Op-Ed: ‘Lose jobs to crack inflation’ — Economics is no longer related to people

Unemployment may have to rise sharply as the US Federal Reserve tries to slow the economy and choke off soaring inflation – Copyright AFP/File Niklas HALLE’N

Like media, economics is now more about its own numbers than human reality Imagine my unbridled joy at seeing this headline on the usually far saner and much more hygienic ABC Australia: Tens of thousands more jobs must go to finally crack this cost-of-living crisis, economists say.

There is a bit of rather drab pseudo-technical dissembling using ancient monetary theory to justify this atrocity. The much less impressive fact is that this is an actual idea for managing the cost of living.

Are they out of their alleged minds? Not according to them. The theory is that people will spend less, reducing inflation. Then interest rates can go down. Then someone extremely rich can save a few bucks on their self-inflicted debts, which they are not expected to do for themselves. Orgasms all round.

There’s another way of looking at this, O sage, revered and venal antenatal outtakes:

No jobs + ridiculously high cost of living = Mass poverty.

Too complex? …Or don’t we have enough poverty, and desperately need some more?

Tens of thousands of lost jobs, where people are already working two or three jobs are going to food banks?

Remember, all this is happening in a very rich country that routinely creates problems for itself because it has nothing better to do with its time.

Where are these jobs to be lost, one wonders, thoughtfully eating a lotus or so? From the mass demographics, which nobody looks at and far fewer seem to understand. Everything’s fine in Disneyland. Throw another couple of generations on the fire and cook up some vittlles, carefully and cunningly oppressed idiots.  

Apparently, this isn’t an issue. Nice numbers are much better than people and other ephemera.

At no point during the two years of the current cost of living crisis has human reality been part of the economic considerations. This is part of the monetarist myth, where money supply and interest rates are the sole means of “controlling” economies.

On this basis, a chronically unfair, rest home for money launderers and tax dodgers and an utterly mismanaged global economy is a purely academic exercise.  There are no people. Just nice, placid numbers and deranged hyper-rich geniuses. Nothing to see here, obviously.

People clearly need to be poor. It prevents them from eating and living and things. In short, the science of socioeconomics is now as much of a pitiful charade as most of the others. If you have no idea why your science exists, it does help.

All of which leads to a few logical inferences:

If you sack all of the “economists”, you can help reduce inflation. After all, economists don’t need to eat, and it obviously doesn’t help.

You can also burn down all those economist colonies in the big cities and universities and reboot the economy. You can even save money on mindless drivel in the media, which also doesn’t need people.

…And when everyone’s dead and broke, preferably in that order, things will be fine, right?

You are giving this information to politicians. These are also alleged people with no level of intelligence or competence worth mentioning. You expect to be taken seriously by these verbose vacuums and probably will be.

Economics is evidently now a science where no actual thinking of any kind is welcome or needed. Why reconfigure a ridiculously outdated economy when you can completely destroy it and save yourselves all that bother?

To prop up an economy that will be totally obsolete when AI comes in, people should suffer on principle. Not for any particular reason, but because it fits smug insular theories from the 1970s.

It’s already a total catastrophe on the ground around the world. Where the people and the money are. Try factoring in that for a change.

Meanwhile, how about doing your own jobs for a change?

___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.