An Import the I edited

We are all in this Together (edited)

I was browsing at the library.

Casually browsing at the library, I picked up a book. Yes. Right off the
stand. The display. That works, because I am concerned with
“messages.” The messages are packaged.
There must be some process by which they come to be in the package.
Browsing a book from the display stand like this, that package is what I am getting. The
books of a society make for a package, which is so we can promote our values.  

Pick up your read. I suggest taking your pick from libraries or bricks-and-mortar stores because then your interactions are more tangible than if you are using technologies like the Internet.
When it is a physical experience, it all comes to you whole. I think Amazon knows, too, since there is a physical representation, which is going up on 34th street in New York City: You may get your experience of
Amazon books -  in a more tangible way.

When books are marketed like this, with greater interaction, it also provides a path towards seeing what printers and manufacturers want out of us. Everybody is human and everybody has desires. These must,
it seems to me, be expressed within the parameters of society or state. Human beings need to express themselves. Analysis of marketing provides a way to understand what the book printers and makers and
publishers desire, want, or need to say. How they are programming us. What do they want from us? It is not exactly a benign social intervention. They could want something totally rotten! The book I was looking at,
for example.
This one was by someone named Brannen. The title said, “The End of…” Ends of the… world. There was a nice pleasant cover. It was in color: the world may come to an end but that is perfectly alright, for we may
still be able to issue these nice books. That could be.
The world could come to an end. But still…all is well. These books basically say, “All’s well. The world goes on. Everything’s fine: books come out. I hope you’re having a nice time.” And Do Buy This.” The world works well;
we are going to put out some nice books. The
Ends of the world…Ha! -these guys are clever indeed.

.

Access to the marketing provides me with information, and no less so than do words. These are messages. You can say that both form and content are messages. Some of the messages in the book are arranged by the clever writer; other messages are the marketing. So, the latter messages were arranged by the clever publishing firm. These are in the package together. The marketing aspect, including the “buyer experience,” contains a message. We may contrast that message with the stuffed-up one, which has been called, for clarity, the “content.” In any case, both are together. There is one package, and many. It’s all one big, sticky piece of chewing gum.

Why should we think any differently? A book is packaged content. It has something to say in words. Okay, sure. And that is ‘text.’ Or, we call that message the book’s “argument.” That is one argument or one phase of the argument. That is a message, a transmission. A particular book’s content/argument is therefore just one message among many. An individual gets messages. Any individual, in the course of a life, is getting many such messages, millions of them. That’s all the society does, is that it sends messages. Are we to think that the recipients, in the community - the recipients of all of the messages - keep marketing and content separate? Of course not. So wouldn’t it be better to say that the “marketing” is a cultural element and thus mixed with all the other cultural characteristics of a particular group of persons in society?

But it seems that it would be hard for persons to admit this. But when do we grow up? It is about time that we face up to the way we receive the messages transmitted to us within the culture we exist in: U. S. culture.

Or maybe international culture. Why bother to say U. S. culture? It probably has been no different at any time in history since Gutenberg’s press, but I think what is different is that the U. S. has been organized as a democracy and its people are subject to these forces. They will have a job to do in the next election. We have a responsibility to carry out the mandate of history.

Intellectuals need to come off the high road: they should possess a broader understanding of cultural forces. Come off the high road; get your feet wet.

 worldcitizenjs  Uncategorized Leave a comment  December 15, 2017 2 Minutes

Professor's Blog "Mainly Macro"

This is a pretty good blogspot/Google blogger. I would recommend it. Here, he discusses two cases, Left objection to anti-Semitism is one...

good reading... https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com//.......

Capitalism is society

What is a large scale capitalist economy? Is it a network? Is it a community? It is related to both of those things, and therefore a way of conducting humanity or human lives. Capitalism is a means to create a society to carry out the various functions in life, particularly those that are organized around exchange. One feature of capitalism may be that various individuals pursue livelihoods, but are linked together as a community. But this aspect, that of linkage or social connection, is missing in the intellectual study field of "economics." The studies methodically go about their business: which is the business of getting things wrong and they thus create a methodical misunderstanding. Marx's analysis, says one Galbraith, the current one, Jamie, was social and political but neo-Classical economics has "dumped" all of that. What it means is they took out the whole social connection. The social part of economics has been removed. This is to say: as intellectual technique. In the real sense economics is social but in the 'study reality,' human beings suddenly do not get along or interact socially. All that's over, and suddenly there are only individuals. This sudden disappearance of human social connections should immediately arouse suspicions.
     It is a wrong view. Nevertheless, this stupid technique, which call for telling us that economic actors are individuals, or mere individuals, has been accepted. The neoclassical view is wrong, yet it is accepted, as course/study material. So what is the fundamental mistake? It places the emphasis on individuals, when human beings are, in reality, social creatures. Capitalism is not out of line with this characterization. We can therefore take a more social view, but - and we may ask for the reason - the persons working in the subject field (area) of "economics," obliterated the hope for all of this.
     What is the reason for such unreasonable ideas? How can we explain it? Capitalism forces us to do one of two things: we have, either, to admit our social side or conceal it. Once you decide to conceal it, something absurd has to result. Then we wait for the "scientific paradigm" to correct itself. The intellectual history of economics consist of the history or the result of a decision to conceal this. It seems to me a decision to conceal the fact that social life is a part of ourselves, that we are social, and this involves initiating something that some persons needed to do because capitalism came along, threatening to confirm these facts, which "Individualists" prefers not to do.
     So, the argument had to be turned the oth-
     
--er way, because this was the only alternative that was palatable to a large constituency, which is to say amongst the rich, among the "ideological superstructure." Thereat is a part of humanity who do not want to admit they are part of humanity.
     But the view is wrong, for now and in the past. Capitalism was not some kind of individual affair. Rather it brings social life into it. We can get the picture. We can clarify. Factory workers now live together. They inhabit cities like Manchester, England. Is there a sudden transformation there, into individuals guided by rational self-interest? Social aspects of capitalism were subsequently expunged from the intellectual picture. These more social kinds of ideas were assigned to socialists, the curators. Intellectual life was now divided into left and right. Manufactures exploited workers. That started in the early 19th century, or before, and it was going like that until about 1850, when workmen's wages in England, mercifully, started to rise. (Braudel) The cause of the workingman was taken up by socialism. In reality capitalism itself was perfectly capable of treating workers like human beings. (Robert Owen) But the wealthy owners were afraid somebody might take away their wealth. For that reason hundreds of thousands of workers had to live in misery. They were used by the wealthy as mere pawns since the overall goal was business expansion. A labor movement was eventually formed, so that workers were (for the next 130 yrs.) able to attain more of the capitalistic "wealth," or "value," which was of course being produced on an ongoing basis. First, poverty had to be endured, in England as well as US. The growth of capitalism is one of the most bizarre stories in the history of man's experience on this earth.
     Of course we may continue to refuse to confront our social nature. Try that. We can all die from global warming - there is that too. But, at any rate, one should not take it as given that capitalism means only something about the individual, or individual ownership, or individualism or anything else like that (other writers might know how to put it more cannily).
     By getting the story of capitalism wrong and calling it individualism we consign ourselves to lives of basic propaganda. It is a big misunderstanding. It is only based on this misunderstanding that persons continue to seek after their ideal, which is a system of total individualism that they can only dream about and theorize about. It is difficult to find such a system in reality. And no wonder --- it is not there as any essential or prominent part of capitalism yet the facts are there is a large capitalist economy. What is it? What does one do with it? That is what we need to find out. It has been a very powerful system but at this time in history things need to change. Capitalism, in my view, now needs to be subject to human control, intentional control. And to exercise control includes the need for understanding what capitalism is, since of course one would need to know what one is controlling. This seems to be very difficult for us. But, I will suggest, that is where economists come in.

*                                *                            *                           *                         *
My usual approach is to understand the phenomena of economics in terms of man's inherent sociality.

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/kapital-for-the-twenty-first-century
--


     In fact, the neoclassical view is just wrong. It deliberately places the emphasis on individuals when human beings are social creatures. Capitalism is not out of line with this or an exception. Capitalism forces us to do one of two things: we have either to admit our social side or to conceal it. Intellectual history, in the case of economics, is the decision to conceal this part of ourselves, to conceal that we are social beings, which involves initiating an intellect process which is necessary only because capitalism comes along threatening to confirm what one prefers to reject. So, the argument had to be turned the other way, because this was the only alternative that was palatable to a large constituency, amongst the rich part of humanity.
     Capitalism was never individual. It immediately brings social life into the picture. Factory workers now live together, in cities like Manchester, England. There is no sudden transformation into individuals guided by rational self-interest. Social aspects of capitalism were subsequently expunged from the picture. These were assigned to socialists as curators. Intellectual life was divided. There was left and right. Manufactures brutally exploited workers, which started in the early 19th century or before, until about 1850, when workmen's wages in England, mercifully, started to rise. The cause of the workingman was taken up by socialism, when in reality capitalism itself was perfectly capable of treating workers like human beings. (Robert Owen) But the wealthy owners were afraid somebody might take away their wealth, and for that reason hundreds of thousands of workers were forced to live in misery. They were used by the wealthy as mere pawns in the expansion of business. Eventually a labor movement was formed, and by this or other means workers were (for 130 yes.) able to attain more of the capitalistic wealth that was being produced. First, poverty had to be endured, in England as well as US/America. The growth of capitalism is one of the most bizarre stories in the history of man on earth.

Which historical eras should we refer to as being "Capitalist"?

There is certainly a history to the school of "self-interest" thought. Some people find it useful. Subscribing to the school of thought, or even elaborating it, has helped many successful persons. It seems to me that we may describe Europe as being characterized by a lot of individualism as well as a thirst to establish individualism as a point in philosophy.
     European society became established, which, of course, took place over a good many years. As Europe established its particular way of life, the idea of individual self-interest provided a philosophical foundation that many persons found helpful. We can see that justifications of self-interest therefore predate capitalism, and then continue into the period of European history we may call "capitalist," and by that I mean from the middle to late Eighteenth century. Capitalism is now deeply threatened, in my opinion. One of the reasons it is threatened is this dependence on the philosophy of self-interest.
     It is always something superimposed on the facts, rather than its being a reflection of them. Capitalism is not individualism, nor must it be equated with self-interest. The point I want to underscore is that a hyper-individualized society is not the same as - or consistent with - being a capitalistic society. We may use a simple mantra: "capitalism is social." The present extreme level of individualism, actually the abandonment of humans by their own society, did not exist in any other stage of capitalism and did not exist just prior to capitalism. This is, however, the present stage. It is our present condition.
     Therefore, the current conditions we experience do not need to be called "capitalist." The word "capitalist" should refer to something else.
      

's Wonderful

There is a Financial Structure. The financial structure accommodates various persons. The components are the persons in this structure (whether individuals, employees, advisers). A structure: something like a house. Many persons live inside of that. When I say financial structure I limit myself to the upper social class, the upper status sorts of person.

And these persons live inside this structure – the commercial house – and are human and have a cooperative feeling as humans. Capitalism depends on our cooperation, rather than our mathematics. And, no, it is not competition----or any other idea. You can call it “self-interest” if you like – that’s just more language. Economics could not possibly exist without the human element of cooperation. Give it whatever name you like, but every day businessmen cooperate. To do so is necessary; one must undercut the virus of self-interest.

It is difficult to give a definite interpretation of the way this structure was constructed. It was constructed over the course of history, but it is also temporary. It is completely impermanent. It must be understood as being completely impermanent. In the time it has left, it accommodates many, many human beings. To provide jobs is one thing. That's fine, but where is it leading? 

To be sure, there are questions, fascinating ones, about this "house of finance" the upper class has built and which conditions the world we live in. This structure, or house, works in a cooperative way, though, which I have already stated. Since they live as humans, rather than as abstractions or whatever it is that the economists believe, we would hope of them that they could realize that they are merely spinning their wheels waiting for their (and our) house to collapse. 

We shall now review the ideas: capitalism causes a house to be built; what is essential (for the time it exists) is cooperation. It is not self-interest or competition that is key. 

Let's paraphrase Ellington: It don't mean a thing / if it don't got that (cooperation or) "zing." Capitalism needs flava.

Amazing---
how they do all this out of "self-interest"!
It's remarkable!
'S Wonderful!

The Flavor of Capitalism

[written at Starbucks]

The Purpose of the business

The purpose of business is a good topic. I here suggest a provocative way to look at the purpose of business.

What's the purpose of a business? We ask a profound question here. A goal could be money. Are businesses just for money--? ~just for profit? The most interesting thing in the previous is, arguably, where I say, “for.” What is a business FOR? When we try to explain a business simply by citing the money -- and of course there is some connection -- we see that this is not what they are FOR, particularly. That is not the thrust of it. There is this money connection, of course, but this is not all of it. What they are for is something else. We could, for example, claim that when businesses make money that makes for a great society, or we could say it provides jobs and so forth. We could even try saying that having a job gives people something meaningful to do in their life. Which emphasizes meaning and not money. 

So, is it better to just say businesses are there to make money?

    There is a need for a person in our society to make money. It seems fundamental; there is something fundamental here. These can be called money motives. After all, we always see this, especially in any urban society. That everybody in that kind of society needs money is something we can say with a reasonable (i.e. for social science) degree of confidence. A suggestion that business has other characteristics might be met by hostility, on the part of those who run business enterprises. Actually, banks would make up the special case of "only after money." 

     DO persons in our society work hard? If it is a small business, it probably involves an individual working hard all day – for as the common wisdom would have it, the sole proprietor tends to be a hard worker. If a big business, then there are other considerations. It may therefore be that “just making money” is too narrow an explanation of why businesses exist. It is not satisfactory to say that some businesses are only there for the money. It doubt any are.

     This is our repeat question: Are businesses there just for money? If the individual wants, actually needs, money, and businesses are run by these same individuals, are businesses simply the functional translation of that need? Once we understand the foregoing, there is a further consideration. Given that the goal of all the businesses together cannot be money, if there is something that serves as the end or the goal, that involves the free interaction of beings. Such an observation involves necessary conditions for there to be any capitalism at all. In this connection, I will suggest that capitalism regulates that freedom, rather than the opposite, that it eliminates/removes freedom. The freedom simply may not be removed. That would break the capitalism system in any event. We can say that the system of business forces this necessary human freedom into guidelines, yes. Or it forces the necessary freedom to follow rules. There are certain rules, but the reasonably well-compensated individual lives in a free society. That is a form of capitalism we can live with. We just said that capitalism needs that freedom, and thus it is inconsistent to now say that it may go away.

     We therefore may conclude that businesses are not there to get money, nor to make a profit. They are doing that anyway, but we have no problem adding the consideration that participants have freedom. Once the participants have freedom, they can go ahead and make money. Therefore, the society that results, which is a society with all of this business activity going on in it, involves the free interaction of human beings. Anyone that believes this to be unimportant probably does not care much about freedom, in any event.

     Our process of inquiry has now taken us out of the tight circle of business being “only for money”  ---- thus we have been able to place ourselves into at least a slightly broader view of the matter.

     This means that: Business actors are not involved merely in self-interest. They are acting as social beings and perpetuating reasonable society, one that is fair. They are perpetuating a society that contains, in it, freedom. Somehow it seems to work.

    When a person goes to work, is she “just trying to get money”? Persons often used to say that. They would tell you: “I am just trying to make a living.” It is time to give up on that excuse. We need to take seriously the idea that we have responsibilities to others. 

     An individual who is involved, as a free member of a free society, in business, whether as owner or employee, is not just there to make money and he never was. He us a man, he has honor, and he is there to uphold a responsibility. This responsibility involves upholding a capitalistic social order, a society that may succeed only when it contains, in it, human freedom. How an individual goes about doing the active part of that is his or her own business, which is not the same as saying it does not need to be done well. 

Free Markets - then and now

In a memo made public on Thursday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the Obama policy impaired the government's ability to meet the future needs of the federal prison system.

The Obama administration said in August 2016 it planned a gradual phase-out of private prisons by letting contracts expire or by scaling them back to a level consistent with recent declines in the U.S. prison population.

From Reuters, Feb 27

What Sessions says here is that some element outside the private sector, namely the federal government, needs the private sector in order to function. The federal government needs control of markets. There was a phase-out, of private prisons, under Obama. The claim by Sessions is that the phase-out “impaired the government’s ability” to perform some function or to function correctly or efficiently. If we were to ask whether this is an example of the government staying out of the private sector, it seem that is not the case. Then private sector in prison work exists here only because of government. It is the government, at some level, federal or state, that wants to pay for this. Obviously, it is the government, that pays for the so-called "private" prisons. How is that the private sector? It is the government that is creating private sector activity. What does that tell us? Here, the private sector activity is prison work, by somebody who is working with prison-as-business. According to the reasoning that persons are using here, it is the government that causes the private sector to deploy. This would happen whenever the government buys anything. There are many businesses, the majority of whose business goes to the government. If consumer decisions drive the economy, this is not the case of the private sector making those decisions. Rather, the government (state or federal) making the decisions that create profit for the private companies. Then how are they private companies? The origination of this business for private prisons is not in society at large; if their originates from spending it is government spending. Why then would anyone call the prison firm a "private" firm? For prison work? Why would the prisoners need to be taken care of "privately"? The whole thing breaks down. It also seems nefarious. It shows that the distinctions we make between "private" and "public" when we have an economics discussion are completely confused.

     For many years, all of us were subjected to the standard kind of free market arguments—what were and are called the “free market” arguments. The arguments or ideas said that the market was a characteristic feature of free, private citizens. This means this area called the "market" must not come into the domain of what the government does. Therefore, they argued, the country gets the better result when the market was allowed to stay free from what was always called "intervention," where the meaning is government intervention. But when we look carefully, what do we find? It is that the same people making the "free market" arguments eventually take up a position in favor of government intervention. What is happening here is government funding of prison businesses. It looks to me like government intervention in the market. But markets are always public. This is the real nature of capitalism. It is not private at all. Capitalism is a characteristic of a society, of a whole society, which is very much public. This is so; in this case the private industry originates in a decision by government, when government "green lights" a private business activity. The work is contracted by government, it originates in government, and would not exist without government, which includes the courts and the legal and law enforcement systems wherein the offenders are tried and sentenced. But then it suddenly becomes "private." State governments of course also use the supposedly “private prison" system. Thus, we are saying that "private prisons" are businesses only made possible by means of decisions and planned by governments.

     What is under discussion in the Sessions decision is the federal prison system, which is where Sessions works. He is in the federal government now, which is where the argument for private prisons originates from. Then the decision to allow private prisons does not originate in society, in the lives of  private citizens, or anywhere or in any market at all, outside of government. The prisoners may wind up at the mercy of private captors, but they are put there by the government. What do "markets" have to do with any of this? The government has to hire the private prisons. What Sessions wants, this is according to the statement, is for the federal prison system to work well. His concern is not that the private prison system to work well. He is talking about the federal prison system. The argument he makes is that, in order for the public system to work, you gotta have the private system. So, the idea being argued is that government needs private prisons. And that is not a market decision, or not in the sense of traditional free market arguments. This kind of thing is not being decided by the free markets or the society. But this was the original idea of free market thought--to take government out of it. Rather than being decided by some social or market process, it is entirely subjective—Jeff Sessions saying whatever he wants. All Sessions seems to need to do is tell everyone what the government requires. He is the government so he should know. He can say whatever he likes, since he is the government. Thus: “for the government to work, we need private prisons.” But how do we know? What decision-making process is involved? He might be making that up. The important factor is that he is the government and has government power. Maybe he really believes it. Or, it could just be his opinion. How do we know? That is not letting the markets decide at all. It seems like a very arbitrary statement, or like something Sessions felt like saying and knew he could plausibly say.

     Maybe Sessions wants the government to have the freedom to make its own market decisions. In that case, he wants government to have more freedom. Well, that is one sort of "freedom," but those persons who for so long spoke of “free markets” wanted the people to have more freedoms (since some of them were businessmen). In designating how economic decisions should be make, they specifically  wanted for that power to not be given to government. 
     So, in summary, Sessions (presumably), and others, now implicitly use what we can call heritage  free market arguments for a purpose quite opposed to what the free market arguments were originally intended for. 
     If Sessions does not want the federal government's ability "impaired," it means the federal government should have more power to do what it wants. That does not sound like the original intention of the classic free market argument.

Would Free Markets Have Leaders (at all?)

In a true, standard or cliché “free market society” political leaders are a casualty. Such things simply wouldn’t exist! The market is a social phenomenon and each individual person in the market is out to satisfy a particular set group. This group, often called “customers,” can vary in size, and thus, the persons the firm wants to satisfy could be small or it could be a large set of persons. It might be big (e.g. all cell phone users or computer users) or small (all persons who wear Alpaca sweaters). Also, in other ways, as well, it is specialized. What we have covered, above, is that the market actor is not after everybody, and thus does not need everyone for a customer. And in addition, an actor or seller, which is to say within this idealized free market, which is really a society, does not share all concerns, or even "big" concerns. Her concern as to the customer is limited to polite or pleasing behavior, as well as (of course) concern for the specific item being handled or traded/sold. In fact, we may go further and suggest that the market actors seem to specifically try to shirk responsibility. The do not want responsibility for what happens in society. And, in this regard limit their conversations, with the clientele. Conversations are circumscribed.

     Contrast that with a political leader. What is different? The leader (compared with the "trader") has a different job. He is a figure who represents everybody. The leader, therefore, is a persons who has the responsibility for the population. There is a difference in terms of context. We need first to fix (ascertain) the context in which we are discussing human agency. Is it the context of the "market"? If by "market" we mean capitalism, then what we are talking about is an ideal capitalist world, a capitalistic society, and in that cliché capitalist world there is no demand there, for the political leader. This is what I am suggesting, and, maybe this helps explain the current "Trump" phenomenon a bit. Political situation enters crisis. That is because business has gained too much dominance. With the political system weakened, a business leader becomes formally identical to a political leader. Political leaders are no longer wanted.

More on ethnicity and inclusion

Let's talk about when persons help others. We can argue that the ones that actually get helped tend to be members of an ethnicity (or other group) shared in common. In other words, persons helping other persons often belong to a social group in common with the ones being helped. In capitalism, while the aspect of ethnicity is there, it has not been much addressed. It also may not be as obvious. Moreover, it is not exactly ethnicity—but that is the closest word I know, so I just use the term "ethnic." Maybe it means "inclusive group." It is there, and also moving or changing. Now, the idea of ethnicity – or something like that in capitalism – ought not be raised in such a way that would overlook the fact that capitalism contains liberals, those who do promote fair, equal, unbiased treatment for all. Far from being unknown, this is a major claim. Liberals do promote such ideas. These are also the ideas of universal human rights or equality. (For example, we mention the “Founding Fathers,” and they endorsed the idea that “all men were equal.” Except negroes, and, Um—Indians.)

     To clarify, ethnicity is present although as a sort of a moving target since the situation is constantly changing. Different groups gain more access. This happens, as time goes by. It changes as time goes by, so there is this constant alteration. Black gets rights, then gays get rights. An obvious suggestion is that “globalization” would looks to be a sort of terminal point of all of this. If it is an end point it is in the sense that at some point no more of the earth’s surface left to revolutionise/transform.

     In my system, capitalism is always a form of society (and not primarily individualistic, which I find to be a ruse, and which is a subject of its own). Ethnicity is important in societies, of course! It is just as important a factor in capitalism as it was in previous earlier social formations. There seems to be an inexorable trend towards the mixing of ethnicity, in the history of capitalism. This happens gradually, as I think I mentioned. And this in turn elicits absolute indignation and outrage, at regular historical intervals. Outrage is understood as an indication of the importance of ethnicity, which is something that survives into capitalism, yet changes as time goes on.

     The trend is clear. It is towards some kind of human equality or inclusion, but capitalism has a very particular way of getting there. This is a big discussion. In order to get progress we must accept the real facts. This we seem to have trouble doing. As capitalism progresses (if it does, and this seems rather more unlikely these days), one would naturally expect the barriers between people to be gradually taken down. I must point out that the only way to do it is with a lot of intelligence, and planning, and thought, and, therefore, not stupidly (as we are seeing with the ethnically-oriented Trump administration).

     The other thing we really must point out here is that it is not going to happen automatically. That idea (the idea of a “magic” of the market) is not correct.  

There has to be a system of working out our problems.          We have many problems, and, in this period of history, I would like to suggest the “economics” sorts of solutions, since solutions linked to economics are the more germane ones, in my opinion.

And in this effort to address social problems in an economics context I would like to offer some new views of capitalism itself. Capitalism proceeds from ethnicity. Ethnicity presents obstacles, and capitalism progresses only slowly, as the various “groups” (the term “ethnicity” may be substituted sometimes) groups attain greater rights of participation. The unusual thing that happened in Germany under National Socialism was the act of working backwards, and taking away participation rights that had been in use, by the Jewish persons. This seems not to have harmed the German economy at all, but at any rate usually the process goes the other direction: ethnicities at first fail to participate and slowly gain more economic rights. This is still a very big issue, in countries like Turkey.

Capitalism is progressive, and changes over generations, from earliest capitalisms to more recent versions of capitalism. For a while, ethnic groups – or gender groups – have trouble getting into the market. Over the decades, however, more and more persons in the central countries, like Germany, the U. S., or France are able to hold decent jobs.

So, a great part of economics is the decisions about how to include more persons, and only rarely does the trend go in the opposite direction. This of course, is why the current problem of distributive justice (“inequality") is so important and significant. It means there is a problem, it is social, and needs to be addressed.

Exact change, from the barista

 

First, you tender the barista a 20- bill, in payment for a drink that cost you $2.51. So, maybe you pay for your drink with a twenty. If I get a $2.51 coffee drink at Starbucks and pay with a twenty the barista generally gives the exact right change, but that is actually contrary to my understanding of what the principle is that makes capitalism possible. So, the question is that of the principle, what capitalism needs, in order to exist. The tab was exactly $2.51. And she gave me exactly the correct change. Right down to the leetle pennies? There is something very depressing about it, really. That’s not the principle. The principle is that of an active person, living in society, trading. Trucking. Bartering.

There has to be a “margin,” there needs to be a fuzzy space. Human beings do not operate without. If capitalism were that clean, there would be no system. Such exactitude is not the principle of capitalism. It contains no vital principle.

We need to understand in an accurate way. What is to be comprehended is the need of this fuzzy zone. And what does the idea of a “fuzzy zone” have to do with? It has to do with human relations. If we say that two human persons are operating in relation to each other we do not mean a mechanical juxtaposition. Rather this is something that is constantly in adjustment, making adjustments of any and all kinds, up to the limit of human variability. You have the whole spectrum of a busy, modern society with its rich persons, poor persons, consumer, and producers. And the cheaters and hustlers, the legal persons and the “criminals”—this is the way it has always been and that is the truth whether economists and other such stalwarts of the establishment admit it or not.

This constant adjustment allows for fuzzy stuff, inaccuracy, and space. A shifting relation may not seem to be very precise or scientific but the other view misses when it comes to what is the principle. We do not get anything from extreme accuracy, in the precise neo-Classical sense. They are only empty diagrams.

The real principle is not that. But the real story is not so far away, either. The story is right there, but the story is found in the fuzz, not the precision calculation (e.g. of change at Starbucks). Where is the opportunity in that? There is no “margin,” there is no opportunity to get in there and do anything. Yes, your barista is following the dictates of logic. But that is not the principle.

Economics is always a philosophy of life, never one of death

What is economics? Is it a philosophy of death? No, it is a philosophy of life. Economics only includes the “allocation” of resources in support of life. There is no economics of death. Death is not an economic good that can be distributed fairly. Economics involves rational allocation. Just as there would be no point to irrational allocation, neither would there be any point to a theory of unfair allocation. So, all economic theories implicitly describe an allocation process that is fair.

     However, most professional scholars who have chosen to specialize in “economics,” pretending they know something, look for other ways to define or describe economics. They look for some other principle, but not fairness. So, the rule is to find some method for understanding economics allocation, and not fairness. What alternatives are available? It becomes the matter of what is left, to the “economics field.” The alternative, or the one alternative they decided to promote was that of self-interest. And in this way they achieved the goal: they found something outside of fairness.

A Curious Deception

The life that one lives under capitalism is not mere individualism; it is society, social, as much as any other kind of expression of human “socialness.” Those who claim the special character of an individualistic capitalism do so for a reason. They are afraid of the social, or of any way of life that involves more social responsibility than individual responsibility. These are merely two different ways of living. I am not saying one is objectively better than the other. A way of living that has more of the social quality is engaged in making its constituent members responsible for others. This is not the only way, however. The other way, espoused by many great Western intellectual figures, emphasizes primarily one’s individual responsibility. So there are these two trends. Both may provide viable ways of living, under specific circumstances. The trend towards capitalism is not a kind of individualism. Now, as to that kind of idea, the more individualistic kind of understanding of things, there are all kinds of justifications for this (which we can accept or not). But at the end of the day, one lives either in one system or the other. There is a system of shared responsibility and there is a potential, but probably not very current, system of potentially more individuatedness. Should the West have a system of social responsibility or one of individual responsibility? It is not ours to answer.

History has rendered its answer: social. Capitalism is in fact the answer that history has given. Capitalism, contrary to the received doctrine, a doctrine imposed on us by the very same capitalistic intellectual or cultural edifice, did not decide the case for individualism, capitalism only claimed to, and so over the years what we have been subject to is a curious deception.

Economics has various “schools” with ideas on "information." There are economic players, or participants. The schools of thought agree that the economic players obtain information. Do we obtain information? No doubt. Sure we do. It is not in doubt that economic theory covers information, as a theoretical component of its understanding. That is for sure. We all know that getting information is important. Information is in there someplace. I don't doubt it. Getting information is important. While getting the right information is important, there are times when we do not get it. There is more to it, somehow. There must be something else. This something else is, however, not usually explicitly spoken about. What is it then, that is not mentioned, when we focus on "information"? The other element is, perhaps, ignorance! The subject of ignorance should not be ignored. This subject may be divided up as follows. Here is how we do this. We can make a division of ignorance into intentional and unintentional, in the sense that one may be keeping the other people ignorant on purpose – or not. That makes two kinds of ignorance. The sense intended is that you either did it on purpose, or you did not – you knew what you were doing or you didn't. (Maybe it just happened that way.) You did not in the later case restrict information intentionally. That's the idea.
     It can be intentional, as in the case where a seller benefits from some of that good ol' ignorance – no doubt – then, the seller wants it, wants the customer to be in the dark. We may now consider that this is not really customary human behavior. We do not like to keep other persons ignorant in general. (This has some important implications we will omit here) On the other hand, we need to be aware of this. We have to allow it in. It is the “study” possibility.  

     If we do not study how ignorance works in economic relations, Well: Then, we are ignorant!

This discussion becomes relevant in the case of mercantilism. This is understood as a system where we have an entire country that tries to bring benefit to itself—it uses a certain strategy in getting profit out of its trade life. There is something peculiar about the study of this practice as other countries, not receiving this "mercantilist reward," could perhaps want to know about it. Back in what one historian assures us they used to call “this manor of England,” a phrase he says was widely used, if a man back then were to, say, publish a book on mercantilism? He might give the whole thing away! The trade partner is the other country (usually it supplies raw material?) – which merely has to read the book. This, I would think, brings us back to the point about intentional, or unintentional, ignorance, as an aspect, for both the study of, and the practice of, economics. ("Enquiring minds want to know" and all that...)

     This shows that ignorance was important under mercantilism. I am concerned with ignorance in economics more for today. But, if ignorance was so important under mercantilism, and we note that it was so, at the country level, why could not ignorance be just as important in the next, upcoming phase of the human economic and social system, as it evolved in Europe? But, this time – in this system – on the individual level. Let's now say that in this system (the current one), trade should be for the benefit of everyone, the entire society—that does not seem unreasonable. In that case, we get the situation where ignorance is important to the workings of the system. We get to a situation that can only be described as a situation where ignorance is essential to the system. What we get, then, is a system that not only depends on information, or knowledge, and we can include the system's ideas about so-called “perfect information,” but also depends on ignorance, and thus, ignorance is also necessary, for its proper working. 

     And we hardly talk about this, of course. But are we being ignorant intentionally, or, unintentionally?

"Welfare" in Conventional Economics

If we say there are books on economics, that sure is the truth. There are such books, indeed there are some of  these, and if we look at them we would find out more about what is being discussed. (This a rarer idea than you, the reader, might think it is.) So, I picked out this one book, you see. It is old. One term of discussion that I noticed was “the principle of welfare,” or “social welfare.” OK, then. But what does “welfare” mean, both back in 1928, and today? I would think that in general it might mean something like the overall good or good of the society (implies "whole society"). That would be a kind of basic idea t hat a person might have, and rather a broad idea. But instead what I find is that these writers think that it is a narrow idea, a “principle,” of welfare, which in practice means, “concept.” The concept is going to be used in the area of economics discourse, so one is subsumed to the other, and hence “welfare” becomes just a concept, and so, not much different from any other. Now the "welfare economist" need to slot it in. It has to be slotted in somewhere, within economics, which is to say within that discourse.  

     But let us suggest a much different way to look, which is to surmise that that in fact is economics itself is all about. So, that is different. Now we are seeing the same concept more broadly. There are two possible views that I can see in this regard. We can narrow it down to two, at least. One is that economics is for individuals, with no social welfare involved at all. This is a common enough idea that one encounters (and, in my opinion, wrong). The other idea would be what I already mentioned, that it involves, fundamentally, the whole society. If we were to hold these as two separate, distinct views we might be able to come up with some useful observation or analyses. But this kind of practice of slotting in something called "the principle of welfare," or this practice of making something called "social welfare" a separate concept just seems to be a part of the overall project of social oppression. This is the project these persons are always carrying out! Aren't they? Anyhow, there isn’t much of much interest here and this, naturally, is why we do not read so many of these books. We read the clever, new attempts at it (guys like Tyler Cowen).

     But it was gathering dust on the bookshelf, here at Roosevelt University. Hey, I thought I’d give it a try. I am curious like that. If “welfare” becomes a concept, then where to fit it in economics? This seemed to be the author's concern. This is the kind of thing they go around and around with. I observe that, f you are trying to do something that cannot be done, this may just preoccupy you for a really unlimited amount of time.

     Better to say that the social welfare is the purpose of economics—it is very basic. A person wants to be alive, so s/ he eats, or builds a tent. A whole society wants the same, so the society generates some kind of economic system. So, I would offer  that social welfare is a lot more closely related to economics itself than just being merely another concept, which we may endlessly screw around with, trying to fit the precision phrase ("social welfare" and "the principle of welfare" were phrases I memorized) into one’s intellectual plate, at university! When we take something as basic as the common good or the social welfare, should we just turn it into another ordinary concept? I think we surely end up with just a basket of particulars. This may then pre-occupy us, and for way too long. 

     And it is certainly not worth it to go back to the shelf. Nah... On a quest for the exact title/reference? (I won't bother, but I can say it is a rather oldish book, and it is HB 34 –something; because, it was next to another book, by Coates. But that's another story, now isn't it?).

     I do not think that is the best way for me to spend my time.