Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970106065558.00873b80@ilhawaii.net> Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 07:06:33 -1000 From: Jay Hanson <mailto:jhanson@ILHAWAII.NET> Subject: Re: THE INDUSTRIAL RELIGION To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
At 08:04 PM 1/5/97 -0500, Steve Eskow wrote:>When you read Vice President's Gore passionate if breathy book on the
>environment, do you not feel you are reading the words of someone who
>understands what you are talking about, shares your concern--and does not
>believe in THE INDUSTRIAL RELIGION?
>
>Would you maintain that Bill Clinton is an industrial religous believer?
>
>If these "leaders" understand as clearly as you and I do the problems of
>growth; if such advisers as Robert Reich of Harvard are as knowledgeable=
and >as honorable as you or me--what's the problem?
My God, this is really a naive (academic?) view of American politics. Nearly all politicians are salesman who only believe in themselves -- otherwise they won't get elected. It's the way our system works:
---------------------------------------------------------------- A snip from http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/page4.htm
////////////////////////// GRESHAMITE SYSTEM FAILURE \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Systems that select for failure are often called Greshamite systems after the English financier Sir Thomas Gresham (1519?--1579). His name was given to Gresham's Law, the economic principle that "bad money drives out good." When depreciated, mutilated, or debased (bad) money circulates concurrently with money of high value (e.g., silver or gold), the good money disappears because of hoarding. As more and more people notice that good money is being hoarded, more and more good money is hoarded--runaway positive feedback again. Ultimately, the monetary system fails.
Many Greshamite systems exist in our society. For example, a pesticide kills all but resistant pests. As this process continues, increasing percentages of the pests are resistant to the pesticide. Runaway positive feedback occurs as pesticide applications are increased to offset increasing resistance. Ultimately, the pesticide fails. This same process occurs with antibiotics, producing resistant diseases.
Our so-called political system can also be seen as a Greshamite system. To understand why, first consider the theoretical premise of our political system: a government that is willing to act for the Common Good. Next, consider two very different candidates for public office. Ms. Honesty believes in the principle embodied in our Pledge of Allegiance "... liberty and justice for all." If Honesty is elected, she will treat everyone fairly and pursue the Common Good. Mr. Corruption is motivated to pursue his own private gain. He has studied the system carefully and knows that he can gain political power by rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies.
Which of these candidates has the advantage? Mr. Corruption. Why? Because of our dominant ideology of individual self-interest and what economists call "public goods" (public goods are available to everyone, e.g., the benefit of honest government).
Huey is a local developer who has money, employees and influence. Philosophically, he is an average, self-interested individual who was trained by television (and to some extent by his family and formal education) to maximize his own private goods. Public goods were never even mentioned, so Huey has little incentive to contribute to the provision of public goods.
Will Huey contribute to Ms. Honesty? No, why should he? If she wins, Huey will receive justice and fairness from her anyway (a public good). If she loses, Huey will be punished by Mr. Corruption for helping her.
Will Huey contribute to Mr. Corruption? Yes, because Huey has been promised a private good (e.g., a change of zoning). Moreover, Huey will not be punished by Ms. Honesty for helping Corruption. So Huey helps Corruption.
This Greshamite system tends to elect politicians who are motivated to maximize their own private gain (obviously, there are individual exceptions). Runaway positive feedback occurs as politicians need more and more money to run for public office. As this process continues, increasing percentages of politicians are corrupt.
Bad drives out good and Corruption drives out Honesty. To what end? In the end, we do not have a genuine political system, only a pseudo-political system. [snip] ----------------------------------------------------------------
For more insight on the problem with the American political system, I will post THE CORPORATE MACHINES.
>Who are the indifferent, ignorant believers and evangelists for the
>industrial religion?
Neoclassical economists are the high priests of THE INDUSTRIAL RELIGION:
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALCHEMY IN THE 20th CENTURY
In the Middle Ages, the naked pursuit of wealth was named "avarice" and considered a sin. But avarice was re-labeled self-interest and became a virtue when Adam Smith published THE WEALTH OF NATIONS 1776.
Smith said that "laissez-faire" (let alone) economics would allow selfish individuals to raise the wealth of the working class automatically, as if by an "Invisible Hand."
In the 1870s, the new celebration of selfishness was named "economics" by William Stanley Jevons who defined it as: ". . . the mechanics of utility and self-interest . . . to satisfy our wants to the utmost with the least effort -- to procure the greatest amount of what is desirable at the expense of the least desirable -- in other words, to maximize pleasure, is the problem of economics."
Jevons should have added that economics has a few other itsy-bitsy problems. For example, in THE ECONOMIC WAY OF THINKING, economist Paul Heyne tells us that we really don't "need" such a thing as clean water, because there are no "needs." There are only "wants," and these are backed up by purchasing power, or "demand." Demand can always find substitutes, says Heyne, for there are "substitutes everywhere." Heyne's wild assertions point out some of the basic dogma of economics: enough money will enable one to find a substitute for anything. How is it possible that men can be made to=20 believe this? Is economics some sort of magic act?
Alchemy was an ancient art practiced in the Middle Ages devoted chiefly to discovering a substance that would transmute the more common metals into gold or silver and to finding a means of indefinitely prolonging human life. Alchemy was dubious and often illusory -- alchemy was in many ways the predecessor of modern economics.
For example, in his 1974 lecture to the American Economic Association, Robert Solow defended his illusion of unlimited economic growth: "the world can, in effect, get along without natural resources." Like an alchemist who claims that he can change lead into gold, Solow is claiming that he can change money into any exhaustible resource: "at some finite cost,=20 production can be freed of dependence on exhaustible resources altogether."
In 1987, Solow won the Nobel prize for economics!!
----------------------------------------------------------------
>Where are the books and articles and tv programs that incite the average
>American to want more and more growth?
ECONOMISTS GIDDY OVER FUTURE OF GOOD OLD U.S. ECONOMY By Martin Crutsinger, AP (12/29/96)
WASHINGTON -- Economists, normally staid practitioners of what is called "the dismal science" are downright giddy these days. The object of thief delight -- the good old U.S. economy.
No less an authority than Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, described the economy as fundamentally the best he has seen in three decades.
Searching for their own superlatives, some private economists have taken to calling this the "nirvana economy," a state of perfect economic bliss.
And as they prepare their outlooks for a new year, they're predicting the good times will continue to roll in 1997 . . .=20
[ Elsewhere my newspaper mentions that suicide is the third largest cause of death among youths aged 15-24. ]
-----------------------------------------------------
"It is not necessary to construct a theory of intentional cultural control. In truth, the strength of the control process rests in its apparent absence. The desired systemic result is achieved ordinarily by a loose though effective institutional process. It utilizes the education of journalists and other media professionals, built-in penalties and rewards for doing what is expected, norms presented as objective rules, and the occasional but telling direct intrusion from above. The main lever is the internalization of values."=20 =97[P. 8, Herbert I. Schiller, CULTURE INC; Oxford, 1989. ISBN 0-19-506783-5]=20
Jay