Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

(continued from previous page)
MT: the Panic of 1837 which among other things, this writer spoke of the housing bubble being burst due to rampant speculation that triggered the same response as today's housing market did not too long ago.

NS: “Nothing new under the sun,” saith the preacher. Read enough history, and one gets pretty jaded by the cries of impending doom.

”These are the end-times, just as they were in our father’s day, and in his father’s day as well.”

MT: Where my own discomfort and complaint comes into play is when I hear of the large corporations who wield their influence (power) to make the playing field in their own reflection,

NS: Who among us does not, whether as individuals or members of an organization? Only that apathetic individual should throw the first stone.

MT: I also have objection to the 1%'ers who buy votes in our government which may not favor the majority but only favor themselves.

NS: Are you speaking about illegal ‘bribes’?

MT: the Corporate Giants, as example, have doled out huge amounts of benefits and payroll that maybe up to 300% and more than the working class

NS: As an owner, and creditor, I am as adverse to these exorbitant ‘gifts’ that management gives itself as are the workers. I’m not sure what can be done about it, especially when Uncle intrudes into the market’s natural cure for waste and excess by injecting taxpayer’s money to support the foolishness.

MT: There is the inherent problem with greed that seems to creep in regardless of controls

NS: I’m of the Gordon Gecko school, “greed is good.” It’s just a pejorative term for ‘ambition.’ I suspect the fault lies with the ‘controllers’ rather than the ‘controls.’ Why fault the laws, if the police don’t fairly enforce the ones we already have. ‘Greed’ is like the fire (burning often over 500 degrees F) I have in my living room. It requires the application of firm limits, not a smaller flame to heat my home.

MT: But as our older age continues approaching, so does our realization that our past accomplishments are only that – accomplishments that have passed. It is the present which has been either missed or avoided my so many, often finding a refuge in work for a future rather than in enjoying now while it is available.

NS: Every choice we make cancels most of the alternatives. Only children plan on being President and a fireman all at the same time. For some, the stimulation of a career offers the greater allure, especially when young. Others, choose family first, and wonder at what they might have accomplished in a career. Alternative desires must pay the price with latter regrets. I can’t see how it can ever be prevented(?).

MT: When you write: ‘Capital’ does not deal in consumption, does not allow for the fact that capital is the reason consumption occurs. Without capital, no consumption.

Ns: I don’t disagree that the two are connected. I am claiming that there are differing perspectives given over to: ‘money for personal expenses,’ and ‘money as a tool.’ Yes, billions are “excessive” in light of the former, but no amount is excessive in light of the latter. It would be like saying that a giant steam shovel is excessive when anyone should be able to feed themselves with a spoon.

MT: Money (capital) must move or else it will become stagnant... not gaining in value.

NS: With inflation and taxes, like rust never sleeping; capital must run just to stay even.

MT: The good capitalist enterprises ruthlessly competes for our wants to create more money to create more wants to make more money to create more wants.... ad infinitum, or so the wanting capitalist hopes. Are we in any agreement here, amigo?

NS: Are your wants in someone else’s hands? Socrates claimed he felt rich whenever he visited the market -- there were so many things offered that he felt no need for. I never blame a salesman for trying to encourage a sale. Even the serpent in the garden of Eden was just doing his job. If the purchase was ill considered, blame the individual whose job it was to give consideration to making it. That was his job, and he should have been doing it; not blaming others for not doing his job along with theirs.

MT: Now that I've offered some of what I think, does that gain any credibility with you?

NS: You are ever credible with me, Cecil. Please take no offense, as none was intended. I just felt my expressive efforts were inadequate to the task. Not to sell you on ‘my’ pov, but to clearly present a capitalist pov for your inspection, and refutation (if required). I’ve no doubt that capitalism can be faulted with sound reason, as can any ism.

Cripes, this is getting way toooo long; apologies. I'll give you a "Crazy Cloud" quote next time. I best bail. Bye.

Non Sum, going back to my earlier question to you regarding government regulation of business and industry, how do you think the situation surrounding Toyota should be (have been) handled?

What I'm asking is, should we, the people, and our elected and appointed government representatives wait for potentially tragic failures to take place and then treat them as criminal acts, proceeding accordingly? Or should there be some regulatory apparatus in place to (hopefully) head such things off before they happen?

Peace,
Barry

Hi Barry,
You probably know more about the particular consumer protection laws and monitoring agencies than I. I do know that there are many vehicles being sold in the world today that are not allowed on US roads due to non-compliance with (overly rigid IMO) US safety standards. Once met, all that is left is either a malfunction (mechanical, or design), or an outright cheat on the requirement. None of these are likely to reveal themselves, given the complexity, until they “happen.”

“Criminal action” requires malicious intent, or an egregious act of negligence. Neither are always easy to prove, and likely rare.

No auto company wants to shoot itself in the foot/reputation. In this world, for all of us, ‘shit happens.’ It can’t be inspected, or legislated, away. I once ‘attempted’ to become a lobster fisherman. I took care to built my traps out of green oak, and even built a small fiberglass punt to get me out to my larger moored fishing craft. It ended up that I had used the wrong metal for the nails, and the traps collapsed—the lobsters laughed. The small boat was too small, and promptly sank (embarrassingly, with me in it). I’ve learned both: to leave lobstering to others, and to forgive the f..kups of others.

Personally, I resent an over protective society. It tends to limit one’s freedom to be foolish (an important, even necessary) freedom to me. It also restricts free enterprise, especially for small businesses.
NS (Needs Slack)

HP (Howdy Pardners!!!).
Indeed, I continue to amble through your latest discourses, an avid fan.
Why not form a corporation and feeblog it. (I made up that word feeblog).
I find your conversations and thoughts to be interesting despite the fact that I do fall asleep at times. Wake up and start reading again.
Cec's statement about money being like oil that lubricates a society's (or individual's?) needs made sense to me.

Monk: ”What would you tell a person who has ‘nothing’?
Master: “I’d tell him to get rid of it.” (Zen dudes, forget who)
Smashing!

I find myself wondering what the definition of society really is.
It's a marvel, to realize I don't know and probably never have known.

Thanks for the thread!
H

Howdy Hester,
HP: I do fall asleep at times. Wake up and start reading again. Why not form a corporation and feeblog it.

NS: Do you mean market our conversation as an alternative to sleeping pills? You may have something there!

HP: Cec's statement about money being like oil that lubricates a society's (or individual's?) needs made sense to me.

NS: It only makes sense to me if the individual were a lone survivalist, rather than a consumer. For most of us who don't spend their days trapping, eating, and skinning our dinner and clothes, or 'Stalking the Wild Asparagus' (always liked that book's title), 'money' is much more than a mere lube job.

HP: I find myself wondering what the definition of society really is.

NS: 'An organized group of persons associating for a common purpose(s)', is the classic general definition they handed us in school. Marcus Aurelius (philosopher emperor of Rome) puts it pretty well with, "What is not good for the hive is not good for the bee."
Bee good,
NS (Non-aligned Socialite)

G'day, N(oble) S(eer), as you hold court to the mountain wilderness which surrounds you with wildlife and vistas made for inspiration.

NS: An hour ago I went to retrieve my chocolate-cucumber bread; since thankfully this time I had remembered to set the timer and needn’t await notification from the smoke alarm. But alas, I forgot to turn on the oven.
‘Set timer, set oven.’ Ever so much to remember.

It's an all-too-familiar scenario, my friend. And some are so ignorant to believe that retirement does not have it's drawbacks - CRS being the first affliction. But at least your oven was off, mirroring perhaps your own attention..?

But ever since reading that, I have been obscured by confusion in attempting to somehow taste this 'cucumber-chocolate' concoction you baked. Now I can fully understand, say, 'cherry-radish' or a 'strawberry-squash' concoctions, but 'cucumber-chocolate'..? Nyet. Please explain how you came up (threw up?) this combination.

... and now a return to the more pressing issues -

NS: I’m of the Gordon Gecko school, “greed is good.” It’s just a pejorative term for ‘ambition.’ (been reading the latest AARP magazine? )

A merciless comment, amigo. To twist greed into the favorable quality of ambition is akin to saying "poisoning the waters" is a pejorative term for "discarding wastes."

Ambition: "An overmastering desire to be vilified by enemies while living and made ridiculous by friends when dead." - Ambrose Pierce

Ambition has the ability to do good or evil depending upon the intent of the ambitiousness. But you know that.

NS: Who among us does not, whether as individuals or members of an organization?

Not I, amigo... not I... for I have little use in having corporate power nor the need for influence to reflect my Self.

NS: Are you speaking about illegal ‘bribes’?

Not 'illegal' but yes, bribery made legal by those whose power and influence have made their bribery legal thru bribery - a perfect circle of corruption made clean by the purchase of public opinion.

N(ot) S(ure): I’m not sure what can be done about it, especially when Uncle intrudes into the market’s natural cure for waste and excess by injecting taxpayer’s money to support the foolishness.

Your unsureness is understandable, as it must be even for those who have authority to quell such excesses at taxpayer's expense without crossing the line between 'ambition' and 'greed,' when both require the restless and hunger of 'more than before' to exist.

"The larger the beast, the greater the appetite." - Astral Hobo

NS: Every choice we make cancels most of the alternatives.

More of a postponement rather than a cancellation. Choices have a life of their own, reminding us of the availabilities behind the next door... on the other side of the mountain, in a never-ceasing display of choice. Even when we settle for a choice, the options remain open... as do new choices.

NS: Alternative desires must pay the price with latter regrets. I can’t see how it can ever be prevented(?).

Where are you looking, my friend, that you 'can't see'? Remove the adjective 'alternative' and the adjective 'latter' which merely weighs down your comment and you're left with a more easily comprehensible: "desires must pay the price with regrets", yes? Does 'desire' always precede 'regret' as you suggest? When regret enters the mind following desire, it is only because that desire is unattainable which brings on the regret. If I have a desire for a piece of dark chocolate and indulge my desire, I don't regret my indulgence (unless I eat the whole bag! ).

NS: I am claiming that there are differing perspectives given over to: ‘money for personal expenses,’ and ‘money as a tool.’

In my mynd's eye, I see no difference between 'personal expenses' and money as a tool. To pay for or purchase personal items, those expenses require money which is the acceptable tool to use to cancel the debt occurred form acquiring those very expenses. A tool by any other name is still a tool.

NS: It would be like saying that a giant steam shovel is excessive when anyone should be able to feed themselves with a spoon.

D they still use steam shovels? But, seriously, that is a very comical analogy you've used. It brings me a pleasant smile and a warm chuckle inside. But are we talking about feeding 'any one' or a corporate monster who necessitates the use of a 'steam shovel' to feed it's hunger?

NS: With inflation and taxes, like rust never sleeping; capital must run just to stay even.

Correct me if I'm wrong, my friend, but is not this capital a part and parcel of the cause for taxes and inflation? Those two things depend upon capital to exist, for without capital, taxes and inflation become footprints on the Sea.

NS: Are your wants in someone else’s hands?

As are many of my needs. Perhaps one day in the not-so-distant future I shall find my Treasured Island where I am able to separate myself and my needs and wants from that of what we refer to as civilization. But until that fantasy materializes, I shall retire the ideal of 'being an island' and lessen my goals to being a 'peninsula'.

Of course, N(early) S(olvent), many of my wants are in other's hands, hence trade, that which has made prosperity and poverty the dualism it has become.

N(ot) S(ocrates): ... there were so many things offered that he felt no need for.

As do many a consumer. Therein lies the system of choice. To choose what you need over that of what you'd like to take care of is a decision that should be well-thought out, but fortunately for the seller, is often disregarded over that all too human impulsiveness. And this is not what I expressed as :

[MT]: The good capitalist enterprises ruthlessly competes for our wants to create more money to create more wants to make more money to create more wants.... ad infinitum, or so the wanting capitalist hopes.

The ruthless competition is not only for customers but also the ruthlessness of competition between sellers... a double-edged sword clenched tightly in the hand of the capitalist who must fight for and against to maintain their business.

... and your conversation with Ms Hes'...

NS: Do you mean market our conversation as an alternative to sleeping pills? You may have something there!

N(arcotic) S(ubstitutes) for the Restless and 'N_S(omniacs)..?


And, btw, I must address the following before collapsing into a horizontal position favorable to rest -
NS: It only makes sense to me if the individual were a lone survivalist, rather than a consumer. For most of us who don't spend their days trapping, eating, and skinning our dinner and clothes, or 'Stalking the Wild Asparagus' (always liked that book's title), 'money' is much more than a mere lube job.

I believe Euell Gibbons would agree with me on this: "money as a lubricate in keeping the wheels of commerce well-oiled and free of friction' It is this which keeps any good, honest economy operating to the advantage of the people, for the people and by the people.

{...yawn...}

it IS time...

pass my regards to S9 and you, old timer, kick up those weary size 12's up on your new footstools and give yourself a nice meditation.

Your philosophy's are most interesting to read. They fly me away on tangents that I enjoy.
I do think though, that the american people were had by an "ambitious" wall street tribe of children who have never really been encouraged to look further into a bigger picture...a picture bigger than themselves and their excessive wants.
I was reminded of this by NS who gave a definition of society as "An organized group of persons associating for a common purpose. " I equate the common purpose to the bigger picture which of course is balanced to promote the maximum for success for anyone, no matter how many perks they stumbled into at birth. Family welfare is the same as Government welfare in that it can create a deep ignorance of a fundamental truth...we're all in this together.
H

"An organized group of persons associating for a common purpose. "

"Man would sooner have the void for a purpose, then be void of purpose"

FRN

Fredrick Ray Nitzke

German middle line backer the Green Bay Packers and philologist.

NS: Marcus Aurelius (philosopher emperor of Rome) puts it pretty well with, "What is not good for the hive is not good for the bee."

Marcus had some good advice there, if people were bees. Fortunately (or not for many) we have this need for choice which often differs from others needs or wants. We may be social beings but even within society there are those amongst us who don't fully fit in, which may be fact for all of us to a certain degree... we do live alone when not together with a social group.

... and that's this evening's buzz!

If only we were bees and not "big sad apes"

Hester I don't know what this is all about. But you got my attentio. I admire your style.

It took me years to figure out what my purpose was for

maybe the future will surprise us, who knows?

meanwhile, today´s pagina/12 contratapa :

http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/contr ... 02-28.html

Hello yet again, M(usically)T(uneful),
MT: But at least your oven was off, mirroring perhaps your own attention..?

NS: The oven and I both have our on and off days. I prefer to conceive of my omission as a shrewd preventative for burning.

M(issing)T(aste): 'cucumber-chocolate'..? Nyet. Please explain how you came up (threw up?) this combination.

NS: Too many cucumbers with too little taste of their own.
Yet combined with a small amount of chocolate, and we have a deliciously moist bread with a slight cucumber fragrance, comprising a combination not unlike mint & chocolate.

MT: and now a return to the more pressing issues – (said the vintner)

MT: A merciless comment, amigo. To twist greed into the favorable quality of ambition and Yet:
MT: Ambition has the ability to do good or evil depending upon the intent of the ambitiousness.

NS: As does ‘greed.’ ‘Greed’ carries the pejorative burden of being labeled “excessive,” but who is this authority that can decree what constitutes absolute ‘sufficiency’ & ‘excess’?

MT: Not I, amigo... not I... for I have little use in having corporate power nor the need for influence to reflect my Self.

NS: But, this is not true. You do try to effect ‘your’ political will by supporting, and voting for, candidates whom share your view and interests. Organizations do no less, save being ineligible to vote collectively.

MT: bribery made legal

NS: If it is “bribery” it is illegal. If it is a contribution to a candidate’s campaign, how does that differ from any individual, or org, doing the same? What offends you is that the Supremes want such contributions to be open and public, as well as to preserve this first amendment right for all. Not to say that you’re against your own, and those with whom you share opinions, right to petition the government; just those nasty fellows who seek interests alternative to your own.

MT: Even when we settle for a choice, the options remain open... as do new choices.

NS: Sounds a bit like Yogi Berra’s, “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” Ever so many choices we make in life cancel their alternatives, especially with our mortal term being so brief.

MT: If I have a desire for a piece of dark chocolate and indulge my desire, I don't regret my indulgence

NS: Many a weight watcher would; as will you too, if you continue to indulge your chocolate indulgence.

MT: In my mynd's eye, I see no difference between 'personal expenses' and money as a tool.

NS: Then your “mynd’s eye” must have a fish in it.
Expenses spent for a person’s needs & wants, have little in common with utilizing capital in order to further the aims and goals of greater society.

MT: that is a very comical analogy you've used. [comparing steam shovels & spoons]

NS: I sought a well-matched analogy with your contention that people worth millions, or billions, had too much money for any one person’s needs. I’m trying to convey to you that, that money is not for their personal needs, but is chiefly ‘capital’ intended for capital goods and services.

MT: is not this capital a part and parcel of the cause for taxes and inflation?

NS: I don’t know where you got that idea, old boy? ‘taxes’ are imposed by governing authorities (i.e. extortion by the powerful). Inflation’s cause is also found in the government’s desire to steal wealth in a less obvious way (i.e. devaluing your currency).

RE: NS: Are your wants in someone else’s hands?
MT: As are many of my needs.

NS: I’d have assumed that your ‘needs,’ like my own were entirely endowed by nature herself? (Food, water, shelter, etc.) As for the ‘wants’ that extend beyond basic needs, I’d have thought that you yourself determined these, just as I do for moi. Sure, the TV tells me that I want a new car, or a larger bust, but I’m content with the car I now have, and my bust (made of marble, sitting on the mantle, looking a lot like Marcus Aurelius) seems large enough. I take no offense at solicitors guessing at my needs & wants, nor do I take my cues from them.

MT: but fortunately for the seller, is often disregarded over that all too human impulsiveness.

NS: “Human impulsiveness” sometimes throws itself off the Golden Gate Bridge. I suspect you’d fault the bridge.

MT: N(arcotic) S(ubstitutes) for the Restless and 'N_S(omniacs)..?

Ns: ‘N_S(omniacs),’ Excellent! :^)

MT: "money as a lubricate in keeping the wheels of commerce well-oiled and free of friction'

NS: As I said, ‘much, much more than that.’ Capital, like oil, not only lubricates, but also is the fuel itself. The engine and wheels would not be there, but for the capital’s large share in putting them there.

Hi Hester,
HP: .we're all in this together.

NS: Unlike the average worker, who mostly looks to her: job and salary, family-friends, and life-style, the capitalist is forced to first consider society’s trends in wants, and its needs, because That is her job and resultant income.

NS: Too many cucumbers with too little taste of their own.
Yet combined with a small amount of chocolate, and we have a deliciously moist bread with a slight cucumber fragrance, comprising a combination not unlike mint & chocolate.

You make a good spokesman for your own product! Your description of this unusual combination increases my interest in sampling this latest concoction you have baked... 'mint & chocolate'... hmmm...

NS: As does ‘greed.’ ‘Greed’ carries the pejorative burden of being labeled “excessive,” but who is this authority that can decree what constitutes absolute ‘sufficiency’ & ‘excess’?

As one 'authority' on definitions writes (and many other dictionaries agree upon), Greed is defined as "an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth."

But, be assured, my friend, it is not the dictionary that 'decrees what constitutes absolute ‘sufficiency’ & ‘excess’, but what is seen in a public, social andor communally agreed upon definition. So rather than using this negatively conceived word, would it not be more prudent to use a more favorable antonym?

"Greed is a sin against God, just as all mortal sins, in as much as man condemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things." - St. Thomas Aquinas

When we are able to use the word 'greed' when referring to something within us, we owe ourselves a pause and a reflection on that which may deny us our more benevolent nature. But how many of us really know our Self so well that greed will not veil that Self which requires no things in excess?

NS: But, this is not true. You do try to effect ‘your’ political will by supporting, and voting for, candidates whom share your view and interests. Organizations do no less, save being ineligible to vote collectively.

Nyet, amigo. Allow me to repost what I had written:

"... I have little use in having corporate power nor the need for influence to reflect my Self."

I think the last word here is self-explanatory. Corporate power? This matters naught to me, having no self-interests invested in that power. Political will? Participation within a democratic system where the single individual vote is a voice for or against that which is being voted upon, is like one drop of rain changing the immediate course of a river.

I disagree that the collective votes of an Organization are identical to the vote of an individual are on any way equal footing. An Organization is a collective of individuals who are saying that everyone within that Organization are in complete agreement in every way with what is being voted upon. That is #1, a preposterous assumption to thing that every single person thinks exactly the same in selecting that which they are voting upon, and #2, IF that were in anyway the fact, there individual votes at the voting booth would be the same path as all individual voters take to cast their own individual vote. An Organization is an abstract collective of various people to fulfill the goals and means of an idea for a profit, and not a single breathing entity that has any rights equal to that of an individual.

NS: What offends you is that the Supremes want such contributions to be open and public, as well as to preserve this first amendment right for all.

No, N(ot) S(traight)... what offends me is summed up in the above comment I made. The Conservative/Republican Justices unanimously ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations (unions and organizations) in candidate elections, using the First Amendment as reasoning. But it is unreasonable to give these entities the same rights as individuals, who are the sole people who are able to cast votes for chosen candidate. The only way any Corporation, Union or other Organization is able to go into a voting booth is for the person(s) in charge (CEO, owners, heads of various such companies) to physically walk into a voting booth and cast his vote... the key word not to be missed there is 'his' (of her) which reduces the vote to not that of a corporation, etc, but rather the vote of on individual, an identical individual that normally casts their votes.

The ridiculousness of Freedom of Speech given to a Corporation, etc, is the exact same thing as giving Freedom of Speech to my Toyota... it's part of a Corporation and consequently should be able to vote, according to the cheapened logic of those Supreme Court (In)Justices.

I reiterate: A Corporation, etc., cannot fairly support a single candidate for elected office of the United States for a very simple and logical reason: a Corporation, etc., is not and cannot be, a singular voice speaking for all persons who make up the Corporation, etc.. If a Corporation, etc, with whom you were employed by chose to use their profits for the support of candidate "A" and you, personally, favored candidate "B" for whatever reason, would it do your candidate any good to have large sums of money to defeat him coming from a business you are employed by? What type of allegiance would you have in that unequal situation?

NS: Ever so many choices we make in life cancel their alternatives, especially with our mortal term being so brief.

Partially correct, I see it, amigo. We make a choice which closes the door on the other choice(s) we had entertained, yes. However once that choice we have made comes into play, the play itself will undoubtedly offer choices ahead.

NS: Many a weight watcher would; as will you too, if you continue to indulge your chocolate indulgence.

You surely wouldn't deny a person as myself an occasional piece of dark chocolate, now would you? What about that chocolate/cucumber bread of yours... is that for sharing or is it all for you, you, you...?

S: Then your “mynd’s eye” must have a fish in it.

Thank you for noticing my avatar!

NS: Expenses spent for a person’s needs & wants, have little in common with utilizing capital in order to further the aims and goals of greater society.

This, 'have little in common with...' is a peculiar comment. Especially in conjunction with your 'utilizing capital in order to further the aims and goals of greater society.'

Allow me to explain myself, eh? A person's needs and wants are clearly capital oriented, i.e. one pays another for providing needs and wants. It is capital being exchanged for services and/or product. This capital is ultimately used for sustaining those needs and wants within a society, great or small. When one is able or inclined to save as much capital as they need or want, this same saved capital, is invested/spent on a hopefully profitable return. Regardless of intent, a person's needs and wants are being met thru capital.

NS: I’m trying to convey to you that, that money is not for their personal needs, but is chiefly ‘capital’ intended for capital goods and services.

I understand what you are conveying. What I am unable to convey to you is: this money that you claim is not for personal needs/wants is capital for goods and services for others, is still when the day is done and the business doors are locked, a means to attain profit from the investment(s) to pay for their own needs and wants (including wanting to make a profit from using capital).

Needs and wants are hu'manly universal. Even the most humble monk has needs and may want a clean robe to put on once in awhile. A multi-billionaire such a Warren Buffet wants another investment to add to his collection, and not an investment that doesn't pay off, but he wants one that will prove profitable for his own wants. To say the only reason anyone would use their own capital is for strictly philanthropic purposes, i.e. give the public jobs so they can pay their bills, is a bit disingenuous... there is a more selfish purpose at work there... attaining goals which are the person's personal wants. I may want a piece of dark chocolate while another may want to have XXXB to their name. In the end, both me and the money accumulator return to the same dirt we both walked upon.

NS: I don’t know where you got that idea (taxes & inflation), old boy?

Both are byproducts of capital. If it weren't for capital there wouldn't be taxes (nothing to tax) or inflation (nothing to inflate).

NS: Inflation’s cause is also found in the government’s desire to steal wealth in a less obvious way

Of course! Government as the thief. It wouldn't surprise you to know that there are thieves all around us waiting to empty our pockets. The world is full of those nasty bastards and they're artfully disguised as government officials, businessmen, landlords, bankers, car salesmen, popsicle vendors and artist... they all have a common need - capital!

NS: Capital, like oil, not only lubricates, but also is the fuel itself. The engine and wheels would not be there, but for the capital’s large share in putting them there.

And we're all part of that system in some way... greater or smaller, we all contribute to the machine that provides our needs and wants, every penny counts in the end.

Well, it's nearly 12:00p here and I have a few chores to attend to. Once again, N(on) S(uccumber), it's been a pleasure. I trust your day will finish with a grin and a chuckle. I do hope we've given our friend, Hester, some new contemplative materials to challenge herself. (Hi, Hes'! )

Good evening, M(ister) T(ee),
M(ust)T(aste): 'mint & chocolate'... hmmm...

NS: You’ve not heard of mint-chocolate, and chocolate-mint: cookies, ice cream, etc.?

MT: I think the last word here is self-explanatory. Corporate power? This matters naught to me, having no self-interests invested in that power.

NS: I caught your most recent phrasing, but thought to answer the larger, original issue it pertained to, i.e.:
RE:MT: Where my own discomfort and complaint comes into play is when I hear of the large corporations who wield their influence (power) to make the playing field in their own reflection,

NS: My response being that all politically active individuals and orgs do no less.

MT: I disagree that the collective votes of an Organization are identical to the vote of an individual are on any way equal footing.

NS: You go on about “votes,” but I have no idea why? Orgs don’t get to ‘vote,’ so what is the relevancy of this non-issue?

But, orgs, like individuals, do have self-seeking agendas; you do, I do, the NAACP does, and so does every single profit and non-profit organization that has ever existed, or will exist. The first amendment right to assemble, and right to petition the government, are not mutually exclusive rights. I.e. if you have joined a group of likeminded, politically concerned individuals, that does not abrogate your group’s right to petition. Do you believe it should?

MT: it is not the dictionary that 'decrees what constitutes absolute ‘sufficiency’ & ‘excess’, but what is seen in a public, social andor communally agreed upon definition.

NS: As if. No two people can ever agree on such subjective measures as “just right,” and “too much” (sex, money, love, happiness, shoes, work, play, education, cleanliness, religion…).

MT: "Greed is a sin against God, just as all mortal sins, in as much as man condemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things." - St. Thomas Aquinas

NS: Well heck, why didn’t you say that the RC Church, and their god, was against “greed”? Now, I’ll drop it like a hot potato, lest I piss off the Pope.
To my way of thinking, anything the Christian theists are against, is as good as an endorsement for it. I’m with the Christian mystics (surprisingly enough), who hold the only ‘sin’ to be one’s mortal self.

MT: Thank you for noticing my avatar!

NS: I always liked it immensely! It is the very image to which my every response (addressed to you) is directed. If you no longer look like it, please don’t let me know.

MT: It is capital being exchanged for services and/or product.

NS: I believe your use for the term ‘capital’ is too expansive to meet the usual usage, i.e. ‘money in excess of one’s personal expenses, that is available to be put to work (loaned, invested)’. If you don’t agree on this definition, fine; but it makes our discussion on this matter near hopeless.

MT: this money that you claim is not for personal needs/wants is capital for goods and services for others, is still when the day is done and the business doors are locked, a means to attain profit from the investment(s) to pay for their own needs and wants

NS: At that point it ceases to be ‘capital.’ Just as the terms: married and bachelor, apply to the one same man at different times, we cannot use them interchangeably at the same time.

MT: Needs and wants are hu'manly universal.

NS: These categories are inapposite within this ‘capital’ context, due to their lack of specificity. More to the case are: ‘personal expenses’ and ‘capital expenditures.’ A person who uses all his wealth on the former, however great an amount, has none left for the latter.

MT: If it weren't for capital there wouldn't be taxes (nothing to tax) or inflation (nothing to inflate).

NS: So, you are saying that if a person’s income does not exceed their personal expenses, they will not be taxed on that income?

MT: Of course! Government as the thief.

NS: You sound like I’m just trying to diss the Gov, when I attribute inflation to it? Not so. I’m just giving you a basic economic definition of ‘inflation,’ i.e. ‘too much money chasing too few goods and services.’ Since the Gov alone (not counting counterfeiters) has the power to expand, and contract, the supply of money, it alone has the ability to cause/cure the imbalance. Currency is either backed by some store of wealth (e.g. gold stores), or it is fiat (just a promise that it will be accepted as valuable). We have fiat currency in the US.

But, assume there is an ounce of gold (= about $1100.00 worth). You hand out 11 $100 dollar bills to 11 of your friends as shares in that ounce. You thought that was way cool. So, you go print out 11 more of those bills (backed by that one same ounce), and pay them out to 11 other creditors. The original 11 think they still have 1/11 share of that gold, but unknown to them, you’ve just reduced that $100 bill to a 1/22 of an ounce share of value. That IS inflation. That is why a loaf of bread costs trillions in Zimbabwe, not because there is no bread, but because there are too many dollars chasing it. A Gov doesn’t have to literally ‘print’ bills, all it has to do is spend what it doesn’t have.

I bet that put ole Hes soundly to sleep.

Huh? Wha?
"Snort"
No, wait, I'm awake!
Fact I have a question. NS in your last paragraph you talk about an 1100 dollar goldpiece. About the dude handing out 11 100 dollar bills as shares in it. I can see that. If it goes up in value he'll get more, if it goes down in value he'll lose. But why does the dude do it again? That's like cheating! Does the dude tell the first 11 that he's going to do that and lessen the value of their hundred??? I mean, that's blatent crookery!!!!Greed as MT defines it...
"an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth."
That dude wanted the good feeling again. ?
The dude needs to get another 1100 dollar ounce before he gives out 11 more hundreds.
The dude is dumb. And he's gonna piss off people who thought they had a hundred bucks.
Probably has a corporation behind him or somethin......
Probably was never punished enough for rippin people off when he was young.
I was taught to let others go first, and to share.
I don't fit into a corporate world. I'm freakin toast!
Now i'm putting myself to sleep....
H