Sept. 13, 2011

I get it. Thanks for telling me: it is about money —we do not have enough of this stuff: so we need to cut social, cut medicare, etc. It seems to be the case that we have some sort of shortage of natural resources — or, of money. Actually, the two are quite related. Or, conceptually, there could be any type of a shortage of any combination of those two. But there is one shortage that we do not have, which is a shortage of narrow-mindedness.

A shortage of narrow-mindedness would be welcome...

A shortage of greed would be most great... but why should I believe that there is a shortage of money? —this being the money that the government runs on. Come on. A shortage of money? This country has produced more money than anyone ever has in the history of the uncivilized world. In all of history no one has ever had as much material wealth as we have. And isn't every single item of that pile of wealth or of material paid for by money? We had the material, so we must have had the same amount of money. I'm an economist. I "get" this stuff!!! (I think.)    
     Economists should pay less attention to making up equations, more attention to reality. Mathematics is just an idea. It is "just" an idea. It isn't real. But the newspapers tell us no —their version of it is that there is a freaking shortage of money. I think we should tear down this system. My understanding of the capitalistic social and monetary system is that it has built up a lot of trade. All of this trade uses money. Doesn't it? The more you trade, the more you need money, so the businessmen are, it seems, always creating more money by borrowing it. The government also borrows money. They issue money to themselves and they borrow it? What for? Or else they issue it to the banks and the banks distribute this money to borrowers, who engage in a transactional society, making all their deals that get them into the clover. What is a government to do when the government cannot pay its own debt? Why did they take out the debt in the first place, if they are the government? Aren't they in charge of money itself?

     But now the government has a shortage of money. Well, if they really did have a shortage of money, which is something that I have indicated my disbelief about, then the non-existent money shortage could be alleviated since they are the government and they could requisition some money from the people. This should be a straightforward procedure. I would take some from Bill Gates if I were in power. I know his name, and that of Warren Buffet. If I were the government, I would contact those people, you know?

     I would take some from Warren Buffett. (Apparently I don't know how to spell. There is a squiggly line under it, red.) Anyone who is great at making money is a really good resource for the government. The government needs money and these two guys are super at making money. They are just really, really good at making money. At getting it. At having it on hand. Whatever. I think when you show this kind of talent for making money there should be some other kind of process that kicks in, following on your success. How much money is there out there? A lot. Give the government some. It just seems natural. It isn't like Bill Gates made that money on his own or anything. Of course we'd have to put some money-requisitioning rules in place and we'd have to change the society a little. Like I suppose that is bad? To change the society a little? Who thinks that is bad? A few rich persons think it is bad. Give me a break. We need change. Didn't Obama say that? (That name needs a r,w&b logo around it)

     If I did the research I could find more names too —you could get a list. All these guys are absolute pros at creating or collecting money —whatever it is they do. We know perfectly well who these persons are and we know where to get the money. That's the beauty of our "open society" system.

     So. The newspaper boys, obviously, are not going to let me get away with all of this stuff. Are they? They probably have some kind of wack-ass theory of their own that they made up-----in the form of some ideas, like, that the government does not make money. Or if they do they gave it away to the people. And they aren't allowed to take it back. Don't believe it. The government can get money. If their cops can beat people up and their soldiers can kill people (bad soldiers — you can see this on YouTube — they are killers — they vaporize persons ) they must have some kind authority, right? Then they can get money. Who created money, in the first place? Well, I guess that's a good q. Anyways: They can just order the rich to relinquish their money. And if they close down their factories (as if there were any) as revenge, refusing to make more money, then the free-enterprise system simply goes into effect, and the government can re-sell those factories to entrepreneurs, to some private enterprise buffs. And, since it is all the beginning of something new, they/we/the govt. can regulate all these new factories from the git-go. If we need regulations, we can have them. If not, not, but I think there are some you are always going to need. All we have to do is figure out how to do this stuff. We just need some new thinking. Remember how I said "narrow-mindedness" was a problem? I said that.

     I live in Chicago's gold coast whatever that means. I don't know what it means. I don't worry about it. That's what my neighborhood is called. I don't know what the freaking hell it means. It's just a name. Gold? What's that? Money? Money Coast?

     There are all these tall luxury buildings around here, and all these  uptight persons who are all very concerned with whether they are "acting right" or have the proper requisite elegant behavior. I"d say, 300,000 "rich" type persons here. I mean, they have a lot of money. How was that again? There is a money shortage? We do not have enough money you see.  Wow, I just cannot get over it.

     I counted the tall luxury hotels and skyscrapers. There are 300,000 rich people in my neighborhood, or in all of Chicago. Something like that.

plently of the stuff money buys, too...

What I think, really, is that maybe we are too hung up on individuality. All the money "has to" go to individuals, as in "private property." Now I am not in favor of immediately dismantling or taking apart anything but I think the economic system or the system of capitalism (which I am not in favor of dismantling) may be run too much on an individualism basis at this stage. There was always a lot of right-wing pressure for this kind of system and now the time for that is over. I really think the system of capitalism needs to be publicly managed. I don't think it is a private system. It has brought us to this point but we're just too narrow-minded understand the things we need to, and what we need to understand is that it is time for major re-structuring of this capitalist economic system that we have.

     I do not really know what "Economy" or "economic system" means. From what I have come to understand about the various intellectual players, how the various public or elite persons use the term, I don't think they do either. An "economic" way to handle money (or wealth) would be something like a rational way. This has something to do with distribution. "Economics" means being sensible and putting things in the right places. For a long time there were big arguments and debates about whether wealth should be handled by private individuals who engage in what is called "business," which has something to do with money, or whether the state should have more control over it. Well, maybe the time has come to say, "OK, we see all the things that the handling of money and trade by private individuals has done. You have done your thing. Now we want you to continue to do it, but under some new rules." Is that so damn hard?