Economics 911

I am not an economist.

Well, I, like everyone else, am a practical economist. Money comes in. Money goes out. If I'm smart more money comes in than goes out. Otherwise I'm in trouble.

The essence of income is work. When I was in grade school I was taught we worked to make products to trade for products we wanted. Sally made pies and traded them to Sue who made dresses who gave the pie to Frank so he would fix the kitchen sink... So in my grade school economics work = income.

So the great economic thinkers redefined wealth from this simple grade school idea. They've been saying that wealth needs to be gathered in great piles so it can fornicate and make more money. So the income, the fruits of our labors has been piled up in counting houses and allowed to procreate.

The results of this fornication and procreation is large amalgamations of wealth in the hands of a few.

This might almost make sense except there is a problem with their economic theory. Once they strip the last bit of income from our cold dead hands there is no one to make things or buy things or create new wealth.

Create new wealth?

Yeah. Sally makes the pie. The pie has value. It didn't have value before Sally made it. Afterwards it get's Sally a new dress and Sue's sink fixed. And if Frank uses his pie wisely, like sharing it with Betty, he might even get to fornicate and procreate.

So if this simple minded approach satisfies the needs of the many, why has it been necessary to develop convoluted economic models and paradigms to satisfy the few? Work and the results of work belong to the those directly involved. The argument between opposing economic philosophies over the last hundred and fifty years is based on control and not on results.

Communism as a state run soulless economic machine failed miserably because the implementation of Marxist theory eliminated the rights and joys of the individual.

Capitalism in turn is crashing to the ground on the weight of its own profound greed and shortsightedness.

In both philosophies the individual is disregarded.

I've heard arguments like this is an either or decision. I hope not. Because if it is I really hope the world ends on December 21.

Please read Umair Haque http://www.umairhaque.com/

Thomas Jefferson, Mao Zedong, and Ed Osborne walk into a bar...

And the first question that comes to mind is "Who's Ed Osborne?"

He's my father, and possibly one of the most opinionated people I ever met. During the 60's (about my earliest recollection) and the '70s he was virulently outspoken against communism in all it's forms from Maoist China (he had a copy of Mao' s Little Red Book hid up on his shelf next to his bible because he believed in knowing his enemy) to social reform in this country (like welfare and civil rights).

Mao, as we all know, was the Chinese leader that is responsible for creating modern China out of the ashes of World War II, and making it a 'Workers Paradise' or the last hold out as a 'Communist' country. The reason Mao supported Communism is because the Russians (but not the American's or English) supported his People's Army that drove the Japanese out of China.

Thomas Jefferson, as we all know, articulated a particular view of social political structure where the people have the greatest right to command the government. He also advocated violent revolution against the established authorities.

What do these men have in common? They all advocated violent change as a medium of controlling social policy.

I'm sure I don't have the thorough knowledge of Mao's policies or Jefferson's writings that I need to really pull off this thesis but it seems to me that my father's ideas for social change/control in this country were more in line with the authoritarian actions of the People's Leader (Mao) than the writings of the aristocratic Jefferson.

In many ways this contrast is between the semi anarchy that is the United States with our gun rights and murders, and vigilantes and freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and the mild to strict authoritarian systems in place in other countries where the people either revolt against the government in total anarchy or run from the government in fear for their lives.

Here we can't run from our government because we are the government. Take a look around. You and your neighbors elect the hell hounds in Washington and Albany. Don't like what they're doing? Recall them. Elect someone else. Run yourself. Sure its a tough fight but it needs to be fought. Just don't sell your soul to the company store.