Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Maggie and Margaret; part 2

What we are saying here is that whether Hayek is there or not it is the same path that history takes us down. Hayek or someone is a commentator. He is just talking about capitalism; not doing it. This is because capitalism does itself. History would have worked out the same. So, my thinking is this. What does Hayek have to do with it? He is just a commentator. When other persons invoke the commentator it is the same -- just another layer of rhetorical invocation. Whether Thatcher and Reagan invoke him or whether they do not everything is much the same. This is the historical power of capitalism. We would still be "on Maggie's Farm," and that is because that is history and that is fate. I do not know what Dylan meant exactly by the song's line, saying "I don't want to work on Maggie's Farm no more." But: there would still be fewer and fewer alternatives to free-market capitalism. We would still have gotten cornered into this system. So, in that context, I am asking: what does Hayek have to do with it?!!

Capitalism must have some kind of power and the question is that of our understanding of the why or the how of this system. One discussion we might focus on is that of the destruction of humanity. What I have come to believe over a number of years as an economic theorist is that the best thing is to intervene in the system. The question is that of how you do that. (Especially since others are now saying the same thing as I.)
Now, let's return to the original topic like a nice essay. Hayek is not causal. He is a commentator. History has taken us down a particular path. The crucial factors for making a meaningful intervention are our understanding and our honesty.
See you next time.

Friday, September 19, 2008

Maggie's Farm

Please note, this is my first post. I may get tired of seeing that word "economics" up there so then I will just change it. I am not real good at that kind of stuff. Just to introduce myself to the police and so forth, who monitor these things to make sure no one rescinds their right to torture people, I am an original economic theorist. You may get to know my ideas little by little but I am not going to give it away right off the top. This is not I do not think the place for that. My name is Jack Silverman and I am from the Midwest. Another Midwestern musician said that too, once...

...listening to a bad version (probably Bob Dylan himself or rather Zimmerman) of "Maggie's Farm" - thinking if they played it too while Margaret Thatcher was in office (as P.M. of G. B'tain. Cap'n of the ship. "Maggie.")

...thinking too of the kind of social theorist someone like Hayek was. Now Thatcher would invoke people of that school, which is to say someone like Hayek. I believe that Reagan too would invoke Hayek this way.

They may say that this makes a difference but I honestly don't see one. There is an ongoing cultural conflict. There are two sides to this cultural conflict. Now one of these may be represented by workers, unemployed, peasants in third-World countries, refugees and for example socialist persons, and on the other side of that dialectic is "successful" persons. You know - people with good jobs, creative careers, owners of money and real estate, etc. There are always those who are unfriendly to the economic system - who feel it is a pile of crap.

So, Hayek was not one of those of course. But my point is: what is the difference whether we invoke Hayek's type or not? Things still go along on more or less the same path, anyways. This is the salient point...(t.b.c.)

[p.s. thanks for reading. Now pay me! See? I too am hip.]