How the Fight Against Austerity Will Affect the Future

James Hughes @ Borderlands Cafe 11/30/2012 in San Francisco.

Politics and economics have yet to face the fact that an increasingly automated economy will mean the decline of human employment, and the establishment of a basic income guarantee. Instead we have hand-wringing about reining in “entitlements” and calls for austerity to facilitate private sector job growth. Expansions of longevity are greeted with calls for pushing up the retirement age, ignoring the shrinking availability of jobs. In order to avoid a neo-feudal future with a mass of unemployed poor dominated by a super-wealthy elite we partisans are a radically better future need to join the fight against austerity economics, and put forward a path to a world in which all share in the growth of wealth from technological innovation.

...

Complete entry

Posted by Intomorrow  on  12/04  at  11:18 PM

"Fight" is right, assertive really means fighting when you strip away the bs. Thus we must back away somewhat from Buddhist Right Speech if we are going to fight the austerians. James, call it the Austerian School of Economics in your next lecture because that's what it is, it isn't scientific, is too personalised to be scientific (an economist is about as scientific, IMO, as a pugilist is a dancer).
Let's cut our losses: admit to austerians we were wrong about harmonisation; but they themselves were mistaken concerning much outside the scope-- the scale-- of this comment. Their religious views for instance are as unrealistic as our political views.
I mentioned once to Guilio how the Age of Aquarius is over; he replied (as so many do in being reassuring) TAOA will return-- but one doesn't step in the same river twice. IMO 'bots are the way to go, therein lies some chance at harmony.
I distinctly sense how people, or at least men, want power more now that it isn't as convenient to use outright coercion.. if men can't obtain power they manipulate instead. Today financial manipulation is the In Thing, even more than in the '80s. Back then men were so interested in money they had less time for power-- now it has 'leveled out' so that men want power as much as money.
Sarkar's theories are encouraging (merely one set of theories naturally) for long-range thinking, a middle ground between socialism and capitalism; a dissipative framework less rigid than socialism yet not quasi-chaotic as capitalism is; the invisible hand of the marketplace is nonsense or at least outmoded.
Wouldn't write it's more ludicrous than in the past but it is more apparent. One random but obvious example is how marijuana was 'decriminalised' in my city in 2008, recriminalised in 2010 despite the tax revenues, then de-recriminalised in 2012. What next? Can't they make up their minds? can't they poop or get off the pot? Do they want the revenues or not? Is it based on principles or mushy thinking? How personalised is it? in 2010 a GOP woman wrote to the papers that her daughter had a negative experience with marijuana and she wanted to begin a petition to recriminalise marijuana via the ballot: the petition had its effect and in November of that year marijuana was recriminalised and MMJ venues had to shut down. Now they are starting the process of getting back in business without any idea of whether or not some dingbat will instigate another recriminalisation petition to be placed on the ballot.
Does it have to be so? Do we have to be shuffled like cards in economics and politics?

---

Add your comment here:

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?