REAL WORLD ECONOMICS

AND THE AERODYNAMICS OF EC-244

http://economia.elpais.com/economia/2013/08/02/empleo/1375433844_528355.html

BEGIN NOW:

ITS IN THE NEWSPAPER, YES?

Nixon-apparently this is the date at which structural unemployment was considered necessary as a way of maintaining-unfailingly-consumer prices at a systemic, aggregate level-institutionally implemented the idea of the destruction of jobs and even investment, instead of leaving salaries themselves to be effectively fixed-just like everything else-by the price mechanism, that is to say, through supply and demand, simply.

Socially-psychologically-it would have seemed difficult to get the public to understand that-that from one year to another (or whatever period of time) people could actually earn less than the year before; but apparently, there was a deeper, structural reason for not doing this, and that was how this would affect the production level (echelon) of the New Industrial State and overall consumer prices.

Because an aggregate drop in salaries means an aggregate drop in demand-which necessarily dictates-according to the price mechanism-an aggregate drop, ultimately, in prices-which is a frontal jab as pressure on capital-on earnings and hence on investment itself.

But clearly-obviously-the difference between the voice-and understanding-generally, on the part of both social groups here in question is most disparate, to say the least; or in America you might even believe that there are not-never have been-any real social differences whatsoever in our great Democracy-at least some people believe-have internalized-just this!

In any case, you would have had to have been one tough son of bitch to get capital to see things from the standpoint of a better-more coherent and reasoned-long term analysis of economics-of, really, human culture-of collective life itself and the technical means of production that, basically, takes care of people’s bodies in their primary needs and mode of relating to reality through need.

It would have implied, not just an ideological difference regarding history, but a different, deeper understanding of human life itself.

But this was not-obviously-Nixon, neither in regards to his intellectual understanding nor in his ability to resist the certainly louder and stronger voice of capital, for he in fact served capital itself-perhaps through a certain intellectual coherence of the day, but for all involved, an aggregate inconvenience-to say the least-in regards to millions of lower and regular class human beings was considered more viable and appropriate to collective, material well-being; or it was just, basically, ignored, in favor of protecting that social echelon that could have actually endured-could have afforded to endure-more hardship in this sense.

The real-more historically accurate-reason behind this is probably the pressure science-research-the military and finance put on the government-as really the government itself-to bull-whip society down the path that we all know as consumer society.

And I believe, had the Kennedy administration survived, history might have been different-there was a very real possibility it could have been.

For this administration acted with a more intellectual and ideological margin for maneuvering.

This, effectively, is the reason it was destroyed-suppressed-on November 22, 1963.

And the figure of Richard Millhouse Nixon cannot be truly understood without understanding this.

The pain in Spain?

Simply, a re-dimensioning of the scale of its economy is what the IMF is seemingly trying to impose now-a re-adjustment between demand and production through the price mechanism.

But there exists no name-or term-for what they are actually proposing.

And they don’t want a term for it.

Because that would imply a break from-the end, really, of-contemporary economic history.

And nobody really wants that-especially if you ask those whom, apparently, benefited most form it;

The others never really knew what hit them.

Still don’t.

My advice: forgetabout it!

Starbuck- it-all!

Same as it ever was,

Same-as-it-ever-wass!:

___________

SK