|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 17 2013 10:52 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 17 2013 10:35 aksfjh wrote:On February 17 2013 09:45 sam!zdat wrote:
I understand. Like I say, I understand what debt is, what a financial system is, and why it's useful. we just have way, way too much of it, and it creates a situation in which you have lots of debt-financed capital sloshing around the world looking for a rate of return, and you end up engaging in a lot of wasteful short-sighted activity because of it. We need debt, we just need a whole lot less of it. And what we emphatically DON'T need is debt-fueled consumerism - I think credit cards should be outlawed. You don't seem to understand. There isn't such thing as "too much debt." It's like saying we have too much food, or too many guns. There are good and bad actions which can occur from an abundance of any of those, but they aren't inherently evil or bad in any sense. What's striking, though, isn't that you think debt-fueled consumerism is bad, but that you think it's debt fueled. As somebody who touts the line of a "worker owned economy," I figured you of all people would jump the gap between that consumer debt and the pitiful gains of worker wages in the past 30 years. People are buying what they think their work is worth but aren't being paid what it's worth, and instead those wages are coming in as debt. See, consumer debt is fine, even at the levels before the crash, but not at the expense of wages. Debt is a tool, and what we have now is lying and stealing from workers masquerading as debt. Well at a micro level there's certainly such a thing as too much debt. That means that, realistically, there must be such a thing as too much debt in the aggregate. Ex. If my income is $50 and my debt service is $51K I clearly have too much debt. Yes my debt service will be someone else's income, but I don't give two shits about that asshole. Extremes fade in the aggregate. For the most part, anything that is unstable for some possible input, extreme or not, is not a well designed system. Since debt is just a tool and not a system, it makes little sense to target debt as the culprit.
Well information fades in the aggregate too. But reagardless you have a fair point - debt is indeed a tool. But the system routinely decides that too many of something exists. We built too many houses, so now we have to build fewer.
"Too much" of X is central to the supply side of the economy. Business managers are constantly fretting that they are using too much of something (occasionally to absurd degrees!*).
The problem of too much is on the consumer side. When is food or clothing too much? And here is where I sound like someone with too much time on his hands...
*Edit: I once heard a fellow manager declare that the company spent too much on coffee. Ridiculous!
|
On February 17 2013 10:58 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 10:35 aksfjh wrote:On February 17 2013 09:45 sam!zdat wrote:
I understand. Like I say, I understand what debt is, what a financial system is, and why it's useful. we just have way, way too much of it, and it creates a situation in which you have lots of debt-financed capital sloshing around the world looking for a rate of return, and you end up engaging in a lot of wasteful short-sighted activity because of it. We need debt, we just need a whole lot less of it. And what we emphatically DON'T need is debt-fueled consumerism - I think credit cards should be outlawed. You don't seem to understand. There isn't such thing as "too much debt." It's like saying we have too much food, or too many guns. On the contrary, I would argue quite precisely that we DO have too much food (industrial agriculture and the so-called "green revolution" - americans spend less percentage income on our terribly unhealthy and unnutritious food than any other civilization in history) and we DO have too many guns (the domestic arms-race and the consumer military-industrial complex), and we DO have too much debt (which then has to find things to invest in, even when there's nothing truly useful to invest in, and really we should just invest in all of us working less and reading more books). Show nested quote +
What's striking, though, isn't that you think debt-fueled consumerism is bad, but that you think it's debt fueled. As somebody who touts the line of a "worker owned economy," I figured you of all people would jump the gap between that consumer debt and the pitiful gains of worker wages in the past 30 years. People are buying what they think their work is worth but aren't being paid what it's worth, and instead those wages are coming in as debt. See, consumer debt is fine, even at the levels before the crash, but not at the expense of wages. Debt is a tool, and what we have now is lying and stealing from workers masquerading as debt.
Sure, I agree with you about the company store dynamic, but I also think that people don't actually need the vast majority of the things they buy. Otherwise, why would there be advertising? Also, the things that capitalism produces are not designed to last (planned obsolescence), and the system is always producing new "wants and needs" that never existed before. My politics are not populist in the sense that I just want to give people more stuff. I think americans already have plenty of stuff. More than enough stuff. What they need is better education and freedom from the ravages of an unstable economic system, self-sustaining and socially healthy communities, a sustainably managed biosphere...
Ah, then we're not going to agree. 
|
On February 17 2013 11:13 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 10:58 sam!zdat wrote:On February 17 2013 10:35 aksfjh wrote:On February 17 2013 09:45 sam!zdat wrote:
I understand. Like I say, I understand what debt is, what a financial system is, and why it's useful. we just have way, way too much of it, and it creates a situation in which you have lots of debt-financed capital sloshing around the world looking for a rate of return, and you end up engaging in a lot of wasteful short-sighted activity because of it. We need debt, we just need a whole lot less of it. And what we emphatically DON'T need is debt-fueled consumerism - I think credit cards should be outlawed. You don't seem to understand. There isn't such thing as "too much debt." It's like saying we have too much food, or too many guns. On the contrary, I would argue quite precisely that we DO have too much food (industrial agriculture and the so-called "green revolution" - americans spend less percentage income on our terribly unhealthy and unnutritious food than any other civilization in history) and we DO have too many guns (the domestic arms-race and the consumer military-industrial complex), and we DO have too much debt (which then has to find things to invest in, even when there's nothing truly useful to invest in, and really we should just invest in all of us working less and reading more books).
What's striking, though, isn't that you think debt-fueled consumerism is bad, but that you think it's debt fueled. As somebody who touts the line of a "worker owned economy," I figured you of all people would jump the gap between that consumer debt and the pitiful gains of worker wages in the past 30 years. People are buying what they think their work is worth but aren't being paid what it's worth, and instead those wages are coming in as debt. See, consumer debt is fine, even at the levels before the crash, but not at the expense of wages. Debt is a tool, and what we have now is lying and stealing from workers masquerading as debt.
Sure, I agree with you about the company store dynamic, but I also think that people don't actually need the vast majority of the things they buy. Otherwise, why would there be advertising? Also, the things that capitalism produces are not designed to last (planned obsolescence), and the system is always producing new "wants and needs" that never existed before. My politics are not populist in the sense that I just want to give people more stuff. I think americans already have plenty of stuff. More than enough stuff. What they need is better education and freedom from the ravages of an unstable economic system, self-sustaining and socially healthy communities, a sustainably managed biosphere... Ah, then we're not going to agree.
Ah, then you're wrong
edit: did you see my edit above? your belief about aggregates is extremely wrong and extremely dangerous. you should know about this...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you guys could get along pretty well.
sam is making a social commentary, or rather, a social imagination. he says, 'these here are some real problems with our society, why not do things differently.'
this is not a commentary on how well the economy works, i.e. gdp, unemployment figures, income levels etc. there is no direct contradiction at all, just speaking past each other. it comes from a more lively way of social imagination.
but imagination has its own problems
|
On February 17 2013 11:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 10:52 aksfjh wrote:On February 17 2013 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 17 2013 10:35 aksfjh wrote:On February 17 2013 09:45 sam!zdat wrote:
I understand. Like I say, I understand what debt is, what a financial system is, and why it's useful. we just have way, way too much of it, and it creates a situation in which you have lots of debt-financed capital sloshing around the world looking for a rate of return, and you end up engaging in a lot of wasteful short-sighted activity because of it. We need debt, we just need a whole lot less of it. And what we emphatically DON'T need is debt-fueled consumerism - I think credit cards should be outlawed. You don't seem to understand. There isn't such thing as "too much debt." It's like saying we have too much food, or too many guns. There are good and bad actions which can occur from an abundance of any of those, but they aren't inherently evil or bad in any sense. What's striking, though, isn't that you think debt-fueled consumerism is bad, but that you think it's debt fueled. As somebody who touts the line of a "worker owned economy," I figured you of all people would jump the gap between that consumer debt and the pitiful gains of worker wages in the past 30 years. People are buying what they think their work is worth but aren't being paid what it's worth, and instead those wages are coming in as debt. See, consumer debt is fine, even at the levels before the crash, but not at the expense of wages. Debt is a tool, and what we have now is lying and stealing from workers masquerading as debt. Well at a micro level there's certainly such a thing as too much debt. That means that, realistically, there must be such a thing as too much debt in the aggregate. Ex. If my income is $50 and my debt service is $51K I clearly have too much debt. Yes my debt service will be someone else's income, but I don't give two shits about that asshole. Extremes fade in the aggregate. For the most part, anything that is unstable for some possible input, extreme or not, is not a well designed system. Since debt is just a tool and not a system, it makes little sense to target debt as the culprit. Well information fades in the aggregate too. But reagardless you have a fair point - debt is indeed a tool. But the system routinely decides that too many of something exists. We built too many houses, so now we have to build fewer. "Too much" of X is central to the supply side of the economy. Business managers are constantly fretting that they are using too much of something (occasionally to absurd degrees!*). The problem of too much is on the consumer side. When is food or clothing too much? And here is where I sound like someone with too much time on his hands... *Edit: I once heard a fellow manager declare that the company spent too much on coffee. Ridiculous!
I like to think of "too much" as an indicator of a systemic problem, not the problem itself. Let's imagine an oven with a thermometer. You look at the thermometer and it shows the oven is at 500 instead of 450. You don't complain about the thermometer and attempt to move it to say 450, but you adjust the power going to the element, or the ventilation process.
|
I'm more than happy with the idea that problem of too much debt is a symptom of a deeper underlying contradiction...
Remember that sometimes the right answer is to invent a new kind of oven, rather than fiddling with the oven you already have. Ptolemy or Copernicus... the choice is yours!
|
On February 17 2013 11:52 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 11:13 aksfjh wrote:On February 17 2013 10:58 sam!zdat wrote:On February 17 2013 10:35 aksfjh wrote:On February 17 2013 09:45 sam!zdat wrote:
I understand. Like I say, I understand what debt is, what a financial system is, and why it's useful. we just have way, way too much of it, and it creates a situation in which you have lots of debt-financed capital sloshing around the world looking for a rate of return, and you end up engaging in a lot of wasteful short-sighted activity because of it. We need debt, we just need a whole lot less of it. And what we emphatically DON'T need is debt-fueled consumerism - I think credit cards should be outlawed. You don't seem to understand. There isn't such thing as "too much debt." It's like saying we have too much food, or too many guns. On the contrary, I would argue quite precisely that we DO have too much food (industrial agriculture and the so-called "green revolution" - americans spend less percentage income on our terribly unhealthy and unnutritious food than any other civilization in history) and we DO have too many guns (the domestic arms-race and the consumer military-industrial complex), and we DO have too much debt (which then has to find things to invest in, even when there's nothing truly useful to invest in, and really we should just invest in all of us working less and reading more books).
What's striking, though, isn't that you think debt-fueled consumerism is bad, but that you think it's debt fueled. As somebody who touts the line of a "worker owned economy," I figured you of all people would jump the gap between that consumer debt and the pitiful gains of worker wages in the past 30 years. People are buying what they think their work is worth but aren't being paid what it's worth, and instead those wages are coming in as debt. See, consumer debt is fine, even at the levels before the crash, but not at the expense of wages. Debt is a tool, and what we have now is lying and stealing from workers masquerading as debt.
Sure, I agree with you about the company store dynamic, but I also think that people don't actually need the vast majority of the things they buy. Otherwise, why would there be advertising? Also, the things that capitalism produces are not designed to last (planned obsolescence), and the system is always producing new "wants and needs" that never existed before. My politics are not populist in the sense that I just want to give people more stuff. I think americans already have plenty of stuff. More than enough stuff. What they need is better education and freedom from the ravages of an unstable economic system, self-sustaining and socially healthy communities, a sustainably managed biosphere... Ah, then we're not going to agree. Ah, then you're wrong edit: did you see my edit above? your belief about aggregates is extremely wrong and extremely dangerous. you should know about this...
I did. I know shocks will happen, but even the author talks about more or less mitigating them with a robust, well designed system. When those shocks occur (because of an aggregate), and it creates an unstable response, it actually alerts us that the system is unstable. If we look back at the financial crisis, that's the kind of immediate action which needs to take place to clear the instability, while Dodd-Frank is supposed to modify the system to make those shocks give a stable response if they can't remove the shocks altogether.
|
You expose yourself more to the black swan the more financialized your society is, because the more financialized your society is, the more you are using your models to tell yourself you understand the world and making plans based on the success of your models.
anyway, this is a bit of a tangent, but you seemed to be suggesting that there couldn't be any such thing as "too much debt" in an absolute sense because of the law of large numbers. I think that's a terribly dangerous idea. In the real world, the notion of things "averaging out over the long run" is totally inoperable.
I can't pretend to know the first thing about Dodd-Frank. I just think we need less of everything. Less debt, less finance, less economy, less everything. Less smart people wasting their lives being financiers, and more smart people doing honorable and useful things instead, and maybe even spending some time with their families for a change.
On February 17 2013 11:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
When is food or clothing too much? And here is where I sound like someone with too much time on his hands...
No no this is the only useful question to be asking.
On February 17 2013 11:57 oneofthem wrote:
but imagination has its own problems
yeah well too much imagination is the least of our society's problems. we can cross that bridge when we come to it. In the Choson dynasty, there used to be a rule about how the emperor would have to sit there and have the scholars lecture at him and tell him all the stupid things he was doing wrong. I think we should have that, but with marxists. Everybody who runs anything should have to set aside some time every week to sit there and be lectured at by a marxist. Also they should have to go get a real education, not this business school pleb's "education" that seems to be all anybody who does anything important has these days
|
On February 17 2013 12:35 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 11:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
When is food or clothing too much? And here is where I sound like someone with too much time on his hands... No no this is the only useful question to be asking.
OK sure, but then who should the question be directed to? A bunch of MBA's? I can assure you that if you direct the question to them the answer will suck!
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 17 2013 12:35 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 11:57 oneofthem wrote:
but imagination has its own problems yeah well too much imagination is the least of our society's problems. we can cross that bridge when we come to it. In the Choson dynasty, there used to be a rule about how the emperor would have to sit there and have the scholars lecture at him and tell him all the stupid things he was doing wrong. I think we should have that, but with marxists. Everybody who runs anything should have to set aside some time every week to sit there and be lectured at by a marxist. Also they should have to go get a real education, not this business school pleb's "education" that seems to be all anybody who does anything important has these days
what i mean is that there is a disconnect between social imagination and social workings, results getting.
|
Do MBAs ever give answers to anything that don't suck? MBAs are trained to suck, that's what the letters mean. It's an entire culture of suck. That's why I think we should make a rule that MBAs have to get a real education, too. Don't worry! In the communist future, the real education will be free, and even MBAs can be educated people too!
On February 17 2013 12:59 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 12:35 sam!zdat wrote:On February 17 2013 11:57 oneofthem wrote:
but imagination has its own problems yeah well too much imagination is the least of our society's problems. we can cross that bridge when we come to it. In the Choson dynasty, there used to be a rule about how the emperor would have to sit there and have the scholars lecture at him and tell him all the stupid things he was doing wrong. I think we should have that, but with marxists. Everybody who runs anything should have to set aside some time every week to sit there and be lectured at by a marxist. Also they should have to go get a real education, not this business school pleb's "education" that seems to be all anybody who does anything important has these days what i mean is that there is a disconnect between social imagination and social workings, results getting.
Yes  I don't have time to be a philosopher AND figure out how to actually make things work (edit: plus, I would be a terrible man for the job), that's why I have to somehow learn to convince people like Jonny and aksfjh that they should take me totally seriously even though I sound like a crazy person It's very depressing
|
On February 17 2013 12:35 sam!zdat wrote:You expose yourself more to the black swan the more financialized your society is, because the more financialized your society is, the more you are using your models to tell yourself you understand the world and making plans based on the success of your models. anyway, this is a bit of a tangent, but you seemed to be suggesting that there couldn't be any such thing as "too much debt" in an absolute sense because of the law of large numbers. I think that's a terribly dangerous idea. In the real world, the notion of things "averaging out over the long run" is totally inoperable. I can't pretend to know the first thing about Dodd-Frank. I just think we need less of everything. Less debt, less finance, less economy, less everything. Less smart people wasting their lives being financiers, and more smart people doing honorable and useful things instead, and maybe even spending some time with their families for a change. Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 11:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
When is food or clothing too much? And here is where I sound like someone with too much time on his hands... No no this is the only useful question to be asking. Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 11:57 oneofthem wrote:
but imagination has its own problems yeah well too much imagination is the least of our society's problems. we can cross that bridge when we come to it. In the Choson dynasty, there used to be a rule about how the emperor would have to sit there and have the scholars lecture at him and tell him all the stupid things he was doing wrong. I think we should have that, but with marxists. Everybody who runs anything should have to set aside some time every week to sit there and be lectured at by a marxist. Also they should have to go get a real education, not this business school pleb's "education" that seems to be all anybody who does anything important has these days
kinda just gonna jump in here but you posted some things I really disagree with. For one, you really have no idea how a 21st century economy works.
Finance is the lynchpin to a great economy, smart people that realize what will pay off in the future and providing money for that endevour accelerates growth, not only for the economy, but also for technology, It is a great profession, if done correctly. The problem is, we have had some really lousy investment bankers. They made bets that couldnt possibly pan out (500,000$ loans to people making minimum wage) and when the shit hit the fan, they relied on their friends in washington to bail them out. And they did because if the banks actually did go under, they would all go under, sending us to the dark ages. Basically with great power comes great responsibility, and some bankers are proving to be much less than superman.
Of course the US debt needs to come down, but that needs to happen from shrinking the government. the military is still in cold war mode, and instead of finding an old organization to improve. in the "alphabet soup" the government always creates a new one. For instance, Theres alot of talk about the gun debate, and the ATF hasnt had a CEO for months.
Less economy is always bad, I dont see how you could imagine it was good.
|
Ah, yes, I've changed my mind now. Thanks. I was a bit confused before, but you've cleared everything up for me.
edit: Guys!! I've just realized!! We can't tax rich people, because then who will create the jobs????
|
On February 17 2013 13:02 sam!zdat wrote:
Do MBAs ever give answers to anything that don't suck? MBAs are trained to suck, that's what the letters mean. It's an entire culture of suck. That's why I think we should make a rule that MBAs have to get a real education, too. Don't worry! In the communist future, the real education will be free, and even MBAs can be educated people too!
MBA's try to answer economic questions after the philosophical questions have been answered. If you ask them the philosophical questions directly they'll just roll their eyes and ask each other "wtf was he going on about?!?" at the pub later on 
That's why the universal MBA answer is "it depends"!
|
On February 17 2013 13:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 13:02 sam!zdat wrote:
Do MBAs ever give answers to anything that don't suck? MBAs are trained to suck, that's what the letters mean. It's an entire culture of suck. That's why I think we should make a rule that MBAs have to get a real education, too. Don't worry! In the communist future, the real education will be free, and even MBAs can be educated people too!
MBA's try to answer economic questions after the philosophical questions have been answered. If you ask them the philosophical questions directly they'll just roll their eyes and ask each other "wtf was he going on about?!?" at the pub later on
Sure. They just listen to the wrong philosophers and think that philosophy got solved in 18th century England, so they don't bother with the questions anymore  Life, Liberty, and Property!
That's why the universal MBA answer is "it depends"!
This is, however, an extremely philosophical answer!
edit: and while we're on the topic, can we take a moment to lament the utter depravity visited upon the English language by the MBAs? You people have the worst neologisms ever, it makes my ears burn. seriously. business english causes me physical pain. I once did some editing work for a Korean girl who was working for microsoft, and her English was this terrible mix of unconjugated fragments and horrible nouns-become-verbs and verbs-become-nouns and the vaguest sort of corporate doubtetalk. It was horrifying.
|
On February 17 2013 13:20 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 13:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 17 2013 13:02 sam!zdat wrote:
Do MBAs ever give answers to anything that don't suck? MBAs are trained to suck, that's what the letters mean. It's an entire culture of suck. That's why I think we should make a rule that MBAs have to get a real education, too. Don't worry! In the communist future, the real education will be free, and even MBAs can be educated people too!
MBA's try to answer economic questions after the philosophical questions have been answered. If you ask them the philosophical questions directly they'll just roll their eyes and ask each other "wtf was he going on about?!?" at the pub later on Sure. They just listen to the wrong philosophers and think that philosophy got solved in 18th century England, so they don't bother with the questions anymore Life, Liberty, and Property! This is, however, an extremely philosophical answer! edit: and while we're on the topic, can we take a moment to lament the utter depravity visited upon the English language by the MBAs? You people have the worst neologisms ever, it makes my ears burn. seriously. business english causes me physical pain.
What is so terrible about business speak? It gets the point across which is what language is there for.
|
On February 17 2013 12:35 sam!zdat wrote:
You expose yourself more to the black swan the more financialized your society is, because the more financialized your society is, the more you are using your models to tell yourself you understand the world and making plans based on the success of your models.
anyway, this is a bit of a tangent, but you seemed to be suggesting that there couldn't be any such thing as "too much debt" in an absolute sense because of the law of large numbers. I think that's a terribly dangerous idea. In the real world, the notion of things "averaging out over the long run" is totally inoperable.
I can't pretend to know the first thing about Dodd-Frank. I just think we need less of everything. Less debt, less finance, less economy, less everything. Less smart people wasting their lives being financiers, and more smart people doing honorable and useful things instead, and maybe even spending some time with their families for a change.
I'm saying there isn't "too much debt" because there isn't a level of debt that is "just the right amount." In the case of "law of large numbers," I think you can get a higher level of debt than YOU feel comfortable with, but our system should either correct it painlessly or adjust to see that level of debt as normal.
|
Language should be treated with respect Language is much more beautiful than we are useful
On February 17 2013 13:34 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 12:35 sam!zdat wrote:
You expose yourself more to the black swan the more financialized your society is, because the more financialized your society is, the more you are using your models to tell yourself you understand the world and making plans based on the success of your models.
anyway, this is a bit of a tangent, but you seemed to be suggesting that there couldn't be any such thing as "too much debt" in an absolute sense because of the law of large numbers. I think that's a terribly dangerous idea. In the real world, the notion of things "averaging out over the long run" is totally inoperable.
I can't pretend to know the first thing about Dodd-Frank. I just think we need less of everything. Less debt, less finance, less economy, less everything. Less smart people wasting their lives being financiers, and more smart people doing honorable and useful things instead, and maybe even spending some time with their families for a change. I'm saying there isn't "too much debt" because there isn't a level of debt that is "just the right amount." In the case of "law of large numbers," I think you can get a higher level of debt than YOU feel comfortable with, but our system should either correct it painlessly or adjust to see that level of debt as normal.
no, but I disagree. The amount of debt is not just an arbitrary benchmark which you can adjust up or down and then relativize your whole system to the new amount. Debt is a real thing. Nassim Taleb can argue this better than I can though.
edit: also, I scoff at the notion that our system ever adjusts to anything 'painlessly.' Painlessly for bourgeois people, maybe. But of course, people who aren't bourgeois people aren't real people, so who gives a fuck anyway?
|
On February 17 2013 13:35 sam!zdat wrote:Language should be treated with respect Language is much more beautiful than we are useful
Language was developed specifically for communication, it doesn't need to be embellished or held up on some pillar. It is meant to change as is necessary to most efficiently allow communication between people. Hence older, useless languages like Latin are falling out of use.
|
On February 17 2013 13:37 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 13:35 sam!zdat wrote:Language should be treated with respect Language is much more beautiful than we are useful Language was developed specifically for communication, it doesn't need to be embellished or held up on some pillar. It is meant to change as is necessary to most efficiently allow communication between people. Hence older, useless languages like Latin are falling out of use.
BAH
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
