bubba da prez in.try.ode evolutionary economics
Before we get to the aberrant
verbal pyrotechnics and
"sour-candy" jokes, for
which I am justifiably
notorious, I should like
to insert an "in text"
The hyperlink to this article was sent by e.mail to some sixty-three (63) law school professors.
In a preceding e.mail, I tried to inform them about unanticipated consequences that are bound to flow from the recent Supreme Court's ruling on "eminent domain". From what I can tell, because I'm only a layperson and in dire lack of advanced degrees in Constitutional jurisprudence, I was ignored.
Recently, nonetheless, a few of those pre-eminent authorities in Constitutional jurisprudence have begun to "get it". Talk about irony! It was the so-called conservative Supreme Court justices, who set this country on the road to a "Marxist" state.
Their ruling on eminent domain has, potentially, made the government, in general, a partner in every private enterprise in this country. The partner that can destroy the other partner is the SENIOR partner.
In truth, it saddens me that our contemporaneous so-called conservatives lack even the faintest inkling of history. Evidently, the Supreme Court justices in question forgot that "the power to tax is the power to destroy".
Did I just now employ the word "potentially" ... ah, yes, my little chick-a-dees, keep in mind that, throughout history, potentiality eventually becomes actuality.
Now, lemme start elucidating the rather outlandish title. It all started with James Joyce. Just about every college freshman in these United States of America has had to take, or has to take, or will have to take one or two English courses. And one of the assigned readings was, or is, or will be PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN, which is a rather straightforward piece of literature.
Pity the poor sapsucker, who has to struggle through Joyce's FINNEGAN'S WAKE ... wood'ja (?) buh-leave! I read it out of sheer curiosity ... well, tried to, at any rate. We have it on the word of trustworthy authorities that every sentence contains outlandish word play. To let you, dear Reader, try a taste of that word play is why this piece has the title it does.
Unlike Joyce, I shall now elucidate the references. Let's start with "bubba da prez". That refers to that American President, William Jefferson Clinton. Evidently, his political enemies would, whenever the opportunity presented itself, gleefully allude to his humble Arkansas beginnings.
Rather than "reared", Clinton was "raised" by a singleton mother, and he was sired by an absent father, who sired one or two half-siblings to the future president. In urban dyslore, "bubba" is a derogatory sobriquet.
Now, let's tackle "in.try.ode", which is pronounced pretty much the way its spelling suggests. The syllables "in" and "ode" are pulled, in part, out of the word "intro", which is a term in jazz for an introductory musical passage. And the "de" particle is meant to suggest the past tense.
Now, here's where I take pride. The two syllables "try" and "ode" are meant to allude to the triode vacuum tube. Funny story about its inventor, Thomas Alva Edison.
Whatever he could claim having invented, he would swiftly attempt to patent. According to his biographers, he was as much business man as inventor ... there's lots of money to be made from licensing this or that economically fruitful invention.
It must be that Edison the father had a rather low opinion of his son. In spite of his most persuasive efforts, the kid failed in getting the old man to patent the triode vacuum tube. It was that invention that would later make radio and later television marvels of communication
... oh, br'dah! we're not talking millions of dollars ... oh, sweet ever lovin' lord, we're talking hundreds of millions at a time, when a dollar was worth, in today's money, fifteen (15) dollars ... ya'know, that's one hell'va lot of chicken feed ... oh, yeah ...
The word play in the syllables "try" and "ode" is meant to suggest the type of progress "bubba da prez" was trying to achieve for the country. Just to emphasize the point a bit, please, dear Reader, recall what you've just read about the triode vacuum tube.
Just as that invention enabled a sea change in people's capacity to communicate, had "bubba da prez" succeeded, there would've been a similar sea change in how economic policy gets formulated. (ah, sorry about that elongated sentence) ... oh, yeah, the syllable "try" is meant to suggest attempting.
True enough, this or that following passage is off the topic. In my case, the spirit is simply too susceptible to temptation. Rather recently, some financial concern was trying to suck in fish ... ah, I mean rather ... "attract clientele" with rather unusual commercials. In those commercials, visionaries are being persecuted by mobs of benighted local yokels.
Here's something that's bound to enflame the ire of the benighted dolts, who pursued the impeachment of bubba da prez. It's simply way too easy to posit a comparison between "bubba da prez" and those persecuted visionaries.
Even further off the topic, it would be all too easy to note the difference in the persecution of Clinton and the censure of "dum'ass botch". In the case of the former, the impetus for impeachment was ejaculated down from the top, whereas in the case of the latter, it's sprouting up from the bottom.
ah, yes, what about "evolutionary economics".
As I remember recent history, President Clinton opened the way for evolutionary economics by getting his political party to push through, with his Vice President's tie-breaking vote, tax increases on our country's wealthiest tax payers.
Whatever else those tax increases might have accomplished, they did allow the possibility of hope for paying down the nation's debt. Under "dum'ass botch", such a hope would be justifiably considered a deranged pipe dream.
Here's a question that some astute historian would love to ask former President Clinton:
"When you proposed those tax increases, which outraged the country's right wing, were (?) you aware that you were acquainting the country with "evolutionary economics"!
However he might answer, the fact of the matter is that he was indeed acquainting the country with "evolutionary economics".
Here and now, let's suppose the former president were to answer in the negative. That would raise another question. "How on earth could (?) he have acquired knowledge of evolutionary economics! Somehow, he knew more evolutionary economics than he could articulate.
As an aside, I remember a professor, who talked about shipbuilders, who were plying their trade years before Newton published his three laws of motion ... mirable dictu ships were being built within Newtonian constraints. Anyway, the professor asserted that ship builders back then knew more physics than they could articulate.
With regard to the former president, the unarticulated knowledge of evolutionary economics must've come his way through some sort of intellectual osmosis.
The osmosis must have begun with a doctoral dissertation, written by young Mister John Forbes Nash jr, while he was a graduate math student at Princeton. About the first thing he did, when he got to Princeton, was talk with the "pope of physics", Albert Einstein.
With regard to the importance of Doctor Nash's dissertation, it would be hard to exaggerate both its significance and its future impact. In certain respects, the way Nash circumscribed economics matches in intellectual achievement the way Einstein circumscribed physics.
Okay, that last sentence may call for some illustration ... very well, here it is. Whenever our rocket scientists send, to the outer shells of our solar system, rockets with cargo to harvest scientific data, they run up against constraints, derived with stomach-churning rigor from Einstein's theory of relativity. Those rockets can go just so fast for just so long on just so much fuel.
In economics, similar constraints, as derived from Nash's dissertation NON-COOPERATIVE GAMES, apply with regard to trade and commerce, and even biological evolution.
Ahem, NOW, dear Reader, do you (?) comprehend whence comes the "evolutionary" in evolutionary economics!And that, my dear little chick-a-dees, is what I'm trying to get across with the term "evolutionary economics".
As for the three "rallying cries" that mentioned in the enclosed graphic, well, I think I did justice with regard to the third. As for the one that immediately precedes that, you, dear Reader, may easily find the post, where I discuss it in detail. Heck, I've even appended a note of demurral from some blogger, known as Maximus Clarke.
The way I understand what is chancefiring between that blogger and me, the transaction is rather, well, convoluted. Let's start with the movie title THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW. With regard to "that was then", yeah, it's a good bet we'd concur. As for "this is now", it may be a good bet we concur. Where I leave that sapsucker in the dust comes with HERE'S HOW IT WILL BE.
I still say that Supreme Court justices should keep in mind that they serve, ULTIMATELY, at the pleasure of the people.
What I mean by the very first new rallying cry can be found somewhere in my blog ... look for LAW AND ORDER.
Getting that ad to run in my home town weekly cost me ninety-four dollars ($94). Whoever doesn't believe me is perfectly free to call its editor and publisher.
The ad is classified as "political" in that it expresses my hope to enter the House of Representatives as the occupant of the seat for Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District.
ya'know, I'm speculating about what objections my likely opponent will raise against me. The guy might claim that I think that I'm better than regular people, who work hard, provide for their family's welfare, pay their taxes, go to church, and in general "play by the rules".
I can hear myself countering with something like so:
"My opponent claims that I think I'm better than regular people. In as much as he claims he's regular people, that has to mean more than he understands. Quite frankly, he has to believe that I think I'm better than he is.
Let's take it a couple steps further. He has to believe that I think I'm his superior. He has to believe that I think he is my inferior.
Well, let's suppose all the foregoing is true. Maybe, I do indeed think this and the other thing. In my defense, let me ask this question:
"Does my thinking that I'm better than he is make him any more or any less human?"
Quite candidly, I don't think so. Whether I think he is my inferior, or my equal, or even my superior, that does not make him any more or any less human. In theological terms, what I think about him has absolutely nothing to do with how his soul is perceived by God. In the eyes of the Lord, his soul is just as precious as anybody else's, just as precious as mine, just as precious as yours.
ya'know, that reminds me of a certain sour-candy joke ... here's how it goes:
GOOD NEWS: you don't have an inferiority complex.
BAD NEWS: you really are inferior.
Just because I feel like doing so, I'll now delve into the concept of regular folks. Let's face it ... regular folks do not chide our supposedly conservative Supreme Court for setting this country on the road to a "Marxist" state. If you, dear Reader, will recall the previous paragraphs in this essay, I can affirm in all good conscience that I do so.
Lemme reiterate. Yes and yes again, I do chide our supposedly conservative Supreme Court for setting this country on the road to a "Marxist" state.
When all the foregoing is taken into consideration, what should a reasonable person conclude? ... that I'm "regular folks" ... aaaay, c'mon ... I don't think so.
Let's push the envelope a bit more with another rhetorical question. Does my being (?) outside the category of "regular folks" make me any more or any less human! Again, I don't think so.
.he who is known as sefton
APPENDED NOTE -
Yes, I did promise Orrin a link to a certain article on that brothersjudd blog. Unfortunately, when I try to insert the entirety of that link into this post, blogger.com goes haywire.
So, what is the intriqued reader to do? Such a reader need only comply with the following simple directions, after clicking on the hyperlink below the response of those fabulous and furry brothersjudd. The reader will then click on the "Reviews" tab, which then brings up a window with various page titles. Found under the page title "Book Author", the "M" hyperlink should be clicked on ... hang on, you're almost there.
That will bring up another window with a list of various authors. Look for, and then click on "James MacDonald". The reference one is seeking gets pulled up with just one more click on the title ... ta da ....
A Free Nation Deep in Debt: The Financial Roots of Democracy.
The text in green contains the response, and that in blue, the hyperlink.
We can't discharge our debt without collapsing the world economy
> it's so inconsequential there's no coherent reason to try.