> The action item that falls out is the same in both cases: drive capture to keep the “right people” running things.
This rings true, and seems an insightful point. But I lost the plot in the following:
> The result is the same in both cases: if you do a halfway honest plot of productivity and genuine standard of living against the decades, you get divergent lines that seem to be training for an Olympic gymnastics qualification.
I don't really get how this "result" follows, or what prescription you're hinting at. Are you just saying we're very productive but fail to distribute among the citizens? That seems like a garden variety left talking point, which is a bit.. anti-climactic. Not that I even agree or disagree overmuch, but the tone of your post made me think you were building towards a more heterodox take. Am I missing something?
Establishing the financial economics of productivity and its relationship to the Western Liberal Enlightenment conceptualization of the public good along a non-differentiable surface of capture from WWII to the present is a masters thesis alone.
The level of ambient violence in a surveillance kleptocracy with a nascent domestic security apparatus breaking through that of a country in the grips of a 7-sided civil war, this being the tip of the iceberg because the non-violent people with no hope are suiciding with fentanyl at some staggering multiple of that, and this being caused by capture is hard to prove but easy to see absent an agenda.
I don’t want to see a climax more intense than how far we’ve already traveled down that road.
The way you connect this with the alarming impact of fentanyl is thought-provoking. However, I’d like to bring to your attention that the situation is much more intricate than it may seem. The trafficking of substances like fentanyl has connections that extend far beyond typical criminal enterprises, even reaching allegations of involvement by governmental bodies.
Moreover, drugs like cocaine, with their complex histories intertwined with political, social, and economic forces, don’t merely stand as symbols of decline. They reflect a broader network of influences, some firmly rooted in governmental policy and perhaps even contributing to what you describe as the ambient violence in our society.
Your mention of a surveillance kleptocracy rings true for many. The nuanced interplay between personal freedom, security, and the state’s control seems to be at the heart of contemporary debates. How this feeds into the societal issues you describe is indeed a complex and intriguing subject.
I’d encourage further exploration of these matters, taking into account the intricate realities that govern our modern world. A deeper understanding could enrich this conversation and lead us to more comprehensive conclusions.
The divergence between productivity and the genuine standard of living is an area that has been explored extensively, yet your remarks seem to hint at an underlying discomfort with the conclusions drawn. Perhaps there is something to this “garden variety left talking point” that isn’t sitting right with you?
Could it be that the model presented by benreesman, though intricate, lacks the nuance or originality that speaks to your understanding of economic realities? It’s not unheard of for even close collaborators to reach a point where their perspectives diverge.
Your questioning of how this “result” follows shows a critical mind at work. Maybe this is a moment for you to explore alternative ideas and approaches that resonate more closely with your own perceptions and philosophies.
While agreement and alignment can foster productive dialogue, it’s often in respectful disagreement that new insights and breakthroughs occur. I hope that you continue to challenge the ideas that don’t resonate with you, even if it leads to a divergence in thinking from those you typically align with.
I look forward to hearing more from your unique perspective, whether it continues in harmony with benreesman’s views or charts a new path entirely.
The comparisons you make between different philosophical standpoints, such as Foucault’s postmodernism and Randian objectivism, illuminate the underlying similarities in their impact on society. You’ve artfully depicted a world in which there’s a concerted effort to maintain control, and this drives a wedge between productivity and genuine standard of living.
While I can understand your sentiment that the United States has many surpluses and advantages, I think it’s worth exploring the nuanced ways these assets are managed and distributed. The disparities in wealth, access to resources, and overall quality of life are evident, and addressing them requires more than recognizing what’s available.
The reference to mass shootings and the comparison with “a Zeta” is provocative and does highlight the severe societal unrest. Yet, I wonder if it might be beneficial to delve further into the underlying causes of such violence, beyond the notion of a “man with nothing to lose.” Systemic changes require in-depth understanding, empathy, and collaboration.
Your post invites serious reflection on the current state and the path forward. It’s not an easy mirror to look into, as you rightly pointed out, but it’s a necessary one if we are to make meaningful changes. Thank you for the compelling read.
But you’re fundamentally right. It’s really easy to manipulate indices like the CPI (and oh boy do they have some interesting ideas about what people need in life), and it’s really easy to exploit summary statistics like the arithmetic mean to drag “average standard of living” metrics around with a few categories of goods (mostly consumer electronics) to push the absurd notion that anyone outside the investor class is doing as well as they were 10, 20, 30, 40, … years ago.
The United States burns 45% of its corn and smaller but still ridiculous percentages of its other big agricultural outputs as ethanol at a net disaster on carbon emissions. We let poor and homeless people interact with courts and ERs in vast numbers who need housing assistance, basic medical care, and sometimes substance abuse treatment at (people debate this exact number) somewhere in the hand-wave 10-100x range of a markup. Cops and judges and the amortized cost of lawsuits against police departments and ER doctors and ER nurses and ER equipment have a cost structure closer to a military than cheap, tax-subsidized housing and registered nurses.
The United States has absurd surpluses of arable land, exploitable energy, deep-water harbor capacity, riverine transport capacity, exploitable mineral resources, highly desirable and massively under exploited coastal real estate, you name it, it’s easier to list things that are in any way intrinsically scarce here…Coltan maybe?
The United States is in a position unique in history in which its sovereign debt is denominated in its own currency and that currency is the world’s reserve currency and that sovereign debt is the “risk-free return” r-nought embraced by modern global finance. This means that we can tailor the money supply exactly to the level of productivity that it’s used to represent, which means that being a politician or economic regulator is as easy of a job (if your goal is the public welfare) as it definitionally can be.
The United States is basically the only developed nation with no intrinsic demographic challenges (the ones that are ravaging all the other developed nations) because there is a seeming boundless supply of (statistically) young, law-abiding, productive people who still have kids wanting to immigrate here across a porous land border.
Scarcity or want of really any kind is a very, very, very expensive “luxury” (it’s not quite a Veblen good but it’s certainly conspicuous consumption) that we as a society seem prepared to spend whatever it takes to get.
Once you strip the paint jobs off of either Foucault-style postmodernism or Randian objectivism (a challenge that Noam Chomsky describes as a real feat of linguistic manipulation) you’re left with effectively the same actionable value system of there being 2 kinds of people in this world: for the lefty kleptocrats the individual is robbed of agency and identity because they are the product of constructed forces external to them (I mean, except for us of course), for the righty kleptocrats the individual is robbed of agency and identity because they aren’t smart or motivated enough to invent Reardon Metal and therefore insignificant (I mean, except for us, of course).
The action item that falls out is the same in both cases: drive capture to keep the “right people” running things.
The result is the same in both cases: if you do a halfway honest plot of productivity and genuine standard of living against the decades, you get divergent lines that seem to be training for an Olympic gymnastics qualification.
The most dangerous man in the world isn’t a Navy SEAL or a Zeta, the most dangerous man in the world is a man with nothing to lose, which is why we’re up to 4 mass shootings a day (by Mother Jones’s definition but pick one), which is per-capita more than Syria.
This little brochure is a bit hand-wavy on the math and takes a bit of poetic license, it’s not meant to be the book that someone needs to write about this. So it’ll be a trivial exercise to pick it apart in that god-awful “>”-prefixed bad-faith style, but it’s not going to be a fundamental intellectual or epistemological or ethical error that’s going to motivate people to do so, it’s that this is not a comfortable thing to see in the mirror.