I don’t like economics. I don’t much care for politics either. Both are far more important than I’d like for them to be, considering how boring they are. In fact, I consider both to be immaterial in the greater scheme of things. However, they love themselves, those politicians and economists, and we all live in their world, so occasionally you have to pay attention to them.
Three things recently got me thinking about economic conundrums. It bothers me that I can’t figure out how to fix things; every solution is self defeating. In the same way that communism clearly doesn’t work because it ignores human nature entirely, capitalism has pitfalls in that it makes the dredges of society (and I mean that in the nicest way possible) unnecessary as it evolves into a global and comprehensive system. Unnecessary people don’t get money, people without money can’t buy food (and use what little money they do have to try to forget that they don’t have much money, in many cases) and people who are hungry eventually become violent. Class warfare leads to counterintuitive systems like Communism. Rinse, repeat.
1) Big Business Stagnates
I recently spoke to someone at work, regarding a possible change in assignment. I have often been annoyed by our propensity to build upon proven designs, and he pointed out how most of our equipment is based upon a big program from 20 years ago. It is a very cost effective technique; take something you know works and skip all the overhead required to do the background research. I eventually launched into a diatribe about how big corporations stagnate by making their products too formulaic, dropping them off the cutting edge and allowing little companies to innovate and out manuever. He agreed with me that our company is headed in this direction. This malady, in many ways, is a good thing, when one views the economy as an organic whole.
Except my company employs 125,000 people. When we start losing contracts due to our excessive girth, we cut jobs. When you look at groups of 125,000 people, it’s easy to dehumanize, but for each one of those layoffs, you have family torn asunder, lives ruined, dreams shattered, all because the company got so big it was forced to standardize its practices for cost efficiency.
And guess what, 50 years ago we were the little guy. 50 years from now, the next little guy will be us. How does one break this cycle? This is a question which might not have an answer. It applies to more than just corporations, it applies to nations, religions, sports teams, you name it.
Addendum
2) Unions
Incidentally, this could prove useful. Meanwhile, the public transportation workers in NYC have brought unions to the foreground once again. I dislike unions. If I deserve to be fired, by all means, fire me. If I deserve a raise, give it to me. If the company needs to layoff people, don’t lay me off because I’m younger than some senior incompetent person. For God sake, if I want to fix something or carry my monitor across the room, don’t get your union panties in a bunch when I do it. Shoot, if you need to beg for work and get all catty when someone else does the work which is allotted for you, then you’re not particularly useful anyway.
I sometimes wonder if the guy that stands by the escalator and occasionally pushes the cart slowly down the hall is in a union. I have no idea why he still works. It disgusts me sometimes that he gets a pay check. I wonder if he once walked in on someone important while he was banging his secretary. And maybe he had a camera. I can’t figure it out.
But, as always, there’s another side to the story. You should be able to organize, it’s your right to organize. Strikes are potent, and if you can pull it off, more power to you. I find nothing wrong with strikes. It’s good to protect the little man against the big, bad corporate bullies. Presumably, you can organize into a group large enough that they can’t fire all of you. Then, you can throw bricks through the windows of the scabs, maybe beat them up after work, stuff like that. More power to you, you bunch of hypocritical cretins. If you want to fight oppression, don’t accomplish it through oppression. Man, I hate people.
Addendum 2
3) Local Businesses
The radio station had a 30-second sob story dedicated to local businesses. It implored the consumer to buy local good and support local businesses, instead of doing the shopping online. Implicit in the argument was the understanding that insodoing we would be paying more money.
Now, why would I want to pay more money if I could get away with paying less? The problem is that the end game to this scenario is that all local establishments go out of business, as our economy becomes for efficient. As a consumer, I get more for less, but then the unskilled labor in my hometown all the sudden has no job. How does one negotiate this? On one hand, our capitalism is leading to a more efficient economy to the consumer. On the other hand, however, it threatens to collapse the entire community structure. A quandry to be sure. Luckily, Matt knows the solution to all of our woes. He will apply all varieties of Randian philosophy in his comprehensive proof.
And this is why I don’t like economics. None of the answers actually work. They rely on the amoeba-like evolution of a capitalist system which cannot be so over-arching that it meets every demand of every man, especially when it is guided by the hand of the federal government, an entity which is itself resistant to change.
This is why I would rather think about the word of the week. I have three this week.
Words 
Unfortunately, I’m too busy maximizing my profits and screwing the poor to properly reply here, but a few quick thoughts.
* I have no idea what “threatens to collapse the entire community structure” means. Name the thing that’s happening that’s wrong and how it was caused.
* Clarify “None of the answers actually work” — work FOR WHAT or FOR WHOM? What goal do you want the economic system to accomplish? What is that goal worth accomplishing, and is it something that can actually be made to occur via economic policy?
* You might want to pay more money instead of less if you got more value for the more money. For example, if the conversation you had w/ Joe shopkeeper is livelier than the conversation you have with Sally McWebsite, maybe that’s worth it to you.
* You know how you can ask for more money because you’re an aerospace genius, show up early, stay late, work hard, love god and america and hate the terrorists? Well, for labor unions, being in a large group of people who are willing occasionally stop showing up unless you all get paid more is the same thing.
* The relationships between the MTA, the city government, the state government, the property the tracks run on, the upkeep of the system, the fares you pay to ride, the people who ride, the residents vs. non-residents of the city, the unions, tax dollars and political campaigns is one of the most screwed up things I’ve ever attempted to study.
“* I have no idea what “threatens to collapse the entire community structure” means. Name the thing that’s happening that’s wrong and how it was caused.”
The tense of the verb “threatens” does not necessarily indicate an ongoing event. It is clearly used here as a future threat. Currently, local businesses can survive because a loin’s share of consumers are not technologically savvy. 25 years from now, this will not be the case. Small businesses can rely on idle chit-chat only so much; in the end, mass market online vendors have an undeniable advantage. As the savvy consumers step forward (and everyone else ages and dies) these small business owners will be increasingly marginalized. At least, so says I.
Once small businesses start to fold, we are left with a merchant force which is only available through cyberspace. Community becomes “the bigwhoop organization” instead of “downtown Goshen.” In this sense, the community as the world has known for the last 4000 years begins to evaporate.
First of all, community becoming “the bigwhoop organization” is not necessarily a bad thing. For me personally, it’s been a great thing. The more I am disappointed by hardcopy human beings, the more I appreciate my cyberhood.
Further, the longer I have to stand in line at Wal-Mart, stand in line at a red light, stand in line at the gas station, the more willing I am to pay the extra I always have to pay to get stuff online. But I’m not sure I can think of any mechanism of face-to-face commerce that has been completely replaced by some innovation of technology, no matter how efficient, because the shopping for and purchasing of items has been morphed from essential trade into recreational sport. I’d hazard to say that a good 70 percent of retail commerce is totally needless, or at least optional. People buy stuff because it makes them feel good, not because they really need it, even if their lifestyle seems to dictate that they must have it. And the interaction is part of that, for most people. We also want good service because that makes us feel better too, and we’ll pay more to get it, apparently. And that’s only addressing the stuff that we could ostensibly make a case for “needing,” as in “I needed a new pair of khakis, so I went to Nordstrom because they treat me better than Chico’s.” It doesn’t even address the purely frivolous shopping that has become such an American hobby. Remember vacations with sightseeing? It’s all about the shopping now.
And somehow, I just don’t see folks strolling down the rustic sidewalks of an historic New England town and slipping in to some quaint little website to buy maple-sugar candy and quilted potholders.