Dolts in High Places

homer brain Among the rules described by Herman and Chomsky is the one that says, to rise to a position of power in our market-totalitarian society, you either have to be a moron, or unfailingly pretend you are one.

Want proof? Consider the answer Christina Romer, the recently departed Chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, provided to Bloomberg Business Week when it asked why unemployment is “higher than expected”:

BBW: Why do you think that is?

Romer: My guess is the main reason has to do with…the fact that [the recession] was caused by a financial crisis. Since it was such an unusual event, firms may have reacted more forcefully than was usual out of a fear of the unknown. Also, firms that couldn’t get credit may have had to lay more people off than normally.

What an absolute crock. First of all, Romer, a supposed world-class scholar on this very topic, wants you to believe that the current Great Depression III is the cause, rather than the consequence, of the widening gulf between economic production and employment.

Worse, her proffered explanation is a meaningless cloud of farts covering an exceptionally simple and powerful fact: Between 1990 and 2008, U.S. businesses tripled their computer investment/labor spending ratio. Computers are used for administration and communication, but they are also the core means of automating production processes. So, the simple fact is that capitalists are continuing to be capitalists. Their system works, for them. Over time, it employs fewer and fewer people per unit of output.

Being too stupid to track (or too well-trained to mention) this elementary process is the kind of thing that gets you the Presidency and the American Economic Association and a seat in the White House.

Romer is a Homer (Simpson).

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Martin
Guest
Martin

Always enjoying your posts, I wondered what you think of these words from Baudrillard, circa the 70’s, I believe. Never had read the legend, I was grateful that I comprehended the prose: Consumption is therefore a powerful element in social control (by atomizing individual consumers); yet at the same time it requires the intensification of bureaucratic control over the processes of consumption,which is subsequently heralded, with increased intensity, as the (italicized) reign of freedom We will never escape it. I know that features a word you have campaigned against, but I find it quite lucid and compelling.

Michael Dawson
Guest

Martin, I’ve never been a fan of JB. Personally, I think it’s quite misleading to describe corporate capitalist marketing as “bureaucratic.” It’s certainly commanded from on high within bureaucracies, but that’s only the tip of the iceberg. In practice, marketing campaigns are quite innovative and flexible and boundary-challenging, and make us of a wide variety of resources, people, and strategies. To chalk all that up to “bureaucracy” is to obscure the dynamism and most of the actions. The DMV is a bureaucracy in action. BBM is corporate capitalist command in action. Weber’s attempt to equate the two never impressed me.… Read more »

Michael Dawson
Guest

Martin, I’ve never been a fan of JB. Personally, I think it’s quite misleading to describe corporate capitalist marketing as “bureaucratic.” It’s certainly commanded from on high within bureaucracies, but that’s only the tip of the iceberg. In practice, marketing campaigns are quite innovative and flexible and boundary-challenging, and make use of a wide variety of resources, people, and strategies. To chalk all that up to “bureaucracy” is to obscure the dynamism and most of the actions. The DMV is a bureaucracy in action. BBM is corporate capitalist command in action. Weber’s attempt to equate the two never impressed me.… Read more »

Martin
Guest
Martin

Thanks for your informed reaction, MD – your third-to-the-last paragraph does succinctly explain the real processes at work.
I do, still, enjoy the “prophetic” part of the JB quote, and the totalizing conclusion. The “freedom” to purchase goods with wages involves so many totalitarian unfreedoms – but there is always that next “development.” Who in the academy is talking about this entrenching “social power” with care and thorough thought? No one person can ever had a lock on Truth, but damn, there has to be someone doing a better than half-assed (Ritzer/Barber?) job?

Michael Dawson
Guest

Personally, I’m not aware of anybody who’s talking about the connections between marketing/commodification/commercialization with precision and respect for evidence, at least not on a sustained basis. Of course, trying that would get you into quick trouble with the dean, so there are institutional reasons. Much safer to talk silly with some big words. That way, you can cater to kids desires to feel liberated without drawing the ire of anybody important.

There are glimmers, of course. Did you catch this?

http://carbusters.org/2010/08/11/cars-can-never-run-cleanly-the-automobile-as-an-anti-social-form/

Martin
Guest
Martin

Thanks for the link, and the true words before. I echo that the stress in rescuing nearly-extinct sociology has to be on realism – yet a “car-free world” is like a pollution-free air.
We can work to lessen the evil, and it would all nice and fine if the car had never come, but they are not going to disappear anytime soon, so why make Baudrillard-like totalizing philosophy an academic pastime? What grade would a UC professor give that stuff – A+, anybody need a ride home?

Michael Dawson
Guest

Cars may not and probably cannot disappear very quickly, but we could certainly start insisting upon new directions in transportation priorities.

Of course, in order to do that, you have to beat the capitalist class on its home turf…

History, however, is going to beat them there in any event, so why not start pushing on the issue?