Friday, January 28, 2011
They aren't like that now. Things seemed to make more sense when I was young. There was a job you went to. It gave a tangible return in terms both of real work you did and in terms of the paycheck you got in the end. You didn't have to make excuses for yourself since you were actually doing something. You didn't search Google for "other things." You had your own.
No, I did not like it very much. I was very, very unhappy with my job and it even gave me nightmares. I worked very hard as a young person and I hated it, and, I eventually left the work force.
That's where I am now. Outside of the workforce that is to say, but when I was in it life had definite rules, and discipline to it.
I hated my job but on the other hand I had a place to go. Both of these extremes seemed to exist in one person. I was not very happy. I really did not like my boss very much. On the other hand he also gave me a paycheck!
There is an American dream. It's not about holding a job, exactly. It is to go out on your own or own your own business but this morning, when I am a writer, I got up and thought about those days, long ago, when I had a job.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
We can also ask how we get one that distributes those products to its population. You can get high quality and low price but you also have to distribute those products that you produce. Otherwise what’s the point? Once the cost of production, and hence the price tags, are low enough, you go out and try to find persons who need these items. OK—the 5ºº blue jeans can sell. So can the Lil’ Debbie 25¢ snack bars, and Gatorade.
As productivity increases—and it has, over the years—you get lots and lots of products at low prices, but only certain ones. You get, particularly, basic staples like clothing, housing, household-type products, including many electronic devices, and then you have to add your telephone service, and some good food if you're like me. So a person can live without spending a whole hell of a lot (if he can walk to work, because he can't drive, because gas is not cheap items) at a later or more "developed" stage of the capitalism situation. Here is where Europeans talk about “political economy.” But the U. S. does not think you need to do that, I guess. In the U.S., the academic figures, somewhat suspiciously, say “economics.” As if it is that simple. Right? But the fact is there are the “people problems” and you do not solve those by refusing to accept that there are people, poor ones, which, make no mistake about it, is what the American economists do tend to do. They are working for the society. In providing us with out narrative of the study field or area called Economics (the study, dahling) they act as if two things are unconnected: persons, and economics. The dissociation of those two things from one another was the masterstroke of American economic ingenuity (the STUDY, dayling). One of the two things, of course, is The People, and that's a rather famous construct, right? So why would economists of all people not study them? I don't know. Well, let us ask it, then.
If you talk about people qua people – – you know, those funny little peopley thingamajobbers?—in economics, you will be called a socialist. But because Europe has socialists you cannot be called a socialist. So, since Europeans have socialists, their economists can talk about people—it is since they do not have to risk being called socialist, got it? But Euros treat their funny little peopley things just as bad. Europeans are just as bad as the Americans—no doubt—they treat them like crap, they just have a different tradition.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
The regurgitated morself of peach meat came back from the back of throat where it had been sequestered: in order to fulfill its destiny which was to segue gracefully into another go-'round in the taste chamber. Delicious: It was like a second chance. I also like the chance to write about it; But not as much.We should all call our mouths "the Chamber of Taste." Sounds Goth, like Edgar Allen Poe. Maybe if all of us learned to go around talking like differently that would be all it would take. We'd have a less problem getting along with each other, if we used the write stuff, you know? We could talk like we were in a novel you know. This has been done. This was tried. That is what the Quakers tried With their "I"s and "thou"s: the this and That, they tried to tame society through proper speech so that has been done. That was tried. They are the ones who really already tried it. Those quakers; they quake; they already serve as example; so I guess I'll never.
But we're so crass of a society.
Start a national project for increase of eloquence.
Thus, m' Lady surely we could UPLIFT ourselves.
Goth is Addams Family and not the Munsters, so I am going for quality. Taste? It's twinkies NOT snowballs. We've got to
upgrade our quality. Of life. I am not alone in thinking that our society and culture needs to be upgraded. Gore Vidal understands this too.
Mmmm... good little peach. Come back to Papa now, so I can chew you again.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
This is “Panera” writing. I am at table in the popular “Panera” chain. There are about twenty other customers, at least, in the large modern space.
It’s a comfort zone.
But is it public space or private space? I do not know any of these other people around me nor do I have any sort of personal agreements with any of the group.
So, is it (i.e. Panera Café) a public space, or a private space? Why call Panera Bread a private business?
This is what you might call "ideology." Although it is a bunch of crap, what is always being taught, preached, or inculcated is that nothing is ever shared. All you have to do is stop and think about it. This seems obvious enough. I am quite certain this is the case. This is the ubiquitous propaganda, and we hear it all the time. Of course, if you want, you can "interrogate" it. As follows:
Why are the Chinese holding half our dollars? Because we are busy lying about everything being private; and if you lie, then, in the meanwhile, something odd happened because you were basing yourself on ideology instead of going for the truth. Why did China get all of that money? We find that we cannot answer that.
Now what? It is China's private money? Maybe the theory that in capitalism everything is private needed to be interrogated. OK, so that is one question one could ask, about why private or not-private. Why is that a debate? There are all kinds of questions like that by which we could try to interrogate this propaganda. Could we get very far with that? I know that it would not stop being propaganda.
These are urgent question. I don’t know the answers to all these questions, so I'll just offer that notions of capitalism as “private” do not get us anywhere.
(More on the muddled and hopeless excercise of subjecting care economic theory to interrogation instead of just believing it: when Bernanke makes a so-called “helicopter drop” of money, which we pretty much understand is what they are doing lately, he would do so in our own U.S. territory. Of course. He wouldn't do it on China! OK; why not? Why not make the helicopter drop in China? Now that sounds to me like a good question to reflect upon. Maybe that is the way economics ought to proceed but they don't. Or: maybe these are questions no one can answer. This world of economics, if that is a good way to put it, seems to be characterized by continuous u-turns, self-canceling logical twists and turns, or even, Soros's, "reflexivity" if you want a framework to work within. When anyone tries to answer these kind of questions there just seems to manifest before one such a dense course of u-turns and self-contradicting answers---so much so that it makes me feel that this is the nature of this world, for we live in a human cultural and ideological system characterized by "economics" --- "capitalism" --- whatever words you want to put to it.)
Below: an earlier draft.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Remember I do not know internet protocol. I am autistic. I channel into certain grooves. Now I am starting my new blog, with a log that sort of tracks an experience I had with the Democracy Now! web.
I am listening to Sen. Bernie Sanders on D Now! ...makes a nice background as I write as I seem to very straightforwardly agree with him.
I am doing this to become successful. Known; famous. All that sort of thing, isn't that the way it works? Shit like this a person does to get famous. I acknowledge it's all about fame. That they either love you or they hate you is alway my experience in this bloody thing called life, anyway. It's all fake. Here is what I wrote today. Why does it come out in the same font?
comes out in the same font as the rest of this. I in fact wrote it in a different font or typeface
but How can I know about Font types; and internet protocol? (as I call it above)? I am autistic. Now you probably think I want to be famous for that, too, but I don'T. Wanting to be known is not the worst thing a person can do is it? Gawd I hope not. Probably there is some ego in there. OK. But the persons Bernie is talking about right now in my high-ttech elitist earphones want something else: they just want to be wealthy. Boy, what total losers they are. I want LOVE. But it's impossible. Anyway...I think wanting to be famous isn't quite as bad.
Bernie talks about wealthy and powerful "forces." He paused a moment before the word "forces." I wonder why. What are the rich? Are they people or forces? They are, I'll offer, people who want to use force. They're immoral. They're immoral rich persons that want to use force. Gottcha!
I am going to hit "publish" now. Could you please blame "Blogspot" (a.k.a. those geniuses at Google) if I said anything bad or for 'whatever' happens, when whatever happens?---if whatever does indeed happen, as I believe that it may? They control it anyways. Ultimately, they do. Do I own the internet? Of course not.