Why do we view losing money as "bad" ????

Long term, homicide rates have plummeted.



I suspect sex crimes have only been tracked more recently as probably weren't considered crimes in many places.

A good report on drops in crime.

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...-down-governments-should-focus-prevention-not

As for pollution, yes I am sure plastic waste is much worse and we have more carbon in our air than ever before. but look at 19th Century London etc for when coal ruled supreme or LA in the 80s even for a more current example of how many places have cleaned up their act. Once again though heavily offset by India and China.

 

not always. Perpetrators work on a covert level where the victim feels like they are the ones who have done something wrong. It takes a higher awareness to expose the perpetration.

 

absolutely.

 

Homicide rates plummeted in the US after the crack cocaine epidemic subsisded. The Homicide rate though is incredibly high now in Central America.

As per net pollution, yes hard to see otherwise. Yes I agree about sex crimes and victims.

 

Hi, this is my first post on PC but some of you may remember me from SS. I haven’t read all the posts so my apologies if this has been discussed before.

Kate, have you ever thought you’re going through a spiritual awakening? People that have gone through it instantly recognise you as one of their own while those that haven’t will have great difficulty in understanding what you’re trying to say. Not being patronizing here, but your life experience has changed you to the core and given you a rare insight.

There is a new “you” within you. While the old you sees all things as gain/loss, mine/not mine, good/bad, achievement/failure, your new you looks at it from a distance and realises it isn’t real. This is a feeling that’s very hard to share with others and I commend you for taking the approach of asking questions rather than providing answers.

One major hurdle in your whole process is the ability to reconcile insight with the hassles of everyday life. The reality of your inner life will be constantly challenged by your outer life vying for relevance. So dig deep and enjoy.

 

I didn't see anywhere in your post where you were referring to PC folks - just greedy folks.

 

You are right; I don't know.

That's why I said "Sounds like..."

Am I wrong though?

 

Undoubtedly, this is a great post.

After reading it, I'm sure there would be a number of posters in this thread that would be interested in your thoughts if, dare I say it, Keynes was just wrong?

 

Nope - you can't be wrong on the way you see things.

 

Wow, what a thread.

17 pages of what can only be described as "chewing gum for the brain".

This could be what happens in the collision of starry-eyed idealism with hard nosed PI number crunching, which this forum seems to be leaning towards....

I don't think losing money is OK, especially if it's borrowed from someone else, but if the money belongs to me, so what?

Example from Kerry Packer (Source: http://www.abc.net.au/interactives/kerry-packers-road/):-

Graham Richardson recalls: "There were reports in the paper that he'd lost $22 million in a weekend and it was a very big deal in Australia at the time.

"And he came back and said, 'How much trouble am I in with this, son?’ and I said, 'Oh a ********, mate. Can't you go and lose two million? We can sell two million.'

"He said, 'You don’t understand gambling do you? The only thing that matters is it has to hurt if you lose, and I've got to lose a lot a f***in' money before it hurts.'"

but if it belongs to someone else, then to adopt the "celebrating the journey" kind of view, then maybe when that "someone else" decides their investment is not working out, then there should not be too much surprise when the borrower experiences (metaphorically speaking, of course) some kind of moments that resemble the highlights of Django Unchanged...

 

Keynes was a great supporter of capitalism. He praised 'self-interest' 'individualism' and 'private initiative and responsibility' as positives.

However, Keynes believed the flaws, —especially the "inequitable distribution of income and wealth" and the “failure to provide full employment”—were very serious, and he thought that the state would have to play a major role in solving it. He did not think that capitalistic societies would be capable of fixing it if left on their own.

Keynes viewed 'excessive inequality' and 'high unemployment' as dangerous to society as it could lead to revolutionary upheaval - a threat to society.
Keynes was determined to get rid of what was bad about capitalistic societies but he also sought to preserve a lot of what was good about them.

But he did not advocate for the removal of all inequality of income or wealth, viewing them as incenitivizing 'valuable human endeavour'

Keynes thought the combination of rising wealth and technological change would leave so much abundance for man that the only thing left for man to do is figure out how to fruitfully employ all that wonderful free time he would have on his hands.

John Maynard Keynes was visionary but he was both right and wrong in his vision for 2030.
There is rising wealth - it's just not available to everyone. There is huge rising inequality and huge wealth divides. Even in poor countries, there is rising wealth but only for a few. Keynes believed that huge inequalities would be dealt with by the state/ government. He believed in 'regulated capitalism'. He did not forsee the 'unfettered capitalism' that would strongly only favour one side.

Technological Change - will leave man a lot of leisure time on his hands, but not by his choice.
That leisure time will be forced upon man as automation, machine learning, robotics and artificial intelligence replace the need for human labour.

It won't be man's fault that he can't sit at a desk and complete in excess of 34 quadrillion calculations per second in his head

Nor will it be his fault that he can't exert a clamping force greater than 4.5 million pounds on injection molds. Truly a superhuman task!

So whither for man as he is outrun, outpaced, outthinked, outnumbered by the robots and artificial intelligence programs that he created?

 

Search for the definition of "Good" and "Bad". You'll get the answer you seek.

It's not just about money but anything we possess or want to possess.

 

Even the most wealthiest and most powerful are all still ruled by both markets up or down,some just see it as a number on a page sunday morning and a different number friday
other just don't read the newspapers for a few weeks,and after reading all this one could write a book on this,or to bankrupt anyone just give them information they think they understand..

 

Brilliant post!

I read an article not that long ago, which stated that in the not to distance future most jobs in the USA will be low paid service jobs. It's actually a shame that Governments throughout the western world have abandoned full employment as being essential policy.

The 1945 White Paper was unequivocal.

"Full employment is a fundamental aim of the Commonwealth Government. The Government believes that the people of Australia will demand and are entitled to expect full employment … Despite the need for more houses, food, equipment and every other type of product, before the war not all those available for work were able to find employment or to feel a sense of security in their future. On the average during the twenty years between 1919 and 1939 more than one-tenth of the men and women desiring work were unemployed. In the worst period of the depression well over 25 per cent were left in unproductive idleness. By contrast, during the war no financial or other obstacles have been allowed to prevent the need for extra production being satisfied to the limit of our resources. It is true that war-time full employment has been accompanied by efforts and sacrifices and a curtailment of individual liberties which only the supreme emergency of war could justify; but it has shown up the wastes of unemployment in pre-war years, and it has taught us valuable lessons which we can apply to the problems of peace-time, when full employment must be achieved in ways consistent with a free society.

In peace-time the responsibility of Commonwealth and State Governments is to provide the general framework of a full employment economy, within which the operations of individuals and businesses can be carried on".

The challenge will be adding jobs without stifling technological progress.

 

Hi Xenia,
There are some things you say I don't agree with. But there are some I do.
The above I heartily agree with,
With one amendment:
There is no substitute for smart work.

 

I tend to be lazy.. so i get much smarter people to do most of it for me

 

Most of the time that is the definition of smart work is it not?

 

haha yes true! Without the consultants, brokers, legal people, builders, accountants, etc i really would be broke