Excellent books to read....
Stray Dog
-- A few books have read, cover to cover, and I can recommend
(I have read all of the ones in the first section)----
Take On The Street--What Wall Street and Corporate America
Don't Want You to Know, What You can do to Fight Back (by
Arthur Levitt, former chairman of the SEC). A complete catalog
of how corporations spin, lie, and mislead everyone. On the dust
jacket is an endorsement of Levitt by Warren Buffett.
When Corporations Rule the World, by David C. Korten, 2nd ed.
The big corporations have established themselves in a way
to dominate our lives, carry out business more for their benefit
than our benefit. The author is a businessman and warns us
about the concentration of power in the hands of the few.
Democracy for the Few, by Michael Parenti (7th edition), and the
best book explaining how we really live in a plutocracy (rule by the
rich). Large number of references.
Agents of Influence (by Pat Choate) c 1990, how the Japanese
have essentially won the economic/trade war with the USA by
various kinds of cheating.
Barbarians at the Gate by Bryan Burrough & John Helyar. All about
the largest leveraged buyout of the time (RR Nabisco) initiated
by Ross Johnson but the thunder stolen by Kravis (KK&R) and being
proof of the triumph of thievery over business. Tens of thousands
of people were negatively impacted for only the purpose of making
a few people rich.
The Money Machine-How KK&R Manufactured Power & Profits,
by Sarah Bartlett. The book looks at KK&R and mentions
the above book by Burrough and Helyar. It is absolutely an
excellent story on how greed and selfishness work, the lies,
the manipulations, and how it all makes a few people rich
at the expense of the rest of us.
The Robber Barons-The Great American Capitalists 1861-1901,
by Matthew Josephson (c 1934), a classic study in the abuse of
power and wealth, greed and selfishness, cited by many other
authors.
Chainsaw Al (can't remember the author). All about Al Dunlap at
Sunbeam. It is incredible how dumb and stupid and incompetant
boards of directors can be and how a CEO can destroy a company.
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (by John Perkins). A very very
dirty business by which poor countries are terribly exploited by
certain predatory US corporations using corrupt practices.
Confessions of a Union Buster (by Martin Jay Levitt) How
businesses would rather spend the same amount of money to fight
unions than just give the money to employees and the fighting
will be full of dirty tricks. The author admits all of what he
did that ruined people, ruined marriages, and ruined families.
Corruption and the Decline of Rome (by Ramsay Macmullen). A
masterful academic study of the decline of the (Western) Roman
Empire through the hypothesis of corruption. 200 pages of text,
100 pages of references & footnotes.
Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences
(Steve Keen). A recognized economist shows how there are a lot of
serious problems in economics.
Devil Take The Hindmost (by Edward Chancellor) All about the
financial markets going back some 500+ years. Most of the time
the investors lost their money, the brokers/agents/scammers went
laughing to the bank.
"Dissent in Medicine (by Robert S. Mendelsohn, et al.)" A total
of nine MDs, as authors, exposing the scams of the medical
industry.
Hetty Green the Witch of Wall Street--Sparks & Moore (Like Martha
Stewart is not a nice girl, Hetty Green was not nice,
either. However, in her old age, she did give away most of her
money.
Martha Inc., by Christopher Byron. All about Martha Stewart.
She's not a nice girl (CEO). She's been in the clink, too.
Perfectly Legal--The Covert Campaign To Rig Our Tax System To Benefit
The Super Rich--And Cheat Everybody Else, by David Cay Johnson
(Pulitzer
Prize winner). Outstanding and easy to read explanations of serious
tax evasion and corruption in our systems, all to greatly benefit
the rich and soak the poor. Very outstanding. Many references.
Pigs At The Trough--How Corporate Greed And Political Corruption
Are Undermining America, by Arianna Huffington. Excellent, short,
easy to read book on all of the schemes and tricks of executives
and CEOs to overpay, overprotect, overpamper themselves at the
expense of everyone else.
Stealing the Market - how the giant brokerage firms with help
from the SEC stole the stock market from investors. (by Martin
Mayer). How the money handlers cheat everyone.
The Challenge of Global Capitalism-The world economy in the 21st
century--by Robert Gilpin. He is a pro-globalisation guy, but he
honestly says he's not sure it will work; it has a lot of
problems. Very good.
The Creature from Jekyll Island (by G. Edward Griffin) The most
important book I've read in 20 years. Easy to understand and you
will learn how banks really work and how they create money. His
recommendation, however, to abolish the Fed is not a good idea.
"The Dollar Crisis--Causes, Consequences, Cures (by Richard
Duncan)" Explanations are good, easy to understand, but the
recommendations are bad. Good to read to better understand the
dominance of the USD in the world.
The Labor Story (by Aleine Austin), history of working conditions
which were worse in the past but still, today, if you are an
employee you are on the losing end of the deal.
A History of American Labor, expanded and updated, by Joseph G.
Rayback
Excellent, in depth with excellent references. Also clearly explains
the
exploitation of immigrants.
The Money Culture (by Michael Lewis) several excellent chapters
about business scams, shenanigans, and ripoffs.
War by Other Means (by John J. Fialka) Industrial spying & theft
Mander, Jerry, and Edward Goldsmith, eds., "The Case Against
the Global Economy--And for a Turn to the Local" (1996), an
excellent book but with some chapters weaker than others.
Nader, Ralph, "Introduction" in The Case Against Free Trade:
GATT, NAFTA, and the Globalization of Corporate Power"
(1993)
One World, Ready Or Not, by Greider, best anti-globalization
book yet.
Global Business Regulation by John Braithwaite and Peter Drahos,
A totally non-political book describing the history, development,
and regulation of international business, including something
like a hundred international organizations set up to promote business.
It is basically neutral on the issue of whether globalization is good
or
not, but does explain why international regulation (and
standardization
in addition to banking and payment needs) are necessary if there is to
be
commerce and business at all.
=More books below (I have not read them, but include them for
interest) =====
The WTO: Five Years of Reasons to Resist Corporate Globalization--by
Lori
Wallach and Michelle Sforza
The Inner Circle: Large Corporations and and the Rise of Business
Political Activity in the US and UK--by Michael Useem
The Race to the Bottom: Why a Worldwide Worker Surplus and
Uncontrolled
Free Trade are Sinking American Living Standards--by Alan Tonelson
You Don't Always Get What You Pay For: The Economics of Privatization--
by
Elliott D. Sclar
Profit Without Honor: White-Collar Crime and the Looting of America--
by
S.M. Rosoff, H. N. Pontell, and R. Tillman.
Corporate Crime: Contemporary Debates--ed by F. Pearce and L. Snider
The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: An Investigative Reporter Exposes
the
Truth About Globalization, Corporate Cons, and High Finance
Fraudsters--by Greg Palast
Cutting Corporate Welfare--Ralph Nader
Wealth by Stealth: Corporate Crime, Corporate Law, and the Perversion
of
Democracy--by Harry Glasbeek.
Corporate Nation: How Corporations Are Taking over Out Lives and What
We
can Do About It-- by Charles Derber
Corporateering: How Corporate Power Steals Your Personal Freedom and
What You Can Do About it-by Jamie Court
Cold New World-Growing Up in a Harder Country--by William Finnegan
(references document the decline in standard of living in the USA)
20 years of Censored News--by Carl Jensen (now on the WWW as Project
Censored)
The Corporation-The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, by Joel
Bakan
Nightmare on Wall Street-Mayer
Silicon Snake Oil--Stoll
Secrets of the Temple--Greider (about the '87 stock market crash)
The Greatest-Ever Bank Robbery--Mayer (the S&L crisis)
The Bankers--Mayer (how banks really work)
The Invisible Banks--Tobias (about the insurance business, dark
secrets)
False Profits--Truell & Gurwin (about the BCCI scandal)
Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television--Mander (for
your mental health, get rid of your TV set)
High Tech Heretic --Stoll (here is one on you should get away
from your computer and get back to meeting and interacting
with human beings, directly, again)
The Employer's Legal Handbook--Steingold (Nolo Press: the good
guys and would be worth reading to understand ethical
employment practices)
Using a Lawyer--Ostberg (how to use a lawyer and what to do if
things go wrong, written by a lawyer)
The 110 Biggest Mistakes Job Hunters Make--by Herman &
Sutherland
Double Billing--Stracher (a lawyer writes about how lawyers bilk
their clients)
Small Claims Court--Rudy (in case you want to make trouble for
someone who made trouble for you and don't want to spend a
fortune)
The Law of Medical Liability--Boumil & Elias (better know your
rights before something happens)
The Medical Racket--Gross (More things to watch out for from the
medical industry)
Take This Book to the Hospital with You--Inlander & Weiner (you
should not need an explanation, better to read before you
go)
Don't Let Your HMO Kill You--Feinberg (see prior book, too).
Soap Opera--Swasy (about corporate incompetance and ineptitude at
Proctor and Gamble)
Trust Me--Binstein & Bowden (all about Charles Keating and the
great S&L ripoffs)
Stray Dog
were on democracy, the rest were about how the rich get richer and how
it began back in early 1800s and its frightening to think that if you
have enough money, you can get more of anything you want (kinda like
our plutocracy as it is today), and that means that we're screwed. I
had another of his books, don't recall if I still have it but didn't
do more than page through it ("Politics of Rich and Poor" or something
like that). Seems like he used to be conservative in the past, but now
more liberal. I left a few titles off and maybe if I get my pile of
books better organized, I'll add some more. Just finished reading
another good book:
"No Contest--Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in
America" by Ralph Nader and Wesley J. Smith. And, he also cites quite
a few other lawyers who wrote their own books about how corporations
and big money has corrupted the law profession, and, of course, look
at all the lawyers panting there with drooling wide-open mouths while
they are willing to screw anyone for the right price. Nader and Smith
also document that a fairly large fraction of lawyers actually hate
this trend but they don't dare do or say anything or they will get
fired, or shunned, or blacklisted. It is truly astonishing how
corrupting a big pile of money can be in the hands of anyone. All
other sensuality, sensitivity, moral purpose, ethical considerations,
concepts of good and evil all seem to fade into the infinitesimal and
insignificant. Out of all of the history books I've read, most but not
all kings and emperors were seduced by power and money while they
never hesitated for a moment to use underlings in wars, exploit
underlings in peace, and enjoy for themselves alone "The Guilded Age"
of their own makings.
--------------------------------------------------------------
retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> A good list! I'd add Kevins Phillips "Bad Money".
Stray Dog
retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 16:17:44 -0700 (PDT), Stray Dog
> <strayd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I
> >had another of his books, don't recall if I still have it but didn't
> >do more than page through it ("Politics of Rich and Poor" or something
> >like that). Seems like he used to be conservative in the past, but now
> >more liberal.
>
>
> of his premises data and conclusions. I thought they were politically
> driven. It led me to go to source data, do spread sheets, adjust for
> inflation, etc., etc., etc.
Well, its good that you get into that stuff. Me, I slowly became
worried
starting when Japan began taking over more of our industry (and the
PR propaganda kept telling us "this is all good for us" without
calling attention
to the disassembly of our industrial base).
The "economist" whitewash was more of same. They'd say: "look at low
prices
at walmart" and ignore where buyers are supposed to get money to buy
those things if they
get poorer paying jobs (the ones that are left).
I have another, shorter, list of economics books that I've also read
that explain "how shit works" explain that economics is not all cut-
and-dried, and the PR crap is _pushed_ into the media, the contrarian
economists who think globalization was oversold just can't get their
journal papers accepted because the editors of the peer reviewed
journals are all snookered by the "ideological/religious" mantra that
globalization can't fail. So, now, I've got a collection of papers,
articles and references that show that "rising waters" is not
"floating all boats" and the only people who are really benefiting are
those at the top.
> I found he was quite accurate and on point. He picked valid measures
> and indicators. If you would sit down and say what m,easure would I
> like to provide the most meaningful understanding of what is happening
> here you would find that was what he generated.
>
> That was all about 15 years ago. That's what made me the economic wonk
> I am. It led me to read more and more and work data from the sources.
Well, I wish I could devote more time to that, including reading more
economic history which is more important than "regular" history, but
harder to put into "cause-and-effect" relationships because the
"factors" are more abstract and the data have some limitations.
Instead, I've read history with the idea of trying to recognize the
ratio of good to bad, wrt all kinds of times and places throughout
history, what kinds of systems, and moral/ethical issues and themes.
There are good people out there, but not enough. There are quite a few
of the greedy-selfish types and they are dangerous (the become
dictators, manipulators, and exploiters). Then, there is a big sea of
sheep.
> It also woke me up to the nature of bogus facts politicians spin (my
> favorite myth for example that Reagans tax cuts increased revenues -
> nope it took 3 years to get back to where they were and then they were
> several 100 billion below what normal growth would have taken them to.
> ) etc. etc.
Or the "Laffer curve" crap. The antithesis is: OK, don't tax the rich
(the rich, of course, would love this but they have been getting tax
cuts for decades), and let the rich have (counter to the "Laffer
curve" crap) 100% of the money (I doubt if more than a handful would
object to this), let them eliminate 100% of the jobs and replace all
of the people with high-reliability robots (and since the rich are
already rich, them having a job is irrelevant since they already own
their mansions and castles, and a wee dinky trickle of money will keep
them in food), and that is the endpoint of "the world economy
according to the rich."
> It's a great book anyway for really seeing and understanding what
> Reagan and now W have done. And how they lie about it.
I'll have to get my "economics defrocking books" list together
including my "book reviews" of a few of them. Some of those guys are
dangerous, too.
maxw...@my-deja.com
> I read his book "Wealth and Democracy" cover to cover, maybe 10 pages
> were on democracy, the rest were about how the rich get richer and how
Excellent book! I was about to recommend it to you.
FrediFizzx
news:Piedk.644$UH2...@newsfe02.lga...
> In article
> <e73d1ba6-37f3-47f0...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>-- A few books have read, cover to cover, and I can recommend
>>(I have read all of the ones in the first section)----
>
> Books are overrated. After a certain threshold, thinking for
> yourself ultimately makes better sense.
>
> DK
Amen. Just give me the real facts. I'll figure it out from there.
Fred
The path to truth is thinner than a razor's edge.
Stray Dog
DK wrote:
> In article <e73d1ba6-37f3-47f0...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Stray Dog <strayd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >-- A few books have read, cover to cover, and I can recommend
> >(I have read all of the ones in the first section)----
>
> Art: I hate to be rude to you but I can't make it less plain:
Did you mean you are already making it the "minimum" amount plain?
> Books are overrated. After a certain threshold, thinking for
> yourself ultimately makes better sense.
>
> DK
From what you wrote above, I have the notion that either you think
that you can just "think" knowledge into existence, or you can just
"think" understanding into existence.
Another notion I am seeing in the "crystal ball" is that if YOU get
"garbage out" from "garbage in, then you are "thinking" that it
doesn't matter if you get "garbage out" from "garbage in" because all
that matters is what goes on in between "input" and "output."
I'm also getting the notion that since you think books are over rated,
then probably you haven't read any recently. And, the last time you
and I talked about a book (Jarred Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel"
which you had a low opinion about but was not only very popular but
got a Pulitzer Prize) you were pretty damned sure that Diamond was
full of crap. Maybe you are happy to be one with the minority
opinion, but I thought I learned a lot about things I didn't know
about before.
Then, the next book that I learned from was the book I read on African
recent history, and I compared it with another book I read about Latin
American history, but you felt you were getting better information
from Wikipedia. Remember all that?
Stray Dog
Yeah, thanks. I don't seek these books out systematically but pick
them out at library book sales where they go for a buck or so and the
title looks like it fits into my interests on practical economics (is
globalization good or bad or what), history (what governance models,
processes ever took place including underlings wising up to overlings
and throwing revolts, rebellions, and how often were they successful,
etc. etc.), and in general, where the hell is the human race headed.
So, anyway, I blab here about my poking around among a small fraction
of the relevant titles (preferably authored by guys who: i) write
clearly, ii) surely know more about the subject than I do, and iii)
write about stuff I'm interested in).
Yes, you generally have to read maybe three or more _different_ books
on the same subject. I've managed to do this for a few areas to get an
idea how people's preferences, biases, limitations, etc., affect what
they write. Then, you have to "synthesize" all of what is dumped in
you lap into some kind of "picture" of the world, etc. Then, you have
to be prepared in case still more, new, information comes into view
and "blows to bits" that "picture" you had spent so much time putting
together.
Then, I've read enough economics books to notice that there are quite
a few economists out there who have low opinions of other economists,
and vice versa. Not that I'm that surprised.
Then, there are the economists that can't write, either.
At least I can read "opinions" in the media, now, and pick out
sometimes 5-10 relevant factors, sometimes more, that the author of
such opinions failed to take into account or talk about.
Stray Dog
retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> Have you seen this yet?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
>
> An amazing summary of what's happened from the stats end. It's long
> but do a little at a time. It's worth it.
I'm sending a carbon copy to one of my email addresses for future
reference.
Stray Dog
retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> Ah the unteachable come forth to brag of their ignorance.
Sometimes a lot of plain facts are there, easy to see. However,
sometimes what they mean
depend on skillful interpretation, discovering what facts are
important, which are irrelevant, which are invalid, and I have found
that its very nice to find a teacher who already knows how shit works
and can untangle what is hidden from the untrained eye.
Stray Dog
retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 21:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Stray Dog
> <strayd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >DK wrote:
> >> In article <e73d1ba6-37f3-47f0...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Stray Dog <strayd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >-- A few books have read, cover to cover, and I can recommend
> >> >(I have read all of the ones in the first section)----
> >>
> >> Art: I hate to be rude to you but I can't make it less plain:
> >
> >Did you mean you are already making it the "minimum" amount plain?
> >
> >> Books are overrated. After a certain threshold, thinking for
> >> yourself ultimately makes better sense.
> >>
> >> DK
> >
> >From what you wrote above, I have the notion that either you think
> >that you can just "think" knowledge into existence, or you can just
> >"think" understanding into existence.
>
>
> me how he was in a quickie mart and the young woman clerk was on the
> phone with a friend telling her she didn't want to go to community
> college, because "she didn't want to get over-educated".
You know, I really wonder, sometimes, where some of these people
actually come from. But, besides here on these "high drama" soap-opera
newsgroups, I do, from time to time, interact with people, in person,
in conversational contexts and I sometimes have to force myself to be
calm, keep my mouth shut, and respond to them preferably with a simple
smile combined with a dumb look and immediately after that put as much
distance between them and myself as possible.
On the other side of the coin, there was that old story about Albert
Einstein once saying something along the lines that he admired the
world of the simple plumber (there have been several versions of this
story). There are days when I can appreciate that, too.
Well, there are bad books out there. One that I thought was terrible
was "The Truth About The National Debt" by Francis X. Cavanaugh, self
described as a former (or retired?, can't remember) Fed economist,
too. I read about 3/4 and gave up. I thought there were all kinds of
mistakes. Graphs that showed something that should have stated in the
figure legend whether the numbers were inflation-adjusted or not
inflation-adjusted. There were paragraphs where nothing made sense
following a paragraph that made sense but surely was wrong. So, what
do you do about that? Basically, you have to find those books that are
clearly written and you can _feel_ like the author is making sense AND
you are learning something.
Charles Kindleberger's book "World in Depression", which is THE
reference that pretty well shows that the world was: i) already going
into the Great Depression BEFORE the '29 stock market crash, and ii)
that the Great Depression was world-wide. I've seen at least 10-15
books that _portray_ that the Great Depression _followed_ the '29
crash as if the '29 crash caused the Great Depression, and in none of
those books was anything said about whether the depression was limited
to the US or not. That's two very important aspects of the event.. For
a book written by an economist, Kindleberger was surprisingly
readable, but you do have to plow through it. Very thick reference/
source list. And, what makes it valid? I have
at least 1-2 other basic textbooks on banking/economics where those
authors cite Kindleberger's results and that gives recognition and
that recognition gives me the confidence of peer review by experts.
FrediFizzx
news:pj4b745njqru9mp97...@4ax.com...
The path to truth is thinner than a razor's edge. Those that think
they will find truth in a book, are highly mistaken.
Fred
orang...@googlemail.com
one of my favorites is 'how to lie with statistics'.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
Stray Dog
retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 22:12:16 -0700 (PDT), Stray Dog
> <strayd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Ah the unteachable come forth to brag of their ignorance.
> >
> >Sometimes a lot of plain facts are there, easy to see. However,
> >sometimes what they mean
> >depend on skillful interpretation, discovering what facts are
> >important, which are irrelevant, which are invalid, and I have found
> >that its very nice to find a teacher who already knows how shit works
> >and can untangle what is hidden from the untrained eye.
>
>
> Absolutely. Even things you thing you know and understand get a whole
> new light and depth when presented together in a fashion by some one
> who really has some depth and insight.
And, I could write my own book, as an expanded collection of wisdom,
to say what you just said. Instead, I've been dribbling little bits
and pieces out on a couple of NGs for some15 years now.
Stray Dog
retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 21:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Stray Dog
> <strayd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm also getting the notion that since you think books are over rated,
> >then probably you haven't read any recently. And, the last time you
> >and I talked about a book (Jarred Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel"
> >which you had a low opinion about but was not only very popular but
> >got a Pulitzer Prize) you were pretty damned sure that Diamond was
> >full of crap. Maybe you are happy to be one with the minority
> >opinion, but I thought I learned a lot about things I didn't know
> >about before.
> >
> >Then, the next book that I learned from was the book I read on African
> >recent history, and I compared it with another book I read about Latin
> >American history, but you felt you were getting better information
> >from Wikipedia. Remember all that?
>
>
> here - "Stumbling on Happiness" by Gilmore. It's a lot about how
> people deceive themselves.
There's a whole other genre of good thinking (and bad) in the realm of
psychology (and all the MBA-whips who think that MBAs and managers can
solve all world/company/cashflow problems if they just know how to
think, what to think, and invent rabbits coming out of hats just by
thinking).
My recommendation along you line is Eric Berne's "Games People
Play" ..quite a while ago, but in its day it was a best seller. I read
a few books by famous psychiatrists on how good psychiatry really is
and was blown away by frank judgements of guys who were psychiatrists
all their life (and on faculties) and saying that psychiatry really
doesn't solve very many problems, and a lot of them had "outcomes"
data to prove it.
There was a famous research paper (4-6 pages long) in the journal
_Science_ back sometime in the 1960s which I read, entitled something
like "On Being Sane in Insane Places" and the author's name I can't
think of just now but could probably find it if I looked, and he was a
prof in a psychiatry dept of a med school. His project was to tell his
graduate students to "check in" at a local psychiatric hospital and
say they were experiencing some mild symptoms, just enough to get
admitted. The whole article showed that the professional staffs at
these places could NOT detect that these kids were faking mental
illness!!! What iwas also very interesting was that the other
inpatients could tell that the kids were faking mental illness!!! I
remember one comment that one kid wrote down about an inpatient said
"You don't belong here, you're a writer or something".
I certainly think there are books and writings (and other things) out
there that don't help people, but I also think there are people who
are doing a good job trying to help people, and they write books with
that in mind. And, learning something from those books can be
priceless.
Stray Dog
DK wrote:
> In article <4c3a4b7e-4ccc-4074...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Stray Dog <strayd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >DK wrote:
> >> In article
> > <e73d1ba6-37f3-47f0...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Stray Dog
> > <strayd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >-- A few books have read, cover to cover, and I can recommend
> >> >(I have read all of the ones in the first section)----
> >>
> >> Art: I hate to be rude to you but I can't make it less plain:
> >
> >Did you mean you are already making it the "minimum" amount plain?
> >
> >> Books are overrated. After a certain threshold, thinking for
> >> yourself ultimately makes better sense.
> >>
> >> DK
> >
> >From what you wrote above, I have the notion that either you think
> >that you can just "think" knowledge into existence, or you can just
> >"think" understanding into existence.
> >
> >Another notion I am seeing in the "crystal ball" is that if YOU get
> >"garbage out" from "garbage in, then you are "thinking" that it
> >doesn't matter if you get "garbage out" from "garbage in" because all
> >that matters is what goes on in between "input" and "output."
> >
> >I'm also getting the notion that since you think books are over rated,
> >then probably you haven't read any recently. And, the last time you
> >and I talked about a book (Jarred Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel"
> >which you had a low opinion about but was not only very popular but
> >got a Pulitzer Prize)
>
YOUR opinion based on what? Your "think" that he is full of crap? Or,
would you cite something like "Mein Kampf" or "The Bell Curve" as not
full of crap?
Hate to bring
> this comparison but acute examples work best to illustrate the
> absurdity of the argument from the majority: at some point,
> Mein Kampf was super popular too.
And, at some point, some new scientific theory becomes _accepted_ as
"truth" by virtue that its explanation (of most if not all
observations) becomes _popular_ among the practitioners. And,
sometimes there are opposing theories and sooner or later maybe they
get resolved. Maybe they don't.
> >you were pretty damned sure that Diamond was
> >full of crap. Maybe you are happy to be one with the minority
> >opinion, but I thought I learned a lot about things I didn't know
> >about before.
>
> That's exactly my point - you read too many books and they
> serve as a substitute for your independent thinking.
And, I say that "independent thinking" is part of a large fraction of
book writing, and a lot of "independent thinking" already took place
before the decision was made to write a book.
The point
> that is perfectly illustrated by you uncritically swallowing
> "Guns, Germs, and Steel"
I'm still waiting for your "brilliant" "think" that gives any kind of
credible basis for dismissing Diamond's book. Last time we had a
discussion on this, on the other NG, you hardly presented more than an
infinitesimal basis for thinking otherwise.
and that other book that claimed
> that Africa is full of semi-prosperous democracies in post-
> colonial era.
And, a few weeks ago I presented, here, a quote from a WSJ article
that quoted some international agency that concluded, based on
objective criteria, substantial progress with democracy in Africa. I
was encouraged. You just dismiss stuff without even "thinking" about
it, or, maybe your "books are over-rated" philosophy is contaminating
your "thinking" process.
> Getting raw data and straining few synapses
> would have sufficed to notice how the books try to fool you.
Or, are you telling us that your "strain a few synapses" gives you a
monopoly on finding truth and the rest of us are lost and will always
be lost?
You sound like Friedrich Nietzsche.
But, I'll thank you for the Tiny Personal Firewall and Netmeter
software help.
> DK
jmh
>>
>>The path to truth is thinner than a razor's edge. Those that think
>>they will find truth in a book, are highly mistaken.
>
>
> And those that think they have nothing to learn never will.
Taken together a good lesson is available.
In short, any of these book recomentations
cannot be one size fits all -- they will work
for some and be a waste of time for others.
jmh
Straydog
>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:24:33 GMT, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK)
>wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I'm also getting the notion that since you think books are over rated,
>>>then probably you haven't read any recently. And, the last time you
>>>and I talked about a book (Jarred Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel"
>>>which you had a low opinion about but was not only very popular but
>>>got a Pulitzer Prize)
>>
>>Brilliantly written but still full of crap scientifically.
>
>
>And yet you won't say how . . .
He's always like that. Had discussions with DK a few times over many
years (check the archives for sci.research.careers, if you want).
>>Hate to bring
>>this comparison but acute examples work best to illustrate the
>>absurdity of the argument from the majority: at some point,
>>Mein Kampf was super popular too.
>
>And reading it today still teaches us something about that time and
>those who still believe it.
Any scholarly work, complete with serious references to other
scholarly work, gives everyone a chance to dig, in depth. And, if you
are really serious, you can try to become an expert in a whole area
and dig up counter-theories (with all of their own references to the
counter-references), and come up with your own "informed" opinion.
>>>you were pretty damned sure that Diamond was
>>>full of crap. Maybe you are happy to be one with the minority
>>>opinion, but I thought I learned a lot about things I didn't know
>>>about before.
>>
>>That's exactly my point - you read too many books and they
>>serve as a substitute for your independent thinking.
>
>What generates that "thinking" you are talking about? You seem
>reluctant to encounter new ideas or challenge your beliefs with
>"nonsense" like books.
The "you read too many books and they substitute for our independent
thinking" seems to me to contain a big disconnect between the need to
learn about your environment, what has gone on in the past, how it
happened, why it happened, etc. You can't just sit like a bump on a
log and "invent" some undertanding of anything.
>>The point
>>that is perfectly illustrated by you uncritically swallowing
>>"Guns, Germs, and Steel" and that other book that claimed
>>that Africa is full of semi-prosperous democracies in post-
>>colonial era. Getting raw data and straining few synapses
>>would have sufficed to notice how the books try to fool you.
>
>I'm very interested in how some people fool themselves.
Well, religious fanatics might fool themselves into thinking that THEY
have the "one and only way to God" and all others are heretics (that
need to be burned at the stake), infidels (they are worse than
heretics) that also need to be burned at the stake (etc),
>I just read a cool book on that. "Stumbling on Happiness" by Gilmore.
>I get where you're coming from largely from the ideas this book
>generated for me.
Happiness is an important goal in life. Of course, sometimes one can
be happy by "living in" a fantasy land, too.
>
Stray Dog
DK wrote:
> In article <4876991d...@news.panix.com>, nos...@nospam.nospam wrote:
> >On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:57:38 -0700, retro...@comcast.net wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 06:24:33 GMT, d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm also getting the notion that since you think books are over rated,
> >>>>then probably you haven't read any recently. And, the last time you
> >>>>and I talked about a book (Jarred Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel"
> >>>>which you had a low opinion about but was not only very popular but
> >>>>got a Pulitzer Prize)
> >>>
> >>>Brilliantly written but still full of crap scientifically.
> >>
> >>
> >>And yet you won't say how . . .
> >
> >He's always like that. Had discussions with DK a few times over many
> >years (check the archives for sci.research.careers, if you want).
>
You are welcome to have your opinion, based on whatever
rationalization you use to come to that opinion.
I think Thomas Friedman's book "The Earth is Flat" (which I also read,
cover to cover and still have sitting on my bookshelf) is full of shit
despite the fact that it has been on the best seller list for quite a
long time (and he is rich from this and some other books he wrote).
> You just refused to listen.
I really did read all of the posts you ever made with respect to this,
but ....
His geographical determinism is not
> a science - it strives to be a non-falsifiable "explain-it-all" theory
> that (borrowing examples from Popper), along with Freud and Marx,
> is nothing but a pseudo-science.
...in the end, we all evaluate what we see in a manner that we either
"like" or "dislike" what we see but within some kind of psychological
rationalization which, itself, is not "falsifiable" and that
"explains" probably all the conflicts and contradictions in human
behavior, everywhere, all throughout time.
> But it failed even at that. Here are simple facts that falsify it:
> Turkeys are perfectly domesticable. Yet Amerinds never
> domesticated them. Also, It took a single Englishman's life
> time to domesticate ostrich - yet, Africans never did it
> throughout few millennia.
I perceive both of these "simple facts" as strawmen "falsifications."
> So much for the Diamond's post hoc fallacy "if it did not
> happen it means it couldn't have".
Maybe someday you will read (or, maybe not because you are so biased
against books) some history of science where some kind of attempts are
made to understand how and why discoveries are made. Its just not that
simple and all kinds of technical progress did not arrive out of
"thinking" it into existence.
> Art, I have a suggestion: instead of polluting newsgroups with
> your anti-Indian biases
I notice that you have trouble recognizing that there were, over all
these years, hundreds to thousands of posts with anti-US bias and
content originating from Indians. Or, maybe you just have your own
selective blinders over your eyes. And, I've explained many times that
I made these posts in response to Indians who post exclusively pro-
India-anti-US propaganda (eg. indiaBPOking), which surely your news
server carries as well as my posts.
> and references to the books you read
> (because you basically have nothing better to do),
I happen to enjoy doing this and I happen to feel that I am learning
things that satisfy my curiosity and sometimes a few people take the
time to express some appreciation for sharing these things.
why don't you
> contribute to human kind by editing Wikipedia entry for
> "electroporation"? Aftef all, you are an expert and right now
> the the entry is truly POS. YOU can really improve it.
> How 'bout that?
Thank you for the invitation and the "heads up" on a Wikipedia entry
that might not be particularly good ( I have found other Wikipedia
definitions that were lacking in important ways, but I happen to like
my _printed_ copy of the Encyclopedia Britania, eleventh edition, full
leather bound, some 29,000 pages, and next to the eighth edition
considered the second from the top in terms of art, music, culture,
history, etc., before technology developed to crowd out the so called
"classical education." Wife and I paid $500 for it. I've been using it
a lot recently.
Since you think the Wiki definition is a POS, may I refer you,
instead, to the book "Guide to Electroporation and Electrofusion, in
which I am one of the four co-editors (c 1992, Academic Press, ISBN
0121680401, 581 pages, and I'm still getting royalties, too). But,
then, since you have already prejudicially decided that books are
"over-rated" (but your reference to Wiki suggests that that is your
first choice before you "think" your knowledge and understanding into
existence), maybe you, like the rest of the "mass mediocrity" that are
in, for some reason, an irreversible headlong stampede to Net-centric
processes and sources and away from "classical analysis" and books.
Sorry, I'll stick with my books. Some of them are pretty good.
;-)
> DK
>
> P.S. Diamond's ideas are not all wrong. The basic premise
> is certainly true (although rather trivial) - civilization needs
> cooperation from nature. It's just that he overextended and
> oversold its global importance by a factor of 5X or so.
Diamond put together a "story" to create a "picture" to explain how
something happened over tens of thousands of years. He didn't do any
speculating that was any different than anyone (eg. archologists,
historians, etc) who write speculative early pages in many genres of
books that attempt to explain how something happened long ago but
without any written records, physical evidence (archeological
artifacts), and interweavings with established rationalizations and
methods of practitioners of that business. Psychologists,
psychiatrists, and criminologists still can't explain why people do
certain things, what can be done to change these people, and resolve
conflicts and contradictions that will continue well after I die.
I found it profoundly perceptive of Diamond to talk, in the prologue
of the book, of a conversation he had long ago with Yali, a black New
Guinean, where at one point Yali asked: "Why is it that you white
people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we
black people had little cargo of our own?" (copying it from my copy of
the book). And, Diamond, on the next page said that while the question
was simple, it was hard to answer. And, this was the kickoff event for
Diamond's attempt to answer the question.
I would not characterize my judgment of Diamond's book in terms of
"falling for" his explanation. I said it was a very good book. I don't
think I ever represented it as a valid, proven, established truth.
But, I am also aware of a minority viewpoint which promotes a white
supremacist line of thinking and I hope you will consider that that
line of thinking is not only a minority viewpoint but also not proven,
valid, or established (except in the minds of those who are fanatics
about it).
Stray Dog
DK wrote:
> In article <d4aaf732-cd49-4fbc...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Stray Dog <strayd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >DK wrote:
> >
> >> But it failed even at that. Here are simple facts that falsify it:
> >> domesticated them. Also, It took a single Englishman's life
> >> time to domesticate ostrich - yet, Africans never did it
> >> throughout few millennia.
> >
> >I perceive both of these "simple facts" as strawmen "falsifications."
>
> directly contradict Diamond's theory basic tenets and predictions.
If you use preconceived "kangaroo court" processes dressed up to look
legitimate, then you will draw invalid conclusions because the
methodology is inappropriate.
I would recognize Tom Clancy, for example, as having created _good_
works of literature even though YOU could easily "falsify" any of his
books.
More below...
> >> So much for the Diamond's post hoc fallacy "if it did not
> >> happen it means it couldn't have".
> >
> >Maybe someday you will read (or, maybe not because you are so biased
> >against books) some history of science where some kind of attempts are
> >made to understand how and why discoveries are made. Its just not that
> >simple and all kinds of technical progress did not arrive out of
> >"thinking" it into existence.
>
> LOL. History and philosophy of science happen to be my hobby
> of sorts. Read more than enough to get facts and opinions.
I demure.
> The rest I can take care of myself - for myself.
A premature conclusion for sure.
> >Thank you for the invitation and the "heads up" on a Wikipedia entry
> >that might not be particularly good ( I have found other Wikipedia
> >definitions that were lacking in important ways, but I happen to like
> >my _printed_ copy of the Encyclopedia Britania, eleventh edition, full
> >leather bound, some 29,000 pages, and next to the eighth edition
> >considered the second from the top in terms of art, music, culture,
> >history, etc., before technology developed to crowd out the so called
> >"classical education." Wife and I paid $500 for it. I've been using it
> >a lot recently.
>
> $500 wasted.
On the contrary.
1. Rare books are becoming more rare, values going up, and there is a
market for them and prices are still going up.
More below...
I've compared Wiki and Britannica (online
> addition) back to back on numerous occasions and Wiki
> invariably won.
2. So have I, and Wiki has entries clearly inferior than the printed
Britanica.
As an example, Britannica even today has
> no entry for "electroporation". (And while you *can* make
> Wikipedia's entry better, you absolutely cannot in the case
> of Britannica).
3. For subject matter that came into existence after my Britanica was
published, I have found descrepancies between Wiki and other sources
with more credibility. And, of course, your own example that you just
talked about is evidence presented even by you, also, that Wiki leaves
something to be desired.
> >Since you think the Wiki definition is a POS, may I refer you,
> >instead, to the book "Guide to Electroporation and Electrofusion, in
> >which I am one of the four co-editors (c 1992, Academic Press, ISBN
> >0121680401, 581 pages, and I'm still getting royalties, too). But,
> >then, since you have already prejudicially decided that books are
> >"over-rated"
>
> Don't kid yourself - it's not a book,
Books, by definition, are covers on each side of multiple printed
pages carrying words organized in one form or another. When the name
or names of the writers of the contents are identifiable on the cover,
spine, or title page as _authors_, then ....
it's semi-random collection
> of whatever the authors of individual chapters thought fitting to
> contribute on a loose subject.
...they organized the contents in some manner. When the names are
identified as editors, then one can expect that the contributors
organized their writings much more independently.
Not a bad collection in this particular
> case but there is nothing original there
I can't speak for the others, but in my own chapter, all of the
writing is new. As a summary of prior work, it was an expansion over
my prior book chapters that also reviewed and summarized new
"original" findings.
and a "guide" in the title is
> definitely a misnomer.
For your information, the acquisitions editor at Academic Press made
the recommendation to use this word to help sell the book, help keep
it looking like it would not become obsolete, and the lead editor of
the book agreed and the rest of us went along.
> >(but your reference to Wiki suggests that that is your
> >first choice before you "think" your knowledge and understanding into
> >existence),
>
> Jeez... It's a *reference*! As in "encyclopedia". Do you understand
> the concept? No? I like it. I've never seen an encyclopedia
> more useful and usable than Wikipedia but it is most certainly
> not a source for my *thoughts".
Oh, I had the idea that from what you said, you consider books as
"over-rated" and you pretty much implied that you depend more on
"thinking" to come up with anything so that you didn't have to worry
about "garbage in" and "garbage out" because your thinking process was
all that was important.
> >maybe you, like the rest of the "mass mediocrity" that are
>
> OK, if you want to go this route, fine. I just checked your
> citation index on ISI. There is only one paper of yours that has
> been cited to date more than 100 times. That's very
> mediocre record. In contrast, I have three papers >100.
Um...do I get to see a copy of you bibliography so I get a turn to
evaluate you?
> And I am ~ a generation younger than you are, have 3 times
> shorter publication record and my papers have been out for
> a lot less time.
Well, this is an invalid comparison because of ____ issues.
First, the Lowry protein determination method has been reported (some
years ago) to be the most highly cited paper in biochemistry, yet when
evaluators are questioned, they regard it as a relatively unimportant
publication.
Second, there are areas and fields in science where the number of
practitioners are higher or lower than in other areas of science and
without taking this into consideration, using a pure citation rate to
discover significance would be misleading.
Third, there are areas in science which, during the evolution of that
area, compared to other areas, the popularity goes up and down
depending on the stage of evolution.
Four, the reputation, size, affiliation of the lab, and the
publication practices of that lab can also affect the recognition that
that lab gets from the scientific community.
So if anything, it is you who are more
> representative of mass mediocrity.
Another premature conclusion based on an incomplete and (as I listed
above) misleading analysis.
> >> P.S. Diamond's ideas are not all wrong. The basic premise
> >> is certainly true (although rather trivial) - civilization needs
> >> cooperation from nature. It's just that he overextended and
> >> oversold its global importance by a factor of 5X or so.
> >
> >Diamond put together a "story" to create a "picture" to explain how
> >something happened over tens of thousands of years. He didn't do any
> >speculating that was any different than anyone (eg. archologists,
> >historians, etc) who write speculative early pages in many genres of
> >books that attempt to explain how something happened long ago
>
> He did. He forcefully put forward a theory that "explains" why
> some people put a man into space while others follow
> cargo cults
> ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmlYe2KS0-Y )
And, taken for that effort I see no excessive use of speculation,
inappropriate imagination,
or improper presentations. However, I would expect that there will
always be a minority dissenting opinion about practically anything
that comes out and becomes wildly popular and even gets awards.
> >I found it profoundly perceptive of Diamond to talk, in the prologue
> >of the book, of a conversation he had long ago with Yali, a black New
> >Guinean, where at one point Yali asked: "Why is it that you white
> >people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we
> >black people had little cargo of our own?" (copying it from my copy of
> >the book). And, Diamond, on the next page said that while the question
> >was simple, it was hard to answer.
>
> A common ploy. Bait and switch.
Unless he actually lied, he did explain in two pages the origin of
what motivated him to write the book and do the necessary research,
including prepare a relevant list of references and sources for anyone
who wants to dig further.
The rest of the book is devoted to
> just how easy the answer is.
I hardly thought it was "easy"; there was a large amount of
information I did not know, and the juxtapositions for many details
were credible and creditable.
>All people are exactly the same,
I'm not sure what your definition of "exactly the same" is, but I
would not agree that that was the "story" that the book was trying to
tell.
> it's only the geography that makes them different.
Diamond's "story" was that geography played a strong role in the
development of the cultures of the various peoples around the world.
My readings of a few books on history has demonstrated to me that no
one person, or group of persons, can write the _perfect_ "story" that
has anything like _absolute_ truth or that can't have competing
stories that tell a different "story."
As I gave an example, I also recognize that Friedman's book "The Earth
is Flat" is very popular and lots of people make reference to it while
I consider it very poor (and would recommend as an alternative,
Grieder's book "One world, ready or not" as a better discussion of
globalization. However, all audiences will form their own opinion,
popular or not, well analyzed or not, and certainly irregardless of
whether you or I like them, and by whatever criteria or processes we
use in our analyses. I think I am comfortable with this problem than
you are, and certainly less dogmatic than you, too.
> DK
ro...@telus.net
<strayd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Perfectly Legal--The Covert Campaign To Rig Our Tax System To Benefit
>The Super Rich--And Cheat Everybody Else, by David Cay Johnson
It's spelled "Johnston."
>(Pulitzer
>Prize winner). Outstanding and easy to read explanations of serious
>tax evasion and corruption in our systems, all to greatly benefit
>the rich and soak the poor. Very outstanding. Many references.
Another excellent book by Johnston -- "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest
Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense and Stick You With
The Bill."
-- Roy L
The Trucker
> I.e., something that you already knew but needed a book
> to really believe it.
I did not need it and it was boring. I only got through the first 1/4 of
the book and could not retain any focus. Like you say: "something you
already knew". But I do not need a book.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>In article <487e1731...@news.telus.net>, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>I.e., something that you already knew but needed a book
>to really believe it.
No, I knew THAT they were doing it, but not so many specific recent
examples of HOW.
-- Roy L