Yeah... he was one of my favourites too. Did you ever get a chance to read, "Last Chance to See"? It was an interesting travelogue around Endangered Species.

Ahh, Meaning of Liff. My favorite word from that book is, Elsrickle - the little bead of sweat that runs down one's butt cleavage. 🤣

I am a certified Workplace Assessor and Trainer (CIV - Aust.) I DO NOT understand how to use Ravel/Minsky. I have struggled with this for years. There is no systematised methodology to move a person from unknown to competent. I can teach just about anyone to suck eggs if there is a training program, but if "I" can't learn how to use the system, I can't teach anyone! I am 100% committed to this, but... I seem to be too damned... daft to help, or make it work. I want to, but "want" doesn't "deliver."

Capitalism is dead! Long live Capitalism! The Economy, Free markets, Neo-Liberalism, and Democracy. These are such great topics, but they are not the only topics: Communitarianism, Ubuntu/OST, Socialism (and all the other -isms) and religion-based social ordering are all integral to such a discussion. The first point, I guess is to recognise that, Commerce is not Capitalism and vice versa. We are all here because we want to learn how the economy and markets really function, i.e. we are focussed on understanding how commerce functions and how it is actually implemented, organised and supported by societal and governmental actions. Many of us also believe in a fair go for all and that such a moral/ethical/empathetical construct should be integrated, firmly, into the fabric of society. Capitalism, as we know it does not function that way. Some argue that Capitalism via Neo-Liberal policy aims to enshrine itself as the "natural order" of things, that there is no other way, and trying to tinker with all these other methodologies goes against nature, and the natural order. Through the Darwinian crucible of, "survival of the fittest" capitalism, has proven over and over to be the fittest, if you buy into that view. To me, it seems more like Capitalism is the apex predator: a wolf wrapped up in Neo-Liberal Economic Policy as if it were Sheep's clothing. When Land is commoditised to the point, that a legal system in one country can justify the occupation of another, Terra Nullius for example, then we have a significant problem, which over the past 200 years or so has got even more out of hand. The biblical Land Jubilee advocated that land under lease or loan from some community for use by another had to be returned after seven years, or so I understood it to be. In other words, individuals had the right to use a community resource, but could not claim ownership of it. It had to be eventually returned, plus a certain benefit should also go to the community for allowing the resource to be used.

@Trays GoingGray His thesis is that Madiera was vacant land with no claims to ownership on it. As such there were no controls to take into account as to the use and exploitation of land. He then states that development of Madiera's resouurces required labour, which came through some initial voluntary contracting and then replaced later through Slavery which was essentially cheaper. Lastly, as Madiera had no State level jurisdictional control, money (loans) for financing the whole shebang could be sourced from the lowest cost/roi (ad)venture investor. As such this commoditisation of land (resources), labour, and loans (money) was the Big Bang Moment for the birth of Capitalism.

@Jon Underwood Understood. Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate your specificity. Help me understand why there is no real threat. From my understanding, The way current Bank Bail In rules are structured, Investors AND Savers are at risk of losing a portion of their bank held funds, if triggered, before the public stepping in (via government intervention) to Bail out failing banks. This risk to Savers, you indicate is mitigated by government mandated deposit guarantees, correct? Here's where I don't understand the issue fully. It is my impression that under Bail In conditions, that deposit protection is null and void. I'm not sure why I have that opinion.

@Jon Underwood Fair enough.