The American Central Bank's Militant-Economists Turning To Nepal

We note a lot of “unknowns” in the analysis of expert economists when it comes to the macro-economy, and these unknowns are often concerned with the unpredictability of military events in global warfare and in geopolitically tense regions. This lack of knowledge of the relationship between military events and macro-economy is a result of the fact that military events are not factored-in in the analysis conducted by Central Banks and the strict responsibility of the predictions and analysis of military events are reserved solely for military departments.

There is no factoring-in of military events in the American Central Bank's economic model (known as the FRB/US) because it is unclear to the frustrated economist which side the perpetrator of a military event is: when a military event occurs, is it definitely an enemy's doing or the doing of the “secret service” of oneself's own government? Clarity in whether it is the “self” or the “other” undertaking a military event is important to macroeconomic models because economists use “self-other” distinctions to label some military events as negative “external shocks” coming from the other and some military events as positive “internal operations” coming from the self. This divide between friendly self and enemy other, even in these times of advanced “neoclassical economics,” shows that there is little room for understanding that self-driven military events can also be detrimental to the macro-economy. The American Central Bank's macroeconomic model must read self-driven/self-perpetrated military events as negative “shocks” as well. 

The American Central Bank needs more “militant-economists” who are able to obtain military knowledge beyond the capabilities of other economists and factor this knowledge into economic modeling and policy making. Militant-economists in the making can turn to non-militarized Nepal to look at the impact of specific global military events on a national-level macro-economy without dividing these military events along the lines of “self-initiated” and “other-perpetrated” and looking at military events neutrally. 

“Brexit” And Britain As The Foucauldian Limit-Experience Of The EU

No longer is the term “border” sufficient to name the dividing line between Britain and the EU. A border is a line which divides two territories, but it is a passable line, a form of continuity remains between the two sides, and this continuity allows the flow of migrants, for instance. With “Brexit,” we must come to abandon the idea that only a “border” separates Britain and the EU, and instead employ the word “limit” borrowed from the Foucauldian term “limit-experience,” to mean that now when the EU seeks Britain, it encounters a kind of final limit, and going to Britain or interacting with it is a “limit-experience” for the EU populace and also for migrants. 

With “Brexit,” Britain is turning towards becoming a nation with a more authoritarian and oppressive tendency. Usually borders are porous, and there tends to be some form of continuity between two sides of a border, which suggests a peace between the two territories, but it is only in authoritarian and oppressive regimes where borders are turned into limits, where borders are closed off and there is no possibility of easy passage. With a limit imposed in place of a border, Britain is effectively and emphatically saying that it is not the EU. Going forward, we can expect Britain to stubbornly act on being not-EU, by changing its laws, cultures, political system etc; in short, by obsessing over its difference from the EU to a great degree and hence exercising a high level of control into what happens within its territory.

It could also be that being the limit to EU will send Britain into obscurity, make it a kind of “alien nation” devoid of signs and markers we expect from other nations of the EU and the wider world. A nation seeking to be a “limit nation” would not look and feel similar to other more “centralized” nations; it would have very few and basic signs of being a nation at all, it would lose its defining national signs and symbols, such as popular landmarks in its capital city, and its people could lose their spirit of nationalism, becoming "Zombies" in a sense. Disagreeing with Foucault's idea that a limit can be experienced, we believe that any experience at the limit is impossible. A limit is a “zero-point,” a point which is not included in any territory, it is like the edges of a three-dimensional solid, which is not a part of anything and where theoretically nothing can exist to experience it. EU populations will find, in seeking the limit-experience of being in Britain, that it is like being in a stifling zero-point, and hence that there is nothing desirable about going to Britain because it simply does not have signs and symbols which can be experienced. Even after Britain has left the EU, ultimately it will be the EU's disappointment with Britain being at the limit which will bring about Britain's obscurity.

A true limit is a point which is far away, something too drastic and undesirable for most, something at the edge of an extensive distance, something that is almost impossible to reach, a place which is completely obscure and alien. Hence, given this possibility of becoming completely obscure, alien and undesirable, it is more likely that we will see Britain continue to have a national identity and hence not in fact turn into a zero-point to cause a true limit-experience. Being a true limit to the EU would entail a thorough destruction of Britain, a thorough dismantling of everything which has been built up in tandem with the EU nations, or a leveling of everything like in a war. Since this will likely not happen, “Brexit” may very well imply that Britain is putting up a performance, and does not intend to be a true limit. Its isolation and its differentiation will be moderate, and similarities with the EU will persist. “Brexit” will enable EU populations to experience a “lite limit-experience,” and therefore Britain may continue to be a draw as a a kind of amusing simulation of a true limit.   

Teachers' Pension Funds And The Parent-Teacher Meeting Of The Future

We hear of state-level "XYZ teachers' pension funds" as clients to big financial organizations. While being associated with a financial organization was in the past a good thing for teachers because the financial organizations were considered role-models of society, given the current negative perceptions of financial organizations, these teachers/future pensioners may find themselves considered greedy, undisciplined or generally of a bad character due to their association with the big financial organizations.

Even when there is evaluation of how the teachers are doing their jobs by financial organizations that are working in the guise of local or national government, this evaluation will ultimately be driven by the logic that if the teachers do their jobs better, their pension funds will be better, and consequently, the financial organizations themselves will be better rewarded. Nowhere will the benefit of a proper education to a child be mentioned in all this supervision and evaluation.

In the future, there will be a secret preferential treatment of the students by the teachers based on which parents are able to give the best investment advice and tips in the parents-teachers meetings. The merits of the parents will decide the fate of the children: the children in the classroom will be considered vehicles of investment tips and advice that they have learned from their parents; contributions to class will be interpreted based on the finances of the teachers and how they could be made better. In recognizing the importance of the pension and the pension fund, we must be critical of the idea that teachers determine the quality of the future of their students, because we may find that students determine the quality of the future of their teachers to an even higher degree.

Eventually, a particular branch of economics, a kind of “macro-economics-by-elementary-school-kids” will be born and taken seriously, and TV shows such as “Are You Smarter Than A 5^th Grader?” will re-emerge with much more advanced material; some 5^th graders will become well educated enough in advanced finance and macro-economics to be hired by the big financial organizations with teachers as middle-men/agents as well as clients. Economics will be a major subject of study from the earliest years of school education, and it will be seemingly concerned about the world economy, but also blatantly anxious about the pension fund. Open class discussion will blatantly focus on the health of the pension funds and seek advice from the smarter 5^th graders. Unlike in the young-adult and adult world, the anxiety over finances and the future does not need to be hidden from the youngest section of the populace, which means there is a far more productive environment for the discussion and problem-solving of the financial issues in the elementary school classrooms. Thus, we hear today of how the university is linked to the big financial organizations, but we may find elementary schools with even more effective relationships with big financial organizations in the future.

The Old, Late Nepali Prime Minister's Car And Wristwatch: From Political Objects To Museum Pieces

We walk around inside a Nepali museum, and see, among the artifacts and animal bones in exhibition, the late Prime Minister's car and wristwatch on display, and they appear lustrous, as if full of an aura which speaks of their historical importance in the making of landmark political decisions. What is problematic about this placement of the Prime Minister's possessions in the museum is that it cuts off these possessions from any political significance they may have carried into politics today; these items are not used and suggest that the politics of the past is not important in the present. It is part of a wider problem in the relationship between an older generation and a younger generation in politics: at no point does a Prime Minister who is close to natural death write down a “political will" on the side, a will document which would give over his/her possessions to future politicians rather than abandoning them to the public sphere of the museum. In fact it is their abandonment which gives the Prime Minister's possessions a luster and aura, it is their lack of use in the world which ensures that they are dust-free.

And yet we stand before the late Prime Minister's car or watch in a museum exhibition space to look at them and expect them to suddenly burst to life, for the car's engine to start or the watch to tick again. This is a way in which we fantasize and are expressive of the need for the late Prime Minister to contribute to the current political climate and activities of Nepal. If there had been a will that the Prime Minister had written, we would have in our hands a document which was a gesture that defied death, that essentially suggested that the Prime Minister was challenging natural death, and hence we would feel his/her resolution, positive stubbornness, and power at trying to challenge natural death and maintain himself/herself as a political actor even after his/her natural death. Instead, we have a significant depoliticization of the late Prime Ministers after his/her biological death, suggesting that in politics too the link between the biological body and professional activity is very close. We have the myth of the importance of the body in shaping one's identity and legacy: when the body passes away, so do one's identity and legacy. Perhaps we see the Prime Minister's car or watch as extensions of his/her biological body, so that all these “possessions” (we mean possession here also in the sense of being possessed by the Prime Minister's “soul” or “ghost”) become identity-less once the Prime Minister passes away, as if they were parts of his/her body, and hence too we expect these possessions of the late Prime Minister to burst to life in the silent museum, before our eyes, as if they were body-parts.

Perhaps the unspoken transfer of politician's possessions from political realms to cultural spaces is due to the need for the objects to be kept secret in a way for current political acts and events to function. In a museum, the car or the watch is severed from the political agendas of which they were integral components, because in a museum we think these objects are symbols of the whole of the politician's politics and not practical elements that contributed to the evolution of the politician's political thought and action/work, and can continue his/her work for him/her even today. We have in Foucault the idea that being too visible to outside eyes causes one to be understood/disciplined by knowledge-based power, yet we have the disproof of this idea in the museum: the more visible/prominent a political object in a museum, the more secretive it is, the more it does not link with the political activities of which it was a part in the past.