I have just moved into a new place. It is a studio apartment basically. I am experiencing a more high-class type of existence since I am right next to the university and not only that but right across from the research library. That is where I do my work sometimes. What I do is economics. It is my own version of economics. I am a private scholar. And I have some observations --rather a question, about my new neighborhood and about the world.
In the world we live in, what makes a person a good person? Our world of course can be something like our culture or our society. It can be our society. Other languages, like French or German, are better at dealing with the signifier of "society" than English. I would assume there are some peculiarly American or Anglo-American reasons for the denuding of the concept and the refusal to assign a valid set of words. Whatever that reason is, it is still fully obvious that humans have got to live in some kind of an environment and to get at this with the best term, we may choose and revert to: "society."
So, what makes a person a good person in the world, or in our world? It really seems to me that the best answer one can give to this question is this: simply if one has money, he is a good person. Of course that is a bit simplistic. I know it. But we are trying to get at the truth of capitalism: with the abolition of class, not much else identifies the individual as respectable ---- it is the matter of whether there is money in your pocket.
And that is my basic observation. What implications flow from this supposition? What we are saying is that this is about all that identifies one as a good person, in society, or better put: higher society. We are really asking about "good" society and "high" society. Because it works differently in the ghetto. There personal relations come into it.
Before this week, I was living in a bit of a borderline ghetto. Something like that. Now I would say that I would seem to be around a lot of high class persons. What makes them the good people? It's kind o' hard to figure out. I just hope I am one.
I intend to work really hard, in my new surroundings, and I'll do it by trying to do better at being an economics theorist, which I am doing in some sense for (by) myself. So, maybe: being a good person is strictly internal, subjective. This idea makes sense.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
I have a newspaper in my hands...
I have a newspaper put out by our community in Madison ("community" meaning the whole freaking liberal town) and it's got an article with quotes from James Galbraith and William Stigli, two economists who are willing to tell the truth with a minimum of jargon.
Some matters involved in economics do not hardly even require any kind of technical talk or anything subtle or hard to get that we cannot figure out for ourselves. Of course you do need at least a third-grade education. Is that too much to ask?
For example what is the antonym of the terms one hears of or reads in the newspapers' accounts of our world, such as "toxic" or, James Galbraith says, "poison?" The proper antonyms are "exhuberance" , "hyperactive" and "bubble." "Hyperactive" and "exhuberant" (this is actually Greenspan's famous term) mean that you really, really want to get close to something and "poison" means you really, really want to avoid it.
They were printing free money and they were raking in free money an' that was the fake, toxic bubble that burst! It's really, really simple - once you understand it. It is most interesting, really, that the economists don't. And that's all I am going to say right here!
How much does it take before we realize these economists (some of these economists I should say) are bullshitting us? A failed bank ought to be nationalized. That is not hard to get, even if they won't "get it." Or is someone going to buy it? But why would you buy something that only represents money (and is a failure at that)? Give me a break. The economists have their (ahem!)
head completely up their asses. I guess that when you're in the dark crack hole of self-deception (as least Mr. Bush required the actual material drug substances) you just cannot see the money on the wall.
Message for the economists: You are in the dark. Take your head out of your ass and start thinking for a change.
All the words are lies. The language is fake. Why would anyone buy a business that is "toxic"?
It's an assault on language basically, not just on your pocket book. This is, in fact, a matter that I have probed to some degree.
Some matters involved in economics do not hardly even require any kind of technical talk or anything subtle or hard to get that we cannot figure out for ourselves. Of course you do need at least a third-grade education. Is that too much to ask?
For example what is the antonym of the terms one hears of or reads in the newspapers' accounts of our world, such as "toxic" or, James Galbraith says, "poison?" The proper antonyms are "exhuberance" , "hyperactive" and "bubble." "Hyperactive" and "exhuberant" (this is actually Greenspan's famous term) mean that you really, really want to get close to something and "poison" means you really, really want to avoid it.
They were printing free money and they were raking in free money an' that was the fake, toxic bubble that burst! It's really, really simple - once you understand it. It is most interesting, really, that the economists don't. And that's all I am going to say right here!
How much does it take before we realize these economists (some of these economists I should say) are bullshitting us? A failed bank ought to be nationalized. That is not hard to get, even if they won't "get it." Or is someone going to buy it? But why would you buy something that only represents money (and is a failure at that)? Give me a break. The economists have their (ahem!)
head completely up their asses. I guess that when you're in the dark crack hole of self-deception (as least Mr. Bush required the actual material drug substances) you just cannot see the money on the wall.
Message for the economists: You are in the dark. Take your head out of your ass and start thinking for a change.
All the words are lies. The language is fake. Why would anyone buy a business that is "toxic"?
It's an assault on language basically, not just on your pocket book. This is, in fact, a matter that I have probed to some degree.
They Create Myths
Obviously, the one who "isn't making sense" is me, since I just doubled my own post. The one for April 29 doubles another one. So what.
Well, here' today's post:
They create myths. Myths are good. At least they are real structures.
Intellectual structures. These are intellectual structures. There are, it seems, material as well as intellectual structures. Thirdly there is just blank ignorance.
For ex. the intellectual idea is that there's this free market or this economic thing out there. And so forth...until we have built a little Hansel & Gretel fairy tale. The "free person" goes out and "gets a job."
But there is one thing that's not a myth and that is that this world is built on sickness and corruption.
One never, eve, ever gets a job in a free market. The free market may exist to an extent, but it doesn't sell persons jobs. That's crazy.
On the other hand, I suppose all societies need their myths.
(p.s. this seems like it would be good with the post from February 23)
Well, here' today's post:
They create myths. Myths are good. At least they are real structures.
Intellectual structures. These are intellectual structures. There are, it seems, material as well as intellectual structures. Thirdly there is just blank ignorance.
For ex. the intellectual idea is that there's this free market or this economic thing out there. And so forth...until we have built a little Hansel & Gretel fairy tale. The "free person" goes out and "gets a job."
But there is one thing that's not a myth and that is that this world is built on sickness and corruption.
One never, eve, ever gets a job in a free market. The free market may exist to an extent, but it doesn't sell persons jobs. That's crazy.
On the other hand, I suppose all societies need their myths.
(p.s. this seems like it would be good with the post from February 23)
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
A Quick Rant, Or would that be Rave?
Some persons are pretending they know what they are doing but it doesn't make sense. How can you know what you are doing when -- ...when the economic policy of the country is to give away money and not to the people who comprise the population of the country so that they can conduct their business affairs but rather it is given to the rich. These social institutions are called "private" businesses, but now that they lost ten or even one hundred billion (one thousand million) or more dollars we now know that they are not because the state has intervened, so for sure they are not. They lost this money in what had up until the other day been universally understood as what was called the market system. This was the language, this was what they said, until Just The Other Day. The "conservative" faction of government said that they had been supporting, or proclaiming, the whole set of values called market. But then they focused on just one part of the market system and bailed just that part out. The distinction between "pro-market" conservatives and "regulators" didn't matter either, at this point. Not only the "conservatives" but all the others as well jumped on the bandwagon to bail out the wealthy people. So, it everyone is doing the same thing, does that make it right?
The bail-out also does not make sense even from the logical point of view. say that because it is not logical to say the loans will be repaid. But since loans out now are not being repaid the new ones won't either: By what means would the new loans be repaid, if the present ones cannot be?
Kind of looks like a massive social dysfunction.
The bail-out also does not make sense even from the logical point of view. say that because it is not logical to say the loans will be repaid. But since loans out now are not being repaid the new ones won't either: By what means would the new loans be repaid, if the present ones cannot be?
Kind of looks like a massive social dysfunction.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Credit Crunch
Martin Wolfe, FT, discusses one Simon Johnson, of the “Sloan School.” The paragraph that follows is an excerpt from Wolfe’s column on-line:
" “In its depth and suddenness,” argues Prof Johnson, “the US economic and financial crisis is shockingly reminiscent of moments we have recently seen in emerging markets.” The similarity is evident: large inflows of foreign capital; torrid credit growth; excessive leverage; bubbles in asset prices, particularly property; and, finally, asset-price collapses and financial catastrophe. "
(JS) No doubt it is similar. Why would it work the same way? It works the same way because there is no one in charge, and the principle is that of capitalism itself, not some particular policy or doctrine like the doctrine of a national leader or national party. Rather it is a set of principles called “the market” or free trade or capitalism. The basic rules of the game are the rules of capitalism. What the principle is not is the ideology of the Republicans or the Democrats in the U. S. Now I didn't say that capitalism was good ...
And I do not recall saying either that all we need is to not intervene, or that all we need to do is listen to the farthest Right Republican around, or to the standard wisdom of the economics pundit industry. I didn't say any of that. Did I?
" “In its depth and suddenness,” argues Prof Johnson, “the US economic and financial crisis is shockingly reminiscent of moments we have recently seen in emerging markets.” The similarity is evident: large inflows of foreign capital; torrid credit growth; excessive leverage; bubbles in asset prices, particularly property; and, finally, asset-price collapses and financial catastrophe. "
(JS) No doubt it is similar. Why would it work the same way? It works the same way because there is no one in charge, and the principle is that of capitalism itself, not some particular policy or doctrine like the doctrine of a national leader or national party. Rather it is a set of principles called “the market” or free trade or capitalism. The basic rules of the game are the rules of capitalism. What the principle is not is the ideology of the Republicans or the Democrats in the U. S. Now I didn't say that capitalism was good ...
And I do not recall saying either that all we need is to not intervene, or that all we need to do is listen to the farthest Right Republican around, or to the standard wisdom of the economics pundit industry. I didn't say any of that. Did I?
Friday, April 10, 2009
Reality Therapy Needed
The problem is not that prices are going up --- or down. The problem is that nothing is real.
Sorry: but an economy needs reality. I really hate to be the one to break the news to you, but perhaps this is the truth.
check out the WSJ, for Friday, April 10, then. There's a front page article here on the economy of India, an economy where there is real need; raw, actual need. There is a real need for more material wealth for their poor people, and, apparently, they are being enabled, so to speak, to get more wealth. Some kind of process is being put into place, that have provided some real benefit in a case where it is not an abstraction, or a theory. No, it's a raw, human need, that exists. How can such a benefit obtain in this case, without complex financial instruments. How can anyone help the real economic problems of Indians, without things like derivatives and what not? How can it be done without the likes of George Soros and the like? How would you do that? This is happening without the concurrent enrichment of George Soros. Wonder how you do that?
I am so clueless. But I can thing, and I suppose you would have to put money and resources in the hands of the poor people of India. Then you would let them work to create the goods that they need to live on. Does that make sense? Is that really possible? Does that sound like "economics" to you? This is economics on the material level. Do economists study that? Do they study that ---- as much as they study other things?
Sorry: but an economy needs reality. I really hate to be the one to break the news to you, but perhaps this is the truth.
check out the WSJ, for Friday, April 10, then. There's a front page article here on the economy of India, an economy where there is real need; raw, actual need. There is a real need for more material wealth for their poor people, and, apparently, they are being enabled, so to speak, to get more wealth. Some kind of process is being put into place, that have provided some real benefit in a case where it is not an abstraction, or a theory. No, it's a raw, human need, that exists. How can such a benefit obtain in this case, without complex financial instruments. How can anyone help the real economic problems of Indians, without things like derivatives and what not? How can it be done without the likes of George Soros and the like? How would you do that? This is happening without the concurrent enrichment of George Soros. Wonder how you do that?
I am so clueless. But I can thing, and I suppose you would have to put money and resources in the hands of the poor people of India. Then you would let them work to create the goods that they need to live on. Does that make sense? Is that really possible? Does that sound like "economics" to you? This is economics on the material level. Do economists study that? Do they study that ---- as much as they study other things?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)