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.

Big and Little (hero-es to hero-in)

People engaged in the economy act like they have something important going on. It’s hustle and bustle, it is people moving about with purpose. Or so it seems. They all seem to think they are so important. There are the meetings to attend and the new product lines that are coming out. All the new, cutting-edge ways of “being in the economy,” as this translates to the world of the active, engaged movers and shakers. They are marketing new products; they are thinking up new advertising jingles, too. This is the world, the capitalist world we live in – even if we ourselves are not the kind of people I characterize above, the so-called major players.

Entrepreneurs find new ways to prosper, injecting themselves into financial networks like little bedbugs, sucking up some portions of the blood of the network fibers. Yes, I have been to New York and I have heard ‘em talkin’. In an open society, one may hear. After all, there is a public market, and talking may be witnessed. Maybe I do not know much; but I have heard them talking. Carl Sandburg seems to have done alright with that method.

Some of these persons are too boring even to listen in on, actually. When you hear them talk, what is it? It is actually that they are socializing. They place great importance on commerce. They place important on socializing.

YOU think all this is important. WE think so, too. They are busy with food, and drink, movies, and T. V. Western Civilization depends on this. We are instructed to believe persons who live in the cities, and watching T.V. makes the economy great. So, then, you are important. Aren’t you?

Now see the ghetto, the workers. And the heroin.

Theory may…

Theory may be an experience of comparative approaches. Could one get “theory of art” just from looking at covers of books on theory of art, not opening the books? As a result of the former means, just looking at covers, one would see all the approaches. How should we “approach” art?

If you see all the approaches to something you get the theory or the overview you need. You could arrive at a theory, by such means. You get the theory of the thing being treated, which is, in this case, art. What you get is that way is theory.

Required here is the study of theory and truth. Plus, it sounds really high-brow! Truth is hard to get at. Not to disparage the Western scientific approach. But, it is. It is helpful to see that theory is, actually, theory and not some kind of topic for Ph.D’s alone. Theory is just a theory. It isn’t truth. Or you would call it that. Rather than the truth it is the opposite of truth. It is not truth; it is not truth, either, by the way. You say “theory” because it is not truth. Not because it is. If it was truth you were speaking, you would say “truth,” not “the theory of…” So, when we say “theory” we should remember: it is indeed “just a theory.” Theory means theory. Is that too hard to believe?

Now, we could say that much of life is just a theory. So, what we are doing is that we call it “truth” sometimes and we call it “theory” sometimes, and when we call it “theory” we are just getting kind of fancy and trying to be scientific and in thinking our theories are “scientific” it therefore must be some kind of specialized new truth. But truth actually remains elusive. Since the truth remains elusive anyhow, when you try to get at the true “theory of art” skip all the words and just look at all the book covers related to theory of art; you get the theory of art…

Image result for theory of art, book coverImage result for theory of art, book cover

Image result for theory of art, book cover

Image result for theory of art, book cover