Saturday, September 7, 2013

Cosmology - consumer

Moral: Wherein we continue our trek toward a fully-discussed cosmology of business.

Last time, there were some preparatory remarks which considered, momentarily, the basic principles that ought to be brought to fore. How could such wavering come about? Why can't we just start from some easily agreeable foundation (been to DC lately? - oh, yes, establishing spy-ville has been the main accomplishment, it seems?)?

Well, let me point to the puddles, and mud pies, being stirred by the intellectuals. Too, who isn't chasing their tail after the mathematical overlays descended upon us (ah, think NSA's little shadow world in which all but them are suspect - if you don't know about this you've been asleep in the back of the classroom) and added to great confusion?

Aside: An insidious cloud has cloaked our ability to see truth. I'll be going on about this at length. Think blinders, folks (yes, even minds rated at genius are trapped within this web).

So, today, I might have stumbled upon a position from which to start and from which we can omni-directionally venture (hint: non-linear and temporally non-convergent). First, the inspiration comes via reading Horace Kallen (actually, browsing). Several of his titles intrigued me, but, being devoted to duty, I took up his work on the consumer (The Decline and Rise of the Consumer).

Aside: Please note several things. The guy is writing from a philosophical position. Too, he's way before the "stupid" computer (smart, my arse). And, he was before the robot which is meant, in the minds of many, to create worse hell on earth than we have so far (no Luddite am I, look it up). Horace does not have the long American heritage which some of the ruling class claim (a whole slew of the leaders do descend from the royal houses of Europe - not many saints there). So, his late entrant viewpoint can be compared with the heritage'd (mind you, we'll do that - my ancestry is post-Civil war, to boot).

Horace Kallen,
The Decline and Rise
of the Consumer

Now, let us consider some words from the Epilogue, supposedly a look back from the year 2044:
  • Throughout history, the many had sweated and slaved, with the labor of their hands and heads bringing to birth the shapes and services of life whose accumulation and remembrance compose civilization. They had sweated and slaved, but they had been prevented from consuming and enjoying. They had sowed but others had reaped; they had nurtured and tended, others had eaten. They had been the producers only, others had been the consumers. They had been the means, mere tools with life in them, others had been the ends, free lives with delight in them. And those who felt and understood the injustice of this division were filled with a righteous anger. ... Without labor there can be no food; without work no human good whatsoever can come to be, no desire could be gratified, no wish attained, no life enriched. 

Ah, well put, Horace.

Aside: Horace's father was a Rabbi while he was an early secularist. But, as he said, one didn't pick (nor can one throw away) one's grandfathers. Horace is credited with coining cultural pluralism.


Consumerism has bad connotations since argument trend toward materialism, ostentation-ism (had to put that in for the Wall Street crowd), and such. But, corporations (with their God-give, and court-recognized, person-hood) and PACs (things of that ilk) are consumers, to boot.

Besides, looking at the economic equation (top view, as in GDP) shows a C. Guess what that represents and how large its effect upon the total?


Markets? Well, forget the idiocy currently in vogue that leads to financial engineering. They (we'll get into markets and their need) are to facilitate "business" at its core. We will be going back into that subject, time and again.

Be aware, that humans will be at the fore. And, I don't mean just those favored few, like Jamie and his ilk.

Aside: By the way, one use of the computer ought to be to level the playing field. Again, no Marxist label ought to be brought up here.


07/26/2015 -- This has had some recent reads. Lots going on, including poster boys coming out of the woodwork. We intend to get back to this topic: consumer as central to things economic (metaphysically sound).

09/17/2013 -- New blog. What is enough? Anyone remember room and board? That is a wonderful arrangement where you work, get fed, a roof over your head, and some spending money. Now, that may be an old concept. Nowadays? Yes, one would have a room provided by a slum landlord, the food would be gruel worthy of a gulag, and the money would be given to you on a debit card with exorbitant fees. Then, there are those who can never have too much. This is an interesting twist to use for discussing a central notion.

09/17/2013 -- Atlantic: where money was spent. Presupposes money to spend (hopefully, not by debt alone).

09/10/2013 -- Atlantic article: language and savings. However, note the U.S. position on the chart. Ben has slapped the savers silly (making them battered and bruised). Is he anti-savings? Or, is it that he wants to maximize consumption?

09/09/2013 -- Clarification. Of course, the "C" is for consumption (say, the whole collection of types of consumers - including those who would fall into the consumerism set). Needless to say, wouldn't unlimited production (without elimination via consuming) lead to the proverbial compacted state?

09/08/2013 -- Of course, it's not mathematics that's stupid, it's the misuse (which we'll get into). Marilyn says that mathematics doesn't inspire like literature and art (for once, I agree with her wholeheartedly). In fact, she thinks that mathematics ought to be taught early, then the later involvement would be by personal choice. Perhaps, then, some of the misuse would abate. Perhaps not, but let's wait until we detail the misuse before discussing that. Now, in the meantime, if you want to contemplate large "M" Mathematics, go right ahead, we'll take it any way that you want or need. 

Modified: 07/26/2015

No comments:

Post a Comment