Contextualising Economy

Economy as a multi-folded, multi-faceted and interdependent phenomenon is conceptualised, experienced and approached differently in every country. This is partly the reason why globalisation, conducted as it had been up until now, brought mixed and sometimes devastating results. I will briefly introduce the contextualisation of economy by looking at it from angles of debt and apparent inequality. I will lean on and use Joseph Stiglitz understandings as a platform to introduce the cosmic perspective to the current Earthly experiences provided by the economic system.

It is the nature of economy to regularly go through recessions, in time and history but the current global debt, triggered in 2008, is not recoverable. We operate in a closed – circuit system, therefore the debt will shift from country to country, taking its toll on the weaker economies but from mathematical point of view, it cannot be fully recovered. All austerity measures or anti-austerity campaigns are but a plaster onto an oozing wound without clearing the cause of the infection. The sooner we realise this fact the more able we will be to find solutions in a creative rather than reactive manner.

Also, one of the most prevalent thoughts is that the economic system contributes to our experience of inequality. According to Joseph Stiglitz, one of the most prominent economists in the West, the wealthy 1% is wealthier than ever and the gap between the wealthy and the poor is growing wider. This seems to be the result of free market practices and the governments should be able to do something about it. Here I would like to nudge the subject a little and give few pointers as to why what is – is as it is, showing that the current economic situation (as well as its political and social aspects) sits within a wider, non-human, net of dependencies which we might not have taken into account when trying to find a solution for the growing economic discontent, incapacity and inadequacy (as opposed to inequality).

First of all, when Stiglitz observes that the situation is getting ‘worse’, what does he actually mean? How is the ‘worse’ measured? By which standards and who is manipulating the criteria and definitions of what is rich? If Stiglitz’s recommendations are correct, and they are certainly reasonable, why then, for the past 30 years, the situation had been getting ‘worse’ – is it because his theory is not applied, is it because it is based on the correct observations but false premise? Is it because his remedy is actually a diluted version of what had caused the problems in the first place? Is it in Stiglitz’s interest to fix the problem? I shall leave these for your own reflection.

However, from the human (or perceptual) point of view, the system as it is experienced now had not been designed to be inclusive and ‘equal’ – it had been designed to ‘exploit’ and as such it is working very well. Stiglitz proposes that the politicians should put policies in place to bridge the gap, to somehow distribute the wealth to all levels of social structures and here’s one potential reason why it couldn’t work. The politicians are part of the wealthy 1% – it is only logical and in the interest for self-preservation not to remedy/change the current situation. For the politicians it would be like cutting off the branch they are sitting on.

Moving onto the next perceptual view of collective subconscious which influences economy – ‘wealth’ and ‘poverty’ are not only psychological archetypes but also symptoms of a particular level of consciousness. These cannot be altered systemically, so however many jobs are created, however great the state’s provision (and the drain at the same time, for the states, to function properly in a balanced way and do their job, should refrain from providing for people) people will either disregard the opportunities and/or abuse what had been provided.

Then there are ‘structural’ / systemic aspects which influence the economic system but are not influenced by it in return.

Economic calculation is an example of a negative systemic transference, taking from and distorting algebraic calculations. Algebra is the closest descriptive of the universal truth, its calculations are always exact even if speculative. Economy, on the other hand, is always speculative and never exact. As an abstract concept applied to the ever changing landscape of human behaviour and evolution, it will always be two steps behind as it is not flexible. Economic and political systems would either have to merge or be entirely separate for each to play its role to the benefit of itself, adjoining systems and the whole. Either scenario poses algebraic (therefore Absolute) paradox for no human system can be included in core calculation without proving itself wrong.

Structurally, economy aligned itself in the shape of a pyramid. As a business model, both on macro and micro levels, the pyramid had always worked and will without fail. Stiglitz, highlighting the growing gap between the top (wealthy) of the pyramid and the bottom (poor), ‘complains’ that the pyramid works. It cannot not work. It is a planetary template imprinted in the Earth’s energy grid. Its shape cannot be changed simply by moving the elements within (shifting debt from one country to another or ‘distributing’ wealth). Presence of the pyramid template is like the law of gravity ~ it is futile to fight it, or complain that it works, but we can benefit from working with it. The current situation is that the said pyramid functions in isolation and acts as a single mechanism (Rys 31 green line). If ‘we’ apply a proportionate pyramid (black line) to counterbalance the current state, we will start seeing ‘equalising’ of economic discrepancies on the global level. Note the shape created after all four pyramids ‘slot in’ is NOT Merkaba.

Moving further away still; from the supra (or cosmic) level, Earth is like a giant mirror, only reflecting cosmic events in a condensed manner. The proverbial ‘as above so below’ is in fact taking place, only the movements of cosmic gases, planets and galaxies, which happen in million light years and have enough ‘space’ to unfold, on Earth are reflected ‘immediately’ and can be experienced as conflicts, crises, earthquakes etc. If we do not look at our personal and collective life events within the context of the cosmic cycle we are currently (or at any given time) in, we will fail to recognise our significance and role in the said events and therefore not utilise them correctly.

Last but not least, personally, I would refrain from generalising and assessing wealth, well being and happiness of any society by its capacity to consume, but rather by its basic values and what they represent for the wider global community. There are plenty of money makers who understood what an all consuming yet fragmented experience it is and chose differently (bus motorhome, or extreme green). Equally, there are millionaires who, through their realised wealth realise planetary wisdom (Paul Lister). Is the land ownership entirely ‘bad’ if it is utilised to promote progressive action? Couldn’t we, instead of opposing, embrace what the land owners had taught us and take the learning to another level? I believe many governments would benefit from exploring mindsets of such millionaires and focus on long-term and progressive rather than economic policy.

Expansion and/or food for thought:

The price of inequality” by Joseph Stiglitz

We are better off in peace. In depth analysis of economic outcomes for Israel and Palestine, should they choose peace.

The Fifth Part of “Ethics” by Benedict Spinoza

Related posts: Hierarchy, 25 Jan 2015