Disposable People

Economy requires essential disposable people. No wonder labor participation is so low.

Snake Oil

Key member of Swedish Academy of Sciences calls for immediate suspension of the “Nobel Prize for Economics”:

The Prize in contravention of the spirit of Nobel’s will Can contribute to increased corruption. Multiple independent research shows that those who study economics are more prone to corruption. And the behavior seems to be an effect of education. A price that risk contribute to increased corruption in the world is in conflict with the spirit of Nobel’s will, writes political science professor Bo Rothstein. 

[...] 

It is also problematic in light of Sweden distributes one of the world’s most prestigious scientific awards in the subject, namely the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, in everyday speech the Nobel Prize in economics. The price was not found in Alfred Nobel’s original testament of 1895 but were added by a donation from Sweden Riksbank in 1968. Responsible party for the dividend is the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

Three more points:

• What else can one expect from a traveling medicine show pedaling snake oil?
• Of course it is corrupt, but there are different flavors, including intellectual.
• An ideology masquerading as a science is inherently corrupt--why else would it need to parasitically attach itself to Nobel's legacy?

“Borrowing to attend an American college may be hazardous to your dreams.”

From The trigger warning we need: “College is a scam meant to perpetuate the 1 percent” by Thomas Frank:

 Yes! Elite university students must be warned about “classism”! Not on course syllabi or the cover of a book as though it’s comsymp lit or something. No, they need to see it in big red letters inscribed on those elite universities themselves — stamped on every tuition bill and financial aid form and diploma they produce, spelled out in the quadrangle pavement, flashing from a neon sign above every dormitory so no one can miss it:

“Warning: This place exists to enforce class distinctions.”

[...]

 This power over admission to the bourgeoisie is the reason why tuition goes up constantly even as the university successfully transforms professors into low-wage freelancers (the subject of last week’s column)—because what those professors teach doesn’t matter. This is also why people who fake their college degrees often lead long and successful corporate lives without being detected—because the stuff you actually learn to get a liberal arts degree isn’t important in the corporate world. Only the diploma itself has real meaning in the marketplace, and only the marketplace has real meaning in America. This is a situation that clearly requires highly visible warnings, and lots of them.

 Buyer beware.  If you can't pay for college without a loan, then get a trade, save your money and go (or not).  Otherwise you risk being an indentured servant to a bank.

Other Possibilities

Mondragon: Spain's giant co-operative where times are hard but few go bust.  An interesting capitalist-cooperative hybrid model.  There are other possibilities.

Death of a Class

From a review of Death of a Yuppie Dream: The Rise and Fall of the Professional-Managerial Class:

Historically, members of the PMC have designed and managed capital’s systems of social control, oftentimes treating working-class people with a mixture of paternalism and hostility. As advocates for rational management of the workplace and society, however, the PMC has sometimes also acted as a buffer against the profit motive as the sole meaningful force in society. Today, members of the PMC face a choice. Will they cling to an elitist conception of their own superiority and attempt to defend their own increasingly tenuous privileges, or will they act in solidarity with other working people and help craft a politics capable of creating a better world for all?

Of course they will not.  They've been raised to believe societal myths and to embrace hyper-individuality.  Collective action is therefore inconceivable.  All that remains is complaining.  Talk - Action = Nothing.

Don't Believe the Tripe

From Here's Proof That Most Pundits Don't Know What They're Talking About:

Tetlock interviewed 284 people who made their living "commenting or offering advice on political and economic trends." He asked them to assess the probabilities that certain events would occur in the not too distant future, both in areas of the world in which they specialized and in regions about which they had less knowledge ... Respondents were asked to rate the probabilities of three alternative outcomes in every case: the persistence of the status quo, more of something such as political freedom or economic growth, or less of that thing.

The results were devastating. The experts performed worse than they would have if they had simply assigned equal probabilities to each of the three potential outcomes. In other words, people who spend their time, and earn their living, studying a particular topic producer poorer predictions than dart-throwing monkeys who would have distributed their choices evenly over the options. Even in the region they knew best, experts were not significantly better than nonspecialists.

Don't believe the tripe.

Wage Slavery

Wage slavery is not something over which to be thankful.

No True Nobel Prize in Economics

Although few realize it, the so-called "Nobel Prize in Economics."  The creation of the Central Bank of Sweden, it is really the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.”  The Nobel family, not to mention real scientists, are appalled that it is given the same billing.  From There Is No Nobel Prize in Economics:

Members of the Nobel family are among the harshest, most persistent critics of the economics prize, and members of the family have repeatedly called for the prize to be abolished or renamed. In 2001, on the 100th anniversery of the Nobel Prizes, four family members published a letter in the Swedish paper Svenska Dagbladet, arguing that the economics prize degrades and cheapens the real Nobel Prizes. They aren’t the only ones.

Scientists never had much respect for the new economic Nobel prize. In fact, a scientist who headed Nixon’s Science Advisory Committee in 1969, was shocked to learn that economists were even allowed on stage to accept their award with the real Nobel laureates. He was incredulous: “You mean they sat on the platform with you?”

That hatred continues to simmer below the surface, and periodically breaks through and makes itself known. Most recently, in 2004, three prominent Swedish scientists and members of the Nobel committee published an open letter in a Swedish newspaper savaging the fraudulent “scientific” credentials of the Swedish Central Bank Prize in Economics. “The economics prize diminishes the value of the other Nobel prizes. If the prize is to be kept, it must be broadened in scope and be disassociated with Nobel,” they wrote in the letter, arguing that achievements of most of the economists who win the prize are so abstract and disconnected from the real world as to utterly meaningless.

Why the animosity?  Because economics is not a real science.  It is an ideology that means nothing as to the fundamental structure of the universe.  As such, economics does not deserve accolades, only scorn.  So the next time you hear someone mentioned as a "Nobel Prize Winner in Economics" you'll know it is a lie, just like their so-call "science."

Real Tragedies

And the worst part about it is that you can't even feel that bad for me, because the Pity Jar of this nation is basically empty; its remaining crumbs reserved for families of five who lost it all when their mortgage imploded, hospital patients who can't pay to keep themselves breathing and the people who've been without power for weeks, or lost their house in a tornado, or are watching their entire livelihood wither under the sun. These are the types of poor souls that get worried about. Those of us lucky enough to have created our own misfortune by allowing our helicopter parents to get under our skin and pump us full of dreams, pursuing misguided MFAs and resisting minimum-wage labor – get out of the way and make room for the real tragedies.

-  "Job interviews are fun"
Unemployment Stories Vol 13

Shrinking Horizon

A shrinking horizon is obscured by smog.

Don't Work For Free

I've been neglecting my blogs lately because I've been on a music writing/recording binge. My latest is Don't Work For Free.  (It's a little different than my usual.)  Check it out, and remember: Don't Work For Free!

Don't Take The Money

As I've stated before, I do not believe economics is a real science.  It appears at least one Political Scientists believes the same of his discipline.  From Political Scientists Are Lousy Forecasters:

It’s an open secret in my discipline: in terms of accurate political predictions (the field’s benchmark for what counts as science), my colleagues have failed spectacularly and wasted colossal amounts of time and money. The most obvious example may be political scientists’ insistence, during the cold war, that the Soviet Union would persist as a nuclear threat to the United States. In 1993, in the journal International Security, for example, the cold war historian John Lewis Gaddis wrote that the demise of the Soviet Union was “of such importance that no approach to the study of international relations claiming both foresight and competence should have failed to see it coming.” And yet, he noted, “None actually did so.” Careers were made, prizes awarded and millions of research dollars distributed to international relations experts, even though Nancy Reagan’s astrologer may have had superior forecasting skills.

When first reading the above paragraph, my initial reaction was such lousy forecasting is the result of a combination of telling politicians etc. what they want to hear, because they are paying the bills, and intellectual inbreeding.  The author appears to agree (although not in those words):

Alas, little has changed. Did any prominent N.S.F.-financed researchers predict that an organization like Al Qaeda would change global and domestic politics for at least a generation? Nope. Or that the Arab Spring would overthrow leaders in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia? No, again. What about proposals for research into questions that might favor Democratic politics and that political scientists seeking N.S.F. financing do not ask — perhaps, one colleague suggests, because N.S.F. program officers discourage them? Why are my colleagues kowtowing to Congress for research money that comes with ideological strings attached?

This sounds much like what has occurred in the field of economics (although I would be shocked to hear a economist admit it).   The N.S.F. may stop giving grants to political scientists, and this is a good thing.  If a practitioner desires to develop a real science, then there is a price: to be intellectually free, do not take the money.  As pointed out later in the op-ed piece:

These results wouldn’t surprise the guru of the scientific method, Karl Popper, whose 1934 book “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” remains the cornerstone of the scientific method. Yet Mr. Popper himself scoffed at the pretensions of the social sciences: “Long-term prophecies can be derived from scientific conditional predictions only if they apply to systems which can be described as well-isolated, stationary, and recurrent. These systems are very rare in nature; and modern society is not one of them.”

Stop trying to be something you are not; maybe then political science (or economics) can become a real science.

College Debt Slavery

As I've noted before, I was lucky in that I did not need to borrow for college or graduate school. I couldn't find a job after I was finished in 1993, but it did not really matter. For young adults attending college now, the story is quite different. They have been screwed hard. College has become so unaffordable that over 90% of students had to take on some form of debt to graduate. Unlike most other forms of debt, they cannot default as the government has created a system of usury that makes those who attend college a debt slave. College is not worth attending anymore unless one can pay these debts in a reasonable amount of time after leaving school. See A Generation Hobbled by the Soaring Cost of College via Colleges as Merchants of Debt, which points out:

I’ve never understood when (once in a while) someone (clearly young) shows up in comments and rails against Social Security and Medicare because of the burden it imposes on him. Now I get it. The student debt issue is deepening social fractures. If young people are asked to stand on their own, and given only unpalatable choices (forego a college degree, the entrance ticket to middle class life, or accept debt slavery at a tender age), no wonder they adopt a “devil take the hindmost” attitude. I hope some of these people who so cavalierly argue for loading up the next generation with debt realize that the young may not want to take care of them either, and they are far more at risk. The outcome of cutting social safety nets to the elderly ultimately means that old people will die faster.

Such is the price in shafting the young.

The Failed Science

More on why economics is not a science:

Economics has failed us: but where are the fresh voices?  There aren't any.

Why Paul Krugman is Full of Shit.  And this joke (like all the rest) one a Nobel prize?  It is telling when the bar is so low.

New jobs decline for second straight month.  More on the fantasy of "recovery."

Yet Another Example of Why Economics is Not a Science

From Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist:

The evening’s after-dinner keynote speech began, so we had to shelve the conversation. Reflecting on it, I kept thinking, “This should not have happened. A prominent economist should not have to walk back statements about the fundamental nature of growth when talking to a scientist with no formal economics training.” But as the evening progressed, the original space in which the economist roamed got painted smaller and smaller.

First, he had to acknowledge that energy may see physical limits. I don’t think that was part of his initial virtual mansion.

Next, the efficiency argument had to shift away from straight-up improvements to transformational technologies. Virtual reality played a prominent role in this line of argument.

Finally, even having accepted the limits to energy growth, he initially believed this would prove to be of little consequence to the greater economy. But he had to ultimately admit to a floor on energy price and therefore an end to traditional growth in GDP—against a backdrop fixed energy.

I got the sense that this economist’s view on growth met some serious challenges during the course of the meal. Maybe he was not putting forth the most coherent arguments that he could have made. But he was very sharp and by all measures seemed to be at the top of his game. I choose to interpret the episode as illuminating a blind spot in traditional economic thinking. There is too little acknowledgement of physical limits, and even the non-compliant nature of humans, who may make choices we might think to be irrational—just to remain independent and unencumbered.

A failure to consider, or even acknowledge fundamental physical laws demonstrates that what passes for "mainstream" economics is not a science, but an ideology, at best, and a joke, at worst.    (Neither is Marxist economics a science--predetermination was proven to be a fallacy long ago.)

Perhaps, economics could become a real science, as the author acknowledges later in the text, but it isn't there yet.

On Intellectual Product

A creator need not be a producer, but may eventually become one. In the present social order the only apparent choices for dissemination are giving or selling. Although intellectual product may start out as a state of mind, once sold, it becomes a commodity. Merchandise is a thing. A product is owned. Anything past its originator reduces its brilliance. More importantly, it can be resold. Each transaction further reduces intellectual product to something solid. It may degrade but it never changes. By failing to grow, even if birthed by sublime genius, intellectual product stagnates. Anything building upon it is therefore erected on a rotten foundation. Since nothing is examined[1] by industrialization, mass production is even worse. The political spectrum is among the more glaring examples, but even subcultural works are susceptible. The mass mind has no insight.

Widespread dissemination necessitates a lower level of sophistication. Reflective contemplation is not necessary to get the point. The simplistic is understandable by the greatest number. Fleeting in nature, fashionable appeal is neither meaning nor significance. It will eventually return if someone can find a way to make money.

Some feed upon commodity. These vicarious sorts desire the mental stimulation but lack the ability to create their own works. Even bad art is better than sucking up.

Few even care to try creating their own vision. The greater society gives creativity beyond the economic sphere lip service, but no real support. If it cannot be sold, then imagination is viewed as a self-indulgent waste of time. The public education system certainly does nothing to oppose the commodification of intellectual life. Creativity for its own sake is either reserved for the elite, or the economic exploitation[2] of the naive.

A stupid population is easiest to pacify, if not control, through diversion. Questions mean nothing unless and until the appropriate question is asked. A critical, analytical eye sees much where others see little. No status quo could exist if the masses developed sight. Projected shadows would cease to appear so menacing. An opportunist depends upon blindness. General knowledge and the ability to apply it are not valued. Important bridges remain unappreciated. True intellectuals have started revolutions and felt their own strength. What passes for such these days are easily ignored mindless parrots. Occasionally, one will hear these idiots cry forth in despair that nobody is really listening or understands. It never occurs that perhaps no one should. Reason is unfathomable. Perhaps the fault lies with the communicator...

[1] Analysis is not necessarily examination.

[2] The tech industry has certainly proven this observation true.

On Culture and Commodification

i. Culture manifests and imprints itself across all segments of society. The past contains many shared perceptions which may be built upon for Maximum Advantage. A common example is evoking Hitler to justify foreign intervention, even when few parallels exist, to successfully quiet opposition.

ii. Intellectual and material achievements are often unearthed from a nostalgic past to rationalize reactionary policies and movements. Things were so much better in the past. The single largest mistake was probably leaving the trees, but only a few bring sentiment so far by espousing all civilization a lie. The herd needs a reason to believe getting up for work is worth it. Hopes should not be too specific. Sacrifice must seem worthwhile. War dead is probably one of the most powerful tools to this end. Horror has to mean something... Values need to be defined and require common acceptance. The system will grind to a halt if the herd was encouraged to mindlessly mill about. Nothing must appear to be something. Propaganda has its limits. The irrational is difficult to harness, but represents true power by those that manage to do so. Backlash sentiments are easiest to invoke and exploit among opponents.

iii. Commodification is a social weapon. Consumerism is a faith. Material objects bring fulfillment. The glittering new malaise is preferable to the old malaise. The opportunist should never underestimate public stupidity. Conformity can even become rebellion. Official positions are shown in the best light. Major media outlets know who butters their bread. Well paid journalists are players in the economic order. Anyone heavily invested will necessarily support the entire economic order. Their money is their only freedom (whatever that means). Economic clout represents the path of least resistance. Money does not mean everything. "Maximum" may always be redefined....

(From a work in progress...)

Re: Sociopaths

From Sociopaths, closed minds and a bit of Mayan cosmology:

Yes, and more. There was an article in the EU Observer this week (April 3, 2012) – EU ‘surprised’ by Portugal’s unemployment rate – which I had to re-read a few times to check that I was actually reading the words correctly. The dialogue presented was so shocking that it raises fundamental questions about how one is [to] interact with the economics debate. Then I read some more articles this week which investigated why mainstream economics retains its dominance in the face of its catastrophic failure to explain anything of importance to humanity. Closed minds are very resistant to change especially when socio-pathological dimensions are present. 

Sociopaths just don't make for good science (which is why economics is not a science), but they are good for business (assuming you don't actually follow their advice).  The inmates are running the asylum.

Austerity

Austerity is only good for someone else.

Skyscrapers

From Skyscrapers 'linked with impending financial crashes':

"Often the world's tallest buildings are simply the edifice of a broader skyscraper building boom, reflecting a widespread misallocation of capital and an impending economic correction," Barclays Capital analysts said.

What goes up, must come down?