naked capitalism

DownSouth says:

Re: “Posner on the Economics of Theology” Legal Theory Blog

Here’s how the linked abstract sums up Posner’s position:

For example, a deity might demand some act of sacrifice, reverence, or obedience and then threaten to punish creatures that do not satisfy these demands. Such threats might be made credible by actions that demonstrate the power of the deity to create plagues, floods, and other natural disasters visited upon those who are disobedient or irreverent.

There’s not a whole lot of difference between Posner’s theology and that of the televangelist Pat Robertson in this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ4dA6kZsEs&feature=related.

Of course Posner and Robertson’s prosperity gospel doesn’t meet the acid test of human experience and observation. Bad things happen to good people, and conversely good things happen to bad people.

It should come as no surprise, however, that Posner and Robertson, along with Richard Dawkins, are all on the same team. For the banksters, it’s full court press. They have all the bases covered with their celebrity preachers, economists and scientists.

The antithesis to Posner’s and Robertson’s prosperity theology was articulated by Martin Luther King, Jr. in My Pilgrimage to Nonviolence:

First I rejected their materialistic interpretation of history. Communism, avowedly secularistic and materialistic, has no place for God. This I could never accept, for as a Christian I believe that there is a creative personal power in this universe who is the ground and essence of all reality—-a power that cannot be explained in materialistic terms. History is ultimately guided by spirit, not matter.

But in spite of the shortcomings of his analysis, Marx had raised some basic questions. I was deeply concerned from my early teen days about the gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, and my reading of Marx made me ever more conscious of this gulf. Although modern American capitalism had greatly reduced the gap through social reforms, there was still need for a better distribution of wealth. Moreover, Marx had revealed the danger of the profit motive as the sole basis of an economic system: capitalism is always in danger of inspiring men to be more concerned about making a living than making a life. We are prone to judge success by the index of our salaries or the size of our automobiles, rather than by the quality of our service and relationship to humanity-thus capitalism can lead to a practical materialism that is as pernicious as the materialism taught by communism.

DownSouth says:

Re: “Let’s Not Be Civil” Paul Krugman, New York Times

Krugman said: “The point is that the two parties don’t just live in different moral universes, they also live in different intellectual universes…”

Krugman is still peddling the fiction that there is some fundamental difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

In order to dispel this fiction, let me once more put in a plug for Scott Noble’s latest film, Lifting the Veil, which can be seen for free on the internet here.

Philip Pilkington says:

By the way, am I the only one that has a serious problem with Munchau and many of the FT op-eders’ views on the Eurozone crisis. Consider this:

“I think the same political considerations will apply in 2013 as today. Default would cut the country off the capital markets for several years. It would risk contagion to other countries. It would require a recapitalisation of the European Central Bank and trigger immediate transfer payments under the rescue umbrellas. My hunch would be that the next generation of political leaders will be just as cautious about default in 2013 as they are in 2011. They will give Greece, Ireland and Portugal another bridging loan. By 2015, a large chunk of the peripheral debt will be held by the various EU rescue schemes.”

I mean, do Munchau et all read the news? One of the most important factors in the Eurozone crisis is citizens of various countries putting their boots to the necks of the Euroboys.

In short, the peripheral populations don’t like austerity programs that ruin their economies — and the core populations don’t like giving the periphery what they see as a free ride.

Munchau and his ilk seem to write in an ivory tower of abstractions — all the while acting as if the Eurocrats had complete autonomy in their decision-making. I would go on to accuse Munchau of beinf anti-democratic, but that might be crass — at the very least he is grossly unrealistic.

Tertium Squid says:

Reviewers argue “addiction” a poor way to understand the normal use of drugs:

“Muller and Schumann’s article, ‘Drugs as instruments – a new framework for non-addictive psychoactive drug use’, introduces the concept that drugs are being routinely used by many as helpful ‘instruments’ in their lives.”

Since everyone gets a pill for everything that bothers them, it’s not surprising to see the medicalization of every chemical everywhere. Why do something the hard way when there’s something out there that will help you feel the way you want to feel?

“after a long working day, having a last coffee to awake and refresh the mind may enable the driver to drive home more safely. In this case, caffeine is the instrument that improves the mental state.”

Never mind that people who need chemicals to be able to function fall much closer to “addict” than a recreational user – this statement is obnoxious for the unspoken assumption that the problem here isn’t the overcommitment, the long working hours, the lifestyle choices, or even the debt-fueled wage slavery that sends the exhausted worker home for a few hours to rest his muscles and get ready for more work. No, it’s the treacherous human body refusing to do its part and cope with these physical, social, and mental pressures.

Chemicals, as envisioned by the reviewers, are most useful as masking agents to cover up the harsh side-effects of modern life and help the user rise to meet even the most prosaic of challenges. Just as you give morphine to a patient dealing with the pain kidney stones, you give beer to a sexually frustrated nerd to lubricate his conversation and improve his mating prospects.

I would take it the other way. If I can’t keep my eyes open on the way home from work (or to work!), there’s something WRONG, and the goal shouldn’t be finding a chemical that lets me cope with a withering schedule – it should be a new schedule. If a man has mommy issues and a fear of closeness and commitment, don’t addle his senses so he can talk to girls! Let him clear his senses and his thoughts, learn about himself and grow.