The subject line of this entry is the topic of this talk by Richard Wolff.
I have been thinking about the politics of division for the past week. While my entries focus on what money is, what money does is economics. The politics of division that get the press relate to sex and race, national origin, religion. I think that economic "Us vs Them" is as great a division factor as any of these because it relates across the board to the greatest number of people. Everyone relates to what money is.
Without money there is no food or shelter to be obtained. However, most have enough money for the needs of food and shelter. What most don't have is enough money to satisfy wants, not needs. Satisfaction of wants are a relative thing stimulated by marketing to create them. Needs and wants are the subject of a simple sentence where the subject is the personal pronoun "I" the verb is "Need/Want" and the object of the sentence is some "Thing". Money is the universal "Thing" that like potential energy can be transformed into anything and everything.
NeedWant is an interesting verb to parse. Yes, a verb. Not a noun. Think of it in its Infinitive form as explained here. Verbs are more readily recognizable simply by putting the word "to" in front of them. The concept of NeedWant is a continuum. Think of it in the scientific domain of Space/Time as defined here. Hard to know where one thing becomes another on the continuum line because they are transformations of the same thing. Each is the other and can be defined in terms of the other. A scientific representation of Yin and Yang as described here.
Economics as described here is:
"Economics is the social science that seeks to describe the factors which determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services."
Money as described here is:
"Money is any item or verifiable record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a particular country or socio-economic context."
People can believe anything they want on the continuum of thought regarding the social issues of sex, race, national origin and religion. One thing that everyone can agree on without any doubt is the belief that money gets stuff. It permeates our lives as a value more than anything else.
What money does socially as an Economic thing is a great uniter and divider. Like Space/Time, it does both things and each can be explained in terms of the other. Money is a creature of the social conceptual domain. What Money "Is" is a simple thing to explain. What money "Does" to unite and divide people is complex.
My recent line of thinking asks the question: What groups of society does money and economics unite and divide? That line of thinking was kicked off with a joke I can't remember but I recall the premise of the intended meaning of the joke. This is an explanation which of course will not make anyone laugh but it will convey the idea of the joke without the amusement. Maybe that is the way Economists look at the world.
The joke compares the way three different nationalities look at the relationship between God, country, and family and individual in the order of importance. Parsing the joke it is evident that if told to three people, each a stereotypical representation one of the nationalities. Each person would laugh and get it. However, the object of the amusement would be the other two nationalities and their ordering of priorities. The 2nd order of the joke would be each nationality laughing at the order in which members of the own nationality order priorities that are different than theirs.
Get it?
Ha! Ha!
It is subtle.
As subtle as Us vs Them. Me vs You.
As subtle as Patton's speech to the Third Army:
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.[22]"
The Economic Capitalism riff on this in the rip-off killing mode is self evident.
Richard Wolff is a Socialist. Maybe call him a Heterodox Economist but Socialist is a term that is getting greater respect recently, so is Bernie Sanders. A term and respect that creates fear in the heart of a Capitalist in the Us vs Them war.
Capitalism is increasingly aggregating wealth to the top 1%. This accumulation of wealth to the 1% is in large part due to the accumulation of monetary debt to the 99%.
There is a difference between Wealth and Debt.
"Wealth is the abundance of valuable resources or valuable material possessions. This includes the core meaning as held in the originating old English word weal, which is from an Indo-European word stem.[1]
An individual, community, region or country that possesses an abundance
of such possessions or resources to the benefit of the common good is
known as wealthy."
A debt generally refers to money owed by one party, the borrower or debtor, to a second party, the lender or creditor. Debt is generally subject to contractual terms regarding the amount and timing of repayments of principal and interest.[1]
Debt is related to money. Money obtained by contractual debt spends just as well as cash held as debt free by the owner. (but is a representation of debt held by someone else because all money is created by debt and is therefore 100% debt based).
A better definition of wealth is the extent to which personal ownership of things is free from a debt relationship. Some people have a greater amount of debt than the value of the things they own. They are not wealthy. At social economic levels beyond the personal level of wealth/debt individuals have greater common interest in the general level of wealth or opportunity for wealth (increased wealth or reduction in debt as the case may be). The order of individual economic priorities as they relate to social economic segments depends on what maximizes benefit (or potential benefit) to the individual.
The most immediate economic benefit to an individual is to be in the lifeboat. Once in it then a rising economic tide is the next benefit of being on board that specific economic boat which is just a metaphor for Economic Tribalism:
Tribalism is the state of being organized in, or advocating for, a tribe or tribes. In terms of conformity, tribalism may also refer in popular cultural terms to a way of thinking or behaving in which people are more loyal to their tribe than to their friends, their country, or any other social group.[1]
Everything that preceded this paragraph was an elaborate stage setting that if used as a presentation by a teacher to a class would find the class asleep at this point. However, it gets to what Richard Wolff is saying, the current economic situation and the antidote to national capitalism distribution of wealth to the 1%.
What is that solution?
Creation of wealth at the local level. That is the tribe of choice for the 99%. Creation of wealth at the 1% National level means a race to the bottom for everyone else. How many in the 1% owe their wealth to a less than national level source? Is there some writing on the wall here?
On the economic order of priority level, the local level, nearest to each of us, is most important for wealth accumulation at the local level.
My town is my tribe if that is where my income I transform into wealth is derived. My town vs your town. My state vs your state.
Produce Local.
Buy Local.
All politics is local?
All economics is local.
All (fill in the blank) is local.
All social justice is local. Interesting idea. The term "All Social Justice is Local" gets no hits on a google search. I therefore claim bragging rights to be the first to say it as far as Google is concerned. If it is true for politics then why not for social justice which is really what politics is all about?
So, I come to the conclusion of the formation of this idea:
In the same manner that our balance of payments is of vital concern to the wealth of our nation, the balance of payments at the corporate level is vital to the existence of a business and the balance of payments at the community level is vital to the wealth of our communities. It all depends on taking in more than is given out?
Me and my balance of payments (to take in more money than I give out) and translate that difference into wealth (net worth) is the prime rule in personal economics. My tribe taking in more money than it gives out and tribal wealth is the next most important level of economics relating directly to me. That tribal level may be national, state, county, city, district, family. Whichever gives the most economic security.
Big Question: For most people that level of economic security is closest to primary or secondary local geographical level?
Buy local. A good idea.
Sell at and beyond the local level and buy at the local level more than above that level.
A good idea for personal and local geographic wealth accumulation?
If that is true it leads to the concept of community geographic wealth.
My town as an economic corporate capitalist enterprise in which I am an economic stake holder?
My town vs your town?
Do we trade or exploit?
Is capitalism a trade or an exploitation?
It seems to me that in the Wall Street vs Main Street the situation is that Main Street holds all the resources that are being exploited by Wall Street. Wall Street owns national level politics.
The Us vs Them economic relationship is therefore National Political/Economic Level vs Local Political/Economic Level. That is the battlefield of Economics where the playing field must be leveled. Local economic entities are the source of wealth and have greater aggregate economic power than national economic entities. Why is it that the economic wealth is aggregating at the national economic entity 1% level?
Simple: National level corporate economics is extractive of the local level using the same model of world level corporate entities that are extractive of nations.
In conclusion to all the above: Here is the test question......................since us vs them, me vs you is the primary decisive and divisive social relationship of the day. The training ground for first person shooters training for youth and the model for economic warfare...I mean competition.
What entity and its interests is it that you are going to fight for and what is it that you are fighting for?
God and salvation?
Old Glory and Freedom?
Your tribe ( employing entity, race, school, state, city, ideological group, family) and mutual support/benefit commitment?
Yourself and your own best interests?
Maybe one way of determining the order of importance and priority is determining the degree of benefit/survival related to entity affiliation.
Money is a substantial and universal measure of benefit for both those that have it and those that do not. The economic entity relationship that is most important is the one that gives the greatest monetary benefit/return. Working up successively higher levels of entity relationship applies the same logic but in relationship to the individual higher level entities become multiple as well as directly less important to the individual but each higher level entity has its own most important Parent relationship.
The most important economic entities to an individual are those closest to home and where we live. Geographically or conceptually.
The economic importance of our own city and its contribution to the general economic welfare of all those that live in it is a potentially exploitable economic resource that does not receive the economic attention of its own population. If a city had the business model of our nation then government and business in the city would work together as a corporate enterprise to maximize a balance of trade to increase city net worth with each citizen being a stock holder.
Us vs Them would become My City vs Your City in a zero sum game.
The moral imperative in this relationship would be that like a family, nobody in the city screws another member of the city.
In the domain of Capitalism there is an important term called "Utility". A search of the term 'Capitalism Utility' presents many different views of the term. At the individual worker level, their Utility is what they get paid for. The same is true up the line of parent business/economic entities at higher levels.
If a city were to maximize the exploitation of its resources for economic gain using a business model then each of its citizens would have a degree of utility to the business (or not as the cost/benefit of an individual is evaluated). The city as a business would maximize external governmental income as well as collective city private enterprise income. Measurement of success would be a balance of trade balance sheet and profit and loss statement.
All economics is local, at least the most important self serving economics as far as the individual is concerned.
Buy as much local as possible to benefit the economics of the city.
The flip side of that is that money does not drain out of the city.
Sell as much external as possible.
The flip side of that is that income to the corporate city exceeds expenditure.
It is just business.
Socialism gets a bad rap. Maybe it is a least effective economic model at the federal level, even the state level. However at the local city level, if the city uses and "our tribe, our family" moral/economic model then perhaps "Socialism", taking care of our own on a moral/business model basis at the city/family level is the competitive path of the general common welfare?
What would that lead to? "Gated" states, cities, neighborhoods? Each gated entity seeking to admit the lowest cost employees to maximize its economic profit and keep out economic burdens that do not contribute? Or would it lead to benevolence and sharing of abundance.
What kind of business model is benevolence and sharing of abundance?
A moral/business model at the city/community level?
If corporations are people, my friend, then make cities a corporation rather than a political entity. The idea that a city is purely a political entity is fallacious anyhow. It really is a pseudo business and has an alliance with the business community more than the citizens it serves. Just like the national level government.
No comments:
Post a Comment