Eric's “Levels of Wealth” Part 1

Submitted by zClark on Sat, 19/Jan/2008 - 20:47

* From Eric Harris-Braum's openMoney.inf WEB site*                        — Why I was confused although Alan was not.wealth3part Commenting on my previous post, The thought provoking Eric Harris-Braum, Alan worte, “In response to Harris-Braun's openmoney.info page, I would like to say I agree. Specifically, this is an EXCELLENT perspective on money and wealth, with an honesty and clarity and depth that is rare. Your first impression says, ‘You [i.e. Eric] open with an introduction on the Tradeable - Measurable - Acknowledgeable paradigm. I needed to reread and wrangle with it a bit to get this new perspective into focus.’ I sure hope you provide elaboration on this. I found the paradigm very easy to understand.”     Elaboration on a personal inability?  Another's insight into this would perhaps be more valid than my own.  Anyway, in Eric's “Levels of Wealth” the circle of Acknowledgeable wealth is more sizable than the merely Measurable, while actually Tradeable wealth (the stuff of mega-billions of GNP) is the smallest of all.  This concept is especially appealing for its propensity to put the realm of traditional money into perspective.  Now then, the “Levels of Wealth” oval graphic moreover implies (to me) that Tradeable is a subset of Measurable which in turn is a subset of Acknowledgeable.  At the very least, this is a comfortable assumption due to the terribly counter intuitive notion of saying that Tradeable wealth is NOT (i.e. excluded from the set of) Measurable and in turn insisting that the Measurable isn't Acknowledgeable.  This would, for me, constitute an overly extreme distancing of these words from their common casual meanings.  Nevertheless Eric, could potentially be advocating exactly this when he writes, “Acknowledgeable Wealth: Friendship, beauty, freedom, civility, culture, happiness, integrity, reputation--these are all forms of acknowledgeable wealth. They are neither tradable nor objectively measurable because their impact is only felt subjectively.”(emphasis added)  Then when Eric teaches that Acknowledgeable wealth are “relationships between systems”, I find myself fumbling with the notion of “beauty” and “freedom” (from the previous sentenece) as relationships between systems.  An excellent recognition of the “interdependent” nature of wealth levels, is followed with a whole section on “Wealth Acknowledgment” which focuses on Tradeable wealth issues.  So I guess this “Acknowledgment” is very much distinguished from (if not the antitheisis of) the former term “Acknowledgeable”.  Perhaps it is unfortunate that the things I've just cited overly interfere with my ability to grasp new perspectives.  However an agreeable benefit of the doubt posture where we all ‘know’ more or less what we're talking about is increasingly objectionable for this student to adopt.  My way of developing his theme would be to start with Acknowledgeable wealth and then examine Measurable and Tradeable as clearly identified natural subsets.

Dr.Alan continued, “You have an amazing ability to see through the simple things commonly accepted that are fundamentally wrong, and I assume that I am making such an assumption in so easily accepting Eric's definitions here.”     Two things come to mind here.  First, there is a difference in initially grasping the (il)logic of any given definition as opposed to then accepting it as useful.  Second, I'm truly intrigued with your choice of words in saying “... see through the simple things ...” Yes, I ‘know’ what you mean and appreciate the compliment, but it may be interesting to note that the exact same phrase could be understood as a way of characterizing common crowd consensuses.  That is people see right through the simple insanities that are habitually spewed about without any thought to the ridiculous yet harmful mind games in effect.  An example in honor of Alan's IP sentiments follows:     Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock in his press release on the changes in Australia's copyright law to “... make our laws fairer for consumers.” said, “For the first time you will be able to record most television or radio program [sic] at home to enjoy at a later time. This will allow you to watch or listen to a program as it was made available to the public at the time of the original broadcast... The recording must be deleted after one use. It will not be possible to use the recording over and over again.”     My mild response was in part, “... Now let's boldly look at what Ruddock says, ‘For the first time you will be able to record most television .....’- barf-slop-stop! that's sufficient drool right there!! Whew, it'd be a challenge to spin a more ludicrous, patently false statement. He starts right in with some damn dangerous crap - especially for those numb to it (since the newspeak fraud then continues unabated). I mean, the dear gentleman speaks as if he's just become aware of technology intended for home use over 40 years ago (not to mention the pure gall it takes to make a press release of this insanity). ZERO shame! - guess it goes hand-n-hand with zero tolerance.”
    “Yea, I know, one shouldn't take him literally. NO? Why not demand clean straight speech? Why not slice such shit to ribbons as it slithers from his mouth, rather than routinely bend our minds to accommodate twisted inane nonsense? Permitting them to cover over core concepts with crud only encourages more of the same with no limits. Wouldn't it be healthier to call a spade a spade? - to simply say, “Good news, we've decided to partially abate our threats of imprisonment and fines for using your own recorders in your own homes with your own televisions, *BUT* ....
For the full in context deal click *here*.  While I didn't belabor Ruddock's rhetoric on LWN.net, I'll now stoop to point out the consistency in his logic loathing lunacy when he finishes with, “It will not be possible to use the recording over and over again.”  Oh really??  I have a whole rant waiting to rupture over the word “law” and this goodly would be patrician does a fine job of embodying my grief over this particular instance of word putrification (i.e. the travesty of using “law” to identify both fundamental characteristics of nature and also the arbitrary whims of ‘statesmen’).  I'd like to think that the righteous Ruddock hardly believes himself to actually be speaking for/as a godhead deity, but that doesn't inhibit him from wording things in a way that literally implies this in full.  Because unless his masters have some how re-written the laws of physics, it sure as spin is “... possible to use the recording over and over again.”     OK, look, please don't think that I'm not fully aware that between the reverend Ruddock and myself the only one who will look like a raving lunatic here (to the meek minded masses) is not going to be the former.  In fact my ill compromised bearing is likely to even put off the precious few I'd hope to attract.  But it is lamentably late for me to start putting popular appeal ahead of unmerciful precision.  The reason I take reason too seriously is due to my sincere believe that our species is inherently delusional.  Consequently, tolerating insanity only begets more of the same which inevitably leads to war — the ultimate act of the state (particularly when directed against her own citizenry). Our commenter's critique then intensifies with, “In your third impression, referring to introduction of government money, you say, ‘money is injected into the economic area via bank loans (so it is never free and always burdened with interest). Plus it trickles down from the money moguls to the producers.’ I believe you are looking at this with blinders on!”     The second part here merits a separate followup post to properly un-blind. It should also be a good warm-up for later demolishing Alan's valiant IP defence.
 

StateSheep
* Thanks: commons.wikimedia.org *

Me (from my earlier comment): Your first impression says, “You [i.e. Eric] open with an introduction on the Tradeable - Measurable - Acknowledgeable paradigm. I needed to reread and wrangle with it a bit to get this new perspective into focus.” I sure hope you provide elaboration on this. I found the paradigm very easy to understand.

You: Elaboration on a personal inability?
    This is a non-sequitur. I was simply wondering what was not clear to you about Eric's thesis. I appreciate your concern with his definitions, although I find his working definitions reasonable to me, and used consistently.
______________________

You: Dr.Alan continued, “You have an amazing ability to see through the simple things commonly accepted that are fundamentally wrong, and I assume that I am making such an assumption in so easily accepting Eric's definitions here.“ Two things come to mind here. First, there is a difference in initially grasping the (il)logic of any given definition as opposed to then accepting it as useful. Second, I'm truly intrigued with your choice of words in saying “… see through the simple things …” Yes, I ‘know’ what you mean and appreciate the compliment, ...
    Yes, it was meant as a compliment. You often see things clearly where most others fail to recognize their own confusions.
______________________

You: An example in honor of Alan's IP sentiments follows: Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock in his press release on the changes in Australia's copyright law to “make our laws fairer for consumers.” said, “For the first time you will be able to record most television or radio program [sic] at home to enjoy at a later time. This will allow you to watch or listen to a program as it was made available to the public at the time of the original broadcast” The recording must be deleted after one use. It will not be possible to use the recording over and over again.”
    I would prefer you not so honor me. I find this drivel repulsive as do you. I hope you did not seriously relate this crap to any of my IP arguments. While my IP arguments have NOTHING to do with the specifics of Australian IP changes (that are ridiculous), I do find your arguments against Ruddock's statements to be rather poor logic. While the context of the included quotes (included in your post and not repeated here) are clearly in reference to the changes in Australian law, you misinterpret them to reference technological capabilities and ignore the certainty that they refer only to reduction in legal prohibitions. That is a strawman argument which is way beneath your capability for logical argument.
    On the other hand, I agree with you that people should speak with more clarity and less need to reword for context. However, when it comes to politicians, that is simply asking for the near impossible. There are better battles to fight!
______________________

You: OK, look, please don't think that I'm not fully aware that between the reverend Ruddock and myself the only one who will look like a raving lunatic here (to the meek minded masses) is not going to be the former. In fact my ill compromised bearing is likely to even put off the precious few I'd hope to attract. But it is lamentably late for me to start putting popular appeal ahead of unmerciful precision. The reason I take reason too seriously is due to my sincere believe that our species is inherently delusional. Consequently, tolerating insanity only begets more of the same which inevitably leads to war - the ultimate act of the state.
    Well, I would not call you delusional, but I do believe you are blinding yourself to clear context which most people do understand. I would prefer, like you, that contextual implications be explicit, but that is just not how most people talk or write, and it is a property of the language to permit this to a great extent. On this issue of understanding what was said and meant per reasonable use of the English language, you get the foul. On the issue of IP law, Ruddock gets the foul. Such are the calls of this referee!
______________________

Until your further, promised comments...

-- Alan