Category Archives: culture

5 Myths About Marijuana–Debunked

Posted on by
Reply

ReeferMadnessPoster

The more research is released, the more legalization makes sense.

By Owen Poindexter

Source: Alternet

Back in the 1930s, the arguments to criminalize cannabis were bizarre and openly racist. The anti-pot crusader Harry Anslinger made all sorts of over-the-top claims, such as, “Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters.”

Nowadays more than 100 million Americans say they’ve smoke pot, millions use cannabis regularly to treat illnesses and it is as legal as alcohol in two U.S. states. However, it remains illegal under federal law largely due to scare tactics ingrained in our society, which date back even prior to Anslinger.

Today, pot legalization opponents try a little harder to sound reasonable, but their claims don’t do much better than Anslinger’s under scrutiny. Recent studies have picked apart the justifications for criminalizing marijuana. Here are five of the most popular arguments against cannabis legalization that are easily undermined by objective data.

1. Pot leads to crime. If alcohol prohibition taught us anything it’s that prohibition itself leads to crime, not what is prohibited. While cannabis has shaken the psychotic Reefer Madness reputation over the years, the association between weed and crime is still alive and well in certain realms of the media, which are happy to present data without appropriate statistical caveats.

As for the studies that carefully and objectively examine their data, they find no association between cannabis and crime. A recent study in the journal PLOS One found that in states that legalized medical marijuana between 1990 and 2006 the crime rate either remained the same or decreased.

Another study looked at the Lambeth borough of London, which depenalized cannabis for 13 months in 2001-2002. The study found that this actually reduced other types of crime, because Lambeth police could focus their energy elsewhere.

These results fit with common sense. Cannabis has a range of effects on mood and behavior, but they don’t include violence, impulsivity or other traits that would turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals.

2. The gateway theory. The gateway theory has long been the stock response of marijuana opponents to the notion that cannabis itself isn’t that bad for you. They falsely claim it leads to harder stuff, and insist that what starts with a joint ends with a heroin needle.

While it’s true that most users of hard drugs used marijuana and alcohol first, that doesn’t prove that cannabis use leads to harder drugs. Correlation does not equal causality—most heroin users have worn jeans at some point in their lives, but it’s unlikely that one leads to another.

But is it at least plausible that cannabis use creates a bridge to experimenting with more dangerous chemicals? The research says no.

A RAND Institute study using data collected from 1982-1994 found that drug use patterns in American youths can be explained without resorting to a gateway effect. People who are interested in mind-altering substances are likely to have tried pot, as it is the most popular and available illicit drug. This and other circumstantial factors related to drug availability and how old someone was when they first used cannabis were sufficient to explain drug use patterns. Since then, numerous peer-reviewed studies have been published, supporting RAND’s basic conclusions.

Holland provides a good natural experiment in the effects of cannabis use, as marijuana has been legal there for citizens since 1976. A RAND Corporation study from 2011, titled What Can We Learn From The Dutch Coffee Shop Experience? found no causal relationship between using cannabis and harder drugs. In fact, because legalization meant that people went to a coffee shop, not a dealer, to get high, RAND found that legal cannabis likely reduced rates of harder drug use.

3. Cannabis has no medicinal purpose. Even though it has been slain many times over at this point, this idea is worth mentioning because cannabis is still listed as a Schedule I substance by the U.S. government, which implies that the official federal stance is that it has no medical use and is “dangerous.” However, just the opposite is true according to the actual facts. Almost half the states in the U.S. already have some kind of medical marijuana law (20 plus Washington D.C.) and many more are likely to legalize medical marijuana in this year’s elections.

Cannabis has been shown to effectively treat a slew of conditions including seizure disorders ( often quite dramatically), glaucoma, and symptoms related to chemotherapy. There is even evidence it can reduce certain types of cancerous tumors.

This is all well known and well documented, and yet cannabis remains a Schedule I drug. While it’s hard to find anyone who will still defend this policy, it remains the law of the land, and a major stumbling block on the path to reform.

4. Marijuana is addictive. The addiction claim has been contained over time, but never fully eradicated. Cannabis faces some guilt by association. How could alcohol, tobacco, heroin and cocaine all be clearly addictive and yet weed somehow isn’t?

Furthermore, with words like stoner and pothead in the lexicon, our culture has a firm grasp of the weed-dependent stereotype. When we think of marijuana addiction, an image comes to mind. He (usually a he), smokes pot and eats all day, is smelly and unshaven, watches too much TV and/or plays too many video games, and has a crappy job if he has a job at all. And sure, a lot of people actually do know someone like that, but the research show that, that someone is probably choosing their lifestyle rather than trapped in it by an actual addiction.

Regardless of how the addiction myth has stuck around, it is just that: a myth. The most commonly cited study on cannabis dependence declared that 4% of Americans 15-54 are dependent on cannabis. That’s compared to 24% who are dependent on tobacco and 14% on alcohol. Among users, they found that 9% of cannabis users who try it get hooked, as compared to 32% for tobacco and 15% for alcohol.

So cannabis seems to show some propensity for dependence, but for every dependent user, there are 10 who don’t develop that sort of issue, and this rate is better than that of popular legal drugs.

Furthermore, even the 9% figure is likely inflated. A subject in the oft-cited study was deemed “dependent” if they answered yes to at least three of seven questions. The survey included questions that would take a very different meaning with legal drugs than illegal, such as if “a great deal of time was spent in activities necessary to get the substance, taking the substance, or recovering from its effects.”

This study was conducted in the 1990s, before any state had recognized the medical use of cannabis, and acquiring it regularly involved considerable effort. Because of this, it’s not hard to imagine that users would experience “important social, occupational, or recreational activities given up or reduced because of use,” which was another criterion for dependence. It is quite possible the survey mistook habitual use for dependence in some cases.

We can be sure that cannabis is significantly less habit-forming than alcohol, and especially tobacco, and the degree to which people become dependent is probably overstated.

5. Pot makes users lazy. This idea is the most persistent: we rarely question the cultural belief that getting high saps one’s motivation. If there is any truth to that, it has been difficult to find in studies. What seems to be going on instead is that about 5-6% of the population has “amotivational syndrome,” and there is no significant difference in this between cannabis users and everyone else. One study looked at daily pot smokers and compared them to people who never touch pot. This found no significant difference between the two groups. There was a small difference in “subjective well-being” (how happy the subject says he or she is) favoring non-smokers, but the study authors ascribed much of this to medical conditions some of the subjects were taking cannabis to mitigate.

More than anything, the idea that stoners are lazy seems to be confirmation bias. We shrug off the examples that contradict that notion as special cases and nod sagely when our suspicions are confirmed. Furthermore, we fail to group unmotivated non-users with unmotivated users.

***

As the stigma against cannabis research has disappeared and more good data has been made available, the arguments against legalization have fallen. If cannabis is a plant with legitimate medical uses, does not lead to crime or harder drugs, is not addictive and doesn’t make you lazy, what argument for prohibition remains?

If there are still legitimate reasons to keep cannabis criminalized, let’s talk about them, but if not, let’s cut out a major revenue stream of Mexico’s vicious drug cartels, grant easy access to medicine for people who need it, provide a major boost to our economy, and legalize already.

 

Owen Poindexter is a freelance writer. See his work at owenpoindexter.com and follow him @owenpoindexter.

The Surprising Reason That Empathising With Strangers Can Be Hard

Posted on by
Reply

bpd empathy

Source: Psyblog

Stress from the presence of strangers reduces people’s ability to empathise, a new study finds.

However, just 15 minutes of playing a video game together is enough to overcome this barrier and allow strangers to empathise with each other.

Professor Jeffrey Mogil, who led the study, said:

“President Barack Obama has described an ‘empathy deficit’ that fuels misunderstanding, divisions, and conflict.

This research identifies a reason for the empathy gap and answers the vital question of how do we create empathy between strangers.

In this case, creating empathy was as simple as spending 15 minutes together playing the video game Rock Band®.”

The study, published in the journal Current Biology, had people submerging their arm in ice-cold water either alone or with a stranger (Martin et al., 2015).

The presence or absence of a stranger also plunging their arm in to the water made no difference to how they rated the pain.

But, when they put their arms in the ice-cold water alongside a friend, their rating of the pain became much worse.

Professor Mogil explained:

“It would seem like more pain in the presence of a friend would be bad news, but it’s in fact a sign that there is strong empathy between individuals — they are indeed feeling each other’s pain.”

To demonstrate the link between stress and empathy, in another experiment people were given a drug called metyrapone, which blocks the hormonal stress reaction.

With this drug blocking their ‘fight-or-flight’ response, people putting their arm into the ice-cold water felt empathy for the stranger as well as their friend.

These results were replicated in mice: they also feel more pain when they are with a ‘cage mate’ than if it is just another mouse they don’t know.

But, with a drug blocking their stress response, like humans, mice empathise with friend and stranger alike.

Breaking the ice

In a third study, the researchers had people play the video game Rock Band® with a stranger for 15 minutes.

This was enough to reduce the stress response and allow people to experience empathy with a stranger when they plunged their arms into the cold water together.

Professor Mogil said:

“It turns out that even a shared experience that is as superficial as playing a video game together can move people from the ‘stranger zone’ to the ‘friend zone’ and generate meaningful levels of empathy.

This research demonstrates that basic strategies to reduce social stress could start to move us from an empathy deficit to a surplus.

These findings raise many fascinating questions because we know failures in empathy are central to various psychological disorders and even social conflicts at both the personal and societal level.

It’s also pretty surprising that empathy appears to work exactly the same way in mice and people.”

(Editor’s note: One should keep in mind that certain people such as psychopaths don’t have the same ability to feel empathy. This is not to demonize psychopaths, but by empathizing with them and attempting to understand their perspective we can better predict and influence their behavior, which can be important when dealing with psychopaths in positions of power.)

Saturday Matinee: Medianeras (aka Sidewalls)

Posted on by
Reply

medianeras-cartel

“Medianeras” (2011) depicts the quirky and serendipitous road to romance between Martin, an agoraphobic web designer, and Mariana, an aspiring architect who live in neighboring apartment buildings in Buenos Aires. Medianeras is the first feature film from writer/director Gustavo Taretto who creates a nice balance of quirkiness and realism in a story that has as much to say about the alienation and chaos of urban life as the humanistic potential of communications technology.

To view with English subtitles, click the “cc” button on the bottom left corner of the video window. Then click the “settings” button next to it, click “Spanish (automatic captions)”, click “translate captions”, scroll to “English” and click “ok”.

The Soft Drink That Conquered the World

Posted on by
Reply

coca_cola_coke_india

Environmental historian Bartow J. Elmore discusses the global consequences of ‘Coca-Cola capitalism.’

By Elaina Koros

Source: USnews.com

From its origins as a patent medicine formulated in a small southern pharmacy, Coca-Cola has grown into a multibillion-dollar company. Headquartered in Atlanta, it possesses one of the world’s most valuable brands. Yet despite its exponential growth over the decades, Coca-Cola has kept its operations streamlined by relying on partnerships with commercial titans like Monsanto and integrating its manufacturing plants with public water and recycling infrastructures, explains Bartow J. Elmore, an environmental historian at the University of Alabama. In his new book, “Citizen Coke: The Making of Coca-Cola Capitalism,” he argues that this business model, though widespread and successful, has global environmental consequences in the modern age. Elmore recently spoke with U.S. News about the sustainability and applicability of what he calls “Coca-Cola capitalism.” Excerpts:

What inspired you to write this book?

I grew up in Atlanta, born and raised on the syrupy Coke soft drink. Seeing this product that was from my hometown end up everywhere, I wondered how [something] that had started in the Jim Crow South in 1886 ended up all over the world. As someone who was interested in environmental history, I was particularly interested in answering that question from a materials standpoint. Beyond the advertising and marketing, how did the company acquire the natural resources it needed to put its product on retail shelves around the globe?

What is Coca-Cola’s business model?

I call the model Coca-Cola capitalism. I’d say what makes Coke great is not so much what Coke does, but what it doesn’t do. Coca-Cola embeds itself in systems of production and distribution that it doesn’t own. Coke didn’t own sugar plantations. It didn’t own caffeine processing plants. It didn’t own bottling businesses for most of its history. [Instead, it] relied on a host of independent businesses to supply its needs and to distribute its products.

How are Coke operations impacting the environment globally?

Coke is expanding into increasingly arid regions of the developing world, and that’s in part because Coke is going to places where there aren’t the same kinds of health concerns that there are in the United States. Unfortunately, that means they’re extracting water from places that don’t have a great deal of water to spare.

I think of the human body as part of the environment, and I end the book by explaining how the stomach has become a kind of silo, a storage unit for Coke’s excess. In a nation where more than 30 percent of people are obese today, this is a hot issue for Coca-Cola.

How has Coke’s expansion impacted other companies and the public?

One great example is Monsanto. You wouldn’t have a chemical company like Monsanto without Coke, because Coke in the early 20th century bought all of Monsanto’s main product, which was saccharin, an artificial sweetener. If you go to the Monsanto website, they say that in 1903 and 1905, without Coca-Cola’s massive purchases of their saccharin, they would not exist. I think that’s true of a lot of companies. It’s amazing how many businesses Coke has kept alive through its huge purchasing contracts.

When I say that Coca-Cola capitalism involves partnering with people, that often means the government. I think two good examples of this are public water supplies and recycling. Coke, throughout its history, depended on bottlers who tapped into the public water supply to access 80 percent of what they sold to consumers, which was water, 80 percent of the finished product. In the early 20th century, cities and even the federal government participated in building this infrastructure, spending billions of dollars to bring fresh, clean water to cities and increasingly to rural areas of the country. So, what made Coke expand so rapidly was that it was able to tap into that government infrastructure.

The other example would be recycling. If you look at the history, you see that Coca-Cola and its industry partners lobbied heavily in Congress to try and get curbside recycling to be the solution to the nation’s litter problem. Why not have you and I, the regular taxpayer, pay for that infrastructure and, in a way, conveniently bring the company’s packaging back to the company?

How would you curb some of the negative effects of Coke’s operations and products?

One thing is to make companies pay for the pollution they generate. If we don’t like litter, then we should force corporations to realize that by putting a price tag on it. I would say the same thing goes for obesity. If we think that these products contribute to really expensive health costs like obesity, then let’s make these corporations change. They’ll find ways to respond to the pressures that people put on them.

After Legalization, Why Can’t People’s Prior Pot Convictions Be Wiped Clean?

Posted on by
Reply

marijuana_legal_gavel_620x350

In states where marijuana is now legal, many people still have small-scale possession convictions on their records. Advocates for “expungement” face uphill battles, from Washington state to Washington, DC

By Jake Thomas

Source: Substance.com

Marijuana won in November’s midterm elections, with Oregon, Alaska and the District of Columbia joining Colorado and Washington in legalizing it. But it’s a bittersweet victory for people who have a prior cannabis conviction for doing something that is now legal in their state. For now, efforts to clear pot marks from people’s records in states that have legalized the drug are facing uphill battles.

“It’s pretty much ruined my life at this point,” Aaron Pickel (below), who was busted in Oregon for carrying two to three pounds of pot-infused edibles, told the Oregonian. “I’ve tried pretty hard to find work, and when you’re going against people who have nothing on their record and you do, you’re not going to get it.” Pickel’s California medical marijuana card didn’t get him out of the charges. Although he was slapped with only a $200 fine and no jail time, the 33-year-old now has a felony rap—and stays in his mother’s spare bedroom.

People who have been convicted of misdemeanor and lesser charges for possessing the drug often have a hard time securing housing, jobs and education. Proponents of “expungement”—wiping records clean—argue that the voters of these states made it clear that possessing small amounts of marijuana should not be illegal and therefore people who have prior convictions should get a second chance. Opponents argue that people should abide by laws until they are changed.

The expungement debate does not address the plight of people currently serving time for nonviolent cannabis crimes, however. The ballot measures that legalized pot allow people to carry only small amounts—in the case of Oregon’s Measure 91, up to an ounce. Before the passage of these measures, these amounts wouldn’t be cause to lock someone up in prison—in Oregon, it resulted in a violation and a fine. Someone would need to possess up to four ounces to be charged with a felony. Carrying four ounces is still illegal under Measure 91.

“I’ve tried pretty hard to find work, and when you’re going against people who have nothing on their record and you do, you’re not going to get it,” said Aaron Pickel, who was busted in Oregon for carrying several cookies and other pot-infused edibles.

There were 8 million marijuana-related arrests in the US between 2001 and 2010, according to a 2013 American Civil Liberties Union report. Nearly 36,000 people were arrested in 2010 alone in states and jurisdictions that have recently legalized pot. What’s worse, African-Americans, who already face discrimination in housing, employment and education, make up a disproportionate number of arrests. Nationally, they were 3.7 times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites in 2010, even though they used marijuana at similar rates.

“There are thousands of people in Washington state who have a misdemeanor marijuana conviction, and it hangs over their head when they apply for jobs or housing or education, and giving them a second chance will remove that obstacle,” says Washington state Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon, a Democrat, who introduced a bill in 2013 that would have cleared the records of people with misdemeanor marijuana convictions.

Fitzgibbon’s legislation ended up stuck in committee. He says that lawmakers apparently want to let the dust settle from pot becoming legal two years ago before further tinkering with marijuana laws. But he got pushback from the state prosecutors’ association, which opposes prior-conviction expungement.

A similar bill failed in the state legislature in Colorado, where pot was also legalized in 2012. But a ruling by the Colorado court of appeals in March could provide limited relief for people with pot convictions. The ruling stemmed from a 2010 court case that involved a woman who was charged with child abuse along with possessing methamphetamine and marijuana. Her lawyer, Brian Emeson, says that he was in the process of appealing her methamphetamine charge when the state legalized marijuana, so he appealed her pot charge as well. The court granted the appeal on the pot charge, removing it from her record.

“Thousands of people in Washington state have a misdemeanor marijuana conviction, and it hangs over their head when they apply for jobs or housing or education, and giving them a second chance will remove that obstacle,” said state Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon.

The ruling only affects people who have an active appeal for a pot possession charge, Emeson says. He estimates that number is anywhere from about a dozen to a hundred. He expects the Colorado supreme court to take up the issue next year and possibly reverse the appeals court ruling.

Emeson says that he was able to separate the marijuana charge from the others in his case, characterizing them as “relatively not that bad.” Emeson acknowledges that child abuse is a serious charge, but he says that courts often see much worse. “It’s impossible for people to ignore really, really bad facts in a case.”

Efforts to provide relief to people with prior pot convictions are likely to be complicated by other crimes on their records. “Most people convicted of marijuana are convicted of other things that are still illegal,” says Sam Kamin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Denver and one of the nation’s leading experts in marijuana regulation. Their crimes, not surprisingly, often involve possession or trafficking of large amounts of pot or other drugs.

Oregon lawmakers will begin grappling with this problem when they meet in the new year to discuss the implementation of the state’s pot legalization measure, says state Sen. Floyd Prozanski, a Democrat who chairs the senate’s judiciary committee. Prozanski says he does not expect any “blanket bills” that will provide automatic expungement.

People convicted of certain felonies and misdemeanors in Oregon can already petition to have their records expunged after a certain period of time has lapsed. Prozanski says that any effort to provide relief to people with pot convictions will rely on the state’s existing expungement process. Lawmakers may update the expungement process in response to marijuana becoming legal.

However, as in Colorado and Washington state, lawmakers will be mainly focused on implementing legal marijuana, Prozanski says. “[Expungement] is sort of secondary issue to the implementation of Measure 91.”

The situation for people with prior convictions is different in Washington, DC, says Mason Tvert, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. In October, the city council passed a bill that would allow people convicted of all crimes and misdemeanors that have become legal to have their records sealed.

“It’s astonishing that some congressional members are so concerned about blocking DC from enacting [its legalization measure]. If cartels and gangs had lobbyists on the Hill, preventing marijuana regulation would be their top legislative priority,” said  the Marijuana Policy Project‘s Mason Tvert.

The District of Columbia had the highest overall marijuana possession arrest rate in the country in 2010. African-Americans are eight times more likely to be arrested for pot than their white counterparts, according to the ACLU.

However, both this bill and the measure that legalized marijuana require approval by the incoming Republican Congress, which has not been sympathetic to marijuana legalization or people convicted of pot crimes. Some have already said they will oppose DC’s legalization measure. “I will consider using all resources available to a member of Congress to stop this action,” Rep. Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican, told the Washington Post.

Making good on that threat, congressional Republicans and Democrats struck a deal on Tuesday to fund the federal government through September that includes provisions upending Initiative 71’s legalization of pot, according to the Washington Post. At press time, advocates were debating whether or not the language in the bill offers a loophole allowing the will of DC voters to go forward.

How this mess will ensnare efforts of people to expunge their prior pot convictions remains to be seen. “There’s some uncertainty surrounding the effect the provision will have on the measure. It could end up being a situation in which the courts will decide,” Tvert wrote in an email. “With all of the issues facing the country, it’s astonishing that some congressional members are so concerned about blocking DC from enacting a widely supported local policy. If cartels and gangs had lobbyists on the Hill, preventing marijuana regulation would be their top legislative priority.”

Pro-pot politicians in a few other states are already taking steps to expunge peoples’ old marijuana convictions should the drug be legalized. One Maryland lawmaker has proposed legislation that would erase any prior marijuana-related offense that becomes legal. A candidate in last year’s Democratic primary for Pennsylvania governor called for legalizing pot and expunging records of people convicted of possessing it.

But one of the biggest victories for advocates of expunging peoples’ past drug records came in the 2014 midterm election in a state where pot legalization wasn’t even on the ballot. California voters approved Measure 47, which automatically and retroactively downgraded some nonviolent felonies, many of them drug-related, to misdemeanors. Some 10,000 people are eligible for immediate release, including many who have been jailed for drug misdemeanors—and, once again, a disproportionate number are African-Americans.

Jake Thomas is a reporter in Spokane, Washington. He has written for the Portland Mercury, Street Roots and numerous other publications. His website is here. He tweets at @jakethomas2009. This is his first piece for Substance.com.

Life in the Algorithm

Posted on by
Reply

images

By Douglas Haddow

Source: Adbusters

The searches we make, the news we read, the dates we go on, the advertisements we see, the products we buy and the music we listen to. The stock market. The surveillance society. The police state, and the drones. All guided by a force we never see and few understand.

A series of calculation procedures that come together to constitute capitalism’s secret ingredient — the all holy algorithm, that which binds and optimizes. Those strange numerical gods who decide whether or not you’re a terrorist and what kids’ toy is going to set the market on fire this Christmas. But what are they, where did they come from and how did they get so powerful?

Algorithms are not new. You can trace their origin all the way back to a 9th century Persian mathematician by the name of Muhammad ibn Musa al–Khwarizmi (Algoritmi in Latin) from whom the word derives its name. Then there was Abu Yusaf Ya’qub ibn Ishaq al–Kindi, a contemporary of al–Khwarizmi’s at Baghdad’s House of Wisdom. He discovered and developed the science of frequency analysis, or code–breaking, providing a basis for code breaker Alan Turing to develop his Turing Machine, the theoretical prototype for the 9 billion devices currently sending and receiving signals through the Internet.

When we talk about algorithms, when they come up in conversation, often tied to latent and emerging fears, we’re not talking about the mathematical models behind them, we’re talking about the models that the models were modeled on. Most people have never heard of a polytope, Boolean Logic or the Hirsch Conjecture. But everyone has a credit score, whether they like it or not.

If we want to interrogate the true nature of these numbers, the wizard behind the ghost in the machine, we need to look no further than Adam Smith, that dour Scot who lived with his mum and accidentally created the modern world.

Smith was neither a modernist nor a cosmopolitan. He was an absent’minded hermit who never married, had few friends, suffered from alternating fits of depression and hypochondria, travelled outside Britain on just one occasion and demanded that all his personal writing be burned upon his death. He was the supreme king of unintended consequences, a humble and misunderstood moral philosopher who became the patron saint of greed.

Most famously, and most tragically, Smith was an ambitious writer who got a bit flowery with his language on occasion, and, as a result, his entire legacy was reduced to two words: invisible and hand. As in, the Invisible Hand — that mysterious market force that secretly and surreptitiously guides all our actions and decisions. Or so we’ve been told.

In The Wealth of Nations, the blueprint for what became known as capitalism, Smith drops the phrase but once. It’s situated in a rather dry discussion on trade policy and is used as a metaphor in a straightforward critique of mercantilism’s excessive restrictions.

And that’s it. Just a cursory metaphor used for poetic flourish in an otherwise obscure and forgettable passage. And for the 150 years that followed the book’s publication, that’s exactly what it was — obscure and forgotten. Smith didn’t mention it, his contemporaries didn’t mention it, nor did his critics. Nary a soul on Earth repeated those two words or paid them any heed.

That is, until 1948, when everything changes.

If you look at a Google NGRAM chart of “invisible hand,” you’ll see that there was little to no interest in the phrase up until the 1930s and ’40s, at which point it begins to bubble up a bit, gaining traction in a few peripheral spheres here and there. Then in ’48, Chicago School economist Paul Samuelson writes a book called Economics: An Introductory Analysis, which would go on to become the best–selling economics book of all time.

In his book, Samuelson grabs hold of Smith’s wordplay and freebases meaning from it until a mere metaphor mutates into the economic doctrine that would define the shape and form of global finance for the remainder of the century, and beyond.

“Every individual, in pursuing only his own selfish good, was led, as if by an invisible hand, to achieve the best good for all, so that any interference with free competition by government was almost certain to be injurious,” writes Samuelson. And with that, not only is it justifiable to be callous in the pursuit of wealth, your callousness will somehow, vis–à–vis the invisible hand, uplift those you trample on your way to the top.

Picture Gordon Gekko, hair trickling with high–end product, walking with the gait of limitless sprezzatura, saying, “Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind.”

Samuelson would later go on to regret the liberties he took with Smith’s words, but the meme had already been injected into the passive hive mind of economics. What followed was a long and tangled game of economic telephone wherein Smith’s fatalistic conceit gradually took on mythical qualities. From turn of phrase to doctrine, from doctrine to dogma, from dogma to metaphysical law. The invisible hand became the celestial justification of the free market and the economic rationalist’s negation of anything that stood in its way.

Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek even went so far as to develop an entire theory of human interaction based on the myth. It was called Catallactics, and proposed that we did not live within an economy, but rather, a Catallaxy — a complex and self–organizing system in which every individual sent out a constant stream of complex signals that mixed to create overall market behavior.

Knowledge, Hayek argued, was distributed on an individual level, each person containing their own fraction of the whole.

The vast repository of human knowledge was inherently decentralized. Because of this, no central body or government agency could ever hope to contain enough of it to know what was really going on. But if allowed to move freely without meddling, these messages would come together to create order and equilibrium in the market.

This, he argued, is why the government should never meddle in the market. And why order could never be “planned,” and was instead “brought about by the mutual adjustment of many individual economies in a market.” As long as the signals, our private info–snowflakes, could float freely, the market would reach equilibrium.

Through Hayek, dogma became revelation — the invisible hand was not merely a magical presence promising equilibrium, it was also pointing us toward a not–too–distant utopia. And if we didn’t follow the hand? Oppression and despair would follow mankind into a dark hole of tyranny.

Hayek’s ideas spread swiftly through a series of think tanks connected to his economic clique, The Mont Pelerin Society, which counted Karl Popper, Ludwig von Mises and, of course, who else but Milton Friedman among its members. Together they successfully launched what we now call “neoliberalism” into the political consciousness.

Neoliberalism found its champions in Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Thatcher regularly corresponded with Hayek and used the slogan There Is No Alternative (TINA) to explain her affection for its concepts. Reagan hired Friedman to be his economic advisor. And together they carried out an economic revolution that smashed trade unions and deregulated and privatized anything and everything that could be guillotined. From this axis of Anglos, it spread to other parts of the Commonwealth, then to Europe, Asia, South America and beyond.

But no matter how much they stripped away government meddling, somehow the “abstract signals” still weren’t getting through. The hand remained clenched and crises endemic. Asia, Argentina, the Eurozone, the 2008 meltdown, the flash crash. The market continually failing to magically self–correct and achieve equilibrium.

The faithful kept their faith and stuck to the program. The crisis, both economic and existential, were met with a recommitment to the faith in the form of austerity and technology and the dream persisted.

The problem was obvious to anyone outside the neoliberal thought–bubble: the invisible hand wasn’t real and it didn’t exist. It never had existed. It wasn’t just invisible, but immaterial, made from the twisted fantasies of economists obsessed with achieving an impossible “equilibrium.” You couldn’t touch it, and it couldn’t touch you.
Until now.

In 2010, when the Dow Jones Industrial dropped 1000 points in under a minute, the biggest one–day point decline in history, it received far less attention then it deserved, because everything returned to normal a few seconds later. Now, miniature flash crashes occur constantly throughout the day. But this crash was a turning point, demonstrating that something had changed. That something was that the neoliberals had achieved what communists, socialists and Christians never could: they made their god real, and in doing so, achieved their utopia. They just didn’t let the rest of us in on it.

The critical flaw in Hayek’s vision of the hand was that a “central body” could never gather enough information. We know this to be untrue, and with big data and the analysis and manipulation of that data through algorithmic equation, the missing link between money and the machine was discovered.

The searches we make, the news we read, the dates we go on, the advertisements we see, the products we buy and the music we listen to. The stock market … All informed by this marriage between mathematics and capital, all working together in perfect harmony to achieve a singular goal — equilibrium. But it’s a curious sort of equilibrium. Less to do with the relationship between supply and demand, and more about the man and the market.

All these algorithms we encounter throughout the day, they’re working toward a greater goal: solving problems and learning how to think. Like the advent and rise of high–frequency trading, they’re part of an optimization trend that leads to a strange brand of perfection: automated profit.

And their current day use, no matter how impressive the specs, is still rooted in 7th century code–breaking. Only now it’s about breaking our individual codes. Throughout the day we send out thousands of our own individual abstract signals and the algorithms figure out how best to streamline our existence into the market’s needs. We’re all just cyphers waiting to get cracked.

This is not the stuff of Orwell and Huxley, but Amazon and the NSA.

There is an overwhelming feeling of inevitability surrounding all of this. With computational capacity still threatening to double every two years, the algorithmic estate will continue to expand and become more sophisticated. All of this development, testing and research is leading to a predictable outcome. Given that they are leading investment and research in the sector, Wall Street financiers will develop the world’s first fully functioning Artificial Intelligence.

If any of this feels inevitable, it’s because it was designed to make us feel that way. If the algorithms that organize the world of money were turned on their head and used to analyze the defects in their guiding philosophy, they would shred it all on one razor sharp fact: the world beyond the market is still a real one. And no matter how sophisticated the math, how brilliant the AI, we will always be living in it.

Outside of The Wealth of Nations, Smith employed the Invisible Hand concept on only two other occasions. Once in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, where he slags off the rich, and the other in the History of Astronomy, where he says:

For it may be observed, that in all Polytheistic religions, among savages, as well as in the early ages of Heathen antiquity, it is the irregular events of nature only that are ascribed to the agency and power of their gods. Fire burns, and water refreshes; heavy bodies descend, and lighter substances fly upwards, by the necessity of their own nature; the invisible hand of Jupiter was never apprehended to be employed in those matters.

These days, the “savages” kick back, polish their yachts and let the machines do their thinking for them. Their god is a primitive and cruel one. Worse yet, it lacks imagination. The future it sees is just an optimized version of the present. Everything that falls within its gaze is predictable, because mathematical sequences are predictable. What remains to be seen is whether or not human beings are as predictable as the machines think we are.

The Cowardly and Despicable American Presstitutes

Posted on by
Reply

aa-media-monkeys

By Paul Craig Roberts

Source: Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy

There is a brouhaha underway about an American journalist who told a story about being in a helicopter in a war zone. The helicopter was hit and had to land. Which war zone and when I don’t know. The US has created so many war zones that it is difficult to keep up with them all, and as you will see, I am not interested in the story for its own sake.

It turns out that the journalist has remembered incorrectly. He was in a helicopter in a war zone, but it wasn’t hit and didn’t have to land. The journalist has been accused of lying in order to make himself seem to be “a more seasoned war correspondent than he is.”

The journalist’s presstitute colleagues are all over him with accusations. He has even had to apologize to the troops. Which troops and why is unclear. The American requirement that everyone apologize for every word reminds me of the old Soviet practice, real or alleged by anti-communists, that required Soviet citizens to self-criticize.

National Public Radio (2-5-15) thought this story of the American journalist was so important that the program played a recording of the journalist telling his story. It sounded like a good story to me. The audience enjoyed it and was laughing. The journalist telling the story did not claim any heroism on his part or any failure on the part of the helicopter crew. It is normal for helicopters to take hits in war zones.

Having established that the journalist had actually stated that the helicopter was hit when in fact it wasn’t, NPR brought on the program a psychologist at the University of California, Irvine, an expert on “false memory.” The psychologist explained various reasons a person might have false memories, making the point that it is far from uncommon and that the journalist is most likely just another example. But the NPR presstitute still wanted to know if the journalist had intentionally lied in order to make himself look good. It was never explained why it made a journalist look good to be in a helicopter forced to land. But few presstitutes get to this depth of questioning.

Now to get to the real point. I was listening to this while driving as it was less depressing to listen to NPR’s propaganda than to listen to the Christian-Zionist preachers. In the previous hour NPR had presented listeners with three reports about civilian deaths in the break-away provinces in eastern and southern Ukraine. The first time I heard the report, the NPR presstitute recounted how explosives had hit a hospital killing 5 people in the break-away Donetsk Republic. The presstitute did not report that this was done by Ukrainian forces, instead suggesting that it could have been done by the “Russian-supported rebels.” He didn’t offer any explanation why the rebels would attack their own hospital. The impression left for that small percentage of informed Americans capable of thought is that presstitutes are not allowed to say that the Washington-backed Ukrainians attacked a hospital.

In all three reports, Secretary of State John Kerry was broadcast saying that the US wanted a diplomatic, peaceful solution, but that the Russians were blocking a peaceful solution by sending tank columns and troops into Ukraine. On my return trip, I heard over NPR Kerry twice more repeating the unsupported claim that Russian tanks and troops are pouring into Ukraine. Obviously, NPR was serving as a propaganda voice that Russia was invading Ukraine.

Think about this for a minute. We have been hearing from high US government officials, including the president himself, for months and months about Russian tank columns and troops entering Ukraine. The Russian government denies this steadfastly, but, of course, we cannot trust the now-demonized Russians. We are not allowed to believe them, because they are positioned as the Enemy, and good patriotic Americans never believe the Enemy.

But how can we help but believe the Russians? If all these Russian tank columns and troops that have allegedly been pouring into Ukraine were real, Washington’s puppet government in Kiev would have fallen sometime last year, and the conflict would be over. Anyone with a brain knows this.

So, we arrive at my point. A journalist told a harmless story and has been roasted alive and forced to apologize to the troops for lying. In the middle of this brouhaha, the US Secretary of State, the President of the United States, innumerable senators, executive branch officials, and presstitutes have repeatedly reported month after month Russian tank columns and troops entering Ukraine. Yet, despite all these Russian forces, the civilians in the break-away provinces of eastern and southern Ukraine are still being slaughtered by Washington’s puppet state in Kiev.

If Russian tanks and troops are this ineffective, why are NATO commanders and neoconservative warmongers warning of the dire danger that Russia poses to the Baltics, Poland, and Eastern Europe?

It doesn’t make any sense, does it?

So the question is: Why are the presstitutes all over some hapless journalist rather than holding accountable the Great Liars, John Kerry and Barak Obama?

The answer is: It is costless to the presstitutes to try to destroy, for totally insignificant reasons–perhaps just for the pleasure of it, like “American Sniper” killing people for fun–one of their own, but they would be fired if they hold Kerry and Obama accountable, and they know it. But they have to get someone, so they eat their own.

A democracy without an honest media cannot exist. In America democracy is a facade behind which operates every evil inclination of mankind. During the past 14 years the American people have supported governments that have invaded, bombed, or droned seven countries, killing, maiming, and displacing millions of people for no reason other than profit and hegemonic power. There is scant sign that this has caused very many Americans sleepless nights or a bad conscience.

When Washington is not bombing and killing, it is plotting to overthrow reformist governments, such as the Honduran government Obama overthrew, and the Venezuelan, Bolivian, Ecuadoran, and Argentine governments that the Obama regime is current trying to overthrow. And, also, of course the democratically elected government in Ukraine that has been supplanted by Washington’s coup.

The new Greek government is in the crosshairs, and so is Putin himself.

Washington and its fawning presstitutes branded the elected Ukrainian government that was a victim of Washington’s coup, “a corrupt dictatorship.” The replacement government consists of a combination of Washington puppets and neo-nazis with their own military forces sporting Nazi insignias. The American presstitutes have been careful not to notice the Nazi insignias.

Ask yourself why a journalist’s false memory episode of an insignificant event is so important to the American presstitutes, while John Kerry’s and Barak Obama’s extraordinary, blatant, blockbuster, and dangerous lies are ignored.

In the event you have forgotten the efficiency of the Russian military, remember the fate of the American and Israeli trained and equipped Georgian Army that Washington sicced on South Ossetia. The Georgian invasion of South Ossetia resulted in the deaths of Russian peace-keeping soldiers and Russian citizens. The Russian military intervened, and the American and Israeli trained and equipped Georgian Army collapsed in five hours. All of Georgia was back in Russian hands, but the Russians withdrew and left the former province of Russia independent, despite the lies from Washington that Putin intends to restore the Soviet Empire.

The only correct conclusion that any American can make is that every statement of the US government and its presstitute media is a blatant lie designed to serve a secret agenda that the American people would not support if they knew of its existence.

Whenever Washington and its whore media speak, they lie.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.