From FT - the Financial Times

[  High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f6e8a7c4-3857-11e1-9f07-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1j4crypyO  ]
(Notice I did not neglect to include FT's "point of view." Now mine: That's ridiculous, how do I know in advance what will happen if I click that link? Get real, FT.) 
(Now on to my blog post, OK? It is about an article in this same news organ, a publication with very important ideas that need to be shared, with everyone --- those currently profiting from capitalism and those who are currently not. But it is only that they want me to pay them? Practically, I do not need to, do I?, and, I do not intend to and I do not intend to be slowed down and that is FINAL)

.

Here is a bit of preliminary content, out of their newspaper, courtesy of a greater social institution, that of British journalism. Hey-ho.  "It would have been almost unimaginable five years ago that the Financial Times would convene a series of articles on “Capitalism in Crisis”. That it has done so is a reflection both of sour public opinion and distressing results on the ground in much of the industrial world.

  ......("Courtesy" FT art department. Pretty, huh? I have no idea why it is here, but I like art as much as the next guy........)  (Next is the main part I wanted to reprint.)
.

"Americans have traditionally been the most enthusiastic champions of capitalism. Yet, a recent public opinion survey found that among the US population as a whole 50 per cent had a positive opinion of capitalism while 40 per cent did not. The disillusionment was particularly marked among young people aged 18-29..."
...                           -------              .........             ---------
I like the way the word "sour" sticks right out. For my American- autistic mind. OK that has nothing to do with it. With you guys, readers, I mean.
...                        -------         ..........        -------
So: here's the deal. I mean, the real deal. In order to save, improve, regulate, or upgrade capitalism, you would first have to understand what is wrong. You have to be able to see it. If you can see it then you can fix it. But if you cannot see it maybe you cannot fix it either.

Knowing what is wrong is not that hard. You just need to have the eyes. Now if your head is going to be full of prejudices and dithering you cannot see...

So, on a clear day you can see forever. But....(oh, I don't know, think of something that rhymes)

So, the motto is: just use your eyes. Look.

For example, if you had this kind of vision, you could see that banking needs to be revised. And the simple fact is it just doesn't take a banking professional to see this. You need to think a little about credit, and money and so on, but you do not need to be a banking professional. The system is just asking us to revise it. It is the system that is asking us; and we are the humans in that system. G-d asking, if you will. He is saying, "fix the economic system, dumbasses." And we cannot figure this out. But there is nothing here that is that hard. For, say, a five year-old?
     I suppose it is hard, though, for certain persons who are psychologically impaired. I suppose we could say that the problem is where you have a vested interest in the system ----- something like that. But don't kid yourself, those persons are not looking at the system. They are looking at themselves. There are such persons. They are psychologically impaired and they are unable to make a living honestly. Such persons are not interested in the system. They are interested in themselves, and, they may have a corner of the system. That is not the same as being interested in the system, though. If such persons say something, how do we take that? I think that all statements by such persons are statements by hypocrites. We can write off all those statements.    
     Listen instead to the system itself. The system itself is practically begging us to fix it. Some persons are unable to see systems, and maybe that's an American thing. But any real-world financial professional, of any worth, does have to be able to see systems. So, the exemption does not apply. They're hypocrites. If they say they cannot see what is wrong those persons have a real problem. What I am saying is pretty simple. I want to stay simple. The system is asking us to change it. We need to perceive what is being asked of us.
     Thank you for reading. Before closing I would like to point out that models exist. Ellen Brown is good at discovering them. These are examples or models of better forms of financial or economic practice: she recently put one up about the Japanese "post-office" model. Google it, fish for it or something.

In the World of the On-line Survey

They know that, in order to get more customers or to retain them, they need to "listen." They are trying to remain profitable, and in doing so, they need the on-line survey. The website you go to is jewel-oscolistens.com. So, here in survey-world, we have the concept of "listening," albeit it is kind of a superficial use of language. They do not seem to get beyond the superficial, but we can say that they have the concept in hand. And: "One in the hand is worth two in the bush."

    To succeed at the game of life each individual has to respond to certain requirements, and one of the requirements life throws on us is that we absorb incredible numbers of concept-units, many packaged, rather conveniently, in the form of what we so cleverly call "words." Next, try using them in a sentence. He (singular of "they") uses his language and conceptual abilities to speak and communicate, which is like "listening." I think this is normal human stuff. There is this incredible plethora of words and concepts. And we humans seem to be able to absorb them all, in any case. We have mentioned "listening" as an example of such a concept. It is not the only. It is not only that the individual has to master the concept of "listening" but also a zillion or so others. These are all various words or concepts. But we are the humans. So ----- no worries, mate, you can do it, eh?
     We are capable of hundreds of thousands of words and concepts. The human race is capable of it. But how much are the corporate surveyors capable of, and how far do they actually go with a concept like "listening"?
    I have to wonder, because when I see the corporate crowd in action it seems like these guys are very often of one specific types, those who have a shallow way of using the human conceptualizing faculty. Granted, they get the concept, but there seems something superficial about it, quite frankly. Therefore, I would hazard to suggest that the corporate owners/managers are often examples of precisely one type of use of language and concept: we might call  this the "superficial" way of using concept. These men (and it usually is a man) seem only to use concepts more in a practical sense, as if a word is a kind of tool, like a hammer, but has not much depth. Still, the fact is, that I see this a lot, even in philosophers. Anyways, the persons I am talking about here are all owners and manager of large businesses such as Jewel-Osco, which operates drug and grocery stores across the country, at a mass level. So, we are having a look, here, at some of the owners and managers in the business world. Not all, but some. And at a certain type of mentality.
    And, in trying to describe their deployment of the human faculty for conceptualization, we have used the word "practical." In all practicality, what else can we say about them? Practically speaking they would like to operate thousands of stores all across the country. (I have seen Jewel stores, or Albertson's stores, which are the same thing, in Arizona, California, etc.) But why, Albert? I think it is important here to know what it is that Albert really wants. Of course, they often parse "capitalism" to indicate "self-interest." One thing that the present author believes that is relevant here is that I would like to point out that, in all practicality, it is not to help their fellow men. That is not their practicality, and that is not what their practical or simplistic concept of "listening" works for.
    That is to say, their practicality is never ethical or anything like that. The owners or managers do want to have a place amongst humans, though... so that's it. They are after a place in society for themselves. Being on the highest management level of Albertson's, the parent company of Jewel, is, for such a person, a profound achievement. (Herman Cain conceptualized it as "CEO of self.")
    But my problem with it is, in all of this, there is apparently (for a certain group within the weird world of business) nothing else beyond this ----- beyond this kind of a superficial level. It is non-analytical, as well, and, it is not philosophical. Not philosophical I say, because (although they do use concepts) they do not want to ever go "behind" the concept. Not to muse, Deleuze! That's kind of an "in" joke. But, anyway: they do not in my opinion philosophize.
    Nothing like that. Ever. In everything they do to turn a buck (or to gain status) they never go beyond that superficial level. If there is anything great or good about capitalism, and I have many essays that suggest that there is, it is not because of this branch of the human species ---- the non-analytic concept-mongering CEO crowd. Maybe -----

The greatness of capitalism is because of the PEOPLE of capitalism. And, dear Alfred (or Albert) that does not include YOU.

-Jacob S. Silverman (worldcitizenjs@gmail.com)

notes
1) The Wikipedia entry for "word" dovetails my own work: "In language, a word is the smallest free form that may be uttered in isolation with semantic or pragmatic content (with literal or practical meaning)."

Is the Economics Profession Merely a Scam?

     In the textbook ( picked up very cheap, I assure you ) by Hirshleifer (UCLA) and Sproul 1988 appears this sentence. It is the third sentence of the "Preface" (to "Price Theory and Applications...."): "There is an economic problem whenever the constraint of resource scarcity impinges upon life." (For the record, the next few words are included: "Human decisions that are subject to the law of scarcity, and therefore amenable to economic analysis, include..." bla bla bla)
     So deceptive. It sounds so right. Right? It is not.
     Is a millionaire's second million "scarce"? It is such a glib sentence. One has to suspect that the persons writing these sentences just enjoy writing these sentences. As for the idea of "resource scarcity" -- or of "scarcity" -- as defining what some domain of study that exists somewhere and that might be called economics would be about: this is fine. I do not have any objection to that. I wonder where such a domain of study exists? The author speaks of situations where "resource scarcity" impinges upon life. Maybe there are such situations. I do not see why there should not be. But those situations are not the situation of economics, the situation that economics talks about. So what the hell is going on? Why would a textbook make such a  statement?
     If we look to what is being discussed, in the field of economics as a study area, or what is actually discussed under this rubric or term "economics," in universities for example, we find a lack of correspondence. There is a lack of correspondence to what the example sentence is asserting. We would, assuming we have normal mental capacity, find upon examination that topics discussed under that heading ("economics") in fact do not correspond to what Hirshleifer is talking about (which is in fact similar to other books of type). So it's a scam. There is no other possible conclusion since, of topics covered in the actual published discussions of economics or in economics as we know it -- i.e. in the actual field or subject domain -- many topics do not correspond, or only barely do, to the cluster of concepts and definitions that are centered around use of the word "scarcity." It's simply a big scam. The textbooks continue to say that economics is about "scarcity of resources," etc., like a broken record. So, now, you probably want to know if this is actually true. I know I did. So let's look at what I found, in trying to support what I thought I was seeing.
     We have already mentioned the millionaire's second million. We will have little trouble finding others.
     How about where a consumer buys something he or she does not need? If I make 400.00 per week, for example, I might buy something I do not need --- e.g. a nice restaurant meal --- it may be difficult to make but it is not in any sense scarce. It is there; I have enough money to buy it. Where is scarcity? So: is a restaurant meal "scarce"? How so? Or who so? How who? OK... Less get serious now on the "who?" thing.
     Who was it scarce for? For a person who does not have the money (or, alternatively, the desire) it could not count as a scarce good because he will do without. (But he might buy it? I'm not buying it, sorry.) For the person who does have the money if isn't scarce either. He who likes to buy what he only wants but does not need would buy for pleasure, pleasure alone. In that case as well it is also not scarce. That seems to me to be obvious. So what is the problem? (well get to that!)
     Maybe that restaurants aren't really part of the economy? No. (I tried that.) They are. Darn.

     So, it sounds to me like the idea of "scarce" simply does not apply to many issues which are nevertheless discussed as "economics" or we could say described as economics or conceived of as economics issues.

     It is a scam.

     Every single econ professor in the country is guilty of not calling their fellow economists on this. I repeat: the whole thing is a scam.

     Professors: How can you work in a profession that actively generates a scam, and not say so, and consider yourself legitimate? I would like someone to either refute what I am saying, and thereby show that I am wrong, or explain to me why the economists at Harvard or Yale cannot see this.
     I am not saying there is no reason for the situation. I am just saying that I do not know what it is. So, why don't you professors enlighten me? Or do I have to mail this essay out to all of you individually!!!??

     Pretty crazy idea, huh?

Mouthpiece or Foghorn? the News, v.2

We could probably say that no newspaper, bureau, person or other entity has the obligation to tell us what is really going on. Just because you have a mouth does not mean you have to use it, you can also keep your trap closed.
     Of course you may be asked to open wide for the doctor, and persons want to have the news brought to their doorstep. There are companies willing to oblige. Just like the drugs companies do.
     The end result of all these mutual expectations and tremorings is the major daily (newspaper). If we didn't have newspapers maybe we would talk to each other sincerely, heart to heart. Of course that is not the way it is. Is it?

The real way it is, is ---- that newspapers come out. Every day they come out, and every day they have to pronounce and emit words and shit, on schedule. They are so powerful; they kin doit!
     Now wait. That is not the way persons communicate. No, but thass de way dey newspapers communicate. The "news" is very carefully molded and guided ---- they produce it like flax through a spinning wheel. You think it's "the news," but it is cooked and processed and filtered. But what did you expect? When you go to a restaurant you get cooked meant. Don't you? Then why should we expect that the newspaper would deliver it to us raw??

Persons demand truth. I don't blame them a bit. But, in our passive society, they rarely go out and get it for themselves. (Are some persons less passive than others? I guess so, but most of what I see, some days, is a cavalcade of passivity going on. Oh well. Maybe I'm projecting, maybe?)

In a consumer society what persons want are products. Either that, or maybe that's what they are supposed to want. One German lady I saw in a movie simply vanted to be a-lone. I happen to live in a room, for example, that does not have cooking facilities so I cannot even cook for myself. If I wanted to. Which I don't know if I would, but at any rate I don't.

So: take the consumer society and we turn it into lies and deceptions. Cook it, in other words. By the way, there is also a market for lies and deceptions. What kind of cooked meat do you want today?

     If we did not ask the newspaper to do our thinking none of this would have ever happened. On the other hand, it did. Since we live in a capitalist or consumerist society, we need to ask ourselves: what kind of society do we want that society to be?

The Establisment, In Print

Somewhat delayed, but I wanted to 'enblog' a curious little text fragment, encountered in the famous newspaper the NYT. This phrase occurs: ("the Washington political and media establishment"): Well, I guess you had to be there! You aren't getting it yet but you'll get it. Later. First you have to put up with the original idea for the post. I wanted to summarize every story that occurred there, on one particular front page of aforesaid famous daily document. So, the motive was just to sort of document a particular front page from said organ. Sort of quick way, too so it should go rather quickly and then you get to the curious little text fragment.
_______
1)Food Today, but None Tomorrow
_______
2)$450 billion in defense cuts (in the U.S.)
_______
3)New York was planned out in 1811; but, there was farmland at 84th St. in 1879.
"It was in many respects a heartless plan."
_______
4)And, as for the campaign....

it is only on the last day of the campaign, says the great American propaganda organ, the N.Y. Times, that the "weight" of the "establishment", the elites, has landed. It took them that long? Well, what about it? Who does the establishment, or the elite, favor? Well just tell me! The article makes no further mention of "the Washington political and media establishment." Weird. The concept just evaporates from article, instead of the writer returning to it at the end. (check it for yourself; it was a few days ago; I told you how the front page looks so you can find it)
     Until you realize that that is what the N.Y. Times is. The concept of "the Washington political and media establishment" is there. It somehow got in. The concept of a "Washington political and media establishment" showing up to influence the election somehow got in. Maybe this was because they just cannot help themselves sometimes. Maybe it was because it says "Washington" rather than "New York." And this phrase about the "political and media establishment" thing was spot on. Here is the NYT admitting that such a thing exists. But we have to also consider that the political and media establishment, which is what we are reading, in the form of the New York Times, is not about to give you access to what it is thinking. That's not how it works. Of course not. It is the New York -and not D.C. -political establishment. Neither the political establishment nor a "media establishment" paper like the NYT is going to signal its moves. And, thus, the admission of the nature of things has nowhere to go and this admission, about the "political...establishment", so easy to spot, in column one, is floating alone, as it were, on the page. The theme is not returned to again in the article.

    I just wanted to say that. That is my whole purpose, just to point to say that. In case some of you missed it. The political and media establishment admitting it exists!

Somewhat delayed but I wanted to 'enblog' this curious text I found which is from the NYT. This phrase occurs in the newspaper: ("the Washington political and media establishment"): This original idea was to start out by summarising all four front page articles from that edition of the NYT, but in quick summary....

_______

1)Food Today, but None Tomorrow

_______

2)$450 billion in defense cuts (in the U.S.)

_______

3)New York was planned out in 1811; but, there was farmland at 84th St. in 1879.

"It was in many respects a heartless plan."

_______

4)And, as for the campaign....

it is only on the last day of the campaign, says the great American propaganda organ, the N.Y. Times, that the "weight" of the "establishment", the elites, has landed. It took them that long? Well, what about it? Who does the establishment, or the elite, favor? Well just tell me! The article makes no further mention of "the Washington political and media establishment." Weird. The concept just evaporates from article, instead of the writer returning to it at the end. (check it for yourself; it was a few days ago; I told you how the front page looks so you can find it)

     Until you realize that that is what the N.Y. Times is. The concept of "the Washington political and media establishment" is there. It somehow got in. The concept of a "Washington political and media establishment" showing up to influence the election somehow got in. Maybe this was because they just cannot help themselves sometimes. Maybe it was because it says "Washington" rather than "New York." And this phrase about the "political and media establishment" thing was spot on. Here is the NYT admitting that such a thing exists. But we have to also consider that the political and media establishment, which is what we are reading, in the form of the New York Times, is not about to give you access to what it is thinking. That's not how it works. Of course not. It is the New York -and not D.C. -political establishment. Neither the political establishment nor a "media establishment" paper like the NYT is going to signal its moves. And, thus, the admission of the nature of things has nowhere to go and this admission, about the "political...establishment", so easy to spot, in column one, is floating alone, as it were, on the page. The theme is not returned to again in the article.

    I just wanted to say that. That is my whole purpose, just to point to say that. In case some of you missed it. The political and media establishment admitting it exists!

A Second Paulist Piece

_____
     Individualism is something that has been rather successful here in the good old U.S.  of A., more successful perhaps than on any other piece of ground containing members of the species "homo sapiens." There is more individualism here than anywhere. It is not as if we aren't on theme. I see it in advertising, rhetorically speaking, and behavior-wise, and I see it in the persons I see around me — seems like their specialty, in terms of human contact, lies in saying "I'm sorry" --- when they get an inch too close to you.
    If that is individualism we have that. What is Paul's specific desire? What does he want from us? What is the "Paul Point" regarding this very American trait? What is it about individualism that would need to be changed? The Paul view corresponds to the grassroots variety of philosophical individualism, which is a bit different, as compared to version that lobbyists or millionaires have. Here, I am dealing with the grassroots views, those prevalent amongst the less-privileged variety of the conservative in America. Paul does not represent the elite. He represents the America of grass roots, and regular rural, Texas conservatives.
     Then, what the man may be trying to say is that we need the real thing. There is also the individualism of "My Yahoo" or of my "personal" trainer (a human or a machine---what's the diff?), which is just a boatload of publicity and advertising copy. And, as you can see in my previous post that discussed Paul, my view is that Mr. Ron Paul is about genuineness and not advertising. And his individualism is philosophical.
     That's what you might call "grass roots individualism," and it is fully and totally ignored by the cabal of the elite. I ran into plenty of it when I lived in places like Arizona, in the desert, well outside of Phoenix, where there was pretty much nobody, or in rural Indiana, or in small towns everywhere actually. It is curious how much such persons are ignored in a democracy.

     These persons are living mostly in smaller cities, in towns, or in the country, and, when they say "less government interference," they really believe it   But they are very isolated from the levers of power. Not to mention, the "purse strings" of power.

     These are the persons whom Paul represents but exactly how Paul intends to stage a sneak attack on D.C. is not clear.

Bye, America (nice knowin' ya)

_____
I grew up with certain ideas. These were in the air. It made an impression. There was the idea ... "if you don't protect your freedom, you are going to lose it."

As a Jew kid whose parents were more or less still scared of Nazis this was kind of impressed, or embedded, into me. It was not formalized as a conceptual system or theory. Nevertheless it makes sense, and you can glimpse what the theory would look like, were it put more formally. There are ideas there. It was presented in a casual way I suppose. But the idea(s) make(s) sense. There is a whole theory...

It's pretty simple, really. The bad is out there. It's gonna come in. You have to keep your guard out. Or up I mean.

You have to be constantly doing something, constantly defending it. The society.

So — Um, that is why there is the ACLU, right? I used to think so! It turns out they are maybe flawed. But at any rate my impression at that time was of there being some persons who protect our rights. They are out there, no? Maybe there was a highly-educated member, on the Supreme Court. Or a couple of senators, a few Congressmen, something like that, and these were a few persons with standards, who knew what they were doing. And they were, at that time, just always dedicated to going around protecting everybody. I still believe this.

Oh, right. Weren't there people like that? They were not the majority, but there might have been a few such persons. A few "selves"— indeed. They are a few "selves" (in this selfish world) who are activists, whose job is to keep us from getting put in camps again. This means all of us, I don't think it just means some of us. Seems like "all of us" is what is probably meant here. That seems more correct.

Those who did this would need to be educated and they would need to be active. They would need to be plugged-in, active. There are such persons, these ideas existed; I absorbed the ideas myself.
_________

Well I've got news for you, it's over. Chicago Mayor Emmanuel — or somebody/anybody — who cares who — has officially suspended our Constitutional guarantees. I think that this was on behalf of the important (to some) G8 or IMF thing — whatever the thing is. This is upcoming, pretty soon — the "important people" of the global system are going to have a sit-down so they can talk frankly.
     But you aren't allowed to protest? Not only. The paper this morning (I saw it in the box and I read the headlines) says something to the effect that these restrictions coming into force are going to be in force permanently. Oh. Great. They aren't going away.      http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/

It's all over, baby. (And for the billionth time, I iterate Bob Dylan by accident. HINT: "It's all over now...")

_______________


When one of this small group of the few responsible persons we have in the society who are defending what we call human rights is acting he or she is not just defending the rights of his or her self. In this tradition, and in this world we live in, or lived in, until it failed this morning, such defense of human rights is not the defense of the rights of some. One is defending all the rights of all persons. It does not matter if they are your friend or your enemy.
     It. Does. Not. Mat. Ter. This is our tradition, this is what you have to defend if you want to live in this society, according to the way of life which we have known, and this is true even if it has been only upheld and actively defended by a few.
     From what I have seen of the human race, in my life, or in my experience of it? ---I do not particularly from what I've seen think any of you deserve right number one. Maybe some of you care about one another. I cannot say about that. I have never seen anyone care much about me.
     But that doesn't have anything to do with it does it? If I don't defend all of you, who do I defend? Just my family? But I notice there are some, like Herman Cain, who say "self" a lot. Or: "self-interest."
     I am not the so-called "CEO of Self." That is what Herman Cain seems to call himself based on what I read in the NYRB. That reading is how I know but when I check Google it seems he has written four or five separate books one of which has that name, "CEO of Self." (I have never seen it in a newspaper.)
     The phrase seems to refer to anyone in the company and he seems to be saying that the individuals working for X company should be all be very independent themselves, thus "CEO of Self." [The NYRB article, or review, when reviewed later, was revealed to be biased. This bias is unnecessary. It buys perfectly into what Cain is saying about the way the liberals treat him. In the ensuing confusion I composed the following material (diabolically insering the dick word only afterwards)]:
     What a rascal. But he's honest. The rascal expresses "self" — very clearly. His penultimate idea (preliminary to becoming president!) or master dick stroke is to draw a line — between his own "self" --- and everyone else's.
      [Now I see that my impression was not entirely correct. I did not realize it but what I was reading in NYRB was slanted. I thought NYRB was a legitimate publication. My mistake. Nevertheless, I will stick with what I wrote yesterday, with the one alteration that it is not so much about Mr. Cain as it is about, Well....somebody anyways]:

First, jews, gypsies, homosexuals and the mentally retarded. Next come the Poles and Slavs. Then we bomb the British. Pretty French girls like Coco Chanel get to live. Japanese? — No problem. But I don't want to hear any of that "plantation" (1) stuff.

Get it? It all depends on who you are and where you are.

As for American justice — and goodness — and freedom — this looks like "fantasy." It functions on the level of fantasy today, in one's head, that's all. That's the same place where drugs go when you take 'em. Freedom for  these people is light-headed, it is like a helium-filled balloon or a candy cane. It's funny, but that's alright, I mean as a literary device it works. "Fiction," a literary point of view.
     And Americans love their fic. But it reduces real life to nothing much at all. What is left of freedom, then? This head-oriented, fictive version of it is what I see around me constantly, wherever I go, all the time. This is all that's left of freedom in their minds. The "fruit" of freedom today is to turn the idea into something insubstantial — blather, or chatter, or, insubstantial lather. This is what came of the idea.
     Candy Cane freedom for its own sake is all well, as said; it is just fine. Many careers have been built on it --- on such freedom. That is just what Cain's freedom is based on, I should think, meaning on his own personal freedom. It isn't based on the struggle against slavery.
     Songs are written about fluffy candy cane freedom. The difficulty comes down to the fact that, as Orlando Patterson observes, the original idea occurring in history, may occur in relation to what it is not. Freedom is an old idea in the West but its real context is freedom from something else, which usually seems to mean bondage to others. There is something else, that freedom is supposed to protect you from.

     Fantasies by nature are ephemeral; fantasy does not protect anybody. To turn freedom into a fantasy is too easy and it deprives the concept of its original context, that of protecting something. It protected the members of a nation. It is not for one's mere business concern; but, rather, for the community, or, for the world. In this nation Americans have stopped conceptualizing, and no longer exercise, the freedom that originally intended as the meaning of freedom. That freedom was designed to protect --- against something else. That protection could only come through interaction and cooperation between members of a free society. The original concept promoted the desires of a particular group of persons. Who was that group? I think the founders --- of the United States of America, who were agitating for their freedom — but this is not freedom for the "self." In the historical context, the idea of freedom for the self is absurd.
     If this was only individual freedom, no one would have needed such a concept. No one would have had any use for the concept as it manifests in history — in the historical case. But history is exactly what the Americans today no longer care about. Americans today with their exuberant, fluffy version of freedom. And their Apples, and pink buttocks tights. The way Americans today believe in freedom comes with a consequence: you are going to end up destroying each one of the 200 million "selves" that you think each exist in an essentially masturbatory vacuum.
     So, best of luck with that one Mr. Cain — but, I don't think it is gonna work.

note:
Now, regarding the Chanel bit. OK, here is a review; so we can look at the contrast of a real review and the Cain review. Unlike the NYRB review, this review receives my recommendation. I think so.     http://www.tnr.com/book/review/the-stench-perfume

note:
(1) As the NYRB documents, Cain, a hard-core conservative rightist, plays on the social debates to make  clever use of the word "planation."