Saturday, November 7, 2009

Next!!!!!! step two and three

after freeing up some time and money, you'll realize this is harmless and maybe I am better off at least with having some extra time and money. be wise about your entertainment dollar, and your entertainment time, while cheap, TV sucks away vast amounts of time as an entertainment source, you conclude true after realizing the vast amount of real commitment it is taking up.

2- take up some type of cause, this does not have to be serious, the interaction is what's best. make sure you join a group, and attend some type of meetings, don't just give money, its self unrewarding.

3- plant some type of garden, even if you have window, you can container garden. this could also mean planting some fruit or nut trees, whatever is your favorite and is commensurate with your gardening skill level and the amount of time you want to spend initially. food independence is very nice for several reasons, but also taking up a hobby where you can make clothes, or provide something of use value is key

After a bit now you should have some really good things going, you are not stressed by being bombarded with noise entertainment-media, you will have a little more money and spare time. In this spare time you can feel good about actually learning stuff that is self rewarding through both your own hobby, and social interaction. Your participation in 2 and 3 will become perpetually rewarding as many minor achievements happily perpetuate themselves into larger things to be proud of and so on.

Next. BUY LOCAL, BUY ORGANIC, BUY SMALL BUSINESS, and most important BUY FROM NON-PROFITS.
TAKE UP SOME AWARENESS IN THIS PROCESS, ALWAYS VOTING - FIND THE TRUTH IN WHAT'S ON THE BALLOT.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

If you find yourself wanting to scream "PLEASE HELP" but don't know who to trust start with this!!!

my most important blog

YOUR FIRST LESSON
First we must fix your mind!
to not interfere with your normal american life, start with these changes

there easy, trust me they'll feel like you are changing nothing when you are actually changing everything

1) find a credit union, look at the rates they offer, I guarantee they pay you little bits more than your bank. See, credit unions are non-profit, no big whig is buying a new BMW on the money you've parked in his bank. The extra money credit unions make has only one place to go, either back to the community or shared equally among you and everyone else like you in this credit union. My local credit union has a special savings account that pays almost 5%, by the way if your not a saver, the overdraft fee per incident is only 3$, yes let me spell it out, three dollars and no cents. With online bill pay, and all that other stuff, you won't know you changed.
moral of the story
in capitalism he who has capital controls everything, banks let bankers and investors make the rules of our productive lives because they have our money, at credit unions we as members share a responsibility to ourselves and functionally trade our money with people we know in our area like us

2)Save yourself some money and cancel the dish or cable television, major metro newspaper, space radio (XM) or whatever,
most of what you watch anyway is probably available online or now on digital TV.
*renting movies can be free at your local library
*tv is free on the internet
*your major papers just reprint the news that is first on the internet
most of what you watch and see is commercials (this is also true of radio. listening)
tune out the constant noise
choice public radio, PBS, and the like

3) go to DMAchoice.org and get rid of credit card offers, and the ensuing and overwhelming amounts of catalogs and junk mail,
your mailbox is your space, if your on a no-call list, why would you not be on a no junk mail list
(by the way, get yourself on the no-call home & cell phone list)

start with this

Monday, October 19, 2009

Frantic action and reaction

Current states under Political Economy are such that capitalism in many ways has made certain classes of workers debt slaves. Under traditional slavery norms, the master had obligations to the health and wellness of his assets. Think of a non-human example, a horse, regular shots, re-shoeing, appropriate living quarters. Now what we have as far as a dysfunctional view of this labor market, or should I say a pool of idle human productivity is a L.L.C. of hiring and firing. Contemporary slave masters, can command work from people due to their debt dependence and prevailing social norms that they themselves enforce through mass media and conspicuous consumption. Then once workers are obtained, what is considered as highly structured in favor of the employer, is the name of the game. The employer has a slew of front line liability shedding programs, contract workers, temporary work agreements, cobra, probationary period, lack of benefits, and the bible for capitalist lords, the great employee or company manual. This manual which for good reason is longer than any book you've ever read, has millions of small loopholes that you will never read, that will hopefully skirt all labor laws, and make sure that the people interested in profit will not part with any penny on the account of you. Labor laws are great for the dwindling masses that can claim any right to them. But now we see that people are forced to work today, much like they were forced to work in a time of a more direct slavery, except when the horse is done plowing today it is up to him to re-shoe himself, find living quarters and negotiate the payment for his own shots. In the past power was actually concentrated more fairly, large slave owners could negotiate better terms with other large entities, shop owners, health care providers, other large firms. Today power is concentrated through capitalism to those who have capital $, and workers are solo. You get paid from your company which is larger than you, hence they get to set the pay terms, then with this money you go buy stuff from a chain of production that has several links, all that are larger than you, hence they set the price. Under a society of capital concentration, there will never be equality between firms and individuals, either as seller and consumer or employee and employer.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

What’s missing in conventional economics wisdom?

 

Economics’ integration of firms that do not make profits.

 

Oliver Dreher

 

Working Paper

 

 

 

In economic analysis, a dynamic third sector of the economy has been grossly understudied, creating a hole in the critical debates on what, and how to produce goods within a society.

While the business sector makes up 80 percent of the economic activity in the United States, and the government sector accounts for an additional 14 percent of the gross national product, the independent sector currently contributes more than 6 percent to the economy and is responsible for 9 percent of the total national employment...The assets of the third sector now equal nearly half those of the federal government…(and) Although the third sector is half the size of government in total employment and half its size in total earnings, in recent years it has been growing twice as fast as both the government and private sectors (Rifkin, 1995, p. 240-241). 

 Integrated by a potentially powerful evolutionary forecast of a return to serviceable workmanship, contemporary realizations, consensus, and research points to good reasons for the rise of the third sector altering economic transaction habits and providing the increasing number of social and private goods demanded with a desirable balance between them.  Third sector industries have evolutionary mechanism advantages over public or private producers. Comprehending this uses assorted ideologies.  The thought experiment can be excited for 4 reasons. 

First, private goods production has evolved predatorily enough that serious externalities are detrimental to society, and cause an erosive imbalance in private versus public goods production.  Secondly increased balances in public goods production is ideal to keep a more beloved economy, however effective public goods consumption has not and will not, be achieved solely by the state.  Following that dichotomous framework, the Third important point is, non-profit or third sector production as an institution evolves to the benefit of conflicts between public state and private corp., and is dynamic with habitual sustainability traits.  Finally as predicted before, social balance changes due to collective action will cause cumulative causation toward suggestions of the welfare state. Using a third sector, in e macro-economic models problems disappear, further supporting and improving predictions.  This paper concludes on the need to integrate third or non-profit sector research, because of its potential ability as an institution, to solve current and future social tribulations by superiorly preceding the production control of government and business purposiveness.

1

The first reason for the eventual rise in the third sector is due to the evolution of for-profit businesses compared to non-for profit.  Private sector goods producers have become excessively predatory, in their demands for profit, hence Gotcha Capitalism (Sullivan, 2007).  Ideas of a bargaining transaction that would be associated with a true market system barely exists in private good production, leaving consumers and workers with managerial and rationing political transactions with no true economic choices.  With just this type of social capital network, superior and inferior, consumers’ demand is controlled through the propaganda, and for that reason private goods producers have securely pushed consumers and workers without help into a place of discontent causing unwanted social problems.  They do this chiefly through not fulfilling the very demand they tried to supply. 

Classic well known examples of these social problems are covered in one work of John de Graaf, David Wann, Thomas H Naylor and two from Juliet Schor in 2005, 1998 and 1992 respectively, Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic, The Overspent American: Why we want what we don’t need, and The Overworked American: The unexpected decline of leisure.  They are, but are not entirely limited to, absenteeism, ageism, declining birth rates, unhealthy nutrition choices, debt dependence, discontent consumerism, unemployment, exhaustion, fatigue, stress, low education levels, dysfunctional families, shorter life spans, higher divorce rates, materialism replacing human nature, child neglect, underemployment, sexism, poverty, alienation, classism, and progressive unhappiness.  Schor shows empirically that these problems are perpetually getting worse since the comparative rise of private goods production in the industrial economy.  An example of producers trapping consumer and workers into a cycle of work and spend can be illustrated as follows, every well advertised time saving home making device except for the microwave, statically has shown to provide no reduction in hours worked, rather in most cases an increase.  A dishwasher or vacuum, has been advertised under the guise that not having the item means having a filthy, socially and ceremonially unacceptable home, therefore consumers feel obliged to incur debt and overwork to obtain the item, and then once obtained are compulsively felt to use it more frequently than a previous alternative.  The sale ability of products has been increasingly manipulated as the most predatory and profitable companies grow into conglomerates that have unchallengeable political and advertising influence.

The rise and concentration in private good production has been advantageous to predation of profits.  Thomas Palley points out in his 1998 book, Plenty of Nothing: The downsizing of the American Dream and the case for structural Keynesianism one of the largest problems caused is inequality in income distribution.  Stripping the lower ninety-five percent of earners from their collective action ability, and having the ability to sell them that neoclassical laissez faire economics is the answer to the problem, while this theory is not practiced at the top by business owners, has left a manipulated message of capitalism that most have not been able to uncover. 

According to laissez-faire, markets naturally ensure that people get what they deserve, unemployment is the result of high wages, and collective action by labor is bad because it interferes with the individual exchange on which the market process depends.  However, though both collective action by labor and labor market regulation are represented as unnatural distortions, the same is not true when it comes to the interests of business.  Thus corporate capitalism, predicated on the pooled holdings of capital and the legal protections conferred by the law of limited liability, is not represented in these terms (Palley, p. 22).

Clearly through increased control of the production process, greater influence and manipulation of consumers and workers has resulted in an inequitable share of profit for private good production owners, here capital controls production.  How else could we have come to the place were now both members of a family overwork and borrow to keep a spending standard of living not set by collective action, but by corporate profit seeking policy. 

The benefits to this cycle of work and spend for private goods producers create falsely positive social industrial complexes.  A common example is when private goods industries continually develop symptom cures and not cause cures, i.e. anti-nutritious fast food is sold under the guise of being an efficient or rational choice, while creating externality health problems that can be solved by the weight-loss industry, and of course this stresses one out by trying to pay for both, and can lead to anti-depressant and credit use.  Most processed foods, weight loss products, and pharmaceuticals obtain similar paired chemical ingredients from oligarchic market sources further increasing moral hazards. 

Private good production has evolved into a cannibalistic creature unaware of its externalities, manufacturing desires to the point of providing society solely with an abundance of nothing for pure profit at any inadvertently unknown short-term and long-term expense.  This predacious tendency sees public goods only as a competitive and a constricting entity to destroy.       

 

2

Much of the work of John Kenneth Galbraith assumes a simple dichotomy relationship between the production of private and public goods.  The respective analysis concludes on the importance of the state to produce social or collective goods for a society.  His case for plentiful social, or public goods is paramount to having equality and progress in a society, but Galbraith’s argument for governments to provide these goods is somewhat lacking due to the reliance on a simple dichotomy that does not really involve non-profits.  Given an evolved additional dichotomization, it is clearer that society will trend toward non-profit institutions.

Galbraith in his book The Affluent Society, advocates for a theory of social balance to solve social problems, this is largely built on balancing the simple dichotomy of public and private production.

Similarly, every increase in the consumption of private goods will normally mean some facilitating or protective step by the state.  In all cases if these services are not forthcoming, the consequences will be in some degree ill.  It will be convenient to have a term which suggests a satisfactory relationship between the supply of privately produced goods and services and those of the state, and we may call it social balance. (John Galbraith, 1976, p. 193) 

Most true in a fact we know so well, doubling cars on the road without building any roads creates this exact type of balance distress that is physical, and economically detrimental.  As or more determental though, is the question of, if we have privately funded public elections, is there legal corruption happening.  

“Predator State, which is just a coalition of the reactionary forces within business who seek to maintain competitiveness and profitability without technological improvement, without environmental control, without attending to product or workplace safety.  They are the forces behind deregulation, behind tort reform, and behind the assault on unions” (James Galbraith, 2008, p. 193). 

 

But more importantly, without corruption conditions non-profits will prove that government public goods production is not essentially ideal for reasons of timing presented by Burton A. Weisbrod in a 1972 discussion paper from the Institute for Research on Poverty titled Toward a Theory of the Voluntary Non-Profit Sector in a Three-Sector Economy. 

It is likely, however, that the government sector will not be the first to respond to consumer demands for collective goods.  The reason is that demands by all consumers do not generally develop simultaneously, and so the political decision rule will at first determine a zero level of government provision, leading the under-satisfied demanders to non-governmental markets (Weisbrod, p.15). 

There is also evidence to suggest this. 

Historical events provide one test of our view, which implies that before a political-majority comes to demand government provision, the minority that demands governmental provision of a good will be under-satisfied and will turn to voluntary organizations. Thus, provision by voluntary (non-profit) organizations is hypothesized to precede governmental provision historically (Weisbrod, p. 19)  

 

A further review of non-profits gives reason to reclassify government’s role.  Given the dichotomization of private and public goods production and a further dichotomization between centralized government social goods production and decentralized non-profit social goods production, their respective concerns and appropriate efficiencies should be taken into consideration when hypothesizing what collective actions will be taken.  By way of the evolutionary process, cumulative causation should lead to an increase in non-profits importance while allowing government to later provide social goods that are out of reach of the third sector.  This will increase efficiency of social goods production by facilitating complementary operations.

3

Cumulative collective action has led society itself to be the social institution for overall progress of humankind.  Differing intentions among various groups come about due to their respective problems and aptitudes with solving them, but despite these conflicts of intentions between cultures or struggles within class structure, all humans exhibit common instincts based off of the similarities we have biologically and the constraints we share living in the same physical world.  The most important instinct humans have is their instinct to join together for the betterment of the group that coordinatingly enriches each individual, and this collective action exists within an evolving world.  Regardless of the fact that some institutions were created and served purposefully to the benefit of society but continue despite their need, the most valuable institutions in economic analysis, are the non-profit institutions. 

The third sector tries through humane motives to offer goods well below private business’s market values.  Laid out in the book Marketing for NonProfit Organizations (1996) by David Rados, the idea that cost pricing is always the goal, but when uncertainty exists, a ‘just’ price system is created.  This markup is infinitesimal over cost to insure solvency.  The free or ‘just’ priced goods and services do not estrange anyone as a consumer, like price discrimination alienates consumer classes in the private goods market.  Philanthropic giving, volunteering, and paid work are all ways to be involved in this collective action from the production side, in fact, creating a non-profit for collective action is simple and the barriers to entry associated with it are incredibly low (Anosike, 1999 and Grobman, 2008), I checked out some books from the non-profit library, and used some non-profit websites, and found it very easy.

No other nation in the world even approaches the United States in the number and activity of non-profit organizations.  These organizations are based on the characteristic American tendency to form groups voluntarily, for the accomplishment of social, religious, educational, fraternal, economic, and other purposes.  Americans are the greatest “joiners” in the world.  American non-profit organizations, generally speaking, are a magnificent part of society, (Oleck, 1975, p. 2).

Given non-profits’ altruistic motives, society has rewarded them with privileges in the tax code, as well as discounts to government goods and legal immunities.  The accessibility by all parties involved in non-profit transactions and the pecuniary benefits are key evolutionary advantages in the struggle between sales of like goods between for- and non-profits. 

The third sector has always been one that has had to adapt, and is unsurpassed in terms of adaptability to the ever changing working rules.  “Our profession responds to changing societal conditions by innovating programs; reformulating problems and concepts; and altering, combining, and inventing methods of intervention.  New programs capitalize on community changes affecting common human needs.  (Lewis, 2003,p. 64) 

The reasons for society supporting the third sector can also be justified empirically with use of the Rodrik Model (Eggertsson, 2005, p. 54).  Simply put, change in growth equals external shocks multiplied by a relationship of latent social conflict compared to institutions of conflict management.  Societies with unresolved social conflicts due to lack of third sector conflict management institutions, will have a weak ability when handling negative economic shocks. Considering the adaptability and accessibility paired with Rodrik’s results that are absolutely externalized, non-profits are in a position to rise in relative importance compared to the other sectors of the economy, especially the private sector. 

4

The primary factor of technological and industrial change, which led to an increase in real output and a rising standard of living and which moved the western nations in the direction of economic progress, was accompanied by other factors that reacted in such a way as to accelerate technological and industrial change and to push society further along the path of economic progress.  These factors were the increasing rationality of human behavior, the democratization of society, the spread of mass education, the expanding participation of the masses in public policy determination and the development of a more egalitarian society (Gruchy, 1972, p. 184). 

Given this excellent analysis of where societies will continue to head, Gunnar Myrdal admits that there are three major deficiencies of the welfare state that cause potential problems for its existence, overcentralization, power oligarchy, and inflationary bias.  Given the advanced dichotomy framework of using non-profit local governments along with local social and public good producing third sector institutions, the overcentralization problem is defeated.  Furthermore the power oligarchy concerning Myrdal will not develop as his theory states that people will become more egalitarian.  More egalitarian people will choose to collectively act in favor of altruistic non-profit institutions and this nature can drastically reduce the type of people and oligarchic institutions that Myrdal feared.  Lastly, living in the type of state that Myrdal describes combined with the beneficial aspects of a strong third sector, the altruistic and egalitarian nature of this society does not immediately seem like one that would cause much inflationary pressure.  The idea Myrdal has about society seems like one that is more interested in goods and services that are more social than industrial, goods that are not judged by their scarcity.  Increased education and its corresponding social efficiency decrease many costs, like the low cost of investment borrowing from credit unions, micro-credit institutions and local governments.  Most egalitarian collective philosophies are built around requiring minimal purchases and reusing or recycling, reducing consumption and eliminating the very supply side pressures of scarcity.    

 

Problems in analysis are solved fully when the production of public goods are further expanded by a third sector or the decentralized not-for-profit sector. Through this analysis of advanced dichotomy, the third sector as an institution provides many missing answers to problems posed by institutional economists Myrdal and Galbraith.  Private good producers have come to the point in a predator prey model that is resulting in a crisis with their existence to grow.  Due to their predatory-ness if they do not grow they die.

Evident in the 2008 financial crisis a predacious ponzi scheme showed that unrestricted profit seeking eventually collapses.  Government’s attempt to solve the socially ill externalities of this financial crisis will be reactionary to profits, due to their condition shared with the private sector.  Dynamic third sector entities will be the ones that rise out of this crisis to solve social discontent, specifically credit unions and micro credit institutions.  Credit unions and micro-credit institutions, where never de-regulated, never desired exuberant profits, and have always been consistent in their goals to serve their members.  As more people seek lending and other financial services, these third sector institutions will be there for society to trust and utilize, somewhat crisis proof. 

The third sector consists ideally of trusted, small, community organizations, rising to power as needed in response to the over predation consequences of private good producers.  In this rise it will precede government directives due to the advantaged, accessibility and adaptability of its nature.  Hopefully “To call some urgently required action politically or socially impossible is the first (and sometimes the only) line of defense against unwanted change.” (John Gallbraith, 1996, p. 4) this is the case.  The 2007 book The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex, shows how some criticisms are correct but only because they are misguided.  True, a revolution from the third sector will not be funded, but that won’t matter, because an evolution will be.  Go ahead, save some money, be much more empowered, start the program soon.  Learn the ways of unconventional wisdom, and become a truly free person, within the Third Sector society.

 

Selected References

 

Anosike, Benji O. (1999) How To Form Your Own Profit or Non-Profit Corporation

Without A Lawyer, Newark: Do-It-Yourself Legal Publishers.

 

deGraff, John., Wann, David., Naylor, Thomas H. (2005) Affluenza: The All-

Consuming Epidemic, San Fransisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

 

Eggertsson, Thrainn. (2005) Imperfect Institutions: Possibilities and Limits of Reform.

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

 

Galbraith, James K. (2008) The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too. New York: Free Press.

 

Galbraith, John K. (1976) The Affluent Society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

 

Galbraith, John K. (1996) The Good Society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

 

Grobman, Gary M. (2008) The Non-Profit Handbook: Everything You Need to Know to Start and Run Your Nonprofit Organization. Harrisburg: White Hat Communications.

 

Gruchy, Alan G. (1972) Contemporary Economic Thought: The Contribution of Neo-                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Institutional Economics. Clifton: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers.

 

Klein, Phillip A. (1994) Beyond Dissent: Essays in Institutional Economic. Armonk:

M.E. Sharpe.

 

Lewis, Harold. (2003) For the Common Good. New York: Brunner-Routledge.

 

Oleck, Howard L. (1975) Non-Profit Corporations, Organizations, and Associations:

Third Edition. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

 

Munkirs, John R., Knoedler, Janet T. (Dec. 1987) The Existence and Exercise of

Corporate Power: An Opaque Fact. The Journal of Economic Issues XXI:

Pp.1679-1706

 

Palley, Thomas I. (1998) Plenty of Nothing: The downsizing of the American Dream and

the case for structural Keynesianism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

 

Rados, David L. (1996) Marketing for NonProfit Organizations. Westport: Auburn

House.

 

Rifkin, Jeremy. (1995) The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the

Dawn of the Post-Market Era. New York: Penguin Group.

 

Schor, Juliet B. (1998) The Overspent American: Why we want what we don’t need. New

York: HarperPerennial.

 

Schor, Juliet B. (1992).The Overworked American: The unexpected decline of leisure.

New York: Basic Books.

 

Smith, Andrea., Rodriguez, Dylan., Gilmore, Ruth W., Allen, Robert I., Ahn, Christine

E., King, Tiffany L., et al. (2007) The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the

Non-Profit Industrial Complex. Cambridge: South End Press.

 

Sullivan, Bob. (2007) Gotcha Capitalism: How Hidden Fees Rip You Off Every Day and

what you can do about it. New York: Ballantine Books.

 

Veblen, Thorstein. (Sep. 1898) The Instinct of Workmanship and the Irksomeness of

Labor The American Journal of Sociology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp.187-201

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Save Money

Don't forget to turn off the lights!
Fix a leaky faucet!