It's impossible to conclude that our economic environment is not subject to the same diversity that comprises our natural environment. Given that an economy is a subset of the society that wrests itself from an unforgiving natural world riddled with chaos, why do some branches of economic thought continue to rationalize humankinds pecuniary endeavors down to neat tightly, clean, predictable outcomes. The structure of an economic system must reflect the multifaceted and diverse characteristics of the world in which it operates - a world of varying personalities all interacting in incoherent ways.

Our universe is not clean and orderly it-s very, very messy - nothing ever seems to work out according to the best conceived plans. It is therefore imperative that we not endeavor to extend our subconscious world view of tidy, neatly trimmed 'lawns' to any natural substrate in the living breathing messy struggle for life. There are no 'lawns' of perfectly crafted conception in nature so why extend the improbable to a natural world substrate? A prairie ecosystem is full of tall grass of varying varieties, riddled with ground squirrel holes, snakes in some regions, muck, and a variety of wildlife not allowed to intrude into our comfortable neat complacent checkerboard communities. But the interaction between the two does result in changes that affect both.

Similarly, our economic system must reflect the realities or 'ground truth' inherent in the natural environment, societal structure, and impractical, irrational interspersed behavior of the human substrate. So why continue to refine any economic model based upon illusion by further perturbing an already tumultuous society by injecting policies that don't align with any existing observable dynamic?

Over the past few years we've been led to believe that the Laissez-faire neoclassical economic realm of illusory conceptualization would translate into this wonderful world guided by some 'invisible hand'. Ours would be a service sector oriented economy never again requiring the utilization of dirty hands, and strong muscles. Every citizen would magically be endowed with all the necessary intellect, desire, and personality to expand the service sector into the preeminent sector of employment. There was just one problem with the distorted nation state competitive advantage simplistic view of our globe - it still left a substantial segment of our population underemployed, and unemployed because they just didn't fit into the special mold of a service sector laborer.

Expanding the concept of competitive advantage outside of its original boundaries centered in a particular industry was just another attempt to mold reality (only perceptually achievable by propaganda) to fit illusion. Over the past few decades we've been deluding ourselves into thinking that a viable economy can function stripped of its manufacturing sector. It has become abundantly evident that an economic system crafted for the benefit of the larger community cannot operate solely as a service sector economy devoid of a sustainable manufacturing base.

Competitive advantage must mold both the service sector and manufacturing components across industry segments that are jealousy defended by national policies within a completely economically integrated world. No economy can be sustained under just one of these core economic components they both must be merged together in order to achieve some semblance of economic and societal sustainability & stability.

We have witnessed the effective subversion of an already inherently unsustainable service sector nation-state competitive advantage model into something contrived and contorted beyond its illusory construct. Perpetuated by the 'information age' propagandists we were led to believe that an economy could be solely built upon a technologically oriented service sector. Factories were no longer needed within an economy based solely upon intellectual labor. The problems with this early nation-state competitive advantage centered model were three fold. First, it was myopically constrained to a nation-state centric advantage that never expanded across borders. Secondly, it failed to account for the unpredictable effects of human behavior within a tumultuous greed enhanced global society. Thirdly, as already conveyed, the competitive advantage of a technologically oriented service sector was too broad in scope to be maintained at the nation-state level.

But what mutated from this touted elegant distortion of reality was driven by the second factor, the uncontrollable greed educed by Laissez-faire religious tenants that encouraged human behavior contrary to the maintenance of sustainable and stable communities. Any behavior was permissible in the corruptly focused short-term greed addicted behavioral state. What evolved was a belief system built around the individual to the exclusion of the community a credo that any means was justified even the 'slash and burn' pillage of entire nation-states to fulfill the unquenchable desires of the few wealthy elite. Labor arbitrage became the 'club' of choice wielded by the 'strong arms' of an army of mercenary lobbyists fielded to sustain the wealthy fiefdom's ability to exploit workers by any means imaginable.

With so many interconnected messy threads weaving throughout our society, class consciousness, across unique behavioral responses to stimuli, and the turbulent at times dangerous physical world we inhabit it is abundantly clear that any economic theories must be conceived in the forge of reality. It is a reality that recognizes a simple requirement of all human beings - fairness. Without fairness or some form of equity, infused with equality the best conceived seemingly realistic policies will be nothing more than distorted illusion cloaked in a thin veil of reality. Human beings are very adept at perceiving whether certain aspects of their societal framework is fair, or slanted towards the interests of those ultimately in control. No amount of 'packaging' will deceive a community of citizens over the 'long haul' - this is aptly reflected in the current rejection by the general populous of the trickle down supply-side greed based economics benefiting the few practiced over the last few years.

Quakers believe that we are all our brothers keeper, that when we act in the best interests of our fellow human beings we serve the better interests of our communities. Thus, realizing that in order for a sustainable, stable economy to transpire we need to include everyone; those who desire or are suited to work in a vibrant manufacturing component, others who excel in a service sector intellectual or assistance driven component, and those who must be cared for by a compassionate community (government) because their unable to survive in either component of a competitively oriented sector of our economy. It is also important to integrate our nation-state economies into an 'International Economic Congress' whereby the interests of Capital (businesses) and Labor can be democratically resolved, and a coordinated oversight of all economically related endeavors can be achieved for the betterment of the entire global community. We are on the cusp of an appreciation that transcends any past global paradigm shift - our movement towards a sustainable, stable world community is very achievable. Let's make it happen.

Originally posted on my blog at:
http://structuraleconissues.blogspot.com/

Yesterday, the Boston Globe posted a Youtube video of Obama speaking back against Republican criticism of his community organizing experience.  Then, Political Voices of Women blogger, Frau Sally Benz, linked to a blog that asked for more presidents to have community organizing experience like Obama.  Inclusion is definitely a strategy in Obama's organizing.

When JFK ran for President in 1960, one of the "big problems" for a large number of voters was his church. The allegation was that JFK would be more loyal to his church than to his country. Kennedy's response at the time was to remind people that we have a little tradition in this country called "separation of church and state." This tradition came from our founding fathers who turned their backs on royal absolutism from Europe which was typically supported by the church. They realized that religion can be a toxic element if allowed to dominate the public square, since religion is intrinsically divisive. Most religions not not content themselves as simply promoting righteousness but rather proclaim themselves to be the unique path to eternal salvation. This type of dogmatism, tolerable in one's personal life, is clearly not the way one can forge a consensus among a diverse people.

So wisely, our founding fathers did two things regarding religion:   Read More »

I choose to think of us all as human beings. We may differ culturally, but we are the same. We originated in the same region of Africa, from the same original humans. Some of us are pale, some of us have more color. Bottom Line is...Cats are still cats, dogs are still dogs.
Race in my opinion is not even real.
It is a false premise based on false science.
WE are ALL human beings.
This morning I went to stand in line for tickets to hear Sen. Obama speak. I'd say, there were at least thousand people standing in line at 9:00AM.
We got up at 6:00AM and drove nearly an hour, to stand in line for 3 hours. There were whites, hispanics, asians, blacks, young, old, men, women. It was beautiful, we were a community. We were united. We were talking to each other. Sharing views, experiences, dreams. There were people who had seen Sen. Clinton speak and had come to see Sen. Obama as well. Trying to decide, open to the process. It was like an old time rock concert. People were smiling, greeting each other, helping each other. Even though it was a long wait, the time passed quickly.
THIS IS WHY I AM A PROUD DEMOCRAT!!!!!
We will be united, we will be fine. This was not San Francisco, CA or NYC, this was Terre Haute, Indiana.
Thank-you, Senator Obama! I have not felt such great promise in a long time.
There is HOPE and YES WE CAN.
peace,
marsha

I don't think this is about censorship, I think it is more about exclusion. Censorship would be deleting objectionable CONTENT, not removing objectionable PEOPLE. IT IS THIS DIFFERENCE that some of our members (myself included) find troubling.

Ours is the party of inclusion and DIVERSITY--both of which require tolerance. I am not going to bash our party or our site, but I think it is reasonable to look at our actions and question whether they are promoting those values.   Read More »

Posted to the Ending Racism Group.

Dear Friends,

This is my first post to the Ending Racism Group.

As a starting point, I am reviving a debate started here on Mitch52's post titled "Let's practice what we preach".

First, the premise proposed by a conservative-leaning friend:

While I don't doubt the good intentions, [Dems] actions often don't quite measure up.

Diversity for the sake of being diverse should not be the goal. It should not be something we should work for. Diversity is a pretty coat of paint on a termite-riddled house. We should work to advance hard-working, ambitious, moral, smart, qualified people. If you are focusing on their color, gender, or sexual orientation, I believe you might be the bigot!

If you are interested in debating this topic, my counter-argument is in the Extended Post...   Read More »

As Democrats rebuild, here are some things to consider.   Read More »

It seems to me that all involved in this discussion
are talking apples and oranges. And this particular
problem exists quite often when the discussion of race
comes up in political discourse.

People of color do not simply need people of color in
positions of power so that they may get economic
benefits from affirmative action. They have
immigration, higher education, voting rights,
reparations, head start, Equal Housing Rights. And so
on and so forth. As it is truly a laundry list of
needs for these communities.

The clash is when the other side of this argument
brings up the Class War which of course is a matter of
economics, not race. The argument that poor is poor is
one thing, however poor and brown is truly something
else. And to add that a little extra: poor brown and
female, or part of the GLBTA. What makes this a truly
great country is class mobility. However, we must also
understand that there are machinations built into this
society intentionally to limit class mobility and some
of those machinations are built to limit peoples of
color directly.

So in changing rules and laws which help poor people
get the most out of life we at some point must sit
down and try to find those laws that are in place
which prevent poor people of color the equal amount of
mobility. A simple example would be the Washington
Assessment of Student Learning. Yes, poor whites do
poorly on the WASL but even middle class and wealthy
peoples of color do poorly on the WASL. That as a
result helps to limit the mobility of peoples of
color, and will do so even more if the new rule making
it mandatory for high school graduation stays on the
books.

So I guess the long and short of it is, �can peoples
of color be just as self serving as whites who are
self serving?� Sure... I'd point out Alberto
Gonzales and Condoleezza Rice. But, to say that a poor
white family knows and understands the struggles of a
poor family of color is arrogant. Because those in
power who wish to make rules to limit the mobility of
all of the poor use different rules to limit different
groups and that helps to keep them fighting amongst
each other.

As a side note, if the WASL does stay as it is
currently utilized and if the Democrats in the
Washington House and Senate choose to support it again
as it is currently understood. I won't become a
Republican (my mother would beat me to death...) but I
will have to reconsider my support of any candidate
who votes in favor of its continued use. It really is
a race issue� And if you can�t see that, then you
should not be representing those who suffer through
this experience.

Advocating on behalf of you know who...

All new beginnings are important and every day is important.

On Sept. 22, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, declaring all slaves in rebel states should be free as of Jan. 1, 1863. The actual end of slavery (even in country alone) took longer and the practice continues to this day. The scars of racism are not yet healed, but progress has been made. Link to The King Center

Today starts Rosh Hashana - the Jewish New Year Link to shalom NYC for more

Either would be worthy of many articles and much has been written about both by abler minds than mine.   Read More »