Archive for May, 2012
–James Felton Keith
Yesterday a psychologist friend of mine sent me this article along with a few other folks to ask if she should be getting into this field of study.
Read the article HERE
Here is my response via email.
ooooh thank you for this article.
I think that you should be studying this…..I’d love to drop everything and do a deep dive into this. I particularly like this quote from the article.
” First of all, if entrepreneurs are job creators, workers are wealth creators. Entrepreneurs use wealth to create jobs for workers. Workers use labor to create wealth for entrepreneurs — the excess productivity, over and above wages and other compensation, that goes to corporate profits. It’s neither party’s goal to benefit the other, but that’s what happens nonetheless. “
This also feeds into that article that we are supposed to be doing about the PTS that I’m almost sure that the long-term out of work has….it would be the flip-side of psychopathic capitalists mis-judging the “wealth creators” as Deresiewics put it. I almost resent how accurate Ayn Rand’s rational self interest is, which is why I think that there are only technological solutions to sociopathic and psychopathic culture. There have to be quantifiable checks and balances….because humans do a poor job (and have always) at evaluating risks and allocation resources. We can still be human or humane and operate in sync.
While at MSU this associate professor that attended my philosophy clubs took-a-stab to sum all of this up as “the contradictions of capitalism”, but these problems are not inherent to capitalism…they are just a spawn of our understanding of our own individualism. it what makes Ayn Rand so fearfully, spot on.
From a literary standpoint, I think we can address this problem well by exploiting and remedying, what I’m calling:
The five contradictions of individualism and its off-spring:
- Systemic Risk
But again, all I think that we can suggest are the error-proofs (Ron knows what I’m talking about)…I don’t see how there are solutions other than technological ones (methodological, hard/softwares), that could pervade a group (of any size) of individuals.
Someone caught my ear today while confessing that everyone won’t want to contribute or participate “productively” (per what the a local or broader social elite consider it to be), for any number of psychological or sociological reasons….and I agreed, still to say further, that “the goup” she defined as elite are obligated (per Integrationalism) to make a formidable offer to those non-participants in order to reach their (the groups) potential.
We cannot as an evolving species or group of species, afford to write-off sentient beings as obsolescence without engaging them well with information/resources available….or we are selling ourselves short.