[news] tight credit market my fat patootie
boots
"We are in the midst of a global financial crisis, and tight credit
markets have made it harder for businesses to borrow the money they
need to meet their payrolls, grow, and create new jobs"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7715873.stm
Hello, is this still Earth, and is this still America?
I am under the impression that the method businesses here use for
obtaining startup capital is to sell stock to investors. Apparently
though, businesses are expected to be perpetual debtors since startup
capital is never enough to see them move to profitability.
They need to borrow money to meet their payrolls? They need to borrow
money to grow?
Businesses grow by being successful. They become successful by
finding a need and filling it at a price that leaves them needing more
people to create the goods the market wants.
Apparently that is the thinking of the past. Now businesses make a
profit by borrowing money. How does that work?
--
Don't read this crap... oops, too late!
[superstitious heathen grade 8]
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
I think your definition of "credit" is too narrow.
You should be looking at the financing of inventories and the delay
between wholesale sales to a business and the retail sale of those
goods to the consumer. (and subsequent payments)
It all comes down to cash flow and cash reserves. Most businesses have
little or no cash reserves and operate on cash as a flow variable. Any
shortfalls in the flow are made up, short to medium term by using a
line of credit. Cash that is just sitting around, waiting to pay a
supplier or an employee is not being productive and is not seen as a
working capital input. Cash reserves are usually invested to gain some
return or lent out to finance some other business and a rate of
interest is paid on that.
What's happened is that the ability to borrow short term to cover
shortages in cash flow has dried up. when this happens, companies must
use their cash reserves to cover those short term shortfalls and they
pull that money back from the credit market. this causes other
companies to have the same problems and the cycle repeats itself.
Lines of credit for commercial ventures have been around since about
the 1300's in the Western model and go as far back as the Romans and
their trade economy. Some people invested for a share of the profit,
and when enough of those people got together they were substantial
enough that others would LEND money to the venture based on some
future return (interest) on that money.
Pies de Arcilla
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> What's happened is that the ability to borrow short term to cover
> shortages in cash flow has dried up. when this happens, companies must
> use their cash reserves to cover those short term shortfalls and they
> pull that money back from the credit market. this causes other
> companies to have the same problems and the cycle repeats itself.
That's an interesting story, and maybe I'm just as clueless as boots,
but I don't see anything special happening. I mean, I'm still getting
a paycheck; I'm still using my credit card to pay for everything, and
the banks I deal with are still in business. The stock market seems to
reflect an average valuation, not a doomsday forecast.
If this stuff was literally happening, wouldn't there be chaos and
rioting in the streets?
I'm coming to the conclusion that the bailout was just extreme
hysteria over a little more post-2000 bubble-deflating.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Well it is hard to tell if you are boiling to death if are sitting in
the pot and the heat is turned up gradually.
My view is that you will not see any big signs of recession between
now and Dec. 25, mostly because those inventories and orders have a 6
month or more history behind them. Consumers will still fuel the
economy till then.
After the December 25th, things could get a little strange. If orders
for spring and summer inventories are down then you will see some
economic downturn in some sectors. Auto sector will be worse hit
because they already have tons of inventory sitting on the ground. If
they discount the 2008 models then no one will buy the 2009's and you
get back into the same problem next year. If they could come to an
agreement with the feds to shut down the plants for say 3 to 6 months
to get rid of inventory, re tool and re think their process, with the
feds picking up the tab to pay workers while they are not working, I
think they would have a chance. They also need to buy out older
workers, who have the highest benefit consumption so that they can get
new lower cost workers in to reduce their costs ( If you folks had
Canadian style health-care you would not have nearly such problems in
this sector.)
The retail end of life could be really interesting. Most retail stuff
you see in stores is imported. If retail inventory orders fall, the
most affected folks domestically are the domestic wholesale, importer
people and the transportation industry. You will not see much affected
beyond that, except the foreign exchange market. But as retail aims
for lower sales, it sheds workers, part and full time, to increase
profitability. so you will have masses of retail workers laid off
after 12/25, most of whom will not be able to find employment and most
who will not qualify for unemployment benefits. This sector and the
people who do warehousing and distribution will be hardest hit. As
these people go out of work, they will drag the rest of the economy
with them, incrementally.
Where should those retail workers go? They need to be taken out of the
picture and given something to do. Massive retraining efforts need to
take place and they need to be paid while they are being retrained, so
the economy can still function. In 2 to 3 years things should be
getting back to a more sane level.
You've had two or three things that have happened in the past year
that have put the US in this position, so you need a people based
approach to getting back on your feet. For those who say, screw'em
it's their own fault, just remember, you could be in the same boat,
sooner than you think. I know you folks think of yourselves as
individuals, but individuals can only form a market, they cannot fuel
a modern economy with all its needs.
The way I see it anyway.
boots
The shitstorm of buy-now-pay-later has been brewing since shortly
after the end of WW2. This might not be the start of it, but sooner
or later it'll pop. I suspect this is the start of it because similar
economic grief is going on worldwide. We'll see. I've seen reports
of the old "layaway" plan coming back, that's cause for some hope but
it feels like too little too late. If you want a real economic
indicator that can't be faked keep an eye on the news for reports of
homeless camps, they've been forming (according to the reports I've
read in reputable sources) in California up and down the coast
already.
Here's a little financial security quiz:
1) Do you own your home or do you have a mortgage?
2) Do you own your vehicle or do you make payments?
3) Do you have credit card debt you don't keep at zero monthly?
4) Is it possible that you could lose your job?
5) If you lost your job how long would it take you to find another?
6) How long can you survive on zero income?
7) If the dollar experiences massive inflation/devaluation as has
happened in some countries, what will you live on?
The term "financial security" is an oxymoron.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
1,2, and 3 really depend on 4. 5 depends on your level of
specialization, the more specialized the lower the likelyhood. 6
depends on 5. 7 is out of your control.
So to keep 1, 2 and 3 you need to become the most flexible well
trained worker you can possible be, then you can avoid 5 and 6 as bst
you can.
7 is out of your control and pretty much a crap shoot so don't miss
much sleep over it, because you will be in thesame boat as everyone
else.
"The term "financial security" is an oxymoron. "
True, you should be looking at asset security where you are the asset.
Towse
> depends on 5. 7 is out of your control.
6. depends on what sorts of $$ and other marketable goods you squirreled
away during your seven years of great plenty. People with zero savings
can survive for a shorter period of time than people with savings.
Another factor is whether you are willing to downscale your lifestyle
when your funding/job dries up. Cut back! Cut back! Change to frozen
orange juice if you're used to fresh squeezed. Give up the frozen orange
juice if you're short of cash.
I knew a family where the family lost what had been steady, reliable
income. The wife hadn't worked for years. They couldn't/wouldn't give up
the beach house. And they continued on hoping that things would work
out. Eventually they lost the beach house. They lost the house. The wife
had to get a job. And their life was considerably downscaled.
If they'd downscaled immediately, would it have helped?
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
The wife should have upgraded skills and gone back to work if they
wanted to keep the beach house, the beach house was a lux good. Now
instead of working toward something , they're working in an atmosphere
of resentment.
There seems to be a lot of this economic paralysis going on right now:
people watching things happen to them and not taking the appropriate
action.
serenebabe
Great educational piece on This American Life for those of us who need
it explained in *really* basic terms:
Another Frightening Show About the Economy
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=365
--
It's All About We! (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.net/ - new 10/27
Pies de Arcilla
Koolc...@smurfsareus.xxx wrote:
> On Nov 9, 12:39�am, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 8:11�am, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
> >
> > <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > What's happened is that the ability to borrow short term to cover
> > > shortages in cash flow has dried up. when this happens, companies must
> > > use their cash reserves to cover those short term shortfalls and they
> > > pull that money back from the credit market. this causes other
> > > companies to have the same problems and the cycle repeats itself.
> >
> > That's an interesting story, and maybe I'm just as clueless as boots,
> > but I don't see anything special happening. I mean, I'm still getting
> > a paycheck; I'm still using my credit card to pay for everything, and
> > the banks I deal with are still in business. The stock market seems to
> > reflect an average valuation, not a doomsday forecast.
> >
> > If this stuff was literally happening, wouldn't there be chaos and
> > rioting in the streets?
> >
> > I'm coming to the conclusion that the bailout was just extreme
> > hysteria over a little more post-2000 bubble-deflating.
>
> Well it is hard to tell if you are boiling to death if are sitting in
> the pot and the heat is turned up gradually.
>
> My view is that you will not see any big signs of recession between
> now and Dec. 25, mostly because those inventories and orders have a 6
> month or more history behind them. Consumers will still fuel the
> economy till then.
Well, I want to draw a distinction here. I'm not suggesting that there
is no or will be no recession. I'm saying I'm starting to suspect all
the talk about a CRISIS and our credit system seizing up and
capitalism failing is hysterical BS.
A little tightening in the credit markets is not the same thing at all
as a runaway feedback loop that people have been telling scary stories
about, like yours.
Pies de Arcilla
There's no real way to tell without trying, because the job market has
probably changed in the last few months. If you have a job that's
going fine, like me, you're probably not in a rush to test the waters.
Most people don't take another job immediately because they don't have
to grab the first thing available.
boots
If you accept the view that random chance exists then everything is
pretty much a crap shoot.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Are you thinking random chance or are you thinking chaos?
After birth, not too much in life is random, you become a product of
your environment not random events. Random events then are limited to
large hard objects hitting the earth and such.
boots
> People with zero savings
>can survive for a shorter period of time than people with savings.
That's certainly the conventional view.
Of course if you have massive levels of savings then overnight the
kind of inflation that has hit Zimbabwe makes it all worthless, well
there you are, you have nothing but you've only learnt how to live
with something. On the other hand the poor have already learnt how to
live on basically nothing, so you're the one at a disadvantage.
>Another factor is whether you are willing to downscale your lifestyle
>when your funding/job dries up. Cut back! Cut back! Change to frozen
>orange juice if you're used to fresh squeezed. Give up the frozen orange
>juice if you're short of cash.
I dislike frozen orange juice, and it doesn't take constant amounts of
citrus to prevent scurvey... what I'm saying is that you might be
better off both financially and physically with occasional real orange
juice and real steak than with constant fake orange juice and
cardboard hamburgers. Some of it is just false economy.
>I knew a family where the family lost what had been steady, reliable
>income. The wife hadn't worked for years. They couldn't/wouldn't give up
>the beach house. And they continued on hoping that things would work
>out. Eventually they lost the beach house. They lost the house. The wife
>had to get a job. And their life was considerably downscaled.
>
>If they'd downscaled immediately, would it have helped?
People can only do what their lives have taught them how to do. From
the synopsis it sounds as if they needed to lose the beach house --
some folks don't accept wakeup calls.
boots
Sorry John, but going back to work is only an effective strategy when
there are jobs.
>if they
>wanted to keep the beach house, the beach house was a lux good. Now
>instead of working toward something , they're working in an atmosphere
>of resentment.
Where'd the atmosphere of resentment come from? Did somebody dump it
on their lawn, or did they make it themselves?
>There seems to be a lot of this economic paralysis going on right now:
>people watching things happen to them and not taking the appropriate
>action.
The question might come down to what "appropriate action" is. What
used to be appropriate, in the early 1990s for example when investing
in tech startups was appropriate, may not have been appropriate in the
late 1920s when downsizing would've been appropriate.
We learn what is appropriate over time, but times change and
flexibility can be important at those little inflection points.
boots
>On Nov 9, 10:31 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> 5) If you lost your job how long would it take you to find another?
>
>There's no real way to tell without trying, because the job market has
>probably changed in the last few months. If you have a job that's
>going fine, like me, you're probably not in a rush to test the waters.
Taking a nap then.
>Most people don't take another job immediately because they don't have
>to grab the first thing available.
Some of them discover later when their savings are gone and their
credit is maxed that they should've grabbed the first thing available,
usually people who were taking naps instead of keeping an escape-job
lined up.
boots
>
>
>Koolc...@smurfsareus.xxx wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 12:39?am, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 8, 8:11?am, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
Been to Zimbabwe lately, or Iceland? For years people have been
harping on the value of globalization, and in my opinion they're about
to have the value of globalization shoved up their arses.
boots
The universe is either based on order or it is based on chaos.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
'.....and in my opinion they're about
to have the value of globalization shoved up their arses. '
Can you explain the cause and effect linkages with some examples or
details, because I'm not seeing them? What's your insight?
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
Prove it. ;-)
boots
Maybe a few, but this is just a quick scratch at the surface:
Widespread simultaneous reports of recessionary economies.
Economic breakdown and/or runaway inflation in Zimbabwe and recently
Iceland, who's next?
China implements stimulus package to reverse slowdown... exports have
been a large part of their economy but if everybody else is in
recession and not buying, that leaves them idle. China holds (or
held, I'm not current on which) large amounts of American bonds, if
they get in a bind and need to sell that will ripple. Just a few
years ago the Chinese bond issue was something that was considered a
possible weapon against the US, but now they'd be shooting themselves
in the foot.
Piracy in the Atlantic and drug cartel militance in South America (esp
Mexico) indicate vacuum-filling.
> What's your insight?
The voices man, the voices.
The whole concept of globalization, that a global economy will emerge
from the interdependencies of individual national economies, leads to
some fairly inescapable conclusions about what will happen when the
yeast culture fills the bottle, Pops. In 1929 it was just the US, but
now nothing is just the US, communication and exchange have linked the
world too tightly for that.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
That last paragraph, are you saying that's not a good thing? Remember,
there are only a finite amount of resources to make things out of. Up
to now most economies have been built on trading things they could
make a surplus of and selling them to places that did not have the
means to make the stuff. That's all changed. most places have the
means to make stuff now if there is any sort of political stability.
So the question now becomes where can those things be made for the
least possible costs in production runs that appeal to the largest
number of buyers.
Grand Mal
"Koolc...@smurfsareus.xxx" <john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:be3bf029-92fa-411e...@e38g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
-Prove it. ;-)
Your new truck lost a quarter of it's value when you drove it off the lot.
That's because the universe tends to chaos.
boots
Let me put it another way. Either the universe is based on order or
it is not. Not-order is chaos.
Towse
The problems in Zimbabwe have nothing to do with globalization.
boots
boots sed:
>> The whole concept of globalization, that a global economy will emerge
>> from the interdependencies of individual national economies, leads to
>> some fairly inescapable conclusions about what will happen when the
>> yeast culture fills the bottle, Pops. In 1929 it was just the US, but
>> now nothing is just the US, communication and exchange have linked the
>> world too tightly for that.
>That last paragraph, are you saying that's not a good thing?
Good things are not always painless... if you lose a hand to save your
body from death by gangrene, that might be a good thing. The world
has been running on the illusion that a number of separate open
economic systems exist, and it's about to bump up against the reality
that the planet is a single closed economic system. Once stability is
achieved I expect the situation to be better than it was previously,
but in the meantime it's looking fairly gangrenous to me. Mad-Max
gangrenous, world in a stadium at halftime during Katrina gangrenous.
> Remember,
>there are only a finite amount of resources to make things out of.
That is the conventional view, yes. It supports the "single closed
economic system" view. It's a view that seems to based on a very
small number of assumptions, assumptions that only madmen question.
> Up
>to now most economies have been built on trading things they could
>make a surplus of and selling them to places that did not have the
>means to make the stuff. That's all changed. most places have the
>means to make stuff now if there is any sort of political stability.
>So the question now becomes where can those things be made for the
>least possible costs in production runs that appeal to the largest
>number of buyers.
That's entirely the wrong question, it's the way industry has run in
the past -- how cheap can we make this shit and still sell it? It's
time to reverse priorities and say how good can we make this stuff and
afford to stay in business. That reversal won't happen with the
currently accepted value-set in place, and the currently accepted
value-set won't change until it becomes unprofitable.
But, I don't think that's the crux of it just now. Just now I
perceive that a worldwide depression is about to come into full bloom,
and I think that the only thing that can prevent it is invention.
Invention has been on a downswing and it seems pretty much at nadir.
There's been innovation, sure -- better widgets, cellphones, ipods,
things like that. But real invention has been in hibernation as far
as I can tell.
Pragmatism seems to have fallen by the wayside in favor of
certification, people seem to be concentrating on doing whatever they
are told they should do in order to get that high paying job that will
see them retired and out of the rat-race asap. Things are done in the
prescribed manner as dictated by the gurus of the past, who are now
over the hill and whose warm bodies are teaching hordes of wide-eyed
young people how it is. But they aren't letting them know that the
whole process is a downward spiral.
The entire socio-economic system of the US is, as far as I can tell,
fucked beyond redemption. It's gimme, gimme, gimme, I got mine if you
don't have yours fuck off and die, gimme, gotta have the latest toys,
gotta build that retirement account, gotta show increasing quarter
over quarter profit levels, gotta be the bigshot to get out of the
race. People gasping in desperation to become wealthy, people who
have no idea how much money "wealthy" means in dollars, people who
have never for a moment considered what would happen to their
so-called wealth in a hyperinflated economy.
Everybody wants to get out of the race, but nobody seems to realize
that you can just stop running.
boots
I hope I didn't imply that Zimbabwe's situation was caused by
globalization, I just used it as an example of runaway inflation. I'm
not sure what has caused Iceland's current situation but it doesn't
sound like fun.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
I don't know, but I think what ever the problem is that you're having
today could be cleared up in a few days by some extra bran flakes and
stronger coffee for breakfast. Soft fruits will help too.
Pies de Arcilla
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I don't know, but I think what ever the problem is that you're having
> today could be cleared up in a few days by some extra bran flakes and
> stronger coffee for breakfast. Soft fruits will help too.
Bananas.
But sometimes I feel cranky too.
Like, I noticed that all the shower curtains in the store come from
China, and there are two kinds:
1. Mold/mildew resistant.
2. Rust resistant.
But not both!
$Zero
> "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx" <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >On Nov 10, 7:03 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
[...]
> >Are you thinking random chance or are you thinking chaos?
>
> >After birth, not too much in life is random, you become a product of
> >your environment not random events. Random events then are limited to
> >large hard objects hitting the earth and such.
>
> The universe is either based on order or it is based on chaos.
what if it's based on Love?
http://blurbees.blogspot.com/2007/08/sotd-0026.html
-$Zero...
the most tears of joy ever cried in America
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/a6ff60d73fe75856
$Zero
> "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx" <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
> >Remember,
> >there are only a finite amount of resources to make things out of.
yikes.
> >Remember,
> >there are only a finite amount of resources to make things out of.
>
> That is the conventional view, yes. It supports the "single closed
> economic system" view. It's a view that seems to based on a very
> small number of assumptions, assumptions that only madmen question.
that'd be me!
but seriously, you're both overlooking the infinite which is _within_
the finite.
(the value of pi comes to mind, for instance)
not to mention dismissing the abstract in favor of "the concrete".
for instance, the creation of art and the abstract economies that
arise out of it.
by far, resource-wise and pollution-wise, art is one of the most
efficient economies ever developed.
music, for instance.
dance, dread-mongers, dance!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfKdbWwruY
-$Zero...
POLL -- what kinds of people SHOULD become president?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/98a51623de285287
boots
>On Nov 10, 7:52 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx" <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >On Nov 10, 7:03 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> >Are you thinking random chance or are you thinking chaos?
>>
>> >After birth, not too much in life is random, you become a product of
>> >your environment not random events. Random events then are limited to
>> >large hard objects hitting the earth and such.
>>
>> The universe is either based on order or it is based on chaos.
>
>what if it's based on Love?
It actually seems to be based on greed and laziness, but those in turn
are based on profit and efficiency and character or lack of character,
so who knows what's at the bottom of the based-on pyramid? It could
be Love, or animal crackers for that matter.
Still, at some point in the hierarchy, the tree splits and one side
goes to order while the other side is chaos.
Of course this is all my view, or opinion, and I am both ignorant and
mad so people who try to beat my ass over some comment they choose to
take out of context will sooner or later find themselves looking
fairly silly. Silly is nice, kind of like Love innit.
boots
Flummoxed are ya?
Get Alan to give you some private tutoring. He's at least brief and
to the point. Try "Rubbish". Try "Bollocks".
You'll figure it out, really.
boots
>On Nov 10, 11:09 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx" <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> >Remember,
>> >there are only a finite amount of resources to make things out of.
>
>yikes.
>
>
>> >Remember,
>> >there are only a finite amount of resources to make things out of.
>>
>> That is the conventional view, yes. It supports the "single closed
>> economic system" view. It's a view that seems to based on a very
>> small number of assumptions, assumptions that only madmen question.
>
>that'd be me!
>
>but seriously, you're both overlooking the infinite which is _within_
>the finite.
You're wasting your time if that's aimed at me.
It can't be described. How could it possibly be described? A world
that creates itself from inside out? Forget about it. Words aren't
up to the job. You have to run deep into the metaphorest to find a
place where the pope shits bears and then make popebear marks on the
walls to even get close, and close still isn't near good enough to get
the basic idea across, much less anything resembling a definition or
explanation. Shit happens, just ask the poop, it'll give you the
straight bear, no kidding.
The infinite does not exist within the finite so much as define it,
which is to say it's all farily indefinite. That's a play on words,
son (as ol' Foghorn would say).
When cause and effect are both the result of some hallucinogenic Alice
named oh.my. well there you are, fucked from the go.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Nov 10, 11:09 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> > "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx" <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > >Remember,
> > >there are only a finite amount of resources to make things out of.
>
> yikes.
>
> > >Remember,
> > >there are only a finite amount of resources to make things out of.
>
> > That is the conventional view, yes. It supports the "single closed
> > economic system" view. It's a view that seems to based on a very
> > small number of assumptions, assumptions that only madmen question.
>
> that'd be me!
>
> but seriously, you're both overlooking the infinite which is _within_
> the finite.
>
> (the value of pi comes to mind, for instance)
Pi is the nuemerical representation of a concept and as such does not
exist in the material (not meaning that in a bad way ) world, but can
be refered to in the material world as an intelectual tool
>
> not to mention dismissing the abstract in favor of "the concrete".
>
> for instance, the creation of art and the abstract economies that
> arise out of it.
Intellectual economies are what you are talking about. The greed for
knowledge. You can produce intellect but you can only consume it's
products, not the intellect itself. It sort of works like one of those
famous trust funds where the recipient only gets the interest on the
interest and never touches the principle at all.
There are some religious economies that work on that. Grow your own
food, reject materialism and pursue truth ( not that religious shit )
and knowledge. You will be wealth of mind but living in rags.
I can't think of the fellow's name right now but it reminds me of that
Indian mathematician who came up with a proof using almost exclusively
a self taught education.
John Ashby
> I can't think of the fellow's name right now but it reminds me of that
> Indian mathematician who came up with a proof using almost exclusively
> a self taught education.
Ramanujan.
john
boots
A guy starts with observation and thinking, no telling what he's
likely to come up with.
What I've read about Tesla gives me to suspect that he had a slightly
different view of energy than the conventional view. Not that I
understand it, but it's interesting.
It's also interesting to note that his latter researches were poleaxed
for economic reasons rather than impracticality, profit profit profit
makes the world go round.
Well, until lately anyway, no telling what's going on at the moment,
it could be financial armageddon or a cyclical hiccough.
$Zero
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 11:38 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 11:09 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> > > "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx" <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > >Remember,
> > > >there are only a finite amount of resources to make things out of.
>
> > yikes.
>
> > > >Remember,
> > > >there are only a finite amount of resources to make things out of.
>
> > > That is the conventional view, yes. It supports the "single closed
> > > economic system" view. It's a view that seems to based on a very
> > > small number of assumptions, assumptions that only madmen question.
>
> > that'd be me!
>
> > but seriously, you're both overlooking the infinite which is _within_
> > the finite.
>
> > (the value of pi comes to mind, for instance)
>
> Pi is the nuemerical representation of a concept
not really.
the relationship of the circumference of a circle to the length of its
diameter is not merely a concept.
it's a reality.
a numerical reality as well, but a real reality none-the-less.
> and as such does not
> exist in the material (not meaning that in a bad way ) world,
yes, it does.
pi exists in the material world.
just as much so as the infinite fractions of a line segment exist in
the material world.
how could they not?
> but can be referred to in the material world as an intelectual tool
yes.
but also as a material tool.
a useful one at that.
anyway, pi does not need to be referred to, it is there without
reference, too.
just like the infinite fractions of a line segment.
> > not to mention dismissing the abstract in favor of "the concrete".
>
> > for instance, the creation of art and the abstract economies that
> > arise out of it.
>
> Intellectual economies are what you are talking about.
those too, sure.
art can sometimes be a subset, i guess.
> The greed for knowledge.
greed for?
heh.
> You can produce intellect but you can only consume it's
> products, not the intellect itself.
um, not true.
for example, you can produce intellectual music AND consume
intellectual music itself.
see how that works?
yet, how does music exist?
as recordings, sure.
and as live performances, too.
but also as abstractions.
like musical memories, for instance.
one example:
both you and i can collaborate and merely talk about a theoretical
musical piece (which we can build upon back and forth) and never get
around to actually "producing" any of it. yet it still exists due to
our discussions of it.
> It sort of works like one of those
> famous trust funds where the recipient only gets the interest on the
> interest and never touches the principle at all.
nope.
the principle, once created, can be touched by anyone who decides to
"touch" it.
but it cannot be destroyed.
it can only be forgotten.
> There are some religious economies that work on that. Grow your own
> food, reject materialism and pursue truth ( not that religious shit )
> and knowledge. You will be wealth of mind but living in rags.
possibly.
depends how you use your wealth of mind.
but my point in stating that the infinite exists _within_ the finite
was to correct your errors in assuming that resources are somehow
finite.
for instance, a single eight-foot two-by-four is a "finite" thing, but
it need not be utilized as a finite thing by building a single-use
wall with it.
instead, it can be passed from person to person as a collaborative art
project where each individual adds something to it -- even if that
addition is nothing more than spending a couple minutes contemplating
it (or a couple hours, or a couple days).
ok, sure, that's _extremely_ abstract (and a bit silly and pointless),
but it demonstrates the idea visually.
you can see the two-by-four go from person to person and not be
consumed by any of them.
music is a far better example.
anyway, my point is that resources are anything but finite.
kinda like the universe itself.
...
maybe i can explain what i mean a bit better.
let's face it, there's plenty of food to go around.
it grows on trees, FFS.
beyond food, are economies are all frosting on the cake.
in all probability, the essential basics of food and shelter will
NEVER run out.
maybe in isolated pockets here and there (due to extreme
circumstances, like hurricanes, droughts, and whatnot), but beyond
that, we're all extremely spoiled rotten, economically speaking. even
some third-world counties are.
it's our obnoxiously excessive and totally pointless greed that has
screwed up the world's cultures so bad.
that's what causes all of the wars and conflicts.
thus producing an enormous lack of appreciation for the simple
beauties of life.
we've become almost hopelessly addicted to ever-increasing luxuries
which all end up disappointing in that they do not satisfy nearly as
good as the simplicities do.
we've become so badly addicted to the excessive frostings that we
absolutely deny it, even to obese ourselves.
and so we've created a world of ever-increasing pollution.
and a world of landfills.
and global warming.
and ridiculous wars.
etc..
> I can't think of the fellow's name right now but it reminds me of that
> Indian mathematician who came up with a proof using almost exclusively
> a self taught education.
if only more people spent more time mastering musical instruments, or
other things of that nature.
like dancing. painting. martial arts. juggling. mountain climbing.
etc.
self-taught educations which cannot be learned and perfected any other
way than actual experience.
perfecting skills which do no harm.
...
green collar jobs!
...
ok.
just felt like preaching a bit.
haven't done any preaching in awhile.
and like most preaching, it's probably all for naught.
let's fight instead!
yeah, baby.
put up your dukes, motherfucker!
> > by far, resource-wise and pollution-wise, art is one of the most
> > efficient economies ever developed.
>
> > music, for instance.
>
> > dance, dread-mongers, dance!
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfKdbWwruY
>
> > -$Zero...
>
> > POLL -- what kinds of people SHOULD become president?
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/98a51623de285287
-$Zero...
this post contains no metaphors (or analogies)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/b73277e21728d46d
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
How do you consume music? You can't . You can only appriciate it. Even
after you appriciate it, it is still there. It does not degrade or
become less than it was just because you've listened to it. You've
consumed nothing and yet you've gained something. In my mind music, is
a thought exersize.
Go ahead try it. Try to consume some Mozart or Bach today. Has it
changed?
$Zero
by listening to it?
> You can't . You can only appriciate it.
my ears would argue that point, if they could talk as well as listen.
> Even
> after you appriciate it, it is still there. It does not degrade or
> become less than it was just because you've listened to it. You've
> consumed nothing and yet you've gained something. In my mind music, is
> a thought exersize.
>
> Go ahead try it. Try to consume some Mozart or Bach today. Has it
> changed?
so what you're saying is, music is not a finite resource?
oh.
> > see how that works?
yep.
> > beyond food, our economies are all frosting on the cake.
>
> > in all probability, the essential basics of food and shelter will
> > NEVER run out.
>
> > maybe in isolated pockets here and there (due to extreme
> > circumstances, like hurricanes, droughts, and whatnot), but beyond
> > that, we're all extremely spoiled rotten, economically speaking. even
> > some third-world counties are.
>
> > it's our obnoxiously excessive and totally pointless greed that has
> > screwed up the world's cultures so bad.
>
> > that's what causes all of the wars and conflicts.
>
> > thus producing an enormous lack of appreciation for the simple
> > beauties of life.
>
> > we've become almost hopelessly addicted to ever-increasing luxuries
> > which all end up disappointing in that they do not satisfy nearly as
> > well as the simplicities do.
>
> > we've become so badly addicted to the excessive frostings that we
> > absolutely deny it, even to our obese selves.
-$Zero...
an honest day's work in an abstract economy
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/32745b9b9d8407fa
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
While the intellectual pursuit of music and the ability to create
music may be infinite, the resources and methods to distribute hard
copy of the music are finite, although the means by which they are
distributed over time can change and usually do before the final
"current" method of music distribution is realized.
Up to the late 1800, you either listened to live music or you played
it yourself
After that?
gramophone
Radio
tape
CD
Music Video
DVD
Mini Disc
Downloads
Plus what was done before all of this. This has all to do with the
distribution of the mediums for being able to appreciate music, not
with the creation of music itself.
$Zero
nope.
the possible resources and methods for distributing music are
infinite.
or near infinite, anyway.
> although the means by which they are
> distributed over time can change and usually do before the final
> "current" method of music distribution is realized.
"current"
yep.
> Up to the late 1800, you either listened to live music or you played
> it yourself
> After that?
> gramophone
> Radio
> tape
> CD
> Music Video
> DVD
> Mini Disc
> Downloads
> Plus what was done before all of this. This has all to do with the
> distribution of the mediums for being able to appreciate music, not
> with the creation of music itself.
yes, but the ways in which music CAN theoretically be distributed ARE
infinite.
necesssity may often be the mother of invention but...
the mothers of invention are Frank Zappa's innovation.
and he was just one guy.
-$Zero...
things change
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5ce6e5061792c77b
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
That's only because that process of finding the ways of distribution
is intelectual and is only theoretically infinite in the future but it
is finite for the current state (method) of distribution.
$Zero
that's only because... it's true.
> that process of finding the ways of distribution
> is intelectual and is only theoretically infinite in the future but it
> is finite for the current state (method) of distribution.
just put up your dukes, motherfucker!
> > necesssity may often be the mother of invention but...
> > the mothers of invention are Frank Zappa's innovation.
>
> > and he was just one guy.
>
> > -$Zero...
>
> > things change
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5ce6e5061792c77b
-$Zero...
think of a road
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/bd194364243fe293
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
>
> just put up your dukes, motherfucker!
>
> -$Zero...
http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2005_The_Dukes_of_Hazzard/2005_the_dukes_of_hazzard_001.jpg
Take that!
$Zero
<john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> {mercy snip}
>
>
>
> > just put up your dukes, motherfucker!
>
> > -$Zero...
>
>
> Take that!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEQOoNbZHVs
Pow!
-$Zero...
do you know anyone who isn't brainwashed in some major way?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e7e5cefd6783b71a
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
$Zero
hey, at least _i_ kept the "duke" context going.
but since you're thread-drifting into careers...
> Amature!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo0baknLDdU
professional!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP0sqRMzkwo
-$Zero...
what's your opinion worth?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/a938ab61ffc9d6de
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
> On Nov 11, 10:18 am, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>
>
>
> <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 10:03 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 11, 9:52 am, "Koolchi...@smurfsareus.xxx"
>
> > > <john.kulczy...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > > {mercy snip}
>
> > > > > just put up your dukes, motherfucker!
>
> > > > > -$Zero...
>
> > > >http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2005_The_Dukes_of_Hazzard/2005_the_du...
>
> > > > Take that!
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEQOoNbZHVs
>
> > > Pow!
>
> > > -$Zero...
>
> > > do you know anyone who isn't brainwashed in some major way?
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e7e5cefd6783b71a
>
> > Amature!
>
> hey, at least _i_ kept the "duke" context going.
>
> but since you're thread-drifting into careers...
>
> > Amature!
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo0baknLDdU
>
>
> -$Zero...
>
> what's your opinion worth?
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/a938ab61ffc9d6de
You are unarmed!