A little "social media" request........

As a few old-timers here may know, I spend just a little time "commenting" on news stories in the major media; The New York Times, The Washington Post, sometimes Huffpo and others.

If, and when, I have something to say, and if and when I think someone might actually listen.

I have a little request for you - which might make a difference.  We all know that "economists" couldn't predict their way out of a wet paper bag - but people still keep asking them what to think.  Mind boggling.

Right this very minute - the New York Times has a nice feature pointing out that the entire world has entered a "slow growth" phase.  And that the "forecasters" once again didn't see it coming; and still persist in saying growth will resume very soon.  We base our fiscal "policy" on these fantasies.

I made a comment.  At the moment, to my surprise, it's running high in the readers "Readers' Picks"; about 6th in the list.

Basically it says "this is what ecologists have always predicted - and here we are."

The vast majority of the commenters add ideas and theories from "economics".  All beautifully explanatory and contradictory - and authoritative.  Despite never having accurately predicted anything.

You know - I think it just MIGHT make a difference if a bunch of the readers here added their recommendations - and bumped that comment up in the list.  Perhaps a few more people might notice "- hm - economists' predictions never work out - ecologists' predictions usually do..."

I think that would actually be progress.  Give it a try!  Can't hurt - might help.

The Whole Truth About "Economics".

Buckle up.  Exactly how often these days do you have a chance at "the whole truth"??  But here it is.

A couple days ago, Ilargi over at The Automatic Earth posted a cartooned short lecture from "legendary economist Ha-Joon Chang" on - Economics.

Back in the dark ages of blogging, around 2008-2010, when I was posting frequently, I tracked the "rank" of my blog using the now extinct Technorati statistics.  I was pleased when I eventually ranked up in the top 4% (as high as I got, but darn good) - but surprised to find that their measure of my "authority"; a statistic I don't understand at all, had me ranked pretty high for ecology - but higher for economics.  What? A surprise to me; though both fields have the same Greek root in oikos, house, they notoriously don't talk much.

Apparently though, if you are trained in the study of resources, their uses, values, and flows - it becomes easy to notice when Economists are talking total nonsense.  Which is often/always; as every study has always shown.  Look up 'monkeys are smarter than investors" if you want to get into that topic.  Ha-Joon Chang has noticed the nonsense from inside the field - a considerable recommendation.  Take a look; not while you're distracted, because between the ironic narration and the double-entendre animations, this is packed tight:

Then; if you have the urge; take the time to search this blog right here for the simple word "economics".  You'll find I made many of the exact same statements about economics and economists, years ago.  Alas that I can't claim to be a legendary economist, though.  (No disparagement of Chang intended, I actually think he is truly brilliant - and speaks the truth.)

And the Moral Of The Story: according to both a legendary economist and Greenpa; Economics is a meaningless field of study.  Really.

You've got to tell them... Soylent is made from... FOOD!!

Hi everybody.  Still here; still intending to blog more; but reality is against us.  Our part of Minnesota is officially a "disaster area", because of the stuck jet streams; 20 inches of rain in May and June, much of it torrential.  We have secondary bridges and roads out in many places- and no idea when, or even if, they'll be repaired.  We're doing better than many of our neighbors, though.  If they took the risks and planted their crops very early, they may be ok; if they decided to wait- they may get no crop at all; too wet to work the fields for too long.

Besides being overwhelmed with regular work, which is always late and difficult, blogging requires some kind of enthusiasm on my part.  And it's not that there's a lack of things to talk about- it's that there are too many.  And too often, discussion of things like the situation in Egypt just seems futile.  Nothing we say here will have any useful point to it.  It seems.

What finally got me off my figurative fanny today was this stunning bit of insanity.  Watch the video first; and beware of the Golem-Sucks advertising:

Ok, got that?  The 24 year old software engineer has figured out a way to rid the food system of waste, and help out with hunger in the impoverished regions of the world.  It's easy!  Just put it all into powder with a 20 year shelf life!  Why didn't we think of this before??

The stunningly insane part is- how easily he has the entire world press going right along with him.  Not surprisingly, they have a nice, logical set of arguments in favor of powdered food; take a look at them here on their crowdfunding site (the project has ended- alas you can no longer contribute here; but they did raise just under $800,000...)  An end to waste!  No more shopping, or cooking, or washing dishes!  Cool- has to save tons of energy, right?

Well, no.  How did we get to a place were NONE of the journalists covering this (so far as I can see) are familiar with the concept of "embodied energy"?  You have powdered protein here?  Um- where did it come from?  The store, obviously!

This is typical of the "answers" to global problems offered by "young software engineers".  The mind boggles.  It's the kind of analysis any systems thinker - um - thinks about, instantly.  Doing some digging, it did not really take me too long to find a reliable list of Soylent ingredients.  (Incidentally- many of us already know the name, "soylent"- hm; is there a trademark/copyright/IP conflict here?  Already contentious.  You never know what the courts will say, but personally- I would bet that name is "occupied".)

Ok; the list of ingredients:


Maltodextrin (carbs) (made from - corn, or wheat!)
Oat Powder (carbs, fiber, protein, fat) (made from- oats!)
Whey Isolate (protein) (made from - milk!)
Grapeseed Oil (fat)  (made from - grapes!)
Potassium Gluconate  (made from - sugar!)
Salt (sodium)
Magnesium Gluconate  (made from - sugar!)
Monosodium Phosphate
Calcium Carbonate  (limestone!)
Methylsulfonylmethane (Sulfur)  (actually; sulfur added to - natural gas?)
Creatine  (made from - meat!)
Powdered Soy Lecithin  (made from - soybeans!)
Choline Bitartrate (made from - something like sugar!)
Ferrous Gluconate (Iron)  (made from - sugar!)
Various vitamin and mineral supplements


Do you begin to understand?  Leaving aside the glaring suppositions that a) we truly know all our nutritional requirements, and b) this is all of them; exactly where are the energy savings; if instead of humans directly consuming corn, wheat, oats, milk, meat, etc, etc, etc, - we still have to grow all those crops; then reduce the simple components to powder?  Powdering, I assure you, requires a great deal of energy input; as do all separation/ purification processes.  And- are we going to now grow grapes for their seed oils?  What do we do with the rest of the grape?  I'll bet they start using palm oil soon; much more available.

The kid is able to buy the powdered ingredients for cheap right now- because they are indeed all manufactured as part of industrial food processes, and "by products" of animal feed or brewing or cheese making.  So- ask yourself; how does it scale up?  Way, way, up: in order to make any difference to anything, according to their own arguments.  Demand for the powdered components would skyrocket- and so would the prices.

Soon - just as is the case right now with quinoa, the farmers growing the crops would be selling them to the wealthy for their powders, and be unable to afford, once again, to feed themselves from their own crops.

I have to say; this is obvious; and we know this.  And yet- the Polka Dot Gallows paths we're on continue to thrive.

No, the economy isn't fixed.

In the spirit of trying to help folks understand what's hitting them; I'll share a metaphor that hit me, today, as I was attempting to respond to yet another bit of absolute nonsense in the mainstream media "financial chatter" pages.

So! The Eurozone leaders have reached an agreement! Hallelujah!! Hot Diggety! Man, now I can get some sleep; Happy Times Are Here Again!

I desperately need to find some more boggles, somewhere; I've gone through my entire supply at this point, the mind can't boggle any more; I've just used them all up. Here was my reply to one of the professional pundits, pontificating about "well, except for a few details" all is now, clearly, perfectly well.

"Nope. Fantasy is just not enough, anymore.

"Let's see if I can put this in terms the "econoastrologers" can actually understand.



"What they've just done is put more gasoline into the Automobile of Europe; which is stalled, engine dead, on the side of the road.

"Thing is; gasoline is not the problem. The problem: the engine has a cracked block; cracked wide open. It's broke- and dead; and all the gasoline in the world, will not fix it.

 Folks will hop back in the driver's seat; turn the key a few times- and the engine will not catch. Once again, they'll be out on the road trying to flag down help. But the engine block will remain cracked."

If you're reading all those financial sector headlines, and shaking your head a bit, mumbling to yourself; "but, that really doesn't make sense..." you're entirely correct.

It's the "Real Economy" that is truly broken. That's the phrase the econo-astrologers themselves use for it. Jobs? Work? Value creation? We ain't got none; can't see any in the pipeline, either; not here, not in Europe, not in China.

Eventually, the Real Economy has to pay ALL the bills for the debt; principle, and interest. And nobody has fixed it. The block is cracked; we're going to need a new engine- and nobody currently on the world radar has any clue of where to find one. And just maybe; there isn't one.

Quite possibly, that's why they avoid talking about the Real Economy. They have no idea what to say; and it's too depressing to dwell on. Bad for the markets, dude.

Oh, and incidentally, Big Oil is loudly announcing that they've siphoned another huge block of real money out of the Real Economy; $20 billion in the first quarter, just for Exxon and Shell. That'll help; as that money moves from Joe Lunchbox's savings into the stockholders' portfolios. And; of course, it's not Big Oil's fault; they just can't help it when prices go up.

Now if that doesn't cheer you up! I just don't know what will!!

:-)

---------------------------------------------------

Update; next day; CNN Money headline: European Rescue Sugar Rush Wears Off.

Fancy that. It's dawned on them that "this may not be enough." To succeed, there must be economic "growth" - and there is none, they know. So, are they now addressing the real problem? Don't be silly!

"Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi (Italy) has pledged to enact broad reforms to cut spending and boost economic competitiveness. But analysts say implementing those reforms could be difficult given the current political climate in Italy."

In our automotive metaphor, he's saying "We're going to install a new high efficiency fuel injector!"

You can put new wax on the car, too- but the cracked block is still not going to work.

Peanut alert.

Really. If you eat peanut butter; stock up today.

A CNN Business story today details the coming peanut butter apocalypse. Last year at this time, the commodity price for a ton of US peanuts was around $750. Today; it's about $1,200.

The reason they give: severe drought and intense heat in the peanut belt last summer, so the crop is down some 13% from last year. Ok. Yes, climate change/climate chaos is upon us, and the economic impacts are already hitting us quite hard. I can easily understand why a 13% decrease in the crop would result in a ~40% increase in the price.

Soon after giving the cheery statistics, they go on to point out what a great opportunity this is for money changers to make a little more profit: Safe Havens; Gold, Yen, & Peanut Butter.

It is, of course, perfectly all right to make all the money you can, any way you can. It's your guaranteed right, actually. Never mind that peanut butter is often the last source of quality protein the poor can afford, and that it's a critical component of the new famine medications urgently needed in Haiti and Africa. Fascinating that the story praising the heroes of Haiti is covered by CNN also.

Here's the math on "investing" in food. Take peanuts, for an excellent example. World production is around 34 million metric tons. In the process of buying the crop from farmers, getting it to the people who process it, store it, and sell it to consumers, the peanuts change hands quite a few times. To facilitate that, and to let processors be certain they will have nuts to process next year, there is a "futures market"; where contracts to deliver peanuts at a certain time, say next July, are bought and sold.

Inside the peanut world, let's just say there are $50 billion worth of peanuts (a made up number with likely not relation to reality.) The peanut processors have, let us say, $40 billion in contracts on the books. Then- after that lovely article in CNN, a billionaire or two, from Argentina, Iraq, India, China- take their money out of oil, which is looking very risky; and use it instead to buy peanut futures. Now, let's say, there are $60 billion in the futures market- all chasing what used to be $50 billion worth of peanuts. The contracts are bought and sold daily- if you can sell the one you bought yesterday at $3/share, and you can sell it today for $3.10 a share- why wouldn't you? And here I am, with $500 million in my pocket I just took out of oil, and I need to buy peanuts- will I pay $3.15? Why yes, I will. The price is going to go up, yes? Everybody says so.

More money in a market, chasing a fixed quantity of commodity, will drive the price up. It's a law of physics that could have been written by Newton. The speculators doing this shriek, when you point at them, and swear they are providing a desperately needed service; more "liquidity" to the markets. It's a transparent self serving lie, of course; the markets functioned just fine a few years ago, when speculative money in those markets was legally restricted. But we believe a great many of those these days, one more won't hurt.

Guess who eventually pays the real money, to pay for all the profits? It's the end user, of course, that's the entire idea. In this case- it's the poor and starving. Literally; the starving.

Nice place we have here. So; better buy yours now. Of course.

It strikes me that getting speculators out of agricultural commodity markets would be a good thing to put on the list, for the Occupy Everything folks. The math is just really clear.

No, the problem isn't "jobs".

Ok, yes it is; but not the way everybody in the world thinks it is.

Happy Labor Day! Or as I tend to twist it around here, just for the fun of the confused looks it brings, as well as a way of pointing out the pointlessness of it: "Happy Labrador!"

I desperately need to be out laboring, at the moment, which is what Labor Day is always about for us. Ok, we might barbecue something at the end of the day; but it's harvest time for tree crops, and urgentish.

However, what I have to say here has been fomenting and fermenting in the back of my brain for a long time; and it seems ready to come out. And this is Labor Day; and we're all very unhappy about the fact there are no jobs anywhere; and none in sight down the pike, regardless of politicians braying that they will create lots of new jobs for everyone, as soon as they are elected. By waving their wands about and shouting "expelyourllamas!"

Part of my hesitance in writing this post stems from my awareness that the world will certainly not hear me; my time and effort is likely to be largely wasted. A few of you may hear, though- and who knows; perhaps that will be of some benefit.

The world desperately needs to learn this- but won't, until much chaos and pain has come.

The world does not need "jobs". The world needs people to have "livelihoods".

There. That simple. And something completely not on anyone's radar.

Somehow in the process of industrialization, "we" all accepted the concept that capital would provide "work" - "jobs", in various money making factories or other enterprises, and "workers" would make their livings there- as essentially interchangeable cogs. Exactly as Charlie Chaplin portrayed it. The myth we bought was- become a cog, with no particular skills, but willing to work at whatever is put in front of you- and all the world will prosper; and- you'll be taken care of in your old age, when you can no longer work. On a large enough scale, even highly skilled workers have become only cogs- and perceived as such, even by themselves.

Well, it turns out Big Capital was Just Kidding! about taking care of us in our old age. Now that they own 95% of everything it is possible to own, they're saying "What? Are you filthy communists?? Of course you were always supposed to be providing for your own old age! Why would you expect us to actually pay into your pension funds (never mind that's what we promised you...)?" Some of the Banks now are transferring "toxic assets" - i.e., assets on the books at prices triple what anyone will ever pay again- into their pension funds- listing them at the fantasy value. And saying "what a good boy am I."

So here we are, millions of us; unemployed in Greenland; and essentially unemployable. A cog is a cog is a cog; and a cog in

The First World is much more expensive than a cog in the Third

World, these days. Following the Laws of Capital, and Quarterly

Reports, and Executive Bonuses, Capital has, of course, now

emigrated to the Third World- and is not coming back in any

foreseeable future. Being just a cog - in someone else's wheel - is

a death trap.

No, your nice shiny new Bachelors Degree In Whatever! does not entitle

you to cogship, anymore. Neither does your high school diploma, nor

your GED, nor the fact that you can get a certificate stating you are not

hemiplegic, paraplegic, or psychopathic.

What the world truly needs is a return to the model where people acquire

a "livelihood". Some kind of work, or skill- that creates something of

immediate value to the people around you; a way to "earn your keep" in

the community, for life. Actually, here on the farm, we really need a full

time "shepherd", and a full time "goose girl".

Not in style, yet; but soon, I think.

If you are trying to see a path forward, for yourself and your children-

look for a way to acquire a livelihood. Not a job.

Harvard Business School Has No Clothes.

I have a little epiphany for you. One that hit me as I was driving across multiple states recently, observing our world.

It's summed up in a blindingly oblivious "Op-Ed" piece, in today's New York Times. From the author's blurb:

"William D. Cohan, a former investigative reporter in Raleigh, N.C., writes on alternate Fridays about Wall Street and Main Street. He worked on Wall Street as a senior mergers and acquisitions banker for 15 years. He also worked for two years at GE Capital. He is the author of 'House of Cards: A Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall Street' "

In his piece entitled "The Elizabeth Warren Fallacy", Mr Cohan asks (and he's serious) "Why create an expensive bureaucracy to “protect” consumers from their own stupid decisions?"

The mind boggles. Mine does, anyway, and mine is not all that easily boggled. And this is from an author who writes elsewhere about wretched behavior on Wall Street.

Literally going back to the Code of Hammurabi, the very existence of all law is justified by the fact that, yes, innocent persons need to be protected from predatory humans.

But here, a scion of the Business World, slickly suggests that sheep exist to be sheared, and that this is how the world works. This is what they teach MBAs, these days. Any means to a profit - not specifically forbidden by law or (silly) regulations- is entirely fair. Reap all you can, before the regulators catch on.

Which behavior has put our culture where it is- virtually all the "real" capital in the "real" economy has been skimmed off, via slick marketing of easy credit - e.g.;

"

Borrow $10,000 on your credit card today! Just use this EasyCheck {Same as cash!} - And for this Special Limited Time Offer, this loan will be at only 1.99% until paid off!"

(Until you sneeze, then it goes into the default rate of 30%...)

With the real capital sucked out of the Real Economy into the bizarre fantasy world of The Financial Sector (which owes itself trillions of dollars more than actually exist anywhere) - we're broke. And breaking further. All of us.

In my opinion, the best, most solid economic statistic available is the rate at which CEOs and top corporate executives buy and sell their own stock in their own companies. Through a grotesque oversight, this is public information. At the moment, those who know the most about their own futures are selling their own stocks at a rate of 1,400 to 1.

No, that's not good.

The epiphany?

Gradually, over the years, our societally accepted definition of "business" has changed.

It used to be; and we still teach our children, that "business" happens when: you have a need; I fill it; you pay me for my work; and we both benefit.

Now what we teach our MBAs is, if there is no need; create one; and if you can trick your opponent out of an extra penny, good for you. Mutual benefit, in fact, is literally no longer in the definition.

What you have there- is precisely - the definition of sociopathy.

We teach Sociopathy as "Business". We really, really, really do.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are multiple sites on the web that deal with definitions of sociopath, and lists of character traits. They don't all agree, but take a look; and compare the traits to those flaunted by "business" professionals.

(If you're a movie fan, take a look at Gordon Gekko this way.)

For the last many decades, the business world has very effectively insinuated huge respect for themselves into every aspect of our culture. All good things flow from business; without it, we will all perish. There you have a truth beyond examination. To question it, even, is punishable. The metaphors quickly reach to religious dogma; heresy; and excommunication.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe you already knew this. I've always known there were slimy characters here and there; but it was a new idea, hitting me with force, that we actually accept, and teach, a group of behaviors and attitudes we also recognize as incredibly destructive and dangerous. Genuinely pathological. Sick.

Try saying "Harvard School Of Sociopathy" a few times; see how it fits.

Today; it's to the point where a respected writer can suggest, in a respected forum, that stupid people deserve to be tricked, and "we" should waste no money to save them. (Never mind that the public will then, provably, pay for their prisons, hospitals and funerals, and sociopathic children.)

What happened to the idea that business should not involve traps and tricks, in the first place?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Manifestly, The American Way Of Business now thrives - survives- on tricks and traps. The entire model is sociopathic. And is run by trained sociopaths.

Spread the word. So far, sociopath is still a label most would like to avoid. It's a very bad thing to call someone. A very hard word. Maybe it needs to be spray-painted all over Wall Street.

The handbasket is getting cramped.

Still wrassling with the cruddy tummy; plus, we're one of those places where it's been raining constantly.  Last night I was up until midnight, watching the weather radar; waiting to see if I needed to head for the root cellar.  We lucked out; the storms lost a fair amount of intensity just before passing over; an inch of rain and a couple near lightning strikes was all we got.

As many of you know, I frequently comment over on The Automatic Earth.  (There are a lot of days when I can manage to read and react; but don't really have the energy needed for a coherent and worthwhile post of my own.)

One of the readers there took some of Stoneleigh's words, and some of the pictures Ilargi uses to introduce each post there; and edited it all into this video.

   For some reason, the embed process wasn't working for me today.   Watch it; it's not long, nice music.  And pretty pessimistic.  But if you're not feeling pessimistic these days, I'd have to think you're not paying attention.  The rate at which really bad news hits us seems to have doubled from only 6 months ago.  One million people in the US have lost all unemployment benefits recently; and many more will be in the same handbasket to hell shortly.  They will have nothing to pay any of their bills with.  Which means some of the people they've managed to keep paying will now be unable to pay their bills.  Even Joe Biden admitted last week that many of the jobs lost so far will never come back.

  One good thing.  Listen to the tone of Stoneleigh's voice.  She knows how bad things look, in an astonishingly lucid way.  But you will not hear despair in her voice.

The Problem Is: Men.

Ok, not exactly. But sort of. :-)

The problem I want to discuss here is actually quite complex; ancient; and widely misunderstood. Which means what follows below may seem rambling, and irrelevant from time to time. Hang in there- it all comes together eventually.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was a really good discussion about the "informal economy" over on Sharon's. Some of it got sidetracked into a little discussion on feminism, and some into problems with nomenclature. I got well tangled up in both of those, and even stirred the pot a bit. So here we are, with a little expansion and pot stirring on my own recognizance.

Sharon's post title was "Reinventing the informal economy", and has loads of thoughts that are well worth pondering. There's little she says there that I would quibble with. Part of the subsequent discussion though got off into definitions and names- and there I have something to add, I think.

Names are important. Really really important. We've all seen what a total disaster "Global Warming" and "Swine Flu" have been. They allow endless attacks and diversions from the parties whose interests are threatened - or excursions into nonsense. The people responsible for those names are, ultimately responsible for a great many human deaths. Sorry- but that's true. People are dying right now (300,000/year, according to one estimate) - because obstruction was facilitated by the bad name. And farmers, and all middlemen, have lost millions because of the idiot repetition of "swine flu" for a human disease.

Could it have been done better? Of course. "Climate Change" is much less open to attack; and "New Flu" would serve headlines perfectly. The Climate Change alternative has been around since the outset- but it was too late, the "journalists" (ha) had already fixated on Global Warming! which sounds sexier. And the CDC tried to implement "Novel influenza A (H1N1)", but again, too late, and in this case that was an idiot alternative, doomed to failure as any marketing wonk could have told them (that, I'll guarantee, is a name chosen by a committee of scientists- with no public relations personnel present.)

Names are important. In the present case, I started off by gratuitously mentioning in the discussion at Sharon's that I'm launching a movement (YOU are invited!) to eradicate the word "consumer". It reduces, actually, to "Hi! I'm an alimentary tract! Holes at both ends! Eat and sh*t, that's my life! And I love it!"

It's a pretty stunning insult, but one we've just accepted without evaluation or protest. At this point, though, I'll be damned if anyone will call me a consumer. Call me "citizen", if necessary to point out my most basic role in the community.

Where does the word come from? From the fantasy world of "economics", which everyone should understand by now is a world of wish fulfilment, rationalization, dream, and nightmare; with no actual basis in any reality. Except we have somehow allowed these self deluded charlatans to become "professors", and establish "departments" in universities. So way back there, they started talking about "producers" and "consumers". And we just accepted it- they must know, right? They're professors!

------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is where "the problem is: men" comes in.

What follows is my own analysis, built up over years of pondering history, human behavior, and anthropology. I think it has a lot to recommend it; though inevitably, some will not like it.

Can we agree that much of the history of Christianity has strayed quite far from anything the founder(s) of the religion intended?

The evidence, I think, is pretty good that original Christian communities were quite egalitarian- and women were included on an equal- power- basis. But that changed.

The most common situation among primal peoples (that word choice, vs "primitive" was explained to me by my friend Jack Gladstone; Blackfeet troubadour and storyteller, and double philosophy and anthropology major...) is that men and women have nearly equal power in the community- but- men's power, and women's power are different, based on different "magic".

I think that in primal situations, equal power of men and women is the situation that will most often win out, in competitions between cultures. Generally- equal partners will compete harder, and contribute more, than any arrangement where one sex is subjugated.

But in settled "civilized" circumstances- other factors may come into play which make that aspect of the culture less compelling. With the rise of the cities- women started to be subjugated more and more- and military power rose in importance.

The trend is older than Christianity; but most visible there, I think. Judaism also shifted in antiquity from a matriarchal system to patriarchal (thank you, oh lord, that you did not make me a woman...! feel free to correct me, Sharon!). And Islam also; while women still have great power in the household; they are allowed no role in larger community concerns. And yes, I'm talking just about Western cultures here- because that's the one most of the readers here live in.

As Christianity moved into the Middle Ages, women's power was stripped from them by the Church- and "women's magic" became a matter of warfare- "wise women"- witches - were systematically eradicated, in very ugly fashion.

About the same time, two new endeavors arose- "universities"- and "history". These arenas, I contend, were launched entirely as men's enterprises- no women allowed. And they dealt solely with men's "magic"; or power, concerns. "History", for most of its course, has been just a list of men's power achievements; wars and governments. "Universities" became machines to train men for power- and to develop new paths to power; that is why kings built and funded them.

Medicine; typically a women's magic in the West, was stolen by men, and installed in the universities. "Doctor", in fact, is not a term originally applied to physicians; but to professors. When barbers sought higher credibility, they stole the term for the respect it conveyed. The theft has been so complete and successful that PhD's now can be heard apologizing that they aren't a "real" doctor, but only a PhD; not even knowing the history of the term themselves.

---------------------------------------------------------------

What does this have to do with the "informal economy" question?

When "economics" was launched, universities were still entirely men's enterprises- and it was so unquestioned as to be unnoticed (by men...)

Consequently; when men first started to think about analyzing how resources move in a culture, and what is important, and what is not- they thought, of course, entirely in terms of men's concerns.

Of course their own parts were the most important- and the bits that had to do with what are traditionally women's enterprises were - not important.

Hence- they named the monetary economy "formal"; and the household economy- "informal" - which means, in case you can't tell- unimportant; negligible; not worth thinking about. And for lack of any alternative analysis- we still call it so today.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to anthropology for a moment.

I am one of those who always looks to the primal peoples; the hunter-gatherers; for clues to our present behavior. Homo lived as hunter-gatherers for the great majority of our existence; all species of Homo lived that way- until sapiens. That would mean some 2 million years as hunter-gatherers, and perhaps 15,000 as pastoralists and agriculturalists; even less time as city dwellers. Our genes are full of adaptations for the hunter-gatherer life.

While huge variations in cultural specifics exist among hunter gatherers, there are a few things that stand as reliable generalities.

Men hunt- women gather.

Women bear children. Men don't.

Women run the household, tend the fire- anchored by small children.

Women contribute most of the calories, in small game, vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains.

Men contribute most of the protein, much of the fat, in huge chunks when a kill is made.

Men contribute protection for the family- to the point of cheerfully dying when necessary - to protect - the household.

Now think about that. The household- is worth dying for.

Most of this is generated by the fact that men are never pregnant, nor nursing- thus much more capable of unencumbered hunts or fights. The division quickly becomes a positive-feedback loop, and turns into sexual selection yielding males that are a good deal larger than females, with thicker skins and bigger muscles.

There is one other thing men contribute, but it's less well known outside the inner circles of anthropology; so, another little diversion here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Men, it turns out, are often jealous of women's power. Women alone create life- and what a huge power that is.

My Anthro 101 prof gleefully told us of a tribe in Africa; where the jealousy was so strong that the men made up a power of their own, to be able to compete better with the women.

When the men reach puberty; part of the coming of age ceremony included inserting a wooden plug in the anus. And the initiate never poops again, in his entire life. Cool, huh! Huge magic!

And it is, of course, a huge lie; you can't not poop. The reality is; the boys learn to go out in the bushes and do it secretly, and they pretend they don't. The women- of course - know all about this. But they pity the men, so they don't publicly expose the lie. They do laugh about it in the Women's House, though. A lot. And many of the men, while they of course know it's all a lie; do believe that they actually have the women fooled. Self-serving delusion- a phenomenon currently on display on Wall Street.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Partly as a result of this ancient inferiority complex, and partly as a matter of biology, the other thing men contribute to their household is- status.

It's been demonstrated in many different species, from domestic chickens on up to humans, that high-status individuals have stronger offspring, and the status passes to them.

For humans, men have for millennia spent great amounts of energy to acquire status. In my own mind, I reduce that goal to - "ostrich feathers". The more ostrich feathers you have; the higher your status- the more successful your offspring.

Ostrich feathers today can easily be read as "money", and "power". Among other things, of course. A Nobel Prize is a really big feather. Etc. Women of course seek status too, and nowadays can seek it in what used to be men's arenas; but I think women have status mechanisms that are solely their own, as well. Female status has also been shown by research to contribute to offspring success.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Back to formal/informal economy. What I hope to have shown by the long discourse above is that this terminology was set up by men- for men's purposes- and to increase the number of ostrich feathers available to men in this arena. The terminology has no other reason for existing- and is not the result of dispassionate investigations into reality.

Over on Sharon's original post, two respondents had excellent suggestions for alternative names; MJ suggested "essential economy", and Leslie suggested "natural". Both of those are true, and correct. However, from my long training in marketing- I can foresee difficulties down the line for both. Briefly- "essential" suggests too strongly (intended or not) that other aspects of the economy are not- and will make enemies. "Natural" - sounds too "green" (intended or not); and you'll lose a good deal of audience there. Let me repeat- they're both absolutely accurate.

Finally!!! My suggestion:

The "informal" economy IS; and should be renamed: "the Primary Economy".

Primary does not necessarily imply more significance- just that it was first. Which is totally undeniable, I think. I also think it unavoidably sounds important; unlike "informal".

That would make the "formal economy" the "Secondary Economy". Built upon the first.

Another brief aside- what is the purpose of the Secondary Economy? Why do people leave the home, to go to work outside? Manifestly- to bring resources back to the household- and put them into the Primary Economy. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that the entire Secondary Economy was created specifically to serve the Primary Economy. I think the nomenclature is appropriate; could be acceptable to many, and far better designates the relationships.

As a humorous addition- the Wall Street wonks refer to the Secondary Economy as "the real economy." You know, the one where people make stuff, and do things. As opposed to what they do on Wall Street, the "financial sector of the economy".

I will propose, in facetious/serious tones, that the "financial sector" of the economy be renamed the "Sandbox Economy". They just push piles of stuff around, from one place to another. Make nothing; do nothing, achieve nothing of tangible value. And squabble. Over ostrich feathers.

One other point in favor of Primary Economy. As many of you already know- the words "economy", "economics", and "ecology" all stem from the same Greek root: oikos.

Which means "home"; or "household"; or "family". I maintain- the household economy, and all its "informal" connections; is the Primary Economy. And should be so designated.

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you like this suggestion- please do start to use the terms, and refer people to this post for an explanation of why. It might go viral, who knows- and it would only be a matter of justice. At this point, as you can probably tell, I find the term "informal" to be actively offensive. And outrageously misleading.

CitiBank UP 40%!!!

LOL!!  Huge day on Wall Street!  And the headlines go wild!!

And 40% looks like a BIG jump- until you realize - it wasn't only 40 PERCENT-

CitiBank was up a total of....... 40 CENTS!!  

All the way from a buck-five to a buck-fortyfive!!  Forty - pennies.

All our troubles are over; after that overwhelming vote of confidence by investors!!  40¢!!!!!!!!

Never realized gallows humor could get so hilarious.

It's a Grimm world, after all...

Ha.  Now that I've set that pernicious little tune running incessantly through your head...

Sorry to be gone so long.  It's kind of "all of the above", when I look in my box of excuses.

At the top of the list though is: ok, so what is there to say about all this?  The world seems almost jabbered out, to me.  It's been said, screamed, whimpered.  We're all just waiting for the rest of the shoes to fall on our heads.  So it's kinda hard to get up the energy (in between emptying trash cans full of used tissues) to try to write something that anyone in their right mind would want to read.

Hey, I'll cheer up next week, probably.  

Meanwhile; this bit in the Washington Post just hit me, and triggered this story; which might, in fact, be interesting and useful to you.

Basically one of the Post's financial pundits is touting a book- by a writer from the Wall Street Journal!!  entitled: "The Wall Street Journal Guide to the End of Wall Street as We Know It: What You Need to Know About the Greatest Financial Crisis of Our Time -- And How to Survive It".

And she starts out "He had me at the title..."

OMG.  Yeah, he had me, too, but in the other direction.  Here is why- and this is something we desperately need to get our lawmakers to hear- and act on.

True story.  A couple weeks ago, I was at a big statewide "green" meeting.  It was pretty good.  About 400 earnest people; all ages, many of them actually knowing what they were talking about.

At the end of it, there was an unusually good "wrap-up" session, with 2 State Senators, one normal, and one I was actually very impressed with, 2 national congressional staffers, and the moderator, who is a state National Public Radio personality.

Reasonably intelligent conversation- particularly from the little round Santa Claus Senator, who was smart smart smart.  But talked slow.  

And he said stuff that challenged a lot of common "wisdom".

Towards the end, the NPR moderator posed her own question; "Senators, last week I had three economists on my morning show, and I asked them for their views on how long this recession will last, and... "  blah blah.  My brain switched off right there, and I composed this little parable.  Which I actually put to the NPR person, personally, after it was all over.  Cornered her, so she couldn't get away.

The Parable Of The Poor Plumber.

Your sink is leaking, down underneath.  You've tackled it briefly with your own pump pliers, but they don't do any good.  Time for some expert help.

You go to the Yellow Pages, look up "Plumbers", and pick one who is nearby, and available.

They send a guy; he works at the sink for a half hour; making lots of show; lots of tools.  And he presents you with a bill "Hey, lady, it's a minimum $250 to bring the truck out, ya know; I don't set the prices."

The sink seems to work.  Except - the next day, the leak is back.  Worse than before.

You are not happy.  You call the plumbing company; and actually have the gall to complain, and basically demand that for $250 bucks, you do deserve a sink that does not leak.  They grumble, but send a guy out.  Same guy.

He's not really fazed by all this- "Lady, sometimes they just take more fixing.  I'll get it."  And he puts in 45 minutes this time; many tools.  A little cussing.  Well after supper "There, lady- she's fixed."  And he vanishes.

The sink, however- still leaks.  And actually - the cold water faucet no longer delivers water- and it did, before he got down in there to fix it.

If you've been through an exchange like this (and who hasn't) by now, you can see the steam starting to come out of "Lady's" ears.

Once more, you chew out the plumber's dispatcher.  Once more they send a guy (a different one this time!).

And...

Yeah, it's still not fixed.  Leaks as badly as ever; and no cold water.

We're past the steam coming out of the ears now.

And...

Now your toilet is refusing to flush...

Here's the question; and the point:

Do you call the same plumber to come and fix your problems?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boy, I guarantee I don't.

And at this point, the NPR personality (whom I'd forced to listen, tête-à-tête, to this shaggy dog story) said forcefully and abruptly, "Yes.  So?"

And I replied: "Why.  On God's Green Earth.  Would you ask an economist anything- about the current economic crisis?"

I let that sink in for about 2 seconds (a long time in her world) and continued: "They PUT us here.  They say they couldn't see it coming.  They don't agree on why or how it happened, and they have no ideas for how to get out of it, or where to go.  WHY would you be asking them for advice - as if they had advice to give?"

Oh, she didn't buy it.  Nope, in her world, economists are who you ask about the economy.  Never mind that, just like in the fairy tale (ok, it's Andersen, not Grimm) - they've just proven to the entire world that they are intellectually bare stark naked.

A big part of this problem, of course, is that economists have steadily worked to make the world believe they know what they're doing.  They invented their own Nobel award (Nobel did NOT give a prize in economics); and added "mathematical modeling" to their discipline.

And it all clearly does not reflect any realities- but they've left the world with the impression that there is no other source of information on this important subject; you must ask an economics professor, if you wish to discuss it.  No other options exist.  That, without thinking, is where the NPR person was.

-------------------------------------------------

Except.  There IS another discipline- which did see "all this" coming; long ago; and said so, loudly.   Maybe- it would be a good idea to look to the people who predicted all this; for some understanding, and maybe some answers?

Who?  Ecologists.  I got news for ya- ecology is far more a science than economics- and- you notice they have the same Greek root?  oikos - for house.  Ecologists actually study the same thing economists do- the flow of resources; over time.  Except; ecologists go out into the real world, and look to see how it actually works.  Economists- live on college campuses, and make up anything they want.  Reality need not intrude.  Ecologists do experiments, and measure results.  Economists - can't.  So they just project.  Leaving them open to little booboos like "see, the sun comes up in the east; and goes down in the west- OBVIOUSLY - the sun revolves around the earth."

So, Dear World.  Your toilet is backed up; not working.  Who you gonna call?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Update, Tuesday: gosh, couldn't ask for better confirmation of the parable here.  Todays "Economix" blog in the NYT is by a Harvard Economics Professor!! - (my little heart is going pitty-pat!)  and entitled "The Lorax Was Wrong" -  He says living in cities is greener than living in forests.  Gosh.  If you're interested, the responses in his blog comments hit pretty much every refutation you can think of.  I'm tempted to write an OpEd for the NYT myself; maybe entitled "The Professor Is Full Of It."  lol.  And would they print it?  No.

Limbo - computers, electricity, weather, wood, health, economic...

Too much dangling going on around here.  Downright discombobulating.

So, last week, Spice's computer finally, really, died.  Since she handles orders and phone calls for our business, that's a problem.  Beelar being still here, before returning to grad school, where he has been computer SysAdmin for a whole department- he decided this was the time for a business-wide update.  Buy one new machine (which I'm working on now) - transfer info all around, get a new backup system; and get all workers using the same OS (Leopard, if you want to know.)

And it was all much more painful than necessary, starting with the fact we have a new FedEx driver- so our packages wind up wandering the earth, looking for a house.  (You can't see a building of any kind from our mailbox...)  Then, the transfer process; "migrating" my machine onto the new one- from PPC chip to Intel chip; with all my computer files since 1986 in there...  and I really miss my goddam "enter" key, thank you so goddam much, Apple.

Won't get into the details here; just- it took about 6 times longer, with 8 times more cussing, than Beelar anticipated.  He did get us here though!

It was also time, last week, to do a serious update on our electric system- once again Beelar's chore; partly because he's still flexible, and the electric components are in a dark cramped corner, of course.  This involved switching out back-up inverter #1, for a real replacement inverter; sine-wave, this time, instead of "modified sine".  We also removed the original inverter, an ancient square wave from Tripplite, forsooth, which had still been wired in as backup #2.  Main house inverter (modified) had died some months ago.)  And, repositioning the battery charger into the inside, permanent mount.

Main point being- for 4 days, the upstairs of the Little House was inside out, making sleep a little dicey.  Feels great having actual sine power, though, and knowing that the wiring is good for the next 20 years again.

Weather- 4 nights ago; it went to -10°F; real midwinter cold.  This morning, I woke up to the sound of rain; and overnight it didn't even freeze.  A little bare ground showing here and there on the south slopes.  But.  We've got a big late winter storm heading right at us; predicted to drop 6-10" on Thursday evening.  Right back to winter we go.  And we're low on firewood...

Which means getting out and cutting a bit before it really gets messy, using our "backup" trees; a few dead elms specifically not cut previously- because they're very close the house, and can be reached even if we're in foot deep mud, or meter deep snow.

That'll be fun because I'm still recovering from the cold of the century; and the tooth extraction... a bit wobbly on my feet just yet.   Smidgen is out of her cast- but still needs to be careful of the arm, since it's not totally healed yet.  Great fun for parents; with a big puppy who would out-bounce Tigger, desperate to play...

Oh, yeah, then there's the continuing drama of total world financial implosion.

Here we dangle.

Gonna go cut firewood.  That, I can do something about.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, in the process of procrastinating, while pretending to check out the new computers, Spice's sis sent this: Haiku by cats

Should cheer you up; I laughed a couple times.

---------------------------------------------------

still procrastinating.  The Cat Haiku thing seems to be phenomenon; one I've been oblivious to.  More.  More.

overload

Once again I find myself looking at way too many urgent things; both to write about here, and to do on the farm.  Winter really really has arrived; we've got 5 inches of snow, and the temperature dropped to -3°F last night (-20°C).

So, firewood probably being more urgent than theoretical discussions about Life, The Universe, and Everything, I'm going to just do a quickie here and try to get out and get in some fuel, before the snow gets deeper.  Back seems to be essentially functional, and not feeling fragile, usually a reliable indication.

I have two cartoons for you here, and hope I am not breaking any copyright laws.  These are from "Tom the Dancing Bug" by Reuben Bolling.

They are so exactly spot on as to be scary.  How is it our humorists have more solid understanding of economics than our economists?  Really?  Don't you think that should tell us something?

The first one here predated the announcement that the Federal Reserve Bank was going to start - buying US Treasury Bonds... to prop up the market- by a full week, I think.  (click on pic for full size, if it's working.)

And this second one is from this week, and illustrates what to me is an obvious truth; that "economics" is a religion; not a science.  Really- not kidding.

Just good stuff to chew on for a while.

Coming soon:  "The Walls of The Erlenmyer Flask", and "Why 30 years is not forever."

---------------------------------------------

Update 12/3; just a little more quick fun; Stuart Carlson today.  Read the banner on the bottom...