____
We believe greatly in our unlimited scientific understanding. We believe we understand everything when we actually do not. Neither do our pundit specialists, those socially linked to us, those surrogates, who will rescue the community. On the one hand, we feel that believing in ourselves alone, without the "specialist" on T V , we'd perish but on the other hand it seems that believing too much in ourselves creates another problem (which seems to be related to the first problem).
We live in a world of economy, or economics, but is there any hope of understanding economics? Even the word "economics" is basically useless. What does it conjure? Vague images of dollar bills and empty, clutching hands, I suppose.
But may I suggest smething? I would like to suggest that maybe it is not really all that hard to grasp the meaning of the term economics. There is no question about our views in the case where most persons are not able to secure a livelihood (or a job---what we call employment). Since everyone agrees that would be a crisis "economics" simply put is a question of whether basically everybody - "most persons" - i.e. nearly everyone in the social unit (general population, society) - every body can "get money"---so it's as simple when you look at it that way---and "money" here means they get the things they need, like food, housing and so forth. Granted this is a kind of poverty thinking or poverty-oriented economics, but it makes sense (isn't that more "economical?). They need that; this is a need-driven approach, not a number-driven approach. The question of economics then becomes that of whether persons can get what they need. We also note a definite distributional bias. That way, economics isn't so difficult to understand. This formulation makes sense; and it is a very basic definition or demarcation of what "economics" is.
At present persons do not get what they need from the ground, or from engaging in agricultural labor. This is because things have changed over historical time. So, we do not get it from trees anymore and a person must get his living-stuff from what we call "the economy."
This is the way it is in our world. (Which, I might have the temerity to add, is the world in which we are defining "economics.")
An economy can thus be understood as primarily being about distribution. (Not so much production although obviously in a technological society we also must produce.) Another important question is that of who these products are going to (being distributed to)? They are persons----the persons of this world, the people of this or that country----in our age, in the age of globalization.
Now, I am not blind to how disconcerting this is to the normal science of "economics." It takes the humans, or the populace, i.e. the society, and takes them from their peripheral role, a role grudgingly included under "labor" or "employment" and makes the subject of "them," "the people," central. And yes, I know: nobody of the conservative schools want to hear that.
This (the person) is the bias of the society. This is the wrong view everyone has, which, in short is about the idea that everything in economics is about numbers. It must be, right? Well why?!! So, here's the view I am presenting: when we talk about economics in our time we mean capitalism, and capitalism means paying attention to people. What it does NOT mean is that (as per Marx) there are two entirely distinct classes and the money/wealth never goes to one of them.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
link
"Exponentially rising levels of debt, based on assumptions of future economic growth to fund repayment, will shudder to a halt and then reverse. Unfortunately, our financial system does not operate in reverse."
This link came to me due to an automated Google search request I have out. The author's main points, quoted above, seem valid to me. It is probably better writing than I do, that too. He's has a concept of "exponentially rising levels of debt." That sounds right, and he knows about "assumptions of future economic growth" that are supposedly going to fund repayment. There is, then, the assumption that all of this debt will be repaid, and that assumption seems to be linked to another assumption, and rather idiotic assumption about "growth," which assumes that this thing called growth will just go on forever, which I do not believe and which Schumpeter did not believe. So there's two persons who do not believe it. If we understood capitalism it could somehow "grow" in some sense, but without understanding it, there is no hope. He next links all of that to an comment that "our financial system does not operate in reverse." I declare. I do like the words, buddy.
Just the other day I was thinking about the "one-way" nature of present-day economics which mandates a profit underlying (at some point anyway) every business transaction, and this author seems to be onto this same insight. Simply put, every transaction has to have (or be somehow linked to) a profit. To "do" anything in a transactional system (simply a buy-sell system of economics), you have to receive money in exchange for some "product." And it is an individualistic system, that's the point...
There is still a difference between me and he. (Or "I" and he or me and him---WHATEVER.) The blogger, like other writers in general, just wants you and your family to be "prepared," so you and your family can "profit from the downturn" and so forth. This seems to me a quite distinct type of mentality and I do not really follow. I feel like I am not approaching matters this way. But this type of kind of mentality is of course the one supported by current mainstream American culture. Therefore many of the economics and business books out there on the market will imply the views represented by such a person, all of whom seek this kind of textual representation ---- innocently throwing information out, to others.
Anyway, you can find this gentleman's message-in-a-bottle for us at his website. He seems to have a corporate background of some sort----
"
...is an economic researcher & futurist specializing in energy and resource depletion. He is the founder and editor of the website ChrisMartenson.com, as well as its popular video seminar, The Crash Course.
"
---Like others he wants to start a cult. That would be a cult of survivors, who read (that's the preterit version of the "read" sign) his blog. Probably he wouldn't use the word "cult."
But the insights are great. I thought the insights above kind of made sense, so I excerpted them to give my public. Maybe he sees the future more clearly than I do. Nevertheless, I cannot really support...
This type of person has a few insights but the guy is wandering around --- in cyberspace! There's a certain cluelessness, a wanderingness around the yard if you will. How is Corporate Chris and his cult of readers going to make it in the bleak future? Stay tuned for the FYOOTURE. After all, it will definitely come.
http://www.chrismartenson.com/
This link came to me due to an automated Google search request I have out. The author's main points, quoted above, seem valid to me. It is probably better writing than I do, that too. He's has a concept of "exponentially rising levels of debt." That sounds right, and he knows about "assumptions of future economic growth" that are supposedly going to fund repayment. There is, then, the assumption that all of this debt will be repaid, and that assumption seems to be linked to another assumption, and rather idiotic assumption about "growth," which assumes that this thing called growth will just go on forever, which I do not believe and which Schumpeter did not believe. So there's two persons who do not believe it. If we understood capitalism it could somehow "grow" in some sense, but without understanding it, there is no hope. He next links all of that to an comment that "our financial system does not operate in reverse." I declare. I do like the words, buddy.
Just the other day I was thinking about the "one-way" nature of present-day economics which mandates a profit underlying (at some point anyway) every business transaction, and this author seems to be onto this same insight. Simply put, every transaction has to have (or be somehow linked to) a profit. To "do" anything in a transactional system (simply a buy-sell system of economics), you have to receive money in exchange for some "product." And it is an individualistic system, that's the point...
There is still a difference between me and he. (Or "I" and he or me and him---WHATEVER.) The blogger, like other writers in general, just wants you and your family to be "prepared," so you and your family can "profit from the downturn" and so forth. This seems to me a quite distinct type of mentality and I do not really follow. I feel like I am not approaching matters this way. But this type of kind of mentality is of course the one supported by current mainstream American culture. Therefore many of the economics and business books out there on the market will imply the views represented by such a person, all of whom seek this kind of textual representation ---- innocently throwing information out, to others.
Anyway, you can find this gentleman's message-in-a-bottle for us at his website. He seems to have a corporate background of some sort----
"
...is an economic researcher & futurist specializing in energy and resource depletion. He is the founder and editor of the website ChrisMartenson.com, as well as its popular video seminar, The Crash Course.
"
---Like others he wants to start a cult. That would be a cult of survivors, who read (that's the preterit version of the "read" sign) his blog. Probably he wouldn't use the word "cult."
But the insights are great. I thought the insights above kind of made sense, so I excerpted them to give my public. Maybe he sees the future more clearly than I do. Nevertheless, I cannot really support...
This type of person has a few insights but the guy is wandering around --- in cyberspace! There's a certain cluelessness, a wanderingness around the yard if you will. How is Corporate Chris and his cult of readers going to make it in the bleak future? Stay tuned for the FYOOTURE. After all, it will definitely come.
http://www.chrismartenson.com/
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Open Letter to the NYT
To the New York Times:
Someone in Europe referred to the Norway killer as an "icon." As in Arizona, in the U.S: In both slayings, there emerged persons that praised the killer. These persons publicly stated that they were happy. The NYT has this to say: "Nonviolent political parties can hardly be blamed for the violent actions of a terrorist or a homicidal person."
That's hardly the point. It is extreme individualism.
Further down in the NYT article, a Social Democrat in Germany calls it "individualism." That is what it is. Pure individualism. Nonviolent political parties are to blame; yes, because we all are. Society is to blame for individualism --- who else? For an individualism that opens fire on randomly selected persons merely because they are of the European ruling class, because they are at the opposing party's outdoor rally, or because they work at a facility in Oklahoma that is run by the government... It is not a matter of casting a glance around in order to name who or what it is that is "hardly" to blame.
I don't think individualism is wrong. Individualism is alright. It's alright for those who can handle it. For those who are lacking an interior sense or voice that tells them not to shoot others we need a society for them, a society for that, a society with a bit less individualism.
Basically, that means being concerned about one's own society and being engaged. You only can go so far with the theory of individualism, whether in North America or in Europe.
Someone in Europe referred to the Norway killer as an "icon." As in Arizona, in the U.S: In both slayings, there emerged persons that praised the killer. These persons publicly stated that they were happy. The NYT has this to say: "Nonviolent political parties can hardly be blamed for the violent actions of a terrorist or a homicidal person."
That's hardly the point. It is extreme individualism.
Further down in the NYT article, a Social Democrat in Germany calls it "individualism." That is what it is. Pure individualism. Nonviolent political parties are to blame; yes, because we all are. Society is to blame for individualism --- who else? For an individualism that opens fire on randomly selected persons merely because they are of the European ruling class, because they are at the opposing party's outdoor rally, or because they work at a facility in Oklahoma that is run by the government... It is not a matter of casting a glance around in order to name who or what it is that is "hardly" to blame.
I don't think individualism is wrong. Individualism is alright. It's alright for those who can handle it. For those who are lacking an interior sense or voice that tells them not to shoot others we need a society for them, a society for that, a society with a bit less individualism.
Basically, that means being concerned about one's own society and being engaged. You only can go so far with the theory of individualism, whether in North America or in Europe.
Just Don't Go There...
This sounds to me like a perfectly good explanation of mathematics as well as language and numbers ... I hope you "get" what I am trying to say.
Every time we get to a thousand dollars in our system we then multiply those dollars by one thousand. This is in order to get a word. We need new words, like a "million" --- which is one thousand dollars times one thousand, or one thousand repeated one thousand times.
One billion dollars is a thousand million or a hundred increments of ten million each. That makes a billion.
The debt ceiling argument is about increments of 1,000 of those one billion dollar increments. That is called one "trillion;" however, when we get higher, we are lacking a word. So, I am saying no word exists for ten increments of one hundred trillion. I my opinion there is no such word.
So: that reality does not exist. It will be possible to talk about increments of ten trillion, or 30 trillion, or 40 trillion, for many years into the future --- so why worry?
Every time we get to a thousand dollars in our system we then multiply those dollars by one thousand. This is in order to get a word. We need new words, like a "million" --- which is one thousand dollars times one thousand, or one thousand repeated one thousand times.
One billion dollars is a thousand million or a hundred increments of ten million each. That makes a billion.
The debt ceiling argument is about increments of 1,000 of those one billion dollar increments. That is called one "trillion;" however, when we get higher, we are lacking a word. So, I am saying no word exists for ten increments of one hundred trillion. I my opinion there is no such word.
So: that reality does not exist. It will be possible to talk about increments of ten trillion, or 30 trillion, or 40 trillion, for many years into the future --- so why worry?
"Media Circus" -H. Kurtz
Like anyone, the Press think mainly of themselves. It's a bit odd, but true enough. They are supposed to be informing the nation of the news, like a "reporter," or a conduit or something. But, they are human enough. Also greedy and grasping. They got that job, didn't they?
Their problem is ego, like so many of us. They think their newspaper or T.V. job is about themselves. How do you think they got their jobs? By thinking about themselves -- get it? OK so they're thinking about themselves but unfortunately they're employed as reporters. In a competitive capitalist system, who gets ahead economically? Those who think primarily about themselves. Yes, but their j-o-b is informing us on the news. Well, I'm sorry --- that's too hard. What they can do, thank you, is report on their own stories: where the story came from, how it developed, what tomorrow's newspaper-selling "news" is going to be, etc.
This is the press talking about themselves. The press write about themselves. They write about the press. Their industry's "product" is a little too creative I think and it slips away from them. There is not really a "product" --- except for what they write. The "story" becomes merely an exercise in their own egotism (that, plus: they spell really, really well). And they of course may just think that this is what the public craves --- more of their wonderful stories. Isn't that rank? Isn't that rank stupidity? Isn't that egotism?
A number of these persons have a bit higher integrity, though; they aren't all equally bad and these press of the better sort have endeavored, ala Howard Kurtz (on the back cover, he is, appropriately, called a "media reporter." Huh? What else is there? As if there was any other kind of reporter! Ha ha ha ha ha. He's at the Washington Post), ...a few individuals of the press --- writers with a media background --- have laid out how this works in practice. So, go read about it.
Now look at what Tina Brown, that poor misguided soul, said, when Kurtz went over to her "Daily Beast" in 2010: "I have great respect for Howard as a journalist and newsbreaker, but I admire him most of all for his understanding of media and politics as the story of our era." Sorry, Tina. That's what I'm talking about. Now you may be married to a special man who was a good editor of a British newspaper, but what you are saying is that the "story" is the "story" --- and that just sounds a little too much like what I am talking about above. She says that the "story" is media and politics. Oy Vey. That just works like a funnel pointing down (they usually do) to exactly the problem that Kurtz was illustrating in his book, "Media Circus." Maybe Kurtz, too, has gotten lost in his own industry.
Their problem is ego, like so many of us. They think their newspaper or T.V. job is about themselves. How do you think they got their jobs? By thinking about themselves -- get it? OK so they're thinking about themselves but unfortunately they're employed as reporters. In a competitive capitalist system, who gets ahead economically? Those who think primarily about themselves. Yes, but their j-o-b is informing us on the news. Well, I'm sorry --- that's too hard. What they can do, thank you, is report on their own stories: where the story came from, how it developed, what tomorrow's newspaper-selling "news" is going to be, etc.
This is the press talking about themselves. The press write about themselves. They write about the press. Their industry's "product" is a little too creative I think and it slips away from them. There is not really a "product" --- except for what they write. The "story" becomes merely an exercise in their own egotism (that, plus: they spell really, really well). And they of course may just think that this is what the public craves --- more of their wonderful stories. Isn't that rank? Isn't that rank stupidity? Isn't that egotism?
A number of these persons have a bit higher integrity, though; they aren't all equally bad and these press of the better sort have endeavored, ala Howard Kurtz (on the back cover, he is, appropriately, called a "media reporter." Huh? What else is there? As if there was any other kind of reporter! Ha ha ha ha ha. He's at the Washington Post), ...a few individuals of the press --- writers with a media background --- have laid out how this works in practice. So, go read about it.
Now look at what Tina Brown, that poor misguided soul, said, when Kurtz went over to her "Daily Beast" in 2010: "I have great respect for Howard as a journalist and newsbreaker, but I admire him most of all for his understanding of media and politics as the story of our era." Sorry, Tina. That's what I'm talking about. Now you may be married to a special man who was a good editor of a British newspaper, but what you are saying is that the "story" is the "story" --- and that just sounds a little too much like what I am talking about above. She says that the "story" is media and politics. Oy Vey. That just works like a funnel pointing down (they usually do) to exactly the problem that Kurtz was illustrating in his book, "Media Circus." Maybe Kurtz, too, has gotten lost in his own industry.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Observing, pt 2
In my earlier post, which was called "Observing The System," Friday, July 22nd, the question is basically, to what do we owe our freedom? We do not owe our freedom (apologies to those in jail/prison) to the theories, to the ideals that certain persons in powdered wigs may have entertained; and, nor do we owe it to the "planners," who it seems to me would be smoking their pipes, in pin-stripped suits in, for example, the 1930s.
Our society's language always calls it, "freedom." It was not me who picked the word; it is used in American culture, so I use it.
As for "freedom," then, why do we have it? I think it is due to the fact that, in the long course of time -- this is to say historically or in historical fact -- capitalism proved to be the more effective system. This is etched into history, part of the record of historical fact. Any survey of history will likely bring out just this transition. And so, everyone agrees. Capitalism replaced the earlier systems, which we may call the hierarchical or aristocratic (and therefore also, at the other end, serf) societies. This is my view of where this "freedom" of ours comes from, then.
This points to a broad trend in history, which is that it moves from pre-capitalist societies to capitalist societies. This is historical, and visible. It is my practice to call the current human reality/society "capitalism." I don't think that is unusual, since many call it that. This word "capitalism" means something broader that "the economy," of course, when by "the economy," we mean "only" the aggregate of all business deals. (Or maybe we are right back to it----something like "business civilization," as R. Heilbroner has it in his short book.)
If we desire a further way to define capitalism, let's call it: a society with a strong economic component.
Following the above considerations, I think that it is economics, not politics, that is driving things. My "economics," however, links with the idea of "society." I mean to say that economics is society, not individuals. The rise of economics ushers in a new society. These ideas work out very nicely: and the kind of analysis I am making can help us can understand what is going on in the world. Based on these ideas, we can see that, with economics the main factor, government eventually loses its grip. Society loses its grip on itself and we get carried away into capitalist anarchy. Society fails to regulate itself, to plan. Government loses its footing and its correct function. The link between the people and the government is broken. Based on my thinking, I can see how this could have happened but that doesn't mean I like it. I don't like total disorder. This abdication of government to the rich just leaves a power vacuum, since the rich really don't want to govern in the first place, and, of course, it is not their job collectively. So capitalism is not government, despite all we've said, and it is poppycock to think that "the market" will just take over. That was the worst theory ever. Economics is non-sentient, it is just a non-conscious historical force. It is quite astounding what a huge force it has become, but the "market" cannot make policy. It cannot think. Only people do that. So at that point everything collapses. We have out-of-control capitalism, non-government by the rich. We get a world of no order at all, many deprived, needy countries, the money-makers creating all kinds of wealth, but with no good coming out of it. What kind of "wealth" is that anyway? It isn't social wealth, it is greedy wealth for a few. This is the greedy "super-capitalism" without values, and, on that, there are certainly books to read.
What we needed to understand was this. First, economics does kind take over things, which I suppose corresponds somewhat to what the right says about things, but then we also needed to take things over at some point, to get politics back in control and guide the system. That's called regulation, governance, intervention, whatever it is exactly the correct idea. We did not understand that we needed to be in control, instead we believed this rubbish that the market (whatever that is) controls itself. We needed to get back control, and govern capitalism. And that is why, even though there is a certain principle that functions, this economic monster is now getting ready to eat us all up, which means, curiously, that it is eating up the same society it helped create.
Always at the back of things there was man, there was intelligence. But we listened to right-wing poppycock. Intelligence refused to do its job, and we seem to have failed. We were not able to bring our intelligence into play, as regards this phenomenon of economics that we in some sense created (although not intentionally, or by ideals).
We fail to understand that we do need to regulate. Now is the time but no one is doing it. Actually, there are perils to controlling the economy and there are perils to not controlling it. We would have to strike a balance. It is difficult. You need need some brains, and you need to have a plan, but we didn't even come close. But if we ever want to do it, here's my humble suggestion. The first thing I would suggest we do is feed the needy. This would not just help the needy but would help everybody; I am talking about the most needy in the poor third-World, who stand to benefit from directly appropriating food, water and health-related products, out of the existing economy, and deploying it somehow, redirecting that wealth to the "account" of those who really need it. That would be a good first step, in the area of "regulation." It might help the world poor, a little, but, really, it would help create a new kind of capitalism.
Our society's language always calls it, "freedom." It was not me who picked the word; it is used in American culture, so I use it.
As for "freedom," then, why do we have it? I think it is due to the fact that, in the long course of time -- this is to say historically or in historical fact -- capitalism proved to be the more effective system. This is etched into history, part of the record of historical fact. Any survey of history will likely bring out just this transition. And so, everyone agrees. Capitalism replaced the earlier systems, which we may call the hierarchical or aristocratic (and therefore also, at the other end, serf) societies. This is my view of where this "freedom" of ours comes from, then.
This points to a broad trend in history, which is that it moves from pre-capitalist societies to capitalist societies. This is historical, and visible. It is my practice to call the current human reality/society "capitalism." I don't think that is unusual, since many call it that. This word "capitalism" means something broader that "the economy," of course, when by "the economy," we mean "only" the aggregate of all business deals. (Or maybe we are right back to it----something like "business civilization," as R. Heilbroner has it in his short book.)
If we desire a further way to define capitalism, let's call it: a society with a strong economic component.
Following the above considerations, I think that it is economics, not politics, that is driving things. My "economics," however, links with the idea of "society." I mean to say that economics is society, not individuals. The rise of economics ushers in a new society. These ideas work out very nicely: and the kind of analysis I am making can help us can understand what is going on in the world. Based on these ideas, we can see that, with economics the main factor, government eventually loses its grip. Society loses its grip on itself and we get carried away into capitalist anarchy. Society fails to regulate itself, to plan. Government loses its footing and its correct function. The link between the people and the government is broken. Based on my thinking, I can see how this could have happened but that doesn't mean I like it. I don't like total disorder. This abdication of government to the rich just leaves a power vacuum, since the rich really don't want to govern in the first place, and, of course, it is not their job collectively. So capitalism is not government, despite all we've said, and it is poppycock to think that "the market" will just take over. That was the worst theory ever. Economics is non-sentient, it is just a non-conscious historical force. It is quite astounding what a huge force it has become, but the "market" cannot make policy. It cannot think. Only people do that. So at that point everything collapses. We have out-of-control capitalism, non-government by the rich. We get a world of no order at all, many deprived, needy countries, the money-makers creating all kinds of wealth, but with no good coming out of it. What kind of "wealth" is that anyway? It isn't social wealth, it is greedy wealth for a few. This is the greedy "super-capitalism" without values, and, on that, there are certainly books to read.
What we needed to understand was this. First, economics does kind take over things, which I suppose corresponds somewhat to what the right says about things, but then we also needed to take things over at some point, to get politics back in control and guide the system. That's called regulation, governance, intervention, whatever it is exactly the correct idea. We did not understand that we needed to be in control, instead we believed this rubbish that the market (whatever that is) controls itself. We needed to get back control, and govern capitalism. And that is why, even though there is a certain principle that functions, this economic monster is now getting ready to eat us all up, which means, curiously, that it is eating up the same society it helped create.
Always at the back of things there was man, there was intelligence. But we listened to right-wing poppycock. Intelligence refused to do its job, and we seem to have failed. We were not able to bring our intelligence into play, as regards this phenomenon of economics that we in some sense created (although not intentionally, or by ideals).
We fail to understand that we do need to regulate. Now is the time but no one is doing it. Actually, there are perils to controlling the economy and there are perils to not controlling it. We would have to strike a balance. It is difficult. You need need some brains, and you need to have a plan, but we didn't even come close. But if we ever want to do it, here's my humble suggestion. The first thing I would suggest we do is feed the needy. This would not just help the needy but would help everybody; I am talking about the most needy in the poor third-World, who stand to benefit from directly appropriating food, water and health-related products, out of the existing economy, and deploying it somehow, redirecting that wealth to the "account" of those who really need it. That would be a good first step, in the area of "regulation." It might help the world poor, a little, but, really, it would help create a new kind of capitalism.
Civilization, predicted by Heilbroner
Dear Devoted Followers,
I have been reading. I read the first part of Heilbroner's take on the culture, which he calls a "business civilization" in his small volume that I read a small part of: "Business Civilization in Decline."
He sees a sort of slow decline.
I think. At any rate, Heilbroner, himself a bit of a radical, describes how "the [typical] radical" sees things: "the radical sees...a pervasive and ultimately irresistible dynamic[s]." (and believe me, there is really an "s" in the original - WWNorton, 1976.) The radical sees "irrepressible contradictions" of "a system threatened with self-destruction." The next paragraph now: "I think the radical is essentially correct...Nonetheless, I find a weakness in the radical view." OK, I kind of expected that, but, at any rate, next I will ask what is that weakness? "It is the tendency to assume a subservience of the political apparatus to the economic interests of the system -- a subservience that ultimately defines too narrowly the independent shaping influence of social institutions [right --- the planners, from my previous posting event]. As I [meaning Heilbroner] have put it elsewhere, the radical view sees the economy as the engine and the government as the caboose.." (p. 30)
Now, this is R.H. disputing that, but what has history shown? Since 1976, when this book was published, it tells us a story rather more in keeping with those radical types.
I do not see any sane, sober government of1930's style "planners." Capitalism --- with its runaway overheated nature, has indeed become what R. H.'s "radicals" predicted it would become (and Bohner the usher). It has indeed becomes the engine of the train, and it has shown us no human intelligence, no ability at planning, only its own vapid, non-sentient, irresistible desire for self-immolation. How does government look in the present situation? It looks more insane --- worse --- than economics does. Even worse. Where is the "independent shaping influence" that Robert Heilbroner saw and was at pains to capture in that awkward phrase? Is that like the pink tiger with the purple stripes? (I seem to have some kind of photographic negative in mind) It look like a race of two crazinesses, a race to discern whether the enraged, out-of-power Republican pro-business conservative crowd can beat capitalism to the punch line. Government truly is more dangerous than economics, and the Republicans are proving that.
The bottom line is that of no more culture of planning --- no more sober men in pinstriped suits, puffing on pipes, laying down guidelines for the "business executive," or guiding the "business" sector of society.
Capitalism, left on its own, self-destructs, whether by the "sober, fiscally-minded" (i.e. suicidal) Republicans in government, who are insane (having philosophized themselves out of a job), or, if you prefer, death by the economy itself (also not sane, nor even sentient.) It does not matter whether we say "government" or "economy." What matters is that what we evolved, what came about, was a country of zero discerning intellect, and therefore a country that refuses to control or regulate capitalism. At that point government and economy are the same thing. Now, the correct thing is also given in the book by R.H. That is covered by another Heilbroner analogy, to "a train in which there are two engines, one economic, one political, capable of pulling in different directions as well as coordinating their efforts." But we never go to that, and the radicals were right to say that it would have taken a revolution. We never got there. We never got to that, and for that reason, the radicals turn out to have been right to say that.
But it would not have taken a radical's revolution --- not a Left revolution attacking their great conceptual enemy "capitalism." It would have taken a revolution of honesty and of moderation, a revolution in common sense, to understand that capitalism can do better, and still be capitalism, that it does not have to be a runaway train with the hedge fund operators at the front, dragging an out-of-control, psychopathological government.
The challenge would have been, quite simply, to get capitalism under control. But we never did. The wealthy right just kept on cashing the checks they were receiving from an economic system that favors the wealthy, and, having the upper hand in some way, they maintained their strong position as a kind of upper crust. When Bush finally showed the people the weakness of this approach, it was too late. The Right were so far gone, so empowered and arrogant by this time, feeling they were "Dead Right" as the book has it, that nothing mattered to them, not even the people, who had voted for a moderate Democratic president. The Republicans just went hostile. And in the aftermath of the economic crisis of 2008 they went berserk, because, after all, the economy, not government was in control, just as I pointed out above.
We never even came close to knowing which policies to put in place, If we did, we would have smaller cars in the city. There would be full employment due to massive projects to avert the effects of global climate change. Business windfalls would be taxed at higher rates, rewarding the entrepreneur but rewarding the people who bought those products as well. Smaller business would be actively encouraged, including smaller, more environmentally conscious agriculture, to be mostly sold in local areas, with a little bit of it going, at higher prices of course, to the restaurants. Rich could be happy and working or lower income could be happy, too. Why not? Such are the wonders that capitalism could have brought --- if we would control it.
When you sit down to think about it, there are so many of these things one can think of. What is sitting and thinking of something called? It's just planning. But planning for the whole is taboo. There is no rational reason for such a bias. Some people just don't want to cooperate, I guess.
Planning takes intelligence. I wish we really had some. I wish I had been stronger.
"The Times They Are A'Changin." Not exactly the way the radicals had hoped, though.
I have been reading. I read the first part of Heilbroner's take on the culture, which he calls a "business civilization" in his small volume that I read a small part of: "Business Civilization in Decline."
He sees a sort of slow decline.
I think. At any rate, Heilbroner, himself a bit of a radical, describes how "the [typical] radical" sees things: "the radical sees...a pervasive and ultimately irresistible dynamic[s]." (and believe me, there is really an "s" in the original - WWNorton, 1976.) The radical sees "irrepressible contradictions" of "a system threatened with self-destruction." The next paragraph now: "I think the radical is essentially correct...Nonetheless, I find a weakness in the radical view." OK, I kind of expected that, but, at any rate, next I will ask what is that weakness? "It is the tendency to assume a subservience of the political apparatus to the economic interests of the system -- a subservience that ultimately defines too narrowly the independent shaping influence of social institutions [right --- the planners, from my previous posting event]. As I [meaning Heilbroner] have put it elsewhere, the radical view sees the economy as the engine and the government as the caboose.." (p. 30)
Now, this is R.H. disputing that, but what has history shown? Since 1976, when this book was published, it tells us a story rather more in keeping with those radical types.
I do not see any sane, sober government of1930's style "planners." Capitalism --- with its runaway overheated nature, has indeed become what R. H.'s "radicals" predicted it would become (and Bohner the usher). It has indeed becomes the engine of the train, and it has shown us no human intelligence, no ability at planning, only its own vapid, non-sentient, irresistible desire for self-immolation. How does government look in the present situation? It looks more insane --- worse --- than economics does. Even worse. Where is the "independent shaping influence" that Robert Heilbroner saw and was at pains to capture in that awkward phrase? Is that like the pink tiger with the purple stripes? (I seem to have some kind of photographic negative in mind) It look like a race of two crazinesses, a race to discern whether the enraged, out-of-power Republican pro-business conservative crowd can beat capitalism to the punch line. Government truly is more dangerous than economics, and the Republicans are proving that.
The bottom line is that of no more culture of planning --- no more sober men in pinstriped suits, puffing on pipes, laying down guidelines for the "business executive," or guiding the "business" sector of society.
Capitalism, left on its own, self-destructs, whether by the "sober, fiscally-minded" (i.e. suicidal) Republicans in government, who are insane (having philosophized themselves out of a job), or, if you prefer, death by the economy itself (also not sane, nor even sentient.) It does not matter whether we say "government" or "economy." What matters is that what we evolved, what came about, was a country of zero discerning intellect, and therefore a country that refuses to control or regulate capitalism. At that point government and economy are the same thing. Now, the correct thing is also given in the book by R.H. That is covered by another Heilbroner analogy, to "a train in which there are two engines, one economic, one political, capable of pulling in different directions as well as coordinating their efforts." But we never go to that, and the radicals were right to say that it would have taken a revolution. We never got there. We never got to that, and for that reason, the radicals turn out to have been right to say that.
But it would not have taken a radical's revolution --- not a Left revolution attacking their great conceptual enemy "capitalism." It would have taken a revolution of honesty and of moderation, a revolution in common sense, to understand that capitalism can do better, and still be capitalism, that it does not have to be a runaway train with the hedge fund operators at the front, dragging an out-of-control, psychopathological government.
The challenge would have been, quite simply, to get capitalism under control. But we never did. The wealthy right just kept on cashing the checks they were receiving from an economic system that favors the wealthy, and, having the upper hand in some way, they maintained their strong position as a kind of upper crust. When Bush finally showed the people the weakness of this approach, it was too late. The Right were so far gone, so empowered and arrogant by this time, feeling they were "Dead Right" as the book has it, that nothing mattered to them, not even the people, who had voted for a moderate Democratic president. The Republicans just went hostile. And in the aftermath of the economic crisis of 2008 they went berserk, because, after all, the economy, not government was in control, just as I pointed out above.
We never even came close to knowing which policies to put in place, If we did, we would have smaller cars in the city. There would be full employment due to massive projects to avert the effects of global climate change. Business windfalls would be taxed at higher rates, rewarding the entrepreneur but rewarding the people who bought those products as well. Smaller business would be actively encouraged, including smaller, more environmentally conscious agriculture, to be mostly sold in local areas, with a little bit of it going, at higher prices of course, to the restaurants. Rich could be happy and working or lower income could be happy, too. Why not? Such are the wonders that capitalism could have brought --- if we would control it.
When you sit down to think about it, there are so many of these things one can think of. What is sitting and thinking of something called? It's just planning. But planning for the whole is taboo. There is no rational reason for such a bias. Some people just don't want to cooperate, I guess.
Planning takes intelligence. I wish we really had some. I wish I had been stronger.
"The Times They Are A'Changin." Not exactly the way the radicals had hoped, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)