Making Money Off

I need help, evidently

dearest readers, andy pink live from my bedroom at 249 Hurley 1F — this is a sneak peek, coming attraction, and proleptic promise of the "cultural studies and revolution" book — to come!

"making money off of other people's problems": the best that capitalism can do — likely — is the welfare state, which dates to the 19th century economic theory (also including straight sociological work) of john maynard keynes (who was also gay) — a british economist who first theorized the (british, europan) welfare state. the theory is that the government must intervene in times of economic trouble, usually from stagnation, and interject money into the economy, which is itself a practice that the banks (federal reserve) now do because they scandalously own the money supply in the united states (and in all first-nations: like, the bank of england, for example, that was incorporated in 1789). (this is a separate problem that i have written about elsewhere.)

there are two types of state keynesian intervention: first, "commercial keynseiasm" which is the idea that government need not infuse money into the economy (tax and spend) because businesses (and the federal reserve) can generate enough demand (supply is never the problem under advanced capitalism) — that the commerical/private sphere can resolve the problem; then second, there is "statist keynesianism" which suggests that in times of downturn and depression the government needs to spend money (hence its deficit and debt) in order to stimuate activity and generate spending by consumers (and here also by the government). we live mostly in the times in this country of "statist keynsenianism," namely that the state taxes and spends (or borrows and spends) and this stimulates the economy (whatever that strange sexual metaphor might mean to you) and makes for a functional economy (and massive debt since the government doesn't own the money supply it has to borrow from the banks).

the question then becomes: how will the government spend money? under capital, or more specifically in the welfare state, the government supplies social services (like snap, public housing, medicaid, social security, bridges and roads, public education, and the like) and this — mostly unintentionally — generates jobs (social workers, teachers, construction men, hospital workers, bureacrats, clerks, and the like) that ultimately generates spending (thereby stimulating production) and — with the seemingly added benefit — of helping american citizens by providing services that they need via help. this is essentially the point. the welfare state — which is probably the best that capitalism can do — serves this purpose: it produces jobs for employees who are in need of a job and services (commodities) for consumers who are in need of help. the consequence of organizing the economy around this dynamic is profound: it creates a citizenry that needs helps, that is dysfunctional, that is sick, that is uneducated, that are drug abusers, and so. Capitalism produces "illness" and "poverty." it's a mass population of people with problems, and this is the condition of the help that pays professionals to provide these services (commodities).

this is the essence of my illustrative expression: "making money off of other people's problems." the dynamic is helper/helped, counselor/patient, client/doctor, student/teacher, druggie/counseler, population/police, and so on. this is fundamentally a construction — life need not be organized around what's sometimes called by those who make money off the poverty industry, and the drug industry, and the education industry, and so on — "the helping professions." if someone comes to me and says that they can help me, i generally run in the other direction. reagan famously said that the 7 most frightening words are: "the government is coming to help you." true story.

under capitalism, a good or service (commodity) is only given for reason and purpose: that is, money, a job, a paycheck. there is no true gift-giving under capital, and certainly within a system that is organized by tit-for-tat, in which the gift (good, service, commodity) is only given in order to receive money. this extends application of the giver/given structure wide: all exchanges in capitalism are false gifts, they are always calculated, standardized, reciprocated, and so on. there is no gift-giving under capital when the condition is the return of the gift in speculation. so, essentially, we make money off of other people's problems. the nefarious effect of this dynamic in society is that the system must keep people in need, they need to be helped, castrated, lacking, dysfunctional, wrong, sick, and so on. the welfare state is its own solution: more welfare state, more commodities, goods, services, and the like. everybody is motivated by either need (goods and services that people may or may not actually need) and money (job, paycheck, etc.). this is a violent, pathetic system, and though it may be the best that capitalism can do, we shouldn't be satisfied with it, it's ugly.

rich'll come around, especially after such a delay of a couple of years, i was a bit effusive, but i don't revise my claim that i fell in love with him at first sight (it's just a fact on my end), but he'll have to figure out how to make it happen, i'm not going back in his store, and i do think the disney world* trip is a good idea. rich would do well to look into kierkegaard (18th c. philosopher) and his girl regina; it doesn't have to be that intense but i do want to land my dick in his ass, at least once. we should celebrate.

scared/ashamed,

xoxo andy pink