Freud said something like “Life is to love and to work” I don’t remember the quote, nor whether there is an order to it, but am thinking I don’t care as for this moment, they are together. Retirement – no work? Hell, Well no, only if you are calling work stuff you do for money, rather than stuff you do when concentrating, trying to understand, get somewhere, do with others or for others or or or. Not the stuff you do when procrastinating, timewasting, trying to satisfy an itch you are actually avoiding. Not the gimme gimme demand stuff. Work like this is loving this world I am in, just now. [I do have other kinds of days, and my hip hurts but hey while I typed that up I did not notice.]
What will I do today? First up is a walk with friends, probably the last BI walk for a while as early on Tuesday I am traveling. Boat car, train, bus gets me to Logan airport and then it is plane and more plane and bus to home in Edinburgh for ten days before a long flight to Guangzhou and see my China son and grandsons for a month. Then return to UK for a three month summer of more friends and family not seen for far too long.
Is it any wonder I am happy, anticipating?
But that starts Tuesday.
What will I do today?
I will walk and then I will write – I started already and wrote as below to an online forum on economics.
You need not read further as I have not edited it – but this is one of the things I am free to do – think – consider – write – make contact. I like talking with these people I have never met. Or, I might read a bit. I won’t be cleaning the apartment or packing. Done that. Retirement allows time. [I did like working and being gainfully employed too – long ago now].
What will I do today? What life stage are you at? What will you do?
Hi all PM – we need to resist strongly the argument:
“no limit to what we the people can have if only that mean government of ours would just stop talking about living within our means and start creating money” and “impossible for a government to resist demands” even though these arguments seem to address real problems of our culture.
Real problems or problem of way in which people think?? ie cultural matter? how do we address?
Very many of the arguments for/against system A or B are expressed in linear thinking mode – that is cause effect in a 2-dimensional line. The “balance” is an example of this [like Micawber – earn 1 guinea spend a pound = happiness, earn a pound spend a guinea = distress.] “People are demanding” is another example. Of course they are, but they are much more complex and are also resilient and compassionate and all sorts of things like frugal or Micawberish.
Thinking that addresses the reality of resources, energy, work, need, (including people of all ilk, dependent, temporarily unproductive or regularly productive) cannot be linear. We cannot afford linear thinking partly because we can’t argue against it in linear fashion – think of how Paxman does not actually find reality in his aggressive interviewing, only yes/no about one thing. Other kinds of thinking are cyclic or ecological, always dynamic process – there are various words for it, mindful in the psychology camps, reflexive, reflective etc. Organizational management often refers to systemic thought process among other ways of expressing what is meant by non-linear ways to think or perceive “the problem”. Tackling initial conditions, boundaries, possible consequences, and feedback and re-thinking all come in to a dynamic mix – in which the future cannot be determined, hurray, reality even if you don’t know it. You can consider direction, and past, and effect on nearby future. Act is necessarily in the present, only.
Hence – with determined research and thoughtfulness – PM (and others) show there is a problem. They think within complexity – sometimes systemically though sometimes in short papers a bit of linear creeps in. Note linear always sounds clearer – it is – it is just less in touch with reality, or has left an awkward bit of reality out, like economists’ pretence that their discipline is mathematical rather than social/psychological.
Following Joe “The point I am trying to make is that we should not seek variants, imitations, doppelgangers, copies of, or competitors for, the current criminal Bankster model, but to change (eliminate) it in favour of a better way of doing things.”
A better way of doing things – start with seeing government as in a different category from “good parent” or “bad parent” – regardless of whether that is how citizens want to see them (transference psychological issues are ubiquitous). Government, even when its individuals are poor thinkers, is in a place of making policy direction in the present, from the reality complex as it now perceives it. Both – as best as they can. [Current ideology IMO is dire in preception of reality – as is most ideology – seeing the world from a narrow one dimension, never mind only 2]
I reject Frances’ argument because it looks as if government is supposed to be the permissive parent – most people are quite able to know this is not so but then many fall for the ‘must balance the books argument’. Strict parents seem to have a better idea about what to do than permissive ones – we all unconsciously respond to authority even when it veers to authoritarian. Neither permissive nor strict properly comprehend the dialogue of reciprocal, using feedback from experience and action and appropriate authority. Forgive the analogy – but it works quite well for government, to whom we accord authority.
I think PM is asking government, whose appropriate authority covers policy and law and execution, to put the creation of money within their remit. At the moment, because money is created by private banking, only law is in government control at all, while policy – choosing which law – and execution are seriously constrained.
Start from a better way of doing things: Money created by government who have the authority to then decide policy for its use, and manner of execution. Their job also to show the citizens that is what they are doing, not jump up and down in response to “gimme gimme”. Communication is part of systemic thinking.
I believe from many years experience that the response of people as a whole to a fair and realistic authority culture is to move towards enjoyment of living and working. There is instinctive understanding in biology/psychology of conditions for health and resilience as well as the fear/survival narcissistic demanding instincts. For an analysis of the demand led worlds within economics, Rowbotham’s “Grip of Death” is excellent.
PM leads this move to a better way of thinking about Money Creation. That is why I am with them even when details are not quite my thing.