The New, Modern, Sleek Writing Style

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.


Corporations and American Life

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)

Fit to be printed…and Tied

What is the real feeling I am getting, this trip in Manhattan? As I know it is one very central place, and what is happening is that institutions interact. They cohabit the place. The place: the urban setting.

The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are located in the heart of New York. What it is they feel is “fit to print” I don’t know. But whatever it is it does not even reflect their own city.

And the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page? Such garbage!

There is some difference that one may feel, between the social milieu (“atmosphere” is a word I use here) and our narrow, propagandistic thought-doctrine. What I am saying is that we are not being true to our own system.
     There is the thought system of capitalism and the reality of capitalism.

Economic Theory Contribution for my reader

The influence of Standard Oil executive, Henry Flagler, is still palpable in St. Augustine today. He is largely responsible for the “look” of the town. In the 1800’s Flagler built two hotels across from one other. These properties became the playgrounds for wealthy East Coast socialites, who came for the warm weather in the winter months. One hotel now houses City Hall and the Lightner Museum

Here is a man doing much business. His activities seem connected to Rockefeller. Isn’t it Standard Oil that Rockefeller was in charge of? I think he owned it. But maybe the shareholders do. But here is a man destroying the environment, creating an oil empire, a monopoly, as we know, and doing whatever else those capitalists actually do. But then again he subsidized a nice city, which, after all, is a place for persons to live. Making a nice little Florida community. This does not destroy anyone. Arguably.

This represents what I think of as the two sides of capitalism, or two faces of capitalism, and this is called, in my system, the hybridity of it. That is why this system is so resilient and survived. Long-lived.

To understand, you need to be able to make the connection to people’s lives. This is key. This seems to be the trick to my system of thinking about capitalism. I wonder if I can get other persons to see it the way I do!

An American Treatise

We need to make it possible for interesting coincidences to happen. It needs to happen, to be able to happen. Stuff that is totally “by accident,” like an idea; or, a hit song. But for that we need an “unregulated” world. OK, so that is a valid idea and this we need.

Accidents need to be to happen, really. But what does this have to do with economics? I have no idea really.

What we need is to learn about economics. But for real this time. As it is, economics is a basic mystery. There may be certain complex reasons that this particular ignorance spot exists in the culture, but also it is p ossible to inquire into that. Is it time to do it?

Once we know more, once we inquire more, then – I am sure – it will no longer be so “unregulated.”

University jobs (a short excerpt)

Most things we know are right there before us. We know it in the immediate sense, or you can say, in the moment. In addition to that kind of knowledge there is the claim that there is something else to know beyond the immediate. This claim is usually made in the universities, but many things do not work that way. If we look at how many things work we see that what we know right away, up front, without getting into any problems or having any worries or doubts, it is quite a lot of our total experienced cognition as humans. So, the idea still comes up, when it comes up, that there is a further, or a deeper, level. Why not? Additional knowledge is possible beyond the things we know in the moment, beyond what we know in the immediate sense. But all of it is still rather far away from seeing “red” while knowing it is “red.” What red “really” is doesn’t matter.

It seems plausible that the higher level, the university knowledge, exists. But explicitly starting through the consideration that much knowledge is just “right there” is a good way to evaluate these additional claims to knowledge to separate them from the immediate level. After all, all the other stuff may be there to create jobs. In a society that relies so much on jobs, there might be the condition where something (like pretense of deep knowing?) could become valued merely for that very reason. This could happen; we are stuck with a society that depends on jobs. If the structure of society depends on jobs, whatever it is that creates jobs eventually becomes considered in a favorable light, regardless of the real knowledge (if any) being encountered or discovered. Thus. the institution of universities might become an end in itself. And consider that the idea of additional knowledge beyond the immediate is essential, for any such job to even exist. What is really going on? What kinds of knowledge come, then, from the institutions of the university?

Are they doing anything aside from showing all of us how well they can spell and use the comma?

In other words, we can say that these jobs produce a kind of smooth speech. Is that all? But what, then, if that is 99.5% of it? Then we could give Einstein and Freud a break, but then we would also be able get on with the job of creating of all those jobs that society needs. Or thinks it needs. How to account for all of “the rest of it”?

How lopsided are social groupings under capitalism? What is the social value of, say – a bad musician? How many heavy metal groups does society really need? These are some questions. Should we have so many T.V. weathermen? Or do you not need one? Or do you need only one for each area? To know which way the wind blows? Every circus needs a clown, but does every T.V. station need a weatherman?

(Obviously I am going over the top, and far exceeding my original concept, ‘a short excerpt.’ Maybe I should have quit while I was ahead. Or, maybe one of my readers can write the next part; your contribution will certainly be valued. If it has any real value, that is to say, outside the immediate?…)

Capitalism’s Foibles, in Various Stripes


Capitalism is not just of one kind. There were several books that came out on that theme about five years ago. This is the theme of multiple capitalisms. And many persons have noted the progressiveness of capitalism, which is to say that the kinds are also in reference to time. These changing kinds or periods have been occurring since Adam Smith wrote “Wealth of…” and Schumpeter also mentions this fact, characterizing capitalism as changing. Capitalism, therefore, is “progressive.”

Regarding the kind of capitalism we have now, there are many things that are being done at present that are absurd. We act in certain specific ways. There are general characteristics by which we call a system capitalist and there are specific characteristics to specific styles or periods of capitalism, and at the present time we are following the absurd practice of completely ignoring the practice of giving, in favor of only selling things. It is perfectly human to do both. Some things are sold, and others (including things you use at the job for example) are given. It is absurd to ignore one and only acknowledge the other. We have an intolerance of the idea of giving anything without being paid, and if this is not balanced by acceptance that there are many things that are given things, we for example end up with no friends, and why is that? It is because everyone knows you cannot buy friendship. Well, that is true. So, in the present capitalism, why have friends? What good would that do? And few persons in the society do today. Even such small acts of friendship or affection that may have occurred between customers and shopkeepers are more rare. We buy more things in a completely impersonal way. For instance, at McDonalds. In we go. We have no personal involvement or contact with the clerk who takes our order. The same goes for fancier places, although the higher the prices, the more they pretend to be your friend. That is just fake friendliness; that is what happens in this stage of capitalism. This comprises just one absurd characteristic of the present kind of life we lead under the general class of capitalist systems.

Also, in this system that places the most value on selling things we never stop at a reasonable number of such things. No, we want to sell more and more. If a company does not continually increase its sales, it might be a target of take-over. It also has to sell more and more while charging less and less. If it cannot do that, it is said not to be competitive!

This does not sound crazy to us because we believe the “folklore” about capitalism that is the topic of Thurman Arnold’s 1937 book. These particular beliefs and behaviors, which is to say using certain ideas and valuing particular sorts of behaviors, made one kind of sense when they were first practiced, but  they make another kind of sense today – or, perhaps they make no sense. Capitalism is quite the expert at switching one thing for another. This happens in a variety of ways, including ideologically.

Another characteristic of capitalism that is especially prominent today is that it wants to have specific products on the shelf that you can choose from. We have many, many examples of any one sort of product, all very similar but with slightly different features. The makers love to throw all these varieties at us. For example, you cannot just eat potato chips anymore. They come in twelve different flavors. And capitalist production goes on whether on not you need the product, and whether or not it does anybody any good or not. And whether it does earth’s environment any good or not. So, there are many things about capitalism that are quite off-the-charts absurd, but the system nevertheless continues. We do not dwell on these absurd aspects very much. Rather we seem to accept this particular way of life. Who cares about the absurds? The food still works for us, and capitalism has not killed us – not yet.