Re: New York Times on Scarcity

[k hanly <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I thought the appropriate psychological orientation for success in
capitalism was to be a psychopath. At least that is the hypothesis of the
Corporation documentary.

http://www.thetyee.ca/Entertainment/current/The+Corporation+Shrinking+the+Psychopath.htm

By a quirk of legal fiction, our courts treat a corporation as if it were a
person. Alas, that person is by design a psychopath, conclude a team of B.C.
filmmakers who put the "dominant institution of our time" on the couch and
apply to its behaviour the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Brown" <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:18 AM
Subject: New York Times on Scarcity


> -clip-
>
> My reading of Mirowsky is that he argues that Nash
> formulated the problem the way he did because he was
> paranoid schizophrenic. I don't think Nash's paranoid
> schizophrenic equilibrium is wrong. I just think it is
> paranoid schizophrenic.
>
> Sabri
>
> ^^^^^^
> If we say that capitalism has mostly crazy ,socio-economic environments,
> then in a way being crazy is a rational response to getting on in it.
Maybe
> his paranoia was  well founded generalized fear, and may be many of the
> players of the bourgeois game in reality  ( not theoretically) have well
> founded fears. Don't successful Americans have to have a knack for
watching
> their backs ? Don't they have to have the ability to change their
> personalities on a dime , turn on others and stab them in the back, etc. -
> socalled schizophrenia ?
>
> Charles