Liars is what U are. THEY lied. I tried the Wi-Fi AND IT WORKED. Boy am I upset. A member of the staff, at McD’s, interceded with the worker in a conversation I was having. So, this manager or staff member said “no” to my question, after I had asked if it worked: And it did! I was asking about WiFi! I had thought to ask. So, before sitting down to eat, I cleverly inquired about it. I asked, whether the Wi-Fi worked. And this person says “no.” But, as I suspected, that was not the case. Yes, I had thought it might work and it did. It did, it did, it did. And, I was lied to, yes I was! It worked. Everything in America is like that. All a big trick. Where the facts of life are denied to us. Some way to run a democracy. And they do it at McD’s. And they do it on Broadway, and they do it all over the world. And that is the way it is. And don’t argue with me. It is my opinion; I have the right to it.
The whole world is a lie, from my snarky point of view. We live in the world, a sea of turtles, a pool of lies—and our politicians standing before us posing grandly as public servants.
Or they accuse one another, accuse anyone, accuse the Russians. Accuse the F.B.I. Anyone. Now everyone is no good, so only the rebel remains.
When I am lied to like I was at McDonalds, I feel I know how the world works. I extend the metaphor too generally. I extend it to Washington and D.C., to Jefferson and Virginia. They are doing it, always were. These are the pernicious men who man Washington, D.C.
What can you do, when a chicken sandwich is lying. What can ya do when the whole world is a lie—-? when nothing makes sense? Is the McChicken sandwich lying? Oh my G-D!!!!
Don’t become like those persons is my best advice. That’s not just my opinion. That’s the best advice. There’s no gain lying, in thinking you are proving something, Being clever with a patron of the “low” poor sort. But…
Maybe the woman thought she herself was a rebel, acting like that, protecting someone, against something. Maybe she thought I was homeless. I have a home. This is my home.
The Stinkin’ Eaarth.
What long-term vision do Hillary or Kristol have? That is to say: Where do they expect US/America to be in fifty years?
Maybe the vision is that of economic growth. Is it that we will get fifty per cent better efficiency from our machines – in 2065?
As compared to 2020? I wonder, if this is the kind of vision that gets you going. Will aluminum be even lighter? Gee, that is really exciting. If that is what persons live for, I’d like to find a new planet. So, then, I am asking: What is their vision? What do they want? Is there something they want? Something that will benefit all—-? something for the benefit of every one? All of us?
Do they just want to be in power? Yeah, I’ll bet—-in order not to be embarrassed.
In other words, do they want anything other than, Well—a good time for the next couple years? It amounts to asking whether they any better than any little dictator in some tropical country?
(written in response to my reading that they are getting closer to one another, Hillary and Kristol, and Hillary’s recent re-tweet of Kristol’s tweet)
What am I seeing everyday? It takes only a moment to see it, and I see it most clearly in a moment. To me it is very obvious, so I want to try to describe it.
I see (in a moment’s time) that we are not set up on the right social basis. I mean, in this country. OK, so what’s that all about? What’s a social basis?
The idea here is that everyone – and by implication every country – needs a social basis. This is just part of us. In general, this is how human life is everywhere. So, I think I am being pretty clear. And what you need is to have some solid ground. There your country and your culture stand. It is a social ground. It is a culture. A question of what kind of a culture you will have. What is on the ground? What ground is that?
You cannot tell in the US (US/America is my preferred term, “America” being generic to a good many not-US countries). And this is the problem I am talking about. US/America (my term) has this problem: no solid cultural ground. One faction wishes for us to live in some sort of super individualistic society. That may be some kind of idea or wish.
But that common ground is no extremist-individualistic one. Rather, we may understand it as being a country where the dominant societal forces or powers constantly try to impose certain ideas of super-individualism (this is obvious, merely by looking at advertising and looking at the public relations industry). Those ideas in turn are the reflection of the White Protestant culture. But it is true: individualism is an old cultural ideal in the West. Western people do have this tendency and I do not think you can get around it. There is no doubt, for example, that our country was formed upon a basis of individual freedom. Of that there is no doubt, but this should not be confused with a focus on individuals as if there were no groups. There was never the case where the normal obligations, which were welcome obligations, between member and group, were absent. Other than war. When the bastards need you for that – Well – for that they will call.
The following therefore applies. All government service becomes compromised, the country is based on idiotic, wrong ideas, and persons misunderstand the history of the country. And they misunderstand capitalism, too. Now, this system of capitalism is a very important part of America, to be sure. They are misunderstanding a lot, just about everything, it seems. BTW, we misunderstand the free enterprise system. We are saying it is individualistic. So it is not. It is not purely individualistic, thereby negating all need to even mention non-individualistic factors, although there are many.
The result is that persons cannot connect with liberals, and they cannot even with the conservatives. So: they vote for Trump.
There are some enormous misunderstandings.
Society has a strong desire to oppress but social systems are diverse and different, even where the distinction is between Florida and Illinois, or Chicago and Tampa Bay. So, there are differing social systems. A social system is how persons organize. They are different. What they have in common is a need to keep the poor bent over. That is Numero Uno. Some of the members of the society have more power, some less. That is the nature of things. It is that way everywhere. Isn’t that so? And for how long has that been going on I cannot say. I can say that at this time this society is not organized on the basis of maximum equality, nor of maximum creativity. Of course the society is a power system; some have much more than do others. I hope this does not come as too much of a surprise. To some of you more sensitive types.
We may say that society has a desire or a tendency to stop most persons who want to achieve or maximize their potential. It is, a little too dramatically, called “oppression” sometimes. Society is usually trying to oppress; only in some cases do these processes by which society puts its stamp on us try to aid. Maybe society also occasionally wants to aid us, the members of that society, or other societies, valiantly helping a country like Afghanistan. Gee that’s swell. Or other noble causes, whatever it is: Orphans in Somalia. So, I am being very cynical here, so, in general, there are different levels of power within the social group. Sometimes, elites actually fight over how to help us, the orphans.
And no doubt, this is where the bullshit comes. Although the truth is that the society only helps its constituent members some of the time, often only the powerful helping others of their own class, liberals claim to possess an abundant sense of virtue, saying they are trying to help – gosh – everybody! Even conservatives believe in it: some vague notion of equality is always attested to. It’s all just bullshit. I am being too cynical here, but it exists certainly and it is so American and you cannot get away from this display. It is saying: “We are Good,” and that is how Chomsky put it, actually, in one piece. My insight here is that, if you are a liberal, you do feel this way. You wish for there to be full equality. You see other persons and you wish them to be happy. True. Okay, but society has other things in mind.
Now. Does society have a mind? I don’t know if Carl Jung or Nietzsche are correct, but if they are, it has! This mass mind is powerful, and leaders (who are not to be confused with masses) are powerful. Even though US/America is a democracy, how much power do the leaders have? How much power leaders have seems like a dark and somber topic, really, something you should discuss when you talk around the campfire in the evening. Like science-fiction.
But a question may arise. As follows. Does capitalism give MAN (this is equivalent to “society,” as used!) control over his destiny? It certainly does not. Capitalism changes us, but we do not control those events that preceded us, and that got us here. Now the challenge is that, the capitalist period having already been bestowed, how can the social or political systems get a grip on it? So, that’s the question because only then will we finally be able to take over control of our own little destiny. We must never say “do not intervene in the market.” Because that’s stupid. It is a disgusting, abject capitulation to our own ignorance, actually. We should be looking for the right ways, for what are the suitable means to do this, and it is not easy. Difficult to do, but our destiny is to regulate it, intervene in it at some point, or modify. Let’s search for those tools. Let’s search with the same energy we would put into finding a filament for a light bulb or any other complex solution. Let’s not waste time on “don’t intervene in the market” because that is a nonsense mantra, an excuse for giving up.
Capitalism is full of unbelievably bad ideas. Businessmen and venture capitalists, on the other hand? Fuckinjj geniuses. Capitalism creates a culture of bad ideas. Let’s make money selling oil, and burn that oil until the atmosphere warms up. That’s the good old global warming philosophy. Trump called it that. Maybe we need some “good old global warming.” Tweet of late Dec., 2017. That’s not fake news. He wrote that, tweeted this message, which is a capitalist bad idea, or, in Trumpian, a BAD idea. I don’t know, you should ask genius don Trump. Or is it DON? I don’t know. I wouldn’t know; don’t have enough money.
Where Money Divides Itself Up
Where is the economy? Is it in the money or in the people who are dividing it up? This is an important question, from my economics point of view, which is a very original point of view indeed. Just a hard question to answer. Economics ain’t an easy subject. But the standard idea as it appears in our universities strikes me as entirely inadequate. I will try to get at what they claim. I translate into my own terminology. They are, in my words, claiming that the money divides itself up due to self-interest. They understand that people are involved. We need to note that. They know persons exist. Then, these persons — the economists — make an assumption. They claim that everyone is self-interested. Now I do not follow that, and I think the weaknesses of the approach are readily apparent. Everyone is (to use their term) “self-interested” and therefore they would be saying that the money divides up according to that. So, that’s their economic theory — that the money sort of divides itself up on its own! This is a very important point to voice here. I feel pretty clear about it. But we also need to consider what is the use in arguing with the members of the bizarre cult who believe this. And what do they believe? That self-interest could in any way whatsoever answer the question of distribution? Fool’s errand (both listening to them and being them.)
So, let’s just take persons out of the picture. Could it be that the money divides itself spontaneously? On its own? Now the discussion gets more interesting. We could say: No, because it (money) does not have a mind. But then how is it distributed? It has to be distributed out to persons. How is it divided amongst persons in a society? It is an interesting problem. This is a real problem because capitalism only gets to exist if this decision is made. Who makes it? The money does! In the social setting in which neoclassical economics arose it was getting itself distributed. And capitalism was growing. This is the kind of society that Marshall saw, in which this problem had to be answered. Those Marshall called the “professionals” were out to solve it. What I personally have no sympathy with, whatsoever, is the view that if we come up with some equations that solves the problem. I have a glimpse – I can sort of see how one could think that, but it seems completely deluded.
.What they were really doing was imposing a particular view, and that view was that of the individualist. Capitalism is not individualist, though. But, should one insist on individualism, it becomes a tough problem to solve. Neoclassical economics assumes individualism with no justification.
.Trade relations, by Marshall’s day, had been established. Once relations were established, persons spontaneously began helping each other. Not everybody wants this. The Western individualist instead has an austere, mechanical view. This is his view of how life “should” be. For him, this is how it “must” be. How things must be. These persons had no space in their minds for anything outside of individualism. Yet, they had to confront reality.
.What these persons were confronted with was a developing market reality, and, what was motivating them? I think the real aim is to solve this problem of economics without saying that humans are socially motivated. They are willing to tackle economics matters only so long as human goodness or social feeling is not part of it. One could argue that that wouldn’t be scientific. So, we want to stay closer to science. In one book I saw, in a library, the assertion is that things occur by the “Laws” of economics. There are just Laws out there and it works by those Laws. Interesting that no one says that anymore. It sounds archaic. Somehow.
.My theory is that economics (meaning capitalism) functions because of goodwill, which is totally different from self-interest. One can discern that such a “social” idea could be threatening, to some Erroll Flynn millionaire, slashing his way forth in selfish splendor. But, once again, defer to science. Which alternative explanations exist? How do cooperation and goodwill solve the problem? What does the existence of goodwill explain?
As I indicated above, the money actually was getting divided up, the proletariat were not sinking ever deeper into misery. Something was happening. Capitalism was working. It wasn’t simply a Malthusian death trap. It is a very interesting problem. In trying to get rich, why would anyone share his gains with any other person? By the 1870s, this seemed to be happening. Capitalism was beginning to pay a living wage, instead of just sending its working class to the graveyard. To explain this directly, the scholars of economics would have had to discuss public (Speenhamland laws) or private social behaviors. The neoclassical school, in my view, was simply made up of persons who did not want to think that way. Those who were more oriented towards social policy may have become “socialists.” And this would seem to divide up the economic thinkers rather neatly.
In order to analyze economics, one must find it. How elusive is this? Start with the condition of nature, the conditions found in nature. There are resources; and they have to be divided up. There are two elements of this condition or situation. There are persons, and there is the physical setting the people are in. This called “nature” or “resources.” (t.b.c.)
I was browsing, at the library…
I was casually browsing at a local library where I picked up a book off the display. I am concerned with “messages” and how they come packaged. Browsing a book this way, I am getting that package. The books of a society make for a package. This is so we can promote our values. Pick up your read. If you take your pick out of the libraries, or bricks-and-mortar stores, your interactions are more tangible. The whole experience that comes is a tangible whole. I think Amazon understands this. Because, accordingly, there is now physical representation, on 34th street, for your experience of Amazon books in New York City in a more tangible way.
When books are marketed like this there’s more interaction and this provides a path towards seeing what printers and manufacturers want out of us. It provides a way to understand what the book printers and makers and publishers desire, want, or need to say. How they are programming us. It is not exactly a benign social intervention. The book I was looking at, for example, was by someone named Brannen. The title said, “The End of…” Ends of the… world. It has a nice pleasant colorful cover. The world may come to an end. That could be. But, still… all is well. All these kinds of books basically say: “All’s well. The world goes on, everything’s fine, books come out…” I hope you’re having a nice time. The world works well; we are going to put out some nice books. The Ends of the world…Ha! -this is quite clever.
This marketing provides me with information, and no less so than do words. These are messages, you could say. Both are messages. They are the words in the book, arranged by the clever writer and the marketing, arranged by clever publishing firm. These are in the package, together. The marketing aspect, including the “buyer experience,” contains a message. And so does the stuffed-up, official content. Both are together. There is one package, and many.
Why should we think any differently? A book is packaged content. It has something to say in words. Okay, and that is the text. Or we call that the book’s “argument.” That is one argument, or one phase of the argument. That is a message, one transmission. A particular book’s content/argument is just one message among many. An individual, any individual, in the course of life, gets millions of messages. That’s all the society does, is to send messages. And do you think the recipient of all of the messages keeps the marketing and the content separate? Or is the “marketing” a cultural element, mixed with other cultural characteristics?
It must be hard for persons to admit the truth of this. But it is about time that we face up to the way we receive the messages transmitted to us, within U. S. culture.
But why bother to say “U. S.” culture? It probably has been no different at any time in history since Gutenberg’s press. I think what is different is that the U. S. has been organized as a democracy and its people are subject to these forces. They will have a job to do, in the next election. We have a responsibility to carry out a certain mandate.
Intellectuals need to come off the high road: they should possess a broader understanding of cultural forces. Come off the high road, get your feet wet.
The College of Arts and Sciences. That’s where you can find some top professors who excel at what they do. They are so excellent and they try to be as profound as possible. The country, however, has gone another way. Our US/America wants things simple. And modern, and sleek. Newspapers feature – it be a new breed of intellectuals now – a new kind of “abbreviated” writing. The writers use unexamined assumptions. They offer vague approximations. They believe they can make writerly use of thee unexamined assumptions. Why not? Hey, it works? Anything. To flesh out my style, Master. What they are writing is the current, new style. Over at the university there is another style of scholarly practice. But it certainly must be dying. Anyways: who exactly is reading? Who was reading? The fact is they are not getting read. There is no great number of people reading. And so: It has been having no influence for some time now. Time and society. All moves on.
There is this older kind of text, then and concerning this one, then. It attempts to dig into details: but in a meaningful way; it attempts to notice all of the distinctions, but with maximum precision. US/America is a capitalist country. Increasingly, the only thing we can discern that matters is money, which is like saying that we cannot see other things and the country is finally responding to the market and it is moving towards a different kind of writing. And taking society along. No, you are not just individuals. You are not now, and were not. Even in earlier markets, capitalism is not to be reduced this way, even earlier. Never mind forever. The old forms of scholarly enterprise are being replaced. My take here is that the new, younger, and rather abbreviated forms of intellect are clearly less precise. It’s the new trend, though. Popular? You bet. You can’t fight the new trend. Scholarship in decline, but the society is in capitalism. And the society is a market. (But you knew that, right?) It is society that is implicated (try to blame individuals, I want to see it) in this phenomenon, a market demand. Its the market, stupid. So, it is a social demand, a trend. But no, it is not merely individual or just the individuals. Those sitting in high places are gatekeepers of the culture you can say – these eminent social beings are now forced to give in. This being the commercial demand of the society. Yours.
Excellent scholars exist – like jewels in lotuses – – – – But lonely jewels. No one is listening to them, and no one praying to them.
All the mainstream economics jargon in the books looks at markets as if the phenomenon were somehow a kind of individualism, but a moment’s reflection should suffice! A reasonable person will no doubt discern that what we call “economics” exists socially. The basic word should imply social things. But we are not supposed to say that; and this is not in the books, so you already know that the book will put emphasis on the individual economic actor, and testify before the entire College of Arts and Sciences that such a person is, as far as economics goes, unconnected to others. That view is contrary to reality. Why is there this project to reduce the kinds of things called “economics” to an individual level? , Once you see through this, It is astounding. So, try this example that I provide: How can a market be one individual? Or only individuals? But we know these books, and the books (look like they think) appear to believe that the entire market is only individuals. It isn’t true! Why this brazen mistake? My view, which I do not think is crazy, is that a whole society is now choosing to lower its standard in regard to writing. But, if that is not the decision of one individual, it is capitalism. And if we do look over at the individuals we see a few remaining “old-fashioned scholars,” and their editors perhaps, who would like to extend the “ancien re~/gime.” And all that is left are a few tottering old kings. And then. Let’s be modern. Markets are not individual. You are an individual, that is all. Capitalism thinks socially; it always has. But not you; so, of course! You do not like the social thing.
Do not try to control the science of economics, just because you are an individual.
The only way to describe the “science of economics” is pernicious, and “ideology.”
Ah, ideology. Cut n paste that word, and throw it around now.
There is a big, daunting question and we have to ask it. This is a question about America, and the American system. It is could stop functioning. This can happen. The more the people of the U S. stick to outdated economics (there is a semi-official thought pattern called “economics” that is in my view a false system or thought system. I developed my view over ten or fifteen years), the faster and worse such a daunting crisis will come to be. It will come, if we just don’t do anything. And this has been my view, and for even longer than I have had the unique theory I have achieved, I have had that idea. Now I have some specifics, ideas in an area that is called ‘economics’. So, maybe it is not if but “When”? These thought patterns are like the American institutions, institutions like for example the corporations. I speak to them and of economic thought patterns surrounding their existence. This is the established way of American life in thought. This is unfortunate. We are stuck on it, and it is past the time when the habits of the mind, habits that we are so stuck in, are even working. These established institutional thought patterns need to be questioned; and they need to be given up on. Dropped. It doesn’t seem that difficult but what if we fail to make the required policy changes? What if the U. S. continues to be obstinate, stupid, and entrenched? The economic propaganda will turn on us. In time, this set of peculiarly American, entrenched assumptions and institutions, even as they helped build our capitalist system, will no longer work, it will turn on us. We had better believe that it can happen. However it is not, somehow, the “American way” to question our “peculiar institution.” Not slavery. I do not mean slavery. Not this time. Because, that one everyone questions.
But in this country nobody believes the peculiar institutions that embody a theory about “economics” are not correct or appropriate. They do not believe in changing their views and it becomes something very serious. There are certainly many reasons. Here’s one, then, a reasonable one at that. We can see that capitalism has lasted longer than anyone thought possible. Sure, that is a sort of reason not to criticize it. Tthere are such reasons, some of them good, but American thought patterns – they can be sorta narrow?
Why are they so intent on supplying that laundry list (e.g., the list of selected “reasons”) rather than using a different brand, a detergent not endorsed by the major corporations?
We are depending on the world views of a few persons, and what “Salon” magazine says are: “10 giant corporations that control, either directly or indirectly, virtually everything we buy.” That is not competition.
That is not diversity.
It’s dumb and it is not a good way of preparing for the future.
(thank you WordPress 4 letting me publish)