Global Revolution!

[joeblast]

If its "make EVERYONE" completely 100% equal no difference in anyone no incentive no reward socialism, communism, what have you - then people should just state it so instead of merely alluding to it.

 

 

Its foreign, unnatural, and counterproductive.

[ralis]

Lol, these things are all happening NOW under government regulation. That's because all these government agencies (FDA, EPA, CDC, etc) are in bed with Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc. So in effect, they only end up working against the little people and any more effective alternative solutions than the ones these corporations are selling.Well, there's nothing wrong with accepting SS...if you've already been FORCED to pay into it your whole life!

 

 

Why not post facts as opposed to hyperbole and innuendo. The problems that I mentioned in regards to food safety are the reduction of the number of FDA inspectors that happened during the Bush years.

 

Anyhow, interestingly, only 2 Congressmen have refused to accept their Congressional lifetime pensions (on ideological grounds): Republican Howard Coble & Libertarian/"Republican" RON PAUL..Lol, greed is one thing - simply wanting to remain globally competitive/solvent and turn a fair profit is another. As joeblast said earlier, when you overburden your 1% employers too severely with Socialist affirmative action, state taxes, unions, unending employee benefits, etc - you eventually simply drive them all out of your state/country.

 

 

 

 

More Republican talking points that blame over regulation on hampering the 'job creators' in creating new jobs. People of your persuasion would have this country revert back to the 'robber baron' age or to put it more succinctly, feudalism! Low wages for everyone. I assume you support wages of 2.00 or less/hour? How about rampant poverty? Tent cities? Rampant disease? Is that what you want?

 

 

 

Which then leaves higher unemployment in their absence (not quite the "99%" utopia many liberals imagine). Just ask anyone living in California and you can understand why any company there outsources as much as they possibly can - because they simply cannot afford NOT to anymore! The global free market will simply reward the greatest value, no matter how you try to constrain it locally.

 

 

 

 

Greatest value? Cheap junk made in China? What happens when the middle class is reduced to nothing and very few have money to purchase Chinese junk? Of course the Chinese have no problem with producing contaminated baby food and toxic drywall to name a couple of items!

 

What you and Joeblast promote is economic social Darwinism!

 

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_the_elites_are_in_trouble_20111009/

Edited October 11, 2011 by ralis

[Enishi]

I know I've been critical of the Small Gov mentality but in many ways I'm highly sympathetic to their aims. I just think the vast majority of 'Big Government is the Problem' people have not thought through some of the unintended consequences of their aim (like the fact litigation would increase, not decrease - and that's only one example).

 

Some things I think about:

 

I would like to see government's role reduced. But it needs to be counterbalanced by an equal emphasis on reducing the huge influence of corporations and their networks as well - something that frustrates me mightily with most Libertarians as I would otherwise be a lot more sympathetic to them than I am at the moment.

 

One start would be by repealing corporate personhood. However I have very little hope of that ever happening. Too few people are even aware of it and it's legal ramifications would be so great that huge constituencies would begin to aggregate to have it defeated.

 

I actually DO have a consistent voting record of not voting for a main candidate in either party. Haven't voted for a main party candidate in decades. Not many people I know in RL have the kind of voting record I have. I have a consistent decades-long voting record of useless protest votes.

 

Wow, Sereneblue I think you and me must be long lost twins or something. O.o My own views are like an exact echo of yours.

 

I lean towards the libertarian-socialist/anarcho-communist side of spectrum when it comes to these things. I no longer identify with ANY of the mainstream parties or proposed solutions for fixing the system. In many respects I don't think they system CAN be fixed, it needs to be entirely replaced with something humanity has never seen.

 

I agree that both centralized top-down government and top-down corporations need to have their influence reduced. The problem with most of the proposed solutions from Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians is that they equate to only removing the barnacles from one side of a ship, which results in it spinning out of control. In reality barnacles need to be carefully removed from BOTH sides, and then the ship needs to be worked on by highly skilled engineers until it's vastly different from its current form.

[ralis]

Environmental pollution by Georgia Pacific. This makes me sick that the Koch Bros. are getting away with this.

 

 

 

http://kochbrothersexposed.com/cancer/

[JustARandomPanda]

Well, there's nothing wrong with accepting SS...if you've already been FORCED to pay into it your whole life!

 

Vortex, Please scroll up and read my statement about Ayn Rand. I agree there's nothing wrong with accepting SS. I just don't think it's a slamdunk case yet that taxation is theft which is one of the founding principles of modern Libertarians.

 

 

simply wanting to remain globally competitive/solvent and turn a fair profit is another. As joeblast said earlier, when you overburden your 1% employers too severely with Socialist affirmative action, state taxes, unions, unending employee benefits, etc - you eventually simply drive them all out of your state/country.

 

Also agree with this! Mancur Olson has some interesting things to state about this particular problem. The things you describe are very real problems. I won't deny these things happen at all.

 

I just wish Libertarians and Minarchists would be willing to see there are legitimate complaints on the other side too. Vortex, if you would read some of the resources I've provided I think you would see you and I are not that far apart after all.

 

I'm sorry, but if you can't succeed under capitalism, you probably won't succeed in any system. Communism simply lowers everyone to the same lowest common denominator (which is far poorer than even the lowest minority poverty in a capitalist country). And Socialism is essentially a stepping stone towards that..

 

Many Libertarians love to say Socialism is a "stepping stone" to Communism but all around us today are many countries with varying degrees of economies who have not yet 'succumbed' to Communism. Some are more Socialist, some less so.

 

Furthermore it's forgetting history. Communist sympathizers in the the late 19th-early 20th century were frustrated that the rise of the working class as Marx said would happen in das Capital simply wasn't happening. That's why a subset began agitating for change via violent means. Point out to me even one country who has gradually evolved from Socialism to the Communist state it is today.

 

 

Anyhow, if the majority of Americans would inform themselves and vote wisely with both their wallets and ballots, the tides would start turning within just a few years.. Otherwise, don't complain about wh0ring out to banksters or the military-industrial complex when you voted for one of their mainstream candidates.

 

I actually agree with this! That's why my voting record is as it is.

[JustARandomPanda]

That statement is a little too blanket.

 

I've been providing plenty of specific examples to back up that statement. Example: Contract Law.

 

Or would it make more sense to support people & policies that make the game better for everyone, instead of simply attempting to pit "the bottom half" of the system against the top couple percentages?

 

*shakes head*

 

So if Tea Partiers protest it's ok but if Non-Tea Partiers protest it's not? I at least have been presenting evidence of exactly how specific sections of our system have been gamed. Hell I actually support many Libertarian proposals because many see how the system is being gamed too. I just don't find myself impressed with some Libertarian/Minimalist's 'critical thinking' skills. Namely...a lack of willingness to test where their beliefs fall down.

 

This is a human trait. It's why the Peer Review process was set up in the first place in academic journals - because people can't see all the holes in their own conclusions from reality.

 

 

comparing mtheory & limited government - we've had it before and its worked before, we've abandoned it now and we're in a shitty place - coincidence? that's a weak analogy, sorry.

 

It's not weak at all. You just don't like it. It's describing exactly how I see current Holy Trinity proponent's arguments. We had smaller government before when society had smaller companies before. History shows one grew along with the other. The scale to both have changed and it ripples throughout the system on both sides. I see an unwillingness by the Right to acknowledge this.

 

I see an unwillingness to critically examine or question the evidence from either side presented online. But at the moment I see too many Libertarians/Conservatives engaging in 'blame' games when imo they don't need to do that. I don't see them trying to see the holes in their own theories. I'm talking real world here - not just relying on the Blogosphere and Media (MSM and alt).

 

For example, have you yourself studied Contract Law as I have? It will have a real world effect upon implementation of Minimalist Government theories and it should be accounted for but from what I see from the Online Ideologues currently is not. That's only one area. But it's a big one and it will only grow bigger.

[ralis]

 

 

 

Also agree with this! Mancur Olson has some interesting things to state about this particular problem. The things you describe are very real problems. I won't deny these things happen at all.

 

 

 

 

I can't believe you are in agreement. Corporate taxes are lower than before Reagan came in office and range from 15%-35%. Hedge funds and private equity are taxed at a max of 15% and produce nothing. What about the people who work for corporations? Are they not to have any benefit for producing goods and services?

Edited October 11, 2011 by ralis

[ralis]

I've been providing plenty of specific examples to back up that statement. Example: Contract Law.

 

 

 

*shakes head*

 

So if Tea Partiers protest it's ok but if Non-Tea Partiers protest it's not? I at least have been presenting evidence of exactly how specific sections of our system have been gamed. Hell I actually support many Libertarian proposals because many see how the system is being gamed too. I just don't find myself impressed with some Libertarian/Minimalist's 'critical thinking' skills. Namely...a lack of willingness to test where their beliefs fall down.

 

This is a human trait. It's why the Peer Review process was set up in the first place in academic journals - because people can't see all the holes in their own conclusions from reality.

 

 

 

 

It's not weak at all. You just don't like it. It's describing exactly how I see current Holy Trinity proponent's arguments. We had smaller government before when society had smaller companies before. History shows one grew along with the other. The scale to both have changed and it ripples throughout the system on both sides. I see an unwillingness by the Right to acknowledge this.

 

I see an unwillingness to critically examine or question the evidence from either side presented online. But at the moment I see too many Libertarians/Conservatives engaging in 'blame' games when imo they don't need to do that. I don't see them trying to see the holes in their own theories. I'm talking real world here - not just relying on the Blogosphere and Media (MSM and alt).

 

For example, have you yourself studied Contract Law as I have? It will have a real world effect upon implementation of Minimalist Government theories and it should be accounted for but from what I see from the Online Ideologues currently is not. That's only one area. But it's a big one and it will only grow bigger.

 

I studied contract law in college. It is not a universal panacea as some believe and enforcement mechanisms must be in place. There is an insane belief that contract enforcement is unnecessary because individuals are somehow completely honest. :lol:

[Sloppy Zhang]

If you've got problems with how the rules of the system work, is it going to be productive to bitch at the few who have done well in it, despite or because of?

 

The thing is that it's not like the rules exist somewhere as some objective entity that we are all equally subject to.

 

But all too often these people who are "gaming the system" or who are "successful at the system" are people who are benefited by the rules of the system to begin with, and on top of that, they get (put) into positions of power where they can then dictate the rules of the system- where they have absolutely no incentive to come up with rules that would reduce their benefit, in fact, they have all the more reason to make rules that benefit them more.

 

So you've got a system of people benefiting from rules that they make, and then getting in league with other beneficiaries of nice rules making yet MORE rules to benefit them in an ongoing cycle.

 

And that cycle is one that has happened throughout history. There may be some revolution (global or otherwise), and "everybody" will get together to make "new rules" that are "never going to be corrupted or cause problems". Oh, but guess what, somewhere along the line the beneficiaries of those rules are going to find new ways to create more rules to benefit them more.

 

And the cycle goes on and on and on.

 

But does that mean we should just accept that system and stop bitching about it just because we have sour grapes that we didn't get placed in a beneficial position? Hm....

[ralis]

For anyone that cares to develop a better understanding of history and human insanity, I highly recommend William L. Shirer's classic work. The similarities of 1930's Germany and now can't be dismissed out of hand.

 

http://www.theaudiobookstore.com/william-l-shirer/rise-fall-third-reich_bkblak003870.aspx

[JustARandomPanda]

I can't believe you are in agreement. Corporate taxes are lower than before Reagan came in office and range from 15%-35%. Hedge funds and private equity are taxed at a max of 15% and produce nothing. What about the people who work for corporations? Are they not to have any benefit for producing goods and services?

 

 

Cheer up Ralis.

 

I try to always be open to revising my opinions if it can be shown there are situations where my beliefs don't match. I am a big proponent of trying to poke holes in my own beliefs and am quite willing to concede when it can be shown my statements are not supported or show a hidden bias.

 

As John Maynard Keynes once said when someone pointed out he had been inconsistent:

 

"When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, Sir?"

 

 

I do think there are areas where regulations have counterproductive consequences. I guess it was the word "overburden" in the quoted text I was agreeing with. Vortex was describing a situation (I think) where a system begins to tip over into an extreme.

 

 

My guess is that you extrapolated an extremism into my statements that is not there.

 

Mainly what I was thinking about is Mancur Olson's book. It is a very good book! Basically it is about how factions arise within societies to game the system to their advantage. They lock advantages in - whether via laws, contracts, financial flows, etc that in the beginning were actually (sometimes) good for society overall. However, societies are dynamic and when conditions change what once might have been good becomes detrimental instead. The lock ins change far more slowly and are recalcitrant to change.

 

This is NOT to discount all the other things that go into effecting our society. For example, I'm beginning to look into New Trade Theory and other areas that effect overall business climates in the U.S. I think the founding father Alexander Hamilton and the economist Friedrich List made a good case for "infant industry" protection for example. But what is needed at the infant and toddler stage might become detrimental at a mature one.

 

 

Many people knowing the above about me now would label me as "socialist" or "anti-free trade" (ie reading an extremism in that I have not advocated).

[JustARandomPanda]

Just to so how utterly conflicting I am in my own view of things I don't think some of the things Twinner advocated were all that off course. Anarchists have some good points and criticisms of the way society functions. And ultimately I think he's right. Somewhere, somehow people are going to have to evolve spiritually. I just think society will evolve to a Type 1 economy long before it evolves to have the kind of spiritually based economics that Twinner advocates. But I agree with him in this...I would like to see people start creating "gift economies" locally around them more.

 

I've actually been trying to implement some of these things into my own life - especially since beginning Meditation/Inner Alchemy practices.

 

I have a hunch Twinner might like some of Eisenstein's economic proposals.

 

 

check out this essay

[Informer]

Here is a link to a list of the many many live occupation streams! From LA to NY, Seattle to Boston. It's spreading quite a bit.

http://www.livestream.com/guide/search?search_tag=occupy

[JustARandomPanda]

I know I linked to this earlier but I figured wth...go ahead and post this here.

 

 

The gold standard and the Great Depression

 

 

How the gold standard contributed to the Great Depression.

 

 

There always seem to be voices raising the possibility that a return to a monetary gold standard could solve all our problems. Among those championing this meme this week were Chris Mayer at Daily Reckoning, Robert Blumen at Mises Economics Blog, and some of my fellow blogjammers.

 

Under a pure gold standard, the government would stand ready to trade dollars for gold at a fixed rate. Under such a monetary rule, it seems the dollar is "as good as gold."

 

Except that it really isn't-- the dollar is only as good as the government's credibility to stick with the standard. If a government can go on a gold standard, it can go off, and historically countries have done exactly that all the time. The fact that speculators know this means that any currency adhering to a gold standard (or, in more modern times, a fixed exchange rate) may be subject to a speculative attack.

 

After suspending gold convertibility in World War I, many countries stayed off gold and experienced chaotic fiscal and monetary policies in the early 1920's. Many observers reasoned then, just as many observers reason today, that the only way to restore fiscal and monetary responsibility would be to go back on gold, and by the end of the 1920's, most countries had returned to the gold standard.

 

I argued in a paper titled, "The Role of the International Gold Standard in Propagating the Great Depression," published in Contemporary Policy Issues in 1988, that counting on a gold standard to enforce monetary and fiscal discipline in an environment in which speculators had great doubts about governments' ability to adhere to that discipline was a recipe for disaster. International capital flows became more erratic, not less, as doubts were raised about whether first the pound would be devalued and then the dollar. Britain gave in to the speculative attacks and abandoned gold in 1931, whereas the U.S. toughed it out by deliberately raising interest rates in 1931 at a time when the economy was already near free fall.

 

Because of this uncertainty, there was a big increase in demand for gold, the one safe asset in this setting, which meant the relative price of gold must rise. If everybody is trying to hoard more gold, you're going to have to pay more potatoes to get an ounce of gold. Since the U.S. insisted on holding the dollar price of gold fixed, this meant that the dollar price of potatoes had to fall. The longer a country stayed on the gold standard, the more overall deflation it experienced. Many of us are persuaded that this deflation greatly added to the economic difficulties of those countries that insisted on sticking with a fixed value of their currency in terms of gold.

 

 

 

 

****click the attached image below ****

 

 

 

 

Ben Bernanke and Harold James, in a paper called "The Gold Standard, Deflation, and Financial Crisis in the Great Depression: An International Comparison" published in 1991 (NBER working paper version here), noted that 13 other countries besides the U.K. had decided to abandon their currencies' gold parity in 1931. Bernanke and James' data for the average growth rate of industrial production for these countries (plotted in the top panel above *ie - the attachment in this post) was positive in every year from 1932 on. Countries that stayed on gold, by contrast, experienced an average output decline of 15% in 1932. The U.S. abandoned gold in 1933, after which its dramatic recovery immediately began. The same happened after Italy dropped the gold standard in 1934, and for Belgium when it went off in 1935. On the other hand, the three countries that stuck with gold through 1936 (France, Netherlands, and Poland) saw a 6% drop in industrial production in 1935, while the rest of the world was experiencing solid growth.

 

A gold standard only works when everybody believes in the overall fiscal and monetary responsibility of the major world governments and the relative price of gold is fairly stable. And yet a lack of such faith was the precise reason the world returned to gold in the late 1920's and the reason many argue for a return to gold today. Saying you're on a gold standard does not suddenly make you credible. But it does set you up for some ferocious problems if people still doubt whether you've set your house in order.

 

Nevertheless, I'm willing to grant Tim Iacono that the stuff is pretty.

 

[JustARandomPanda]

[JustARandomPanda]

Another resource because I believe in trying to offer ideas

 

For anyone who does not want to rely solely on modern goods or services to improve lives locally check out:

 

Society of Primitive Technology

 

I used to belong to it myself and still think it's a good one as it preserves skills that have not yet been subsumed into the 'monetize everything' mentality. I am curious to see if any of these skills will come back into general need if petroleum slowly becomes more scarce.

 

 

Also everyone needs to check out Dmitry Orlov's slide presentation -

 

"Closing the Collapse Gap: The USSR was Better Prepared than the US"

 

 

It's funny and sobering at the same time

 

 

And here's his slide presentation Our Future and the End of the Oil Age: Building Resilience in a Resource Constrained World

 

 

And last I present Arch Druid's Systems Theory and remember in part what he is discussing bears on economics - Taoists out there should find it particularly interesting

 

 

Readers of mine with sufficiently long memories may be wondering if the evening news somehow accidentally got swapped for archived footage of a performance of that durable Sixties folk number

, with its lines about rioting in Africa and global mayhem in general. Certainly that was the thought that occurred to me as news from Egypt and Tunisia jostled the category 5 cyclone (we'd say "hurricane" on this side of the planet) that just walloped Australia, and the far more modest but still impressive winter storm that's sweeping across America as I write this.

 

Looked at in isolation, each of these stories are business as usual. Political turmoil in Third World nations is common enough, and big storms are a fact of life in Australia as well as the United States. Still, it's exactly that habit of looking at news stories in isolation that fosters the blindness to history as it's happening that I've discussed here repeatedly. Remember that the world is a whole system and put the news into context accordingly, and troubling patterns appear.

 

Let's start with the revolution in Tunisia and the ongoing turmoil in Egypt. Behind the explosion of popular resentments that's putting once-secure governments at risk is the simple fact that in both countries, and across the Third World more generally, people are having an increasingly hard time getting enough to eat as food prices climb past records set during the last spike in 2008. Plenty of factors feed into the surge in food costs, but one major factor is a string of failed harvests in some of the world's important grain-producing regions, which in turn has been caused by increasingly unstable weather. Pundits in the US media talk earnestly about the end of an era of cheap food, but what that means in practice is that over a growing fraction of the world, incomes are failing to keep pace with food costs, and as the number of hungry and desperate people grows, so does the pressure toward political explosions.

 

The context of this week's two big storms is just as easily missed from media reports. For more than a decade now, the insurance industry has been warning that the annual cost of weather-related disasters has been rising at a dramatic rate – fast enough, according to a study released early last decade, that it will equal the gross domestic product of the entire planet by 2060. (Take a moment to think through the implications of that little detail; if the entire economic output of the world has to go to make up for repairing the costs of weather-related disasters, what about the other things economies are supposed to provide?) Here again, there are plenty of factors feeding into that soaring economic burden, but the destabilization of the world's climate is one major factor. Whether or not dumping billions of tons of CO2 every year from our tailpipes and smokestacks is the sole cause of this destabilization is really beside the point; if you happen to be sitting next to a sleeping grizzly bear, the fact that the bear may have its own reasons for waking up in a bad mood is not a good argument in favor of poking it repeatedly with a stick.

 

Now of course the American way of life, and more generally the way of life common to most of the world's industrial nations, might best be described as an elaborate arrangement to poke nature's sleeping bears with as many sticks as possible. The business-as-usual end of the green movement has been insisting for decades that we can stop doing that and still maintain something like a modern industrial society, but whether or not their elaborate schemes for doing this could work at all – a complicated question I don't propose to address here – the political will needed to do anything of the kind went AWOL at the end of the Seventies and hasn't been seen since. Thus the most likely future ahead of us is one in which sleeping bears keep being poked with sticks, and increasingly often rouse themselves to bash in a head or two: in less metaphoric terms, that is, a future in which increasingly unstable climates load additional burdens on the global economy and drive a rising tide of political unrest that will probably not remain restricted to comfortably distant continents.

 

The fact that we don't normally put the events of the day into their proper contexts, and draw such logical conclusions from them as the inadvisability of poking bears with sticks, has a context of its own. It can be credited to the simple fact that Americans are stupid about systems.

 

There's really no gentler way to put it. Week after week, I can count on fielding at least one comment insisting that my post is just plain wrong because science, technology, progress, the free market, the space brothers, or some other convenient deus ex machina – you name it, somebody's probably invoked it in an email to me – will allow Americans to continue to extract an ever-increasing supply of energy and raw materials from a finite planet without ever running short, and find places to dump the correspondingly rising tide of waste somewhere or other without having it turn up again to give us problems. Now of course it's possible that some of that comes from bloggers-for-hire pushing the agenda of some corporate or political pressure group – there's a lot of that online these days – but the illogic is pervasive enough in our culture that I suspect a lot of it comes from ordinary Americans who basically haven't yet noticed that the world isn't flat.

 

Watch what passes for political and economic debate in America these days and you can count on hearing much the same thing. Take "sustainable growth," the mantra of a large fraction of the business-as-usual end of the green movement already mentioned. Even the most elementary grasp of systems theory makes it instantly clear that there's no meaningful sense of the adjective "sustainable" that can cohabit with any meaningful sense of the noun "growth." In a system – any system, anywhere – growth is always unsustainable. Some systems have internal limits that cut in at a certain point and stop growth before it becomes pathological, while some rely on external limits, but the limits are always there, and those who think there are no limits to a given pattern of growth are deluding themselves. Mind you, such delusions are always popular – the tech-stock and real estate bubbles that enlivened economic life in the United States during the last decade and a bit are good examples – but the consequences, when growth crashes into the limits that nobody saw coming, are rarely pleasant.

 

The fixation on the fantasy of perpetual growth is only one of the system-related stupidities that infest contemporary American public life, though it's arguably the most egregious. I've commented before in this blog about the way that popular attitudes assume that raw materials appear out of Santa Claus' sleigh when wanted and then simply "go away" when we're done with them. For a good example, consider the way that the American livestock industry pumps animals full of chemicals that make them gain weight at an unnatural pace, and then feeds meat from those animals to people. Does anybody wonder whether these same chemicals, stored up in animal tissues and thus inserted into the human food chain, might have anything to do with the fact that Americans are gaining weight at an unnatural pace? Surely you jest.

 

A basic grasp of systems thinking would make it easier to get past follies of that sort, but that same grasp would also make it impossible to pretend that Americans can go on living their current lifestyles much longer. That's an important reason why systems thinking was dropped like a hot rock in the early 1980s and why, outside of a narrow range of practical applications where it remains essential, it's been shut out of the collective conversation of our society ever since.

 

For the aspiring green wizard, on the other hand, there are few habits of thought more important than thinking in terms of whole systems. Most of what we've been talking about for the last eight months, when it hasn't been strictly practical in nature, has been oriented toward systems thinking, and a great deal of the practical material is simply the application of a systems approach to some aspect of working with nature. The practical instructions in the weeks and months ahead, as we turn to conservation and homebuilt alternative energy systems, will be even more dependent on having a clear sense of the way whole systems work. The one real limiting factor is that it's a bit of a challenge to recommend a good clear nontechnical guide to systems thinking to those of you who are working through the Green Wizard program in earnest.

 

To the best of my knowledge, nobody in the Seventies or early Eighties wrote such a textbook. A truly magnificent book on the subject was already in circulation then, and indeed it had a burst of popularity during those years; the one complicating factor is that very few people seem to have realized then, and even fewer realize now, that the book in question is in fact an introductory textbook of systems thinking.

 

The book we're discussing? Lao Tsu's Tao Te Ching.

 

The Tao Te Ching has been translated into English more often than any other book, and the title has received nearly an equal diversity of renderings. I'm convinced that most of this diversity comes out of our own culture's stupidity about systems, for when it's approached from a systems perspective the title – and indeed the book – becomes immediately clear. Tao comes from a verb meaning "to lead forth," and in ancient times took on a range of related meanings – "path," "method," "teaching," "art." The word that most closely captures its meaning, and not incidentally comes from a similar root, is "process." Te is used for the character, nature, or "insistent particularity" of any given thing; "wholeness" or "integrity" are good English equivalents. Ching is "authoritative text," perhaps equivalent to "classic" or "scripture" in English, though the capitalized "Book" captures the flavor as well as anything. "The Book of Integral Process" is a good translation of the title.

 

Replace the early Chinese philosophical terminology with equivalent terms from systems theory and the point of the text becomes equally clear. Here's chapter I:

 

A process as described is not the process as it exists;

The terms used to describe it are not the things they describe.

That which evades description is the wholeness of the system;

The act of description is merely a listing of its parts.

Without intentionality, you can experience the whole system;

With intentionality, you can comprehend its effects.

These two approach the same reality in different ways,

And the result appears confusing;

But accepting the apparent confusion

Gives access to the whole system.

 

It would be useful if somebody were to do a complete translation of the Tao Te Ching in systems language one of these days – though in saying that, I get the uncomfortable feeling that it's probably going to be me. In the meantime, prospective Green Wizards could do worse than to pick up any of the existing translations that suit their tastes, and try to think through the eighty-one short chapters of the book as guides to working with whole systems.

 

While you're at it, I'd like to ask that you try a slightly more practical experiment in systems thinking, which leads straight to the theme of next week's post. Using pen and paper, make a list of the ways that heat comes into your home during the winter months, when it's colder outside than inside, and then make a corresponding list of the ways that heat leaves your home during those same months. Make both lists as complete as possible; those of my readers who've downloaded the Master Conservers handouts from the Cultural Conservers Foundation website can certainly use the home survey handout as a guide.

 

Finally, I'm pleased to announce that my forthcoming book The Wealth of Nature: Economics As If Survival Mattered is available for preorders from the publisher at a 20% discount, and will be on bookstore shelves in June of this year. Longtime readers will recognize many of the concepts in this book from their first appearance in essays posted on The Archdruid Report, and quite a few of the arguments have been improved as a result of discussions here. Many thanks to all!

[joeblast]

One thing you fail to mention is that most if not all of those products are made in China or elsewhere outside the U.S. That is the corporate greed and exploitation that this revolution is about. American jobs were lost and replaced with sweat shop labor in other countries.

please be honest and include the rest of the story - why has it become profitable for companies to do so???

 

 

why has it made sense for a company to move its operations tens of thousands of miles away? this is something we never see those of your ideological bent addressing.

 

 

nope, its just about "corporate greed" - nevermind the tens, hundreds of thousands who have invested their own hard earned money in a company to hopefully add a little profit to their own lives.

 

 

you of course wont address companies leaving places like california, illinois, new york due to punishingly high taxes and choking regulations. look at what those policies did to detroit! you can buy a house for under 20k there for a reason.

 

 

so you support policies that make it so much more expensive to do business here at home that it winds up making financial sense to move most of the company elsewhere?

 

 

do you not understand that part of a "responsibility" (if we're talking those quirky and arbitrarily defined 'social responsibilities') of a locality is to attract businesses there? through laws and regulations a locality is either saying "come, do business here!" or "go away, we dont want any more business here."

 

 

are you honest enough with yourself to accept the downstream results of both those courses of action?

 

 

 

now, the big question - why is there all this envy? those rich bastards, I want some so I'm going to demand that they be knocked down so that I may obtain a trifle in return?

 

 

does cutting off your nose to spite your face make sense also?

 

 

Sorry bro, you look at only what you want to see that fits through your lens. Of course we're all guilty of that to a certain extent, but you conveniently leave out so much shit it just makes your point swiss cheese. The post I quoted is a sterling example.

[joeblast]

The thing is that it's not like the rules exist somewhere as some objective entity that we are all equally subject to.

 

But all too often these people who are "gaming the system" or who are "successful at the system" are people who are benefited by the rules of the system to begin with, and on top of that, they get (put) into positions of power where they can then dictate the rules of the system- where they have absolutely no incentive to come up with rules that would reduce their benefit, in fact, they have all the more reason to make rules that benefit them more.

 

So you've got a system of people benefiting from rules that they make, and then getting in league with other beneficiaries of nice rules making yet MORE rules to benefit them in an ongoing cycle.

 

And that cycle is one that has happened throughout history. There may be some revolution (global or otherwise), and "everybody" will get together to make "new rules" that are "never going to be corrupted or cause problems". Oh, but guess what, somewhere along the line the beneficiaries of those rules are going to find new ways to create more rules to benefit them more.

 

And the cycle goes on and on and on.

 

But does that mean we should just accept that system and stop bitching about it just because we have sour grapes that we didn't get placed in a beneficial position? Hm....

You do realize you're describing someone like Charlie Rangel to a T

 

your first sentence is part of my point, and it isnt "the 1%" who make rules in the localities. sure things happen a little differently at the federal level. but, out of those localities come the people who descend on washington.

 

what's that again about promising largess from the treasury?

 

or about legislators accepting bribes to vote a certain way?

 

my point is, these things will not be solved in any way shape or form by "big government" - if anything, BG is entrenching the whole operation. And what most of yous refuse to see about the tea party is an insistence on legislative integrity, ironically enough - which is exactly the prescribed mechanism for the USA to rectify these problems of corrupt government!!!

 

personal integrity most certainly is not going to be solved by a nationwide reeducation by big gov. (not that its addressed specifically by small gov, but if you *know* that you arent going to be getting a free ride and have to tow your own weight, that at least imbues a certain amount of responsibility on the individual.)

 

part of what it means to be free is the freedom to go forth and pursue, or the freedom to retire to the couch and numb the mind on the tube.

 

 

 

 

if you havent been pursuing, how is it that anyone who has pursued and done well must have necessarily gamed the system?

 

because that's what OWS is insinuating (and that's what I've gandered from a few of SB's posts, though I dont know for certain if that's what she believes.)

 

 

 

 

statistical outliers aside, who the heck gets "placed in a beneficial position?" the vast majority of us dont - but one good thing about this place is you're free to obtain that beneficial position if you work for it - but there can be no guarantee by society regarding the obtaining of that beneficial position!!!!

 

please ignore the income mobility statistics

[ralis]

please be honest and include the rest of the story - why has it become profitable for companies to do so???

 

 

why has it made sense for a company to move its operations tens of thousands of miles away? this is something we never see those of your ideological bent addressing.

 

 

nope, its just about "corporate greed" - nevermind the tens, hundreds of thousands who have invested their own hard earned money in a company to hopefully add a little profit to their own lives.

 

 

you of course wont address companies leaving places like california, illinois, new york due to punishingly high taxes and choking regulations. look at what those policies did to detroit! you can buy a house for under 20k there for a reason.

 

 

so you support policies that make it so much more expensive to do business here at home that it winds up making financial sense to move most of the company elsewhere?

 

 

do you not understand that part of a "responsibility" (if we're talking those quirky and arbitrarily defined 'social responsibilities') of a locality is to attract businesses there? through laws and regulations a locality is either saying "come, do business here!" or "go away, we dont want any more business here."

 

 

are you honest enough with yourself to accept the downstream results of both those courses of action?

 

 

 

now, the big question - why is there all this envy? those rich bastards, I want some so I'm going to demand that they be knocked down so that I may obtain a trifle in return?

 

 

does cutting off your nose to spite your face make sense also?

 

 

Sorry bro, you look at only what you want to see that fits through your lens. Of course we're all guilty of that to a certain extent, but you conveniently leave out so much shit it just makes your point swiss cheese. The post I quoted is a sterling example.

 

 

You continue to make broad generalizations as to what the so called problems are and yet provide no evidence as to specific regulations or tax structures that in your opinion need changed. If you are going to debate this important topic, show evidence or stop participating!

[thelerner]

Here is a financial insiders view on what the movement should aim for, but articulated pragmatic goals don't chant well and take a long explanation so they'll be ignored.

 

by Larry Doyle

 

To that end, she asked what three proposals I would put forth to advance this movement and the pursuit of our Sense on Cents virtues of truth, transparency, and integrity. Never one to be bashful when it comes to elevating these virtues, I offered the following:

 

"1. Compel the Wall Street self-regulator FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) to open its books and records. The OWS movement and all of America would learn a LOT about the incestuous nature of the relationship between Wall Street and Washington if FINRA were forced to provide real transparency as I have called for so often. Starting in early 2009 and repeatedly since then I have stated unequivocally that FINRA Must Open Its Books and Records. FINRA’s own member firms called for real meaningful transparency from this self-regulatory organization and largely received lip service from FINRA’s board in response.

 

2. The OWS movement would do America a favor if it called for a thorough exposition of the scam that encompassed the auction-rate securities market. OWS and America have approximately 100 billion reasons to pursue this transparency, that being the approximate dollar value of the ARS which remain frozen in investor accounts. Please recall that ARS were sold as ‘cash surrogates’.

 

3. Why should OWS and America demand accountability on points 1 and 2? For the very simple reason that Wall Street’s incestuous partners in Washington have largely failed to perform in properly regulating Wall Street despite efforts and overtures made by many individuals and organizations, including the Project on Government Oversight. For more on this front, please access, Sense on Cents/POGO-FINRA.

 

Why might those in Washington fail to pursue their counterparts on Wall Street? Do you think the campaign contributions and other means of support provided by Wall Street for those in Washington on both sides of the aisle may impede our pursuit of transparency? You think?

 

I thank the aforementioned reporter for pointing me in the direction of OpenSecrets.org Center for Responsive Politics,

 

the nation’s premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. Nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit, the organization aims to create a more educated voter, an involved citizenry and a more transparent and responsive government. In short, the Center’s mission is to:

 

Inform citizens about how money in politics affects their lives

Empower voters and activists by providing unbiased information

Advocate for a transparent and responsive government

 

So let’s check in on a few of our Washington heavyweights and see just how deeply in bed they are with the crowd on Wall Street by referencing Open Secrets.org great work.

 

Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

Spencer Bachus (R-AL)

Barney Frank (D-MA)

Chris Dodd (D-CT)

Barack Obama

John Boehner (R-OH)

 

Please review these links and see how much and how often Securities and Investment Firms have provided backing for their incestuous partners in Washington. Anybody for meaningful campaign finance reform? How about term limits?

 

What do you say we just start with a little bit of transparency and a healthy dose of the truth?

 

The stench of this incest is overwhelming."

 

I disagree that the stench is overwhelming. Politicians have always needed big bucks to run campaigns. That they take money from corporations should shock no one. Still letting the foxes write the henhouse legislature stinks.

 

I'd also add the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, separating commercial banking and investment banking needs to be put back in place. If there was single action that could be pointed to for causing the housing collapse and world wide recession its the repeal of that act.

 

Personally I think the 99%ers are too off message to accomplish much. They may as well march around the a sports stadium with signs saying the players, coaches, and owners get paid too much. How much good would that do? Now its all about scoring face time, expressing outrage, making political points. Unproductive.

 

A few well placed, well written ads in newspapers explaining what exact steps could and should be taken to reform the system, signed by top economists and respected leaders would do more for the cause then dumping trash inside bank lobbies and marching around with disparate signs.

[Aaron]

Plenty of examples in history both support and do not support the above belief. Although, now that you've finally admitted you are an Anarchist I understand much better why you believe the above to be a Truth. I'm busy studying Anarchism right now myself. Been busy reading Max Stirner's The Ego and His Own (who is claimed as a founding father by both Leftist Anarchists and Rightwing Libertarians) and the philosophies of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Tucker.

 

 

 

 

Been there, done that. I've had those same math classes, micro economics, macro economics, public policy classes, etc. The whole nine yards. Yes I think the Occupiers know that capitalism brings them goods and services (btw - we so often forget our history - Capitalism is not the only economic system societies have evolved to bring themselves goods and services).

 

Anyway...you're statement above is moot because that's not what they're agitating against. No one is advocating the elimination of Capitalism or of that 1-3% (well other than a very small minority). They're protesting the gaming of the system by that 1-3%.

 

 

 

 

If you are talking about large scale changes I might agree. But I'm not expecting large scale change to come out of it. The changes that might come would be smaller but potentially real.

 

An example that disproves your statement above that small numbers can not create real change:

 

The Tea Partiers have disproportionately influenced the outcome of Fiscal policy compared to their size in the total population. There actually aren't that many Tea Partiers compared to the entire population of the U.S. Yet they have had real influence because of their protests. To the point that not once, but twice, our government has come close to shutting down and the U.S. defaulting on its debt. They didn't achieve all their aims but their agitating for change achieved being heard. And it influenced U.S. policy and continues to do so. No mean feat for a small portion of the total population.

 

 

 

 

 

Disagree with you on the 'worrying about things you have no control over'. No wonder Marblehead has such a poor attitude of many Buddhists. Too many of them take the path you yourself are advocating everyone in this thread wake up to.

 

In short that particular philosophical spin permits this unintended consequence:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's what they're doing. You just don't happen to agree with the tactics. But at least I understand better why you advocate as you do.

 

*********

 

Honestly - my biggest problem with most people (including myself at times!) have to do with a lack of critical thinking.

 

Let me give an example.

 

I think Friedriech Hayek's The Road to Serfdom serves much of the same role that Marx's das Capital did 6o+ years ago. Both are beautifully constructed, both have things in them that I believe give accurate descriptions of what goes on in the real world.

 

If pressed to the wall most fans of both would admit their theory doesn't attempt to describe ALL human behavior. But their actions tell a different story.

 

In short - these people's de facto behavior tells me something different.

 

They are presenting a GUT - A Grand Unified Theory of human economic behavior when imo their beliefs holds no such status yet. Small Gov Conservatism imo holds the same status today that Super String Theory has in physics. It's elegant, it's beautiful, it explains so much,. And like Super String Theory - it's Untested.

 

Just as we do not have a GUT in physics that unites the 4 forces (the electromagnetic, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force with gravity) so we do not yet have an economic theory that unites the micro with macro. A true Economic GUT would be able to elegantly explain both individual behavior and aggregate behavior and account for ALL behavior seen at both scales. It would be a set of postulates that would scale. From it all things would flow.

 

 

The Sir Isaac Newton of Economics who will write his Principia Economica that unites the individual with the planetary has not yet been born.

 

 

Hello Serene Blue,

 

I see you feel very strongly about this topic, in that respect I really don't want to argue with you about it, because you have every right to feel the way you do.

 

First, I'm not discouraging people from protesting, what I'm doing is expressing my own experience and knowledge regarding this protests. Much of it has to do with Thoreau, but it also has to do with a general understanding of Taoism (not Buddhism mind you).

 

First thing to ask yourself, would Lao Tzu recommend that people form large groups and disturb the peace of those around them, in order to satisfy their own desires? If not, what would he recommend?

 

Did Lao Tzu believe that we had the ability to change people or only our own actions? Did he encourage us to actively try to influence people, or did he recommend we use our actions (rather than words) to influence others?

 

I find it quite funny that I am using Taoist philosophy as the basis for many of these ideas, yet you seem to want to relate them to Buddhism and Anarchism, because they contradict your own philosophies.

 

First Anarchism is most simply defined as allowing people to behave as they want to behave without government interference (in fact there should be no government or at best the minimum government required to maintain these freedoms). In other words a society chooses how they wish to conduct themselves and those people within that society decide whether they wish to be a part of it or not. If not then they move on. Majority decides right, the minority moves on til they find a place where they can survive as a majority. It seems cruel, but in reality it allows people to live life as they choose to live it, rather than have it dictated to them by others.

 

I would also say that it's not Marblehead that has a problem with the "Buddhists" but you, you're just trying to shift your own negative comments onto someone else. That's alright too, but I would recommend that it's always best to accept responsibility for your own opinions.

 

Now in regards to worrying about things you have no control over... that is not exclusively a Buddhist concept, in fact it's a Christian concept, a Taoist concept, a Hindu Concept... do I need to go on? The idea that we worry about something that we cannot change will only cause us to suffer. I am not saying don't worry about something you can change, I am saying if a wall is tumbling and you cannot stop it from tumbling, then get out of the way and let it tumble. Don't fret over the wall coming down, wasting days worrying about when it will happen, clear crap out and let it tumble. Simple as that, no fess, no muss.

 

Now in this light, if you find a way to change people, then please let me know, there are a few I'd love to change now. If you find a way to have a revolution and lay down your arms afterwards (literally and metaphorically) without having those people you rose up against taking back the power after you've done this, (assuming you didn't just kill all of them), then let me know that too.

 

The problem is that there are realities in the world that you are not addressing. Churchill said something to the effect that anyone under 27 that isn't a socialist has no heart, anyone over 27 that is, has no brain. When I was young I was a socialist, but now I'm not. It's not because I read that quote and decided I didn't want to be stupid, it was simply that I woke up to the reality of the world.

 

Can we have real change in these modern times? YES! Can we do it through rhetoric and demonstration? NO! Real change comes through changing the way we behave and react to others. It starts with us and if that change is good and right, then others will see it as such and decide to change as well. It's really this simple. Lao Tzu said it was that simple. Buddha Said it was that simple and Jesus said it was that simple. Now Stalin, Mao, Bush, and numerous other politicians and Wall Street groupies camped out on sidewalks will tell you differently, but the simple thing that none of these people understand is that you can't change people, only terrorize people into doing what you want them to do. So choose which path you want to use to institute change, terror or compassion, and see which one leads to lasting change.

 

Aaron

Edited October 12, 2011 by Twinner

[JustARandomPanda]

I would also say that it's not Marblehead that has a problem with the "Buddhists" but you, you're just trying to shift your own negative comments onto someone else.

 

A quick note. You are correct. I should not have mentioned Marblehead and I apologize to him. I only mentioned MH because I actually did remember a very specific post he made where he said one of the reasons he didn't think highly of some Buddhists is because too many are pacifistic and apathetic when sometimes the proper wu-wei response is action - as the Tao includes both (something I agree with MH about).

[joeblast]

You continue to make broad generalizations as to what the so called problems are and yet provide no evidence as to specific regulations or tax structures that in your opinion need changed. If you are going to debate this important topic, show evidence or stop participating!

there you go, just shut the other side up, that'll simplify things always shifting - but then again, when you're not on solid ground, one must keep his weight shifting quickly so as not to topple

 

if you understood what I was saying, I wouldnt be getting those responses from you.

[ralis]

there you go, just shut the other side up, that'll simplify things always shifting - but then again, when you're not on solid ground, one must keep his weight shifting quickly so as not to topple

 

if you understood what I was saying, I wouldnt be getting those responses from you.

 

You complain about over regulation and will not post one fact to substantiate your argument. Stop attempting to dump it back on me. That type of argument is really weak! Obviously, you have no factual basis for your argument.

Edited October 12, 2011 by ralis

[JustARandomPanda]

I find it quite funny that I am using Taoist philosophy as the basis for many of these ideas, yet you seem to want to relate them to Buddhism and Anarchism, because they contradict your own philosophies.

 

There's been no contradiction. You read contradiction in me that isn't there. I have been unclear about how I see things and so you jumped to conclusions that are fundamentally incorrect about me.

 

My current thinking is actually very Taoist-leaning. Wu Wei includes both action and rest phases because the Tao includes both. It's about the appropriate response arising to whatever situation is around one locally. If the appropriate reaction is action - that's what will arise (assuming one has achieved Wu-Wei). If it's non-action - that too will bear out. Both are included.

 

It also happens to be Systems oriented. That's why I included Archdruid's report. I also think Taoism is very 'evolution' oriented. I-Ching, Wuxing (what little bit I've studied of it), that sort of thing.

 

Change does not exist if there is no rest to move out of/into or action to move out of/into.

 

First Anarchism is most simply defined as allowing people to behave as they want to behave without government interference (in fact there should be no government or at best the minimum government required to maintain these freedoms).

 

*scratches chin*

 

Yes. This is why I'm currently fascinated with Anarchist thought. I'm just not convinced yet that it is even possible for a society to evolve (taoism - ie. change - again) without some sort of authority to arise. Can anyone help me out here and actually demonstrate some societies (especially complex ones) that had no authority structures evolve?

 

Now...even if no one can provide such a case historically evolving I will not categorically dismiss Anarchist thought as pie-in-the-sky. As an example there are complex arrangements that have arisen in history that had no antecedent. I give one: Capitalism. Prior to it's arrival Capitalism as we know it today simply didn't exist.

 

So unlike with many, for me it is not an automatic dismissal if society has never evolved a network structure, economy, etc that can be Anarchistic.

 

This is also one reason why I think Capitalism (probably in the exceedingly far far future) will someday be replaced by something else. Only that which has no beginning need never fear an end. Someday Capitalism will be replaced (if we don't kill ourselves first). Very Taoist. What arises will undergo change and so Capitalism will someday also change enough that it will no longer be seen by anyone as Capitalism but rather as something new.

 

In other words a society chooses how they wish to conduct themselves and those people within that society decide whether they wish to be a part of it or not. If not then they move on.Majority decides right, the minority moves on til they find a place where they can survive as a majority. It seems cruel, but in reality it allows people to live life as they choose to live it, rather than have it dictated to them by others.

 

Agree with all of it until I hit the sentence 'If not they move on'. My only question about that one is that it glosses over a lot of issues that come into play that may not make 'moving on' possible. Now I realize you are talking about free people. But the Tao includes those who are not 'free to move' and 'free to choose' as well. And so I try to look at that too.

 

Here's one question I am curious to see how Anarchists and especially Anarcho-Capitalists would answer.

 

 

Example: There is a shadow international trade market in the trafficking of people as chattel. I read a detailed expose once on how Abu Dhabi keeps itself supplied with low cost slave labor - especially in demand are slaves for construction projects. One reporter went in and described the links in the free market chain of how Abu Dhabi supplies itself with slave labor. It is quite sophisticated and good money can be made in the slave trade. Unfortunately I can't find that expose or I would gladly provide the link so people can judge the source for themselves.

 

So instead as an alternative I provide this link with regards to the United Arab Emirates.

 

 

The problem is that there are realities in the world that you are not addressing.

If there are real realities I'm not addressing please point them out! I admit I am not omniscient. If you see realities I'm failing to address (please be specific - one or two will do) then I want to know.

 

 

So choose which path you want to use to institute change, terror or compassion, and see which one leads to lasting change.

 

 

Odd. Coulda sworn there are instances in history of non-governmental terror instituting lasting change every bit as much as compassion does. Islam certainly helped itself being spread via the sword. Prior to that - if I understand it correctly - Arabic societies were polytheistic.

 

But maybe I've got my Islamic history incorrect.