we Don't Know That Much

what we really do not know much about is the economic system that we live under; this includes (that same economic system includes) all of the businesses. We like to know things, so we claim to. We just say we know. What are establishing here is that we are attracted to possession of knowledge and so we just claim to know about things, e.g. economics. That would be knowledge but the problm is dat we do not know and it is really a very unfortunate delusion.

This is just another delusion that we suffer from. Human beings have a strong tendency to pretend, to claim that they know things. They do not. So I am taking a sceptical view here but let’s understand that this is a proposition going forward, and if we stay with this sort of opening conceit, or stance, it is quite obscene, is it not, to think that all of these persons whose writing we encounter are frauds and phonies? but then, in this society of frauds and phonies I am going to come across as a hero — e.g. the crusading truth-teller, your writer-hero. But wait. That's impossible: I am the one who straightens out bad ideas? Whao! I don't know anymore if I want to say that. It is a bit much. We know that there is something deluded in the 'scenario' of crusading knowledge heros. Something smells a little fishy!

I just feel a little bit wrong about making these statements. But I suspect it is true, so we have committed our opening conceit and, having committed to our path and gotten into our boats, let us keep on rowing down this river. Hopefully we shall come into some real knowledge and finally know something about this economics knowledge deficit. As far as that goes, one important thing is to know about the economics system that it cannot be merely a system of math. This is because the economic system has humans in it. The economic system cannot be understood simply by doing some math. The motivations of humans cannot be mathematically determined. Since motivations cannot be mathematically determined, the only possibility that remains is that the system of economics is built out of humans, and exists in the context of human life. It may seem kind of "cringe." But we have to look at humans; it is human. One may simultaneously say that all this trade and commerce is self-interested. Yes, and the self-interested trade is being done by human beings. (So when did it become a social phenomenon? My view is that the economic system, i.e. capitalism, was based on human social behavior, right from beginnings, including the earliest phases, so the presence of social behaviors in economics is as old as: Say Henry Ford's ‘Model-T.’)

Apparently nobody want to hear this, so what it has come to in our society is that if you are interested in the human social ties, which includes the obligatory ties, and the moral social ties then guess what? Nobody likes you. Somehow, people do not like you now: especially if they think you can be plausibly tied to 'socialism' — or whatever other name they throw at you.

We have to know how we feel about human beings —that's the point. If we allow them to interact, and move beyond mere self-interest, that could be a good thing, not a bad “communist” one. We might even be doing the nation good. Even if you want to be intolerant, at least do it in an ordered and structured way. That is how capitalism developed — as a partly social system. Do these persons who do not want to discuss anything "social" also not want to tdo anything good? The ideas these persons have, and which they call their “free-market” theory starts to look like a big plot against collaboration. They simply want to remain individuals, and that is important, but there is also a second thing, which is that with this “capitalist” economy there is no longer a strict line between formerly separate grops. I am in disagreement with Marx about this. There are different sorts of perons, of course: the profit makers or “capitalists,” and the lesser workers, who are also “consumers." The workers and consumers make and consume the products. The products are created by the profit making capitalists. So who is really making the products? It does not seem clear. My answer is that the group of working persons is capitalist, and not really a separate class at all. Marx was wrong. They, too, in the broad sense a part of a capitalist system. They are within the same culture, as that culture pivots into capitalism. It is not a simple tendency to divide into classes. The tendency is not only to divide; it is also to merge. The persons we regard as working class or consumers are only partly distinct from the ownership class, and not necessarily barred from owning some of the wealth. (You cannot really have a capitalist system without the workers getting some of the wealth.) So all of these people in the system have a lot in common (all somewhat bourgeois). So, I would say (contra Marx, again) that if there is no strict line between them, it would be better to stay with that idea of “social” aspects in capitalism.

We should, therefore, consider everyone as one big system. This is not to endorse the system, but it is to say that we are stuck with this system. We are in the same system. This is the better way to understand it. We need to figure out how to share the benefits. Capitalism consists of all of those already interacting with the capitalistic social system. It is one big social system. This is for better or worse. It is not always good. But we may as well call them all "capitalists" rather than saying there are two distinct groups. It is a just a large human sustem. We owe fair treatment to the whole system and all of those in it. The groups -bosses and workers -are capitalists. In my theory this is how I see it. I then proceed, from this idea forward.

Contra Marx, capitalism works with reference to a given population. There is no reason to say capitalism enhances the strength of the "class" pheomenon. There is no further reason to divide into classes or maintain strong class distinction. Marx thought capitalism was the same as all previous class societies. This is not accurate. Marx was a bourgeois lawyer, and he was taking a guess. And he made wrong assumptions. He assumed that both, a) there is "class" in "capitalism" and b) the working class would rise. That is enough to show he probably didn't know anything about the working class. Who knew about the working class? He went to the university, he didn't get a job in the economy. I do not see any time for a formative dalliance with the workers? There isn't one. It safe to say he didn't know any workers. I don't think, for example Marx liked to hang out in taverns. Or brawl. So.... no friends, in the usual companionable sense. No chance to meet the workers there. Or even meet some good companions. Marx didn't do that. He was alone when not attending to the wife he had, and his daughter.

The societies where a lot of persons have a commercial mentality are societies in which people take a lot of enjoyment in buying and selling things, and these are the societies where people give birth to their own businesses. This turns other persons into sources of money income, instead of being companions or good neighbors. The role of businessman is entered into. This facilitates a process whereby persons are able to relate to other human beings as being profit centers, sources of money, cash machines. The business owner or businessman has a list of such profitable customers. They do function to bring him money. These societies may be historically cited as cases in which the society was able to sustain profitable capitalism but it is not all individualism or self-interest.

Every other society in the world perceives the success of the West. Although that is being tainted now, in the last two or three presidential terms, there previously was along period where the USA got treated alright. There was respect. It was the only countries others could look up to, especially with regard to development and capitalism. Nobody much expected this sort of society to come in being at all. That it arose at all seems to have come as a surprise.

Then, they tried to purge the social qualities. The economists took "political" off of the subject field designation. All there ever was was one single choice: they could admit social qualities exist and try to make some room for social welfare, which is to say that they could create a social policy. The alternative was to claim there were no social qualities there which gets them out of the obligation to discuss what they are doing. But numbers don't dance with themselves. In this act of not understanding economics we misunderstand ourselves. We have reduced ourselves to dancing automatons and that has the effect of a country losing respect for itself, and a society in which persons lose their consideration for the person in the next town over, or next door, in a big city.