Wednesday, May 28, 2014

The Pink Social Capitalism Elephant In The Room

   (Commentary posted by Roger Erickson)

What is the form of Capital which is most neglected by so-called capitalists? Social Capital? Any scientist would likely say so, based upon even a moment's reflection.

Just bring up the topic of social species. That sets the reference point for all definitions of capital, leverage, adaptive rate, success & survival. Also, google the term, and see all the recent articles professing to define the novel concept for clueless economists.

Ever seen an macroeconomist OD'd on orthodoxy and blissfully unaware of their own BO*, policy agility DT's and ideological sclerosis? Denial is a river in academia and bureaucracy, and it drains into the FED.

Next time you're talking with an economist or avowed capitalists, bring up the delicate subject of the pink Social Capitalism elephant, and ask them if they acknowledge it's presence in the room.

Otherwise, the conversations and literature become increasingly obscure. Take the recent missive from royalty,** that ancient enemy and then co-opter of formal capitalism.

Prince Charles: reform capitalism to save the planet

Does that not seem a bit hypocritical, coming from faux royalty? After 1000 years of seeking protection FROM capitalism? Why not just keep evolving Social Capitalism?

I'm waiting for the proverbial lightbulb to go on for Bonnie Prince Charles. That magic moment when he says: "hey; here's an idea: we need Social Capitalism!"

If he was serious, he'd put his silver spoon back where his nether regions are, abdicate, and return the seized lands, possessions and OTHER forms of capital to the citizenry. And then admit that we simply need dynamic tolerance limits on use of EVERY form of "capitalism" as well as all our other tools.

Until then we have more than just pink Social Capitalism Elephants hiding where the sun don't shine.***

* Banking Operations

** Tom Paine on royalty:"A French bastard landing with an armed Banditti and establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original. It certainly hath no divinity in it. However it is needless to spend much time in exposing the folly of hereditary right; if there are any so weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the Ass and the Lion, and welcome."  [Actually, Tom makes royalty sound remarkably like NeoLiberal capitalism.]

*** "Vast stolen silver hoard found when royal Prince moons a tourist."


Tom Hickey said...

The problem for the mainstream is that they equate social capitalism with socialism.

The chief methodological difference between a market economic conceived in terms of economic liberalism and one conceived in terms of social liberalism is that economic liberalism assumes methodological individualism based on ontological individualism, so that society is an aggregate of individuals rationally maximizing utility, and social liberalism assumed that society is a system consisting of a web of relationships, so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, so that optimizing the good of each is a function of optimizing the good of all. The difference is a difference in the direction of causality.

The slogan of economic liberalism is "Every man for himself," while that of social liberalism is, "We're all in this together." Of course, it's even more complicated than that in that many Western economic liberals actually mean by "every man," every white male of the right class.

Roger Erickson said...

It's easy to keep the serfs down, when all you have to do is cry "Socialist Wolf" every election cycle.

Fleecing is the fate of the gullible, for they shall be confused, divided & conquered.