JustARandomPanda

Here's something I also considered.... Let's say you are a poor Cambodian who's home in Phnom Penh got taken by that wealthy Cambodian property developer in the article mentioned above. Then a second problem strikes. Your child has developed a devastating illness but a lifesaving treatment is available. Unfortunately the country can not afford this kind of specialized medical care for it's citizens. Neither seemingly can you. Fortunately for you and your wife and child the free market is here to step in and save the day. An enterprising businessman steps forward upon learning of your plight and says he will pay for your child's lifesaving treatment as well as buy your wife and child a new home...on one condition...You sell yourself into slavery to him for which he will ultimately then sell you to a slave buyer in Dubai. He will make a modest profit from selling you to his customer in Dubai but not unduly so. You weigh the pros and cons. Can you sell yourself into slavery? Many people object in horror that you can't. Not even for the most noble goal of saving your child's life and providing your family with a secure home again. The repercussions to the wider society would just be too costly. But understand their objections do not rest upon rational analysis Are you beginning to see why I keep hammering about the long reach of our Contract Law? As John Maynard Keynes once said

Once Upon a Time... I came across a book I thought breathtaking in it's analysis of poverty and how to use an untapped goldmine poor people naturally possessed for lifting themselves out of poverty. That book was The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else by Hernando de Soto It was a beautiful book. And for a while a lot of Influential People with ties to Influential Institutions were very taken by it. But then History has a weird way of showing how clever humans are...

Yes I think you are getting at something rather close to my own view. It's why we even have these arguments. You simply came out and said it. I've kinda been showing by process how my own thinking has led me to this-or-that over the years. I still think people get seduced by ideas and theories a lot. Seems to be something our brains like to do. I'm still a proponent of poking holes in my own ideas and models (and other's too) of the world. Why -K-! I do believe you are starting to sound like Twinner!

For anyone who wants to wade into the arcane I give you the Max-Planck Institute. A think-tank based in Germany. It has a division devoted to examining economic behavior at both the micro and macro levels from the lens of evolutionary science. Here is a link explaining their Evolutionary Economics division (along with their other division) Here is a link to just a few of their papers submitted for their Journal. You can open in a browser or download the individual papers. Here's the direct link to a sample paper and the abstract quoted below: As an alternative you can check out the following: 1. Wiki page on assorted Economic Growth Theories being tossed around 2. Here is a link to Oded Galor's book - Unified Growth Theory

My personal examples are not second fiddle to the wider questions brought up by OWS and the Tea Party. Because it's precisely in the bedeviling details where we are most likely to see our beautiful beliefs fall down. Is this not the very thing the Right keep shouting that the Left ignore? That they're ignoring the details by adhering to their beautiful theories too much? Well that sword cuts both ways. Because the Left can point out where the Right's theories falls down too. Point your finger at me and 3 more are pointing right back at you. Which is precisely why we see people getting pissy with each other online. Each side is essentially telling the other "your beliefs are ignoring realities". -K- made a good suggestion. By playing Devil's Advocate for the side we typically most disagree with it allows us to see the holes in our own beloved notions of human behavior. It's not all that easy to do. And I haven't even seen much of it in this thread. I've tried to address it a wee bit by showing why I personally don't think it's as simple as just stating "Corporations are the Problem" or "Government is the Problem". Plus it's always easier to attack someone else's beliefs and proposals than presenting and proposing your own. But I find myself curious about the gaps. The realm where models and theories fall down. As t.s. eliot once said in The Hollow Men (excerpt):

OMFG!!! I've been making this EXACT same argument for decades to everyone around me and always get dismissed.

Anamatva, Could you link to any research about this or the search terms I can use to call up relevant research in a search engine? I am curious as to how stomach enzymes migrate out of the stomach and into the bloodstream. I ran a search on Pubmed but I'm not really seeing anything about the stomach enzyme to blood migration nor of the "cleaning" action they do once in the bloodstream. I'm genuinely curious about this as I've never heard about this phenomenon.

Glad to Seth. The Alternate Day Diet isn't really a true fasting diet. It's just that every other day you have a very low calorie day. From the time you wake up to the time you go to sleep you restrict yourself to 500 calories or less on alternating days. The other days you eat as normal. According to the author he got the idea based off of many decades of research both with humans and lab rats and mice. Metabolically it has many of the same effects as that of the Longevity Diet and fasting except it does allow you to eat at least a little something on the alternate days. You could of course even eat complete junk food (though he doesn't recommend it) if you wanted as long as it didn't break that 500 cal limit. It has some similar effects to the book I list next though not completely because this diet does not Mini-Max. The Longevity Diet's main focus is drawing from 70+ years of research showing calorie restriction hugely extends both youth and maximum lifespan. That is - it would be as if you perpetually had the body of say - a 35 - 40 year old (assuming you started then) - right up until the last 2 - 3 years of your 120 year life. The final 2 - 3 years you'd finally start seeing signs of traditional old age kick in. Now to get the above you'd have to do the Longevity Diet hardcore. Cut your overall calorie intake every single day for the rest of your life by 30% of what is necessary for what science says is a normal, healthy weighted individual in your category. That's exceedingly difficult to pull off and very, very, VERY few people are able to do it. So most aim for a more modest and doable 10%. You try to maximize the variety of nutrients per calorie for your target calorie goal. You want to try to gradually bring your bodyweight slightly under what science says is a healthy weight for your body structure. It has a whole host of knockon effects and the book has lengthy chapters detailing the effects and the science behind it. Your body's everyday temp will fall for example. A marker that 70+ years of research consistently shows happens alongside extending maximum lifespan. You'll get cold easier too since your body won't be as metabolically active as at a "normal" weight. In the beginning it's not an easy diet to follow simply because it's not easy to eat the right mix of foods in a minimized calorie target that fulfills those two requirements at the same time. You're Mini-Maxing. People who follow this diet typically call it CRON - Calorie Restriction with Optimal Nutrition. Here's a link to a website that details it and some of the science behind it with advice on how to get started along with tracking software to help you mini-max. I myself have wondered if I could mix a once a week fasting day with a slight CRON style diet. For example...by mixing the two would I only need to cut calories by 5% instead of the usual 10% of most CRONers? I don't know. I can't tell you what or how to eat because I'm only beginning this myself. Those two books are pretty flexible. They don't really tell you what to eat or when to eat in a strict regimen. They're more telling you here is the research to show why you might want to do it. Then you figure out how to implement it yourself following their suggestions. CRON's something I'm considering testing out once I get habituated to the once a week fast day.

Another personal example from my own life of what would intensify under Minarchist/Libertarian government structure. From my days in Contract Law class... My Prof often used actual court cases to teach this or that example he was going over in class about a point of Contract Law. One day he brought in a handout describing a lawsuit by a multinational corporation against another multinational corporation (neither had been his clients). This handout included several sections of a big contract these two companies had entered into. Our assignment: To find out why a particular clause in that contract was the source of the lawsuit using our textbook, class notes, online materials (for those who had laptops) and hobnobbing together as to what was wrong. We broke off into little groups. Everyone poured over this contract. And everyone was utterly baffled as to why there had been a lawsuit at all. The clause was boring. Nobody - even with all our materials on hand - could figure out what was so wrong with it. We could understand why both parties had signed it. We started to get frustrated. We asked him to give a hint. He just smiled and said to keep at it. Now we actually did have one advantage that a real contract lawyer doesn't have. A practicing contract lawyer during negotiations doesn't have someone like our Law Prof whispering in his/her ear, "hey buddy. You might want to scour this particular clause extra carefully." We at least did have that advantage. The minutes were ticking down and it was looking like we weren't going to make it. Which meant it would be added to our homework load he'd already given out. Then about 15 minutes before class end.... From the very back of the classroom, "Holy Shit! They just signed over to the other company all rights to their half of the joint venture's profits!" All heads whipped around to our Prof to see if this was true. Was this what this boring and innocuous clause actually saying? Our Prof gave a wolfish grin. "Congratulations. You finally figured it out. Now stand up and explain to the class how you arrived at that conclusion." Whereupon my classmate did. **** And again it makes me wonder. If multinational corporations do this to each other, what makes me think they wouldn't do it to anyone else?

Yes, this is where I agree with Libertarians in this instance. Mind you this problem plays out in other cities across the nation too. It's not just California or "Liberal" territory that does this. The Republican/TheoCon/NeoCon heartland loves this just as much as Democratic leaning coasts. I live in a Red State. Don't think it's gone blue since FDR. To give a personal example my mother is a hardcore "Fox News" Republican on Social Security and the state's Teachers pension fund. (BTW - she hates Ron Paul and has said so multiple times so I'm guessing Fox News must have done yet more of it's "let's-hate-on-Ron-Paul" Talking Head Op Eds). She loves the Military Industrial complex and supports it fully. Up until the point that paying for it threatens her income. If it means paying for it via more taxes (which is the fiscally conservative thing to do) she doesn't want any part of it and would promptly vote against it. No doubt she feels someone else with more income should pay. Especially those who are not on a fixed income like she is. Since practically everyone else in the nation feels exactly the same way (I'm stretched thin - someone else with more money to play with should pay. (And who is that someone with more money? The Chinese! ) the result has been exactly as its played out - a military that - if we truly had to fund it each year with only our own nation's cashflow - is unsustainable. Well that's what we hope will happen (and in many cases it can and does) but alas in the real world zombie companies can and do find creative ways to skirt the effects of the free market all the time. The term "cook the books" didn't come out of nowhere. The Enrons of the world don't come out of nowhere. the Shareholder movement demanding more accountability from corporations didn't arise out of nowhere. Accountants know creative ways to help companies and individuals keep the money churning and liabilities off-the-books. *********** Of course legislative influence points in many directions. This is why I posted the excerpt of the article right above Joeblast's. It's an everyday example of a faction (in this case, police and firemen, especially retired police and firemen) gaming the system to the benefit of themselves at the detriment of everyone else (in this case all the other citizens of Vallejo). Vallejo is basically a city that's now a 3rd world nation as far as the bond market is concerned. But I rather doubt the average Vallejo citizen is aware of the timeline and particulars that went into the bankrupting of his/her city. All they see is that the city somehow so mismanaged the taxes it did collect that it went into bankruptcy. And quite rationally think why increase my taxes when they have not shown they can responsibly manage even the bit I give them? And in this case they are right despite the fact most are ignorant of exactly where and how their city's finances are being spent. With the way things are locked in if they give anymore I am suspicious the police and fire departments would once again insist on yet another pay increase. Vallejo is in a bad spot. It's a real world example of what Mancur Olson's book talks about. Notice how contract law and arbitration was used to create this system? You didn't have to call out the national guard (that Libertarian bugaboo of "men with guns"), didn't have to get the County involved (which is the arm of the state reaching into local communites), etc. It's using the very thing small gov conservatives so often point to in order to resolve disputes. Contracts. Contract Law and Binding Arbitration (i.e. Rule by privately-paid-for Judges). Now to this the majority of small gov Conservatives announce this just means we should make unions illegal or at least neuter them when it comes to their collective bargaining power. I might actually agree to this. If they would also agree to neutering corporations' ability to do the same. Including the repealing of corporate personhood. When they hear that they shout I am part of the problem. I believe that to take care of one side of the equation while ignoring the other will introduce a whole new host of distortions in public life. But most Conservatives hearing what I believe start pulling the "shout-em down" card. I read the sneers online about how I'm "anti-capitalist", a "liberal" (they've been real effective in turning that one into a label of outright contempt). Or shout that I'm a "socialist" or a "communist" or even occasionally, "anarchist" (typically said by those who have not a freakin clue what Anarchism really is all about). In other words - engaging in a lot of ad hominems of contempt and little substance. They paint me as an enemy of America when I'm really not. I just have a whole lot less faith than Anti-Big Gov/Pro Big Corp Believers that in their world this kind of distorting would be sapped of it's strength and held in check via the "invisible hand". One doesn't need government in order to figure out how to use resources to one's own faction's benefit over others. Look at how organized crime have sophisticated invisible hand markets in all kinds of people and goods. Slavery is alive and well. Smuggling is alive and well. Child labor is alive and well. Adam Smith was not a Libertarian by today's Libertarian standards. Everywhere I turn I see Max Stirner's critique of society true - that is, there's always some dominant faction who convinces the general populace that ITS own welfare and ethics equals the welfare and ethics of the Commongood. Speaking only for myself I don't like pronouncements that Government is the Problem or that Corporations are the Problem or Unions are the Problem. I would rather take a more granular approach and start looking at the specifics of each case. Sometimes Government is the Problem. Sometimes Corporations are the Problem. And sometimes [insert Collective X] is the Problem. Sometimes its all of the above together. For me It all depends. But most people (right-left-whatever) really don't like that answer. They prefer their rational explanations/theories and so naturally look for confirmation of them. One is supposed to do that but it can also lead to confirmation bias instead of also looking to see where or if the rational explanation falls down or has other factors.

Another resource to consider I noticed my library has this book on order so I submitted a request to reserve it. Fortunately I'm first in line. A few thoughts that popped into my head. 1. Adam Smith would not be a Libertarian by today's definition of Libertarians. It's often forgotten he wrote a book prior to The Wealth of Nations. That being The Theory of Moral Sentiments. 2. I am interested in reading Frank's book mainly because of some success in using models/theories that first were used in explaining population growth/decline being brought into economics. I think its overshadowed somewhat by behavioral Economics right now but is growing a bit too.

An interesting little ditty for people to consider.... It's my opinion that it's not just Californians that behave this way. It's Americans (and the first half of the article discusses cities nationwide). Excerpt of the 7 page article is below.... End of excerpt on P. 3 You can read the full article here

Ah...I think I'm going to have to check this book out from the library. I found out 9 other people are in line ahead of me to get their hands on it. Boomerang: Travels in the New Third World Here's an interview with the author:

I'll go ahead and post Taomeow's quote from another thread (hope she doesn't mind) with regards to desire and attachment. It's another perspective from a Taoist for people to think about. and the second

Thousands Nationwide Join NY Born Protests Report date: October 16, 2011 Occupy Protests Spread Around the World Report date: Sat October 15, 2011

Lehman Brothers - E.U. Style

ROFLMAO!!

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street Fewer Financial Crisis Pursued in Courts Snippet of the 2nd link:

Actually there IS an increasingly global finance alternative available. It can't address every ill listed by the OWS movement but does help with one part of it. Islamic Finance. It's my understanding it's a growing sector of finance worldwide and is not restricted to Muslims. It's gaining popularity with Non-Muslims and Non-Islamic countries as well (including in the U.S. and UK). Islam forbids interest and so Islamic financial institutions have had to come up with creative ways to meet the needs of businesses and consumers while still turning a profit so as to be compliant with Sharia Law. Islamic Finance in a Nutshell: A Guide for Non-Specialists

Second verse, same as the first. How Greece's Financial Crisis Hurts the U.S. a snippet.... Note: Dexia was nationalized last week

Because the above posts have (imo) bearing on both the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement I offer the following link to the full show. Sometimes it's helpful to revisit history. Nova: Inside the Meltdown

Continued...

Excerpts to encourage you to consider buying/reading this book, Crisis Economics. It was my impression one reason this kind of compensation was championed by its proponents is that it is very merit-based. That is, those who deliver superior profits deserve the rewards of their superior performance. Greed need not even be invoked for what the author is about to highlight in the passages to come. to be continued...

I've started trying to fast one day a week. I thought I would be ravenously hungry but I'm not. It's a wee bit uncomfortable just because I'm not used to it but nothing I haven't been able to deal with. I was finally convinced to give it a shot after reading several sources. One that was really influential was this one: Top Ten Fasting Myths Debunked. I cracked up at the photo included. Gotta luv that Broscience. Brad Pilon's Eat Stop Eat is also good which Candide summed up in a nutshell. I also read The Alternate Day Diet and The Longevity Diet