Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Capitalism: Yesterday, Today; Valid and Not

We are at the final stage. The distribution system is for money alone. The goal, or motive, now is not the creation of some item of worth, which might be simply called "value." (There does not exist any "better" use of the word that economists have discovered.) Rather, the task is to get one's paws on a hunk of dough; the only point is: pull your own hunk, off of the ball of dough. OK. So, I am trying to say that it is just money. Money alone. That's all. When this is the only idea left, that not capitalism, or, better, not validly. What the different kinds of capitalist systems have in common, though, is that there is the same general idea or motive. One want to get one's own piece of the system. In one sense, then, it is ongoing and that is what persons have been doing all along.
     How do you do that? -this is what economic actors have been asking for five, six, seven, or eight generations (in my family's history maybe four---before that the "shtetel" only! Only that...ha ha ha) During this period of legitimate or valid capitalism the choices or ways of getting that piece of money were really not so great. But now? This is totally different. This we must distinguish from the other, more "valid" capitalism.
     Now it is all about to end, if not reformed. Economics needs to be modified.
     We need to ask: what kind of capitalism shall it be? Valid or invalid? Which sounds better? "Valid" sounds better. And it is better.

     Let's move on to another take on this that I wrote  the same day:

     Economics can be reduced to a simple question. The question is about how you get your money.
     There are two ways of doing it. There are ways that are valid, and, there are the invalid ways of getting money. Or, just right and wrong ways, which has the same meaning. From 1800 to 1999, capitalism functioned. It functioned, at least to some degree. It existed. So, the way in which persons did it (got money) was basically alright (which is to say, "valid").

     We can say in general that there is no way capitalism could last forever. It is not perfect or immaculate. It depends on its causes and conditions, it has many subtle things that need to be there, some countries still cannot do it, etc. When is it "time up," then. If it is not never, it has to happen sometime. Now, the time is up!
     But that doesn't mean we cannot reform! This idea of reforming the system is that so bad. There is zero option of creating a different system out of capitalism, however you may conceive of that. (Socialism, etc., you know.) But if reformed---then we may get a few more years. There could be a reform and then another small period of "correct function," or "vital capitalism." The reforms could be made. (My ideas are available so contact me.)
     If your way of getting money is invalid, you are now of no use to anybody. Your worth as a human being has come to an end.
     What the world really depends on is good will. If we can express our good will through capitalism, that is fine. Life has some hope.

Friday, January 22, 2016

How Problems of Growth Exist, at the Present Time

The big secret is that since before WWII capitalism depends on what the experts call "growth." In the 19th cent., Malthus said poverty was uncurable.
    
Capitalism was still new.

Wages began to rise in 1850 (in England) or 1880 (US). (see: F. Braudel) Until then, capitalism was just a convenient way of killing poor persons (Engels, the 1844 book). The wealthy, upper-class elitist types were surprised at the advent of growth. Now -- today -- after @one hundred years -- they regard it as essential. What happens if the ability to keep growing is lost to the system? Up until recently, the professional so-called "economists" refused to even discuss the notion. After all, growth had become practically their number one favorite notion.

Obviously, if inequality increases, and the "rich" get more and more, a failure of sustainable systemic growth would mean that commercial wealth production is going to be transferred away from many persons. If the problem is in t he nature of the system, then the solution is to change the system. It is to create a "capitalism version 2." That would at least be change, if not "Growth," in the fashionable sense that economists have gotten used to. On the other hand, it would be a kind of healthy growth in the way we think about economics.

Thursday, August 21, 2014

All Humans Live Socially


We live in a culture. Of course we do; all humans live socially and in culture. And I think we live in a peculiar culture. But what name to give it? Isn't it more difficult to give a name to something that is peculiar? Should we give it a long word? A strange, funny word, or perhaps technical-sounding scientific term? Like: homo economicus! I know! Let's use a lot of math! How easy is it to find a word for something peculiar? Let's just call it “capitalism.”

Is it really "Culture"?

We live in a peculiar culture—the culture of “capitalism.” We can call it that. The “culture” of capitalism. It is neither here nor there. It isn't controlled by a king, or, a famous dictator. It isn't even ruled by democracy anymore. Democracy has gotten sort of weak and soft. Something has to control capitalism. Who? What? What controls capitalism?
     Nobody, apparently. There is no king—and there is no court, with its ministers of war and finance, jugglers, and the occasional “All Fools Day.” We've lost that thing where we let our hair down for a spell. There are only endless shelves of PORNO movies. But no overall theme to the society, you see.


     There are “deals,” there are “properties.” But who owns them? Individuals? Corporations? Corporate individuals? And there is still war—although this is now carried out mostly in other places, other, far-away and less wealthy countries who lack the requisite “development.” What is it, though, that capitalism has developed into? Whatever it is, is it doing us much if any good? Does capitalism help us make  the most of our day? Does it make us wiser or better or more compassionate? What does it do? What is it good for, this culture of ours?


 And what is the value of Milky Way bars...
 
 
[OK, so I repeated myself. So what?]

This is re-igniting.
This blog is being re-ignited. Everyone knows that in the world today everything is in flux. Everybody knows that so I have conceived of some method by which to pick where each text of mine is going to go. Now I am going to have three at once, the new one on WordPress (search for it, you lazy bums!), the one just called "Jack," found at the location: jacksilvermanpontiicates.blogspot.com
AND (doh) this one.

Here is the new post:



We live in a peculiar culture—the culture of “capitalism.” We can call it that. The “culture” of capitalism. It is neither here nor there. It isn't controlled by a king, or, a famous dictator. It isn't even ruled by democracy anymore. Democracy has gotten sort of weak and soft. Something has to control capitalism. Who? What? What controls capitalism?

     Nobody, apparently. There is no king—and there is no court, with its ministers of war and finance, jugglers, and the occasional “All Fools Day.” We've lost that thing where we let our hair down for a spell. There are only endless shelves of PORNO movies. But no overall theme to the society, you see.

     There are “deals,” there are “properties.” But who owns them? Individuals? Corporations? Corporate individuals? And there is still war—although this is now carried out mostly in other places, other, far-away and less wealthy countries who lack the requisite “development.” What is it, though, that capitalism has developed into? Whatever it is, is it doing us much if any good? Does capitalism help us make  the most of our day? Does it make us wiser or better or more compassionate? What does it do? What is it good for, this culture of ours?

 

And what is the value of Milky Way bars...

Saturday, March 16, 2013

hdden aspect stuff

-
     The "hidden aspects" of the economy  ( jacksgreatblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/what-are-costs.html  ) . That would be all the hidden things we don't know. But the hidden things are not part of the "rhetorical" side so no one knows about it. Humans are cultural animals. They go where their culture tells them to go. They are not truly creative. I don't think it is really that they are so creative or that they are constantly going where they want to go. I do not think that life works that way.
     In the field of economics there has been a capture of the human thought system. The practice of creative thought has been captured and tamed. There is a specific program of economic disinformation. It is "specific" because this has all been worked out, quite well, and with many economists intentionally contributing their  shovel of dirt. You can be very sure you will therefore end up being oriented towards the accepted norm, the approved norm, which is some kind of establishment or right-wing view. Well, usually. Or neo-liberal, or conformist or whatever you call it --- the norm, the normal position. You might call that the missionary position in economics. The result? Well. We are unfamiliar with "hidden aspects."
     But also, it is because we just simply don't seem to be smart enough. There is not necessarily just ONE reason. Actually, there is a lot to be said about it.  
     [http://ethxblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/enhancement-horror-in-germany-not-quite.html -This blog, Ethx, tells us what German students do! 25% of them are self-medicating, taking brain stimulants - or not, depending on who you believe, and whether you believe everything you read! Why am I including this!!?]

     In most subject fields (academic disciplines) there are indeed actual "discussions." "Conversations." But in the discipline of economics you will not find that. It is not easy. The economists did a total capture, and --- sorry, Charlie. Sunkist only accepts the same old routine. But you knew that, right?
     Therefore, to discuss economics it is not some much  economic science you need to discuss, but the nature of propaganda and rhetoric. To understand why the economics discussion has not been truthful is difficult. It has been, really, quite a problem for me to get at. We may ask this. Why did economics as a science positively need to avoid the truth? It's a fascinating area. Could capitalism ever have even developed at all, without this avoidance, this refusal to know itself? Was there an absolute need to accompany the rise of capitalism itself with what is sometimes called the "superstructure," or with its rhetoric, its ideology? That is an issue that could be opened up and discussed. It could be looked into a little. A little more. It won't kill ya. Or are we still slaves to our deluded minds?
 (see this LINK: http://jacksgreatblog.blogsrent-i-something.html).


note: thanks to Arjo Klamer and Dierdre for inspiration

and finally: this one, like the other one under it, was added by resourcing an old "draft" post and posting it. This blog is actually defunct. But I allow myself to re-write or edit old posts. I found this one and it seems to hold together pretty well. Arjo is tryng to have a "conversation" with other persons. This is on some webpage or other of his, and I sent him a "contact form" message. I already browsed off of the website where he was inspiring me. So I cannot tell you the address. Thanks so much Arjo, Deirdre and Ziliak, you wonderful conversationalists.