Anyone interested in a basic explanation of what has happened in economics that is not number-technical could try - http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_592.pdf - which explains financialisation - the way our real economies are dwarfed by securitisation (Times 4) and derivatives (Times 10) - and proposes that a new capitalism will emerge. The short story is that we've been had by an Emperor's New Clothes scam.
On Nov 13, 4:34 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > That's my non-ironic take exactly James. There are key unanswered > questions such as how much work needs doing to feed, water, clothe and > house our communities safely (and generally look after our families) > and what percentage of world 'GDP' this would be - my guess is it's > under half the work in time and effort being put in and maybe a third > of what counts as GDP. I'm guessing and am not an economist (though I > teach it at university). What's certain is we aren't doing a lot of > this essential work and are involved in a lot of dross. > > I don't know if you saw the rugby league on Saturday - it was a rough > match and clearly couldn't have been played without the rules, referee > and the rest. The competition operates with a global salary cap too. > I don't think it's beyond us to organise global economics with such > basics written in. They have, after all, managed a cap on all but > elite earnings! I believe, unless we can find a rallying point, > 'they' will prevent the generosity of your view through war. Though I > think the solutions are simple, we can't be simple-minded in getting > them to practice. My current neighbours (Bulgarian) are full of the > spirit you imply. > > On Nov 13, 1:05 am, James Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > "I want to reject it. Simple answers follow." > > It is an interesting crossroads when a large portion of society learns > > that they've been gamed. When we see that there is more to gain > > financially as well as morally in helping our neighbor more than > > playing economic shell games. What an effect if many people knew it is > > a big resource shuffle, that can be undone with a simple human trait, > > freely partaking of generosity and the aid of their fellow as we did > > long ago. We could make another go at it, our technological and > > intellectual capital are built and ready. Such a thing could even > > operate within states and offer better competition for progress. > > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:14 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I read some social epistemology over the last few days - in between > > > not finishing painting the house and being dragged on long walks by > > > the pup. The sad tale of non-scientific academe continues, mostly > > > gleaning that ideas that just inevitably arise in reflection get > > > cornered and mystified by an elite needing to claim expertise. There > > > an SEP entry on the subject if anyone is interested (I only mention > > > this because it's free and one could burn several hundred quid on > > > books for the same information). At bottom is the question of how we > > > can rely on anything anyone says, writes etc. On would think this > > > might lead to some ideas on our lying politicians, but whatever there > > > is is tangential. Once one applies the critical criteria it is sadly > > > obvious most we report is not about truth and mutual understanding. > > > Last time I looked, social research was into the quadri-hermeneutic on > > > understanding or the verstehen problematic - what one hears from a > > > social informant is already her interpretation and elaborations of > > > that in terms of your own interpretation and theoretical > > > perspectives. I've played these games to earn a crust, but always > > > been disappointed My feeling is we live in a mad scheme of things > > > and that theory is largely therapy for those of us bright enough to > > > get it. One of the most laughable statements one gets to hear in > > > academe is that common sense is the ability to see the world as flat. > > > 'Flat Earth' was very much an academic theory - one can actually see > > > the curvature. And if one deigns to really academic thinking, the > > > universe may be 'flat' and distance an illusion. > > > > Most academics do little more than what a car mechanic does in > > > exploiting her skill. The area of operation is just a bit different. > > > We all have our ways of making sense of what goes on. I'm not > > > convinced I have heard-read-experienced much that addresses this > > > across academic disciplines - the problem, as Vam often comments - is > > > to box off the argument to paper. The system of 'discussion' is now > > > corrupt beyond measure - conferences are advertised more like holidays > > > and most journals are unreadable dross. > > > > I believe the real reason for much of this is that the easiest way to > > > rank a human population is through quasi-abilities in maths and > > > language and that this is the reason for the failure of universal > > > education where it has been practiced over the last 80 years. > > > Whatever our education systems have done, they have not produced > > > reasonable equality or democracies at peace with themselves. I walk > > > my dog on a lead not because I want to deprive him of the joy of > > > pounding off, but because of traffic and consideration of those who do > > > not appreciate enthusiastic, slobbering Labradors. I fear this is the > > > guiding metaphor behind education, though less enlightened. The free > > > space where my dog runs seems unavailable for human practice other > > > than thought. > > > > We seem to think we can "train" human beings in "essential" skills. > > > The reason given in answer to the question as to why the kids had to > > > wear uniform at my grandson's school the other night was it was to > > > teach for to 'obey rules without question'. O my Lord! Some social > > > epistemology in that! The teachers struggle to maintain discipline > > > and out of school many of these kids are little better than louts > > > (though by no means all of them) who litter our streets and start > > > 'careers with the law'. > > > > I despair at our taken for granted in all this. We need a new > > > society. I see no answers in academe and believe the issues we need > > > to confront are practical and to do with "meritocracy" and people who > > > believe they have worked hard for what they've got feeling > > > "superior". Those of us given the right 'card' through money and/or > > > education have a lot to answer for and most of it can be described in > > > simple terms. We evade this at every turn by boxing off argument into > > > rationalisation that suits us and 'backfiring' when evidence is put in > > > contradiction. The religion of this is neo-classical economics, the > > > uniform of the World Bank and IMF, though we don't even know any of > > > this, needing only 'look after number one'. This basic issue spawns > > > all the rest of social thinking. I want to reject it. Simple answers > > > follow.
