Stacy Summary: Truth About Markets, London. Donate to ResonanceFM if you can!
For more download & listening options, visit Archive dot org
Protesters–including Ralph Nader–protest Afghanistan and Iraq wars in DC.
Interesting link regarding psychopathy.
Psychopaths wired to seek reward at any cost: study
‘”We found that a hyper-reactive dopamine reward system may be the foundation for some of the most problematic behaviors associated with psychopathy, such as violent crime, recidivism and substance abuse.” “It may be that because of these exaggerated dopamine responses, once they focus on the chance to get a reward, psychopaths are unable to alter their attention until they get what they’re after. It’s not just that they don’t appreciate the potential threat, but that the anticipation or motivation for reward overwhelms those concerns.”‘
And a bit more in this link regarding extreme empathy:
New Scientist — We feel your pain: Extreme empaths
‘Shirley Fecteau at Harvard Medical School in Boston, for example, has started studying the link between empathy and psychopathic traits. She conducted an experiment similar to Avenanti’s study of subjects’ physical reaction to videos of painful stimuli. Participants were also asked to complete a psychopathic personality inventory (PPI), a questionnaire designed to probe psychopathic traits such as egocentricity, fearlessness, and the ability to influence and manipulate others.
The result? Participants who scored highest on one particular aspect of PPI, cold-heartedness, showed the least physical identification with the painful videos. “They don’t have that sense of putting themselves in the situation,” says Fecteau.’
OMG. Shannon, you won?!
Yes. I was the MOST empathetic person the group studied! Well, you know I cry at the drop of a hat!
No kidding. And you pick up stray cats!
Yepper. Got six at home now. And I feel people’s pain. I can’t bear to watch anybody getting a shot.
Shannon, you are a good person.
Who said that?
He did. He must be a psychopath!
I said it. I’m not a he. And I think that just because someone is mushy and fraught with feeling doesn’t make them a better person.
Bbbut the study didn’t exactly say that. It said that bad people don’t feel.
The scientist that did that study. It was for Harvard.
Correlation is not a relevant indicator for causation. Especially in behavorial science. Shannon: you’re a fruitcake.
I am NOT. I’m empathetic. And you’re coldhearted!
More like pathetic. I’m outta here.
Humph. Some people always disappoint!
You’re questioning the methodology. Always a good thing.
I like the wording in the last article you linked. The words ‘suggested’ came up repeatedly.
But on a personal note, Adam, I quit smoking a year ago. I always felt that smoking deadened my ability to feel: to sense. Now smoking does interfere with dopamine response.
Going from point a to point z (I tend to jump if you haven’t noticed) I wonder if there won’t be a drug to ‘prevent’ psychopathy in future?
Conditions tend to be profitable.
>> I wonder if there won’t be a drug to ‘prevent’ psychopathy in future?
More to the point, I wonder if they’ll be a universal morality that abhors all forms of violence in the future. Oh wait, we already have one now!
In case you missed it, from the ‘other’ thread:
I feel it polite to respond to you. I don’t mind doing so while I’m online watching this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUP4gC_N6ww
Rather than get into yet another faux debate, I’d rather just say that pragmatism has been criticised as being relativistic in moral terms, and I very much agree. I’m sure there’s more to be said, but I don’t have the time to get into it.
So what’s left to ask you is, what do you want from me? It seems to me you’re playing a game called WIN and I’m playing a game called LEARN. So if you’re asking me to continue this exchange until such time as you’ve received your WIN, I kinda don’t want to unless you’re offering me some learn along the way. I’ll respond, but I’m really not engaged.
Have *I* made you angry? Are you looking for revenge?? I can’t imagine what I can do to satisfy you if that’s the case.
I feel like you’re forcing me into a role of your ‘enemy’ and that anything I say towards your argument (such that it is) you take as an attack on your person whether you explicitly say so or not.
I just want to move along until the next exchange hoping that it can be more productive.
Peace? Or at least a temporary halt in hostilities?
On to part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lH3qPxeC9s
My Arse, and that’s just for starters.
Re: forcing people to pay first, then opt out if you want.
About a year ago ‘Energy Australia’ added $20 to my energy bill without my consent saying that it would help them (a private company) move to green power, thus making the world a better place.
I rang them up and got it removed, suggesting to them that what they were doing was illegal and immoral. They were just adding $ to peoples energy bills in the name of a greener world. Unbelievable, but I bet many people are paying it to be good guilty citizens.
I thought it interesting that max still held out hope that humans may wake up to the crimes being dumped on them. But stacy thought that its a eat or be eaten world already now. Interesting.
I’m guessing after everyone trashes and eats one another the remaining people will realize they may need some kind of living standards. Which of course will be done away with soon after. Mankind is so easily manipulated. I really wonder if the aliens bred dogs rather than apes to create the human slave race.
You declare it a ‘faux debate’. That’s a rather condescending attitude.
Why would you wonder if I want anything from you? I was merely advancing a species of argument.
Pragmatism makes more sense to me than your universal declarations. You’re sixty years too late:
>> You declare it a ‘faux debate’. That’s a rather condescending attitude.
By both our admission, we have learnt nothing in our exchanges. I consider that to be a failed debate.
Take it as a personal sleight if you must. I consider myself equally at fault in this matter.
So am *I* still your ‘enemy’?
>> Pragmatism makes more sense to me than your universal declarations.
Good for you.
So that we understand each other, could you state what you see as my universal declaration.
From my own words:
Violence is wrong in all circumstances. This, I claim, is a universal moral absolute.
You’re welcome to argue in what situation violence IS moral, thus speaking directly to my argument.
>> …condescending attitude…
I feel like you still want a ‘fight’ however. You doubt the sincerity of my words. How can I improve?
I don’t have time to respond fully (it’s late here) But do hold me to later debate if you wish it.
Actually, I said I learned you didn’t have the link.
In Australia, if you earn more than $50,000 you are either forced to have private health insurance or you pay an extra 1% tax. It works out about the same so you get private health insurance.
Then, as private health insurance increase at 7% per year, the government subsidises these private health insurance companies by 30% of taxpayers money.
So, the taxpayer is paying for public health insurance through direct taxation AND private health insurance bia fees, AND propping up private health insurance companies through tax from govt subsidy. These private health insurance companies are very obviously not competitive or sustainable without govt subsidy.
The reason health care is going up all over the world is the PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY profiteering.
Not doctors and nurses, just insurance.
Just like banks if everyone refused to pay this insurance these companies would not exist and force a change of system.
These insurance companies have MADE THEMSELVES necessary, just like lawyers and accountants.
Its all unnecessary.
Imagine if I lobby the government to make it law that we must videotape everything that happens and they agree. Me and my industry would be very happy, but it is not necessary.
I would have MADE MYSELF NECESSARY.
That is all that has happened, its rubbish.
The unfortunate implication in your absolute is that everyone agrees about what constitutes ‘violence’ and that the absolute can be justly enforced. This arbitrary nomer termed violence is then indicated to be wrong as a rule: always.
@ frances snoot
So you did learn something?
>> Actually, I said I learned you didn’t have the link.
And then I told you I had read that link. If I was playing a game called WIN, would that score?
Frances, you’re spoiling for a fight. I’m not. I *really* can’t continue. It’s not productive or healthy.
Thanks for the links.
It took a while to come up with a phrase to encapsulate just what is happening, and that is, risk cartels are likely to set the agenda. I suppose this is the best way to describe the backdoor on currencies.
Another thing happening of late, which nobody seems to notice much is the huge emphasis on the possible rise of long term rates, while central bankers are promoting the rise of short term rates. The great global panic over sovereign risk may simply be overstated, as central bankers jawbone almost exclusively about raising the discount rate. Hasn’t anyone noticed?
The possibility that neither will occur should be apprehended at some point, since long rates and short rates are two very different animals. I would speculate that short rates will decline again, and soon, while long rates remain stubbornly low, range bound, or decline against an ensuing negative interest rate policy.
Civil law should reflect moral judgement, but the law must not be arbitrary or capricious.
Last reply to you since you’ve replied directly to my argument
Well that enforcement would itself be violence, force, coercion.
I can kind of understand how you might think I’m advocating the use of violence in a special circumstance: the enforcement. But logically that moral absolute rules out ALL violence absolutely!
So if you give me a link to the UN, I’m wondering if you think I’m arguing that they are allowed to use violence. Of course, I’m not.
As for the other stuff…
Pragmatism doesn’t come into it because as well as being wrong, violence is counter productive thus not pragmatic. For example: is slavery pragmatic? Beating your kid to achieve obedience? Surely not over the long term, not to mention the pyschological trauma caused.
As for relativism, why is it relevant to my argument if ALL violence is morally repugnant?
I don’t believe you condone the use of violence in any circumstance — you certainly haven’t said so — and so I’m not sure why talking about this moral absolute seems to rankle you so.
That’s why I ask if it’s *me* you have an issue with rather than the actual argument.
Thanks for the reply. I can manage one more if needs be.
Max and Stacy are cool, but I feel they maybe focus too much on the ‘monkey dance’ all the politicans etc. are doing on the way to the ‘end game’…It is sort of like a guy, on a date for sex and knows he has to put on a good show during the date to get his ‘end game’….the politicians and wall street people know, or should know if they were smart enough, know where we are all headed, and are just putting on a good show to keep the peace, and some face until the end game occurs….Dont Max and Stacey get it? If so, then why not focus on it, and how to protect ourselves rather than blaming the monkeys for dancing?
>> Civil law should reflect moral judgement, but the law must not be arbitrary or capricious.
Well in common law the only ‘crime’ is in causing either harm or loss. Violence, in other words.
I declared an absolute. As does the common law.
Where have you found this arbitrariness or capriciousness in my argument??
The problem lies with the term violence and the capricious capacity of a judge or jury in defining the term applicable to the deed in question. As you pointed out:
What is it with you and words, anyway? I mean that question with genuine curiosity.
Well, to satisfy your curiosity, words are wiggly and changeable. Words defy contextuality. Allowing the authorites to define violence is as abhorrent to me as allowing the same to define psychopathy. The wording of a statute must be direct in scope as to character of offense and remedy by law. There is no need for universal declarations that supercede civil law. Treaties are of such a nature.
We do not need to be ruled by whim whether good or bad. Many a good sounding axiom is put to bad use as rhetoric. Let the law be specific to offense, as nature and quality, and to remedy.
The question of British common law and EU jurisdication through the ICC is related to the treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human rights that I linked, in answer to why I linked it.
@private health insurance
The reason why rates for health insurance and thus health care costs are going up, is that the health industry like any other is subject to changes in credit spreads. The credit default swaps always demands more payments for the increase in risk, and as only a few banks actually trade in risk, there is no way to reduce these costs.
I have to agree with your healthcare response.
Here’s an example of a capricious ordinance:
“Another key clause has caused rather more argument – at least outside parliament, says our correspondent.
This is the creation of a new crime of psychological violence inside the home.
The bills’ supporters say it is important to recognise that actual violence against women is always preceded by psychological bullying, and that this too needs to be outlawed.
But many lawyers and professionals in the field are nervous, our corre
They say it will impossible to say at what point verbal abuse – for instance in an argument – suddenly becomes a criminal offence.
Critics argue the psychological violence clause is unlikely to make any practical improvement to the lives of women who suffer domestic violence.”
>> Allowing the authorites to define violence is as abhorrent to me
We all know what violence is. You haven’t got the idea that this is the state’s responsibility from me.
>> There is no need for universal declarations that supercede civil law.
Declarations. Anyone can make one. I think that’s really your issue with my argument: the wording, as if I’m forcing something on you that you can use civil law to protect you. My argument doesn’t need to be that detailed. It’s not a policy. All I’m saying is violence is wrong. No further action need to be taken, especially not one of the violent kind. We can live peacefully by choice. Why not?
>> We do not need to be ruled
Thanks for the exchange.
Just like banks if everyone refused to pay this insurance these companies would not exist and force a change of system
Tell the people!
Because it’s very pertinent to my argument
>> “needs to be outlawed”
How? Using violence? So the government proposes the use of violence to remedy violence??
Why would we ever put up with such a government and its addiction to violence?
We all know what violence is.
Adam: It would take some time to get three people to agree on what violence is, especially if the group included male and female.
@ Adam C
I enjoy your philosophical views however the reality of life is as the following analysis of Man and his government;
Man, the maker of government, is, in the final analysis, the master of government. Yet man has made government to perform the opposite function and to master man. And while all governments begin with the premise that they will protect the many peaceful from the few who are belligerent, it is in the nature of governments that the rules will be extended and expanded until the state itself becomes man’s mortal foe.
We cannot blame a lever if, in our exercise of it across a fulcrum, it slips from our grasp and smashes a toe. We cannot blame a shovel if, in the hands of the wielder, it plunges into an ancient tomb and permanently damages a priceless relic.
The tool is blameless. And thus, the government, within itself, is blameless. It is simply a ravening monster, naturally, and will continue to grow, to expand, to pounce upon its victims and devour them in the normal course of its activity. That is the kind of tool it is. Man made the tool to perform in that fashion.
It is an instrument of force and coercion. And there can never be an instrument of force and coercion which will consciously restrain itself. It must be restrained. Yet there is no tool capable of such restraint. For any type of tool, whatever its nature, which is allegedly formed to restrain and contain government, would, by its own nature, simply become a government’s government.
In other words, the restraining tool for a compulsive instrument would have to contain a greater accumulation of power than the compulsive instrument or it would be ineffective. But this, in essence, would also be a government. It would simply be a larger, more compulsive, more dangerous and more mischievous tool and less subject to restraint than the original instrument of coercion.
It would be lovely if we could stop violence without violence! But how? Aren’t people violent? How to subdue violent people without using violent means?
And on that happy note, good night, Adam C. You are a good theorist.
Made some really nice French friends during the French/English rubgy game. (Keiser, you know what I’m talkin’ about) looks like I’m heading to Nice for the weekend.
Good show y’all.
You see we are basically fck@d until the next remake of governance—in the meantime BUY GOLD
The word is ” decimate ” The romans would kill every tenth man in a unit for things such as lack of courage, skill etc. The centurion would command their own to exact
the punishment. You might imagine every third man to turn to his right and plunge a
“gladius” or short sword into the side of his comrade to execute the punishment.
” Hail, Barclays !! ”
Best to You and Stacy,
>> how do you subdue violent people without using violent means?
If you have to then that is itself violence, it’s still wrong but in some circumstances (lethal, etc), force is necessary. Next steps for that violent indvidual is complete social ostracism until they can demonstrate commitment to non-violent and cooperative/non-coercive behavor.
You think I’m advocating the mere wishing away of violence. I simply talking about the acknowledgement and firm collective committment against it. This is why I’m anti-government in the form it exists currently and historically.
I’m not some empty-headed minded utopian!
>> Adam: It would take some time to get three people to agree on what violence is, especially if the group included male and female.
If any of these 3 felt violence had been used against them, but have committed themselves to non-violence on principal, what would tthey do?
*Your* assumption is they would seek remedy from the government or whatever other authority existed. *I’m* saying they wouldn’t because to seek remedy is to seek violence and having committed themselves to non-violence, the idea of seeking violent recourse would never even occur to these three people/
So, what would they do? They would cease all voluntary (for what other types of interaction is there in a non-violent ‘society’?) interaction with that person who caused them to violence against them. This is ostracism. It works extremely well.
>> And on that happy note, good night, Adam C…
Thanks and good night!
A friend of mine told me about a video in which a tortus was on a path walking towards some greens, (eadibles). It so happened that an elephant was on the same path walking towards the same greens and put its foot down on the tortus and upon lightly touching its shell withdrew its foot and gently shoved the tortus off the path, (empathy?). They were both after the same food.
Greetings to All !!
Just a subarctic note from the land of palinesque snowbillies, unemployment
for natives is 45 percent and non natives 35 percent.
” Let them eat snow !!!! ”
GOD BLESS TODDAND SARAH !!!!!!!
happy to donate after all the hours of info & entertainmnt from max & stacy…oh and the Aussie $ is soaring!
Sorry, I’m really tired now.
Hopefully my last comment to Frances explained some thinking around the inevitability of man’s use of government to enact violence.
I consider that inevitability to be both false yet historically accurate (grrr!)
Violence is a big problem. That doesn’t mean we should easily give up on solving it.
The great majority of human interactions occur voluntarily through the market. The empirical reality is very much FOR the expansion of yet more non-violent interaction.
Voluntaryism as praxis is already winning, though it’s under dire threat.
Thanks for the debate. To sleep.
O’Neill is saying sdr will be linchpin: and he’s not being honest about the forex. How can the forex operate without dollar as linchpin? (Please correct me here!)
“Under such a system, the renminbi, dollar and euro would all form the linchpin of the world’s currency markets.”
Nos decimi morituri te salutemus Max
There was a king in
england who realized that strength of his nation was dependant on the well being of his people and thus came the Magna Carta.
“…there is no way to reduce these costs.”
Ok, then take it back to the core problem 🙂
If its the CDS, spread, few banks, etc argument, then we must also remove this NECESSARY unnecessity from our lives.
This credit CDS garbage will one day be reomoved along with all the other crap that goes on in the financial world….
probably when people are so poor that there will be no one left to pay.
That is when the banks will have eaten themselves whole from their own greed.
No more nothin….
One more wafer monsieur…
Get me a bucket!
“The credit default swaps always demands more payments for the increase in risk, and as only a few banks actually trade in risk, there is no way to reduce these costs.”
A system created for those few that benefit that is unnecessary.
You have actually solved the problem by explaining it. Just remove it from our lives.
luckily there were those knights who helped the king realize his obligation to his subjects
In 1997 Australia reduced its gold reserves from 247 tonnes to 80 tonnes @ around $300/ounce.
Peter Costello was Treasurer at the time.
So thats how we paid off our debt, as well as selling Telstra(public telco) back to the taxpayer.
Say goodbye to your gold reserves Greece.
Get Tom Morello on the show, he used to help out with Ralph Nader. Could help with a couple the beginners.
The Entire World Is Zombie Japan Now, And If Any Central Bank Tightens We’re Doomed
The FHA Is Being Run Like A Ponzi Scheme That Will Surely Implode
Drones may be sent soon to help with border security, Napolitano says
Drought continues in China, 51 million people affected
On a side note – rediscovering Led Zeppelin’s Tea For One over headphones is a revelation.
The Difference Between Motivation and Meaning:
One’s Motivation is fueled by one’s Meaning; the more you ‘mean it’; the more your’e motivated to accomplish the Desire of the Motivation.
If your motivated for money, which we now know is: meaningless, valueless, and absolutely worthless, your LIFE will have no Meaning, and you will become Bored with LIFE, for your LIFE is meaningless, and you will covet out-of-the-range ‘outrageous’ mentally ‘deranged’ sums of money, to conceal for another day, your terrible worthlessness,
If contrary, you are Motivated by LIFE, your appreciation will exceed your Pleasure, and you will know the Meaning of “To LOVE”.
There are a lot of libertarian (don’t know if correct LABEL) on this site that will always blame government for violence but the bottom line is that government is controlled by people. In the US it is controlled 98% by corporations and right wingers.
So all this nonsense about the left somehow using government to do their violence for then is just BS. As aloof and superior as they like to pretend they are, they are simply wrong. Most of these posters , I might add, do not reside in the US. Not that it makes their posts irrelevant but they do not have the pulse of the
US accurately gauged.
@Ggees,..was looking up the Latin “Max”im, and came across this little beaut’,..quite poetic,. and profound!
@Gordo,..It’s easy to “not” comprehend a debate, and dissect its flaws,..but my guess is, if you were to put the two ideologies to work,.Adams would be more beneficial from an egalitarian perspective,.which I believe, is where the debate originated. Correct me if I’m,.hmm,.”wrong”! : )
@ Dedo—ouch that was to close to the truth
>>There are a lot of libertarian (don’t know if correct LABEL) on this site that will always blame government for violence but the bottom line is that government is controlled by people.
Exactly! There is no government, only people representing something called government, people who use violence to achieve their goals.
>> So all this nonsense about the left somehow using government to do their violence for then is just BS.
The left, the right. There is no left or right, only people representing those ‘positions’, people who attempt to bribe government to do violence on their behalf to achieve their goals.
Perhaps you mean that’s it’s more difficult to say taxation is violence (the thing ‘the left’ could be said to be FOR) where bombing brown-people (the thing ‘the right’ could be said to be FOR) is more obviously violent.
Harm or loss. Common law ‘crimes’. Both the above abuses of violence qualify.
>> As aloof and superior as they like to pretend they are, they are simply wrong.
You’re welcome to correct the argument with a counter-argument. Saying someone is wrong isn’t an argument but it certainly invites one for who wants to their argument to be “wrong”?? Not me.
@Stacy – A new side to you. Cold and calculating. I like it.
You two are the best……. yes in telling the truth!
One day you will return, this is your birth place you are America! and when you do you will be heroes and loved and respected and taken care of…. We are the champions my friend!
waited till today to listen because of a loose wire. hahaha good show.
The state can internvene in the economy to the advanatage of the poor or the rich. Conservatives have no problem with spending for their tax breaks or imperial wars etc. They viciously oppose state action that helps everyone (ie all ‘lower’ classes), public health, public education. Its not rocket science.
If the mass of the citizenry place their faith in the likes of Kucinich or other social democrats (Allende, Manley, Aristide) they will be sacrificed on the alter of ‘politricks’.
@Tritone – one day, one day!
You guys are awesome…..don’t ever stop!
Donated $25 CAD.
Great show, Max if ye really want to assimilate yerself in Europe ye’ll need to learn Latin the basis of European language, failing that you might find donning a beret, hanging a string of garlic ’round yer neck, and talking about how the universe is a defect in the purity of non-being might just suffice.
Exsisto felicis, pax.
Again Max and Stacy report a story and leave out an important fact, WalMart had nothing to go with the announcement for all blacks to leave the store, it was a prank perpetrated by a customer.
how do you say bye ‘yall in french
kenny everett used to say au revoir my little oven ready chickens
Great show, great ideas, but a rejoinder
“Ralph Nader is the only politician in America…”
1. He is not a “politician,” since 2. He has never held elective office.3. His were
all vanity tilting-windmills affairs. 4. He has not been a legal force since the hallowed 70’s days when the US political world actually feared and made room for democratic concerns. 5. He is an ascetic who lives in the pre-war age of Princeton and endless speech-making.
He is a park-bench shouter, having a good grasp of corporate malfeasance, but no more of a “reformer” than that guy who sleeps under newspapers. You, Max and Stacy, are far more in tune with reality.
So I heard that you requested why there is confusion over the difference between fascism and socialism. The answer is that they are the same thing. Price control systems under fascism necessarily lead to de facto government ownership of the means of production, which is socialism. This is one of the major contributions of Ludwig von Mises in his analysis of socialism.
Dr. George Reisman gives a good speech on the issue in 2005.