Gorbachev's op-ed piece
Dom
has turned out to be unsustainable."
Gorbachev would have been much more forthright if he had written: The
combination of the Free Plunder System and of Lemon Socialism has
turned out to be unsustainable.
=======================
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/05/AR2009060501966_pf.html
We Had Our Perestroika. It's High Time for Yours.
By Mikhail Gorbachev
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Years ago, as the Cold War was coming to an end, I said to my fellow
leaders around the globe: The world is on the cusp of great events,
and in the face of new challenges all of us will have to change, you
as well as we. For the most part, the reaction was polite but
skeptical silence.
In recent years, however, during speaking tours in the United States
before university audiences and business groups, I have often told
listeners that I feel Americans need their own change -- a
perestroika, not like the one in my country, but an American
perestroika -- and the reaction has been markedly different. Halls
filled with thousands of people have responded with applause.
Over time, my remark has prompted all kinds of comments. Some have
reacted with understanding. Others have objected, sometimes
sarcastically, suggesting that I want the United States to experience
upheaval, just like the former Soviet Union. In my country,
particularly caustic reactions have come from the opponents of
perestroika, people with short memories and a deficit of conscience.
And although most of my critics surely understand that I am not
equating the United States with the Soviet Union in its final years, I
would like to explain my position.
Our perestroika signaled the need for change in the Soviet Union, but
it was not meant to suggest a capitulation to the U.S. model. Today,
the need for a more far-reaching perestroika -- one for America and
the world -- has become clearer than ever.
It is true that the need for change in the Soviet Union in the
mid-1980s was urgent. The country was stifled by a lack of freedom,
and the people -- particularly the educated class -- wanted to break
the stranglehold of a system that had been built under Stalin.
Millions of people were saying: "We can no longer live like this."
We started with glasnost -- giving people a chance to speak out about
their worries without fear. I never agreed with my great countryman
Alexander Solzhenitsyn when he said that "Gorbachev's glasnost ruined
everything." Without glasnost, no changes would have occurred, and
Solzhenitsyn would have ended his days in Vermont rather than in
Russia.
At first, we labored under the illusion that revamping the existing
system -- changes within the "socialist model" -- would suffice. But
the pushback from the Communist Party and the government bureaucracy
was too strong. Toward the end of 1986, it became clear to me and my
supporters that nothing less than the replacement of the system's
building blocks was needed.
We opted for free elections, political pluralism, freedom of religion
and an economy with competition and private property. We sought to
effect these changes in an evolutionary way and without bloodshed. We
made mistakes. Important decisions were made too late, and we were
unable to complete our perestroika.
Two conspiracies hijacked the changes -- the attempted coup in August
1991, organized by the hard-line opponents of our reforms, which ended
up weakening my position as president, and the subsequent agreement
among the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus to dissolve the
Union. Russia's leaders then rejected the evolutionary path, plunging
the country into chaos.
Nevertheless, when I am asked whether perestroika succeeded or was
defeated, I reply: Perestroika won, because it brought the country to
a point from which there could be no return to the past.
In the West, the breakup of the Soviet Union was viewed as a total
victory that proved that the West did not need to change. Western
leaders were convinced that they were at the helm of the right system
and of a well-functioning, almost perfect economic model. Scholars
opined that history had ended. The "Washington Consensus," the dogma
of free markets, deregulation and balanced budgets at any cost, was
force-fed to the rest of the world.
But then came the economic crisis of 2008 and 2009, and it became
clear that the new Western model was an illusion that benefited
chiefly the very rich. Statistics show that the poor and the middle
class saw little or no benefit from the economic growth of the past
decades.
The current global crisis demonstrates that the leaders of major
powers, particularly the United States, had missed the signals that
called for a perestroika. The result is a crisis that is not just
financial and economic. It is political, too.
The model that emerged during the final decades of the 20th century
has turned out to be unsustainable. It was based on a drive for super-
profits and hyper-consumption for a few, on unrestrained exploitation
of resources and on social and environmental irresponsibility.
But if all the proposed solutions and action now come down to a mere
rebranding of the old system, we are bound to see another, perhaps
even greater upheaval down the road. The current model does not need
adjusting; it needs replacing. I have no ready-made prescriptions. But
I am convinced that a new model will emerge, one that will emphasize
public needs and public goods, such as a cleaner environment, well-
functioning infrastructure and public transportation, sound education
and health systems and affordable housing.
Elements of such a model already exist in some countries. Having
rejected the tutorials of the International Monetary Fund, countries
such as Malaysia and Brazil have achieved impressive rates of economic
growth. China and India have pulled hundreds of millions of people out
of poverty. By mobilizing state resources, France has built a system
of high-speed railways, while Canada provides free health care. Among
the new democracies, Slovenia and Slovakia have been able to mitigate
the social consequences of market reforms.
The time has come for "creative construction," for striking the right
balance between the government and the market, for integrating social
and environmental factors and demilitarizing the economy.
Washington will have to play a special role in this new perestroika,
not just because the United States wields great economic, political
and military power in today's global world, but because America was
the main architect, and America's elite the main beneficiary, of the
current world economic model. That model is now cracking and will,
sooner or later, be replaced. That will be a complex and painful
process for everyone, including the United States.
However different the problems that the Soviet Union confronted during
our perestroika and the challenges now facing the United States, the
need for new thinking makes these two eras similar. In our time, we
faced up to the main tasks of putting an end to the division of the
world, winding down the nuclear arms race and defusing conflicts. We
will cope with the new global challenges as well, but only if everyone
understands the need for real, cardinal change -- for a global
perestroika.
Mikhail Gorbachev, the last general secretary of the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union, heads the International Foundation for Socio-
Economic and Political Studies, a Moscow-based think tank.
Day Brown
> "The model that emerged during the final decades of the 20th century
> has turned out to be unsustainable."
>
> Gorbachev would have been much more forthright if he had written: The
> combination of the Free Plunder System and of Lemon Socialism has
> turned out to be unsustainable.
> However different the problems that the Soviet Union confronted during
> our perestroika and the challenges now facing the United States, the
> need for new thinking makes these two eras similar. In our time, we
> faced up to the main tasks of putting an end to the division of the
> world, winding down the nuclear arms race and defusing conflicts. We
> will cope with the new global challenges as well, but only if everyone
> understands the need for real, cardinal change -- for a global
> perestroika.
not expect that, but rather some kind of crisis exposing the self
delusion of the media that may well also lead to chaotic breakdown in
what has passed for civilization.
We can discuss these things on the net, and have some better idea of
history and current events, but we are not the majority- who favors
electing demagogues.
The Mandarins never knew there was a problem until the bricks in the
palace wall started flying over it. By then, it was too late, and yet
another empire went down the tubes like so many before it. The power
elites repeat history cause they never read it, but engage in constant
group think to justify their lavish lifestyles.
Given the risk of nukes Gorbachev refers to, smart people would avoid
living and working in rich target zones and prefer obscure rural areas,
but unlike the Medieval era, with broadband communications so that even
villagers can know what is going on.
f.barnes
> "The model that emerged during the final decades of the 20th century
> has turned out to be unsustainable."
>
> Gorbachev would have been much more forthright if he had written: The
> combination of the Free Plunder System and of Lemon Socialism has
> turned out to be unsustainable.
> =======================
>
It was a striving for affordable housing, for the "social good" of
making everybody a home owner that led to the mortgage disaster.
Without that effort there would have been no subprime mortgages and
hence no subprime mortgage disaster that brought down banks all over
the world and got us into this mess. The current model is just fine
if we can keep do-gooder idiots from messing with it. And of course
we need to come down hard on crooks and cheats whenever they are
caught.
Jeffrey Turner
Same nonsense, different day. Bankers sold mortgages because there was
money in it, and even the riskiest mortgages could be turned into triple
A rated bonds and sold.
> Without that effort there would have been no subprime mortgages and
> hence no subprime mortgage disaster that brought down banks all over
> the world and got us into this mess.
Pure fantasy.
> The current model is just fine
> if we can keep do-gooder idiots from messing with it. And of course
> we need to come down hard on crooks and cheats whenever they are
> caught.
Hilarious. Gorbachev knows a lot more than you ever will.
--Jeff
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire
Scotius
wrote:
>"The model that emerged during the final decades of the 20th century
>has turned out to be unsustainable."
>
>Gorbachev would have been much more forthright if he had written: The
>combination of the Free Plunder System and of Lemon Socialism has
>turned out to be unsustainable.
Exactly, but of course he isn't interested in honesty.
Everyone knows that this mythology about how the US works the
way it does is because it is capitalist, and the government really
does have everyone's best interests in mind is baloney.
Beware the man who talks about replacement of a system because
of the failure of criminal individuals.
>=======================
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/05/AR2009060501966_pf.html
>
>We Had Our Perestroika. It's High Time for Yours.
Really? Funny he'd say that. I don't suppose most people know
that Lenin himself used the words "perestroika" (restructuring) and
"glastnost" often.
The fact is, Gorbachev ruined the Soviet Union, and it's
ruination has in fact NOT been a benefit to the US.
>
>By Mikhail Gorbachev
>Sunday, June 7, 2009
>
>Years ago, as the Cold War was coming to an end, I said to my fellow
>leaders around the globe: The world is on the cusp of great events,
>and in the face of new challenges all of us will have to change, you
>as well as we. For the most part, the reaction was polite but
>skeptical silence.
>
>In recent years, however, during speaking tours in the United States
>before university audiences and business groups, I have often told
>listeners that I feel Americans need their own change -- a
>perestroika, not like the one in my country, but an American
>perestroika -- and the reaction has been markedly different. Halls
>filled with thousands of people have responded with applause.
...because they're full of gullible idiots, apparently. They
should ask Russians (not Gorbachev) how well Gorbachev's policies
worked for them.
>
>Over time, my remark has prompted all kinds of comments. Some have
>reacted with understanding. Others have objected, sometimes
>sarcastically, suggesting that I want the United States to experience
>upheaval, just like the former Soviet Union. In my country,
>particularly caustic reactions have come from the opponents of
>perestroika, people with short memories and a deficit of conscience.
>And although most of my critics surely understand that I am not
>equating the United States with the Soviet Union in its final years, I
>would like to explain my position.
>
>Our perestroika signaled the need for change in the Soviet Union, but
>it was not meant to suggest a capitulation to the U.S. model. Today,
>the need for a more far-reaching perestroika -- one for America and
>the world -- has become clearer than ever.
Here he goes... "the World". What baloney. The same kind of
baloney, in a way, that allows some people to insist the current
"financial crisis" is "global", when in fact it isn't even a real
crisis. Are the bankers suffering? No. That's because it isn't a
crisis for them, but rather an attempt to get more control.
>
>It is true that the need for change in the Soviet Union in the
>mid-1980s was urgent. The country was stifled by a lack of freedom,
>and the people -- particularly the educated class -- wanted to break
>the stranglehold of a system that had been built under Stalin.
Gorbachev admitted before the USSR collapsed that he was still
a believer in monolithic communism. He's probably said the same since.
>Millions of people were saying: "We can no longer live like this."
>
>We started with glasnost -- giving people a chance to speak out about
>their worries without fear. I never agreed with my great countryman
>Alexander Solzhenitsyn when he said that "Gorbachev's glasnost ruined
>everything."
Well, Solzhenyitsin told the truth. That's something that
Gorbachev doesn't do.
I remember Peter Jennings interviewing him, and remarking
"...but Gorbachev doesn't like to answer questions; he'd rather make
speeches.", which pretty much sums it up.
>Without glasnost, no changes would have occurred, and
>Solzhenitsyn would have ended his days in Vermont rather than in
>Russia.
>
>At first, we labored under the illusion that revamping the existing
>system -- changes within the "socialist model" -- would suffice. But
>the pushback from the Communist Party and the government bureaucracy
>was too strong. Toward the end of 1986, it became clear to me and my
>supporters that nothing less than the replacement of the system's
>building blocks was needed.
>
>We opted for free elections, political pluralism, freedom of religion
>and an economy with competition and private property. We sought to
>effect these changes in an evolutionary way and without bloodshed. We
>made mistakes. Important decisions were made too late, and we were
>unable to complete our perestroika.
>
>Two conspiracies hijacked the changes -- the attempted coup in August
>1991, organized by the hard-line opponents of our reforms, which ended
>up weakening my position as president, and the subsequent agreement
>among the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus to dissolve the
>Union. Russia's leaders then rejected the evolutionary path, plunging
>the country into chaos.
>
>Nevertheless, when I am asked whether perestroika succeeded or was
>defeated, I reply: Perestroika won, because it brought the country to
>a point from which there could be no return to the past.
...and without a better future. Ridiculous. Of course, this is
the sort of thing he's kind of famous for, isn't it?
He got the US to sign "sort of peace treaties" that ended up
not accomplishing anything in actual arms reduction, with promises of
peace but without any real reduction in the nuclear (and other)
threats. What kind of accomplishment is that?
Gorbachev may or may not have gotten Russia to the "point of
no return", but it's obvious that Russia was no better off at that
point than they had been previously, or perhaps even worse off.
Maybe someone should tell this character "Uh... we'll do our
own decision making".
And one more thought... leave it to a guy who says he believes
in monolithic communism to ignore the fact that the hi-jacking of
America from the people happened under Bush, officially, and that if
the people had stood up against the Bush regime, none of it could have
gone on. Gorbachev wouldn't say that though, because that would be
like saying people have the right to abolish governments which don't
have their trust, and Gorbachev "believes" in government authority, so
long as it's in what he considers his interests to believe in it.
>
>In the West, the breakup of the Soviet Union was viewed as a total
>victory that proved that the West did not need to change. Western
>leaders were convinced that they were at the helm of the right system
Bull. Gorbachev knows that there were crooks mostly in charge
of the West, and that's what was wrong with it, and still is, and he's
pretending it's the fault of "the system".
>and of a well-functioning, almost perfect economic model. Scholars
>opined that history had ended. The "Washington Consensus," the dogma
>of free markets, deregulation and balanced budgets at any cost, was
>force-fed to the rest of the world.
No, it wasn't "force fed". In countries where crooks thought
that propaganda looked good for them to use, they used it.
Striking a "balance" between government and business means
that government must be involved in all business, which is fascism
actually. If gorbachev wants to make that argument, he should have the
nerve to say it openly (and of course be laughed at).
>
>Washington will have to play a special role in this new perestroika,
>not just because the United States wields great economic, political
>and military power in today's global world, but because America was
>the main architect, and America's elite the main beneficiary, of the
>current world economic model. That model is now cracking and will,
>sooner or later, be replaced. That will be a complex and painful
>process for everyone, including the United States.
Massive credit card debt by individuals, irresponsibility in
general, high interest rates, hedge funds etc are not the fault of
"the system". These things already go against common sense and in some
cases are even against existing laws. To say otherwise is to lie.
"The system" isn't what's out of whack, and we don't need
opportunists to advise on how to "fix" it.
Scotius
>Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
>
>>"The model that emerged during the final decades of the 20th century
>>has turned out to be unsustainable."
>>
>>Gorbachev would have been much more forthright if he had written: The
>>combination of the Free Plunder System and of Lemon Socialism has
>>turned out to be unsustainable.
>
> Commu/socialism didn't work because it was based on a
> faulty model of human psychology. Individual and
> emergent collective behavior didn't fit the required
> parameters for a sustainable commu/socialist economy
> and the supporting social structure.
>
> Capitalism, especially the laissez-faire derivatives,
> are also based on a faulty model of human psychology.
> The human actors in a 'pure' capitalist environment
> aren't nearly so smart, wise, logical or circumspect
> as they'd NEED to be in order to make such systems
> sustainable and stable enough to meed modern 1st-world
> needs and standards. We ain't "gentlemen farmers" or
> attuned to what's REALLY 'enlightened self interest'.
>
> The cure for the erratic, contradicted, oft-irrational
> common human - a composite, dynamic economic system
> that isn't foolish enough to try being 'pure' anything
> or to assume that yesterdays rules and paradigms are
> gonna be good today and forever.
>
> The 1929 collapse had a lot to do with bad practices
> in the stock markets. So, over the years, we put a
> lot of disaster-proofing into the stock markets. Alas,
> the 2008 disaster came from a rather different
> direction - grossly under-managed banks. Why ?
> Because the post-'27 rules made it harder to get
> rich quick in stocks ... so the grandsons of the
> 1927 fools decided to get rich quick in real-estate
> loans and credit cards instead.
>
> The rules and paradigms weren't dynamic ... yesterdays
> fixes for yesterdays problems didn't help us. We were
> too slow in seeing and dealing with a whole NEW way
> to screw things up.
>
> As for the underlying 'system' ... SOME things work
> best from a capitalist, even relatively 'pure' market/
> capitalist, direction while OTHER things work best
> from a more 'socialist' direction. We are free to
> mix and match too ... who CARES if there's some
> socialism in our capitalism or capitalism in our
> socialism .... sounds like the old 'Reeses Peanut-
> Butter Cup' ad ...
>
> Mix & match ... and re-evaluate every few years and
> RE-mix & match as needed. The GOAL is a profitible,
> responsive, fairly stable economy that offers
> plenty of opportunities for grand success and
> few opportunities for system-crushing failure.
>
> We can't GET that if we're hung-up on 'pure'
> economic ideologies ... just as attempts at
> 'pure' political, social and religious
> systems have always proven disasterous.
>
> Humans ain't anywhere NEAR 'pure' enough
> for 'pure' ANYTHING in that neck of the
> woods. We are not robots. We are Darwinian
> survival machines ... and that means we
> are full of contradictions, special cases
> and 'best guesses' which aren't always
> right.
>
Gorby knows very well that there's nothing inherently wrong
with the US "system". He pretends to believe it's the system's fault
that existing laws and regulations were not enforced.
He's a master of seeking what he considers profitable change
(for himself) by blaming a "system" rather than by blaming the crooks
who make systems look bad, and that's all he is.
Bret Cahill
Unlike most American serfs, he knows the decadent oilgarchy is coming
down.
Bret Cahill
Scotius
Also unlike most people, he's devious enough to think of how
to try to capitalize (pardon the pun) on it.
Day Brown
>>> Gorby knows very well that there's nothing inherently wrong
>>> with the US "system".
>> Unlike most American serfs, he knows the decadent oilgarchy is coming
>> down.
>
> to try to capitalize (pardon the pun) on it.
common after the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, and even more so in light of the
recent debacle. But I'm not a prophet. Altho, as I outline in the topic-
"Its the food stupid", the population and its leadership are no longer,
if they ever were, rational enuf to run a stable system.
The decadent oligarch diet is just as contaminated and deficient. They
raise their kids on the same sugar cereals, junkfood, and soda, and
despite the best schools that money can buy, academic performance still
goes down. Education is necessary, but not sufficient.
Not even the oligarchs are rational enuf to know what is in their own
best interest. While I'm sure many would be gratified to see them all
dragged out to be shot, I'm also sure they'd come to regret the total
collapse of the economic system that results and the famine killing off
so many of the 'oppressed' they now feel for.
Day Brown
> "Oligarchs" aren't gonna rule America after it goes
> to pieces.
>
> It's gonna be the military.
maybe. What are they gonna pay the military with? Nice lithographs
of dead presidents? Nobody has the gold. I recall that after Katrina how
the police went home to protect their own families.
Robt. Kaplan, "Imperial Grunts" reports half the Green Berets grew up on
family farms. This but 1% of the total population providing 50% of the
nation's most competent soldiers.
Since I live in the Ozarks, which is still all family farms, I know farm
boys, and you can see the diff in the high school class photos. less
than 10% are lard butts. And while you may be correct, it may also turn
out to be relatively independent local "well regulated militias" run by
the farm boys and their buddies from the military that they know have
their heads screwed on straight.
Like New Orleans, they'll let the cities, which would be dangerous
sniper territory, to twist in the wind while they setup defensible
perimeters in rural land... where they have the soil, timber, and other
resources that can support their families.
> Not pleasant.
Oh, for sure. Mass starvation. The diff with the farm boy militia, is
that they also know how to grow their own food.
Jeffrey Turner
If the system let the rules go unenforced for years, then there's
something wrong with the system. There's not enough independent
oversight somewhere. The system didn't catch the people who weren't
enforcing the rules.
--Jeff
Day Brown
with the resources to reorganize do so. As we see the Baltic nations did
after the collapse of the USSR.
As in so many other things, California would prolly go first, but with
the North, where the money and water is, seceding from the south where
the welfare and illegals are.
Similarly, I saw a piece on some in Long Island who want to secede from
New York; again the money wanting to leave the welfare. TX,LA,OK, & AR
mite form a coalition because, after all, they have oil and natural gas.
A problem a tyrant take over would have promising pussy to the troops is
that today, so many troops already have cunts. And while the grunts will
hesitate to shoot that which they hope to fuck later, the cunt wont. It
usta be different in the days before deadly STDs, that women knew they'd
survive rape. But now, Smith & Wesson gives them an alternative.
Last year, a Cherokee witch filled my freezer with venison cause she
caught an intruder in her back yard. Had it been a biped, that wouldda
got shot as well, but she wouldnt have dressed it out in her bathtub.
I'm not talking about Ozark bunker boys in cammy jammies. You find the
abandoned bunkers all over the back woods. They can shoot, but cant
figure out how to make money or grow food. There are those here who can
shoot, as well as organize.
If we see total collapse, some cities would become free fire zones like
Beruit or Kosovu. But others, especially those with more homogeneous
populations and the fertile farm land around to support them, will, as
Vilna, Tallin, and Riga did, quickly reorganize after throwing out the
corrupt and incompetent bureaucrats.
There was a time too, when the Byzantine empire existed largely in name
only, where provinces did not openly rebel, but its leaders were quietly
given the tokens of central authority as if the emperor had chosen them,
and business went on pretty much as always, but with lower, or no taxes.
The emperor also found it useful to grant the north half of Illrycium a
deal whereas the knights were given title to the land if they'd defend
it from the barbarians across the Danube, and send sons to enlist in the
Legions. These military families were the ancestors of the Serbs, who
quickly took over all the military hardware of the Yugoslavian republic,
and then began kicking all the non-Serbs out.
We also see today how transnationals have made deals with local & state
governments the feds had no part in, and who do not want the feds to
interfere with business. They may have the resources to organize their
own security forces- and if the feds are as incompetent and corrupt as
many say, many troops will find that employment preferable.
If there is a global run on the dollar, which does not yet seem likely,
the variety of responses like those outlined above will challenge any
kind of centrally planned tyranny. You still get to vote with your feet.
Scotius
wrote:
Of course the oligarchs aren't rational. They've tried several
times through fairly recent history to try to set up their ideal
state, where they are the overlords and everyone else is a serf, and
they always fail and always will.
Scotius
The rules are part of the system; if the rules aren't being
enforced it isn't because there's anything wrong with the system. That
argument presumes that there must be some "system" that can take out
the potential for human error. If there is, you wouldn't want to live
under it.
Day Brown
> Of course the oligarchs aren't rational. They've tried several
> times through fairly recent history to try to set up their ideal
> state, where they are the overlords and everyone else is a serf, and
> they always fail and always will.
President Soetoro
Spoken like a true marxist!
Day Brown
> The rules are part of the system; if the rules aren't being
> enforced it isn't because there's anything wrong with the system. That
> argument presumes that there must be some "system" that can take out
> the potential for human error. If there is, you wouldn't want to live
> under it.
properly regulate free markets is a symptom of the disease. That is not
going to be cured by shifting political policy Left or Right. Smart guys
will always see how to exploit it.
The revolutionary enlightenment Gorby speaks of is already going on
among some women in healthcare who've been keeping up with the science
on childhood mental development. Turns out, you cant raise kids on sugar
cereals, junkfood and soda and then expect as many to develop maximal
mental functionality. And since this has been going on for 50 years now,
the adults are less able to run a truly functional democracy.
Which is why demagoguery works so much better than rational discourse.
Pers3id
news:6d82ddf8-2076-4a3e...@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
Marxism.. it's the new capitalism. A world of debt slaves
and zombie banks animated by the bourgeoise.. Workers, Wake Up!
--
Build a banker a fire and keep him warm for the night. Set a
banker on fire and keep him warm for the rest of his life (and
he keeps you warm too).
Scotius
wrote:
>Scotius wrote:
>> The rules are part of the system; if the rules aren't being
>> enforced it isn't because there's anything wrong with the system. That
>> argument presumes that there must be some "system" that can take out
>> the potential for human error. If there is, you wouldn't want to live
>> under it.
>We know academic and moral standards have been falling. The failure to
>properly regulate free markets is a symptom of the disease. That is not
>going to be cured by shifting political policy Left or Right. Smart guys
>will always see how to exploit it.
Exactly. In ANY system there are inherent flaws. Honesty is
the weapon to be used, not the building of a new system.
liberal
Nope. But thanks for trying. The problem was phoney mortgages written
by criminal bankers and mortgage brokers to people who couldn't
actually qualify, because said mortgages were then bundled as mortgage
derived securities, rated triple A by bribed ratings firms, and sold
to investment bankers who knew the promised high ROIs were little more
than a variation of a Ponzi scheme.
Day Brown
> On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:16:42 -0500, Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Scotius wrote:
>>> The rules are part of the system; if the rules aren't being
>>> enforced it isn't because there's anything wrong with the system. That
>>> argument presumes that there must be some "system" that can take out
>>> the potential for human error. If there is, you wouldn't want to live
>>> under it.
>> We know academic and moral standards have been falling. The failure to
>> properly regulate free markets is a symptom of the disease. That is not
>> going to be cured by shifting political policy Left or Right. Smart guys
>> will always see how to exploit it.
>
> Exactly. In ANY system there are inherent flaws. Honesty is
> the weapon to be used, not the building of a new system.
technique to detect when someone if bullshitting you. There's also
'Never Be Lied to Again', both of which rely on facial expression and
body language hominids inherited from primates, written in the DNA of
the autonomic nervous system.
Which means that even a practiced liar still exhibits some of the
muscles and movements that reveal truth cause the more primitive
primates cant lie.
Never mind the use of EEG and fMRI brain scans. Torture is obsolete.