Wednesday, June 27, 2012

The Wizard of Oz, and Small Town America

(note: rewritten July 11)

In the lived experience of most Americans, actual encounter with the actions and workings of government is rare, not a part of lived experience, and "rarely encountered," and because of this it is not an exaggeration to suggest that there are Americans who believe government does not exist. I know that sounds strange, but, as Jim Morrison said, "people are strange." They come very close to simply believing that such things are not included in the world (like "the state"). This peculiarity can be explained by the lack of experience with it, which is to say in their everyday affairs, so that, for them, it does not exist. Thus, the affairs of government or politics, or rather all of the impingements upon life implied by those things are simply-dimply not encountered. So, such individuals have no conception of anything such as a State, and, at any rate, they sure do not want "the government" (which also does not exist) telling them what to do. maybe they conjure government only to tell it to go away.
     That such Americans do not really experience this kind of impingement very much is the fact. It is a characteristic of American life and it engenders various different attitudes towards that which they do not believe is really there. They either think government doesn't exist at all, or, perhaps, they think it is something far, far away. We can call such "governmentality" fabled, or fabulous.
     "The Wizard of Oz" is a masterpiece in itself of fabulation, something that sprang from the imagination of one L. Frank Baum fellow, a writerly type of several generations back, and our little Dorothy has an encounter with government, government as one encounters it in Oz-Land, because, you see, a tornado-storm blows up and unexpectedly removes her from one place to another. To quite another place indeed: the place called the Land of Oz. What Dorothy finally does see in terms of governmentality is: fantasy government.
     And I also suspect there is a bit of protest going on in L. Frank Baum's mind because -- Well, this government is not really that good. It's just this old man behind a curtain, if you recall (I recall the movie, as do most persons). 

     What is the difference between the "right" and the "left"? My thinking is that it is denial of government in the one case, we just covered that, but it is pointed criticism of gov't. in the other case. Those are distinct responses. The leftists are more interested in analyzing everything and, thus, they are going to be analyzing and they are gonna cut everything apart. They analyze everything, those guys do. But for the rightist type of mind it just does not exist. Nothing you cannot see exists, and they do not see much government, do they? Well I will say not!
     Of course, to think that the government just doesn't exist is an aspect of the peculiarly American way of life, our special way of life. Which ought to CHANGE, starting NOW!!!!

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Book Review (Dubos)

_______________________________________                         __________   

My current reading is “Celebrations of Life”, by Rene Dubos.
For this book, you need to understand “determinism.” 

In the book, determinism is a view we may contrast to Rene Dubos’s view, which is a view that I think could be called more open and humanistic. But the material for the view of diversity, in contrast to determinism, seems a harder case to make, which is a bit like saying that "diversity" is a harder book to open, compared/contrasted to "determinism," or (staying on the same subject of determinism for a moment) various strains of religious fundamentalism that all strive for unity in a given population.  
     This is so: There is not any “oness” (a substitute spelling might be “oneness”) in the argument for diversity. Diversity is a difficult condition to express. Determinism is different, so easy to express. You just say the name of your nation, religion, or cult: "I am a Muslim." Exposition over.
     To think deterministically (or with respect to unity) is to think in terms of one point of view. (To serve only a single cause for a single result.)
     We can also think of (or write about, and a few authors have...) the fact that there exist so many points of view. But that's harder.
     Writer Isaiah Berlin formulated both possibilities together in his exposition of the one and the many (called "fox and hedgehog"). In a democracy, we need books that expound both points of view, diversity and unity. But unity and diversity are not the same, in one very relevant sense.
     The problem here is that there are those who do not like democracy.

     There are, that is to say, very few democratic hedgehogs.
     Dubos has a scientific mind. With it he probes; he seems to dig out something from every corner. Even at that, though, there is something beautiful about the work, which is that he just wrote this for the hell of it. This is the one big difference with E. O. Wilson, whom I think of as Dubos’s opposite "other." And, naturally, Dubos mentions him in "Celebrations of Life," quite fairly and disinterestedly. And this big difference is this. When you get the later (E. O. Wilson) you get into the package some guy with a huge axe to grind, a huge idea that his ideas are right, and no one else's are. But you don't get that with Rene Dubos, and that's the difference.

__________________________________                     ___    


Krugman begins his piece          about the European economic crisis by discussing Germany, then says the U. S. is not all that different.

"the Fed announced some actions ... [But it is] ..." (according to everyone who knows anything) ...

"pathetically inadequate  "

OK. That is what K says about the Fed's actions. Why? It must be that...

" [the Fed is] afraid to do anything that might be seen as providing political aid to President Obama, that is, anything that might help the economy."

    That sounds spot-on, for sure. I don't know whether he is right about the Fed's deep inner motivations, but the idea that the Republicans simply see everything in terms of politics seems plausible. Thus, if they are as blind as they seem to be, they might put opposing Mr. Obama before common sense. Helping the economy is no different from anything else. It pales before their hatred of their enemies.

    The problem comes when I see that all of Krugman's solutions are very typical ones. We need more than that. He is not thinking very far outside of the box, is he? He wants typical remedies, like "growth," etc. We need something much more that only the usual kinds of remedies. He is OK, but he has a limited range of solutions to offer. These guys mostly just play around with their economic theories rather than reformulating the very meaning of economics itself. All these economists are trained in the same rituals.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Wallerstein's Take On Economics

In 1983 Immanuel Wallerstein, a very good sociologist, well-known, usually associated with “world systems theory,” gave his take on capitalism. I just saw the book as a reissue. “Verso,” the publishing company or imprint was also the publisher of the original. On the back, it says that Wallerstein outlines the chief characteristics of capitalism, “[c]onsidering the way capitalism has changed and evolved over the centuries, and what has remained constant.
    That sounds good; I would like to know what these chief characteristics are. However, I always have trouble with Wallerstein (and every other economist, save Schumpeter!). I see on the back cover that a “companion essay”, “Capitalist Civilization,” is also mentioned. "Maybe I should look Wallerstein," I think. After all, so many of the words and concepts I am encountering here seem to resonate with my own views and theories.But I know there are going to be problems, because I remember paddling my canoe up this river previously.
    An interesting thing is that upon reading a bit of Wallerstein’s introduction he mentions “that a theoretical formulation is only understandable and usable in relation to the alternative formulation it is explicitly or implicity attacking; and that it is entirely irrelevant vis-á-vis formulations about other problems…” OK. This is why I stopped reading Wallersteing, I remember now. It is basically an unwieldy sentence. The first part is OK. The first part of the sentence circumscribes it—limits it—and that's fine. But then, here comes the second, and the second part of the sentence, after the semicolon, makes it complicated. I am pretty sure I am going to have problems. I am pretty sure I am right about these things. He is talking about the limits that exist when a writer is making assertions, or positing a theoretical view, for others to read. That's fine, because that is his experience and I get the feeling that he really knows what he is talking about. But why does he have to just keep worm holing into the topic, as if there will be no end to it? It seems like we can only accept the complete sentence, with both parts, if we simply accede to Wllerstein's native genius.
     Regarding the first two pages of the first lecture or chapter, he speaks of capital accumulation, of “the relations this holder of capital had therefore to establish with other persons in order to achieve this goal.” That also sounds like my own body of thought, but I am afraid that is as far as we can take it. There are so many possible ways to understand capitalism, and so small is the chance that someone else will take the same path through the subject area that I did. By “goal,” he means the investment of capital. He is talking about how  the capitalist “accumulates,” or tries always to create more of the same. That counts as a mention of capitalistic social ties, or social relations, which is something of which usually I am the only person interested. So far, Wallerstein using the same language. But the mention of "relations...with other persons" is circumscribed by his interest only in "capital" and "accumulation," and not any other kinds of social ties, not to mention any of the original approaches I have taken to this topic.
    Sure enough, after this initial moment of hope, the text veers off in all kinds of directions that have nothing in common with what I do, in my work. Any similarity of myself and Wallerstein, I suspect, is going to be superficial.
    Here is a bit more by him, on how the word “capital” applies to “capitalism.” He says that whenever accumulation of capital “regularly took priority over alternative objectives, we are justified in saying that we are observing a capitalist system in operation.” That’s fine. I have no objection. What it means, b. t. w. is that capitalists want profit—it is a bit like saying that they operate to get a profit.
    He bases his discussion on the notion of “capital,” though, as if that is  the only way to look at the subject of "capitalism," but I never do that. “Capital, for Wallerstein, is something that the capitalist, or the producer, or entrepreneur, wants to increase—obviously for himself (i.e. as profit) and, somehow, this increases capital as a whole. Actually, to look at it that way is very limiting. Does Wallerstein, I wonder, make any distinction between capital as it takes different forms, such as the forms: product, infrastructure, or money? Doesn’t that make a difference?
     I do not really know how good Wallerstein is. I just know I always get scared off pretty early. Hope I ain't prejudiced or anything...

Culture Studies (June 25, 2012)

     The white mind lives within a feeling of absoluteness.
     How can he escape from this trap? The story of civilization is the story of the white man's struggle to excape his own entrapment.
     The Germans were described by Tacitus. It is a well-known piece of work and it can be easily located. Tacitus was relatively civilized. What he was depicting was in fact a less-sophisticated branch of his own race. He must have really enjoyed depicting his cousins. He had the priviledge of a certain distance between him and them, of course.

Yet he was writing about his own weird race.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Creation (Myth and reality)

It may be claimed that the official documents that mark the historical creation of the U. S. show how a political state “of, by and for” the people themselves was created. But a more sober analysis of the upflinging evidence indicates that the story given by the official documents never actually occurred. There is nowhere where one can find such a thing taking place. What one encounters, digging through into the historical or literary source material, is the extreme importance Americans place upon the idea. What is important is the idea of it --- the idea that a "classic" democratic creation took place. Is it all just a story, then?
    If a person did not subscribe to this story about the creation of a new nation governed by the people themselves, what do you think would have happened to him or her? He or she would have been ostracized. Those that did not “believe” would have been banished from genteel realms. This kind of sorting process would have taken place, subsequent to 1776.
     It is also true that included in that number would be all sorts of cads and swindlers. I am thinking of persons who really had little belief in democracy, persons from Karl Rove to Alexander Hamilton. It is not that hard to sign on to a mere "idea." These are the “p.r. men,” the fellows who will believe in democracy or any other damn thing, as long as it helps them. Basically, they want to make money, or helps their sponsors do it. Money is very important. I am not saying it isn't.  But persons like Scott Walker (he's another of this bunch) are part of the society. They were active socially. It does affect their social live if their “belief” in a peoples’ democracy is just a lot of practiced hot air, blowing in the wind like farts out of their buttocks. They are in other words cynical, superficial.
     They were active in the society—even if, as I suspect, they did not truly “believe” in anything more than rhetoric. These are the businessmen. Opposed to them on some sort of spectrum are the sensitive, artistic types. Those are they who left us things like literature. We can say that businessmen and artists both adapted to the metaphor of “democracy” in distinct ways. The society, as such, is the summation of all of the types within it. Everyone is par t of the society.
     The latest version of democratic imagery was something that the United States seemed to monopolize, as the simulacrum of democratic rule did not emerge in Europe until later, around 1830. This is imagery, brewed up by its protagonists like a witches’ brew almost, or a witchery of image. We may ask here, who dares “tell it like it is”? Almost nobody. America is about rhetoric.
     The cultured type (as opposed to the business type) is the one who finesses his way through life making various demonstrations, at crucial junctures, of belief in that most important value, equality. I am talking about the artists now. The other types that I mentioned may not get into the high society but even if not as cultured, they function socially. They are the business class. Looked at this way, if there is any kind of class system in US/America it is composed of these two classes, the business men and gentle men. Their incomes are not so different, I suppose, so maybe they are not “classes.” I suppose, then, that they are not really “classes.”
     It is the act of putting the cart before the horse or of putting appearances first that really defines US/America. It is a nation that emerges as a cultural, political force. It means so much to the world. This force emerged by utilizing the plasticity of ideas, especially the idea that men were equal, the idea of equality, and the idea that they all have a right to participate in the creating of their identity or of their political, yet personal will.
     One could also say, taste. America, however, is not always all that “tasteful.” We usually need innovation at crucial times. But where will that innovation come from today?  

Jellyfish have taken over

On ads, and through various other media, all of the posts and positions that control public expression have come under the control of a certain type of person or of a certain type of mentality. This type person now controls all the posts and positions that have influence over ideas. Maybe brain type is even involved, so that all information flows are now to controlled by a certain type of left brain person. One type of person seem to control everything. Very scary.

    There is an exhibit, supposedly being "held over" at the Shedd Aquarium, is about the "jellies." So what the f**k are f**king "jellies," may I ask. Jellyfish, maybe? But it has got to be called "jellies."  Oh, how stylish.
    You can see this ad all over the place. It is at bus stops, for example. The ad is concerned solely with the exotic "egg yolk" jelly although we are not given any information as to whether it is perhaps just a made-up name. Is it really called "egg yolk" or is that just something somebody made up.

    A special kind of high-tech digital photography is used to show in detail a "jellyfish" which is what it used to be called before it was simplified. Indeed it does look like that, like an egg with yolka raw egg: a yellow center, and the rest including the tentacles is translucent and clear colored. Who creates ads like that? The average person? What kind of tiny minority of the population would think this way and create this kind of information?

    We know very well there are other people. We know very well these are not the only kind of persons.

    My point is that the whole society has been taken over by a specific kind of person. The problem is that the pivotal power points of the society all have been taken over by a specific kind of person: your local police department, the global business unites, or corporations, the administrative functions of all these institutions like hospitals and universities, etc. If you are the right kind of person, and not of too low intelligence, you can just come right in and take one of these posts.


Here in the city everyone lives stacked up next to one another.

I am moving into such a building in ten days. I will be on the 23rd floor. They want a $100.00 fee, just to move in. Their book of rules and regulations is full of awkward things like that. The owners’ association, I mean. They seem to be made up of uncreative types. These are the kind of uptight persons I usually avoid, but I will be right up with ‘em and next to them, from now on. That could be a good thing, as I figure it. Maybe my entire life has been leading up to this.
    I never do things like this on purpose as if I am trying to prove something, or trying to be different. It happens in a much more innocent manner. I really am different. It is not some kind of fashion thing, you know? This particular situation now arises due to my having wanted to move, and having answered a  note that I saw, posted in the nearby supermarket. He is the owner. This is the guy who put up the note and I shall be leasing (or renting) from him. He is a normal person the building’s managers are a different story. They appear to be some kind of straights or else Neanderthals, clinging to their precious 28-story skyscraper, the only uncreative thing they are capable of having or owning. Notice that the word I used above was "uncreative." That is my impression that they just have something. They have, they don't create. They possess. They cling.
    I hope they have room for a cool person, though, as I have spent my life hanging around the poor, the dropouts, the minorities. In so doing, I have tended to write off the rich as nobodies, in nice cars. I hope that was funny; it was intended to be. I usually tend to default to humor. My idea of a good time is picking a nice object out of a trash can.  Thanks, dad, for being such a success in the fur industry so I can squander your money in this way.
    Now, I am going to have to stop hiding from people, though.  

    As for the objects. I usually take them home with me and sleep with them for awhile. Then I just throw them out, or else integrate them structurally into my unit.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

June 20, 2012

(note: this was revised on July 13, at 12:19 PM)

Who creates the society? Originally capitalism was a social phenomenon. It was not owned by a class, it was a cultural phenomenon slowly working its way to dominance in a particular society, such as France, England, the USA, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, wherever.
     At that juncture, the system is developing. It is in the initial developmental stage. The owners do not, contra Marx, control the system. Nor does the owners' class, although I doubt if any such thing exists. Those persons and classes control only their particular functions as owners of productive facilities. We need to understand it in a different way and I have to offer the idea that it is the people or the society — the cultural system --- that controls the economy. Capitalism, therefore, is necessarily social, and this is what we do not seem to have any appetite to  discuss. By common consent, the sociality has been hidden from us. The people control capitalism because societies are the basis for everything. It is societies that have classes. Two classes are the unfortunate bifurcation of a society, but together they are the society. Capitalism happens in society and is dependent on the society. This linkage between capitalism and society happens in a capiitalist way,  true. It may be a "weird" way, true. It is not a perfect system of society. That is definitely the case. The word "socialism" conjures or tries to suggest something else. The two words have different implications, but even in capitalism there is some social context to be noted, without which I do not feel I can make any sense of the phenomenon at all. I notice that both the right and the left, for their own reasons, miss this social context that capitalism occurs within, the right because sociality and social obligations are what crass, selfish members of society do not want to hear about in the first place, and even more generally what many whites do not feel comfortable with and would rather not discuss, and the left because they like cooperation and are all for having a bit of sociality, or at least claim to, before they lower the repression on you, yet they would not place the idea of sociality in the "enemy system" of accursed capitalism. They both missed the boat.
     This inherent sociality of capitalism accounts for why capitalism develops at the same time that democracy does.We can read Schumpeter on this. Again, we can read Sandra Halperin in regard to the confluence of both capitalism and democracy. It is "weird" because it happens in a unique way, thus there is no analogy to anything else, or pattern of similarity to be found but there is nevertheless the confluence of the capitalistic and the social. It is possible to learn to see this.

     I am saying that these developments that we call "capitalist" are also social developments; and that they involve the whole, or the society, and that once a society is capitalist it must transform. The whole thing is, therefore, social and cultural; and thus it makes sense to say that the people are a major part of it. It is specifically a cultural development (not merely an "economic" one in some absurdly limited sense).
     In Marxism, the story is that the "capitalist class" controls everything — not only the product but also the flow of capital, which I do not believe. And the capitalist class supposedly controls everything, such that nothing is going to be given to the general mass. That does not seem to be correct.
     Suggesting that there is this limitation on our concept of total owner control makes sense, because the "capitalists," in the sense of the owners (I think the word "capitalists" should mean the whole population), do not control the flow of capital, which is the point I just mentioned, above. They only pass capital through their hands, to others. And there is not true class there. The owners' control is therefore limited. They do not own the system. The ones who really owned the system, as it developed, were the people. Maybe that is the way we should see it. And now, today, it is this deep social connection that is becoming endangered, as fruitcake bankers, the last people you want in control, try to have it their way, and this is not very good for the system, which, as said, is a social system. So, this represents a whole new way of seeing things.

     The essential events are those of the persons living and working in such a developing capitalistic society, a society, probably a European one, that has been gradually developing what today we know as the capitalistic, or bourgeois, way of life, and this should happen as a part of a process that has deep roots in time or in history, and that has been developing for hundreds of years. Such a society is gradually "becoming capitalist." This is not happening in the Chinese example.
     So, it is a gradual, slow process, in which identifying values or characteristics of the society (or, with McCloskey, "virtues") are transferred from the pre-capitalist condition, or situation, to the capitalist one. The social elements all transfer. We need to ask what the outcome should be of all this?
     That is probably up to us, not "the markets."

     Note: the Schumpeter material is in his great trilogy of essays, what I consider a great book, on "capitalism, socialism, democracy" --- and the part I was referring to above is found in the "democracy" section. Sandra Halperin is an academic. She writes on the relation between war and the eventual, painful development of democracy in the west. Here's one you could read by her:

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Economic Theory for June 19th, 2012

In the world of orthodox or standard economics (economic theory, not the practice of actually trading or doing actual economics) there are fuzzy words. Lots of them. "Economics" and "market" are just two. "Economics" is the name of the discipline, so it is OK if we  take it for granted sometimes (most of the time). But once we do, the orthodox bring the word "market" into it, and then "market" is confused with "economics." Thus in normal or orthodox practice the two words may often mean the same thing, as when we see: "the economy," and, "the market."
     In the expositions of the economists, then, there is no real difference between the two terms.
     As we know, for many years these persons have had the idea that economics (or the market) somehow regulates itself. They have this idea. Economics (or the market) somehow regulates itself. Therefore, it is better that there not be controls (or interference) over (or with) this area of human endeavor this is accepted and become influential as a widespread tenet. It is there pervasively; it influences society; it is present in how we do social-political theory in general --- not to mention (of course) economics.
     It forms a sort of substrate of our consciousness, in fact. This kind of idea is thus a tenet. It is a fundamental concept upon which are arrayed other concepts.

     What the idea says is that something operates autonomouslyon its own.
     But wait a minute! Do not all scientific laws, natural laws, etc. in fact operate autonomously? -on their own without any need for human intent or intervention? Everything in nature operates autonomously. It just does its own thing, it goes by itself. So, the physical world in general operates by itself. Or, it operates without our intervention. Yes, things in operate autonomously, but this is not saying much of anything. Things operate on their own, and the same applies to science. The same notion applies if we were to be scientific, and, in so doing, extract a law, and that would be having a natural law in hand, and extracting out of this autonomous physical world such a law, and it is called a law because the thing being discussed works that way all by itself. It is not because of the law we have extracted or because of the scientists' intervention. Whatever is being learned about is really there. That is the point. It is obvious that the law that has been extracted from the natural world does not create the phenomenon that is the natural phenomenon being considered. It describes how physical reality works; it tells about what is already the case, and it also may tell about what will happen, in the event that we do make some kind of an intervention.
     Since everything does, after all, operate autonomously, what is actually new when the economists' make this famous claim that is so influential in society?
     The only thing different about saying markets operate autonomously, on their own, is the word: "economics" or "market." Markets are just "the way it is." Like nature, maybe?

If the economist makes a more complete presentation and says, "the market regulates itself and thus we do not need to intervene in order to create the optimal result", that implies that economics is an area where we might sometimes want to intervene, in order to get the optimal result. But we need not, so says the orthodox practice of university economics. We do not need to. That's cuz "the market" (read: nature) automatically will get the thing done, and optimally, too.
     There is a problem with this longer statement too. No freaking doubt! This problem is that economics is an intervention, we are just not admitting it.
     We said that the only thing new here, in the statement "the market operates by itself", is the word "markets." Nature and science always operate by themselves.  Now we have the more detailed statement the economist makes, and here we are saying that when economics intervenes in nature, to get things done, get money made, etc., it is actually not an intervention in the natural course of things. Why? There is no reason. It is that, as before, it is just because that is the natural function of the word "market." And, also as before, what we need to know here is what is meant by "market."
     And they don't know. What this means is that economic theory as it is know is just hocus-pocus done with words. As Ms. McCloskey figured out, it's "rhetoric."

Free Speech and the Companies

(note: rewritten June 26)
Robert Reich says:  “In the upside-down world of regressive Republicanism, McConnell thinks proposed legislation requiring companies to disclose their campaign spending would stifle their free speech.” 
     This appears to be a misuse of the concept, that of “free speech.” Then Reich quotes McConnell again.  McConnell fears “…harassment and intimidation" from the Democrats. 
     Well, this actually makes sense. This is part of life. It is precisely “harassment and intimidation” that people do worry about, because people do that to one another. In that sense, McConnell is just showing publicly what he fears. It is kind of honest of him.
     Harassment and intimidation can be used against anyone (And, probably, most Republicans would know it.) It is always a possibility. And the average American is afraid of or cautious about doing anything untoward or that might single him out.
     You had better believe it -- all members of any society are in fact fine-tuned about their own acceptability socially. McConnell may be bonkers, which is a word Reich used in that article, but he is straightforward, so, he was able to give voice to this universal human consideration. 
     And so, I agree, about the possibility of harrassment and intimidation. It is there. It is always something to think about. Really. Persons do this. Believe me, they do.
     The only thing I question about it is the implication I get that maybe he is actually so simple-minded or so  self-centered, and ignorant, that he notices only when his people, the Republican Senators, and Congresspersons need to worry --- about "harassment and intimidation."

     Yep. Reich is right. McConell is “simply bonkers” but that is the reason.

           (Here is the original context that I used, in order to assert that McConell is bonkers: “Senator Mitch McConnell's speech Friday at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington is simply bonkers.”) 

Monday, June 18, 2012

Econo Theory

(note: improved July 13)

Neo-classical economics assumes that the capitalist act might work or might not work. But what it does not assume is a general condition. It assumes a digital event, where there is only on and off / yes and no. The logic of neo-Classical economics is more like the logic of digital electronics. Neo-classical economics (it's the kind with all the equations and math) holds that any  given transaction may either occur, or, it may not. That is t he same binary basis of digital electronics. But none of  that applies to the case of capitalism itself. There is never the situation where capitalism might happen or might not happen. It is this huge thing that did happen. It happened. We study it because it is there, we don't worry about whether or not it exists. Capitalism did emerge. It is a large-scale trend that emerged. Then economists tried to explain it. There is no neutral situation that exists and into which you are trying to decide if capitalism will come or not. It is something that happened. There was never a situation where there was a possibility of capitalism not happening. It did. It did so over a period of between a few hundreds of years and over a thousand, depending on how you look at it. It happened, there was a period of development that took place. It developed, it took place. Yes. There is not any doubt over whether it happened. you can see the whole world at once --- that's pattern of "cloud" thinking.             [David Brooks: Karl Popper, the great philosopher said, “All problems are either clouds or clocks.”  A clock is a… to understand a clock, you can take it apart, it’s individual pieces and you study the pieces and then you can understand how a clock works.  A cloud, you can’t take apart a cloud.  A cloud is a dynamic system.  A cloud you can only study as a whole.]
     There is no binary of "it happened, or it did not." Capitalism is not a momentary event like a decision to buy a pack of chewing gum or any of the other things neo-Classical economics considers. Neo-Classical economics and capitalism are systems that rely on qualitatively different premises. [capitalism is not a simple extension of the yes - no binary. It goes deeper than that. The "digital revolution" is only one SIDE of capitalism]
     During the "development phase," which is a word in my economics jargon or language, it would have been possible for an observer to note that capitalism is developing (that is also what the neo-Classical economists originally wanted to explain, i.e. capitalism, it's very existence) and overlook the possibility of failure. That person would have "invested" and made positive returns from investing in capitalism.
     Every hear of "growth"? We cannot say that capitalism might happen or might not happen. Then why does the theory, the premise, of neo-Classical economics consist of asking the questions that it does? Neo-Classical economics asks whether a deletable event will occur, it asks whether a microcosmic event (one which may happen or may not happen) will happen of fail to. And if it does, the neo-Classical economist wants to know what would have caused it to happen. This is the kind of micro-cosmic causality they are interested in but they never ask whether capitalism happened, or not, because they know that it did. By contrast, a particular piece of candy might be sold or not sold; a particular business might succeed or not succeed. Neo-Classical then ask about the causality: what might the circumstances or cause of the event have been? (wages went up to five dollars per hour causing more persons to apply for jobs) They want to know what the price was in order for an event to take place. I say that this should not imply that the only thing we need to explain is the isolated transaction, like a point on a graph.
     Our efforts can also apply to all of capitalism. I have found that it is possible to talk about the phenomenon of capitalism, or capitalism itself. And as we said, capitalism did happen. This means that a system of human social organization that relies on profit actually did occur. It came to be, on the face of this earth. And we know that. We are not on tender(tenter?)hooks waiting to find out if our date'll kiss us. When we consider that persons go into business not knowing whether they will succeed we remember that part of the picture too: that is the individual success or failure part of capitalism. I am not saying that this does not exist. Sometimes an entrepreneur's first two or three businesses fail. But then the third one succeeds. The poet Philip Schwartz's dad never succeeded, he always failed. But in any case, capitalism is not a microcosmic event. It is a world-historical event.
     Contrast that to the neo-Classical approach, or the standard university economics approach and we see that the Neo-classical technique is to ask, in regard to every specific transactatory event, whether it happens or not: whether a) the transaction occurs, or b) the transaction does not occur.

     Why are there capital loans, loans made to supply money to a person engaged in business? Because, the established trend is that capitalism works. The banker was the type who understood that, in general, capitalism was on an upward incline, and that is a different attitude from the attitude of neo-Classical economic theory. This is so, because the neo-Classical theory holds  that one should at each specific, individual event ask whether that event will happen, or not. This refers to one more unit, of money or of product.
     Analyzing neo-Classical economics -- the "micro" side -- is interesting. It contains the minute analysis that is supposed to determine whether a thing -- usually a given transaction -- happened or didn't (happen). It is as if at every moment capitalism might lurch forward or not, may succeed, or fail. The suspense is killing me, you know?
     Everything in such a schema can be analyzed in terms of binaries. It either happened or it didn't. What kind of world is that? What kind of person is that? It is a person that thinks that everything is an outcome that may or may not happen. Those kinds of persons can slot themselves into capitalism very nicely. Everything always goes one way or the other. It either succeeds or it fails. They either move one step ahead in the game, or they don't. They are good at slotting themselves into capitalism, and it shows that a certain set of suppositions seem to fit capitalism. What all this shows is that capitalism does exist and these persons have their "economic" behaviors that are designed to accommodate that.