33 Comments

1. Vivian Phillips:

   Stan, great idea, and thanks! I hope you include some of your AK(?) maxims. Will do my part to disperse.
   fondly, Viv

   23 June 2005, 5:05 pm

2. Bruce Dixon:

   The CD thing is definitely the wave of the future. Your readers may know that something analogous was done before, back in 1970s Iran. The bloody handed Shah Reza Pahlevi had the Iranian media locked down, and Khomeini was in exile in Paris.

   Khomeini used to record his speeches once or twice a week on cassette and they were smuggled into Iran in the luggage of travelers going home. Within a few days after each tape arrived, there were thousands of copies in circulation, blaring from streetside speakers at mosques and other locations, in businesses, in taxicabs. By the time Khomeini returned to Iran, tens of thousands of folks were well acquainted with the views of his folks and their running commentary on the events of the day for the past few years, which made it lots easier to mobilize them.

   In 1970s Iran millions of people had cassette players, and many thousands could uplicate them. So Khomeini’s people used this existing technological infrastructure to create a decentralized media network to go around the media lockdown imposed by the authorities.

   Despite the broadcast media lockdown, the present landscape is full of opportunities to get our messages out undiluted if we really want to get down and get creative.

   Nowadays everybody has a CD player — often several in every home, one in most cars, and lots of folks have portables. The next generation of MP3 players, if I understand correctly, will be able to go online by themselves, or at set times when hooked to a computer, and fetch what they are told from preset locations.

   And let’s not talk about how cheap voice messsaging is! There are vendors that will rig your local oganization up a voicemail hotline which people can call in to get your undiluted message that you can change each week, if you’ve got something worth saying that people want to hear, starting around $20 a month in some markets. And almost everybody has a phone.

   Audio production gear is cheap. A high-end production kit consisting of a 16 or 24 bit digital recorder, hi-end microphone, mixing and editing hardware and software, cables, rechargeable batteries and extra RAM and HD storage runs around $1500, or you can do a low end kit for about $200 and use free audio editing software. CD tower duplicating machines that do 8 at once in seconds start around $999.

   No excuses. Nothing but air and opportunity between us and communicating with those masses out there.

   bd

   23 June 2005, 6:21 pm

3. peggy:

   Stan – I have just been listening to this in my house with a student/friend sitting nearby, listening too. She comments that this is exactly what her sociology lecturer said (except more succinct and easier to understand). “Man, I wish I’d heard that before I did my Marx essay,” she just said. She also comments that she wants her husband to listen to this – because he will take **you** seriously. So we will print and distribute this series. Will there be more to come? Also, for those of us who are hopelessly tied to the written word, is there a transcript of your talk available?

   Thanks and best wishes.

   23 June 2005, 11:20 pm

4. Brian R.:

   Audio CDs are a great medium that is almost ubiquitous. I forget sometimes because I use an iPod (an mp3 audio player) almost exclusively. Right now you can automate the download of audio and video you have SUBSCRIBED to. Once you connect your iPod to your computer it downloads the files off your computer to your player. This is called PODCASTING. In a year or two the portable audio players will connect to the Internet directly. Cell phones play mp3s, take pictures, and connect to the Internet now.

   23 June 2005, 11:37 pm

5. Jim Withee:

   I’m glad you’ve got your website going; I thought I would share mine/ask a question or two. I used to listen to AM talk radio while doing delivery and eventually started calling in even though I wasn’t an “expert” because I was upset by the discourse. Even though I haven’t taken the plunge as far as immersion in left/progressive activism, I’ve done some volunteering and have continued albeit slowly to absorb and ruminate on the left/progressive issues. I have continued to call in to these shows to this day, trying most of the time to make a reasonably coherent argument and then to make a reference to a website such as yours or author or book name. My concern is that the “accessible” media, particularly television and radio that EVERYONE has access to and that a small group of plutocrats determine its content, will continue to have the advantage. That may seem like an obvious concern you’ve already addressed, but I’m curious as to what you think the effectiveness of using talk radio or any other media dominated by corporations to introduce people to information and ideas in our realm is. I’ve called recently on a conservative station and mentioned your website, but of course I don’t have tracking research to know how many people that heard the comments actually decided to go to a computer and read more. I once called a national conservative talk show and was rebuffed for mentioning Toni Solo’s website as a source. So, perhaps it did some good. I realize these guys are pros and are there because they can control the edit button and are there to win every argument to show the masses how “logical” and “moral” coservatism or whatever you call their right wing agenda is. On the other hand I did get this great debater to say that Hitler was a socialist on the air and then rebuffed HIM on another occasion for making such a statement. Mighty mite that I may be, I still think I could have done a relative good by trying at least while the opportunity exists and time permitting to challenge some of the big shots on ground I feel comfortable with and then hopefully a few might go to the referenced websites/alternative media sources. Your thoughts, best of luck, JW

   24 June 2005, 12:35 am

6. Brian R:

   I would love to hear your thoughts on Jim’s point Stan.

   He’s right…ACCESS is everything! If a majority of people in this country regardless of economic status can’t hear, see, read, feel the different content out there they will never be able to make up their own mind about what is the best for THEM. So….this is why bridging the Digital Divide is so important. (“Digital Divide” is a popular phrase to describe the gap between those who have access to digital technology like computers, internet, education, etc. and those who do not.) Essentially this means we need to work at providing ALL PEOPLES access. I see access to the Internet as the best chance for all people to get great info. Right now there is a financial barrier for many people. But this can and must be overcome. I have just about given up on the traditional media channels as means to carry truly diverse information. Even so called public media (like PBS, NPR, etc) are devoid of real diversity of ideas. Distributing CDs, flyers, tapes, records, etc. is awesome and will always be a wonderful option. But to truly reach millions of people almost in real time we need to use electronic networks. This speed of dissemination is crucial to motivating people to act in our modern physical world. One day soon everyone will have access to these networks. Heck most people in the US have a cell phone. If they don’t we have so many that are thrown away each day we can just reuse them. Thanks for this forum to discuss this Stan!

   24 June 2005, 10:37 am

7. PJ:

   Thanks very much for this, Stan. I used to be an advertising copywriter (and still kind of am…I freelance from time to time), and I really did enjoy writing and producing radio spots. I didn’t enjoy them for the crap i was peddling (“succulent honey-baked ham, only 29 cents a pound”, etc.), but for the process itself. I often used to wish I could utilize my persuasive-writing skills to get people NOT to buy shit…of course, my former bosses would probably argue that I did that quite a bit. Anyway, does anyone have any ideas — i was thinking of utilizing 60 or 30 second relatively entertaining radio spots to help deprogram the all-consuming masses. i know Adbusters tries this quite often, but my critique of them is that they’re too in-your-face. The most successful advertising slimery has always been quite subtle.

   24 June 2005, 6:33 pm

8. Bruce Dixon:

   A question arises in response to PJ’s comment about 30 or 60 second spots. The airwaves are for all practical purposes private property. Who would pay to run your spots, and what radio or TV station would take anti-ad ad money to run stuff that might offend current or prospective advertisers?

   As a copywriter you supplied the creative material, and they supplied the product, the audience and the network. In the context of the movement however, we might be required to think a little more outside those boxes, to consider who the desired audience is for a particular message, what kind of decentralized networks exist to get messages we create to that audience and so on.

   For instance if you just uploaded your 30 or 60 second anti-ad spots to a free site where hundreds of people DO download stuff daily, like http://www.radio4all.net, what have you accomplished? Fact is, most of the folks downloading from there are already on your team. Some undoubtedly pass it on to other newer ears, but even that is not guaranteed.

   People are, on the other hand, actively building counter-recruitment networks, for example, and taking responsibility for seeing to it that messages reach new ears. If you made 30 to 60 second spots, realtively entertaining, with THAT subject matter there are people who might make it their business to put them in front of new audiences, You can also get more direct feedback on the effectiveness of your material because you have some relationship with them.

   For instance, given how cheap voice messaging is, maybe they’ll put your audio messages on an outgoing public number people can dial in to and listen to. Some folks I work with in Atlanta are about to try exactly that.

   I would humbly suggest finding a group or groups that want a message disseminated. Work with them to craft it and push it out there.

   bd

   26 June 2005, 10:00 am

9. PJ:

   Bruce,

   Your response is the kind I was looking for when I made the inquiry. As I said, I had this idea that seemed to be going nowhere, so I was looking for collaborators. And thanks for your input. I understand that the ClearChannels of the world aren’t about to air anti-consumerist propaganda. That was essentially the crux of my problem. I have this ridiculous skill for writing entertaining short form audio sales pieces…how can I use that for good, rather than evil?

   Anyway, Bruce tossed in a good one…anyone else?

   PJ

   26 June 2005, 5:09 pm

10. Stan:

    I’m reposting a comment that inexplicably was sent to the “contact information” category:

    Dear Mr. Goff,

    In regards to what you mention in “Economics as Pseudoscience,” and in the the interest of impartial objectivity, there is a great deal of opposition to the theory of evolution on the part of scientists, and quite aside from religious considerations.

    Moreover, the opposition is not in respect of natural selection a such, nor in respect of the evident but relatively limited capacity of a species to adapt to its surroundings, but in respect of the idea that a species transforms into another species. This is something that is very far from proven.

    As with economics, evolution as transformism inspires a kind of religious devotion and dogmatism in the halls of academe, and in respect of intelligences that oppose or question it there are also inquisitorial consequences.

    Finally, the idea of “design” is very far from being a concoction of right wing religious fanatics. It is actually a subtle theory, originally created and mostly supported by mathematicians and scientists. That right-wing religious groups might jump on the idea without really understanding it is not surprising, since similar appropriations have been common in the course of scientific development.

    With best regards,

    G. Polit

    P.S. Philosophically, we can say that the observable cosmos is a state of continuous flux. However, the cosmos is not a chaos, it is an order, subject to certain fixed laws. These laws in some wise transcend the plane of pure becoming, and they are in fact an expression of unity within multiplicity. All things partake at once of this flux and of this stasis; there are variables and there are invariants. Science is precisely the search for invariants. It is thanks to the perception of these that the world becomes intelligible. This means that any theory of evolution must have its static complement, for a theory of pure change is strictly meaningless. One cannot even conceive of change without a corresponding invariant as a place to stand. This was already clear to Aristotle; the Archimedian principle expresses the same thing in its own way: “give me a place to stand and I can move the world.”

    Evolutionary theory wishes to add the existential category of “novel emergents,” from pre-existing things or beings. The evolutionists want to add the category of “novel emergents” out of pre-existing created things or beings, a concept which is strictly absurd because essentially unintelligible. It is as if realities could be posited merely by imagining them. Moreover, if the emergents are potential in relation to what precedes them, then they are necessarily permanent potentialitiess in the original substrate or matter, otherwise their emergence is inexplicable, precisely. Properly speaking, evolution is an actualization of a potentiality, not a creatio ex nihilo on the part of patently contingent elements. In other words, the origin of things transcends the plane of their becoming.

    Comment by G. Polit — 6/29/2005 @ 4:36 pm

    STAN: I have a number of problems with this, but no time at the moment to reply. Others are welcome.

    29 June 2005, 4:52 pm

11. starry de cysis:

    Is it possible to download the written text of what’s on the CD? In my neck of the woods, the best we’ve got is 28.8 dial-up, so that it takes a loooong time to download the audios. Have lately been reading von Mises and Rothbard. Their ideas go against my leftist grain, but I wonder what of value they might have to offer. Also, I’ve been finding myself in agreement, in some respects, with the Libertarians like Karen Kwiatkowsi (sp?). Yikes, vot’s happening?

    2 July 2005, 6:07 am

12. bakunin:

    Marx has plenty of pseudo-science as well: the concept of the commodity, the labor theory of value, the class struggle are as much mumbo-jumbo as Adam Smith or Locke. And I eynes is lot a less pseudo-scientific than is Marx. The “Property is theft” stuff was great in the 60s until all the former hippies and radicals got real jobs or tenure. I doubt strongly a Frederic Jameson would allow some deadheads to camp out in his living room: well maybe if they were currently chic africans eh..

    6 July 2005, 1:25 pm

13. Stan:

    If you want to post this crap, at least take the trouble to explain why you thnk there is no such thing as class struggle. Telling us it is passe is just so much effete sniping.

    Odd pen-name you have chosen for someone who is promoting Keynes… the guru of state-managed demand-production.

    6 July 2005, 2:51 pm

14. bakunin:

    AS Keynes realized, the simply identification of proles = good and bourgeois = bad was not only mistaken but highly dangerous. There is more to it, but I think that is a fundamental error of marxism. (AS is the labor theory of value.) I’m not a conservative but I think once one does accept the marxixt schema a person is asked to view all these people–say “fabians” such as Keynes or Bertrand Russell–as representatives of a hypocritical bourgeoisie and so forth and i think that is wrong. Though we may detest the Britsih aristocracy that Russell came from, in many ways he was more left than many marxists–supported feminism, denounced racism, pacifistic for the most part, anticorporatist, etc. even if he did make some mistakes (probably fewer than Sartre did). There is always that leftist resentment that can become a murderous rage: I would agree that Wall Street and most of US consumer culture is a mess and that Bush and GOP economic policies are a joke and a mockery of Jeffersonian or Keynesian ideas; that doesn’t mean I sign up with Sendero Luminoso.

    6 July 2005, 3:29 pm

15. Stan:

    I repeat my last comment. Where’s the meat? This is just rambling gibberish, punctuasted with a bunch of straw men. There is not one single accurate representation of any Marxist position here; and there is not a single actual critique of any Marxist concept… explain what you think the LTV is, then explain why you disagree.

    My impression is that you are just spouting off some ill-thought-out opinions, but you could disabuse me of that impression – if you care – by constructing an actual argument.

    6 July 2005, 4:13 pm

16. bakunin:

    NO, more like you are avoiding the issue; Does Marx place all value with the proletariat? Of course. Keynes realized early on what a horrible situation that might lead to (and did in Stalinism, when they began to “liquidate the reactionaries”, as Marx had ordered)…..at least be honest, comrade. Or are you another one of these “Marx can do no wrong” types, who view Capital about like biblethumpers view Scripture. Dogma is dogma. (oh that’s right Popper had some not-so-nice things to say about Marx as well)

    6 July 2005, 4:32 pm

17. bakunin:

    Moreoever many of the injustices of the Marxist epoch–like horrible working conditions, long hours, child laborers–were improved by non-communistic methods. I don’t see any 14 yr old kids working 16 hours a day as in Victorian England. Many of the targets of Marx (which he thought demanded revolutionary action) were settled with liberal policies and democracy. And to simply divy up the wage-slave-laborers from the capitalists and owners of the means of production does not exactly represent much of the economy. The unions have done a great deal to offset that and in say construction the workers now are capitalists–a contractor in any Boomtown of California generally has far more wealth and power than teachers or even engineers and professionals. It should be quite clear that Marxist models do not accurately reflect many aspects or problems of markets–say in terms of technology or the environment (the soviets were among the worst of polluters.)

    6 July 2005, 4:54 pm

18. Stan:

    bakunin, Don’t flood the coments boxes in the belief that you can overwhelm your own fundamental confusion with volume. The Marxist concept of value has nothing to do with how you use the word, and there is not a single line of Marx anywhere that suggests anything as weirdly amorphous as “all value with the proletariat.” And Marx was dead for quite some time, so it is very unlikely that he ordered Stalin as General Secretary to do anything. This belies a very serious void in your understanding of the Soviet Union – which will soon enough I suspect develop into a predictable repitition of vast numbers cribbed from Robert Conquest. There were several distinct phases of Soviet history, each unique, and none growing out of some singular schema or continuity thesis (as some have called it). Certainly we cannot compare development models in post-revolutionary China or Russia with those in the US, when there is hardly a single point of similarity in their economic histories.

    You need only look through this blog to see how often I reject anyone’s work, including Marx, as holy text. This is an idiotic claim if you have, but I’ll be generous and assume you have only dropped by to engage in this shallow agitation on this particular post.

    In fact, most of the improvements in working conditions in these liberal so-called democracies were an outcome of… dare I mention it… class struggle. Your “divy up” sentence is incoherent, so I can’t rightly respnod to it.

    I have also written on this blog about Soviet environmental problems.

    Here is a suggestion. Before you embarrass yourself any further by expounding on something with which you obviously have no more than a sound-byte acquaintence, go do a little background reading… if it’s to critique what you think I have said, then you need to read what I have written elsewhere on this blog, and if it is to critique marxism, then you need to educate yourself on what it is.

    How did Marx describe the commodity? If you can portray his description accurately, that’s a good first step in constructing a critique (informed analysis) or even a rebuttal of it.

    Why do people who engage in this kind of random comment rant always use shadow email addressess and fake names?

    6 July 2005, 6:02 pm

19. bakunin:

    Anyone, except perhaps the academic marxist, can leaf throughout Capital and point out sections which have been proven wrong or modified or shown to be irrelevant: e.g. the child labor issues, which did not require revolution in Britain or America. Many other such liberal reforms occured without VI Lenin’s help. If you take it as irrefutable dogma you are utterly mistaken. And the basic point of Keynes about always locating the value in the worker is not to be just cast off. (and i realize that value is not ethical value but economic, but it is situating the workers needs necessarily above the producer: moreover the unskilled and manual laborers are in Cali in many ways in a much better situation than skilled and professional workers–would you have that? the janitors all have as decent wages as schoolteachers or even smalltown attorneys and engineers, and better hours and as much vacation, thanks to the brutal negotiations of corrupt fools such as Art Torres and CO. Perhaps you ought to just change the name of your blog to Janitor’s Unite or something, deep thinker.

    6 July 2005, 6:22 pm

20. bakunin:

    Ah I got ya. Since you think im mistaken in stating the truth–that working conditions were greatly improved in America and Europe without revolution or communism, and for repeating a fairly obvious point made by Keynes that marx always privileges the proles over what he calls the bourgeois (of course these terms are never really defined–is a teacher a prole or bourgeois—generally bourgeois unless maybe she is of color or a lesbian or something), now you are entitled in good Bukharin fashion to censor my posts

    6 July 2005, 7:36 pm

21. Stan:

    Wouldn’t think of it. Too entertaining.

    How old are you?

    6 July 2005, 7:39 pm

22. Doug:

    Bakunin – I didn’t hear anything dogmatic or doctrinaire. In fact, I think the audio series dealt well with things Marx either or ignored or never got around to – notably the sphere of social reproduction and the oppression of women. So why are you calling it dogmatic and doctrinaure? The recording I listened to wasn’t “Capital: as read by Stan Goff”. What were you listening too?

    And yes, Bakunin, you are right that improved working conditions in America and Europe occured without revolution, but they didn’t occur without long, hard and bloody class struggle – a struggle that continues today since reforms are never permanent under capitalism. Just look at the decline of real wages in the US over the last 30 years. The class struggle continues so long as there are classes. Simple enough.

    7 July 2005, 8:30 pm

23. Stan:

    Wiki’s on Marxist critique of economics:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_accumulation
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_accumulation
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_value
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_labour
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_product
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_product
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added

    9 July 2005, 11:05 am

24. Mark:

    Great job, Stan. Thanks for taking the time (and space) to provide both a cogent and easily digestable exposition re “The Economics of Exploitation”

    -peace

    10 July 2005, 1:07 pm

25. bakunin:

    One of Marx’s central claims is that though a worker’s relative wages may increase, these wage increases never match the increasing profits of the company/industry/management: so the real wages are always lagging behind the profits of the company/owners. Little evidence is acutally proferred for this claim , but it is given as a fact. (I think Keynes or Marshall took this apart somewhere as well). Marx seemed to be saying that though Norma Rae gets a dollar raise each year the executives-stockholders in effect all got 100 dollar an hour wages; and this always must occur, which is wrong. Perhaps in the industrial economy of 19th cent it was accurate occasionally, but hardly anything like a necessary economic law. Companies close; and even executives lose jobs and profits decrease. And in an economy, such as California’s with strong unions and mandatory pay raises and so forth, the person foolish enough to enter the private sector–including management–may face far more precarious situation than say those fortunate enough to have landed a state job. At the top of the corporate heap–the IT barons and financiers– I would agree the profits are increasing at rates far beyond the employees’ raises but most people in the market–even “capitalists” and businessmen–are generally exposed to far more risk than the cops, firefighters, teachers etc. The bureaucratic State is doing very well, actually: except for all those non-PC types (Kulaks right?) who never found the right “in”.

    11 July 2005, 7:51 pm

26. Stan:

    No, his central thesis was that capital is a social relation, but even so…

    From UFE:

    From 1990 to 2003:

    *

    CEO pay rose 313%
    *

    The S&P 500 rose 242%
    *

    Corporate profits rose 128%
    *

    Average worker pay rose 49%
    *

    Inflation rose 41%

    The average production worker fared less well in 2003. Their annual pay was $26,899 in 2003, up just 2.1% from 2002 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average worker took home $517 in their weekly paycheck in 2003; the average large company CEO took home $155,769 in their weekly pay.If the minimum wage had increased as quickly as CEO pay since 1990, it would today be $15.71 per hour, more than three times the current minimum wage of $5.15 an hour.
    *&*&*

    Of course, this is distorted (ameliorated actually) by not accounting for differences based on national oppression and gender in the US, and it is restricted to the US. Once the global figures are taken, the tendency (and this is important, Marx identified not the empirical and anecdotal, but the tendential) is far more dramatic.

    11 July 2005, 9:26 pm

27. bakunin:

    why not just be honest stan-ski, and admit it: you hate whitey, whether he is liberal, right, or leftist.

    13 July 2005, 2:56 pm

28. Stan:

    I always give commenters plenty of rope. It’s their call whether to hang themselves or not. This comment is not only stupid, it hits some racial notes that qualify as “hangers.” Read the rules. Odd notes to be sure… I don’t know what the *ski appendage is supposed to mean, though it smells anti-Slav or anti-Semitic. As for “whitey,” that’s odder still, since I am what people refer to as “white.” Moreover, some of my best friends are white… present company excluded.

    Bye, bakunin. Troll elsewhere.

    Listen for the flushing noise.

    13 July 2005, 3:59 pm

29. Jim W:

    I just finished reading Paul Craig Roberts’ commentary on supply side economics over at Counterpunch. I tend to believe in the interrelatedness of the gender/race/environment/economic issues. I tend to believe that a breakthrough on any of these components can lead to an acceptance of and interest in the others. The problem is developing and arguing the case(s).
    I have done some freelance research that I haven’t followed through on, partially out of insecurity with challenging the “experts”.
    For example, the house I live in has appreciated 4 1/2 to 5 times since the purchase in the late seventies, just prior to the implementation of “supply side” economics. I found a listing for an “average wage index” which in the same period (ending in I believe 2002) had increased just under 3 times. This was a survey of over 1900 jobs and seems to correspond pretty well with figures released by other sources. Unfortunately, I can’t remember how to access this on the internet.
    Other research shows that new automobiles (at least my findings) are roughly 4 1/2 times what they were in this time period. The food items I surveyed varied with eggs being less expensive relative to wages but other things like hamburger at least slightly more expensive relative to wages. Of course things like college tuition and health care are likely going up even faster than housing and automobiles.
    So, by my calculations, the ratio of 3 to 4 1/2 represents a 50 per cent increase relative to wages which would be a 33 per cent decrease in purchasing power for those items. The problem as I see it is that many economic experts describe wages as “flat” might possibly be biased and/or not stating the situation accurately. The items that are going up at this rate also happen to be the ones that people spend the most money of their income on. So if housing is going up 40-50 percent in this time period and eggs (or bubble gum) are going down 40-50 per cent in the same period you can’t figure the inflation rate (purchase power) by averaging the two figures.
    I think it’s possible that since the late seventies a 20-25 percent decline in purchase power for a typical American budget is a not out of the question by this rough estimate. In the late eighties Gore Vidal put it another way when Larry King asked if we were headed for a depression: We’re right in the middle of one. In the much squeezed middle class it takes husband AND wife working full time to make what the husband made in 1973. That might not be a perfectly accurate statement but seems to be generally true. Hope all goes well next month.

    27 February 2006, 11:55 am

30. Jim Withey:

    Correction on my previous submission on this topic, plus an argument.
    I should have said a 20-25 per cent decline in puchasing power for a typical wage earner, not a typical American budget. This is I think a fair estimate. “Typical” American households may not be consuming less, but they are working more and more hours to keep pace.
    Not that I claim to be right on everything, but my general sense of what’s happening economically has I think been accurate. I was rather upset by the prospects of another depression, as prophesied by Ravi Batra in his popular book “The Great Depression of 1990″. Sometime in 1989 I think, I called a talk show and stated that I didn’t think there would be a depression, just a steady decline in the state of the economy. I happen to think this is the “management philosophy” of our “wicked masters”, as Gore Vidal labeled them. (By the way, it may behoove one to use caution if your going to call a talk show, like computer use, because they’re trying to “mine” information from everyone that may oppose them for any reason.
    That being said, I would like to offer a rebuttal to the mainstream argument that cutting taxes promotes economic stimulation (and growth).
    To my way of thinking, this is horsecrap. First of all, the purchasing power relative to wages by my estimation is getting worse, not better, since the tax cutting mentality has taken root. But as important to address is that if the government taxes people, it doesn’t flush the money down the toilet, (except maybe when spending money on wastefull military programs). I think it actually stimulates the economy better than through persoal tax cuts, especially for the rich. In other words, the money is recycled back to those who most certainly stimulate the economy. If this is marxist thinking, pseudo or otherwise, so be it.
    Anyone who feels secure enough with their situation may want to consider opposing mainstream economic thinking from this perspective.

    12 May 2006, 10:39 am

31. Jim Withey:

    Regarding economics and the media, I have to add to my first submission on talk radio.
    I’m primarily interested in “bringing up the rear” so to speak, that is, communicating to the decent minded people out there (you know who you are) who are alwo probably more likely to get taken advantage of by the world than others
    There are three main steps which I am suggesting be considered by our decent minded friends out there.
    1. Develop the most thorough understanding of the world you can, building from the fundamental to the complex. Reading and thinking are the main tools here, in my opinion.
    2. Figure out the best way(s) of engaging with the world without exposing yourself to the dangers of the evils of the world. Try to assess or guage the risk to reward relation of activities. Weigh the benefits of activities as to how much good you and others can obtain from them against the possible negative ramifications.
    3. Prepare yourself as best as possible for a world that becomes worse instead of better. Future generations are perhaps the main overall concern, but believing that things will just keep getting better should be guarded against.
    With these ideas in mind, I have some thoughts on talk radio and the internet.
    Someone once said that if woting did any good it would be outlawed. There is some degree of truth to this. There is a constant tug of war of the various forces of society that benefit from woting, and those who do not want to tolerate power in others’ control.
    So I believe it goes with our ablity to use talk radio and the internet to positively change the society.
    It must be considered that neither form of communication wes instituted in order to positively affect change in society. As we know with the internet, if the fear from the ruling powers about resisting or rejecting their power gains momentum, then they are likely to restrict or curtail use by those who would challenge their domination by communicating ideas and information.
    I must reiterate my stress on thinking over as carefully and thoroghly as necessary what your role in life should be. I won’t suggest you should never laugh at things, but if you generally take the world and your position in it seriously, it’s important to understand that everything counts. Whatever you do has an impact on what happens in life.
    There are I think four main chouces on how to approach interaction.
    1. Doing little or nothing, which will likely be less and less possible as the situation worsens.
    2. Being open and active in communicating your opinions and ideas. This path will cost you your identity as far as exposing it to large numbers of enemies. This also involves danger of retaliation from said peiople. Be aware that if you choose this path you will encounter others who appear to be doing the same thing without either being completely sincere or taking the same risks. As with any path you choose, you will need to think clearly about and analyze ideas, people, and situations.
    3. There is a more intermediate route that may fit your personality and situation. This one involves limiting your identity to exposure, while still maintaining involvement in the political world. It’s probably the most difficult path to get right. It involves alot of subtlety and foresight and adaptability. This is a path that is most likely to be useful for someone in the “middle class”. You have to place more emphasis on vocational success and on limiting your identity to exposure to others. It involves definitely NOT saying what you think all the time. For the most sincere people, this path will take some experience to be able to accomplish.
    4. This path is the most restricted and perhaps important and dangerous. This involves focusing primarily on vocational and career success, and keeping a low or even false political profile. It’s possible in rare instances to acheive career and monetary success while being overtly progressive, but you can consider the problems of trying to do so. The higher echelons weed out most of the truly sincere progressive people and at the very least discriminta against them.
    So how does talk radio and the internet relate to these ideas?
    I’ve called talk radio for a long time, probably for over 20 years. It’s pretty certain that I’ve been “identified” either through Project Echelon, caller I.D., or just by name and voice recognition. So, I’ve taken a somewhat reckless path No. 2. as listed above, if you will. I’ve also checked out alot of progressive/radical books at the library, which are now subject to scrutiny under the Patriot Act. I’ve subscribed to left/progressive magazines and sign-up sheets. More identity exposure. All of these actions can have adverse consequences, with the most basic being denial of employment. (Lesson being that it’s not too late to minimize your exposure, while realizing that trying to “switch paths” is not necessarily a good prospect. I just spell my name on these submissions with a y instead of two e’s to limit employers discriminating against me by googling my name.)
    Internet usage is similar. It’s not necessarily wise for many people, especially people choosing paths 3 and 4 to be reckless about computer use. There are any number of ways to potentially thwart the “cops” of the world, both official and unofficial regarding internet and talk radio usage. I’ll just suggest that thinking about it for a little bit first is a good idea.
    I just wanted to add relative to the economics aspect of this submission, that discrediting the mainstream crap on talk radio may be wothwhile for some with the time to do it (keeping in mind my concerns for pathways you choose as listed above.)
    I think that most of the media, with talk radio leading the way, has developed the art of misleading and deceiving into a high art form.
    Let’s use the propaganda of that I believe crypto-fascist right-winger Michael Medved. In one of my earlier submissions to this post, I mentioned that a national talk radio host had said that Hitler was a socialist. Well, I should have stated that it was Mechael Medved.
    I don’t think for a moment that a person as well educated as he is doesn’t know that the Nazi’s were NOT socialists. Do the research. I can’t think of too many accurate definitions of socialism that apply to the Nazis’ program.
    I’ve also done some basic research listed on a submission above on this post. It has to do with the rise of prices relative to wages, which I believe to be the most important factor in the change from one breadwiner to two or more in American families. I believe I heard just recently Medved saying that housing costs were not rising relatively. Not according to my data, listed in an earlier submission above. According to that research, housing costs have risen much faster than the average wage in the last 25-30 years.
    Another recent comment regarded the publishing houses being either ‘liberal’ or ‘left’. This was in regard to the book about Valerie Plame’s career, which I believe she authored. I never knew that publihing books by CIA operatives in cases like this was a “liberal” or “left” thing to do. Of course, the CIA, never considered involved in left or liberal activities, at least by nature, is now to the left or liberal side of far right creeps like Medved.
    I have to say that there are limited opportunities for rebutting him over the air. If you start winning the argument or make damaging points he tends to interrupt or end the conservation. Standard procedure for most talk show hosts. Still, there may be opportunities in the world of talk radio for success, depending on your path choice and situation.
    Another word on Medved. I think his name should be Stewart. That’s because he is good at the ART of making people STEW. I believe he purposefully crafts his sort of effeminate fascist (my opinion) style in order to really enrage and throw into disarray a large segment of his audience, which is seeing people like him contribute to a terrible world to live in, at least for most.
    Try not to let him get under your skin. And
    consider the paths or options as well as your own in trying to make a better world for yourself and others.

    19 May 2006, 6:39 am

32. Jim Withey:

    Just a follow rp to those who have more to learn than others, and hopefully are decent people.
    Keeping in mind the concept of understanding that deciding what path to take is critically important, particuarly how open and up front you are in your dealings in life. Consider what I believe I heard Alexander Cockburn say in front of a crowd in Seattle many years ago, or in one of his columns, to the effect that 90 per cent of everything is bullshit. There was also a subheading over one of his pieces that I believe was “Who are friends, Who are enemies”. Certainly there is alot of bullshit, and determkning who are friends and who are not and those in between is a more tricky process than many realize.
    There are deeper meanings and analyses to get to beginning with the fundamental observations and then moving to the complex.
    For example, take a statement that might have appeared in sum way in this blog. “Men Are Really Shitheads”. Just a simple statement like that can be analyzed in simplistic ways and then in deeper ways, depending on who is saying it and for what reasons. They are not all the same. Intelligence must be developed in good people in order to fight evil, which is often very intelligent. In other words, don’t be misled by the popular opinions that say things like “Bush is so stupid”. I think he’s alot smarter than people credit him for being, which I would like to say amounts to more insincerity and deception on the part of our great scribes, than in their naivete. But you will have to come to your own understandings on these types of things.
    But let’s get back to economic bullshit, as the scribes are good at (remember economics being called “The Dismal Science” by Carlyle), and what to do about it. These are some of my rumingations.
    Bearing in mind that there are authoriatarian/totalitarian potentials on the left as well as on the right, the greatest harm and most developed threat is clearly on the right, in my opinion.
    Let’s look at arguments from the mainstream, (which is basically the right), and arguments that are missing, relative to how “open” you want to be about discrediting the mainstream economic philosophies.
    Here’x one argument from today’s Seattle Times’ opinion page, in which a letter writer, a doctor, atates, “…Krugman bandies about the 46 million people without care, and never mentions that most of those people are in between jobs and that most of those will regain their health insurance within six months.”
    So as evidence that many (but not all) intelligent people are creeps, I offer this.
    It’s more likely than not that this doctor is biased than ignorant, in my opinion. The word “most” I will interpret in its most common usage, that being relative to “majority” or “the greatest share”, which unless the good doctor means otherwise, should be at least half.
    Half of 46 million is 23 million. That would mean that according to our good doctor, at least 23 million people are “in between jobs”. That would mean there are at least 23 million people without jobs. That would also mean that the REAL unemployment rate is well over 10 per cent. This means that figures for unemployment are wrong, and/or our doctor has misstated. Bullshit one way or the other.
    Another problem that is almost never stated fairly is the problem of the “entitlements”.
    First of all, a society as lousy and deceitful (or with at least 23 million unemployed?) as this one will breed a desire to receive aid in order to escape its awful realities.
    That being said, it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of people receiving these so-called “entitlements” have paid into the system and are collecting rightfully what they deserve.
    But really, what are the real “entitlements” in this system. The capitalist system is based on ownership, not productive labor; I don’t need Marx to tell me that.
    Someone should explain (Arriana Huffington where are you?) why interest income in particular, and other “passive” income is not called an “entitlement”. It’s much harder work getting a measly government check than it is partying all day on your “passive” income. It doesn’t take much work to use the ATM.
    I’m a little suspicious about the lack of “marxist” analysis out there with regard to what I believe I’ve identified about the decline in purchasing power relative to wages. Very few people are mentioning this phenomenon, and I have to wonder why?
    I think it was Henryk Grossman who developed a mathematical explanation for the decline of capitalist health. Yet I really don’t find this important, crux of the matter theory debated, particularly from so-called “left wingers”. It makes me wonder if they are really left, let alone progressive.
    In conclusion, be careful about how you approach life, particularly getting hooked into the various cultural debates that can mislead you from understanding that men and women are fighting for money. Economics is about what is produced, as the Germans know.
    .

    21 May 2006, 3:39 pm

33. Jim Withey:

    I’d like to add a few more comments to this discussion of economics as pseudoscience.
    First off my chest and to those relatively innocent and sincere people: Don’t let someone’s large and sophisticated vocabulary and quick wit fool you into non-critical acceptance of their ideas and ideology. Consider the often heard bromides about “mardet forces” and “supply and demand”.
    Many times the slick hustlers of economics will try to tell us that “the market” determined the price of something. Question Authority! At least in your own mind. Who ever heard of a “market” setting a price for anything? As far as I know, a human or some humans have set every price ever made. There is no way the produce at the farmers market is set by the farmers market, is there? No, the farmers and sellers, human beings each and all, decide what price to put on their produce. There is value in understandeing how “the market” as described works, but it should not confuse you with sophisticated wordplay. Every price that is set is set by a human being; if that seems obvious then so be it. I think many people need to get the basics right in order to advance in life. After all, would your typical used car salesman not sell a car to you for as much as he could squeeze out of you? Generally yes, I believe. HE sets the price, not some inanimate entity called the market.
    Rather than be confused and taken advantage of by the hustlers of the world, it’s better to understand the basics of capitalist economics: To pay the lowest wage for labor and to charge the highest price you can as a seller. There will be endless attempts no doubt to nake people think otherwise, and occaisionally a subtle admission that this is the fundamental reality of capitalism.
    Take a look at a couple of powerhouses in my area, Starbucks and Microsoft. Both of these businesses get glowing praise from the flunkeys in the media, with very few wxceptions that I can see. Both corporations have a mega-rich glutton that is also going around with their tin cans asking the taxpayers to continually pay for their for private gain sports franchises’ facilities. Billionaire bums on the dole, it seems. And the public is supposed to worry about welfare bums.
    Of course, the image of these heroes is almost always made into some larger than life drama, enticing the naive among us to gamble his quite possibly healthy and happy existence on some dream of “having it all”.
    So, particularly in Starbucks’ case is the secret of its success?
    Well, there was a show called “American Made” on cable recently, no doubt a sophisticated “advertisement” for Schultz and the system. I only saw bits of it, but I think the REAL story is pretty simple. Headlines read: Genius figures how to get suckers to pay 2 dollars for a 50 cent cup of coffee. In fact, I love coffee, and my rough calculations place the cost of my perfectly good coffee consumption at conservatively a quarter of the cost of Starbucks. Not to mention, I don’t have to get scrutinized for acceptance by arrogant snobs that hang out there. For the exceptions to these types that go there, I apologize. So unless you are on paths 3 or 4 that I mentioned in my previous submission to this post, save the money and the
    hassle by not patronizing these places. I also think that Schultz supports Zionist causes, another good reason to oppose him discreetly or openly, as you think you can.
    Let’s look at the other titan of our area, Microsoft. Even though I am not a whiz at computers, I think the formula is similar.
    I’ll give Bill Gates a little more credit for his knowledge level concerning computers and their potential benefit to society. But at the end of the day, his goal is still the same as Schultz’s, namely to monopolize their industry and charge as high of a price as they can (and pay the lowest wage they can) to maximize personal wealth.
    Another trick in these mega-rich persons’ playbook is the charity charade. Please innocent and naive but hopefully developing people out there, don’t fall for this crap. Charity is not justice.
    Charity from the rich I believe is primarily used to cultivate a proper image of concern for the well being of society. In the past it was aslo used as a tax shelter to shield money. It still is used to get certain people and groups to knuckle under and stop pughing for a more complete form of justice. If I charge you 2 dollars for a cup of coffee that I paid 50 cents for, and then give you a discount of 20 cents (that being the equivalent of charity) I’m still ripping you off. So don’t buy the bull.
    So to the relatively innocent and sincere people out there, try to not let the “experts” steer you away from progress. There is risk involved in becoming aware of the dangers of the world. But there is greater long term risk in being ignorant, as well as despair of not living the best life for onesself and others who are deserving of your goodwill.
    If you decide to accept the mission of openly confronting power, or even if you are more subtle in your approach, be aware that there are basic truths or beliefs of truth, and there are many, many deeper levels of understanding and interpretation. Your role to help yourself and others deserving of it depends to a large extent on your competence and level of understanding. Some deceptions are easier to spot than others, and each individual, that is yourself, has to be the final decision maker for yourself. Good Luck.

    21 May 2006, 11:49 pm

Leave a comment