Sept. 13, 2011

I get it. Thanks for telling me: it is about money —we do not have enough of this stuff: so we need to cut social, cut medicare, etc. It seems to be the case that we have some sort of shortage of natural resources — or, of money. Actually, the two are quite related. Or, conceptually, there could be any type of a shortage of any combination of those two. But there is one shortage that we do not have, which is a shortage of narrow-mindedness.

A shortage of narrow-mindedness would be welcome...

A shortage of greed would be most great... but why should I believe that there is a shortage of money? —this being the money that the government runs on. Come on. A shortage of money? This country has produced more money than anyone ever has in the history of the uncivilized world. In all of history no one has ever had as much material wealth as we have. And isn't every single item of that pile of wealth or of material paid for by money? We had the material, so we must have had the same amount of money. I'm an economist. I "get" this stuff!!! (I think.)    
     Economists should pay less attention to making up equations, more attention to reality. Mathematics is just an idea. It is "just" an idea. It isn't real. But the newspapers tell us no —their version of it is that there is a freaking shortage of money. I think we should tear down this system. My understanding of the capitalistic social and monetary system is that it has built up a lot of trade. All of this trade uses money. Doesn't it? The more you trade, the more you need money, so the businessmen are, it seems, always creating more money by borrowing it. The government also borrows money. They issue money to themselves and they borrow it? What for? Or else they issue it to the banks and the banks distribute this money to borrowers, who engage in a transactional society, making all their deals that get them into the clover. What is a government to do when the government cannot pay its own debt? Why did they take out the debt in the first place, if they are the government? Aren't they in charge of money itself?

     But now the government has a shortage of money. Well, if they really did have a shortage of money, which is something that I have indicated my disbelief about, then the non-existent money shortage could be alleviated since they are the government and they could requisition some money from the people. This should be a straightforward procedure. I would take some from Bill Gates if I were in power. I know his name, and that of Warren Buffet. If I were the government, I would contact those people, you know?

     I would take some from Warren Buffett. (Apparently I don't know how to spell. There is a squiggly line under it, red.) Anyone who is great at making money is a really good resource for the government. The government needs money and these two guys are super at making money. They are just really, really good at making money. At getting it. At having it on hand. Whatever. I think when you show this kind of talent for making money there should be some other kind of process that kicks in, following on your success. How much money is there out there? A lot. Give the government some. It just seems natural. It isn't like Bill Gates made that money on his own or anything. Of course we'd have to put some money-requisitioning rules in place and we'd have to change the society a little. Like I suppose that is bad? To change the society a little? Who thinks that is bad? A few rich persons think it is bad. Give me a break. We need change. Didn't Obama say that? (That name needs a r,w&b logo around it)

     If I did the research I could find more names too —you could get a list. All these guys are absolute pros at creating or collecting money —whatever it is they do. We know perfectly well who these persons are and we know where to get the money. That's the beauty of our "open society" system.

     So. The newspaper boys, obviously, are not going to let me get away with all of this stuff. Are they? They probably have some kind of wack-ass theory of their own that they made up-----in the form of some ideas, like, that the government does not make money. Or if they do they gave it away to the people. And they aren't allowed to take it back. Don't believe it. The government can get money. If their cops can beat people up and their soldiers can kill people (bad soldiers — you can see this on YouTube — they are killers — they vaporize persons ) they must have some kind authority, right? Then they can get money. Who created money, in the first place? Well, I guess that's a good q. Anyways: They can just order the rich to relinquish their money. And if they close down their factories (as if there were any) as revenge, refusing to make more money, then the free-enterprise system simply goes into effect, and the government can re-sell those factories to entrepreneurs, to some private enterprise buffs. And, since it is all the beginning of something new, they/we/the govt. can regulate all these new factories from the git-go. If we need regulations, we can have them. If not, not, but I think there are some you are always going to need. All we have to do is figure out how to do this stuff. We just need some new thinking. Remember how I said "narrow-mindedness" was a problem? I said that.

     I live in Chicago's gold coast whatever that means. I don't know what it means. I don't worry about it. That's what my neighborhood is called. I don't know what the freaking hell it means. It's just a name. Gold? What's that? Money? Money Coast?

     There are all these tall luxury buildings around here, and all these  uptight persons who are all very concerned with whether they are "acting right" or have the proper requisite elegant behavior. I"d say, 300,000 "rich" type persons here. I mean, they have a lot of money. How was that again? There is a money shortage? We do not have enough money you see.  Wow, I just cannot get over it.

     I counted the tall luxury hotels and skyscrapers. There are 300,000 rich people in my neighborhood, or in all of Chicago. Something like that.

plently of the stuff money buys, too...

What I think, really, is that maybe we are too hung up on individuality. All the money "has to" go to individuals, as in "private property." Now I am not in favor of immediately dismantling or taking apart anything but I think the economic system or the system of capitalism (which I am not in favor of dismantling) may be run too much on an individualism basis at this stage. There was always a lot of right-wing pressure for this kind of system and now the time for that is over. I really think the system of capitalism needs to be publicly managed. I don't think it is a private system. It has brought us to this point but we're just too narrow-minded understand the things we need to, and what we need to understand is that it is time for major re-structuring of this capitalist economic system that we have.

     I do not really know what "Economy" or "economic system" means. From what I have come to understand about the various intellectual players, how the various public or elite persons use the term, I don't think they do either. An "economic" way to handle money (or wealth) would be something like a rational way. This has something to do with distribution. "Economics" means being sensible and putting things in the right places. For a long time there were big arguments and debates about whether wealth should be handled by private individuals who engage in what is called "business," which has something to do with money, or whether the state should have more control over it. Well, maybe the time has come to say, "OK, we see all the things that the handling of money and trade by private individuals has done. You have done your thing. Now we want you to continue to do it, but under some new rules." Is that so damn hard?

The rebel voters

     The rebel voters - Companies in the eurozone increasingly face rebel voters, says
Ruth Sullivan.
     The eurozone's public spokesmen admit they have dissent, something that would
never happen within the culture and society of U.S.
     "Dissent" means that sometimes there are two opinions. The U.S.A. was founded
by a group of colonists who fell into the position of dissent, rebellion. Today, the U.S.
does not officially admit such a thing.
     It does not even exist-----not in the newspapers or public forums,
anyway.

(see FTfm Sept. 12, 2011)

Dean Baker

Came to alma mater Roosevelt to hear economist Dean Baker. Class act fo' sure. His set of concerns are distinct from the present blogger's. His lecture, for the "Roosevelt Club," goes back to the capitalism of the 1930's for a direct comparison with today, as if it is the same world. Seems to me as if he says there is no difference in the present society and that of 75 years ago.

In some sense I suppose there isn't ---- i.e. if the statistics that are kept correspond logically.  This yields a lot of good statistics. For example, deflation today is one-half per cent. Deflation in the great depression was as much as eight per cent. Such direct comparison is good for a lot of things of course: so, unemployment in the G. Dep. was a lot higher than it is now, 25% compared to 10%. But then, later, he tells us that for African American black male youth (ha ha - redundant) unemployment is 46%.

So much for his thesis that unemployment is lower today than it was then. All depends on who you compare I guess.  Baker "gets" a lot of well-grounded points. He's a well-grounded sort of guy.

But my thesis --- so different from his that I would not bother confronting him directly over this --- is as follows. Capitalism means change, acceleratingly so. Thus, between 1850 and 1930 we would see this kind of thing: great capitalistic progressiveness or "change." That is eighty yrs. OK. Between 1930 and 2010 is also eighty years, and I would also expect to see great change. I would expect more change if change accelerates.

What the case is today is drastically distinct from what it was in 1970; not to mention compared to 1930. I just  think it is a different world, different situation.

I look to the future; Dean Baker looks to the past.

Very well-grounded down to earth personality though.

Derek Wall

"Capitalism is an articulated system. A key node is of course property rights, but capitalism links economics, culture and politics — it’s a whole system..."

Correct, up to here. "...and it’s a process that exploits and degrades both humanity and the rest of nature."

Not necessarily. More benign parts of capitalism ought to be recognized, if only for the reason that this system is already here, and, if indeed capitalism has some good parts, all you have to do is preserve those. 

http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=5373

My "cut" and "paste" was taken from the blogpost, about eleven short paragraphs down.

Growth as bad as stall

The WSJ (Wall Street Journal):
                          Fed to act on the "Economic Stall"
The idea is       ...Fed prepares to act...       and, the idea is that the U.S. central bankers are going to "consider unusual steps"

OK.

...if they do "avert" an economic stall, that will result in growth, or what the newspaper would call more growth, or "growth." ("G" is the solution, "S" the problem. Growth solves Stall.)
     What if "growth" is no solution?
     What if we are just exchanging one problem for another?

I so hate to insult the business community by rejecting there favorite concept -- "growth" -- you know -- but what if "growth" will kill us just as surely?

The point being: they want to cure "stall" with "growth" and it's going to be another problem.

Here's a short essay droplet:


     For years --OK, a few centuries to be exact ----- economics has proceeded on the basis of growth. This was at one time tenable. There was plenty of space to grow into. Now the whole globe is "globalized." (Before it was a globe, but it wasn't "globalized," so I am OK with that terminology.) In other words, globalization means that the globe is "wrapped up." It's all one capitalistic globe.
     And  thus, the principle of growth is no longer tenable. My opinion, as above: if an economic downturn, depression or "stall" will kill us, this notion of "growth" will kill us too.


     Instead of falling for the "growth" business (of course, growth in intelligence, or in sustainable practices, or environmental awareness, or even "market" activities that do not harm anyone ----- that is fine, but the very word "growth" as these people use it seems narrow, as if it is some kind of tricked language or a language ploy) maybe it is time to wake up to the fact that there have always been problems in this world, many problems; and maybe, just maybe, this is a good opportunity, a good time to take a time-out. And maybe it is a good time to take this opportunity to say, "let's address all those problems now, now that nothing else is working."  We have never as a human race gotten very far with all those old problems.
     Maybe it's time to try out some of those other, newfangled ideas. No? You want to stick with the growth thing?

     Growth is a problem. Downturn, meltdown, stall—also a problem. If both are an equal problem, we have no answer or solution.

     Those few words on the front page of the WSJ that I spied tell a story. There is a certain story here. It claims that if the problems whatever they are (the "stall") could be overcome, then those problem (whatever that is -- a feared economic downturn -- "stall," in this week's terminology) can be averted. Problem solved. Then we can grow again. They are assuming "growth" NOT to be a problem. The notion that such a resolution would comprise its own problem is exogenous -- this is totally foreign to their thinking, to the WSJ that is to say.  The WSJ (and economists and commentators in general) (are) (is) so out of it that they have no grasp of the limits on growth. We are, so far, only thinking about economic "fixes" that restore growth. Clueless, yeah --- even though they were warned by Donatella Ross. That  was in 1974 (The famous "limits to growth" paper that everyone rejected).

At this point the reader may ask: "then how do we solve it? What are your ideas?"

One kind of alternative thinking is that the natural world must be restored. This means "the" natural world; the natural world is also called nature.


     Well, that came out kinda short. I know that. But my solution, in this instance of my thinking, is: revere nature. So, here's a summation of this kind of thinking I am doing today.

Revert to nature.
Look to nature.
How do humans solve problems in nature?
Maybe try looking at that.
How do humans live before, or outside of, capitalism? Look past capitalism, at human life as it was "meant to be," or, if "meant to be" is faulty ( unscientific reasoning), at any rate as it was for a million years—before the capitalist gesture, before the capitalist act.
If you take away all the artificial layers, that is what you get back to. Nature. What is wrong with looking to nature?

     Thank capitalism for a job well-done. But don't let it be overdone. Yes overdone!—like a cooked chicken. Take the chicken out of the oven now. It is not going to ever taste any better; it is only going to get overcooked; there is no more point in leaving it in the oven—it won't get or taste any better!

Do not merely revert to the normal pattern! The Age of growth is over!
Do not just revert to "normal growth."
Whatever they call growth...

And as the "Climate and Capitalism" blog ----- my latest discovery ----- says, there ain't no other way Jose'.  Well, they didn't exactly say it like that.  Third way?.... what was that? ....OK, I have to go get this, for accuracy. (pause to Google stuff)  It reads like this:

Ecosocialism or Barbarism: There is no third way

That's a blog I discovered recently. Google it.

Sept. 07, 2011

They are saying: borrow and spend, please. Yet those who profess faith in the markets are determined to ignore the cry, writes Martin Wolf

(what "they" are saying in this case means what the "bond markets" are saying)

There are real, tangible problems here, real problems involved when we attempt to apply theories that do not work. In this country those labeled as the right are supposed to be in possession of a set of pro-market beliefs or values. Is that what it is? And do they really have any coherent set of pro-market beliefs or is it all a bunch of hooey? Well, quite honestly, I think that's a good question. Or maybe they are not pro-market beliefs after all, maybe they are "entrepreneurial concepts." Better? What is it then? What do they really believe? I think it is that they believe or say they believe in whatever it is that they are calling themselves and/or their beliefs this week.
     We tend not to question their sincerity. That is very polite of us. By using the word "we," I seem to mean the professional persons, or established persons with voices, vested interests. "We" meant those in the spotlight, the public persons, those in the professional sector, those who write and are listened to, and that "we" also means the public media crowd, and what I am thinking is this: the public intellectuals do not recognize ideology. There, I italicized it for you. Ideology.

What today's persons who are so conveniently labeled "conservatives" (there is no essential, or genuinely manifest relation to their prior-generational namesakes) are about would be ideology, which would be what you'd call a cultural view. They use an appropriate terms themselves: "culture wars." That isn't rational, it's emotional. And the "we" we are talking about aren't very good representatives of the common man. I think we need to understand the emotions of the ordinary class of conservative type persons as being something distinct from the prominent, wealthy persons who may claim to represent all those grass-roots conservatives out in the real world, but do not. What does all their smoke and fire about "free markets" and "private economy" add up to? Maybe it all adds up to a kind of contest between emotions and rationality.

Therefore it is not that the predominant conservatives (leaning aside the low-income conservatives) hold economic positions (intellectually). It is likewise completely incorrect to hold that they are themselves holding rational views, in general or on the matter of economic policy. Those are ideological views, and that is what we are trying to apply; and, if those views are not rational, why should we expect them to work? So, the problem that I am seeing here is that when you try to apply theories that do not work there are going to be problems-----the results will corresponding to your weak reasoning. There will certainly be problems you get. Irrational views are not going to create rational results. You are not going to like the results. Of course if you are totally emotional, you are not going to understand the results, either.

Public Capitalism (Theoretical)

The beauty of capitalism is in the public part. (I do not find the private part that interesting.)

     Capitalism itself becomes something like a public property. It has to run on all four cylinders. "The people" constitute at least one out of four cylinders, and unless they get what they need--to live a bare but comfortable sojourn on this earth--then the machine is just not working properly. We need to check the condition of the "people cylinder" to make sure the machine is working properly.
     I see one billion without even good drinking water! What do you see? If the "people cylinder" of capitalism works right, capitalism works right. If not, this machine has a problem (Robert Owen). We simply need to unite "persons" with the actuality of capitalism.