An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
The midwest is the new south. You've got all the pieces in place.
Overt bigotry, poor integration, inequality, racist local government systems, discriminatory tax and regulatory policies, strong moral and religious populations that breed hatred, the midwest aversion to talk about politics in social settings.
Yep, I'm worried about the degree to which law enforcement in the US has been infiltrated by fascists and white supremacist elements who think they are fighting some kind of Alamo battle in the "War Against the White Man"
You left out black illegitimacy running at near 80%.. That might have more than a little to do with the rampant social patholgies endemic to many black communities is the U.S.
And the first photo isn't iconic in the least. It's, at best, out of context left wing agitprop.
Dan, that's simply a nonsense statement on your part, with no proof whatsoever that that is what constitutes law enforcement in Ferguson.
MY, my. Left-right black-white divide, right here at MNE. Shows contrasting perspectives involved.
Of course, both sides have both valid and questionable points. The social, political and economic questions involve reconciling them to achieve an integrated solution.
As long as there is divisiveness, that won't happen, as it hasn't ever happened in the US history, which is the record of one side "winning" for a while, and they the other side.
So the major issues facing the country wrt achieving social harmony, political equality, and distributed prosperity economically have yet to be resolved.
The weakness of democracy is interest politics, which works against minority interests, and a problem with representative democracy is that it often structured institutionally to favor a privileged elite, which under capitalism is the ownership class and political its cronies, in particular the political class, and much of the mainstream intelligentsia and media.
There is no simple way forward and no permanent fixes to be had. What is required is an upgrade to the level of collective consciousness in the direction of collective consciousness expressed culturally and institutionally. That process is generally gradual, although momentous events can shift it more rapidly, e.g., when enough people are appalled by senseless destruction or a common existential threat.
"when enough people are appalled by senseless destruction or a common existential threat."
I told someone recently that I think we are going to see this present ideology of neoliberalism taken to its extreme and THEN people will wake up and reject it. Im afraid its going to take that. Where that extreme ends and how many lives are ruined as a result is unknowable.
I think we need to get to a place where we acknowledge a few things;
1) There is plenty of room and resources on this planet for EVERYONE alive today and more to have a place to live that isn't a cardboard box.
2) We have the land mass and the technology to feed everyone with at least 3000 calories a day
3) We have enough people plus the technology (internet) to educate everyone who wants it to a level commensurate with an American college senior
4) We likely have the resources to provide everyone with basic health care, which means immunizations and decent preventive education and support. The higher tech procedures, like methods to treat advanced heart or neurologic diseases surgically, probably need a degree of rationing currently but we certainly have enough people who currently aren't doing that stuff who are smart enough to be trained....... if we would train them.
Once you acknowledge those things its obvious the only reason there are people without is because someone is profiting from keeping these things scarce. Its not a supply problem and WHO would not demand those things if available and affordable?
Bucky Fuller showed this over half a century ago. Since then technological innovation has increased productivity manyfold more than population increase.
I would not blame it on capitalism, however. Capitalism for all its faults have been instrumental in bringing progress.
The problem is a level of collective consciousness reflected culturally and institutionally that falls beneath the potential of human knowledge and capability.
The problem is fundamentally organizational, which requires cooperation and coordination at a minimum, but humanity cannot yet attain that minimum for a variety of reasons, some individual and some cultural and institutional.
Humanity possesses the necessary knowledge and resources for a near utopia by historical standards but doesn't have the organizational capability to bring them to bear. The organizational ability is there potentially, but many factors stand in the way of its deployment for common purpose.
Most of these obstacles are in the minds of people and in the various mindsets that dominate interest groups and societies.
The solution is rather simple theoretically, but nearly impossible practically owing to deficiencies in the level of collective consciousness.
I would call both photos above the result of "institutional effects." Most people are neither "good" not "bad," but subject to a variety of influences both individual like disposition and temperament, and interpersonal like environment, culture, and institutions.
The military and security forces are institutions and the training one receives is cultural and institutional. This exerts a strong influence on behavior of individuals, in that institutions and also the attitude and behavior of others to the institution.
I say this from experience since I've participated in a number of institutions and only later came to realize how strong cultural and institutional influences are in shaping attitude and behavior.
Institutions with a poor culture, basically traceable to leadership, and poor institutional arrangements lead to to poor results overall even though they may may apparently lead to good results. But this is usually in a limited way and for some rather than the whole which the institution is embedded. Inevitably, this has consequences in the long run as the organization or group becomes inefficient and ineffective.
It should be obvious that militarizing domestic security as deleterious effects on democracy even though it may appear to increase safety and preserve law and order. But it is pretty obviously a means of repression that also attracts a certain type of individual and creates a culture of us v. them. In the end it is arrogance that brings it down, and we are already seeing the beginning of this downfall.
Tom, Michael Brown wasn't killed by a militarized police force. The Ferguson rioters unjustly dealt with either. I can think of militarized police force actions that appall me but Ferguson isn't one of them.
As I said, the story is no longer about MB. It is about the police actions in the community it is supposed to be providing security for, as well as the underlying issues that led up to this and continue to drive it. It's an abysmal failure on the part of the leadership, and if there is any good new here, it is radicalizing a lot of reporters, and it is also sending a message to the world. I would put this is the category of PR debacle.
"I would not blame it on capitalism, however. Capitalism for all its faults have been instrumental in bringing progress."
Yes and no
There is no capitalism that doesn't come without a chase for ever higher profits. That chase, in many types of markets like education and healthcare, leads to diminished quality, higher costs and eventually diminished distribution. The diminished distribution is cuz fewer and fewer can afford it.
Yes, capitalism can come in flavors which have mechanisms to offset these things but they require a state that is willing. Naturally these state mechanisms are "socialistic" in flavor as their aim is distribution not maintenance of profits.
There has never been a time when there hasn't been capitalism of some sort. Anthropologist David Graeber observes “All societies are communistic at base, and capitalism is best viewed as a bad way of organizing communism.” David Graeber, 2013, The Democracy Project, Penguin. Voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit is the bottom line of social organization.
Om the other hand, societies that don't attend sufficiently to efficient and effective use of their capital don't survive, let alone progress. However, the efficient and effective use of capital doesn't imply capitalism, where a society is organized around the efficient and effect use of capital as an end in itself. Using capital is merely a means. Confusing ends and means is a category error of the first order, and as Aquinas said (De ente et essentia), paraphrasing Aristotle, "A small mistake at the beginning becomes a great one by the end."
The problem with "capitalism" is that it falsely assumes that capital is the primary factor in achieving progress when it is the level of collective consciousness as revealed in culture and institutions of a society, especially the ability to organize and coordinate socially. Modern capitalism is one way to do that which is highly effective and efficient in using capital to achieve growth per capita.
But growth per capita is not necessarily prosperity for the the society involved unless it is distributed. And capitalism certainly does not lead of itself to living a good life in a good society as a potential of human nature. This has ethical, social, and political ramifications in addition to economic. In fact, the economic aspect is subsidiary in that it only concerned with material means.
Modern capitalism ignores the distinction between economic growth and social harmony, individual well-being, and material prosperity. The result is social dysfunction and political inequality to the degree necessary to maintain privileges of ownership of capital.
The fundamental challenge of humans as social animals with higher cognitive-volitional-affective capacity is living the good life as an individual in a good society with others cooperatively for mutual benefit on the basis of universality of human nature and diversity owing to individual uniqueness.
This is obviously not chiefly an economic issue, although as thinkers as divergent as Marx and Bucky Fuller have observed, material infrastructure is an important and even overriding influence in shaping the specifics of human life at the time. So while economics is not primary, it should not be overly discounted either. Humans do need a material life support system, and its characteristics shape the kind of society.
Economics only deals with the material life-support system of humanity given existing human ingenuity and real resources available in the environment, with the real constraint of externality as unwanted consequences. Since material advantage that can be distributed unequally is involved, this is a challenge that has never been resolved optimally, at least since the age of surpluses.
But while Economics only deals with the material life-support systems, it does not exist separately from other disciples since different aspects of life are part of a whole and influence each other. As Keynes noted, economics is a "moral science" rather than a natural science. As such it is relative to ethics, social and political philosophy, mathematics, physics and engineering, systems science, biology, psychology, social science, history, and the humanities. As Keynes also noted, good economists must also be generalists.
The problem of economics in the context of modern capitalism lies in being overly narrow, just as capitalism over overly narrow in its emphasis on individual self-interest at the expense of ignoring the whole.
13 comments:
Good post.
The midwest is the new south. You've got all the pieces in place.
Overt bigotry, poor integration, inequality, racist local government systems, discriminatory tax and regulatory policies, strong moral and religious populations that breed hatred, the midwest aversion to talk about politics in social settings.
Yep, I'm worried about the degree to which law enforcement in the US has been infiltrated by fascists and white supremacist elements who think they are fighting some kind of Alamo battle in the "War Against the White Man"
You left out black illegitimacy running at near 80%.. That might have more than a little to do with the rampant social patholgies endemic to many black communities is the U.S.
And the first photo isn't iconic in the least. It's, at best, out of context left wing agitprop.
Dan, that's simply a nonsense statement on your part, with no proof whatsoever that that is what constitutes law enforcement in Ferguson.
MG, I didn't say anything about Ferguson.
MY, my. Left-right black-white divide, right here at MNE. Shows contrasting perspectives involved.
Of course, both sides have both valid and questionable points. The social, political and economic questions involve reconciling them to achieve an integrated solution.
As long as there is divisiveness, that won't happen, as it hasn't ever happened in the US history, which is the record of one side "winning" for a while, and they the other side.
So the major issues facing the country wrt achieving social harmony, political equality, and distributed prosperity economically have yet to be resolved.
The weakness of democracy is interest politics, which works against minority interests, and a problem with representative democracy is that it often structured institutionally to favor a privileged elite, which under capitalism is the ownership class and political its cronies, in particular the political class, and much of the mainstream intelligentsia and media.
There is no simple way forward and no permanent fixes to be had. What is required is an upgrade to the level of collective consciousness in the direction of collective consciousness expressed culturally and institutionally. That process is generally gradual, although momentous events can shift it more rapidly, e.g., when enough people are appalled by senseless destruction or a common existential threat.
"when enough people are appalled by senseless destruction or a common existential threat."
I told someone recently that I think we are going to see this present ideology of neoliberalism taken to its extreme and THEN people will wake up and reject it. Im afraid its going to take that. Where that extreme ends and how many lives are ruined as a result is unknowable.
I think we need to get to a place where we acknowledge a few things;
1) There is plenty of room and resources on this planet for EVERYONE alive today and more to have a place to live that isn't a cardboard box.
2) We have the land mass and the technology to feed everyone with at least 3000 calories a day
3) We have enough people plus the technology (internet) to educate everyone who wants it to a level commensurate with an American college senior
4) We likely have the resources to provide everyone with basic health care, which means immunizations and decent preventive education and support. The higher tech procedures, like methods to treat advanced heart or neurologic diseases surgically, probably need a degree of rationing currently but we certainly have enough people who currently aren't doing that stuff who are smart enough to be trained....... if we would train them.
Once you acknowledge those things its obvious the only reason there are people without is because someone is profiting from keeping these things scarce. Its not a supply problem and WHO would not demand those things if available and affordable?
Bucky Fuller showed this over half a century ago. Since then technological innovation has increased productivity manyfold more than population increase.
I would not blame it on capitalism, however. Capitalism for all its faults have been instrumental in bringing progress.
The problem is a level of collective consciousness reflected culturally and institutionally that falls beneath the potential of human knowledge and capability.
The problem is fundamentally organizational, which requires cooperation and coordination at a minimum, but humanity cannot yet attain that minimum for a variety of reasons, some individual and some cultural and institutional.
Humanity possesses the necessary knowledge and resources for a near utopia by historical standards but doesn't have the organizational capability to bring them to bear. The organizational ability is there potentially, but many factors stand in the way of its deployment for common purpose.
Most of these obstacles are in the minds of people and in the various mindsets that dominate interest groups and societies.
The solution is rather simple theoretically, but nearly impossible practically owing to deficiencies in the level of collective consciousness.
I would call both photos above the result of "institutional effects." Most people are neither "good" not "bad," but subject to a variety of influences both individual like disposition and temperament, and interpersonal like environment, culture, and institutions.
The military and security forces are institutions and the training one receives is cultural and institutional. This exerts a strong influence on behavior of individuals, in that institutions and also the attitude and behavior of others to the institution.
I say this from experience since I've participated in a number of institutions and only later came to realize how strong cultural and institutional influences are in shaping attitude and behavior.
Institutions with a poor culture, basically traceable to leadership, and poor institutional arrangements lead to to poor results overall even though they may may apparently lead to good results. But this is usually in a limited way and for some rather than the whole which the institution is embedded. Inevitably, this has consequences in the long run as the organization or group becomes inefficient and ineffective.
It should be obvious that militarizing domestic security as deleterious effects on democracy even though it may appear to increase safety and preserve law and order. But it is pretty obviously a means of repression that also attracts a certain type of individual and creates a culture of us v. them. In the end it is arrogance that brings it down, and we are already seeing the beginning of this downfall.
Tom, Michael Brown wasn't killed by a militarized police force. The Ferguson rioters unjustly dealt with either. I can think of militarized police force actions that appall me but Ferguson isn't one of them.
As I said, the story is no longer about MB. It is about the police actions in the community it is supposed to be providing security for, as well as the underlying issues that led up to this and continue to drive it. It's an abysmal failure on the part of the leadership, and if there is any good new here, it is radicalizing a lot of reporters, and it is also sending a message to the world. I would put this is the category of PR debacle.
"I would not blame it on capitalism, however. Capitalism for all its faults have been instrumental in bringing progress."
Yes and no
There is no capitalism that doesn't come without a chase for ever higher profits. That chase, in many types of markets like education and healthcare, leads to diminished quality, higher costs and eventually diminished distribution. The diminished distribution is cuz fewer and fewer can afford it.
Yes, capitalism can come in flavors which have mechanisms to offset these things but they require a state that is willing. Naturally these state mechanisms are "socialistic" in flavor as their aim is distribution not maintenance of profits.
There has never been a time when there hasn't been capitalism of some sort. Anthropologist David Graeber observes “All societies are communistic at base, and capitalism is best viewed as a bad way of organizing communism.” David Graeber, 2013, The Democracy Project, Penguin. Voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit is the bottom line of social organization.
Om the other hand, societies that don't attend sufficiently to efficient and effective use of their capital don't survive, let alone progress. However, the efficient and effective use of capital doesn't imply capitalism, where a society is organized around the efficient and effect use of capital as an end in itself. Using capital is merely a means. Confusing ends and means is a category error of the first order, and as Aquinas said (De ente et essentia), paraphrasing Aristotle, "A small mistake at the beginning becomes a great one by the end."
The problem with "capitalism" is that it falsely assumes that capital is the primary factor in achieving progress when it is the level of collective consciousness as revealed in culture and institutions of a society, especially the ability to organize and coordinate socially. Modern capitalism is one way to do that which is highly effective and efficient in using capital to achieve growth per capita.
But growth per capita is not necessarily prosperity for the the society involved unless it is distributed. And capitalism certainly does not lead of itself to living a good life in a good society as a potential of human nature. This has ethical, social, and political ramifications in addition to economic. In fact, the economic aspect is subsidiary in that it only concerned with material means.
Modern capitalism ignores the distinction between economic growth and social harmony, individual well-being, and material prosperity. The result is social dysfunction and political inequality to the degree necessary to maintain privileges of ownership of capital.
The fundamental challenge of humans as social animals with higher cognitive-volitional-affective capacity is living the good life as an individual in a good society with others cooperatively for mutual benefit on the basis of universality of human nature and diversity owing to individual uniqueness.
This is obviously not chiefly an economic issue, although as thinkers as divergent as Marx and Bucky Fuller have observed, material infrastructure is an important and even overriding influence in shaping the specifics of human life at the time. So while economics is not primary, it should not be overly discounted either. Humans do need a material life support system, and its characteristics shape the kind of society.
Economics only deals with the material life-support system of humanity given existing human ingenuity and real resources available in the environment, with the real constraint of externality as unwanted consequences. Since material advantage that can be distributed unequally is involved, this is a challenge that has never been resolved optimally, at least since the age of surpluses.
But while Economics only deals with the material life-support systems, it does not exist separately from other disciples since different aspects of life are part of a whole and influence each other. As Keynes noted, economics is a "moral science" rather than a natural science. As such it is relative to ethics, social and political philosophy, mathematics, physics and engineering, systems science, biology, psychology, social science, history, and the humanities. As Keynes also noted, good economists must also be generalists.
The problem of economics in the context of modern capitalism lies in being overly narrow, just as capitalism over overly narrow in its emphasis on individual self-interest at the expense of ignoring the whole.
Post a Comment