“Among the consequences of financialisation is the creation of what an analysis by the investment bank Citigroup calls “plutonomy”. The bank’s analysts describe a world that is dividing into two blocs: the plutonomy and the rest. The US, UK and Canada are the key plutonomies: economies in which growth is powered by – and largely consumed by – the wealthy few. In plutonomies, these rich consumers take a disproportionately large slice of the national pie. Two-thirds of the world’s economic growth is driven by consumption, primarily in the plutonomies, which monopolise profits as well.”
link: New Statesman – The high cost of neoliberalism
“There’s the key — “the underlying realities of how the world works.” Because never, and I mean never, has there been capitalist enterprise that wasn’t ultimately underwritten by the state. This is true at an obvious level that even most libertarians would concede (though maybe not some of the Austrian economists whom Rand Paul adores): for the system to work, you need some kind of bare bones apparatus for enforcing contracts and protecting property. But it’s also true in a more profound, historical sense. To summarize very briefly a long and complicated process, we got capitalism in the first place through a long process of flirtation between governments on the one hand, and bankers and merchants on the other, culminating in the Industrial Revolution. What libertarians revere as an eternal, holy truth is in fact, in the grand scheme of human history, quite young. And if they’d just stop worshiping for a minute, they’d notice the parents hovering in the background.”
link: The lesson of Rand Paul: libertarianism is juvenile – War Room – Salon.com
“After the Association’s untimely demise, more benevolent organizations arose within neighborhoods to function as mutual aid societies. These Social Aid Clubs of the early 20th Century provided and (some still do,) aid to fellow African Americans and insure that club members get a proper burial. As stated before, the Clubs, and organizations, operated like a loose social safety net. A member paid dues to the club, and into his policy, each month, with some collecting as much as $2 every week. With the weekly or bi monthly policies, you built equity quickly. Remember, back in those days a funeral costs were around $200-300 dollars. 52 weeks at rates of $.50 cents to $2, netted you a max of around $104 a yr. Once you reached your burial expense, the equity started to build. After enough time had elapsed you could build quite a nest egg if you were frugal, and could even borrow against it, with some clubs. If times were hard, they were your social safety net. But unlike today’s welfare, that net had a very real limit. It was important to get on your feet again as quickly as possible. The dues structure also enabled the “societies”, to purchase tombs and vaults for their members. Some of the older Clubs, such as the Y.M.O., and the Zulu’s, still hold sets of vaults, located in only 2 cemeteries, namely Lafayette, and City II. Once the member’s burial expenses itself are paid, the balance of the money is used to finance the funeral of the member in style, sometimes, if desired, with a traditional New Orleans jazz funeral. Usually, the club would host a jazz funeral, complete with a brass band and horse drawn carriage bearing the casket. Some of the clubs, even had their own Tombs, with one designed to hold up to 25 bodies at a time. It no longer exist. It was severely damaged when the I-10 high rise was put through downtown New Orleans. Only seven such tombs are still in use, today Since more enrolled members meant the organization would continue to be solvent, these societies had to advertise, in a very unique way, their style. Throughout the city of New Orleans, there were fraternal organizations, groups and burial societies, who often competed with each other to see which group could send off a member in the greatest style. Members would dress in matching suits, and outfits, with handmade decorative chest banners, called “sashes” and they carried elaborately decorated fans, umbrellas, and handkerchiefs. All embroidered, engraved or imprinted with the organization’s name. One member would carry the club’s official banner. This gave the prospective members a glance of what their “processional” would look like. “
link: History of the Second Line in New Orleans
“Details: And what did you learn from Mr. Ali? Mike Tyson: Believe it or not, with all that poetry and the butterflies, what I learned from Ali was meanness. He was the meanest fighter of all time. He’d be in there with Foreman, hardest puncher of all time, he’d be in there with Frazier, another hardest puncher, and he’d be taking it, boom, getting pounded, and then he’d turn, when it was his time, and you’d look at that face, and he’s screaming. [Does an Ali impression] “I’m not [Throws a punch] scared [Throws a punch] of you, you fucking faggot. [Throws two punches] You fucking punk. I’m fucking God, and worship me. I’m the greatest. [Throws two punches] You’re a little fucking boy, cocksucker.” Nobody at ringside reported it, but nobody shit-talked like Ali.”
link: Everything You Think You Know About Mike Tyson Is Wrong: News + Politics: Details
“The Game of Life, also known simply as Life, is a cellular automaton devised by the British mathematician John Horton Conway in 1970. It is a widely known example of a cellular automaton. The “game” is a zero-player game, meaning that its evolution is determined by its initial state, requiring no further input. One interacts with the Game of Life by creating an initial configuration and observing how it evolves.
The Game of Life, also known simply as Life, is a cellular automaton devised by the British mathematician John Horton Conway in 1970.[1]It is a widely known example of a cellular automaton. The “game” is a zero-player game, meaning that its evolution is determined by its initial state, requiring no further input. One interacts with the Game of Life by creating an initial configuration and observing how it evolves.“
Conway’s Game of Life in HTML 5
“It’s legitimate to wonder, but it’s still asking the wrong question. You don’t “take back” income streams that no longer make sense in a market. You adjust and adapt — just like many other artists are doing — and move forward. Instead, Jason Robert Brown is looking backward wistfully at a world that no longer exists. And, again, no one is saying that creators shouldn’t get paid or shouldn’t make a living. They’re just saying that it’s your responsibility to find the right business model, and to adapt when the market changes. That’s not “amazing.” It’s basic economics.”
Related posts: