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.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

German Economic Hubris

[This was saved on the blog website as an unpublished draft. I let it surface today, Aug. 23]

Various European countries are having crises not just one country. The WSJ reports that maybe even Germany. Wow. Even "honest" frugal Germany. Heavens! What next? If even "innocent" self-righteous G. is having problems then maybe everyone is. Maybe everyone is 'only human.'
     My view is that capitalism is a system of reciprocity, and if this is the case then capitalism is not a system of mere egotism. My view is that the acts of capitalism are therefore less private or "self"-oriented than is usually indicated. The problem is basically ideological, not rational. So, you will notice how they (practically everybody, certainly the mainstream and many of the elite) always try to tell us that capitalism is about something like "self" or "private property." Do they not say this? Is there anyway to oppose or resist such prevalent ideological conditioning? Or is 'the big lie' impossible to fight against.
     For example, why not say that capitalism is about interconnection? That works too, doesn't it? Logically, that would work just as well. The best case that capitalism has an inherent nature of reciprocity would be to picture an the actual world situation. ("Imagine," if you are J.L, musical hero, a picture of the world.) See the world, then. See the picture of the world. In accord with such a picture, every individual (note here that an alternative would be "individual country") ought to depend on others. This is actually the truth: capitalism has always been reciprocal; we just don't know it. We do not picture it that way. When we observe, without our old ideological blinders, we now notice that the capitalistic players (as a general rule) do not (ought not) retreat into 'privacy.' But they also prefer ideological misinterpretations of reality, so that, in the real world of thought practice and ideas, they achieve another wish that they have, which is to avoid acknowledging the interdependence that is actually inherent in the capitalistic system. And should they be so extreme so as to actually retreat into a real, as well as an ideological, private place, even if they do, even if we consider that they did retreat into privacy, those individuals represent only themselves. It is a big world out there, and they do not thereby change the nature of capitalism. My view here, you see, is that, without interdependence, no capitalism. however, that is what they are trying not to face, or admit.
     Private property is there; I am not trying to say that no such thing exists. It does not exist. It is an element of the overall reality we live in. But it just does not explain the success of capitalism. You can say that private property is important. It is certainly important in society; it is important in capitalist society. Individuals do exist. I am not saying they do not exist. But to try to explain capitalism as "individual profit-seeking" or something is not terribly fulfilling (to me), and it causes us to lose sight of an important aspect of it, which is interpedendence and sociality. Instead, we could and should introduce a new emphasis on these particular aspects. So, that's my "news" for you about capitalism and ideology. The news: capitalism is sociality. 
     So, I would say  that individuals alone do not explain capitalism. I agree that we ought to admit that they are there but this emphasis on "the individual" is not really so helpful. It is not sufficient, you need something else. If, by "capitalism," we mean the general type of society we have, in some of the countries of the world, then life in those countries is capitalistic, yes, but that does not imply individualistic.
      There is the fact that many persons want it to be individualistic. But this type of society that we have in these countries is not particularly individualistic: it is capitalistic.
     And the "something else" we need to understand these types of capitalistic societies as lies at the heart of  reciprocity in capitalism. There is a lot more to be said about this reciprocity. No one should be excused from it -- no not even Ms. Merkel is excused, merely because they do not get it.

The deepest manifestation of such reciprocity, the most important manifestation that we seek to explain or appreciate is not the actual trading event (which are rather boring in themselves). It is a 'sociality' (if I may use this as a legitimate word that I like to say), a reciprocity that bleeds out irresistibly into the fabric of things and becomes a part of society, the heart of the society, what keeps all of us going. (It isn't the individuality that keeps us going.) All attempts to repudiate that fly in the face of this social reality. However, the trading event itself can be called a mere individual act. I do not have a disagreement with that, but there are an enormous number of trading events; we are not talking about just one. Thus, it is true that one does not make a deep social bond with the butcher, when you buy a piece of meat, or with the vegetable man when you but a piece of lettuce from the veggie areas of the economy-----if you are a vegetarian. Individual acts of exchange do not seem to be at the core of what I am talking about here as reciprocal (social). No, it is the society, not the individual that I am talking about ---- and capitalism is social, dammit, they just aren't telling us the truth. The truth is that capitalism enters world history in a sense that is always reciprocal----a capitalist society. It is interdependent; human society is reciprocal in any case! Capitalism is an element in that, and reflects it. That will always be the case until we have a form other than capitalism.
     By nature society is reciprocal. That is the meaning of "social," a term in the language. Thus, we have to introduce the term "society" when we introduce the term "economics." What 'they' did ideologically was just the opposite. They chose the opposite way to do things. Rather, I would suggest that we now put those two (meaning, society and economics) together----they need to go together. It gets a bit complex here, with this stuff about "ideology." For me, this is quite difficult, and I think others share this opinion. But, at any rate, we can discover a new way of seeing, in regard to the subject matter that falls under the category of economics, and that means a new way of seeing where we see that "capitalism" means "social interdependence" not "individuality." So, I guess there is a kind of choice there and I am trying to link capitalism with society, not with individuality or individualism or any of the other similar terms or cast of ambivalent terms ('entrepreneur'), which in turn allows us to cast capitalism as significantly "social." It's a very different and I suppose, new way of looking at this. (A definite point of view.)

    [older material follows that has not yet been re-written]: Let us now carry on in the lively tradition of the fine rhetorician Donald Rumsfeld (who insists on remaining gendered as a male). Let's say, then, that capitalism is "embedded" within a particular society (today that would read: embedded within the global society). Capitalism is economics. It is also social, and located in the context of a society. (Of course we do not actually know where the "Location of Culture" is...Bhabha!!)
     Put differently: capitalism needs to integrate with society. There is nothing wrong with that. Society and capitalism can live together. We do not have to see capitalism as individualistic. But were it not so framed it goes sour. It is no longer humane. Those are my views.
     Here, I have a habit of using the following example: If the whole matter is that of a picture in a frame society is like the frame, slightly larger than capitalism. The frame has to be a biit larger than the picture. The two complement one another, but also the frame is slightly larger.
     In this view, "capitalism" and "society" are fairly close to each other. (It also depends on whether we choose to look at it like that, or adopt some other ideology!) Now I see capitalism as a humane system ---- a system with some potential that should be worked with, not destroyed, and what we see is that only if our society displays the quality of reciprocity does our capitalism have a chance.
    That's why capitalism did so well in the US. The society let it embed and framed it. It happened that way also in Venice (you could say that's going back a ways, but I figure it may be relevant as Venice is called one of the central capitalist cities, by Braudel [Fernand B.]). Later, there were cities in Holland, there was the city of London, and, finally, famous New York, N.Y. No doubt you can go there. Go to New York City. You'll see this. You are going to see capitalism surrounded by a society ---- and not separate from it.
                                 -            -             -             -               -               -
When Merkel says her capitalism is her concern, hers alone, what a sick and lonely song. And what an old tune, really. It is an old song; It's an old story. And what is it?----it is plaintive and it is pathetic. My property. Leave me alone. I am not linked to you.

I think otherwise. I think maybe we are linked, after all. Good night, as ____  said, and Good luck.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433383/quotes