Capitalism: Yesterday, Today; Valid and Not

We are at the final stage, where 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 crafted in their linguistic laboratory.) 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. So, I am trying to say that it is just money. And money alone. This kind of critique has also been made by a few other persons. Nothing but money trading for money. When this is the only idea left, there is not any more 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 wants to get one's own piece, a piece of the system. In one sense, then, it is ongoing and in that sense persons have been doing this 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 history maybe four---before that ..the "shtetel"! Only that...ha ha ha) Go out, get some! During this period of legitimate or valid capitalism the choices or ways of getting that piece of money were really not so great. There have been immense changes, over time. Now it is totally different. And here then, one additional other thing: Too easy, much too easy. You may distinguish this from the other, the more valid capitalism.
     Now it is all about to end if not reformed. This is not survivable. We will have a crisis. Economics needs to be modified, and it must occur... or else.
     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"), all persons taken together (stinkers and all).

     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 not 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. Contact me.)
     If your way of getting money is invalid, you are of no use to anybody. You are not helping, and your worth as a human being has come to an end. You are of no good to anybody!
     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. If not? Total crisis. Pray for capitalism to survive, not to die.

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 professionals, the so-called "economists" refused to even discuss the notion. After all, growth had become practically their number one favorite notion.

It is obviously that, 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 not that of the basic nature of the system, then the solution is to change the system. It is to create a "capitalism version 2." A major change indeed. But capitalism is not static. That would at least be change, if not "Growth," in the fashionable sense of their language, of language 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.

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! Words are hard: 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...

Update Announced

I updated the following post, I mean that I rewrote it\

http://jacksgreatblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/what-are-costs.html

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.

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

July 28, 2012 11:00PM

In capitalism we buy and sell things, that's the gist of it. An entire culture does this. There you go. Now you are capitalist. What happens when the world does this? It is capitalistic. Today we have a capitalistic world (globalization). Hoo-Ha. Why it is a cause for celebration I'm not sure.
    Why everybody started buying and selling things to one another in the first place is, I think, a matter that it is kind of complicated. There is not just one reason [insert descending pitch effect]. I know that is a disappointment to you, but we have to start somewhere so let's find a place. In fact let's pose a question:
    How'd we come to depend more and more upon the merchants, which is to say, the group of persons who engage in trade? They say that, today, even politics and nationalism are eclipsed by globalization, the merchant class, the so-called "bourgeoise." One answer to the question of why trade became so important is that there were more things to trade. OK, that may not be the only, or the best, answer but it's a starting point and the topic is an extremely tangled and complicated thing. To get at... So, although that is just one answer, for one question, it will have to do. For now... Now we shall discuss this in a way that is linked with technology since many of the cutting-edge purchases today are technology. They are electronics purchases for example. And I will discuss all of that for one paragraph - OK, maybe two. But just a short second one, if I need to -- that's it.

     Once technology becomes available the motivation that persons have is that they buy the technology because they want power; they want to get more powerful in some way. Technology is sold for  the purpose of making persons more powerful. How does that work? Let's see...OK: in the sense that each time I buy a gadget or add on more "power" to a device I already have and each time I build a new software program in order to dominate a new market, it is always power, that's how I figure it. There are two persons involved. This is trade, not power of violence, not warfare this time. This time around, in trade, you have yer seller. He (or she) gives up some tech device and gets a bit of money; the buyer, who buys the technology, she gets that old power surge, as I believe I mentioned, above. Each buyer,  who buys things, is trying to become more powerful. That is the motivation for buying things, technologically speaking, you see. Not so different from the earlier phases, or the early days of trade. Nope---it was the same: persons may have acquired or purchased spices, silk, and so on instead of tech devices with more 'gigs.' But they were the same people with the same motivation of power---that you kin be sure about. The persons who make one another more powerful are the capitalists. They are engaged in a mutual benefit process. In the older way, that of warfare, only one person only wins. In that older method there is something that is quite different, a quite different institution, that of the---warriors.
    So there it is, readers! We trade not to kill but to become more powerful. And traders want power. Not the only answer, maybe, but...its' an answer. Huh?
   

July 28, 2012

Persons are afraid to put up ideas or controversy on the web because they think they will DIE. They think the government will KILL them.

July 27, 2012 (2nd posting)

"ork in a capitalist society is a conflicted and contradictory phenomenon, never more so than in hard times. We simultaneously work not enough and too much; a labor famine for some means feast for others. The United States has allegedly been in economic “recovery” for over two years, and yet 15 million people cannot find work, or cannot find as much work as...they would like. At the same time, up to two thirds of workers report in surveys that they would like to work fewer hours than they do now ..."

-this awesome bit of text was from "Jacobin" republished on 'Prose Before Hos.com' site ... ...

To continue, then: "The grueling toil of the Amazon warehouse is certainly hard; so too, in a way, are the 80 hour weeks and intense stresses of a Goldman Sachs trader. Yet the former can hardly be said to be healthy or improving for the human spirit, while the latter only creates wealth for the few and economic chaos for the rest of us."

Interesting point? That both occupations are grueling, contradictory, and conflicted elements of the way persons have to work, in this world. One damages the persons working, the other damages the world.

This is not what Deirdre McCloskey calls "rhetoric" because it simply gets at truth. Or I should say that the rhetorical element does not dominate entirely. While it has rhetoric (and Deirdre says that most writing does) it also has something else --- there must be something else other than rhetoric, for as soon as we say "rhetoric" (and Deirdre McCloskey says "rhetoric" more effectively than anyone) instead of "language" we admit (or imply) that that is not all there is to "language." (Because: why else would we need another word ---- why is there an alternate language word?) We could have said "language" but we said "rhetoric." I think there is a little bit more to it than rhetoric sometimes. But of course "rhetoric" is an interesting topic too, especially in McCloskey's book "The Rhetoric of Economics." This means that rhetoric is something we can talk about, too. Say it. "Rhetoric." What is it? Well, it seems a bit like "knowing your audience." It is where you know who you are speaking to. You know your audience. Even as you speak to them and address them you are also thinking about how to use language. My opinion is also that there is the matter of writing to the "best reader," or penultimate witness. An author has in mind the witness (the author herself perhaps being ultimate) to the text, when he or she writes the. McCloskey, for example, is aware in her book on the rhetoric of economics, that economists are writing to academic audiences. But writing to a more general "best reader" goes one step better.
     Such an audience - the best reader - encapsulates what is most profound and noble about being alive in one's peculiar environment.

This text I choose for today's blogposting activity is about contradictions of employment.

As long as human beings hate one another and compete against one another and work against nature itself it is daft nonsense to talk out of both sides of your mouth this utter blather that capitalism is "amoral" ---- and we discussed all that, on this blog a few days ago.
     Machines are amoral. There is no case to be made where one asserts that humans are. They aren't. And if humans are not amoral, how could capitalism be? Capitalism is after all operated by humans. Capitalism may be a big machine, that is true. It is quite true that it represents a mechanical dimension that we need to include in our evaluations of life.. The mechanical part, however, has to function in tandem with human parts (didn't the Tin Man need a heart?). Capitalism functions ---- for awhile. It works, despite the wretchedness of human race --- and that is because yes capitalism is a machine but a machine that consists of (and is based on, is made of, and includes) humans (see Robert Owen, early 19th cent). Mr. Sloan said that Bain Capital is free to do whatever it takes and he pointed out how the idea was just to make money. He merely tells us about himself. What does he show us about himself? He shows us his moral bankruptcy. He shows that he has nothing to say. Nothing to say,  that is, on the subject of morality.
     What does some robot drone have to say about morality? The actual title of that piece was: My last word on the private equity political debate. He is slamming the door on us. His "last word." It is like he is stating his dirty little philosophy, then slamming the door walking out of the room. You know, ...
     ...I much prefer the other one, on "ork" ...........

Lady Gail and Lady Bird

     My blog is having days of getting as many page views as 41 or 42. The popularity of the internet is really blossoming, and like a piece of beef on a shishkebob skewer I am taken along in the stream. And this is my review of Gail Collins' book, which is not called Tejas.

                                            Book Review - Gail Collins

     Lyndon Johnson, whose name I always thought acceptable -- rather nice -- had a wife with an unusual name ... Lady Bird.

     Now I realize it was a kind of Texas thing (which is what I suspected in my so-called subconscious or "invisible mind").

     This is a state of individuals who say things like "Howdy," and, "there's going to be a crisis boiling point." That latter is an actual quote thing, something they actually said, and that's just the beginning. (reported in Gail Collins' book, about Tejas)

     Americans are not terribly sophisticated in their use of language. And, many of us talk a little roughly. And we all seem to think we are 'equal.' This is one of our charming national characteristics: talking trash and being equal. Howdy.

     I know I have written pieces with slang and vernacular.

     I know I have done that, but Texans have simply been walking backwards longer than most of us have.

     I drove across Texas once. I drove from the eastern part (Galveston) all the way to New Mexico, and I noticed Texas people think they are being "big," or something. They have a real affinity for the larger than life or the super-sized. 

     I think this is connected with industrialization. The arrogance of industrialized civilization is now causing almost every day to go to 90 degrees, or higher where I live.    

     Arrogant life kills normal life... ...

     But Texans are also extremely cute, according to Gail Collins. She always makes it seems so, in her new book, published by Harper and Row, or Simon, or Norton, or whoever it was ... it is the book that proves, on paper, that Texans are cute, after all. Real cute stuff. Bad - but also cute!

     I heartily endorse the book, though, since I enjoyed reading the first part of it. It is a book equipped with a money-making, grammatically poor title. The cover: (1) a large white cowboy hat tops awkwardly the Washington Monument in D. C. But wait!!! I have a crisis boiling point!!! Why is a white hat topping off the Washington monument? Why not a black hat? That would be good -- what, in general, makes us choose one thing over another? Why not a black hat? I think there's a very major issue there. A big one, but not big merely out of the deluded arrogance of Texas. Are we playing good cop-bad cop with the color of the hat? Thanks for the book, little Gal!

(1) As Texas Goes... [exact copy except italicized of the book title, iterated in large letters on said cover]

CNN Deletes You, You Don't Delete It

How many persons who write for the CNN blog have integrity? Only a few persons who write have integrity, so I doubt very much if I believe in the CNN blog. Mainstream media is no place where integrity hangs its hat. Integrity certainly gets no boost merely from an association with media. It's laughable,and we know better than that.
     We have an open society. That's true. We have an open society, and a society associated with
"freedom." Not all societies are like that. The capitalist ones are. In the countries that developed during the industrial and capitalistic revolution we get this, so bully for us. And the tradition got pretty well established. I too exist within this basic social milieu or environment, because it's social. Within that, I am basically 'encouraged', maybe even 'supposed to', as a citizen, add my "comment" onto a previously-badly written story by the one Alan Sloan, a regular columnist at CNN. His background. He used to be with "Newsweek" -- so, he's a professional. I suppose, and now hacking ('hacking' - get it? Like "hack writer"?) [pause for twiddling of thumbs] and coughing up spitum or spitunias [I made this up] for CNN ---- a public opinion-maker. If you want to call it that. Or maybe we know better...
     Most people don't have a clue about what to think. So they rely on persons like him. (Unless they know better) The idea is that it is for all of us in the society to see and respond to in some fashion.
     So far, so good. Let us count our blessings. We have got publishing; We have got a free speech society; Freedom has been established [insert trumpet flourish] -- Somehow [insert Louis Armstrong jazz version]. I think it was established through the history of industrialization and capitalism, or you might say it was by people in three-cornered hats, if you like the idealist version. But, also, CNN has "standards." Now wait one cotton pickin' second here. Actually, I meant "standards" in a sarcastic way. Maybe you did not pick that one up.
     I am too subtle and nuanced I guess. I am struggling to express something here, which is that since all they have to do is have control, that sort of cancels everything out. And I wonder what kind of monkey sits there, in a booth at CNN reviewing reader "comments," according to a "policy" sheet. I would like to hear the confessional: "I was a censor, at CNN h.q." So the point is this is not really "freedom." One flip of a tiny toggle switch -- free speech deleted. Your little fantasy is of commenting on CNN's coverage is over.

     Oh give me a break. Don't comment on CNN blog. All you are doing is buying into it. That is not the free speech society. That is it's cancellation. So, what we have to see is that there are just as many persons who want to cancel that way of life as protect that way of life --- the free speech way of life or open society. Being in the media world, or the business world (where this writer hangs out: in the section that financial and business entity/corporation CNN cleverly calls "MONEY") does not in any way enhance the presence or strength of free speech. Every time you get free speech you also get it's violation. There is no real strength for freedom of speech -- it is just kind of a coincidence.
     And every time they tell you that they will give you the opportunity to speak, their hand is on the controls.
     The hell of it is: They can "delete" at will.   



(See "Comment" for "Business Morality," trending towards the end of yesterday's postings)

Andrew Revkin, Naomi Klein, Dot Earth

Naomi Klein recommends  

"a profound interrogation of the ideology that currently governs our economy."
Good for you, Naomi, and I'm right there with you.


http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/naomi-kleins-inconvenient-climate-conclusions/

Business Morality

" If the managers think there's money to be made by expanding and improving a business that they've bought, they will try to expand and improve it. If they think they can make more money by loading additional debt onto the company and sucking out the proceeds in dividends and fees, they'll load and suck. If they think there's more money to be made by firing all the U.S. employees and moving operations to China, they'll do so in a heartbeat. They're neither moral nor immoral when it comes to U.S. jobs and U.S. society. They're amoral—they don't care one way or the other, as long as what they're doing isn't illegal. "

This is the kind of fluff you expect to get under the CNN flagship, but people are never amoral, they are moral beings. They can be moral or they can be immoral. but that's all. Capitalism is made of people. Persons cannot be amoral. There is no such spot on the toggle. Grow up. Find yourself, you fool. The above genius quote is sourced on CNN and found to be written by one A. Sloan. It is

By Allan Sloan, senior editor-at-large July 16, 2012: 8:00 AM ET

P.S. Amorality in economics is a trope I have seen used twice. It was used by both George Soros and by JKG. Soros, I would say, has obvious reasons for taking this route. He trades everyday in a world that is pretty context-free, or pretty free from moral considerations. So, he needs to justify that. I think his is a pretty moral person, I mean Carnegie built libraries and what not. So, sure, Soros is moral, but what about this financial spectrum he flies so high in? (High-flying finance, the "third" level of Braudel's "Material Civilization," as well as, I think, the third volume of a trilogy Braudel must have had a lot of fun writing!) I do not believe that we should say that his financial trading-floor (or trading airplane) acts are amoral. The actor can only be either moral of immoral. I think the wording is fooling all of us. We could very see it like this. And this is how I do see it: he is a person, not a machine. He is a moral being. When he goes into the market and trades stocks and bonds or whatever, he does not suddenly become a fictitious "amoral" person. There are no "amoral" persons. He has a legal and moral responsibility for what he does in life. The idea is that one's economic/trading activities are an exception. I do not agree.
     0K, so...maybe what Soros was saying in the piece of writing I am referring to, which I read some time ago, is that those particular acts of trading that he was doing do not have much of a moral component to them. That may be, and the act may be amoral but the person is not the act. The other one I read who said capitalism is "amoral" was J. K. Galbraith. Again, I don't agree with the idea that capitalism, or some part of it, is a separate zone that should be entitled "amoral." Bain Capital was buying and selling companies, right? With employees, right? If these kinds of activities are "amoral," then we really need to call the regulators in immediately. Someone has to be  responsible for adjudicating this system. There is, in general, what is called our responsibility for actions, and this moral context is a culture, a human world. Capitalism was not developed in a vacuum, it was developed out of just this human, cultural, moral context. The morality was there ---- otherwise capitalism could not function as a reality in the human and social world. So, capitalism is not an abstraction, although I think the business class would like to reduce it to that, extracting the "real life," because, as Jeff Skilling said, "humans gum up the works." So isn't that brilliant, Jeffery got rid of the pesky humans, and found himself quite rich indeed. So I say that rather than there being any space of any significance at all where the term "amoral" describes the activity, all humans are responsible for all actions. Period. And you do not gild and polish your amoral compartment, not in the mind or on the blog or the CNN media network or anywhere. In Bain's case, there is more likelihood of real consequences, since it is real companies with real employees in them that are being bought and sold. And Romney was a robot when he was with them? What is he now? Is he still amoral, or does the person morph into something else? When? Why? No. I say Romney was a moral being all along and he needs to take responsibility, and that means not through his business buddy at the CNN network who places the concept of an amoral business sector in Romney's mouth. That is being a shill for business which is what Sloan is. Allen Sloan's suggestion is that this not at all yucky, it merely "feels yucky to non–financial types" [my emphasis] (which he follows up with "—and to some financial types as well").
     What I am reading into it is that the whole human race is full of immorality and corruption. Naturally, so is capitalism. That is Allen Sloan's point, that since all of it is corrupt anyways, Bain should not be singled out in such a moral arena as a political campaign. He asks: What is the reason for making a special case of Bain? Allan sees these corrupt businessmen all the time, and he says it's not corrupt, it's actually OK. 
     But buying out businesses? It does have a moral component to it, since it is human behavior. This particular not exempt and neither are any other human actions, whatsoever.
     There should be no such concept of an amoral function in business. I think it is wrong. What needs to be fixed is the whole economic system. We have to get our mind around that. Maybe Mr. Sloan won't get his mind around it though.

Aphorisms About Capitalism and Sociality

-
It has to be socially embedded.
     Capitalism won't work if it doesn't occur in a social context.
   
Capitalism belongs to the society. It is social.
     Therefore, most of our thinking on capitalism is wrong.

The capitalism is in decay; it getting worse, not better.
     We need to distinguish socially healthy from socially degenerate capitalism.

Today's "capitalism" is not really capitalism. It is dying.
     We need to think about what real f.m. capitalism would be.

     A decaying capitalist corpse-like thing does not have its integrated social quality is a recipe for disaster.
     Nor does it have the older agrarian culture backing it up (and acting as an alternative place to go).

Capitalism is not a 7-11, nor is it a stock exchange. It is a social system, and therefore the Wall St.Journal version is not the real capitalism. As that version is found in the "Opinion" section, the comment does not mean to disparage their coverage of the news, which is decent.

A "socially embedded" capitalism, as the phrase occurs above, is a capitalism that exists in a social and cultural context. This kind of linkage in itself would be a good subject for study. The phenomenon, of course, developed naturally. But it cannot continue to develop naturally, and the case must be made that now is the time for intervention. Even though no one in either the D or Rep parties are making that case, this is my finding as a private economics scholar.

Part Two of 'A Human Science' (Economics Is About Humans)

So, what happens, is that we take the human side out of it. That is fine. In Buddhist philosophy, there is a human side and a 'pure' side. But the situation is different with "economics."  We are already putting ourselves into a category, a subject field, called that. When you call it "economics," the saber is taking its first cut (Or: the word "economics" is the first stroke of rhetoric), and it's a humanistic cut.
     Economics is fundamentally human;
     What they are doing is applying numbers to it.

Do Taxes Slow Down the Economy?

Semantically, the word "tax" means a lowering of efficiency. In other words, when we tax a person, we are taking some of their energy, as when we do a lot of work or exercise, at which time we claim that we are "taxed" or feel "taxed." It also mean things like when you "do your taxes." In April.
     These are the two main definitions of the word according to what the dictionary tells us. We say "I feel taxed," which means tired, or, "I am being taxed" meaning that the state exacts taxes from persons' income.
     Those are the two. Combining them, a tax would mean something that takes from you or slows you down when you are trying to get somewhere or make some money.

     That is why conservatives say that a tax would slow down the economy.

     That sets up the argument. Now, which is correct? Are taxes good or bad? There are multiple sides to everything.  The system that causes so much suffering in the world, and that is destroying the planet, is called "capitalism." At the same time, capitalism is the most successful thing in the world.



     The question: Do taxes slow down economy, as the conservatives say, or are they good because the government needs those taxes?

     Second question: Do Texans slow down the economy?

 

Economics is about humans, not the wealth illusion

Learnedness is an industry. Within a certain, limited "capitalist view" it must be that, if we have 100,000 scholars, that would be a growth industry; and 110,000? -that must be even better.
     How would questions of quality come into it? What if all are less than perfect scholars? They do not have to know anything at all, from such a point of view, if the schools continue to receive money. If what matters, in this view, is the quantity of  money. If what matters is only that someone will pay money. Assuming there is a product at all. Do the additional 10,000 scholars improve the product? If there is one? Who really cares? From a certain, limited view the only thing that needs to happen is for funds to change hands, But rejoice, our goal can be me in exciting ways. The goal of money, or "income stream," is met if students pay money for courses. But it is also met when endowment money comes in from (well-meaning) (rich) alumni, persons of quality who think their money will improve quality of education. Finally, inputs of incomes are attenuated (aggrandized, grabbed, attained...) when government scholarships input money in for the purpose of sending young persons to school to learn. It's so much fun you do not even care if they learn anymore. Of course we do need to reassure our donors. That we are "Ivy League."
     Everything is backwards! If you said that learning will lead to more persons making more money? OK. But aren't we also implying that the money leads to (more) persons learning?
    In that case - what does "learning" - or "learnedness" - mean? It's just words, you see. It is just the name of the industry doing the money-making. The inflow of money does not seem to insure the quality of the learning or learnedness. So, what was the whole point? Learnedness is an industry, I said. Right, but in a world where the quality is sinking even as the quantity of commodities, money, and idiocy is rising touchstone is money. You just need the live bodies as an excuse to keep your badass college endowed with money.
     The show must go on, so, yes, in all practicality you'll need some bodies there. That too. You need the biological forms, walking zombie-like across the Potemkin Village University of the USA.
     Is this the "economics of education"? The "privatization" of (or "economics" of) education? Ah but it is not economics because it is not education, and because there is no wisdom. The reality is that economics implies human welfare. But we don't get it, we never got that. If there are no human beings, only homo sapiens animals, or only zombies or walking corpses....Well, is that "Economics"? In reality? In the real sense? Or "Madness"? Or "Horror"? Or is it all just "Words"? Or will mathematics save us from words? And finally attain meaning? I doubt it. But, of course, I am not a mathematician. Maybe they have a beautiful language, all their own. What can math accomplish?

     Economics is human, only human. The term "economics" must imply a "social science." It is so, even in the academic registers and catalogs. We have forgotten about that. We chase money. Today we chase Money, and we shall go completely insane tomorrow!!!!!! Such "economics," such fraud.

     Economics is a human science. (Oh, but that's so 19th century!)

Armchair Radicals Prefer the Internet

I visited the Bill Moyers web. Posted there is a fifty-minute interview with Chris Hedges.
We spend our time watching radicals on the internet instead of being radical.

Let's see if Chris has a channel. I have now checked, and I can report that the answer is: No. As far as I know, there is No Chris Hedges web, it's a negative, capital "N." Just Bill Moyers web. Capital "B" capital "M." This is where you really need the Theodor Adorno "negative" dialectic. Oh, those crazy Europeans...

Why do I need to be a radical? I'll just let Bill Moyers do it for me.