Dear Dejenie, I love your question. (I've been working on the topic for a while). Just for the sake of the discussion let me please take up your words literally - even though I know what you mean.

The economic collapse is tto serious, just to be compared with a black hole. Contrary to what normally we would think, black holes are the simplest bodies in the universe. (This is one of the reasons why studying them is so passionating!).

The economic situation is just thta: a collapse. The question is whether it is a collapse of the on-going society or culture, or from a historical perspective, it's a collapse of our civilization.

Dear Abderrahmane,

Those "illegal speculations and illegal behaviors " are reasons for the forces of fiscal cohesion to loose power and cause a collapse. Such activities are contrary to the basic rule of thumb principle of finances ( or any other relations for that matter) - trust and rule of law.

The innate behavior of species to damage self to the welfare of others - altruism/selfless and its opposite - selfishness/extreme greed ( benefiting self on the welfare of others) are extreme contrasts seen here. But between the two extremes, there is a golden mean – virtues of cooperation and healthy competition to the welfare of all and betterment and growth of the system. This is always achieved and possible as long as the games are played by ethics and correct rules, following principles of trust, honesty and responsibility, so that the forces involved remain operational and on balance, all parties involved remain partners of the process/system and the system continues to exist indefinitely with no black hole syndrome.

.

For me, the question is whether or not the embrace of dynamic optimization models in finance, which generate solution paths for asset prices which are mathematically unstable but convergent saddle paths, could, in fact, cause financial crises. The models, though seemingly complex to the untrained, are actually quite simple, relative to the reality, just as a map is quite simple relative to the terrain over which one travels. The models create the illusion that complex financial assets can be priced correctly. This provides a context in which risk can appear to be manageable. I doubt that the financial crisis and subsequent recession was caused by a sudden increase in greed and selfishness. It would make more sense to me to explain the crisis in terms of increased opportunities for an unchanged level of greed and selfishness to play itself out in financial markets. I also doubt that the large community of financial experts who use the models fully understand the mathematics that underlies them.

If we want to talk of the crisis in black hole terminology, we need to consider the event horizon, and what happen to the asset that entered into the black hole. I have been thinking of this idea through the lenses of business cycles theory.

In the current crises investors have followed a straight line path to the event-horizon of the black hole by dilating capital. We observed that home loans at a local bank took the shortest path towards multiplying the maximum return to investments through securitization. On the other hand we may consider that the trajectory followed by policy makers towards the event horizon of the black hole appears hyperbolic because we see loosening up of credit criteria for loans over time. As the divergence between these two trajectories increased, regulator (Government) got a dimmer and dimmer view of the investor’s trajectory over time.

At the event-horizon, some investment activities were no longer observable. Government scrambled to maintain control by bailing out what the perceived as reversible. Some event were not reversible because the law of motion could not predict their source of origin. For instance prices were returning to their market values which their notes and deeds did not reflect. Some investments such as bank capital and liquidity were reversible via bail out monies.

One main theory that the horizon view is valid for cycles was advanced by former FED chairman Ben Bernanke. The credit hypothesis theory posited a significant relationship between failed-bank’s deposits and the fall of industrial output the Great Depression. With the backdrop of event horizon, we should question whether such deposits are lost or not. We can think that the information is not lost but remains in the surface structure of the event horizon. But the precise nature of that structure of information is yet to be explored. The location of lost assets of financial institutions need to be analyzed from the point of view of an event horizon. In case this appears as a strange view, we should recall that the former Soviet Union suddenly transformed from a communists to a capitalists country, indicating chaotic type of instability but its assets remained intact netting the loss of some countries to the EMU.

Dear Dejenie,

Thank you for opening an interesting debate on your hypothesis. From a general point of view, greed and extreme selfishness could be presented as the cause of economic and financial system collapse or crash. Although it can be discuss this conclusion to be based on a formal science –Mathematics- or on an empirical one – Natural Sciences. The conclusion, from my view, is to be founded on Social Sciences, like Law or Economy. May be, Carlos Maldonado can agree with me. The domain of Rules (Legal or Moral rules) is different from the Mathematics and Physic. As Abderrahmane says, the Collapse it greatly is a matter or rules. Moreover, is a matter of a absence or lack of public rules, understanding them as rules which plays in the interest of the most of the citizens, not only in the interest of the Markets.

One way for there to be an economic collapse is for a disease or natural disaster to wipe out a large chunk of the population; this wouldn't necessarily be due to greed. However, I am inclined to say that economic collapses that are caused by Wall Street activities ARE fundamentally due to greed.

But, Dejenie, you propose: "When one of the forces dominates to the extent of diminishing the strength or eliminating the powers of others, then only a force of pulling towards the dominant entity remains and that leads to the collapse of the system." This is too strong a claim. The 1% can dominate the 99%, but strictly speaking this doesn't make the 99% completely powerless. They, after all, have voices, bongo drums, voting power, muscles, weapons, etc.

So, instead of saying "only a force of pulling towards the dominant entity remains and that leads to the collapse of the system," you should make it probabilistic. You should say that there is a strong, although not certainly efficacious, force whereby collapse is not a guarantee but merely a likelihood.

Just go back to Adam Smith's writing (not the wealth of nations). He recognized that humans are flawed and need social constraints to prevent weaknesses such as greed to create problems. Though folks above have avoided the simple response, yes greed and failure to regulate such behaviors in the simplest terms cause economic failure. Perhaps some behavioral economists want to join in on this discussion.

The economic collapse is part of the ecological crisis the result of the experiential reductio ad absurdum of the perceptual perspective and psychic structures the have developed throughout our spiritual and social evolution: the perceptual perspective is the experience of all that appears as object as alien to the mental subject, which then comes to seem not only alien, but even inimical to the subject, and the fragmentary perception that has been illustrated with the story of the blind men with the elephant, each of which held a different part of the pachyderm and believed it to be a different, separate entity. And the turning of feeling that the object is alien to the feeling that it is something to be dominated, exploited, possessed or destroyed is the result of the development of vertical relationships evinced in art by the arising of the gods just before the transition to agriculture.

This perspective of opposition, dominion / exploitation and fragmentation more or less worked so long as power in the hands of those at the top was not too strong, but when it became too strong, on the biological plane (where technology boosted it) it gave rise to the biological ecological crisis, and in the economical plane (in which it was boosted by the neoliberal trend that dominated after the collapse of the Soviet Union allowed capitalism to drop its human mask) it produced the economic collapse that we are beginning to witness, and which cannot be stopped without radically transforming, not only the economic system, but the state of mind and type of relations at its root.

On the economic plane, the model that E. F. Schumacher called "the forward stampede"

will have to be replaced by that of what Serge Latouche called Degrowth/Ungrowth (décroissance), whereas on the psychological plane it will have to be replaced by a holistic perspective and horizontal relations. Related changes will have to occur in all areas, but I will not discuss them here.

too many aspects in this way of thinking.

- Collapse of Society OK. a fool uses an atomic bomb or starts a gaz war.

Physical forces: the breaking up of the Canarian Islands destroys New York completely.

A meteor destroys the earth

- economic collapse due to selfishness: selfishness the basis of the economic philosophy of A. Smith

- extreme selfishness. What is extreme, even not to define in philosophy.

- the money illusion. after the fall of the Roman Empire the Western world went back to barter trade. Now? the success of Bitcoin and barter experiments

- Structural: Keynes complained about the serious unemployment in England during 1922-1929 (see Collected Writings of Keynes) .

Marx-Engels the capitalist society will destroy itself

Europe 2020 (see my bibliography) and forecasting by Rating Offices (idem).

I think despite mathematics, sociological theory, physics theory, that economics and nature are highly entwinned. The mind with the body convert cognitive, social capitol into material assets. It is not necessarily true that the effected products of the human mind align with the directions of nature, simply because humans are an element of, constructed of nature. Academic theory, so far, gives description that is tested towards observation but does not accomodate the route or path involved towards the accomplishment of that description. If I agree that black holes are the product of illicit accelerations to steady states, then if your thesis is correct it must be that corruption, at least some kinds of corruption hurt nature (the kind I am thinking prominently about are the kinds in which cancers or chains grow that are connected by association from beginning, along the route, towards the end...an example- a person who buys stock on credit, and reaps profits in advance of paying the initial investment...a con that reinvests and never rewards investors is similar). From this aspect the theory is correct, but I do not think accounts totally for the problem. Some physicists claim that high energy accelerators make black holes that are not detected....I think in general it is possible that general practices built of an evolved human rationality that many sociologists agree has become defining, self defining, building its own bubble(s), practices to contain and control what is already tested over eons, i.e. genetic engineering of crops rather than more macroscopic methods such as breeding practices, ultimately fail both nature and the economy simultaneously. ...they establish unnatural connections. The internet establishes connections that would not occur otherwise and changes perception to reinforce the same false view involving description and actual path taken. Humanism and science are not perfect bedpartners, there is an invisible nature to it, concerns our real understanding of nature, that may work against the individual as easily as it can be construed that assemblies into political units/governing bodies require some sacrafice of from the individual perhaps some practices are more oppressive than is reasoned....though globalization is intended to and appears to spread humanistic actions, it possibly alters the view from the individual first perspective and defeats natural mechanisms. Many African nations feel the world court in Hague is unjust because it evolves from the same colonizing hand that preceded many problems. Perhaps the rise of new breeds of criminals and crime in a global arena, is indicative of an unrealized criminal aspect to globalization, some sciences in their obsessive rational character/corner cutting. I dont object to practices based from observation and study like we'll move the big rock from A to B, the new river course will irrigate the fields at C, we'll move the bison over to the protected range, I dont think we should affect change to inherited biological structure or bring dinosaurs back to life from fossil tissue, change gene structures so pestulant species do not reproduce....etc....these activites can become very fine in discrimination if awareness with respect to predictability, stability of effect is not made between things that depend on applications from ordinary perceptions and senses and those requring prosthetic aides for the senses applied. As simple allegory, glasses are OK, xray vision isnt.

Let me define what should be understood by the term 'Economic Collapse ' It is a complete breakdown of a national, regional or territorial economy. An economic collapse is essentially a severe version of an economic depression, where an economy is in complete distress for months, years or possibly even decades. A total economic collapse is characterized by economic depression, civil unrest and highly increased poverty levels. Hyperinflation, stagflation and financial-market crashes can all be causes. Government intervention is usually necessary to bring an economy back from collapse, but can often be slow to remedy the problem.

National or global-wide economic collapse is a process that takes a long time to boil over. The easiest way to describe the process of widespread economic collapse is to put it into the perspective of a common household. Some people simply don’t know how, or refuse to responsibly handle their finances. They take on too much financial responsibility, fail to prepare for the loss of income or unexpected expenses and rely far too heavily on debt and credit to survive. They continue making minimum payments with their Visa card to pay Discover or MasterCard, simply compounding the issues that caused them to be in debt in the first place. They spend irresponsibly, buying things that aren’t necessary. In a nutshell, they refuse the live the type of life they can afford and simply put the difference on credit.

Governments work the same way. Governments want to be involved in every area of your life as humanly possible, just as much as the irresponsible household wants to go on expensive vacations and buy expensive cars. The one crucial flaw they can’t seem to wrap their head around is that governments can only be as effective as the budgets they run on. Just like a normal household, it takes money to run programs, fight wars, feed the “needy” and literally millions of other issues they’ve weaseled their way into.

At some point, the government stopped being able to cover what it was spending with the money it was taking in through taxes, and start printing more money. On top of that, any money they were responsible to keep safe for its people have also been completely tapped to continue to pay for things this country doesn’t need.

In both cases, there comes a tipping point where they can no longer get financing for new things or existing debts, their income level can’t support any more responsibility and things quickly spiral out of control until eventually the absolute only option for them is bankruptcy. The difference is that government has the advantage of being able to essentially print money at will to kick the can and avoid “government bankruptcy”, but at some point (and this point is coming soon) you can’t devalue the money you already have any more to make room for new money. That just makes all the money worth less and less. The government has kicked this can for so long, and printed so much fake money, that we simply can’t do it much longer. Something will have to give, things will have to go unpaid, major cutbacks will have to be made, and serious economic reform will have to happen…and it won’t be pretty.

No one can predict the future. All we can do is make educated guesses. That being said, it would be pretty irresponsible to not think about the fallout of an economic collapse and to try to find ways that will not only mitigate those threats, but help us in our daily lives no matter what happens.

On the other hand, what are the social implications of economic collapse? The social implications are the following:

• Continue borrowing, keep the party going.

As long as the government can do this, they will do this. Regardless of their intentions, though, more debt only worsens the situation, creating higher borrowing costs in the long run, and even more debt. As this happens, the pool of buyers begins to dry up, especially from overseas.

• Inflation

The more buyers stop purchasing Treasury securities, the more the Central Bank will mop up the excess liquidity. In doing so, the Central Bank essentially conjures up money and loans it to the government. No matter what the government monkey statistics say, this is inflationary, plain and simple. The more money they print, the greater the level of inflation in the long-term.

• Austerity

There’s going to come a time when the government is forced to face its economic reality and make some incredibly deep cuts that would be felt across society.

• Default

Eventually, the debt burden is simply going to be too much, and the most obvious solution will be to default. Politicians will make some country as the enemy and they will probably invent a war just to have an excuse to default on the country owned debt.

• Economic Cannibalism

The government will continue its persecution of the productive class– professionals, investors, entrepreneurs, and skilled workers. Existing taxes will rise, new taxes will be created, trade barriers will be enacted, and a maze of cost prohibitive regulations will be passed.

The first option (keeping the party going) is what has been happening for years. Politicians make small concessions to show they’re “serious” about fiscal discipline, cutting laughably small programs while dumping hundreds of billions of dollars into wars and entitlement programs.

The worse the debt situation becomes, though, the higher the borrowing costs become, and the worse the debt situation becomes. It’s not an enviable position. In the longer term, only some of the options remain: inflation, austerity, default, and cannibalism. Each of these remaining options will shake the financial system to its core. More importantly, each of these has the power to create widespread social upheaval.

When inflation eats away at a family’s already meager standard of living, when austerity eliminates the benefits to which recipients have grown accustomed, when default vanquishes a retiree’s savings, when high taxes make workers feel like they’re just government serfs– this is when the real turmoil will begin:

• Rising crime: devoid of a job or means to support their families, people will turn to crime out of desperation;

• Class warfare: with dividing lines drawn between have’s vs. have-not’s, it will become unpopular and even dangerous to be successful;

• Corruption: low-level public service officials will look to supplement their income through bribery and kickbacks;

• Black economy: An underground, cash-only (probably gold or foreign currency) economy will emerge with people getting paid in envelopes;

• Censorship: Of course they’ll blame it on national security, but the idea will be to prevent public disparaging of government policy;

• War: The government will need another major event to distract people from the real problems;

• Protests/Riots: This is when things turn bloody;

• Police state conditions: The government will close ranks and send the cops out to show all the little people who’s really in charge

There are a number of other manifestations, and many are already showing signs of emergence. Here’s the bottom line: all you have to do is glance at the headlines to see what happens when you strip people of their livelihood, of their ability to put food on the table for their families.

to add: If one takes a gross view of the world as an accident scene akin to an automobile collision where details can become apparent from observation of tire tracks, orientation and composition of wreckage parts, it becomes easy to speculate that radiation that penetrates the skin surface is an integral component. ..our entire society relies on radios, microwaves, computers, energized rays for security searches, torture in searches for facts and data, in the name of saving lives.... we are busy studying things at a distance using high frequency energy, description centers around "reaction", "immune reaction", atomic reaction, heat reaction, light reaction, thesis-antithesis-synthesis (reaction) ....are blind to a possible existing torture of nature, to discriminate necessary reaction from action, the sentient state, imitation, retransmission and passing the buck. I think appropriate reaction, adjustment, is the healthy normal state know to the common sense and does not require a university education. From this perspective an event horizon must exist between the abnormal state and the normal state, maybe buried in the deep past having no written record, repeated in behavior towards modern times-insults to nature becoming more pronounced and threatening, especially once we have become impelled to search to find bearing from fact extracted beneath the skin, 'skin' being replaced with an idea 'global skin". The facets of an event are around us all day..is obviously not wise to occupy our time to be so engrossed to employ such phenomenon so casually, as tools of navigation through existence. We are coming to know about radiations effecting the earth and its environment that a nature of event horizons are possibly graspable for new common concepts and approaches, even when lost track of probably haven't changed from initial problem, might be better projected and discernible from the imagination if we know what we are looking for in recent history. Todays cures and adaptations have the same etiology and are worse than the original disease. Things should be understood better before the evolution of common household material and conceptual capitals. The language and discourse we construct is always also a forever prison , needs applied trained reflection different from the kind media, advertising and industry/corporation professionals appear to think has a harmless 360 degrees of latitude.

Paleontology helps us distinguish between mass extinction and basic natural or biological extinction. It is the former which provokes most concerns. Front the point of view of the social sciences a mass extinction's called a collapse, and economists and historian have turned recently their attention to the study of collapse.

The point is as follows: on the one side, we are currently facing and producing a sixth extinction, as the classical book by Leaky has pointed out. Besides, on the other hand, we are facing the possibility of a collapse of our civilization.

I would like, then to say that unlike Gore's very bad book and DVD claim the collapse of the western civilization does not entail the collapse of the human species as such.

Lets just recall about millennialist movements and philosophies...

Carlos I have a couple of points in comment.

1) I believe violent change, as in catastrophe theory, may occur, perhaps explains todays world but does not represent the actual mechanism of change, I think change occurs naturally, constantly in the absence of catastrophe. this understanding is very important, the forest and trees must ,Conceptual and physical, objective and and object are confused in a dim light, the "objective" has become "to engineer the object". people do not have faith but all cures for the physical are not physical.

2) It is predicted that the Earths magnetic field will reverse itself, is long overdue. In that case it is predicted human life may not survive, or will a shut down of the vast technological apparatuses supporting the planets life cause extinction or only diminished survival, unknown.

3) I think what happens to the parts of something can affect the whole similarly, depending on what and how it happens. Our wars and self violence are propagating the progression towards and an end, that believe has its seeds in the same. In the expression "hold a man down hold yourself down" Concepts can never be destroyed, they are immortal, thrive on attention. .

Dejenie, thank you for such a provocative question that has generate so many interesting responses. There are at least three streams of thought that have evolved here and they are not necessarily inconsistent with each other.

1. Extreme selfishness and/or greed can be destructive

(I would suggest a refinement that says it is "behavior" that may be destructive, especially when it is oppressive.)

2. Massive economic downturns may result from some non-human catalyst (e.g., natural disaster)

The connection of ecosystems an economics is fascinating!)

3. Some laws, rules, or regulations may destabilize markets others may improve efficiency.

Instead of arguing from the left or right here, I want to explore how sometimes unintended consequences can have a significant impact.

For example, it took me a while to figure out why sub-prime mortgage backed securities (MBS) seemingly could not be sold at any price in the beginning of the financial crisis at any price until I realized the accounting - think of Mark to Market (MTM) - that could have made some banks and other financial institutions immediately insolvent. When MBS did not have a "current" market price, the previous (higher) price made these "assets" appear more valuable and the institutions remained open. Although this exacerbated the crisis, many of these institutions ultimately survived. Who would have recognized this in advance?

Once again, this was a great question with many thought provoking answers.

Dear Marvin, I like the way and pace how the discussion is moving. Originally Dejenie invited us to participate taking into account the economic collapse. Now we seem to agree (all of us, or almost) in moving beyond economics toward larger or more encompassing considerations.

As we know, - just to phrase in classical terms, we have gradualist and catastrophist change. Everyone would agree, I guess, with gradualist change. No problem with that. This is what Gould and Eldrige call as stasis. So far ok.

The wonder comes with catastrophist change. (In the background, people like Cuvier, et al.). As you righty mention, the change of the magnetic field is a fact. The question is all about when and how. However, I am not convinced that that change will necessarily imply the disappearance of mankind. The facts or evidences about that are not given.

Now, regarding wars and violence, let's take up Pinker's argument about how better angels we have become. I want to bring Pinker for the sake of the discussion.

All in all, we seem to agree in that we are facing the collapse of the west. That, I would like to stress, does not necessarily entail the vanishing of mankind as a whole.

Would you agree with that?

Carlos: I am not familiar with Pinkers argument, but I do not think we are better angels or that moral ideation plays a role in behavior...it is not moralizing rhetoric or the elaboration of what good is that is at the route of behavior/history....but something else that precedes it that is more entangled with survival, continuing motion....the existence, meaning, and place, illogic of endlessness, eternality. Morality as it relates to legal affairs and practice, generalizations about propensity for rational logic in interpretation, East and West differences are really not applicable, the future is never predictable.

Yes

Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' works to maintain balance in the economy even in modern context, there is no fear of 'Economic Collapse'.

Carlos: re: "

"The economic collapse is to serious, just to be compared with a black hole."

The concept "black hole" is an evolution of the mind, conceptual capital. Theoretically it should be perfectly invisible if force cannot escape it, if the force of gravity causing the collapse of structure is stronger than opposing forces.

It is conceptual capital that is the source of material assets, usually derived from physical/sensory experience, though in the case of black holes from prosthetically aided observation guided by the same imagination and induction as emanates all conceptual capital, therefore is of parallel importance Blackholes are a serious topic also, they are of the death of stars, men are said to become more serious about death in their later years. The era of the blackhole, from Einstein, is the era of world wars, thoughts of doom, may or may not be from a mood, a mood from the natural damage occurred from war, or real. As topics of death, loss of inertia/orbit, they are very meaningfull, not only there seem to be candidates representing them in the skys, however they are detected, maybe at least in the same class as the real 'undetectable' object, though I think a caution should made regarding exact comparison. Here there is a propensity to mix description with real path in identification and classification..we may be 'bending' things a little when data is used in example of theory, though is essential for discussion and awareness making analogy to death/the closing of space.

I might find it hard to take, as you suggest, the heaviest spaces in the universe, lightly. Is there a root difference in the mind, symbolically, between the burden of doom and the black hole? I think they make perfect parallels in true meaning. I also believe it is coherent and logical that such symbolical forms are found existing physically in nature, e.g. brain coral, designs that look like eyes, galaxies and planets I think have eccentric shapes resembling animal eggs, etc. Space that is open/dynamic might only be contained to principle volumes able to interact to form diverse structures in so many ways. The testing navigator cannot survive without the hands on example/model.

The real lesson is that we should not probe to take too seriously the example of death, the reaction to a feeling of pending death is not as simple a matter as the characteristics of inertia-less space without realization that it suits only illusion/fantasy in the absence of a hands-on example-black holes are deep in space.

So to keep the 'simple' model, there is also a potential simple solution to earthly problems, there is no such path for the testing, a one way trip. Maybe Mars instead? but the thought sounds like an economically expensive, economy exhausting ugly idea to inhabit to test a surrogate death to escape the same, as the real one dwells mostly as a self-fullfilling prophacy, exists according to will, whim of reason of the imagination. The real (thought unsurvivable) peril in such an adventure is projected to be cosmic radiation, most likely the product of the disturbance causing culprit, transiently passing, 'blackhole'. As always, identity and place of focus seduces, is exactly entangled to the problem, the meeting is always predictably unnecessary and infinitely impractical.... busy wasting our resources on near exactly predicatable symmetries that are part of an invisible disposition of an invisible whole.

Greed and extreme selfishness cause of economic system collapse: the Poor get POORER, and the rich get richer. But the rich are extremely greedy, selfish and won't help the poor. So there's little interaction in the economy 'system'.

The 'system' has collapsed.

I would not agree to what you said. The reason I say this is because it all depends on your time frame. Consider a very small time frame and you can probably attribute everything that is wrong with the world to selfishness and greed,

But understanding the importance of the balance between good and bad is critical to understanding how a society progresses. There is a continuous cycle of productivity, decline, revolution, change, productivity and so on.

What you are referring to as a collapse is just small part of the cycle. I can argue saying that extreme greed and selfishness causes a collapse in the system, which in turn gives rise to better policies and governance frameworks. But then again, this gives rise to more evolved selfish behaviour, and once again the cycle repeats, but at a level higher than before.

If you think of it this way, then extreme greed and selfishness leads to growth.

Really I agree with Dr Kamal " Definitely greed and extreme selfishness are among the destructive factors for the economy"

It can be discuss Saahil Parekh statement, about how extreme greed and selfishness do not cause a collapse in the system. Instead these attitudes drive to search for better policies and governance frameworks.

Policies and governance frameworks are not a technical matter, but an ideological one. If policies are not base on a balance between the natural human inclination to greed and selfishness, on one hand, and the equally wealth distribution, on the other hand, it is unavoidable that poor get poorer and rich get richer, as Miranda Yeoh points out. That is to say, it is unavoidable the collapse in the system, in the sense of a collapse into our civilization, as Maldonado states. So, it can be true that extreme greed and selfishness leads to growth, but only if we accept that the growth refers to the richer.

Gema, Miranda, Saahil: re greed and selfishness

I think that anything that disturbs a system causes change. Does a system of sets of assets include (as assets) all the factors that cause change? Is change in a system logical to include as an asset among a list of assets?

It can be asked whether people consider change an asset in the light of observation that people appear to always want more change, are greedy with respect to change. I have light bulbs, now I want airplanes, washing machines, now air conditioners, automobiles, computers, cell phones...on and on. Is there an initial disturbance to the system that brings about the rest? an unwelcome change? For instance after colonization around the world there is continual adjustment that is still occurring as demands/market for new technology continue to grow, aspects of cultures of colonizers are absorbed appearing almost as if a greedy glutony.

If it is acknowledged that all systems undergo change naturally (I think necessarily for longest lifetime) at a steady rate, does the cycle of greed and progress proposed by Saahil fit the category of catastrophy theory, is catastrophy always life shortening. Homo sapiens is estimated scientifically to have appeared the simultaneously with the collision of a meteor and the disappearance of the dynasaurs...an event that appears to have given rise to the notion of catastrophy theory.

If it is the event of catastrophy that brings about mankind, does he have a shortened lifetime? are todays events, fears of economic, natural catastrophy an inevitable product of the birth of the human species? If so, is there a path to survival, does it include the abetting of catastrophy of does it demand, as if a habituation, release from its hold. Ultimately, is catastrophy, or acceleration, whether naturally or humanly caused, to steady rates, ever an asset.

From a different perspective, is morality, though a seed of change, perhaps of the catastrophic/accelerating kind, no more than a necessary medicine for poor happenstance, the important ethic residing in nature as its' universal means (is the noun we call 'nature' , the collective set of trees in the forest, no more a verb indicating the means to no end?) to accomplish the longest temporal organizational/species/individual path into the shortest physical paths.

Dear Marvin, it goes without saying that metaphors are a capital piece of our thoughts and life. (For, metaphors open up or announce the path to poetry). However, when at the beginning I mentioned something about black holes i warned that it was for the sake of the argument. For, rightly understood a black hole is the simplest cosmological argument. And if you want to take put my words, then I have to say that it is not true what you say, because energy does escape in a very little amount from the horizon event of a black hole. That is, the first principle of thermodynamics is conserved. Even Hawking himself has recognized this and he has changed his mind about black holes as to what he firmly thought.

Being as it might be, I think I get your point If not, please correct me). Can we escape from the collapse? You call the outdate Mars; ok. It can be any other one. But yes, the most feasible way goes via terraforming Mars. In fact a first selection of volunteers has already been chosen.

Two basic roads emerge i front of us: either face the collapse and solve it here, or also (not necessarily contradictory) via terraforming. One common point is the actual limits of our technology.

Good science, I believe, is about dealing with possibilities, thus:

a) Because those possibilities are occurring actually;

b) Because those possibilities could be feasible; and even if,

c) Those possibilities can never take place.

Collapse is a reasonable motive for working through this way, I guess.

Saahil : Indeed malfunctioning of sectors of a society because of innate bad behaviors of humans will lead to a new understanding of faults which lead to establishing new rules and regulations to combat that. But as society develops social activities do develop as well in kind and sophistication and therefore in some cases similar behaviors will be displayed in a higher level ( as you have indicated ) or some new behaviors will appear but again illegal for that level ( which may not be illegal or even unused for the old system because of not being known) and lead again to paralysis of the new developed system.

When we say collapse, we are talking about the sever damage happened to the livelihood of members of society. If a problem still brings the same pain and suffering to members of a highly transformed society ( presumed developed and grown ), then we still consider the failure as equally bad as it was in the old and un- transformed one. What you have said growth then is spacio-temporal positioning of society in which old types of problems or new ones created still haunt the society to its demise. It does not matter whether you live in high rise building or in a mud hat somewhere in a third world country or you use a computer to calculate your fiances or use a stone age calculating device called abacus or your fingers for that matter, the pain that comes from a failure of a system will equally damage members of that particular society at the level the society is.

The periodicity of failures and bad things due to mischievous human activities are not good things either, they are instead causes of regression. Several hundred civilizations buried across the globe because of infighting and or natural calamities and society starts all over again and same things happened again and again. But in all these times human beings did not change to another creatures of nature with sophisticated brain and mental structure different from the old ones.

Marvin: Disturbance or in our language perturbation indeed brings change to a system. Disturbances/perturbations are good to study how stable/unstable a system is at and around a singularity point ( sorry for using technical terms) - a point with a neighborhood which is sensitive to a quantum change. In some social matters, disturbances are a necessity to go away from a backward, uncivilized, repressing, autocratic, etc statuesque and replace it with a functioning, progressive and better styled system of governance ( such as democracy). The changes you mentioned are all results of progression for better and effective results in studying and solving problems. In fact the whole enterprise of education, the advancement of science and technology are meant for the kinds of changes you mentioned and they are by no means to disrupt activities of humankind but instead to facilitate, perfect and better them at the will of the human society.

The galactic catastrophe that caused life to begin here on earth and thereby human beings and the collapse of fiscal systems (or any other social system for that matter ) will equally be good if we humans abandon all things we use and need to live that are purchased through the use of money, but that is unlikely to happen in the near and foreseeable future.

A quick note on language: a collapse is a fatal change with negative or undesirable results. A catastrophe, on the contrary is a sudden and unpredictable change that can be either positive or negative. Vis-à-vis catastrophes we have a "debacle".

… En passant...

@Dejenie, I had a chance to read your blog Economic Collapse – A Black Hole Syndrome. I do agree with all three examples, so as I find it very interesting for reading, I do warmly suggest it!

http://wwwfreedomstar.blogspot.com/2013/08/economic-collapse-black-hole-syndrome.html

Thanks Ljubomir for the link you posted on my post regarding "Economic Collapse - A Black Hole Syndrome ". Here is the link of the original site: http://magazineesan.blogspot.com/

"What do you think, is greed and extreme selfishness the cause of economic system collapse? "

I think that one issue under examination is economic collapse due to imbalances that usually occur by asset overvaluation( whether legal or illegal). This problem can be analyzed in two parts:

1) the initial cause of the imbalance- This can be attributed to just as being plain wrong about the underlying assumption for an incentive(such as nations securing mortgages) which can then be leveraged to initiate the imbalance (The greed part comes at this stage, when one person sees an opportunity to take advantage of a wrong assumption).

2) the re-balancing- can lead to people(usually rational) to sell those assets and then other people(usually irrational) see that there is a big trend they will usually engage in herding behavior. If the first group acted under a maxim of maximization of profit and structured analysis, can this be equated as greed or selfishness? Can the second group be said to be acting out of selfishness or being just plain irrational?

As a second point to consider is when there is substantial movement in the market done by automated systems such as the ones doing flash trading which can trigger huge sell-offs? Are they bound by Selfishness and greed?Can we equate the programmer's analysis of the thresholds imposed on the system as greed and selfishness or a disciplined approach to investing under wrong assumptions?

Just a thought

Dear Arturo, grave as they are, greed and selfishness are not the causes of the economic collapse. On the one hand, because we are facing a systemic and systemic crisis and, moreover as mentioned early on, se rise of intertwined crises. On the other hand because that would be too reductionist for a good appraisal. I would rather rep-phrease the issue thus: greed and selfishness can be accounted for as belonging to the causes of the economic collapse. Yet, we need look for other closely interrelated and radical reasons.

Carlos,

In its simplest from going back through out history and various economic models greed and selfishness none the less are primary reasons for things like economic collapse. There are interrelated and radical reasons that can be noted (and perhaps controlled), but human nature is very consistent and clear through out history on greed and selfishness.

Dear Robert, as I said, I agree with the consideration of greediness and selfishness; no question about that. My only concern consist in reducing the whole of history to just those two aspects of human beings. I personally don' t think there is such a thing as "human nature". The reason is that such a concept is a-historical, as if there was s substance called human nature upon which culture and history could not do anything about it. Well, I stand on the side of the optimists about human beings.

Carlos,

I was just restating in quotes the bottom part of the original question of the post which I agree with you in your conclusion but through other considerations

Dear Arturo, we agree then. And this is not a minor achievement. Science as we know it does not consist of many agreements, but on disputes and discussions, on qualifying and un-(or de-) qualifying. To be sure, science evolves throughout scientific revolutions. One the merits of RG consists in turning the game up-side down and allowing for exchange, and well, agreements. Our world does need as many and as robust agreements as possible.

Where there is convergent force there must be divergent force at the opposite end similarly the collapse of functioning of one economic system begets a new economic system to function in another form, for instance move from capitalism to controlled capitalism. It is endless long-run process in development activities depending on changes in social and political thinking.

Hi Arjun, Carlos and Arturo and Dejenie,

Is greed and selfishness the cause of periodic collapse to the Capitalist economic system, or is it endemic to the system in the sense that it drives that system ?

We need to look at the current system of production as a whole and analyse it holistically without being reductionist in the process. Could we perhaps be confusing a cause with an inbuilt driver of that system? How much greed and selfishness and what type of greed and selfishness causes collapse and when do we know selfishness and greed has reached a critical point or juncture ?

If greed and selfishness can cause an economic system to collapse, then either that economic system lacks the regulatory legal mechanisms relevant to its functioning, or that it operates in an institutional vaccum.

Right! I agree with Mohamed and Wayne. Collapse is such a magnificient debacle that it canot and should be reduced to particular human features or metapysicial-biased assumptions.

First of all: the collapse is a fact, period. The best minds working on fields such as finance, economics, policies or management, f.i.: a) could not see the crisis coming; b) do not know how to get out of such a crisis. By and large much worse and roted than the famous 1929 crisis. Taking a look at: http://www.weforum.org/ is one sufficient proof.

My own take is that we should consider the economic collapse as a collapse of the western civilization, thus:

i) Provided that the free-market system is the final outcome of modernity and, morover, of that history that begun with the "western mind" (circa 500 b.C.)

ii) The crises are systemic and systematic. Put in medical terms, it is, literally a complex diseiase. The financial and economic crises are just critical points, and as such they are cronical diseases.

iii) This said, nonetheless, I do not think that the collpase of the western world entails a collapse of mankind as such. I do persinally have deep hopes on mankind....

Hi Carlos and Mohamed,

I agree with your points, very insightful.

Wayne

Hi W McMillan.

At national level or macro-level individual greed and selfishness have no role to play in controlling economic system nor they take economy to collapse until their is democratic system of govt.

Thanks Arjun. I was thinking of a measure of inequality income and wealth as an indicator or barometer of selfishness and greed. If we look at the period before the Great Depression we can see a shift to great inequality in income and wealth in the USA and UK. I think this has happened again with the recent. GFC. These trends tend to repeat themselves.

Through all of the complex renditions of collapse, reactions can be puzzling...the earth is finite, people and resources finite, how can an ideology such a capitalism that is premised, do or die, on the constant accumulation of assets, not expect to run out?, not expect that this intrinsic nature of capitalism would not introduce instabilities from the "collective individual" who cannot be totally amiss without some registration of this paradox in the conscious or unconscious. Further, a system does not require constant grow for viability, this is a known facet of cancer cells, not healthy cells, that they die if prohibited from growth through repetitive cell cycles. In addition capitalism is not the only choice of possible alternatives. Potential forces molding todays world are difficult to advance as I believe they may not be known at all, are unfamiliar for characterization.

I agree with you Marvin, but we don't have any other viable system at the moment . All economies that have moved away from using a market mechanism in some shape or form have had disastrous results. True earthly resources are limited and constant unrelenting economic growth depletes them. However the developed nations have had the benefit of higher standards of living and wasteful use of resources for numerous years, whilst many developing nations have been very frugal in the use of resources and have made less an impact on the environment. How can we tell developing nations that they shouldn't do what the developed nations have done? What sort of new system must evolve to save us all from environmental destruction, but deliver a decent standard of living for all human beings, not just a privileged few?

Hi Dear McMillan, Thanks. We find answers to all your questions in Karl Marx and Malthusian economic literature on development and population issues.

Thanks Arjun., I have read some of the Reverend Malthus's works, however I am more familiar with Karl Marx. I am fairly sure neither had a very good understanding of ecology or climate change issues or environmental sustainability. Economics needs to think further afield to solve its current problems. Perhaps we need to draw from disciplines like Ecology, Biology, Systems theory and complexity theory. My knowledge is limited in Economics and other disciplines and I don't pretend to have a solution to these issues. I feel however Economics needs a new paradigm, because I from a theoretical perspective its has lost its way

The increasing correlation (and thus simplification) of a system (any kind of system) precedes its collapse, being it a cause or an effect (i.e. a way in which the system tries to counteract an external oder parameter) as clearly described in the attached file even with contributes from economics..

Hi Alessandro, increasing correlation does not mean simplification of a system preceding its collapse. On the contrary, according to Holling's adaptive cycle, what is called collapse occurs because of the increasing maturity and specialization of the system itself, thus increasing its connectedness and interdependence, and, hence, its fragility. But how to foresee a collapse? Generic early-warning signals typically do not indicate the proximity to critical thresholds in complex adaptive systems (van Nes and Scheffer, 2007). Theoretical studies have shown spatial signatures of upcoming transitions so that correlated spatial patterns could provide powerful indicators of regime shifts in SELs (Guttal and Jayaprakash, 2009). The underlying principle of most of these indicators is the ‘critical slowing down’ (Strogatz, 1994) implying that when the critical shifting points are approached, the system becomes slower in recovering from perturbations (van Nes and Scheffer, 2007). These studies designate the increase in spatial connectivity, in particular, as leading indicator of early-warning for an impending critical transition of regime shifts, and that may be a generic phenomenon for a wide class of transitions (Dakos et al., 2010). However, most of the proposed spatial indicators have been developed in simple ecological models and even if potentially useful for managing transitions of real social-economic-ecological systems, still remain elusive in their application and have not yet been tested in the field (Scheffer et al., 2009). For a better reliability of such leading indicators, it has been advised to study their performance in more realistic scenarios of spatially correlated phenomena at multiple scales (Dakos et al., 2010).

Caro Giovanni, it is important to clarify (for what is possible) the term 'simplification', I intend it as a decrease in complexity and thus of the degrees of freedom of its phase space and this is registered by the increase in correlation among its parts with respect to the initial state as Gorban et al demonstrate...by the way this is an early sign of collapse in many situations like epilepsy, heart failure, chemical reactors going out from normal regimen and, more in general in any state transition of thermodynamical systems.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960104014501

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960104014501

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1007570403001291

The puzzling thing in econolmy is to find a suitable pahse space where to look for correlations (and clearly to have a good correlation metrics)..in general all the metrics have many things in common, but some are more sensitive than others in specific settings:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437101004277

In any case even the signs you mentioned are very effective markers of 'going out of control' and marginally refer to correlation increase given the different thermal dissipation properties of noisy and deterministic systems, but I preferred to refer to correlation increase, because a single 'target function' (like envisaged in the excess of selfishness and short-term profit) is a clear agent of correlation increase...

Alessandro Giuliani: This is very creative and positive. It can be difficult sometimes to distinguish up from down with limited view..i.e. I believe that nano particles are on their way down from a natural existence as components of something else. It makes sense that anything touched or perturbates adjusts according to the hand that touched it, will become ill. It is not ethical or logical to keep a redundant master catalogue of 1,000,000 for practical applications to a list of 10,000 unique addresses simply because computer technology allows it. Anything that is a victim of a controlling hand will respond to avert disease, maintain the open free state. Response to disturbance entails to avoid disease reaction against the disturbing hand, nature acting in opposition to men. World systems theory, an empirically centered approach to flows, sounds very applicable....it postulates the existence of a unique circumstance from the remainder is modeled. This circumstance should be sought out with a hands off thought in mind regarding all elements and their circumstances, discourse is always the preferable method unless for example, a sick man in the jungle is come upon who maintains himself with unethical and extravagant means indicating antibiotics or surgery, but discourse also is known to remedy defeating living habits or bolster the spirit/immune system to fend off disease. It might not be therapeutic, as I can visualize some might be inclined to (treat the disease with the effects of its own produce) remodel a village of one hundred people, though a unique universe occurance, a special instance, with modern conveniences and comforts, a cushion ride. As unobtrusive a cure, to leave the smallest print, as possible.

I fear it is the practice of violence, (or impulse applied to effect a change in path realized by behavior effected (secondarily) from within-is learned socially or genetically) to solve problems, is alone potentially the single premediating instance of collapse, at least in all cases its' existence has 100 percent probability of pushing any system downward. Some opinion the idea that unknown controlling elements should be found and addressed directly (always with thoughts to control or change for their own purpose)...it better to find a means to understand the elements and forces at play so they be accomodated to direct change (in motivation/approach/behavior etc.)

I wrote a book on this! Check out William Leiss, "The Doom Loop in the Financial Sector, and Other Black Holes of Risk," University of Ottawa Press, 2010 (available as print and e-book)

No because the markets and governments respond to an propped up the economies of the world. If they had not acted then yes we would have been well on our way to a new "Dark Ages".

Try another form of topology. Conventional topology can model the black hole. But is understood with more ease in another way. Seek the great similarities but fundamental differences of 2 situations 'near boundary'; their properties are different from cases 'at boundary'.

Look at the topology of general situations as an animated geometry, a 'modelling' WITHOUT mathematising it and detailing it too much in human terms & words: the geometry presents a more global 'seeing' of how situations 'shape up'. This includes the topologic properties of the 'dominant force' mentioned in the question, irrespective of how it manifests (eg greed).

Near boundary can occur in 2 different 'cas de figure': (1) approaching a single-surface Boundary (2) approaching a Boundary that is a double-surface, and if you zoom in to see better: approaching it 'from the inside' - i.e. from in between the 2 surfaces. (That's where the dark hole phenomenon occurs, as well as dark energy). These 2 cases allow to discern basic development from the damaging effects of 'high' development (eg in globalisation).

The double boundary case involves many risks that do not exist in the single boundary case. One of these is an autoreinforcing property that does not exist near single-sided boundary. One of the risks is 'fragility' (in economy, but in other situations too, such as in the body's health; related to connection/ correlation/ stiffness or loosness/ fall apart). The probable risks and great effort/energy/resources required to push and 'emerge' past second-surface boundary (e.g. adaptive compensations, so costly in resources of many kinds) more often than not outweigh the possible benefit.

About Tyrannies... It seems to me that they can be of the 2 sorts, again, and that they use that , which topologically can be viewed as a vertical axis going through the double-surface boundary.. In the current world situation, it has gone up to the other side. Once 'on the other side' (or through a worm hole), the auto-limiting factor that exists near the 1st-surface boundary, is gone, lost, and the auto-reinforcing nature of what happens between the 2 surfaces is carried over, and its exponential element makes it just keep running, for itself (not humans) just because of its mathematical properties (also exist in the logic & human aspects), ... end-lessly, in a play of bubble making & breaking. So I'd say that Tyrannnies can be both lasting or not lasting. The current one is of the endless type. It keeps running until it runs out of resources.

The question is: how long will we let "IT", that 'system' run, before we realise it's not so much fun or freedom to be fodder for it and it's not working for human health ora sanity either. (think of the rise of iatrogenic diseases but also syndromes, especially of the brain, and mind).

The 'basic' geometric topologic imaging makes all this much easier to see globally than with words & numbers based discussions, which fragment the picture, to see 'whence' it all comes and where it's going.

Francesca,

This is an economic not philosophy discussion. What is you direct answer. You need to know human frailties what they are and will be are best solved by improving financial status and health for all. Check out Han Riesling video's on health and wealth on YouTube. Currently for the first time in history over 50% of humans are living above the poverty line (not exactly slavery). The Economist (consider reading it) is projecting that by 2050 80% of humans will be above the poverty line. This is after millions of years on this planet, we are finally accomplishing things for all. More optimism and active support for progress and less negative perspective on all our human flaws. We are improving!

Robert: I do not think Francesca was being critical or ignorant of the nature of the discussion. While putting money in the pocket of the needy definately gives a boost, can free to realize and improve the disposition, it is not a total answer. Nor is a Robin Hood approach, "steal from the rich and give to the poor"; stealing is still stealing, if you put on the hat of a crook it can prove difficult or impossible to remove. 'An eye for an eye' from the bible does not refer to jurisprudence or the human kegal system, but to nature, if you take from it, it takes from you; you are composed of nature. Perhaps the eye 'sees' black holes, because they threaten it...the ability of the eye to see depends on a disparity of forces to cause the impression of an image. There are continually more black holes being found, perhaps the instigation of theoretical approaches to understanding them is similar, they are paradoxical. How can one see what allows no light to escape from it, the 'invisible space" occupied by a black hole might be supposed to be only a theoretical phenomenon of the universe, but external to (maybe a container of) the humanly/earthly world, but incoherent as a perceptual object. One can only suppose that black holes can contain something like black holes and that are 'visible'; whatever their nature may not be known, perhaps what we see and study is not the same object predicted from theory. An actual black hole can have no event horizon: hence can have nothing to do with economics. If we call black holes instead "heavy holes" it is possible to speculate that they can be the product of (from high energy accelerators used to alter the energy distribution s of targeted masses, to genetic tampering with established direction along a path of nature, to humanly imposed death penalties by public courts-fixing in place to remove a presence, destroy a threatening concept.... all of these oppress the free state of nature that is reflected also as the human mind itself. The "heavy holes" can be visualized as the holes of "lead bullets" in a David and Golliath like approach to control nature; they look to be the product of philosophical inadequacy, conceptual confusion, create a torsion or stress that is experienced by nature and employed simultaneously as a funding source for removal that includes also the event horizon, hence the event . In analogy the."heavy hole" is a head growing to nature, a weather head probably existing of its own externally in space, simultaneously causing a poor civilization disposition... a sandwich of lead that cannot but consume, at its maturity, all the bread to evolve only lead. The money put in the pockets of the needy cannot be taken from the same 'poisoned loaf" ....must be made an event from a philosophical revelation concerning disposition, men and nature.

Of greatest concern involving business and economics, in this respect, entails recent insight and discovery concerning headquarters, known managers, supervisors, and the existence of real unidentified controlling forces of employee populations, they are exactly distinct from one another in an eternal sense. In one report I read it was suggested that the voice and identity of the actual element be located and educated to the nature of the business, to exert controlling force, but again a vice is a vice: a doctor uses a vice to grip a bullet to extract it, not to plant it, though anyone, rich or poor can be imagined capable to think to apply impulse over an unknown natural weather head, an action in which nature eternally supervenes. It is not the economic endowment at the place of the individual perspective that ultimately supervenes; not witnessible simultaneously, tangential to measureable gravitation, the 'philosophical/conceptual gravity' of light emitting masses has the hand.

The world might currently be seen with the potential to drift further into a distant grasp.... instant communications, increasing inclination towards generalization, tendency towards instantiation that is habitual, might inevitably lead to growing orientation with distant influencing elements.

I think Francesca and Marika are both thinking in the right direction. Humanity is at a crossroads, we either evolve to a higher level or we do in a sense disappear metaphorically down a black hole in history. The paths we choose decide our future. If we continue to destroy the very means of sustaining life on the planet then we are doomed. The GFC is just a symptom of a greater disease inherent in the current flawed thinking and operation of Capitalism. Capitalism's technological and scientific underpinninings are dangerous if they continue to think we can have our cake and eat it too.

Marvin, Wayne & Francesca,

Note I am pragmatist by nature. The only things I can do to make there world a better place is help, share, be honest. I am not certain we ever make others (especially that unique subset driven by money) change their ways. They nonetheless provide opportunity to the masses (note: I also teach entrepreneurship). From a faith perspective, I truly believe that humans are evolving and with technology the pace of that change will be accelerate. As for the the truly questionable people (your choice of villain, although there are a good number of bankers) my believe there is we will (the good) will ascend in death and they will not.

So my pragmatism says, work on what we can change directly.

Bob

Francesca,

Points taken, especially the last one. However, you offer no alternatives to building a better economic system that will raise the working poor. I understand the realities of human existence, but choose to say what can we do to make things better, not that things are bad (forgive me if this is no what you said, but it is my perception). Please offer some solutions, which is what I thought the original forum question what driving toward.

Bob

Dejenie,

Would you mind clarifying what your original intent and purpose was for this forum. Perhaps I am on the wrong thought path here.

I think;

1) the analogy of economic failure to black holes entails address to the philosophical as well as the empirical.

2) Roberts initial comment about irrelevancy of the philosophical was a little innappropriate.

3) Francesca's reiterations are not in line with his philosophy of sentience and individuals arriving at values on their own, change from within, though it does look like he possibly acknowledcges being 'rude' or innappropriate.

4) I do not see what influence Robert has to effect change in that regard. I might not refuse an 'economic stimulus' package from Robert if I needed it to pay the rent on a place to keep a kitchen, bed, address staple from which I might institue a work life regardless if I suspect that American economic policy does not have philosophically stable roots.

Marvin,

Interesting perspectives. Your answer to one makes two valid from your perspective, but I am still waiting to see what Dejinie had in mind. As for four, well we probably should accept that American economic policy has roots but surely not in practice what they were intended to accomplish.

@Francesco

1) I do not think global monetary influx can compare even slightly (if not cause damage) with the effect of volunteer work that includes sustinance provided internally by citizens.

2) I have noticed that the US post office has been forced to force many employees to an early retirement because email and computers have absorbed an estimated 4 billion letters a month that were previously sent by ordinary mail. When one thinks about this they first see the enormous saving brought about by the computer and second the problem with the job market. If it is the quality rather than quantity of life that gives meaning, a question comes to mind about the purpose of the post office; ordinary consensus would say that it improves quality, makes life easier amidst all of the tasks involved to it. Most important to ask, does an easier life entail better quality? or (per Marx, wages cannot supplant needed primary contact with nature) does the freeing of time increase its quality, what are tasks of modern life, where do they lead? life at any age reflects, after all, no more than how one passes has passed his time. Would passing my time riding a horse to deliver mail to a town near by reduce the quality of my time? Solidarity, social cohesion, at the extreme of Marxs description of capitalism has become replaced with the chemical energy of materials, the glue of the atom, gravity; each the topic of fervent research to control nature to suplant it with personal design. The world seems to be engaged in a feverent fanaticism. Children are seen here in America walking down the street communicating with cell phones, unable to look one another in the eye. They have problems not experienced before.

It is important to understand where today comes from, what is experienced has still present extraneous influencing factors and is the consequence of human will and unexplored possibility. I think the Academy itself (i.e. of the Greeks, of Socrates, Plato), the new Testament, time of Christ, comes about at the time of a physical change or displacement in the environment of the Earth and civilization has evolved to be physically oriented towards description entailed for understanding. Einstein was on the verge of understanding in his endeavor to describe an inertial frame of reference: acceleration or motion creates disparity that has direct access, is experienced and stimulating to the intellect. Regarding the topic in this discussion, one might talk himself 'blue in the face' to others because they do not think deeply to understand what moves them(excuse the pun-it is motion itself). As in Shakespeare, ones ordinary life is the real (boring 99% of the time) stage, expressions such as "my life is an open book" or "I've nothing to hide" are illusioned imagination, less diversity and disparity itself perish.

Francesca and Marvin,

Let me start with Francesca, foremost sorry about he suicides. But to contrast the reality with the US and Europe, you have suicides and we have crazies that execute policemen, kill another person before completing a suicide pack because they think their government is too involved with everything. The lack of suicides is not here because we do have a significant safety net with many people willing to lead the dependent life. Many college graduates will live with their parents and work three lousy jobs to afford their stuff and pay their bills and many illegals will come here to work low paying under the radar because they still pay better than where the come from. So the US does not have a job problem.

It does have a quality job problem (which I believe exists worldwide) and there will be a widening gap between well educated (tech oriented) and the rest left dealing with service jobs. The migration issues Europe has is not really a problem here, we have space and opportunity (acceptance not so much). An issue which may be worldwide is education. By a practical solution is to educate for jobs that are needed (Germans seems to understand this). underdeveloped countries will have their day in the sun. They have been exploited (as much as by their owner rulers as from western nations). But they have population growth and developing consumers. Things will change as their customers demand more from their government and our businesses. Forget degrees, we needs trades people here (plumbers make good money). there is adequate money in the world and more growth is possible, but every government needs to assess how they encourage business growth and match education to meet those needs so people have sufficient opportunity to earn money for a good life.

Solution, provide incentives for businesses and wealthy folks to invest in job growth.

Solution, accept technology is is reducing many jobs but create new jobs than have existed before. Provide higher level service oriented opportunities. That is where world will need to go long term, not to avoid thinking big which means jobs and opportunities by the end of this century beyond this planet.

Solution, level the planets population ( demographically, this is already is occurring). Projection by 2050 the planet will top out around 9 billion and reduce back to 6-7 by the end of the century. The planet creates enough food to potentially feed everyone well, we just distribute it poorly.

Now Marvin,

Not sure were you are going with your first comment. but volunteer work will be one way people will stay engaged, but we need to address income for people first.

US post office is a victim of technology changes and poor management. But I work at a technology college also and I see wonderful new ideas that will create wonderful new opportunities for all. Believe!.

As for you digression on marx, bottom line he has been proven wrong on most of what his issues, governments, businesses and people solved for his complaints. His ideology (and substitute Mr. Picketty) will not solve world problems. We have humans beings have not evolved enough to accept socialism, communism (as is should have been) or utopia as they are idealized. I am willing to bet on capitalism solving more problems (not all) than any other approach. Again, I believe in human creativity to solve for many of today's problems.

Now on your last digression. Wow Marvin get back to the real world. Do you only hang out with folks who talk about philosophical and metaphysical concepts. Even well educated folks like your self know that the clerk at the grocery store is not concerned with that stuff. Get back to a practical acceptance by all the folk you claim you want to help. So to you I ask... where are your real world solutions?

Bob

@Robert I do not have an answer, hope to point out where societal decisions diverge from the path of accumulated wisdoms, the ordinary wisdoms of common men, what is practically known. This indicates to me that we do not and have never known or understood the real forces at work, on ourselves, our neighbors, physical, sociological, psychological; I hope to bring this to light so dogmas are identified, wish for new perspectives to evolve different conceptual organizations and realized behavior. Socrates.. "if a man knows the truth he will act accordingly".

@Robert: Amidst the slow and ordinary progression of university scholarship, the advanced scholar might recognize that a common perspective and one different from it might in reality be valid and equivilent to conceptually put it in the same space occupied by the other.. Nature is really, begining to end, furthest to closest, nothing but response/adjustment without absolutes. The response to new perspective can make it look metaphysical, lacking in practicality when the perspectives are equal alternatives to the senses, one more firmly seated and carried in discourse longer than the other.

In my own experiences a first voiced response to my own elaboration was "consider the difficulty in proving the theory of relativity". Despite Einsteins assesment that it was disprovable, many from before as well as myself argue that world views in modern times usually are not refutable...the theory of relativity requiring further stretching of the imagination than the simple premise I employ, absolutely witnessibility by perception in all corners of the world that is conditional for the sake of evidence, depending on location and the physical containment of places by other places, one has no witness to the outside of spaces that contain his own....my supporting evidence, a simple farm egg as a representative egg shape among many other witnessed and familiar world aspects. What one names as practicalities, I might see to contradict my own practicalities from a throughly legitimate different perspective. Your words concerning metaphysics, philosophy, academia and the ordinary person are not new to me and you maybe be surprised to learn that I have not a single like, as you describe, association existing to my life and work over the 20 years of formal post high school education (nor a single word of question, critique or advise..sometimes a joke "journal of theoretical astrophysics", no such journal existed in those days). My work, employing argument from science, laws of motion, as positive support, makes grand theory a matter of philosophical discourse (maybe appearing exact and final possibly, though open and applicable to discussion and diverse pursuits)and not science method to test evolved ideas.

Scholarship in academia has become very slanted. Nature is a matter of possibility only, not predication. Military ideology infiltrates nearly all aspects of the university, as it began from philosophers with military associations, their minds gotten organized and aligned from "boot camp", promoting healthy mind, body, and soul. I suppose everyone benefits a little from like experiences, but it is needed to reflect a little on the nature of the military and its relation to the individual, has its limits where world economy and nature is concerned; so tightly entangled to societies, institutions, it is ultimately destructive to both the individual and nature, strips identity and uniqueness from both theory in approach to problems, and from the world.

It is also not impractical to consider the economic as it simply relates to the better disposition of the individual, persons are happier when less stresses economically (Libya before the invasion of rebels was prospering from the proceeds of oil, Gadaffis' supreme military council was mostly silent with respect to internal affairs and at least a semi democratic rule was present, was quiet internationally and internally. Some might say the new movement "occupy", complaints of uneven distribution of wealth is a positive gain, a new awareness, but it is all a left turn after unfortunate events, such ideas are always alive but not prominent and argued in the light, their time would come along a different route, radical change from revolution is never the prefered course. So it is now that the approach to problems is mechanically narrowed by events towards the economic stimulus.

I learned two things from university mentors (at least one of which served in the military):

1) "I'm OK, your OK" (a book title of the 70s)

2)consider important " where people are coming from?"

All one sees in the news is slander mixed in with a few facts, Nothing can do worse than the application of external will to societies. We are not going to exactly please the Russians (I first thought to say Putin, but regardless of its social/political/economic structure, Russia belongs to the Russians not their leader) nor them ourselves. I do not believe It is anyones business to make contrast on the existing conditions of other states, especially industrious ones, each only retreats unreflecting to their cacoons or engages in direct conflict. Nor might it be wise to awaken individuals from their sleep. Once accomplished were are attaching again what we now think to be a positive light, but reflected from states induced ourselves from induced negative turns. Was it not energy/oil considerations that lead us afar.

So what has occurred has occurred, is the resulting state/condition that can only be perceived. But how might anyone expect a better world to result from mighty(slandering and preaching at the same time) mouths pushing money around?

I admit this may be a hard pill to swallow, but also think there is one other important factor in all of this, the ("neutral thinking") spy able to manipulate whole societies once they have access to its mass media. As Putin himself says "all countries are guilty on this account, none more perfect than the other". The situation from this point is so extremly confusing, I do not believe a single party has a firm grip to know the facts of a truth created not by nature but by men, that I think it best and 'practical' to adhere strictly to the philosophical for balance/guidance/ethics.

--dont know the "black hole" expression

--greed et al. : quite indeed, but this is the essence of capitalism. The nature of power and of its exercice is good to question. Orwell provides all answers if you read him carefully enough.

--economical collapse is just one side of a global systemic crisis involving all sectors of our civilization. When the ecological dimension is brought into consideration, that GSC reveals itself to be actually a terminal crisis. McPherson is very good to clarify this.

--it is in light of all this that the current neoimperialism can be understood and esp that the danger of ww3 can be assessed

Marvin and Michel,

Take sometime to get out and talk with the small business owners in your neighborhood.Listen to them. It will give you a day to day perspective of the world. It is fortunate you have time to view the greater good perspectives, but universities dull the senses to day to day living. Have a treat from the local bakery when you are out and about. Then ponder why this baker makes this delicious bake goods for you daily.

Well, i suspect that the relevant contrast is not between universities and (small) businesses but between community life and social life as carved by medias. Social life in westernized societies are made of conformism and atomism (Tocqueville saw it in 1835), they are now piloted by medias that do not seek to inform but to entertain. COmmunity life is usually in the same bad state but it is at that lvel that you can still gather data about the current state of affairs. In more mundane matters, to answer your ad hominem : i have no tv, radio and neither do i read newspapers but i do indeed listen and talk to people as i meet them. This changes nothing, to teh contrary, to my diagnosis.

I read

Apologies in advance if I am a bit blunt. As dr Susuki noted in an address, without being able to explain it: we are getting caught by our own intelligence, our frameworks of thought, and perspectives that can never be made to match entirely. For example, “where” we need to go is actually not to “evolve to a higher level” (or ‘grow up’) – We have past the point at which our evolution has become devolution: for example, we degenerate ourselves physically with speed and stress and foods, and produce an exponential ‘physiologically increased needs’ that affect environments, and produce increased human exploitation needs; We put survival and extremely costly adaptive strategies on a pedestal and push it in every day life (which actually is simple: shelter, food, water, a place in the human world) . We describe them with the mish-mash soup of ‘complexity science’ and ‘complex adaptive system’ derived from Point Set Theory, of which Poincare said: PST is a disease from which humanity will soon recover… Disease of mind limitation all right, not so much recovery. Money, slavery, capitalism, work etc,… are all diverse perspectives (many others exist) that hide a fundamental axis ‘Up’, increase, spread, etc. This is what is limiting our capacity to see and understand situations like overpopulation and poverty.

‘raise’ the working poor’ is an example of this ‘Up’ axis, just like ‘evolve to Higher level’. Too many words to project and attribute this ‘Up axis’ in countless perspectives prevent us from seeing its autoreinforcing property, and remembering that things can also operate in auto-limiting manner, reducing the use of resources as needs are met, instead of increasing it.

I read

First, my view is that it not making things ‘better’ that we need – this is compensatory, adaptive, costly. We need to remember what it is like to be safe, unaffected (e.g. body temperature not requiring 3 big meals a day), and human bodies not exploited by either others or by one’s own fuel-hungry brain,

Second… What can we do?

1- free ourselves from the limiting shackles of our fragmented perspectives and remember what ‘adequate ideas’ are. That’s Spinoza’s term. He is one of the philosophers who tried to formulate the ‘geometry of mind’, to recover the ability to ‘see whence & where to’ situations come. I modeled that with basic geometric topology.

2- What we can do is stop systematically crushing by policies and laws and economic pressure all the small local actions that individuals take every day to reduce their Human Footprint; stop punishing thrift and rewarding spending for example; stop denying the ‘right’ to stay on natural land unless one has money (e.g. luxury ‘eco-retreats’ or 'escapes', and pay to enter national parks – the poor no longer have access to nature AT ALL ! Yet this access is crucial to many to maintain their health, sanity, and not fall into necessarily self-centered behaviour… which is the typical behaviour encouraged in business.

So what I suggest we can do, is to stop disabling and punishing non-‘evolution’/ ’adaptation’/ ’raising’ behaviour in little people in daily life, and instead make use of these ‘basic options’ by including such non-theory-induced-blinded individuals in both upstream policy making, and enabling them downstream instead of punishing them (e.g. no ‘reward points’ if you buy only as you really need, not much).

I could give examples of a very dangerous slippery slope in medicine, in the way women's stress/diet induced syndromes are dealt with, which spreads bipolar disorder like wild fire, increasing rather than reducing the 'economic load of disease'.. This is derived form inadequate modelling and ideas, a very simple logical confusion, very widespread,.

Francesca,

For the future we can agree to disagree. But you know nothing abut me or how I feel about individuals or the great masses. You seem to be so self absorbed that you can not even be open to others context or perception even mine. Too bad.

Francesca,

Not that I am fan of Thomas Picketty, but read his new book regarding capital and wealth accumulation. His underlying philosophy appears consistent with your philosophy, but he presents his case (as an economist) with data analysis which I am more comfortable responding too. His premise is that narrow wealth accumulation (capital) is not good for people as a whole. He precedes to identify trends that demonstrate investment ROI is exceeding GDP growth in most countries as labor becomes less productive. In human terms it means people with money can invest it and do better than those with only labor skills to offer. Thus creating rich getting richer and everyone else getting poorer. His basic contention (in economic arguments) is that this is not good for the world as a whole. He offers some ideas to moderate such trends. Now I can challenge his conclusions and methods and so forth, but the basic data is what it is.

Now my point to you, he comes to the conclusion consistent with your stated positions in this dialog. But he does it without expecting me to just believe or accept he is morally right; he does it with data and facts. He does not take a your are morally right or wrong tone (and what about those great masses who are really individuals). His data analysis present more the question (not morally right or wrong) given the data, what do we need to do economically to achieve a more equitable and fairer world society.

Where your approach is forcing me into one side or the other choice and in your statements paints me as some type of villain. His approach allows me to say okay he did the analysis, the correlations are there, lets continue this discussion to find some common ground to achieve a reasonable path forward. His questions are is this what we want and is there another path. Whereas my perception of your response towards me appear judgmental of me and frankly leads me to a conclusion that your are wrong and there is no opportunity to ever find any common ground. Now may original tone may have initiated that, so let me be the first to apologize. But going forward discussion are more productive based on data and facts than beliefs systems.

Francesca,

let's end on happiness to you also.

It really is a syndrome of a few privledged persons (bankers & investors) with a particular set of values having most of the control, and resisting attempts by governments to affect change toward a more egalitarian system. There are places in the world where slavery is still practiced, and persons with means but low moral caliber will always be willing to exploit those situations. Another problem is a suppression of technological diversity in favor of uniformity, for example, dependence upon fossil fuels, which is taking decades to overcome. This starves out people with technical solutions and causes funds to continue flowing through well-established profit conduits (both literally and figuratively) as suits the status quo stake holders.

Dear Francesca, there is co-existence of money-economy and nature-economy. There is no such collapse in nature-economy, it is functioning without money.

Dear Arjun:

Is true that nature economy doesn't use currency, but there often is exchange of services (barter?) Also there is thievery, rape and slaughter in nature. In some species of ants, there is slavery. Is not a perfect world. Can we humans behave better than the animals?

Hi Francesca.

It sound like you have the comparative religion background...  :)

I think it would have been very helpful if Jesus had taught his disciples how to do the bread-&-fishes multiplication trick, to pass on to posterity, or maybe someone invent the star-trek replicator, if government would allow individuals to own, not fearing they would make guns, vs. food, or construction materials. The problem as I see it is that only a minority of persons are able to access basic raw materials for processing into products which are sold to the rest of us, and those persons want an inordinate share of credits for so doing, and become depressed and unmotivated unless they are treated in a superior way. And worse than them are the persons allowed to multiply credit without accountability, and share only with their friends, or the persons who buy up the raw materials when there is a shortage, so as to profit from other people's pain. A lot of non-virtuous behavior is not only legal, it's positively rewarded.

Dear Dean Von Germeten, nature is impartial to all living-beings; it assigned same duty to all i.e. consuming input and producing out-put; input of one is out-put of other; there is no greediness of abnormal profit. Every one is right in their performance of duty, no slavery as such among animals except man. At the end every one tries to produce offspring/issue to carry-on its basic duty. It is the perfect functioning of nature in its economy. English poet P B Shelley, in his poem 'To a skylark' said that man is unhappy because he thinks of present and future but other living beings are not so. Human-being will be happy, if he/she is content with the basic functions that assigned by nature.

@Dean Von Germeten "Also there is thievery, rape and slaughter in nature. In some species of ants, there is slavery. Is not a perfect world. Can we humans behave better than the animals?"

      If men can envision other than what they observe to himself and nature it is a fact of the radius of possibilities, what is allowed and feasible of nature to 'being', an able view from intuitive experience. Accomplishment entails acquired understanding that is faithfull, without exceeding or selling short, inserting interpretation to what is plain and evident to experience. Of course the world is in a sense 'dog eat dog' but comprehension can result to increase realization and lessen need when the eye is fixed upon a whole view of economy and survival.?