Sharing and Caring 2

individual giving is not enough. There has to be a public policy, shared by all advanced, productive nations. In such a policy all of us share together.

It has to be public. It has to be done all together, and each nation would then offer an appropriate share.

What would happen if that were done? It would be a two part capitalism. Some of the products that the advanced, developed capitalistic countries create would be traded in the usual manner but another set of products would be designated to benefit those in the globalized world who are malnourished.

Every time some factory worker would spend the day making some product, he or she would know that some portion would go to help the needy.

The "giver" is developed-world capitalism ITSELF. The "receiver" is anyone who is left out, or deprived, by capitalism and by globalization.

This policy would mean that the entire world would participate in capitalism, which is to say meaningfully, not merely as victim-members. What does "participate" mean, in terms of capitalism? It should mean that you get something from it.

Reich, Silverman

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/robert_reich/2009/03


Robert Reich:
"Is Obama responsible for the meltdown of the Dow? The consistently wrong-headed Wall Street Journal's editorial page says so, as does Republican Fox News, CNN's reliably demagogic Lou Dobbs, and now CNBC (where, full disclosure, I frequently appear as a token liberal). CNBC's Jim Cramer, who bloviates nightly about stock picks, says Obama is pushing a "radical agenda" that's destroying investor's wealth. My friend Larry Kudlow, who rants nightly about nearly everything, says Obama is destroying capitalism. CNBC reporter Rick Santelli's ballistic nonsense about Obama's mortgage plan made him a pop-populist icon for a week or so."

Jack Silverman:
They have false theories.
What is the case if people dont know anything but they still want to talk? If people don't know what they are talking but still need, or want, to talk about whatever is the subject --- economics, for example --- they simply make up things. This is what Lou Dobbs, Jim Cramer, Larry Kudlow and others (I don't really know Santelli) are doing. They don't know anything about economics because NOBODY knows anything about economics. Except for you, if you read this blog.

Sharing and Caring

In a society that has so much wealth, what kind of people are we that we do not share it?

Capitalism: is it about humans or numbers?

Our system is capitalism. It is a human social organizational system. It is what you do with people. It is not what you do with numbers or math.

When you have a lot of people you need to do something with them. Western man, in the Europe that formed itself from the medieval age on, found that trade was more effective than warfare. War is simply too violent. Trade works better.

With the increasing reliance upon trade instead of solely upon violence or war, what developed is the kind of human system called "capitalism."

We ought to regard capitalism, therefore, as a resource. It comes about through causes, not because of some "facts" that "exist" in the abstract world of mathamatics.

Miller Time

Here I am sitting at the Starbucks. The inspectors have been sent by headquarters to obsess on displays.

They have the self-assured poise of them that know they are in control.

They are the totally irrational types who manifest displays of nonstop talk in an attempt at sequential rationality.
Or should I say Irrationality? It is an effort to self-display their normality. Their rationality or their normality.
Ah, but we are all normal my inspector friends, and we always were. We always were.

Nothing they do makes any sense but this Starbucks shall survive another day.

[yr. author has just realized that irrational blog posts are harder to write than rational ones. let's not try too hard to figure this out, though, OK?]

Shy Asian Man

The Asians brought themselves into capitalism. There's a way to do that. This has been demonstrated by certain Asian tigers-or-pussycats. They did bring themselves into modernity --- or capitalistical-ness.

They did. But, Um----what have the Koreans or Chinese got?

What kind of timid persons are they creating? Why did they made the basic choice to adopt capitalism? Nothing else to do? So? What they got?

I pity the rulers who have to figure out what to do with huge populations. They have to administrate nations totally teeming with persons. Then again, once it is democracy you have, you cannot say you "pity" them --- because they ran voluntarily.

I met a Korean man today; he turned out to be so timid, I thought. I though him terrible shy. About 18 yrs. old. Fashionably attired---yes, a young pin-up---of course---probably bubble sunglasses ha ha. A young Korean democrat?)

There is a certain life I am looking for here, obviously. I think it exists, somewhere. In 1776 they needed a certain kind of "life." They had to fight a Revolutionary War.

There is an enormous literature concerning capitalism as the destruction of the human spirit. Capitalism creates a world where everyone is, Um----the same.

What a nightmare.

Not on the subject of nightmares and Koreans... but (at any rate) ...

I remember when C. Hitchens hit these shores. Big media splash, eh. I understood he's an asshole. Right away I picked up on that. I guess some righteous experts, authorities, or writers had to help me. That much I picked up on. But I never actually read a book of his.

Finally I pick up the short bio on Jefferson. This guy is a really good writer.

Anyways, assholes are probably the motor of history.

Yeah, I know --- that had little to do with economics, or Korean people.

Money and Ethics

While the small-minded tell me to care only about money, I choose to give them back their kind advice. I care about what I want to care about, and that includes doing things ethically.