Thoughts on bin Laden

I posted this to Facebook but figured it belongs here, too.

I've been thinking about what I really think about the killing of bin Laden and the media, government, and public reaction. It boils down to this. It was a tawdry and dishonorable episode in which a group of state terrorists killed a terrorist without a state. My feeling is: a plague on both their houses but let's be honest. The state terrorists kill far more innocents than do the others whom they inspire.

So, the bottom line is this: I feel no sadness that bin Laden is dead, but his death does not in any way address the root problems of US wars for oil and domination, of Israeli apartheid and its brutal aggression and occupation, and a whole litany of injustices based on monumental greed and stupidity. Injustice breeds resistance, whether it is nonviolent in Egypt or Tunisia or misguided terrorism like bin Laden. Let the focus remain on the roots and not only on a single twig.

The Myth of the Market

I want to begin by explaining that I studied chemistry at university and received a doctorate (Ph.D.). I had to study physics and physical chemistry. In physical chemistry, you learn about canonical arrays, which are used to derive the behavior of gas molecules in very large numbers. I state that because for centuries the theory of the market has been based on similar arguments. I want to explode those arguments here. First of all and most important are two assumptions. The first is that all molecules / human actors are identical and the second is that they behave in essentially random ways. Both of these are true for gas molecules at the canonical level (very large numbers); neither is true for markets. Human wealth is certainly not identical, and human behavior is not random, even among large numbers of humans. We act on beliefs and information and, if those bear any relationship to reality, in our own self interest. Even when the idea of markets was first formulated, there was lots of inequality and misdirection. Today, the inequalities are astronomical (billionaires and paupers) and control over the information on which people act is also tightly sequestered and manipulated. Therefore, I assert that the market has never been a mechanism for fairly resolving economic needs. It has always favored the rich over the poor, and since the rich control the institutions which evaluate markets, it is in their interests to portray it as fair. These arguments have only intensified in their relevance in the 21st century. Huge corporations act on behalf of the wealthy to increase their wealth at the expense of the vast majority. This is like molecules of grains of sand along with cannonballs. The cannonballs roll where they will and carve deep furrows in the sand. Only when the grains of sand organize themselves to act together is there any hope of fairness. In order to move forward, the notion of the market has to be abandoned.