On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Paul Tanner <email@example.com> wrote: > > Per capita GDP and how it is distributed is not all that important? > Tell that to places like Haiti. >
This looks like it might be some kind of response to what I wrote, but maybe not.
Anyway, I push GST (general systems theory) as a competing brand to Economics. GST is not new, but my spinning it as competition for Economics put me on the radar long ago as an exotic blip on the screen. GST has taken some weird twists and turns since then, but continues to make friends, even of former enemies (of each other). More at my website(s).
> > And yes, the US was in a good position after WWII, but to say that if > we had done the conservative thing and destroyed our unions and good > paying jobs and destroyed upper income mobility and destroyed the > ability to get a loan to start a business (in 1977 we had twice as > many entrepreneurs as now) and our GDP would have grown just as fast > and been distributed as evenly as it was is crazy.
Right, rolling back all the FDR innovations, a goal of lawyer-capitalism (according to Medal of Freedom winning STEM guy R.B. Fuller), would have been disastrous.
A few misguided on Wall Street tried to put Smedley Butler up to it (a coup against FDR), a decorated war hero. Something bad might happen to FDR in which case he could step in. This is when Americans were enthralled with Mussolini, somewhat less so with Hitler. Smedley blew the whistle and ratted them out in Congress; embarrassing, as these were the same deep pockets behind several campaigns. No one served time.
The business class back then was scared stiff by the worker uprising in Spain (all those "co-ops"), the one Hemingway supported, other literati. Mussolini / Fascism was easier to understand. Top-down, a pyramid. Trickle down. That's been the model for human societies since Pharaoh ruled / enslaved the Hebrews.
FDR was in a tough position, trying to get Americans, sick of war (WW1), to rally against the heroes of the Business Plotters (see Business Plot in Wikipedia). Wall Street was thinking Hitler might be on to something, especially in the Eugenics department which was big in America back then too.
Anyway, the post-WW2 liberal solution or "world order", based on Keynesianism to some degree (Bertrand Russell, Bretton Woods, IMF / World Bank, UN), involved spreading "pork" around in Congress, creating military-industrial jobs at Lockheed-Martin, Boeing etc., all big consumers of IT (e.g. General Dynamics contracts with Computer Science Corporation).
The Space Shuttle is a prime example. The boosters needed to be made in sections, with O-rings, because off all the trains involved, making sure every important state got a share of the action. MX missiles would use trains too. Keeping everyone happy and in business
The Beltway Junta replaced the Business Plotters as the trickle downers of choice. This was the RAND solution, though one could say Orwell caught the drift earlier: perpetual proxy wars in the name of keeping family wage jobs.
The transformation of the USSR through glasnost / perestroika has enabled some pretty dramatic cuts in military spending and increased investments in the civilian sector. Europe may be running a petro-dollar deficit but the Russians are looking at some extra money to play with, and some of that has gone into Western stock markets. Russians may not have a controlling interest in all these firms (household names), but they're certainly profiting from lawyer-capitalism (while it lasts).
Anytime Americans start talking about a Peace Dividend or Beyond War or whatever, there are worried meetings in Beltway Junta ville (DC) about how to scare 'em more. This is not a time to be talking peace (it's never that time). This is tighten your belt time, because China is stealing all the secret formulas and diagrams for their next (?) cyberattack. Keep Hollywood on board with the movies and we'll stay in good shape.
http://youtu.be/o13e7g9KZnE (voices switch to Chinese at the end, shows "what Chinese audiences would really like to see" (repo notice))
Nationalism is a fairly "tired" ideology. As humans get increasingly better at reviewing their own history on Planet Earth, it becomes increasingly obvious to them that there's just the one ecosystem. Economics (pre-GST) is too tied to concepts of "nation" and "state". Not that these don't exist (as institutions) but they somewhat cloud our vision of what "the economy" is.
The biosphere is the unit of integrity here.
State-employed math teachers understandably suffer from the same forms of acculturation and tend to want to fix / solve / address their problems at the "national and state level".
I don' t have a problem with some people (aka nationalists) doing that, but I find the people who are willing to work supra-nationally (ala doctors without borders) are better at getting work done. We're more city oriented, play capitals off against each other (capitals of this and that -- Portland is a capital of open source). I call this capitalism (it's a game I play). You've seen how I diss DC (though I like some of the architecture).
Probably that's my international school background / bias -- to think the globalists are clearer thinking. Nationalists operating with the blinders of "state" often seem to have a gross motor disability in my book (they're always picking up arms and racing off to shoot someone - -- a sure sign of faulty / buggy programming, or at least a red flag). In other nationalists, the symptoms are less pronounced, and indeed, some seem actually healthy and understand the need to "work within the system".