth of the entrepreneur that provides a new service or product to others. The wealth of the plutocrat is grabbed from more productive areas of the economy.  It's the sort of wealth usury brings. All the wealth of the world came to serve the hyper, mentally unbalanced nuts who find pleasure in humiliating others and depriving them. It is as much economic activity that goes into valets, and as much that does not go into research for new science and technology.

Of course financial pirates' propaganda always vaunt its new "products". In truth all they are just new traps to exploit people with more usury ("subprime, Alt A"). They invented strictly nothing of value, besides reinstituting serfdom by replacing common sense by credit. Credit cards and bank cards with their electronic chips inside were invented by French engineers working in Marseilles, not by Wall Street titans of Ponziness.
*

HYPNOTIZED BY THE PLUTOCRACY:
Over times, pirates established themselves in some seas, because they habituated people to expect piracy, and live with it. It was the case for decades towards the end of the Roman republic, as Rome was sagging under its own plutocrats (Plutocracies love to create messes they can exploit, be it by striking the pose of the savior). Pirates had created entire cities, all of them fortified. Even Julius Caesar was captured, and his family had to pay of ransom to recover that young man. Finally commerce, on which Rome crucially depended, became very difficult, and the Roman senate had enough. In a demonstration of what plutocracy could do, the Roman Senate, happy to breach the People's republic a bit more, gave extraordinary powers to Pompey the Great. Pompey attacked, and cleaned the entire Mediterranean in ... three months.

The present mess can be cleaned in three months too. Only the will is lacking. It is not been cleared in three months because people that created the mess helped elect Obama, and now they expect to be paid. Summers and Geithner are there to watch Obama, and lead him astray. A convenient trial in Chicago will bring many Obama associates to the witness stand (Rezko, Emanuel). That should keep a plutocratic Damocles sword over Obama. At the slights deviation from the desired trajectory, plutocratic money could do wonders with embarrassing revelations. After all, to handicap Clinton, it took only the definition of the word "sex" (something about cigars, in the USA, it seems).

But Putin was the toy of the Russian plutocrats. Once firmly in power, he backstabbed them. (The Economist, apparently handsomely paid by Russian plutocrats plotting in Britain, ran a rabid anti Putin campaign for years, in a vain attempt to keep the hyper rich Russians, hyper rich; never mind that they invented nothing, and went from rags to riches in a split second, thanks to dirty, unjust deals galore.)

The essential cause of the financial and economic disaster is the greed and corruption of the financial pirates, and the fact that the public got habituated to their exactions, impudence and hubris. The solution is to stop being habituated first.

The financial pirates are worse than useless, they are the worst problem dragging the economy down. It's not just that they steal immense fortunes. They take a lot of deliberately bad decisions they personally profit from (an example is the selling short of the retirement of common Americans). The same occur with piracy at sea. Pirates do not just steal stuff, and kill the occasional victim. They also make commerce a fearful thing, and more expensive, and thus hinder it. Similarly with financial pirates: they do not just affect commerce at sea, but all commerce, and, by disorganizing the entire world economy, including health care, they kill more than any pirate could.

*

FINANCIAL PIRACY AS THERAPY:
Why all the madness? Can't the plutocrats see they are killing civilization, hence their planet, hence themselves? Sure they would, if they really tried, but they use a flaw in the human disposition. The whole point they have to be so idiotic that they become forgetful of the human condition. The same could be said of Hitler: how come he dared to risk a world war, that he was sure to lose? Because he wanted to experience hatred, a mighty passion that drowns completely the fearful emptiness that his condition would have been otherwise (considering his intrinsically boring nature).

Zhuangzi (4C BCE) suggested to view life as a butterfly dream. Twenty-four centuries later, having badly digested Nietzsche, a few French philosopher proclaimed that life was absurd. This pathology came from too much boredom, and not enough passion, not enough stress (maybe a reaction to life having got suddenly boring, from the defeat of the Nazis). Human beings are made to run away from giant cave lions, and then plot carefully how to kill them, or, at least, make the lions respectful enough to stay away.

The piratical financier is that lion they want to flee and fight, but not too much, lest the universe feel too devoid of passion.

Time to grow up, or go climbing, or hunt real lions with sticks and stones. Indeed, it's time to reestablish discipline: humankind is confronting the biggest lion ever, the planet devouring run away greenhouse. And there are other lions out there, maybe smaller, but still nasty, such as biological, or nuclear war.

Time to put financial piracy in a straight jacket.
*

Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/

Display:
A cursory look at history shows that less advanced ethics give a less advanced economical system, science and technology.

ETHICS IS ABSOLUTE, BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS ABSOLUTE:
Indeed is ethics always relative, indirectly measured by techno-economical progress? Of course not. Ethics is absolute. One can point at the Charter of the United Nations, the one that countries founded on an uneducated superstition violate everyday. That is absolute, Human Rights are absolute. That, absolutism, in turn, is founded on ten million years of specifically human evolution. Human beings come with their own owner's manual, and part of it is called ethics. Evolution wanted it, and evolution is all knowing, misericordious, and most merciful. Differently from the big man raging in the sky, it really exists. EVOLUTION GROUNDS ETHICS ABSOLUTELY.

You are treading dangerous ground here.  I'm not even sure you know it or intend it.  Your choice of topics and they way you present them appear to have a rather fascist streak.  It may be advisable for the Admins to state somewhere loud and clear that the views expressed on this site are not nec. their own.  And for you to be forthcoming and clear about your motivation for posting these diaries, what you'd like to accomplish with them.  Exactly.

"Talking nonsense is the sole privilege mankind possesses over the other organisms." -Dostoevsky

by poemless on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 at 12:10:40 PM EST
Agreed, poemless, and well put.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 at 12:27:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You probably never heard of ethology.

I find your insinuations full of hatred. I was myself severely attacked by fascists more than once, and resistance to fascism, and even Nazism, is a family tradition. The way you talk and threaten, typical of intellectual fascism is a hint that you do not come from the same tradition.

If you do not understand that love is given by evolution, you may be some religious fanatic, with a reduced knowledge base. But that does not authorize you to threaten and insult other people you do not share the knowledge base of.

Science does not contradict love. Learn.

PA

 

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 at 03:54:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My comment was on the first post, who seems to have understood nothing. Or does he view evolution as fascist?

we should all have stayed crabs, that would have been PC?

PA

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 at 03:56:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Your tone is unnecessarily hostile.  

If you want have a genuine debate about issues then you can't attack and insult people for showing signs of not agreeing with everything you say.

Have you read others' diaries or engaged elsewhere on the site, taken time to get to know people and get an overview of the issues people discuss?  Or are you purely trying to push your own agenda out regardless of the fact that this is a community that thrives on and learns through the wider interactions we have with each other?

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 at 04:47:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Strangely, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the author.  I'm not debating anything.  I just think the delivery is confusing and -and I even allowed for the possibility that this is entirely unintentional - offensive.  

"Talking nonsense is the sole privilege mankind possesses over the other organisms." -Dostoevsky
by poemless on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 at 04:55:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
is a two way street.

If you think poemless didn't get your message, you might want to consider if the transmitter is at fault, not just the receiver.

by Nomad on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 at 05:06:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's a straight-forward personal attack on poemless, unwarranted and unwelcome here.

You may want to read this.

On top of that, the tone of superiority is unlikely to win you any friends, especially since your writing is unclear.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 at 04:21:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am looking forward debating ideas. Instead I was told the site adminstrator should be warned that I was a fascist. When I protested, with more facts and ideas, I am sent back to the owner's manual. That's not what I call an intellectual debate.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 at 05:19:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Patrice Ayme:
I was told the site adminstrator should be warned that I was a fascist

That was not what was said.  And you responded with insults which is not conductive to a debate or exchange of ideas.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 at 05:26:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Patrice Ayme:
That's not what I call an intellectual debate
Your writing style is not conducive to intellectual debate, it is hectoring.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 04:25:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"that does not authorize you to threaten and insult other people you do not share the knowledge base of. "

I asked you to clarify your motives here.  That's neither threatening or insulting.  That you read it that way may give you pause to think.

"If you do not understand that love is given by evolution, you may be some religious fanatic."

I am atheist.  I don't see what it has to do with anything.  And I also don't understand your comment.  

"Talking nonsense is the sole privilege mankind possesses over the other organisms." -Dostoevsky

by poemless on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 at 04:31:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'll avoid the F word.

I think you need to clarify the following:

Ethics is absolute: Basis, please.
Evolution is absolute: Double ditto.
10 million years of specifically human evolution: I'd definitely need a cite for that one.
Evolution grounds ethics absolutely: I've read a lot of socio-biology, and you've sailed far beyond what any scholar in the field asserts.  So again, basis please.

by rifek on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 at 06:33:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
numerous essays, there will be more, and I am going to put together a few books. You may want to read my Tyranosopher site, which has plenty of essays on this.

I want to explain more right away, but I have little time presently. Although I have hundreds of books on Nazism, and I know the subject well, I am as much of an enemy of Nazism as possible.

I do agree I sound a bit like a Nazi sometimes, though...

PA

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 03:42:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Patrice,

Your first ET diary was humorous.  I liked it and recommended that you continue in that vein.  You seem to have a gift for that sort of thing.  But more recently your tone has been more one of hectoring.  When we see the world spinning out of control, think we understand why and find that our understanding is not incorporated into any approach that is being undertaken, it can be frustrating.  But self defeating approaches help no one.

Lecturing ET readers is doomed to failure.  And assumptions of superiority that are undercut by your very presentation are annoying.  I agree with poemless that this is probably unintended on your part.  Having read widely in history does not automatically make one wise or insure that one has taken the most relevant lessons from that history.  As one who believes in the unity of knowledge, I can appreciate your desire to bring in references from various subjects, but it is best to start small.

You want to improve our intelligence.  If I thought you could, I would be quite interested.  Most on this site would probably agree that "intelligence" is multi-factoral and refers to abilities, not to specific knowledge.  Now if you could in some way improve the functioning of our brains, we might be interested, but you seem to equate this with hectoring us to accept your points of view.  That is better accomplished with genuine dialogue and humility.  I have seen neither.

You assert that you are a better Hannah Arendt.  Well, you at least are still walking on the surface of the earth.  But do you have a similar list of publications.  Do you have an academic reputation?  Regardless of whether I am supportive or critical of Arendt, or both, I recognize that she has a formidable reputation.  I cannot say the same for you, certainly not on the basis of your posts.  You may in time and I wish you well.

Many of the people on this site are far better educated than am I.  Others have suggested that you should try to read the diaries of others and enter into dialogs with others via comment threads.  Were you to do so you might find that you are doing more of the learning in the process.  I know that has been the case for me.

   

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 03:06:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Patrice Ayme:
You probably never heard of ethology.

Um, have you?

Ethology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ethology (from Greek: ἦθος, ethos, "character"; and -λογία, -logia) is the scientific study of animal behavior, and a branch of zoology (not to be confused with ethnology).

Contrary to what you seem to be implying, "ethology" is only tangentially related to "ethics".

I find this disappointingly symptomatic of the diary in general.

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

by dvx (dvx.clt št gmail dotcom) on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 03:15:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Whatever. The post was initially about the abuses of the financial pirates, the world plutocracy. Then I was told I had a fascist streak, people should be warned about me, and, now, moreover that I take badly these judicious comments.

I also take badly that Obama is taking advice from Summers creep. Much more badly. I made plenty of enemies, in connection to that and my opposition to legislating torture. Big, bad enemies. Not one friend, though.

That's how I am.

Really bad.

PA

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 04:10:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
but I hate and despise fascism absolutely, including in its purely intellectual forms, characterized with low dimensional understanding. You can look at my Tyranosopher site. I was actually bombed by genuine fascists, and I agree the ground is dangerous when confronted to astronomical stupidity.

As far as I am concerned, Stalin was a fascist too.

PA

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 at 04:00:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Stalin was a fascist? How are you defining "fascism"?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 at 04:23:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
TYRANOSOPHER has plenty on my theory of fascism. The concept is more than 2,500 years old. It was at the heart of the Roman republic. And it's not intrinsically negative. Also at heart of Franks, and FRENCH republic.

PA

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 04:13:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
superior to Arendt

well aren't we humble!

i read your site the first time you posted a diary, and it turned me off bigtime. you have obviously studied history in some depth, but some of your conclusions are, imo, unacceptable, to put it mildly.

others might want to save themselves further time and trouble wondering about your belief system and check it out, if they have the stomach.

there is much more to ET than just promoting one's own opnions, to requote your comment to poemless backatcha, 'LEARN!'

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 at 06:15:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
jobs. Now I see them taking the fate of the world in their unknowing hands, and taking atrocious decisions, so no humility anymore. Those who should be humble are now in power, so those who are not in power shall stop being humble. This is bigger than ET, or even much bigger than Europe.

Lots of misunderstandings all over.

I realize my discourse above is not transparent, but it's voluntarily so. A bit of brainwork makes pretty clear what I am alluding to. Look towards DC.

The charge that they were arrogant is the central charge against philosophers, and Arendt was not spared (for telling the truth, like Socrates, or Aristotle, or Buridan, or Abelard, etc...)

PA

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 08:08:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 at 04:17:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You won't do that by ranting or writing nonsense.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Apr 27th, 2009 at 06:54:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
make sense to the termite.

And it is very good. But of course, just as the chimp does not generally talk to the termite, nor does the philosopher to the commons. A necessary tradition, violated by the intrusive technology of the Internet.

PA

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 04:16:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Patrice Ayme:
just as the chimp does not generally talk to the termite, nor does the philosopher to the commons
I'm afraid your music wasn't made for my sow's ear.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 04:23:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A necessary tradition, violated by the intrusive technology of the Internet.

You know, the "philosopher" isn't actually forced to bow down to the "intrusive technology". S/he is quite free to brood on Nietzschean heights, leaving the "commons" to graze peacefully below.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 06:00:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"CHANGE" in the USA, big, even biggest, time. But now what I see is a further change that I have the moral duty to hate. The leader maximo knows this.

I am good at dropping off society, for lots of years at a time.

I found the ET had very interesting contributors, that's why I am here, to instruct and get instructed.
PA

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 08:12:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Making people more intelligent is not the same thing as educating them, which again is not the same thing you're doing.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 04:26:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The currently dominant theories of evolution and (relatedly enough) of rational choice are pretty categorical about the selfishness background of animal behavior, human behavior and evolutionary dynamics.

But it can be argued that "practice" does not agree with the theories. Animals do not appear obsessed with optimizing their food diet or with optimal reproduction. At least, there is certainly much satisfycing behavior, which helps to avoid collapses (aka "tragedies of commons") of surrounding ecosystems. Even neo-Darwinist theorists like Myanard-Smith noted that mutualist symbiotic relations are highly unspecific while parasitisms are very specific. This indicates that in nature generic goodness makes more sense than generic nastiness.

I could recommend the following book:

Peter A. Corning,
Holistic Darwinism: Synergy, Cybernetics, and the Bioeconomics of Evolution,
University of Chicago Press, 2005.

You can also browse through Corning's publications.

A more conventional book on "alternative" natural unselfishness theories is

Elliott Sober, David Sloan Wilson,
Unto others: the evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior,
Harvard University Press, 1999

I had "reviewed" a review of it recently. The introduction of Unto Others describes quite nicely a bit of the influence of standard recommendations for rational decision making. We have to assume that the financial sharks are very rational, even if they do not completely know (or want to know) what they are doing, or will destroy the civilization.

by das monde on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 05:03:34 AM EST
no time right now (I'm traveling).

My point about the financial sharks and Hitler was that sadism and masochism is often perceived as better than boredom, by those who engage in these horribly cruel and abusive practices (including bombing people in Pakistan, or Afghanistan).

I am not recommending it (I have to say this right away, lest I be accused to justify Hitler, a guy who got my family on the run, and partially bombed and killed.)

At least, on the ET, I get hated a lot, so I don't need to start a world war, although, come to think of it, my set of 500 or so quotes of the Qur'an I have selected, coming to the www soon, should do quite nice...

I think altruism plays a giant role in evolution. Now the details, someday, will involve heavy mathematics that certainly do not exist yet (I am a mathematician, no insult to mathematicians intended, just we should be humble...)

PA  
 

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 08:25:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
European Tribune - Financial Pirates Ahoy!

The dirty little secret of decolonization is that the rich countries wanted out. A French minister of finance during the decolonization of Africa expressed his opinion. It was a strange thing: after all, basically, and contrarily to legend, Africa had not really asked to be decolonized, with the exception of communist penetrated Guinean unions; even Algeria had voted massively for the new French constitution, and was given as feed to the FLN nevertheless. So what really happened? Well, something very much related to the present globalization crisis.

That French minister finally admitted the obvious: France was unwilling to keep spending for a fully functioning hospital every 100 kilometers in gigantic Africa. Same with infrastructure throughout Africa. Of course there were other problems, such as Soviet and American imperialism that were determined to push the European powers, weakened by Nazism, out of the planet, if at all possible. Nevertheless, the selfish factor played a very important role. Spain and Portugal, which kept their colonies longer, suffered economically from it (although they were spending as little as possible).

Emphasis mine.

You know, this was as far as I came.

I can't take serious someone who argues in less than two paragraphs that Europe was both selfish and that it wanted to get rid of its cash-cow colonies - those colonies who BTW provided the soldiers that were sort of crucial to beat back the armies of the Axis countries. In fact, you may want to source that French minister and provide some quotes, while you're at it.

by Nomad on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 07:28:31 AM EST
the entire essay. For once I let go. You should have persisted.

I do agree that this particular five lines necessitate a 10,000 pages treaty. Let me just say I so the situation with my eyes.

The cash-cow thing, although true sometimes, and esp. a century ago (where it was completely true, from oil, hivea, etc....), stopped being true later.

Telling untruths about the past, prevents us to see the truth now. I hold that there is more exploitation now, in many places. And that the threats are greater now.

Holocausts happened in the past (Congo, Namibia). But worse could happen soon, lest we keep in touch with reality. With the two (?) exceptions above, European powers did not proceed in the sort of holocausts that happened in the Americas (or maybe Australia; Fitz Roy saved the Maoris in NZ)
True is the truth, and truth is that denying the truth is an awful doom.

PA

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 08:36:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
that if you need 10.000 pages, you could have abandoned these hopelessly untrue paragraphs.

And secondly, using the metric "holocaust" as a yard stick for ... whatever you want to prove... is bizarre.

And thirdly, I weary of these sooth-saying of doom:

Patrice Ayme:

But worse could happen soon, lest we keep in touch with reality.

Either speak plainly, or don't.

by Nomad on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 10:08:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thinking is not fast food. Can't go there, & stuff oneself. It takes an immense effort, building a universe.

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/
by Patrice Ayme on Tue Apr 28th, 2009 at 06:07:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Again, I'm struck by the thought that a profound thinker like yourself is not at his best advantage on an Internet discussion forum.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Apr 29th, 2009 at 01:48:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Socrates, if anything did not get involved enough, loud enough, and vehemently enough. That was reproached sternly to him at his trial. His defense was rather meek. He claimed that once he protested in person to the authorities... As it is I personally know some of the principals in the USA, past and present, including Yoo when he was a stupid arrogant chicken-lawyer. We did not agree on much. He turned arrogance into outright criminality later.

PA

Patrice Ayme Patriceayme.com Patriceayme.wordpress.com http://tyranosopher.blogspot.com/

by Patrice Ayme on Wed Apr 29th, 2009 at 05:52:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Patrice Ayme:
It takes an immense effort, building a universe.
It might be wasted effort given that there is a universe already, and that's the one that matters.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Apr 29th, 2009 at 06:04:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries