An intellectual's review

[Blake]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
Adam, personal greed is not the alpha and omega of human motivation, but it is the alpha and will be the omega of capitalism. It is the mantra of the capitalist.

Nice.

That of course is precisely what I believe.

It'd be a hard sell for anyone to convince me that I'm motivated by greed .

It could be said that it is human nature to be greedy, when greed is encouraged. (Look at the USA)

It is human nature to be violent, when violence is encouraged. (Look at modern Islam)

My mantra, if I have one, is that good comes good motivations, bad comes from bad motivations.
I don't bother much with the details.

If everyone was imbued with this spirit, by how society raised people and expected them to act, then society would be better. Although no-ones perfect and there are always black sheep (this going in both directions), if everyone was encouraged to simply do what they really thought was good, and were encouraged to understand what they feel to be good (as per the principles of philosophies such as Buddhism), then society would operate quite differently. But the schooling system doesn't even touch that sort of thing, instead it focuses greatly on competition. Things like co-operation, doing what is good for both you and other people (rather than doing what is only good for you) is given mere lip service.

My blah blah.

[Unimatrix11]

ramblerambleramble - but still, even if it sounds rediculous on first sight: Why was Kennedy shot ? Was it maybe because he held this speech, were he warned the people of the US about the "military-industrial complex" ? That he said out loud, with all authority of the president of the united states of america that in deed there were elements acting in the dark, persueing programs unchecked and unknown to the public, that would gain them more and more power until at some point they cannot be stoped anymore - he actually asked the american people for its help to fight that shadow-government - he was a brave man and died for it... What he did there was warning the world of what was to come into open 40 years later.

[Ari]

Eisenhower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

But bonus points for the loony who-shot-Kennedy theory.

Sigh, that's the last time I click "last page" on an 11 page thread which I haven't looked at before.

[Unimatrix11]

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominent men." - Woodrow Wilson (1919) on his legislation that had founded the central bank of america in 1913, which he had done, because he had promised to do so to the bankers that had supported his campaign for presidency. He thereby practically put treason to the very reason, why america had broken off from england and to those who fought for it.

"Under the federal reserve act, panics are scientifically created. The present panic is the first scientifically created one, worked out as we figure a mathematical equation" - Congressman Charles Lindbergh (1921)

"It was a carefully contrived occurance. International bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair, so that they might emerge the rulers of us all." Congressman Louis McFadden on the 1929f crises - shortly thereafter murdered by poison.

"Give me control of a nation´s money supply, and i care not who makes its laws" - Mayer Amschel Rothschild

(quotes taken from the movie "zeitgeist" - http://zeitgeistmovie.com )

So why is it that a nation supplies its own currency via LOANING it at INTEREST from an institution that is not under government control ? Today in europe its not even ONE nation anymore... There are all sorts of proverbs like "money makes the world go ´round" or "Geld regiert die Welt" (Money rules the world), yet nobody seems to bother all that much... Isnt it obvious that if private persons hold an interest in the debt of the nation, that they will do whatever is in their power (and that is hard to overestimate) to raise that debt ? Isnt it then also logical, knowing the fact that nothing propels national debt more than a prolonged war, that this acts contrary to any civilized nations interest - that people will get killed in the scores of thousands in order for a few to make huge profits and get a strangle-hold on a nation´s economy and subsequently its politics at the same time ? THIS is the system by which the world works today and it was brought about by the establishment of privately controlled banks that control the money supply at (as opposed to: in the) interest of a nation. That is what Thomas Jefferson meant when he said what is quoted in civ.

[rjmatsleepers]

Wow! A great new (to me) conspiracy theory. Don't you just love em!

RJM

[Unimatrix11]

To clarify: I dont say these things, because i want to know more than others - to feel "superior" by "knowing" what is "really going on" in contrast to most people. And certainly i dont love these facts. In fact i have to not think too much about it, in order not to tick out - its hardly viable to me.

I have taken interest in history pretty much since my childhood and if someone came up to me like 10 years ago with any sort of conspiracy-theory i usually nailed the person down with what i "knew". But it got hard to look away in the face of such a bad lier like Mr. G.W. Bush. Did you ever notice his smirking when i thinks he is so smart when he throws just another lie at a journalist at a press conference ? He cant even keep a straight face ! That smirk reveals so much - not only that he is lying, but also that he is absolutely confident that he can get away with it - that he has the right people on his side. I´ll just bring the example of the iraq-war: Here is a simple question of logic: If a country posses weapons of mass destruction, is it then, in any way, reasonable to assemble a conventional force at his borders with the obvious intention of invasion ? Wouldnt it be not only the right, but even the duty, of that nation´s leader to bring those weapons to their purpose: Defending the nation´s souverainity ? For me the nature of the WMD-claim as to be a mere pretext was obvious from day one, by this simple exercise of logic. Any civ player can understand what i mean - you cannot land a huge stack of units next to someone´s border and threat him with invasion if the guy has nukes... especially when the invader-to-be claims your evil intention with those (non-existent) nukes to be his reason for war anyways. And then this "ultimatum" that went like - we want saddam to resign and leave the country within 2 days (or so) - not only is this an insolence unprecented in international history - the ultimatum of austria-hungary to serbia that lead to WWI is mild compared to that rediculous demand - but Mr. Bush, fearing that Saddam might actually do that, had to come back to the cams just a couple of hours later saying, that basically fullfillment of the ultimatum would not prevent US-troops invading the country. So technically this wasnt even an ultimatum - it was a declaration of war (*smirk*). Since during the whole sorry story one could actually watch the US-government grope for justifications and pretexts for this, that were all made up and bogus, i started to ask myself: "What IS the true reason ?" That was the point of departure for a new view on history and politics; a view that is not pleasant at all and a view that i do not obtain to feel exclusive in any way, but rather that i felt more or less forced to obtain by observation and logic. Sometimes i wish i hadnt. On the risk of getting laughed at: I cried when i did, for a carefully crafted world in my mind fell apart, i felt betrayed and a lot of things that i used to believe in firmly shattered.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
On the risk of getting laughed at: I cried when i did, for a carefully crafted world in my mind fell apart, i felt betrayed and a lot of things that i used to believe in firmly shattered.

FWIW, coming to realize the nature of money and the evilness of the banking/financial system pretty much shattered my worldview too.

[couerdelion]

That man is an animal is an indisputable fact. And I’m sorry to inform Petrus2 that he is an ape and I mean no offence when I say this. But the ape point is a digression because man, as an animal, has a number of common characteristics with the rest of our fellow creatures, the most fundamental of which are that we a) breath oxygen b) require food and water for sustenance c) reproduce. There might be another important thing I forgot but three will do for now.

Now with the exception of breathing oxygen – which we can currently assume to be limitless – the other two create competition both within the species and with other animals. That food is the critical factor in the early game of civ merely reflects its fundamental position at the top of what we consider important. Short of some severe psychological problems, a human will choose a minimum level of food (needed to survive) over pretty much any other thing. Excess food leads to increase in population, much as it does in the wild. The only reason why humans have the seeming ability to multiply indefinitely is that we possess a remarkable intellect that allows us to surpass Malthusian’s shortsighted limits.

If we then live in a world where food is now irrelevant in our calculations, then the we have to ask ourselves what happens to the competitive spirit that we needed to compete for the food in the first place. It doesn’t simply vanish.

The most probably answer is in the third of my fundamental features of humans. The drive for a better life is probably nothing more that internal competition within the species for the survival of its genes. That better life will make it more likely that offspring will be prosperous and continue.

Most of the policies adopted by socialist groups around the world are fundamentally opposed to basic human nature. Those individual who have a comparative advantage over others will prefer to live in an environment where their advantage can be used. So the 20% of the population who made the extra 40 of wealth, would prefer to live in a place where they get to keep a lot more of it. There have been many barriers to human migration in recent times but I can’t think of one that is designed to stop people leaving a free capitalist country.

Now to the social dimension because we not only have individuals working for themselves (and their genes) but also working as a group – because we gain benefit from that social group. The first social group is the immediate family humans live in larger groups that go beyond the immediate family. Within this wider dimension there are social benefits derived from spending money on things that the individual would be less inclined to do or would be unable to pay for themselves.

Let’s take the hospital as a first example. A highly profitable investment from most perspectives. From the point of view of the individual this is a valuable insurance against sickness and injury. For the social group, it extends the useful life of the overall group which means that the group itself produces more wealth for itself.

The question of old people is a more tricky one to derive an obvious economic gain for a society to extend human life beyond an productive term. However, we may also need to expand our definition of “productive” here beyond the traditional working life that we might be used to. For example, within the family unit, older relative still provide a function that enables younger ones to do other things. What’s more, where older relatives are not supported by the state or provided with care, their offspring will generally support them which may draw useful production out of the economy. Let’s just say that I’m not quite sure what the trade off here is in the society versus the individual and I’ll stop right now rather than risk acquiring new enemies.

Finally, the question of income-inequality. This probably means different things in countries with a large surplus of food and production and those with scarce resources and commodities. However, even in the former, large inequalities can lead to crime becoming a profitable business and we can probably all agree that crime is bad because it breaks all the rules that bind our society – at least if we accept the idea of society being a good thing – and endangers individuals within that society. In countries with scarce food/commodities, income inequality leads to “real” poverty of the type that results in starvation and sickness. But this is driven more by the fact that such countries are not free markets but are ruled by corrupt governments. That and rich-world subsidies are the things that lead to poor third-world farmers – far more than price of coffee. Whatever the specific details, society as a whole is willing to pay a certain price for stability and part of the cost here is designed to avoid large income inequalities. Whilst the arguments for might be put as fairness for those disadvantaged by the system it has two real purposes a) insurance against temporary dislocation of individuals (eg due to offshoring) b) disincentivising crime and/or revolution

[Petrus2]

Oh, so many things to reply to. However, I do in fact have to get work done if I want to get paid. It's that whole capitalism thing...

Uni, what exactly is your point? Capitalism is bad? If so then what better form do you suggest? You seem to point out all sorts of evils, while not mentioning the evils of other societal forms. Gimme a break!

And please, spare me the uber-conspiracy theories!

Business is best run by businessmen. BUT, it requires effective government oversight to ensure abuses are prevented or punished. Don't blame capitalism if that doesn't occur, because oversight sure isn't occuring in Russia, Burma (aka Myanmar, read what is going on over there if you want to read about abuses), most any part of Africa, etc. At least in the US there are courts and laws that have the ability to punish wrongdoers. As severely as they should be punished? No. (Oh, how about a certain Kennedy who got off scot-free about 40 years ago, since you seem enamored by them?????). But at least it does happen.

[Petrus2]

Oh, Couerdelion, I will refrain from the ape discussion here, it isn't the place and I don't have the time.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by couerdelion

The most probably answer is in the third of my fundamental features of humans. The drive for a better life is probably nothing more that internal competition within the species for the survival of its genes. That better life will make it more likely that offspring will be prosperous and continue.

Exactly. The animal drive to pass on/protect its own genetic material has evolved into the human motivation to protect him/herself and his/her family group. I think the major difference with humans is that we are able to abstract that "family group" and apply it to not only our actual genetic family, but our co-workers, neighborhood, community etc. It's easy to behave altruistically toward ones family, they share your genes. It requires a little bit of a leap to behave altruistically toward your entire city -- can I believe in the abstraction that my entire city should be regarded as my "family", and that I should make sacrifices/work harder/pay higher taxes that the entire city should thrive? It's extremely hard to abstract "family" to the entire world -- it's hard to believe that what's good for 51% of the world's population is in reality good for me, even if it's true.

I think where socialism falls apart in practice (because its absolutely fantastic in theory) is that we just can't abstract onto a national/global/universal scale very well: I'm perfectly willing to do more than my coworkers for the same pay as long as the entire company benefits and as long as I can perceive that they are doing what they're able -- I can abstract them as a family. What's good for them is ultimately good for me as well. -- I'm less able to abstract "family" onto a national or global scale. I want everyone in the world to "have a better life" but I'm not sure I'm able work harder, give more, etc if there is nothing extra in it for me and my more immediate, easily-abstractable family groups.

Therefore, I see the vast oversimplification of "Humans are greedy" as the best vast oversimplification that can explain observable human behavior. I think religion, law, and all other society norms are controls that have evolved to mitigate the deleterious effects of one individual's greed on other individuals. I think people who are socially aware strive to minimize the impact of their own greed (I will recycle, I will use less gas, I will not complain about high taxes) because they are able to abstract the entire nation/world/universe as their family, but I do think it's a struggle for most at least to some degree.

Cheers,
One relatively hairless, money-using, coffee-drinking ape.

[Asmodeous]

Originally posted by Blake


FWIW, coming to realize the nature of money and the evilness of the banking/financial system pretty much shattered my worldview too.

Pfft, Blake. Currency is neither good nor evil, it is simply a tool.

Like any tool, it can be used for great good or great evil, or anywhere in between in that range depending on the individual that weilds it.

Me.

[couerdelion]

On the question of a vast banking conspiracy, I think the whole thing is overdone. Even if capitalism has its share of corruption, there are at least mechanisms in place for redress and for penalties.

When it comes to central banks, I’m a little surprised that a lot seems to be put down to their responsibility. Money, like anything else is subject to supply and demand and there is so much money now moving in the capital markets that the central banks can only move levers on the economy. They do not explicitly control the “price” of money because, with liquid markets, people do not actually go to the central bank if they want money. Also, most money these days can be created electronically.

Likewise, even huge financial organisations do not control prices: they merely have a larger effect on the supply and demand of individual things so have a greater influence than you or I. But if a price is driven up too much or down to low, others are free to move in to sell/buy. There are plenty of self-correcting mechanisms and problems only tend to arise when the market itself undergoes a sudden correction and the effect of this spills over to the economy at large and people start complaining that their mortgages are too expensive.

Perhaps there may have been times where control of money was centred in a few hands and these people were able to distort it to their own ends. These days money is controlled from too many diverse sources for that to be a big risk. Sure, there are vested interests and people will use whatever influence they have to help themselves but they are forever haunted by Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” which is far more powerful then any single individual.

Note also that some of the “negative” quotes that come from CIV, you missed the one about Napoleon scoffing at the idea of steamships. This just demonstrates that the cynical comments attributed to famous people of the past are not necessarily sound judgment – just opinions.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Asmodeous


Pfft, Blake. Currency is neither good nor evil, it is simply a tool.

But a very good one though unless you want to return to a barter economy

[Petrus2]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini


I think the major difference with humans is that we are able to abstract that "family group" and apply it to not only our actual genetic family, but our co-workers, neighborhood, community etc.

Maslow's hierarchy. Though it has its detractors, it is a pretty good summary of what humans want. And how they progress, if the base needs are met.

Socialism, capitalism, ???-ism all fall apart in PRACTICE because they are executed by humans. So human shortcomings can reduce the effectiveness and efficiency of any system, whether those shortcomings are unintentional (a mistake is made) or intentional (greed, dishonest actions).

So this brings us back to the need for independent oversight of whatever system is in place. Since socialism assumes the State knows best, there is no opportunity for independent oversight.

To avoid being TOO depressing, especially considering it is rainy and dreary outside my window right now, the good news is that there have been people over time who rise above. For the US, the Founding Fathers, for all their shortcomings, were an absolutely amazing group of people. Others throughout history have had more interest in humanity than their own pocketbook.