Archive

Archive for March, 2014

NSFW Links: Mar 26, 2014

March 26, 2014 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

Selfies: Mar 26, 2014 – Young and nekkid chicks photographing themselves.

More Selfies: Mar 26, 2014 – More young and nekkid chicks photographing themselves.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Profit, unlike Gain, is a Measure of Theft from the System

March 24, 2014 7 comments

The idea that profit-driven capitalism is the only system capable of delivering sustained improvement in living standards is a deeply cherished belief of many Americans, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. Some of you might even argue that the dissolution of the Soviet Union is definitive evidence of that ‘there is not other way’. Of course, doing so would require us to ignore that state communism did take Russia from a chaotic 19th century society to a superpower within 30 years, inspite of the massive damages inflicted by Stalin’s paranoia and WW2.

We would also have to ignore that the massive and unprecedented increase in the standard of living in the USA from the mid-1930s to mid-1980s was largely financed by direct and indirect government spending. Imagine an American middle-class without the New Deal, WW2-related spending, GI Bill, Space Race and all other Cold War related spending. But this is not a post about which flavor of capitalism is better than which flavor of state communism. Instead I will try to show how one of the fundamental proxy measures of success in capitalism (and state communism) eventually up destroying them.

I am certainly not the first to point out that monetary profit is fundamentally a measure of theft from other people or groups. However unlike many others, I am more interested in its downstream and knockon effects than the morality and mindset of those who benefit from it. There is also the interesting issue of why capitalism seems to “work” as long as it is kept under control, but becomes destructive to almost everybody once it is unregulated. In my opinion, all of this comes down to difference between profit and gain.

Some of you will counter by saying that “but aren’t profit and gain two words for the same thing”. Well.. not quite and let me explain. We use the word profit to denote a situation where one party benefits at the expense of another party. It is fundamentally impossible for all the parties involved in a profitable transaction to gain from it and is therefore a zero-sum interaction. Now contrast that an interaction where some parties gain more than others but pretty much everybody gets a pretty good and fair deal. Still confused? Let us look at some examples.

Consider the case of a generic multinational corporation which has managed to increase its reported profit by off-shoring its manufacturing base to a low-income country. So who are the winners and losers in this type of scenario? The biggest winners in this scenario are almost always the top-level management, large stockholders and those involved in the financial (and other) intermediation necessary to make it happen. Minor winners include the poorly paid workers in the low-income countries now working at a slightly better paying job and the consumers who benefit from a slightly cheaper product. So who are the big losers in this transaction? Well.. everybody else- starting from the unemployed workers to local business who depended on those workers and the local governments who depended on tax revenue from those workers, business and the corporation.

Now consider the case of a company, business or an institution developing a new way to fulfill some human need or desire. How many people were negatively affected by the development of computer technology? What about antibiotic drugs? What about better automobiles or airplanes? What about effective vaccines for diseases like polio? In each of the above examples, pretty much everybody benefited (or gained) far more than they lost. Moreover each of these products increased the size of the economy without a significant increase in income inequality. That is the important, and crucial difference, between profit and gain. You might also notice that my description of gain is pretty close to most peoples mental image of functional capitalism.

So why is gain-based capitalism in full retreat and why has its profit-based form taken over?

It comes down to concentration of power in the hands of a few large players or oligopolization. Capitalism, or indeed any other system, works best when there are many and almost equally capable competing players in the system. That is also why capitalism seems to function pretty well when a new area opens up for business. But sooner or later you will end up with a handful of major players who will dominate the new area.

But why would narrowing the list of players favor profit over gain. Well.. once again there are many interrelated reasons but they all arise from one characteristic common to all large human organisations- who runs them. The higher levels of large and established organisations are almost always dominated by sociopaths who have learned to climb the pyramid by stepping on others. These climbers often have no understanding of what it takes to make the enterprises they are leading function properly, nor are they interested in making them function properly.

The mindset of these sociopaths is dominated by two interlinked desires. Firstly, they want to subjugate and impoverish everyone else. Secondly, they want to do so while basking in material comfort. They have no interest, desire or even the mental ability to be anything else. These billionaires, “business leaders”, CEOs, board members, banksters, head honchos etc are functionally identical to parasites or viruses in that they both lack a purpose for existence and an internal ability to restrain themselves. They survive and thrive by exploiting the structure of the system and eluding systemic attempts to destroy them. But why are they so interested in generating more profit and suppressing gain? The answer to that question lies in what happens to monetary profit once it is generated.

Monetary profit, unlike gain, is almost never reinvested back into the system. In other words, all money made as profit exits the functional economy and impoverishes everybody else.

Only sovereign governments can replenish this supply of money. It is therefore not surprising that billionaires and other rich people spend lots of their time making sure that the government does not replenish this supply or that they get most of that replenishment. It is not about more money for them, as much as it is about less money for everybody else. Of course, it certainly helps that they have a whole bunch of morons to do their dirty work.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links : Mar 23, 2014

March 23, 2014 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

Nubile Cuties: Mar 23, 2014 – Slim and young nekkid cuties.

More Nubile Cuties: Mar 23, 2014 – More slim and young cuties.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

The Inner World of Massey Sahibs : An Introduction

March 19, 2014 15 comments

A few months ago, I wrote a post about the questionable treatment of an Indian diplomat in the USA with special reference to the public reaction of certain people of Indian descent to that event. In that post, I also talked a bit about concepts such as ‘gungadin’ and ‘sepoy’- and the key difference between them. This post goes into a bit more depth on the phenomena of ‘gungadins’ and one of its more common subtypes – the ‘massey sahib’.

But before we go further, let us quickly define both concepts and highlight the slight (but important) differences between them. A ‘gungadin’ is somebody who is servile to anyone with a white skin under the expectation that doing so will somehow get him a vaguely promised reward or acceptance as an equal in the distant future. A ‘massey sahib’ is basically similar to a ‘gungadin’, but has a few extra distinguishing characteristics. For one, a ‘massey sahib’ fancies himself as white-‘lite’ and will go to considerable and often comical lengths to demonstrate his white cultural credentials. Secondly, a ‘massey sahib’ is almost always fairly well-educated and well read, but is unable or unwilling to think critically. He will always support the view of “famous” white men even if they themselves make a 180 turn away from their old views.

So why do whites like to keep ‘massey sahibs’ around- at least until they become too inconvenient? It comes down to the utility of ‘massey sahibs’ as tools. In case you are still wondering about my choice of the name for this class of “individuals”, here is the wiki link: Massey Sahib

Set in pre-independence India, Massey sahib is an Indian who converts to Christianity for the sole purpose of becoming white-‘lite’. To that end, he works hard to do fulfill the ambition of his white boss even if that means breaking the laws he is supposed to uphold. The white boss knows about his double dealings but ignores them in a manner that affords him (but not Massey) plausible deniability. Towards the end of the story, the scams are exposed and Massey becomes the scapegoat and is cast aside by his white boss who acts surprised and disappointed. The effects of the investigation disrupt Massey’s life and lead him to kill another Indian in a fit of rage. This only worsens Masseys situation and inspite of the advice of his now ex- white boss, he chooses not to plead guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter since he expects his white boss and white “friends” to magically intervene and set him free. I guess you can figure out how the story ends.

So what does this story have to do with people of Indian descent who live, or were born, in western countries today? Well.. a significant number and percentage of Indians, especially those who came to north america before the mid 1990s, are (for all practical purposes) ‘massey sahibs’. Now some of you might try to defend them by saying that they became ‘massey sahibs’ for purely economic reasons- but I disagree.

People who crawl and grovel when they jsut had to bend a little are motivated by far more than simple economic calculations. This is especially true when they did not have to bend in the first place.

Let me show you what I am talking about with a real-life example of one. I found this interview on the ‘Chemical and Engineering News’ website – Link. Excerpts from this interview will be quoted to illustrate my points.

First the extended title..

Sunil Kumar, Chemical Industry Medalist, Chemistry and opportunity in the U.S. aided his climb from poverty to executive suite

Altruistic white man gave poverty-stricken brown guy a chance out of the goodness of his heart. *sarcasm*

Although trained as a mechanical engineer, Kumar found that he liked the products of chemistry and had a knack for translating them into marketing successes. That talent, over the course of a 41-year career, helped India-born Kumar rise from near penniless immigrant to the U.S. to high-level executive at the tire maker Firestone (and later Bridgestone), the roofing supplier GAF, and ISP.

This is a repetition of the point made in the extended title, but with more biographical details.

Kumar, 64, continues his love affair with chemistry today through Wembly Enterprises, a family investment vehicle that acquires chemistry-based businesses. His is a rags-to-riches story that could only have happened in America.

Actually that is not true for reasons we will get into soon, but why let facts get in the way of a feel good story (propaganda).

He headed for the U.S. right after graduating from the prestigious Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), in Madras, with a degree in mechanical engineering. “In the early 1970s, India was a bad place to be,” Kumar recalls. “There was not much encouragement for private enterprise, and most people got jobs with government entities. That was not my cup of tea at all.”

So let us be clear about one thing. This guy was educated at a pretty famous institution in India and was certainly not from some poverty-stricken or uneducated family. While it is true that India in the 1970s was not a great place for anybody with ambition, the idea that he would have lived in poverty if he had not moved to the USA is false.

Kumar was then and still is a passionate admirer of what he calls “the American civilization.” He defines that civilization as a place where government mostly works and people who work hard can do well.

In the 1970s and perhaps the 1980s, the USA was still a reasonably meritocratic place- especially if you were not Black or Mexican. But is that still true? In the 1970s the USA also had far fewer people (by number and percentage) in jail than the USSR (Russia)- but is that still true? But the more important question is- Did he have to profess that belief to succeed in a meritocracy? A system that is highly meritocratic would not require you to be a congenital brown noser- which he clearly is, and we will see more evidence of that in a moment.

He secured a spot in the M.B.A. program at the University of Louisiana, Monroe. Key to his decision to go there was the financial support he got from the university. “Graduate assistantships are typical in science but rare in business school. They made an exception for me; it was the break I needed,” Kumar says. Separately, he snagged a job at the 7-Eleven near the campus to earn the money he needed to repay his father for the plane ticket. Working at 7-Eleven taught him how to relate to people. The blue-collar workers who came into the store “were fabulous, down-to-earth people with no pretensions,” Kumar recalls. Working at the store also taught him that management systems often function better in the U.S. than in India. “At the store, there was a system for inventory, pricing, and handling customers. The reason 7-Eleven worked well is that it had a way to get products and customers in and out.”

Isn’t it odd that a guy whose entire existence in India revolved around getting away from the teeming brown masses was so willing to kiss the average white guys ass? Why? I also wonder how many of his current acquaintances are blue-collar white guys? But the best example of his ass-kissing can be found towards the end of that interview piece.

Although India also offers better business opportunities than when he left it, they still can’t compare with the opportunities available in the U.S., Kumar maintains. He spends part of his time as an adviser to the Indian energy and chemical giant Reliance Industries, providing advice on elastomers plants now under construction in India.

Fair enough.. he prefers to live in the USA where he spent most of his life.

And although India graduates large numbers of engineers, most, Kumar contends, aren’t well-trained. “There must be something wrong when a country that graduates 300,000 engineers per year gets no Nobel Prizes, gets few patents, and has only a $1.8 trillion economy,” Kumar says. He sees no need for the U.S. to churn out engineers to better compete with India. Although the U.S. can always stand to improve its educational system, Kumar says, the country already “has more than enough brilliant scientists, inventors, and chemists.”

Now, wait a minute.. if Indian engineers and chemists are not well trained or incompetent – what about him? I mean.. the interview does state that he came from India. Was he somehow special or is he seeing himself as white-‘lite’? And if the american system has always been good at producing enough brilliant scientists, inventors, and chemists- why did they require him in the first place? Something does not add up. But we still have not reached the best bit of his brown nosing.

He also continues to be a huge believer in America. “I wouldn’t say that a person born in America is superior to a person not born in America. God creates everyone equal,” Kumar says. But a person who is born in the U.S., or grows up, lives, and works in the country, “becomes superior after a number of years because America’s system is exceptional.” As Kumar sees it, America “is a new civilization, and it is more than just immigrants coming here and finding jobs.” The country, he declares, “creates spectacular successes.”

Here is my problem with this shill. Does his mental model hold true if he was an enterprising Black, Mexican or even a working-class white guy? While the last group did somewhat OK will the mid-1980s, their fortunes have progressively deteriorated to the point where they are not much better than the other two? So what changed and why?

While the american system does manage to make its 1% (or more precisely its 0.1%) richer with every passing day, it has clearly failed the other 99%. Sunil Kumar’s strategy for success is based on kissing the behind of every rich white guy he came across and then slaving away for them, in exchange for a few bones and being treated as white-‘lite’ until he becomes inconvenient for his white superiors. He kept doing that because the real decline of american chemical manufacturing which started towards the end of his corporate career allowing him to escape with a measure of dignity and money. His early career shift into the management side of that sector also partially protected him from career ending job loss.

In the upcoming part of this series, I will try to explore the mindset and world view that creates massey sahibs. As you will see, the massey sahib mindset is not restricted to Indians and milder forms of this mindset are actually quite common in many developed countries- especially in people of the upper-middle class persuasion.

What do you think? Comments?

Did the USA Accidentally Shoot Down MH370 off Diego Garcia?

March 18, 2014 36 comments

The final fate of flight MH370 is still a mystery. So far, we have not been able to locate either the wreckage or landing site of that Malaysia airlines Boeing 777 airliner. Since my previous post on this topic, two interesting facts have come to light.

1. Somebody in the cockpit of that airplane altered the flight path program after the aircraft took off from Kuala Lumpur.

2. Some residents on Kuda Huvadhoo island in the Dhaalu atoll group of the Maldives reported seeing a large low flying jet at around 6:15 am on March 8.

Both new pieces of information got me thinking about an unfortunate, but likely, explanation for the final fate of flight MH370 which can also explain some of the peculiar circumstances surrounding that its disappearance. As many of you know, my previous post had postulated that MH370 flew through the outlying islands of the Maldive island chain.

A route from the last known radar contact of that airplane to the outlying islands of the Maldives would keep the aircraft out of the airspace of nations such as India and Sri Lanka. It helps that most of airspace over the Maldivian island chain is free of radars- civilian or military. The time when that large low flying airliner appeared over the Dhaalu atoll group in the Maldives also matches the expected ETA of a low and slow flying 777 airliner.

But what was the final destination of those in control of that airplane?

According to link # 2- “Eyewitnesses from the Kuda Huvadhoo concurred that the aeroplane was travelling North to South-East, towards the Southern tip of the Maldives”. Where could a pilot travelling South-East of that island land, especially given that he has less than 2 hours of fuel on board at that time? Well.. he could have always turned north and landed in Male or on any of the major airstrips in the Maldives- but it is rather clear from his flight path that he was not interested in doing that.

We are now left with only a few possibilities such as the american base on Diego Garcia, Mauritius, Reunion, Seychelles or some airstrip in Madagascar. But why would someone who hates attention want to land on tourist heavy compact islands like Mauritius, Reunion or Seychelles. While parts of Madagascar are remote, what would motivate somebody to land on that impoverished island?

And this brings us to the possibility that the person flying that airplane might have attempted to land on one of the long airstrips at the secretive US navy facility on Diego Garcia. Remember- “attempted” not “succeeded”. But why do I believe that MH370 did not succeed landing on that island?

Let me put it this way- we would have heard about it a week ago. Since Malaysia is a friendly (or at least non-adversarial) country, the US navy would have almost certainly let a damaged or otherwise stricken airliner land on that island. Nor was that aircraft carrying anything valuable or secretive enough to merit keeping its landing secret.

So why did that aircraft not land on Diego Garcia?

Here is my theory. The people on Diego Garcia were spooked by a large, low flying, unidentified (and likely) hijacked aircraft approaching the island. They might have tried to contact it a few times and either failed or become more fearful with each response. Perhaps they thought that they were in the midst of a mini-9/11. At some moment in time, somebody made a decision to launch SAMs at that aircraft to bring it down. You can guess what happened next..

But why would the USA try to cover up such an incident?

Well.. there are two reasons. Firstly- that base is remote enough to allow the USA to cover up an airliner shootdown over water for some time. Secondly- they probably realized within a few hours that most passengers on that airplane were Chinese nationals. It does not take much imagination to realize the very real diplomatic consequences of shooting down a plane full of Chinese nationals, especially if the circumstances surrounding that shooting are nebulous.

Here is a similar incident from over two decades ago – Iran Air Flight 655

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links : Mar 16, 2014

March 16, 2014 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

Slim Cuties : Mar 16, 2014 – Slim, young and pretty nekkid cuties.

More Slim Cuties : Mar 16, 2014 – More slim, young and nekkid cuties.

Even More Slim Cuties : Mar 16, 2014 – Even more slim, young and nekkid cuties.

Yet More Slim Cuties : Mar 16, 2014 – Yet more slim, young and nekkid cuties.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

On the Disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370

March 14, 2014 10 comments

The mysterious disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 has become one of the most closely followed news stories of the last few days. While plane disappearances are not unheard of, even in the post-WW2 era, they have become increasingly rare and almost never occur to aircraft as large as the Boeing-777.

I have been meaning to publish an article on this bizarre incident for the last 2-3 days, but was unable to do so because of the constant (and often contradictory) bits of news coming out of multiple “unnamed” sources. Well, things have changed in the last 12-odd hours and we now have a somewhat coherent (but still unclear) picture of what might have happened to that flight. So here is a list of what we know, or don’t know, with a high degree of certainty.

1] The communication gear in that aircraft was able to return a satellite ping as late as 8:11 am Malaysian time on the day it disappeared, or about 7 hours after its transponder stopped broadcasting. This implies that the aircraft was structurally intact and likely flying for about 7 hours after its transponder signal disappeared.

This bit of evidence immediately suggest two things. Firstly, the aircraft in question was being deliberately flown either by a human or computer for an extended period of time. Secondly, whoever was flying that aircraft was not interested in definitely not interested in crashing it and killing everyone on it, as they could have done that almost instantly. Nor were they interested in crashing that aircraft into some building or structure, as that would also have occurred within a few hours. Whoever pulled it off had a well thought out plan.

2] The ACARS system was disabled minutes before the transponder went off air and just before the plane was supposed to enter Vietnamese airspace. This chain of events and the timeline also suggests that the diversion of MH370 was deliberate. The last routine sounding verbal communication from MH370 occurred after the ACARS was disabled but before the transponder went dark. It is also worth noting that the pilot of another commercial plane who was trying to contact that flight half an hour after it “disappeared” claims to have heard some mumbling before the transmission cut.

This suggests that conscious humans were present in the cockpit for at least thirty minutes after the transponder went blank. If the plane was malfunctioning, either of the two pilots in the cockpit could have easily contacted nearby airports or aircraft through one of the many redundant communication systems on that airplane and requested assistance. But they did not do so. Why not?

3] The most mysterious part of the MH370 story is the motive, or to be more accurate- the lack of one to date. If the pilots or whoever was flying that plane was simply interested in killing people by either simply crashing it or crashing it into something, we would have heard about it by now. Similarly the idea that somebody stole an airplane as large and specialized as the 777 for selling its parts on the black market does not make sense, as they are far less riskier ways to steal from your employers inventory.

It is also very odd that no organisation, group or individuals has come forward and taken credit for this disappearance. We have not heard about any list of demands or proof of life for the passengers on that airplane. This is especially odd since we live in an era where the ubiquity of the internet, social media and smartphones make it incredibly easy for any moron with half a brain could have easily done so.

4] The current location of that airliner is the final part of this mystery. But before we go there, let us be clear about one thing- whoever was flying that airplane had thought this out in some detail and intended to survive the landing. With that in mind, let us look at the two (or three) possible parts of the world it could have landed in. The cropped graphic (below) from WaPo is especially good for illustrating what I am going to talk about.

MalaysiaRange_graphic-01

The southern Indian ocean is remarkably lacking in both islands and lightly guarded airstrips. The only islands, or island groups, with a functional airstrips are Christmas island, Cocos (Keeling) island, the american base at Diego Garcia, a few airstrips in the Maldives and a few more in Seychelles, Mauritius and Reunion island. We can also add Madagascar to that list- but my point is that pretty much every airstrip in any of those islands is highly commercial and landing on them would attract a lot of “unwanted” attention. It is possible that to land in some remote part of the Western Australian Outback, but even that would attract lots of attention from locals.

The second, and somewhat more plausible, flight path takes the airplane over countries such as Thailand, Burma, Bangladesh, India, China, Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. But that route requires the plane to cross many highly surveilled national boundaries and would attract tons of unwanted attention by the military assets stationed near those borders. To put it another way, keeping that flight path secret would require the implicit or accidental cooperation of people in many different countries.

There is however a third, and so far largely ignored, flight path. What if whoever was flying that plane wanted to land it somewhere in east-Africa or the Arabian peninsula? They could have chosen a route that went south of Sri Lanka but north of Diego Garcia- perhaps through a sparsely populated part of the Maldive island chain. From there they could reach an airstrip in the horn of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti South Sudan, Sudan etc) or a nearby part of the Arabian Peninsula (Yemen, the interior of Oman or Saudi Arabia). Perhaps they could have even flown as far as the southern parts of Iran or Pakistan.

What do you think? Comments?

NSFW Links, Mar 8, 2014

March 8, 2014 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

Amateur Cuties on the Beach: Mar 8, 2014 – Slim amateur cuties on the beach.

Vintage Spanking Photos: Mar 8, 2014 – From the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s.

More Vintage Spanking Photos: Mar 8, 2014 – More from the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Funny Skit : Inside Amy Schumer Season 2

March 7, 2014 3 comments

Here is a clip of a very funny skit from the upcoming season 2 of ‘Inside Amy Schumer’. I found her satirical portrayal of the average white american girl to be especially dead on.

And here is a similar clip from season 1.

What do you think? Comments?

Categories: LOL, YouTube

NSFW Links: Mar 02, 2014

March 2, 2014 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

Amateur Beach Cuties: Mar 2, 2014 – Slim and young amateur cuties on the beach.

More Amateur Beach Cuties: Mar 2, 2014 – More slim and young amateur cuties on the beach.

Enjoy! Comments?

Categories: Uncategorized

Film Remakes, Sequels, Prequels and the True Nature of Capitalism

March 1, 2014 13 comments

Have you ever wondered why mainstream movie-making in the last twenty years has gravitated towards remakes, sequels and prequels of previously successful movies? Why do movie studios keep on making newer version of old hits? What is purpose of making progressively inferior sequels or prequels of questionable quality? Now there are some who would say that all literature, theater and cinema is derivative (cleverly plagiarized and recycled) and there is some truth to that. But that is not what I am talking about. Let me explain my point with a few examples.

The original Star Wars and lords of the rings franchises are indeed clever rehashes of epics centered around reluctant hero trope. Furthermore, such epic stories are found across diverse cultures and eras. However reading the Odyssey, Scandinavian sagas or even the much earlier Epic of Gilgamesh does not diminish the enjoyment of watching the original star wars films or the LOTR trilogy because while they all have the same basic story structure, each one takes great effort to create and populate its own unique and self-consistent universe. Similarly modern superhero characters have more than a passing resemblance to the trans-human/semi-divine characters that populate ancient myths and stories. Yet once again, the creators of most modern superhero characters took considerable effort to make them and the worlds they inhabit as unique and richly detailed as possible.

Now contrast this level of creativity and effort to that seen (or not seen) in the Star Wars and LOTR “prequels”. Or take movie remakes- Why do most modern movie remakes and sequels suck so badly? Compare the original Robocop movie to its recent remake. Or compare the remake of Total recall to its far more innovative original version. This is not to say that every remake, prequel or sequel sucks. There are examples where the reboot was as good or better than the original such as Scarface (1983 vs 1932) or the Mummy (1999 vs 1932). Note that both examples of successful remakes mentioned in the previous sentence were quite different from the original versions. Having said that movies in which the remake, sequel or prequel are better than the original are exceptions and not the rule.

But why is that so and what does it have to do with the true nature of capitalism?

The short answer to that question is as follows- trying to relentlessly increase and optimize monetary profits from any new source of income will always kill the proverbial golden egg laying goose. The somewhat longer answer to that question requires us to first take an honest look at what capitalism (or any other materialism based -ism) is really about.

In the preceding paragraph, I hinted that the tendency of capitalism to kill golden egg laying geese is shared by other material-based ideologies (such as state communism). But why would that be so? Aren’t materialism based ideologies more “scientific” and therefore superior to other ways of looking at the world? Well.. it depends and here is why.

Materialism based (reductionist) models work best when the systems are small in size, fundamental in nature and/or tractable. So materialism based models are perfect for doing things such as predicting the motion of planets, understanding the physical nature of matter, launching artificial satellites, synthesizing some new chemical compound or designing a new engine or vehicle. Their predictive value starts to decrease as the systems become more complex or chaotic- yet they are still quite useful for understanding phenomena as diverse as biological evolution, speciation or weather systems. Reductionist models however reach the end of their usefulness when we enter the realms of complex, fundamentally unstable and adaptive systems such as human societies.

Models based in reductionism work well only as long as the fundamental components of the system and interactions between are constant, predictable and measurable. We simply cannot do that with human societies of even basic complexity. This is where reductionist thinkers make two fundamental errors.

Firstly, they try to use an external and artificial standard unit (money) to keep track of exchanges in the system. While the amounts of money exchanged might initially have some correlation to the actual value of most interactions in the system- it always reaches a point where the amounts exchanged between components in the system has little (or no) correlation to the actual value of the interactions. However the quantity and flow of money in the system are now increasingly seen as the only legitimate measure of value of anything or any person in the system. Money becomes a proxy measure for something it can no longer be accurately used to measure.

The triumph of money as the only way to measure the worth of anything results in the second type of reductionist error. The quest for more money results in the ever-increasing use of reductionist models (and thinking) to optimize interactions and actions. It is this mindset that leads to mediocre, insipid or just plain shitty movie remakes, sequels and prequels- while simultaneously starving truly innovative ideas and concepts. The people who make decisions about movie funding therefore have little interest in the quality or craft of the final product. They are principally motivated by the predicted monetary returns on their ill-gained money.

That is why capitalism, communism and all other reductionist -isms, which use artificial gameable proxy units, to model the real world ultimately end up destroying the very things that make their existence possible.

What do you think? Comments?