indiana jones and the secrets of the temple

i was watching raiders last night and had an epiphany: the ark represents money printing and the final scenes are an allegory transposing money power and religious power. i won't go into every weird detail, but, 'member weimar?

when the ark is opened, it represents the unleashing of germany's inflation in wwii. "it's beautiful". but immediately some random, young, soldiers are killed, representing the loss of faith in the mark, and possibly the initiation of aggressions. indiana and marion close their eyes, suggesting that if the americans ignore central banking they will be ok (veiled threat?). then what was unleashed from the ark gets out of hand and destroys everyone except the protagonists who wilfully ignore it. later, the ark is locked away - indicating that the US shows restraint from using money creation after wwii

ps - note that the cameras get zapped, too; representing the death of nazi propaganda

much cred to the secret of oz

there's no way to rule innocent men

Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? ...We want them broken... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt.

- Ayn Rand

reddit via braincrave reminded me of it, and i thought i'd share here

inheritance, production, game theory

i don't have this fully worked out but wanted to rant. let's say production isn't as valuable/necessary etc as some (me) would like to think. let's say that our fore-fathers were hyper-productive and put away stores of every imaginable good for generations to come. in that case, inheritance becomes much more ... interesting for lack of a better word

you will never be able to change atoms into an arrangement than is more optimal than their current arrangement, and there is already enough of anything you could conceive of. since your parents controlled all capital before you (and your siblings) were born, they are the rightful distributors of that property. they may choose to not will you anything, and your (even exceptional) productive capacity is worthless

we are of course on some continuum between the two. however, as we age, we have both accumulated more savings (capital) and thus need to produce less. because there are others who want our savings, and entropy (of capital) would suggest that theft becomes more thermodynamically favourable (for them), we encounter parties who address us with win/lose. in other words - similar distribution of raw materials (not finished goods) would tend to favour win/win trade, while dissimilar (accumulation) of finished goods would favour win/lose. and this may explain why muhammad went from an inclusive spiritual man early in life to a warlord later. and why when we're young we are encouraged to share and often cooperate while the motto of the old is, "get off my lawn!"

revolutionary businesses, loss of productive capacity, collectivist dogma

there has been a lot of hype about monetary policy and the housing bubble as to what has caused our troubles. and while it never hurts to blame keynesian policy, there are other culprits that have exacerbated our decline

know what amazon, eBay, and wallmart have in common? revolutionary business plans that reduce inventory and distribution costs. a lot of those mom and pop stores that are failing are based on outdated business models. why drive to the local electronics store that has a small, old, inventory when the latest version of exactly what you want is only a google search away? want to know what killed mainstream - it wasn't wall street, it was the interweb

then we got the problem of no longer producing anything. i recently heard a speculative assertion that one of the reasons the US was so strong after WWII was that we were the only country whose manufacturing base hadn't been bombed back to the stone age. so unless we plan on bombing china for the first time, and germany and japan again; we're going to need to learn to compete fairly - by producing quality products. right now we're having our hats handed to us

but why compete when the nanny state will take care of us if we fail? the collectivist security net is making it very hard for viable businesses to ... remain viable. that mom and pop store that got hit by those revolutionary business models now needs to pay for your health insurance and that may be the straw that breaks its back