Anyway ... capitalism I guess
Anyway ... while writing what I was writing I somehow lost my trail of thought, finding my way back into
what "bigger issues" there be. And then again ... there's that ... stuff I constantly failed to properly
write about. And maybe I now know why. At any rate, it's worth digging into for the time being I suppose.
So ... the world is a complicated place or complicated to make sense of. Everyone has their perspective
and might thereby be aware of some most important thing that governs everything. "All our problems are due
to this or that", "the only way we can save ourselves is such and such", "X isn't the problem, Y is the problem",
such and such. And a large part of this multiplicity of opinions is the dance of telling everyone why their
perspective is the right one.
So ... Capitalism. The thing is, that while words do in deed mean what they mean, we individually don't have
a direct access to what someone individually means by using it. Like that, deep words might become shallow
and shallow words become deep. So, to the observer. That way expressions charged with significance might get
overlooked while silly detail without any deeper meaning gets obsessed over to possibly ridiculous degrees.
So, bear with me when I try to do a "both sides" kind of take on Capitalism. However shallow it might (have)
So, when some people hear Capitalism, what they think of is this great thing that has catapulted our civilization
into unimaginable wealth, making it the "duh" good thing. Other people, when they hear Capitalism, do however
think of something else. They think of a system of inequality and exploitation.
The one may then lord the great achievements of Capitalism over "the Socialist" - while all "the Socialist" has
in return is what suffering it produced. The Capitalist however would probably say, that without Capitalism that
suffering may yet be there, minus however the wealth that has been created.
Whatever the case now - I think on one hand side my individual position should be understood well enough; While
on the other that might not be good enough just yet. Whatever problems there may be is however only in people's
heads I say. Or whatever produces this refusal to play along. And I read that as somewhat antagonistic. It sure
isn't all black and white - but, that is ... the situation. One that some other people might not be alright
with. So, assuming that what "depth" there is to be considered is lost on them - the shallow end of it may very
well be that I'm the one begging for money. Now, if I had the power to just delete money ... things might look
a little different - but alas - I haven't figured out how just yet.
But that's the thing. Perspectives and what narratives exist around them. And in this whole ... I found it to
be tiring to keep chasing the ball - as there'd always be someone kicking the can further down the road - and
by the time things got ridiculous I figured that I have better things to do with my time.
I mean, whether it's socialism or capitalism or whatever does at the end of the day not matter to me. What
matters is that we get things done. That now would be socialism if we somehow implied that we put all our stuff
into a bag to see what we can do with it. Even if just in the abstract. And the capitalist there is someone who'd
say no to that, perhaps even taking stuff out of the bag on their way out - and with that being the proverbial
premise of our situation ... I'm back saying what I've been saying.
I mean ... I might not even know what I'm on about here. But, alas, in this sense ... a Captialist would be
a douche that cannot be reasoned with. Simply put. Outside of terms of business I suppose. Makes perfect
sense I guess. For to them what we have is a business proposition of them giving us money ... or us wanting
to do stuff with theirs - and to say it out loud: TO us it's more about ... working together. And so it goes,
round and round - and I wonder if there's ever going to be an end to this.
But ... maybe I can still do you one better. I mean ... I guess every time I excuse myself from "more honestly
engaging with a subject matter" or so ... I feel like I'm walking on progressively thinning ice.
So maybe the issue here is, or was, that ... without a proper point of reference the goalpost can be shifted
around willy nilly, rubber can be taken for concrete and a bar of steel be sold as wobbly - sure thing, it's
all relative. And if we accept that rubber is rock-solid and that steel is wobbly - there is the reality in
which that is true - which is THE reality, by the way, but ... with a proper frame of reference a direct
frame of comparison would show that steel is more solid than rubber.
Like ... if we say "Socialism", for instance, we don't right away imply anti-capitalism. I mean, in a way this
"argument" reminds me of me arguing with my parents trying to convince me to "find a job" while both of us are
yelling at each other that from nothing comes nothing. So, for what we want - on the Capitalism side I suppose
we should just throw all our money at the Next Billionaire in the hopes that they somehow magically fix
things for us. Because asking for anything is too much, it's "Socialism", ... such and such.
But so, what better point of reference would there now be - other than Elon Musk? I mean ... going simply by
the numbers ... Elon currently wins in the game of Capitalism, so ... he's like ... "the most" Capitalism -
a.k.a. the quasi Epicenter of this whole shitshow. And he sure likes us to think that of him too - which ...
makes this a lot easier! I mean, ordinarily we could still shift back and forth on whether yay or nay - with
Elon however it's almost as if he's only there to be an example of sorts. And maybe once I'm done with it we
can move on to forgetting about him. Or whatever.
So, something about Elon is that where some people see success - others see failure. I mean, in the very same
thing. So, the "Haters" might just see a guy dancing in a silly Robot Jump Suit - his "Fans" see an opportunity
that once they throw enough money at it, it might actually come to be. While his "Haters" see little to no
promise in his technological accomplishments, counting failure after failure, overpromise after overpromise,
miscalculation after miscalculation - his "Fans" see a risk taken. And in that I see a certain ... tension ...
between Scientist and Investor. For the Scientist is the guy that says "No, it can't be done!" and the Investor
who says "well, do it anyway!" might just prove them wrong. But we don't even live much in a world where the
matter of what can or can't be done is at the forefront of our mind. No, we much rather live in a world where
the money to try is all that matters. And Elon ... does be playing exactly THAT game.
So yea, "Most Capitalism" confirmed I guess.
But, it doesn't even matter in as far as this tension between Scientist and Investor is, to me - right now at
least - the crux of the matter I'm concerned about. And Elon is just one cog in the machine that ... one way
or another comes to highlight that issue.
And it gets a bit broader than just that.
So, you might have understood, that I have some little Nemesis in my head. And one of the things "he" does, is
that he - at least so the implication - constantly one-ups me. If I build one gun, metaphorically speaking, he
builds 10. So, he pretty much leans into the bigger=better philosophy - and because I can't do as they do because
they are the nemesis, I must do as I do and try to outdo them my way. So, this is a little tension I carry through
my day to day - with almost everything I do. And in between the two positions, theirs and mine, there's a truth.
They'd say it's theirs because it does the bigger=better thing; And I'd say it's mine because ... well, we'll get
I mean, it is on both sides. The thing is that if I now wanted to do something specific - it might then require a
certain amount of ... oodels. Now, because they might already have a great amount of oodels, and specialize in having
many oodels, they'd claim the thing as "theirs". Regardless however - me for just wanting 'one' thing would now also
require many oodels, and so the problem of getting as many oodels out of as little as possible is also my problem.
Anyway. What I would consider an advantage of my way, is that it's more cost effective. Rather than just having oodels
for the sake of it - perhaps even more than we need - we're looking to have oodels for a reason. And it might seem
perverse that we would think in terms of mass production or bigger=better or any of that, because hay - we got to be
wholistic and wholesome and cute and all that. Well ...
Perhaps on an unrelated side-note, there's something on the forefront of my mind right now. And it concerns "market
behavior". Like, there's something that has always rubbed me wrong about the logic around interest and inflation. Any
notion of "how the market behaves". This idea that raising interest would affect how people handle their money. But,
apparently it works! Or worked.
What I believe is the better model, is to understand what I for now want to call "market profile". Like so, there would
be a variety of factors that determine or affect the behavior of the individuals participating in the market. Say,
for simplicity, A, B and C. And say, by some arbitrary score, A was 10, B was 50 and C was 30. That would be the profile.
In this instance, B would be the dominant mode. Hence the market would behave as though B were all that is. If now however
we built all round B being dominant; Thinking there is nothing else; And all of a sudden the profile shifted so that A was
at 60, B at 30 and C at 10 perhaps - the market would all of a sudden behave radically different and our working models
would no longer apply.
That is also a problem of always thinking bigger=better. You may over-invest and then lack the critical dexterity needed
to adjust to changes.
There also is a graph we looked at in school recently:
The primary sector (turqoise) is about the yielding of resources; Farmers for instance. The secondary sector (magenta)
is about processing those resources; Butchers for instance. The tertiary sector is the service sector, so, the distribution
of those products - say, a cook, waitress, bartender, that sort of thing.
And this graph shows the amount of people employed in each sector over the span of several decades. What I see is, that
technology has made work in the primary and secondary sector a lot easier - that and trade may have an impact too - thus
requiring less people to operate; So that a lot more people now need to work bullshit jobs, such as in marketting, to somehow
make things go. Or so, to maintain the illusion that Capitalism still works.
Now, is that a matter of bigger=better=bad? Well, yesn't. The yes part here - for my concerns right now - isn't as much of
technological advancement, but more metaphysical. See ... if there were a wheel - in the abstract - in the system that did
a lot of 'work' - hmm ... how to put it? I mean, bigger=better in some ways comes down to looking at something and figuring
out 'what' to make bigger so the whole thing will do 'more'. The most more. And cutting down production costs, per chance
by investing into heavy duty machines, while also getting people into selling bad products for more than it's worth - that's
like ... a thing in the abstract.
And in that regard, there isn't much in terms of an actual care of what the net benefit might or would or should or could
Give or take.
And now we may talk of the increasingly older population all day long - calling it the harbinger of doom and what not - the
fact of the matter is that we wouldn't have to be worried for as long as we can keep up with the necessary production. FUCK
money. And when looking at this graph the way explained - the problem is anyway an entirely different one. Yes sure ...
"skilled worker shortage" ... but how is that? The general answer is that employers don't care enough to meet modern standards.
Instead they complain. Maybe rightfully so - but that's the fault of an anyway broken system!
I mean - the matter of employing more people so each can do less work is like ... horribly anti-capitalistic. It doesn't make
that one "wheel" bigger - mind you. It's a different kind of thing that gets bigger - more so in favor of the average person.
But so, training more people to do the necessary work should anyway be like ... a goal. The problem being ... who pays for it?
Now ... there's a word ... it starts with S and ends with ocialism, and it only takes a tiny nudge and we can talk of another
word that starts with C ... and doesn't end in unt.
Well, in the abstract.
Then, when people talk about Communism, that too was a kind of bigger=better. Telling everyone they're equal by turning them
into peons ... well. I'm not sure that that's what Marx envisioned, but well ... "it never worked".
Anyway ... if I ever had a thread I lost it.
I mean, there sure is an aweful lot of truth behind the stuff that "Socialists" keep telling. It's like a philosophy that keeps
on giving. One just has to know how.
But anyway ...
So, bigger=better - that's one side of the issue. Between Scientists and Investors ... there's the thing of a missing Brain. And
going with the used metaphors ... Elon certainly isn't the Brain in the equasion. He's the Investor. No, the Brain is like ...
systematically removed from the equation. Because ... the Brain ... that would be Socialism. Like ... having like a collective
say on what directions to invest in.
To know ... "why even".
Anyway ... I've run out of juice. Maybe I'll get to continue some other time.