Ray said, So Arthur, why do we do all of these things that you mention? I realize that it is more difficult to explain the grandeur of a magnificent economic edifice than the Hoover Dam but you should try. Today's economists are "hooked" on the lower rungs of the Maslow Hierarchy. Instead of creating great soaring works of human imagination and building economies around such, we have built our lives around widgets that mean little and eventually lead us all down the road to pillaging our neighbors or creating self-justification for legal conundrums that will make even murder just.
Arthur replies, If economists are "hooked" on the lower rungs of the Maslow hierarchy, it only means that they mirror the society in which they happen to be operating. A society hooked on widgets. More and "better" widgets, especially if they have bells and whistles and can be used to outdo their neighbours. A society infatuated with novelty and willing to pay almost anything for entertainment. (entertainment defined as the science/art of capturing our attention) We want to giggle, laugh, etc. and look outward, will do almost anything to avoid looking inward. We want/need to have our attention diverted. (is entertainment an addiction?) Welcome to our economy. Economists can't create great soaring works of human imagination. That is not what economics is about. To the extent that economists move into such a realm, they are doing the work of political theory or culture and art and music---which is fine and is needed, but it is not economics as it is widely come to be known these days. Would I prefer it to be otherwise? Sure. One reason why I find the FW so interesting. There are no boundaries. arthur -----Original Message----- From: Ray Evans Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 4:15 PM To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: To survive or not to survive. You know how much I enjoy this list and how much I admire both you and Sally. And here comes the BUT. Let me tell you a story. In the 1950s we were practicing debate for the High School championships in Oklahoma. The Debate topic was whether American Foreign Aid had a valid purpose and whether it was capable of meeting that purpose given its structure in the real world. We debated such things as the Aswan Dam which no one had any idea about the kind of environmental damage which would infect forty per cent of the population of Egypt with the terrible Shistomyosis Worm. Everyone considered the economic issue the only issue out there that had any validity. Then there were the favorite bridges in the desert that had no rivers and even other Dams that were built with the intention of creating a river. Today in Mexico they are about to submerge a large part of their archeological Mayan Heritage with another dam. Frankly I can't understand why people who destroy their uniqueness and their only truly world class gifts for something as banal as a Dam. Or as my Mother said after seeing the entire Tennessee Valley Authority Dams which eventually buried the most sacred Cherokee site on the planet at Chota the City of Peace under the ugliest and most useless lake you ever want to see, she said to my Father who was enamored of such projects: "Frankly my Dear I don't give a damn if I never see another Dam in my entire life." So Arthur, why do we do all of these things that you mention? I realize that it is more difficult to explain the grandeur of a magnificent economic edifice than the Hoover Dam but you should try. Today's economists are "hooked" on the lower rungs of the Maslow Hierarchy. Instead of creating great soaring works of human imagination and building economies around such, we have built our lives around widgets that mean little and eventually lead us all down the road to pillaging our neighbors or creating self-justification for legal conundrums that will make even murder just. It is said that you must have food, clothing and shelter before you can imagine the heights but there are many immensely wealthy people in the world who will never go near any such things and will spend their wealth and imagination on endless theme parties and building their seventh mansion in France to go with each country. I have seen them pay more for fringe on their curtains than a string quartet or anything else that would challenge their potential. They can't even imagine why they should go to Mars or the Moon. They place monetary values on the human body, the soul and the spirit. Everything they touch is relegated to whether they can get a bargain or not. So I asked: "why did you build that bridge where there was no river?" The answer was that it was something to do and to give work to people who couldn't be paid for great works of the imagination like great works of Art. I asked where the river was and they said "that they would make one." Like the did in the Everglades. The Bridge was a huge widget. Intentionallity. That is the root of money and meaning. Everything else is just alphabet. Why do you work? Ray Evans Harrell ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:43 AM Subject: FW: To survive or not to survive. > PS. On re-reading this piece below I realize that it lacks oomph. But then > again economics is rather dull. As a form of plumbing for society it can > enable the human spirit to soar or it can crush same. Economics alone > should be considered as background, as infrastructure. > > Economics alone can do little to improve the human condition--it is best > seen as a social enabling technology allied to social, cultural and > political initiatives. > > Economics for the new economy, it seems, should be about ways to enable > other human acivities to flourish. > > Hope this clarifies. > > arthur > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 8:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: To survive or not to survive. > > > Harry wrote, > > > Arthur, > > You are probably too right about this. > > From where outside will succor come? > > Harry > > > Arthur replies, > > > Harry, > > I think that much of the conversation that has taken place on FW over the > years has the makings of what the change will be like. > > Shortened work weeks > Telework > Local Currencies > Self employment > Guaranteed Annual Income/Basic Economic Security > New forms of taxation > Georgist initiatives > Better training and broadened education > Worker engagement (perhaps through direct ownership) > Strengthened and enlightened unions > Full cost accounting (to avoid pollution) > Energy friendly production and consumption > A gradual move to sustainable growth > Re-regulation (which will be called "smart regulation") > Broadened governance to allow the inclusion of more voices/concerns > Valuing activities more broadly > New pricing mechanisms > Treating workers as assets rather than costs which can be cut > Worker sabbaticals > etc. > > In fact it is hard to imagine a novel idea that needs to be unearthed. The > ideas discussed on FW all have to be developed for impacts and implications. > And someday they will. Some amalgam of the above and some others that have > been discussed will come to pass. > > It will happen when there is a system break, either economic, political, or > environmental. In the rush to salvage the system there will be a sudden > appetite to listen to and implement these ideas. In much the same way that > Keynes was suddenly listened to during the 1930's. > > So we are doing something on this list. We are presenting and discussing > new forms of organization appropriate to a new economy. Those who are > currently at the helm are content to play out all the options. At one point > while foundering on the shoals of reality they will cast about for new > options. On FW we have been discussing possible alternatives. Forgive me > if I have left out some FW ideas from the above list. > > So, I guess I am an optimist after all. > > There is no undiscovered economic theorem out there that will offer a > magical solution: There only needs to be leaders (elected and appointed) > willing (or needing) to listen and act. > > arthur > > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 3:19 PM > To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: To survive or not to survive. > > > Arthur, > > You are probably too right about this. > > From where outside will succor come? > > Harry > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Arthur wrote: > > >Ray said, > > > >But whatever happens, it would be wonderful if our economists and > futurists > >on this list would come up with some ideas that could interest the rest of > >us beyond the tattered 19th century Industrial models. Maybe we could > get > >a Science Fiction writer but with the exception of the "Pollinators of > Eden" > >and a couple of Roger Zelazny's novels, everything else including my > beloved > >Frank Herbert and Harlan Ellison are inferior to Orwell and Huxley. > >Where is this "Future of Work" folks? Does it have a future? or are > we > >at the end of our imagination here? Where are your Bergs and your > >Schoenbergs to scare the pants off of the banal and mediocre? How about > a > >Boulez or a Stockhausen? Instead even the "slight" Britten is > frightening > >to most. With such taste how can we possibly imagine anything but the > >ordinary in the work life of the future? I haven't seen a decent Nobel > >winner in 50 years. Mediocrity has captured the minds of the West and it > >won't let go. Today, we don't even ask ourselves why Paris, a 19th > >century city with the first decent toilet, is still the most beautiful city > >in the world and the most idealistic. Otherwise why would all of our > rich > >folks insist on living there half the year? The Czars loved Paris as > >well. > > > >Arthur replies, > > > >Many economists have come up with ideas. You should realize that > >economists in government and business are the handmaidens of the > >establishment. Academics are more and more in the same situation (the > world > >of the consultant!!) Every once in a while someone comes up with an idea, > >and to the extent that it threatens existing distributions of income and > >power it is either not listened to, taken seriously or denounced. > > > >Change will have to come from outside. Some sort of political change which > >enables the consideration of new ways of looking the economy. Economists > >will then rush forward to justify, with models and mathematics the new > >agenda. Sad to say and sorry to say this, but seems to be the case. > > > > > > > >Hi Brad, > > > > > >I said: > > > [snip] > > > > The Soviet Union > > > > did many things better than us and they had a terrible agricultural > >dilemma > > > > in their growing cycle and weather. China does not share that > > > > disadvantage. > > > [snip] > > > > It is also crucial that we not believe that Capitalism is the sole > >reason > > > > that we won the Cold War and the Soviet System collapsed. That we > > > > seriously examine the differences in their work structure and > >incorporate > > > > their successes if we are going to survive the collapse of the > >Industrial > > > > Era's old age and out of date answers to completely new situations > that > > > > Capitalists never faced before. > > > [snip] > > > > I would also say that Brad's observation about his friend in the pos t > " > >The > > > > [mis]adventures of private property under capitalism (case study)" > is > >just > > > > another example of such systemic confusion in Capitalism. > > > [snip] > > > > > >You said: > > > > > Ray: Are you citing my [IMO alas not original or unique...] story as: > > > (1) What I describe in the story being an example of the systemic > > > confusion in Capitalism, or (2) My interpretation of what I > > > describe in the story being an example of the systemic confusion > > > (i.e., are you asserting that I am systemically confused?), or (3) > > > both #1 and #2, or (4) other? > > > >I said: > > > >Number 1. no you are not systemically confused unless there is something > >you're not sharing with us. > > > >(snip) > > > > > > > I agree that it is a very good article. > > > > September 29, 2002 > > > > Contradictions of a Superpower > > > > By ROBERT WRIGHT > > > [snip] > > > > But the report's [ i.e., Bush's security manifesto's(?)] > > > > biggest failing may lie in ignoring radicalism's > > > > intersection with another kind of technology. It is information > >technology - > > > > satellite TV, Web sites, e-mail, cell phones - that with growing > >efficiency > > > > will convert amorphous hatred of the United States into the organized > > > > radicalism that can employ weapons of mass destruction. > > > > Thus the global diffusion of technology means American policies that > > > > generate hatred "on the street" abroad will be more and more likely to > >lead > > > > to terrorism. > > > [snip] > > > > > >You said: > > > Again, I think the article is very good, but I think it > > > might be relevant to consider here that Mr. Atta and his > > > 19 or so comrades gravely disrupted the United States, inflicting > > > at least $40 billion damage for a $500,000 investment WITHOUT > > > USING ANY "WMD" AT ALL! Similarly, the U.S.S. Cole was knocked > > > out of service for 18 months with repair costs in the > > > several $100 million range by a dinghy loaded with > > > non-WMD explosives. And, in Mr. Atta's case, he used our own > > > resources to hurt us (we not only have lots of > > > commercial jetliners, but we also have lots of WMD's here in the United > > > States!). > > > >I say: > > > >This is what guerilla operations alway do. It cost one million dollars > per > >Indian for the US to win the Indian wars in the 1880s which took three > years > >against an enemy they could find but wouldn't stand still and fight since > we > >were defending our way of life, families and our very existance. One of > >the things that is always made a big deal of in Capitalist propoganda is > the > >large mansions i.e. palaces, of the enemies. It was an eye opening trip > >for Reagan to go to Russia and visit the Hermitage which was put up not by > >the Communists but the Czars. Nancy even said: It is no wonder you had > a > >revolution considering the grotesque wealth compared to the common people. > >One could also ask if the Czars had continued what kind of space program, > >housing, educational or health programs they would have had for the > children > >of those peasants. You could ask the same about the mini-Democratic > >government that preceded the Bolshiviks. Many things are said and > >projected but it should be noted that the poverty rate in this country > >currently is greater than in the Soviet Union when we were in the Cold War. > >(NYTimes last week.) > > > >As for those castles, mansions or palaces, as in the local Moslem > countries, > >I'm sure that the locals would rather have better housing and a lower > infant > >mortality rate but I am also sure that their identity is wrapped up in such > >big projects as mentioned just as ours was wrapped up in the Trade Towers. > >It will take as much money relatively for them to replace their identity in > >their leaders as it does us in ours. I realize this is not a popular or > >even Democratic view but I do believe it is accurate psychologically. We > >have people who are non-logical to say the least in their allegiances and > >alliances where the only answer lies in their psychological indentification > >of self and their sense of what it takes to be secure. In fact we are > >suffering a non-logical breakdown in the marketplace at present where it > >would make more sense to stop, think and plan as well as put the crooks in > >jail but we insist upon civil rights for the wealthy crooks while > >incarcerating the lower class guerellas forever in Cuba on evidence that is > >evidentily so poor that they won't even let us see it. One of the crooks > >is the Secretary of the Army where the appearance of evil is not enough to > >incarcerate him in spite of the fact that he is in charge of the largest > >fighting force in the history of the world. Another is the Vice President > >of the United States who evidently makes Spiro Agnew look like a provencial > >Angel. And then there is the President who stole the election with the > >help of his brother, in spite of some of the protestations on the list. > >But how can you live in California and pay that exorbitant electric bill > >last year and not know that the Texans had screwed you? > > > > > >You said: > > > Our enemies may not need weapons of > > > mass destruction to destroy us: Please do not forget that > > > a big reason the Bush administration did not pay much > > > attention to AlQaeda in 2001 was that the Bush administration > > > was busy protecting us from rogue nation ICBMs! Maybe > > > our focus on weapons of mass destruction needs to be placed in > > > a broader context of > > > attention to the factors of human intelligence and human commitment > > > to a cause. > > > > > >I would agree with the latter but not the former. I think the Bush > >administration is basically compromised and incompetent. I think it is > >grounded in their experience in the sector where I make my living, the > >private sector. A place filled with companies that act like and are > larger > >than many socialist countries but who would never support a nation acting > >like or to them either here or abroad as they act themselves in favor of > >their "landed class" i.e. stockholders. These are the people who prefer > >pundits to scholars and then wonder why Democrats don't come out to perform > >in their coliseum. > > > >Think of NAFTA which is skewed in favor of companies and against > >Democracies. I suspect that the future will hold one of three things. > >1. Either greater abuse and tyranny from those companies world wide or 2. > >that Capitalism will be defeated by the megalithic giant of China with > their > >unique cultural structure, or 3. That there will be a fifth way emerge that > >is either an amalgam of the previous four or a totally new system. > > > >When we talk theory it usually comes down to the market version of whether > >the rejection of "fast food" means that we all shouldn't eat instead of > >making the food better. These wonderful theories about the Middle East > >seem inexperienced except in the tabloids. The people who know > >Palestinians, live in Israel or who work with Jews and Palestinians seem > >quiet on much of this and when they do speak it becomes a time for > battering > >their knowledge instead of asking questions and proving one's National > >superiority rather than a discussion relating to how economists, futurists > >and professionals could help the situation. > > > >I think Karen has supplied an intelligence simply by asking questions that > >many of we men were unable to supply and it is a pleasure that Devorah and > >Selma are speaking out. But the itch of the ideals about work and how > >people grow their culture without being destroyed by the battering ram of > >Western Business or the fundamentalist idiocy of the Middle Eastern Desert > >Religions have not even been scratched. Note, I am talking about the > >religious version of the 18th and 19th century economic philosophers who > >have committed genocide and murdered whole professions with impunity that > >didn't fit into their systems. I am not speaking of the progressives who > >value the past, live in the present and work to imagine a future where both > >can exist under the rubric of "Heritage and Cooperation." I care little > >for the couch whether Freud or Procrustes. > > > >But whatever happens, it would be wonderful if our economists and > futurists > >on this list would come up with some ideas that could interest the rest of > >us beyond the tattered 19th century Industrial models. Maybe we could > get > >a Science Fiction writer but with the exception of the "Pollinators of > Eden" > >and a couple of Roger Zelazny's novels, everything else including my > beloved > >Frank Herbert and Harlan Ellison are inferior to Orwell and Huxley. > >Where is this "Future of Work" folks? Does it have a future? or are > we > >at the end of our imagination here? Where are your Bergs and your > >Schoenbergs to scare the pants off of the banal and mediocre? How about > a > >Boulez or a Stockhausen? Instead even the "slight" Britten is > frightening > >to most. With such taste how can we possibly imagine anything but the > >ordinary in the work life of the future? I haven't seen a decent Nobel > >winner in 50 years. Mediocrity has captured the minds of the West and it > >won't let go. Today, we don't even ask ourselves why Paris, a 19th > >century city with the first decent toilet, is still the most beautiful city > >in the world and the most idealistic. Otherwise why would all of our > rich > >folks insist on living there half the year? The Czars loved Paris as > >well. > > > >"How do you like your blue-eyed boy now Mr. Death?" (cummings) > > > >Ray Evans Harrell > > > > > >--- > >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > >Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 9/19/2002 > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > *******************************
