KZ: Robert, I believe Chandler and I are on sort of the same page. The statement of the judge in my comment above is a good starting point. “In this favored land of law and liberty, the road to advancement is open to all. . . . Every American knows that or ought to know that he has no better friend than the laws and that he needs no artificial combination for his protection. They are of foreign origin and I am led to believe mainly upheld by foreigners.” The important section is the first eight words, “In this favored land of law and liberty…” It isn’t the invisible hand of markets or the visible hand of middle management that is the impetus in America. But rather that America is a favored land of law and liberty. America’s businesses and economy are successful due to this. This teleology has been and is used to justify and explain most parts of American history. Sometimes with full commitment to the truth of it. Sometimes as merely a political expedient. I assess the judge’s statement as more the former than the latter. Applied in the fullest sense this mythology leaves no room for management of any sort. Used cynically, the mythology merely hides overriding greed and the pursuit of absolute political control, particularly regarding the working class. Thus, we see use of favored land of liberty and law to oscillate America between progressive democracy, fearful nationalist state, and greedy capitalist dreadnought. Shows an interesting picture of American culture. The central core belief in America as a favored nation blessed with law and liberty, around which are hung institutions and activities for each of the three modes listed above.
Me: Genuine and lasting change, i.e. actual human progress never occurs unless or until a NEW concept is recognized and is generally applicable/applied to a body of knowledge/area of human endeavor BECAUSE that concept IS a PATTERN change. It isn’t just a needed and perhaps superior structural change WITHIN the body of knowledge it’s a change in the ENTIRE pattern.
Now having said this there are paradigms and then there are Paradigms. In fact you could say there are at least three forms of paradigms. A structural paradigm (paradigm of reform) , a body of knowledge/conceptual paradigm change and finally a mega human paradigm change.
The last time we had the latter was the change from nomadic hunting and gathering to agriculture/homesteading and city dwelling and the new monetary paradigm is precisely that kind of paradigm change because it is a fundamentally deep and general problem resolving pattern change for ALL of humanity in ways that PERSONALLY/INTIMATELY effect them CONTINUALLY in the PRESENT moment.
RL: How, growing up in America did I escape all that. It’s Babbit pure and simple, which no working person standing in soup or hiring lines in the 1930s would swallow. Not my father, not the workers in our community. You are leaving out a big part of the story, which the New Deal tried to bridge, but could’t. That story, not law and liberty, gives me hope.
Me: Probably because you had a better moral compass than most Americans and an intellect as well. Ken’s analysis is accurate alright except America has always come up short philosophically. That’s the problem with resources, opportunity and geographical isolation the last of which Europe has never had, it inhibits depth of thought and hence palliation of problems.
Americans fell for Marx’s theft of one of Germany’s greatest, Hegel, whose dialectic was wisdom, and fell again for the right’s proclivity to smear anything it perceived as alloying its power and control. The result? The non-progress of obsessive dualism and mere reform at best.
Better to have taken Hegel’s integrated duality within an integrative trinity-unity and then studied Kuhn (although Kuhn being an American ultimately opted for scientism and philosophically chickened out as well) and they might have accomplished real wisdom which actually solves problems instead of wallowing in them and calling that progress.
Even though macro-economics has garnered a few insights since its inception shortly before the end of WW II it has largely become a plaything discipline to obsess over and obscure the real problem with modern economies, namely the money system and its problematic and dominating paradigm of Debt ONLY. That paradigm has been holding humanity and civilization down for over 5000 years. Again macro-economics was born into that fact less than a century ago and hence its analysis is very shallow and its cultural horizon is short and largely unconscious of the larger problem.
When one analyzes from the paradigmatic level and has even an inkling of the historical signatures of imminent and accomplished paradigm changes the hunt becomes not for the complexities of problems nearly as much as for the singular paradigm concept and how its simplicity of operation and yet breadth and depth of problem resolving policies will be optimally integrated into the economy.
Economics has become increasingly useless and has come to reflect the buddhist saying: If you come upon the Buddha on the road to enlightenment…shoot him!
To paraphrase James Carville: It’s the monetary paradigm, stupid.