The way I see it, capitalism is an environment. A ‘place’. A ‘way’ for people to do ‘economy’. What people do in that place depends on the place itself but also on how they choose to do things. This being the reason for which the American capitalism is different from the European one. And both completely different from the Chinese version. In this sense, capitalism doesn’t actually work. Not by itself! If those dwelling in this ‘place’ act freely – as in ‘free market’ – then the whole ‘thing’ remains ‘sustainable’. Not ‘good for everybody’, not always ‘nice’ but nevertheless ‘fair’. As in ‘you have a fair chance of reaching the other end’. Not to get necessarily rich but to make the ends meet!
The alternative to capitalism… if you take your ideological blinders off, you notice that there’s none! Socialist/communist countries are/were also capitalist. The difference being that their economies are/were centrally planned. Their markets are/were anything but free! This being the reason for which communism had crumbled under its own weight. And for which in all places where the market is not free enough the ‘thing’ is not sustainable!
Good Old Politics used to be about identifying the common ground. And making it wide enough to harbor the foundation for a stable – as in ‘sustainable’, future. A future where ‘everybody’ could claim a place. As in ‘fulfilling the American Dream’.
Nowadays, politics is about identifying the most effective way to pull the rug from your opponents’ feet.
How wise is this?
How sustainable is it?
We learn from Michelle Obama’s book – Becoming, 2018, that her father, a blue collar worker, was the only breadwinner who provided for the family. A family of four, leading a decent life in a decent home. Who was earning enough to send both kids to school. Is this still possible today? In America? The Land of Opportunity?
Trump got elected after a huge number of well paying blue collar jobs had been exported. After wealth disparity had become ridiculous.
What convinced so many people into believing that Trump, the billionaire, was the answer to their plight?
Historian Nancy MacClean has just published “Democracy in Chains”, a book in which she looks at a group of ultra free-market thinkers who have been working to change the government systems of the United States since the 1950s. While Donald Trump was not part of their plan, MacLean says “there is no way Donald Trump would be in the White House were it not for their strategy”, which includes gerrymandering and taking control of the judiciary. She joined us for Perspective to tell us more.
No, this is not yet another post about Trump. This is about Political Science.
You see, physics and chemistry are hugely important sciences. Physics has taught us how to build planes. And atomic bombs. Chemistry how to make life saving drugs. And deadly explosives.
And so on. Science is nothing but a formalized method of gathering consistent information. What we subsequently do with the technology built around the above mentioned ‘consistent information’ is something else. It no longer depends on ‘science’.
It solely depends on us. On what plans we have for the future. On how we – the ‘meaningful’ amongst us, to be more precise – chose to use the above mentioned stash of ‘consistent information’.
Nowadays we’re toying with even more powerful tools. Tools which are able to turn back the flow of history. To make a joke out of the fabled ‘checks and balances’.
The H bomb is such a blunt tool that nobody in their right mind would ever consider using.
Tools made possible by political science are way more insidious. So insidious that most of those who wield them ignore the true amount of fallout their actions will unleash.
Compromise – give some to get some, is debatable to start with. But, ultimately, workable. History is full of successful examples. Kompromat is nothing but mutually assured destruction. MAD. Made worse by its trivial appearance.
By engaging in compromise, you give hope a chance. The other has a scope. For as long as negotiation is going on earnestly, both sides have a fair chance of getting out alive. By engaging in Kompromat, the aggressor actually sends the message: ‘I’ll stop only over your dead body’.
Sustainable?!? Are you kidding me?
One-Time
Monthly
Yearly
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
Or enter a custom amount
$
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat. And to provide for my family. Earning money takes time. If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button. Your contribution will be appreciated! Another very efficient way to help would be to share my posts.
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat. And to provide for my family. Earning money takes time. If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button. Your contribution will be appreciated!
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat. And to provide for my family. Earning money takes time. If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button. Your contribution will be appreciated!
So.
A bunch of ‘well intended people’ had somehow laid their hands on a ‘trove of personal data’ and used it, commercially, to influence electoral processes.
The data was gathered by ‘creatively’ exploiting the ‘opportunities’ put in place by the very existence of Facebook and by the manner in which so many people chose to use the said ‘social network’.
And most of us blame it on ‘Zuckerberg’.
OK, I can understand the psychology of all this.
I can also understand those who put the entire blame on anybody but ‘Zuckerberg’…
Or those who, through their daily decisions, had created the premises for so many people to convince themselves that Trump was good enough for President and that it would better for Britain to ‘leave’?
Yeah, it’s only normal to blame others for our own mistakes.
But how sustainable is it?
I was speaking recently about the ‘disposable income’ generating economic growth.
Now you tell me how sustainable is this situation.
No, I’m not concerned about the morality of it or other highfalutin ideals.
What I’m concerned with is what is going to happen with the properties that won’t be able to find a tenant.