The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Interview on causes for hope, fracking, global warming and the surveillance state

Sound is much better on this one than the last one, and speech from me is clear though there are some issues with the sound from the interviewer.  I think this one is definitely worth a listen.

 

Listen to internet radio with Jay Ackroyd on BlogTalkRadio

Previous

On Bangladesh’s Textile Disasters

Next

The Moral Calculus of the Woolwich Murder

32 Comments

  1. Celsius 233

    @ Ian,
    Interesting that you think there’s hope ten or 15 years into the future; or even longer…
    With an ever increasing grip; and an ever decreasing public involvement; just how is that even a possibility?
    I’m a bit skeptical of that kind of optimism.

  2. Celsius 233

    “…With an ever increasing grip;” on the part of the government; to clarify…

  3. Carol Newquist

    Interesting that you think there’s hope ten or 15 years into the future; or even longer…

    Correct me if I’m wrong Ian, but it appears from your statements in that interview that you base your optimistic conclusion on reading the latest tea leaves per the poll that asserts that this latest generation is no longer “alright” with constant surveillance even though that’s all they’ve ever known. I can’t agree with that, if for no other reason than polls are full of shit and will give you the results for which you are searching. In otherwords, polls are validation of your foregone conclusion, not discovery.

    I know I can’t say what the future will hold. There are so many possible permutations of how this will all play out, and hopefully by now, everyone here realizes that a crisis beyond the scope and purvey of the Full Spectrum Dominance Machinery can and will break any heretofore trend line that connects past, current and future, rendering extrapolation of the previous line impossible because there is no longer any line to extrapolate.

  4. cripes

    Carol has a good point. Polls are shit, people have been fed up and opposed to imperial wars, in favor of single-payer and haven’t changed shit. Youth aren’t doing much besides texting all day and piling up unpayable debt before applying for their first n the meantime, the oligarchy are henceforward balls-to-the-wall and probably won’t stop untiltheyblow the whole thing to pieces.

  5. Ian Welsh

    I’m seeing a change in the trends on certain attitudes. The polls are just one data point.

  6. jcapan

    As always with VS, I wish there was a transcript. Listening just isn’t practicable, live or thereafter.

    That said, I too am curious to hear you expand on reasons for optimism/changes in attitudes. Perhaps b/c I’m far away but also b/c I’d like to think my daughter won’t be eaten by roving, feral bands.

    Ian, wouldn’t you say this is a lame-duck manifestation and that the next election cycle will manage to suck it into the vortex? When neoliberal vs. neofascist (conceding there’s a lot of overlap these days) compete in Presidential Idol, won’t everyone who matters pick teams and STFU for the sake of the team.

  7. Ian Welsh

    I hate audio/video w/o a transcript, so I totally understand. It just takes so much longer to listen than read. That said, transcription is a pain in the ass, and takes a lot of time. If anyone wants to volunteer to transcribe it, well, I’d be beyond pleased, but I admit I’m not going to do it.

    I may write on the subject at a later date. A friend’s health problems are distracting me right now, but hey, I may need a distraction from the distraction.

  8. sanctimonious purist

    MMT gets mentioned and your opposition to it. Would you explain your position on MMT?

  9. Ian Welsh

    I think it’s an overly simplified theory that ignores how money was actually created and works in the real world as well as certain structural issues. However, no, I’m not going to go in to it in detail, it’s a fight not worth having since MMT is a shibboleth in certain parts of the left, as it tells them what they want to hear: we can just print money to make our way out of our problems.

  10. selise

    sanctimonious purist: since he’s one of my favorite commenters, i’ve been hoping (since before what passes for the lefty blogosphere heard of mmt) for ian’s take on the mmt paradigm. still hoping… but not holding my breath. 🙂
    https://www.ianwelsh.net/the-fed-and-the-pay-czars-compensation-restriction-plans/

    ian: “it tells them what they want to hear: we can just print money to make our way out of our problems.” um no, mmt specialists still say don’t that.
    https://www.ianwelsh.net/how-the-next-4-years-will-play-out/#comment-10726

    jmo but seems mmt provides important macro econ insights i’ve not seen elsewhere. still attempting to work on my own understanding…

  11. Ian Welsh

    Sigh.

    Start with this: money is not the creation of the state, it existed long before the state. If it was created by anybody, it was created by priests, actually, in the fertile triangle. Writing comes out of trade and loan accounting. (The priests were pretty much loan sharks, the interest rates were astronomical). Money changers in the temple wasn’t an abomination, it was the purpose of the temple.

    Move to this: you can’t print oil.

    In a supply constricted world, you can’t helicopter money.

    But I just don’t care enough. 5 years ago I would have gotten a bee in my bonnet and ripped in to it, not today. I’ve learned you can tell hardly anybody anything they don’t want to hear, and I ain’t being paid to do the couple weeks worth of work it would take. MMT is hopeium at its core, and as Obama reminded us, you can get people to believe anything if you offer them hope and an easy fix for their problems.

  12. Carol Newquist

    seems mmt provides important macro econ insights i’ve not seen elsewhere. still attempting to work on my own understanding…

    Who makes this shit up? Really? I can so see what you’re talking about Ian and why this latest buzz word for a slap-dashed theory is quickly becoming a Sacred Cow for those on the so-called “Left”. As you attempt to work on your understanding of it selise, keep in mind that it is a work in progress, ever-changing in order to justify the latest rape of the world by whichever side of the same coin sits in Captain Kirk’s chair on the bridge. One things for sure, this fancy new economic theory that’s become all the rage is continuing the justification of the exponential concentration of wealth that’s been going on since the gold standard was abandoned in ’71. The explosion of debt has served metaphorically as nitrous oxide in goosing the output of that already high-horsepower engine. Who would be so brazen as to claim debt/credit isn’t a large part of this magical theory? If it’s never going to be paid back because it can’t effectively be paid back, then why not just call it a hand-out and distribute that hand-out more equitably? Instead, they play pretend as though it has to be paid back and in doing so control the population by shackling the plebes with the onus of paying something back that didn’t have to be paid back.

  13. Carol Newquist

    and as Obama reminded us, you can get people to believe anything if you offer them hope and an easy fix for their problems.

    Didn’t Hermann Wilhelm Göring say almost exactly the same thing? I guess Reagan and Lincoln weren’t Obama’s only inspirations, afterall.

  14. selise

    ian:

    re money creation and priest/temples. if true so what? that doesn’t contradict or undermine what mmt’ers have written (see chapter 3 of wray’s “understanding modern money”). mmt’ers do claim the barter story is false (but so do all, or at least most, post keynesians).

    re “you can’t print oil.” of course! goes without saying, i hope.

    re “In a supply constricted world.” currently, willing labor supply is not constricted. why not put some of those resources to work for the public good (however one defines that)?

    will totally respect your decision if it’s not a subject you care to waste your time on. much of it is counter intuitive (at first i thought it was batshit crazy), and it does take time to read primary sources and wrap one’s head around it. but, please, please don’t misrepresent mmt — or other people’s work, generally — i know that is not your style.

    carol: “justify the latest rape,” “justification of the exponential concentration of wealth” ??!? your comment is so offensive i’m inclined to ignore it… but first, i’ll say you have no idea what you are talking about. if you want to change that, you can start here: http://www.amazon.com/Currency-Economics-Modern-Monetary-ebook/dp/B009XDGZLI/

  15. Carol Newquist

    My comment is offensive? Whatever. It was rather benign for me, I thought. Offensive in what way? Anyhow, there is a nice discussion of MMT at this link. This particular commenter appears to be as offensive as me and shares the same sentiments about this political policy disguised as economic theory.

    http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/modern-monetary-theory-whats-modern-about-it

    Why is private sector debt preferable?
    written by Neil Wilson, February 20, 2012 2:01

    “his pushes them toward larger government deficits then we would see if we also aggressively used channels two and three.”

    Which instead would lead to higher private sector debt and promote the dynamic instabilities that Steve Keen demonstrates in his work.

    Running an economy that constantly requires poaching spending from the future relies on two assumptions

    (i) that there will be more growth in the future at a faster rate – doubtful when we’re running into the planet’s limits.
    (ii) that the amount of private debt doesn’t matter and that it is merely a distributional issue.

    An economy where individual’s spending within their means and are able to live a life by doing that is clearly a superior policy outcome.

    Requiring individuals to be in debt just to survive makes no sense.

  16. Celsius 233

    @ selise
    May 21, 2013
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Nice post.
    Here are some links a friend sent me on MMT. Like you, I found it very informative and helpful in understanding a subject that is corrupted by politics and ideology to the point of obfuscation.

    http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/04/modern-monetary-theory-overview-part-1.html

    http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/04/modern-monetary-theory-overview-part-2.html and

    http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/04/modern-monetary-theory-overview-part-3.html

  17. Formerly T-Bear

    @ selise

    For what it’s worth, MMT was something greater than what is being currently presented by UMKC. My first exposure to MMT happened early to mid 1960’s from a graduate of the University of Wichita (Ks) having either a masters or doctorate (I no longer recall). At that time MMT was based upon a continuation of Keynesian monetary theory that led to Breton Woods and the original formulations for World Bank and IMF. Out of these, Keynes advanced his conception of replacing the gold standard of that day with a gold based standard, the US dollar as the world reserve currency as the US was the largest and only intact economy evident. If the current form of MMT cannot trace its development from these beginnings, then it is only an incomplete form of MMT. The early version also contained relationship to monetary policy with tax policy as well as fiscal policy in a comprehensive whole. From reading the UMKC website, both tax policy and fiscal policy relationships are weak to non-existant, depriving this rendition of MMT somewhat shallow or having reduced dimensions.

    What has changed since the late 1960’s is the accumulation of international funds fed by cold war spending, entirely unforeseen by Keynesian theory as was the French attack upon the US gold reserves, exchanging French reserve dollars for gold which led to Nixon’s taking the dollar off of it’s gold base. Also not seen by Keynesian theory was the blossoming of the multinational corporation throughout this period and the creation of massive liquid funds movable at a moment’s notice to the most momentarily advantageous place to deposit. Once off gold backing, the monetary policy was used to decrease the value of the currency to promote US export trade. Blowback from this led directly to the founding of OPEC and the oil embargo of 1973 (IIRC) which created another accumulation of dollar reserves awash in the financial world, looking for a return.

    For the most part, economic history of this era and subsequent developments has not been written in any coherent form. It is not likely the current economic ideology based upon University of Chicago, F.A. Hayek, M. Friedman, Leo Strauss (axis of economic evil) will enable such history to be collected in any narrative form easily accessible outside the world of the highly educated and factually retentive. The election of 1980 opened the access of neoliberal/neoclassic/neoconservative acolytes to the leavers of governmental power and the destruction of the New Deal edifice, something that the country/the world is now paying dearly for and will be for generations. The sole option for the public is to learn economics and use that knowledge to protect the republic from political charlatans gaining hold of political power, and remove those politicians who demonstrate economic incompetence.

    Ian being an autodidact has a better and ideologically unadulterated grasp of economics than most PhD’s of economics and losing his voice in the debate is a costly loss. Perhaps reconsideration will emerge later, I would certainly hope so.

  18. Celsius 233

    Formerly T-Bear
    May 22, 2013
    @ selise

    Ian being an autodidact has a better and ideologically unadulterated grasp of economics than most PhD’s of economics and losing his voice in the debate is a costly loss. Perhaps reconsideration will emerge later, I would certainly hope so.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Now that was an informative post; thanks.
    And your closing paragraph and sentence was my sentiment exactly; let’s hope Ian’s up for some further discussion…

  19. Carol Newquist

    to the point of obfuscation.

    Economics is obfuscation. MMT is purposely obfuscatory. It seeks to legitimize and rationalize the enslavement and rape of the planet. Anyone with any sense can see it for the ruse it is, but hey, it gives academics a job serving their masters like the lap dogs they are. I understand why Ian doesn’t want to go there with this crowd. You’ll never change the mind of people who can’t get outside their box, especially those who believe they have gotten outside of that box. News for you, the box goes where you go, meaning change of physical location doesn’t shirk the box. Your embracing of MMT proves this point.

  20. sanctimonious purist

    “I think it’s an overly simplified theory that ignores how money was actually created and works in the real world as well as certain structural issues. ”

    Fair enough. I was hoping you would explain it b/c from what I had read, it sounded interesting and is, at times, used to support the enactment of a Basic Income Gaurantee (BIG), something I wholeheartedly agree with. I tried to read Stirling Newberry’s posts about it, but he was talking about the “dryas” and I got lost. I tend to understand your posts pretty well, so I was hoping (there’s that word again) you would explain it. I also tend to agree with just about everything you’ve ever written.

    Anyway, taking in to account how money was actually created and works in the real world, would there be a way to implement a BIG that would last and not get “privatized” and truly end poverty?

  21. Carol Newquist

    It looks like Stockholm could use some of that magic MMT juice right about now, or did they already have their shot of MMT and it’s apparently not working?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328952/Sweden-riots-Stockholm-burns-rioters-battle-police-days-violence-immigrant-ghetto.html

    Hundreds of youths attacked police and emergency services last night as rioting in Stockholm’s poor immigrant suburbs escalated.

    Yesterday’s violence, which has intensified over three days of rioting, saw gangs torch dozens of cars and attack two schools and a police station.

    It is Sweden’s worst disorder in years and has shocked the country and provoked a debate on how Sweden is coping with youth unemployment and an influx of immigrants.

    Sweden should give Yves Smith from Naked Capitalism a call. With all Yves experience and her superior intellect, Sweden, and the rest of the world for that matter, should have this all cleared up in no time.

  22. BlizzardOfOz

    Count me with those who would be interested to read Ian’s take on “MMT”. I recall that Sterling Newberry had extremely critical comments (I think he called MMT theory “fascist”, or something along those lines).

    For myself, while I’m skeptical of the Atrios-style line of reasoning, which seems a bit simplistic (“just print a trillion dollar coin”), there are some core populist truths there:

    1. Money isn’t “real” in the sense people think it is
    2. The control of money is, and always has been, a tool that elites use to control society
    3. The government already “prints money” — printing money can be used for good (public works) and not just evil (bailing out bankers)

    I’m sketchy on the economics, but what I gather:

    1. You can safely add to the money supply (print money) when the economy is not at full capacity (high unemployment)
    2. Too much money printing can be catastrophic (hyperinflation)

    I don’t think MMT denies #2 though, does it?

  23. I’m an autodidact, too – except that what I understand about economics probably wouldn’t earn me a G.E.D., so please be kind as I make some observations. I’ll do my best to take any criticism of my understanding with equanimity.

    It seems to me that the Left’s romance with MMT (and Keynes in general) has to do with (re)distributive issues, while the Right – and gold-bugs in general – hate it for the same reason (the robbery of inflation.) Please sit with my over-simplification for the moment.

    I think it starts to get murky when people try to justify a Capitalist sensibility within the MMT models (neoliberals on the Left, for example.) Unfortunately, in order to do so, one must worship on the altar of infinite economic growth which, as has been pointed out, rests upon infinite actual resource growth in the real world, else we realize the worst fears of the goldbugs. Of course, there is no such infinite growth, so all of the arguments about debt slavery and taxation-through-inflation are perfectly reasonable objections to the MMT.

    At this point, I want to introduce the (not particularly novel) idea that the ever-vigilant “goldbugs” of the right, and their neoliberal arch-enemies who disingenuously try to wed Capitalism and the socialist distributionist rising-tide sensibilities of voodoo economics, both share one thing: Greed. By “greed” I mean the idea of wealth, of accumulation, of earning, having, and keeping stuff. There is nothing socialistic about it – the goldbugs are right, in the end it’s about the cognoscenti of finance gaming the system to extract it all at the expense of those of us who are concerned with daily living, those of us without PhD’s in skimming the economy.

    Now, a hard-backed currency is nakedly (more honestly) about such greed, since it limits the money supply and exposes any (re)distributive efforts for what they are. But the MMT neo-liberals ain’t fooling me none, neither.

    The point I’m trying to get around to is that yes, we are dealing with reality – in which resources are limited, and population is growing (largely because of the illusions of unlimited resources), and at the end of the day I come down on the side of inflationary re-distributive MMT-ish economic policy because I think that the proper response is for us to share the shrinking pie equally and hope we come to our senses and find an equilibrium before our infighting ensures our doom, and not be all “Life of Pi”-like and kill off the useless eaters in the boat so that the savviest greedheads survive.

    (Again, I apologize if I am missing some crayons in my box.)

  24. Carol Newquist

    Petro, how on earth can you support something you admittedly don’t understand? Here is a link to an excellent analysis. I would think it resonates with Ian’s sentiments. I know it resonates with mine. Sure, I go well beyond this line of thought, but my Venn Circle almost entirely incorporates the realm of this analysis.

    http://www.mercenarytrader.com/2010/12/weekender-the-trouble-with-modern-monetary-theory-mmt/

  25. dan henry

    Well said Petro. That has been basically my take on MMT as well. Ive been suspicious of it since originally seeing Philip Pilkington promoting it a few years ago. It immediately struck me as intentionally overly complex; sly talk to get a quick foot in the door to replace an old, shit system with a new, shit system. As to Carol’s criticism, I think your line’s here “But the MMT neo-liberals ain’t fooling me none, neither.” and here “at the end of the day I come down on the side of inflationary re-distributive MMT-ish economic policy because I think that the proper response is for us to share the shrinking pie equally and hope we come to our senses and find an equilibrium before our infighting ensures our doom” must have been missed. In this ridiculous state of things currently comprising our economic system, Ill take whatever scraps I can. I liken everything to grappling, so here goes; your opponent has your back with the choking arm sunk in..millimeters count.

  26. Carol Newquist

    No dan henry, I didn’t miss that line by Petro. Under either “theory” you’ll get less than scraps when the pie truly starts shrinking. Under MMT you’ll be forced to labor by the state for that less than scraps under the guise of full employment. Maybe you and Petro will be the lucky ones recruited to help clean up the nuclear waste at the failing nuclear plants around the globe, or perhaps you’ll be cheerfully recruited to murder other people in the same position as you half way across the world in the name of peace and democracy. That’s fine, to each his/her own. If that floats your boat, go right ahead and sign onto MMT. I’m sure people felt the same way about Nazi economics. It was better than what they had before, so hey, why not? By the way, has anyone read the link I provided?

  27. Thank you, dan henry.

    MB, I mean Carol, I have no illusions about State-controlled currency systems, nor do I wish to “sign on” to anything, but as long as the State is involved…

    Here’s the thing. In order to distribute wealth outside of the norms of the “meritocratically-minded” (greedheads) – where only the elect achieve a measure of economic freedom – with a hard-backed currency one must engage in direct, obvious confiscatory violence. In the world of fiat money, where currency is actually a governor on economic activity, one can use the soft violence of inflation (or taxation in the other direction) to achieve the same ends.

    (If one is a meritocrat or social “Darwinian,” then I nothing I say here applies.)

    Of course, this is within the realm of State-centric society. My real sympathies lie with more gift- and barter-based local systems, but this requires a psychological stance that is not, shall we say, particularly ubiquitous at the moment.

    I skimmed your link, and I’ve read these objections before. They’re valid objections – again, from a particular framing. However, I actually do kind of agree with Cheney (god help me) about deficits – because I don’t see governments (the State) as independent entities, but merely as institutions at the service of the people, and as such I find concerns about their “solvency” to be absurd. Yea, there is some inter-governmental concerns that require the additional layer of complexity of trade policies, but the bulk of deficit is run vis. the domestic population (us owing ourselves.) Plus, I find the idea of multiple governments (flags) yet another unfortunate absurdity (no, I’m not stumping for One World Government.)

    You can peg me as an idealist if you like, but I’m actually taking a rather practical position in working with things as they are in tolerating the MMT paradigm as a workable paradigm under the circumstances. Does it still require vigilance? Of course.

    Like, for example, banking functions should be nationalized. This failure is one of the main reasons that our economy is so “skim-able” by the vampires draining the commonweal.

  28. As for the anti-MMT lament regarding people taking their ball and going home (jumping into alternatives like gold-backed, etc.) – that’s a symptom of the fact that the State itself is not a stable function – in that it can’t force everyone to play along. It’s a rather tautological argument – of course its detractors can undermine it.

  29. Bruce Wilder

    I have decidedly mixed feelings about MMT. Formerly T-bear is certainly correct that the current UMKC version making the blog rounds is terribly oversimplified, but mainstream economics has degenerated considerably over the time period he references, as well. They seem to be keeping pace with one another.

    Policy economics is, potentially, very important to shaping people’s ideas about what is possible and practical and desirable. But, there’s a tendency for it to degenerate from technicality and paradox into fable. And, we need the fables: we need moral instruction. Policy economics from the Left has to be moral instruction, and that includes giving “hope” and outlining a way forward, etc.

    The Right has, in Hayek and Friedman, a vision of the “market economy” as a just world. It is a morally potent tale, a romantic vision, which, conveniently, justifies authoritarianism in a rhetoric of “freedom”. It is a Big Lie — we obviously do not have a market economy, as anyone with eyes to see, would realize if they would just look; price formation is almost entirely an administrative process, and very few markets exist. As a Big Lie, it is tailor-made for propaganda purposes.

    Instruction in MMT takes the form of an hypnotic trance induction — I don’t know what else to call the lengthy tracts on banking operations its devotees visit on the public. If they had some useful suggestions to implant into people’s unconscious during these exercises in extended boredom, I’d view them more favorably. And, I have no problem with building a theory on operational analysis of actual institutions — economics needs that to counterbalance the overabundance of unfounded analytic theory. There’s more to money than banks lending from deposits: operationalize financial markets already, people. It is not 1930 anymore.

    Money, and the institutions of money are very important to the success of a society’s political economy, even if you cannot print oil. The French Revolution started because the ancien regime couldn’t master its fiscal problems and did not have a central bank, and then foundered because the revolutionaries couldn’t manage it either; Napoleon came to power, in part, on the strength of his willingness to create a Bank of France.

    I don’t know why Occupy or similar movements do not take over a regional Federal Reserve Bank. The governance structures were designed by populists to facilitate such takeovers. If the moronic Real Business Cycle folks can take control of one, it cannot be that hard.

    The Left should get very serious about the institutions of money, and resurrecting some moral fables concerning what constitutes responsible policy, that can overcome the neoliberal mythology. MMT is a pretty pathetic first attempt, but, at least, it is an attempt.

    We’re clearly headed into some kind of financial collapse scenario. It would be really helpful in the next crisis if people on the Left had some idea of how to respond that didn’t involve facilitating shock doctrine, disaster capitalism’s plan for a neo-feudal future.

  30. Formerly T-Bear

    @ Bruce Wilder

    For the kind words – Merci beaucoup!

    However the intent was not to be correct but to indicate that there were other interpretations of recent history other than the commonly received one that contain information necessary to understand the dynamics engendering distress. These interpretations are most readily available to those living who were aware, paying attention and retain a memory of the period. This information is also available to those reviewing the period in detail; detail is where either god or the devil is found, but provides the more difficult path as much care is required in separating the kernels of information from the mass of chaff which embeds them. However, another factor arrises with those who, from whatever source, have formed some indelible opinion, based neither on experience nor information, that colors if not distorts their sight of the period in question and forms the foundation of some world view not necessarily in contact with reality nor able to provide answers but seemingly self-satisfying.

    There was a reason my remarks did not go much beyond the Carter administration, primarily because up to that point the New Deal remained intrinsically intact. Beyond that point the disintegration of the New Deal was like watching a ten ring circus when the great communicator and his VP from the CIA opened the doors of power to the neo-Xes without restraint. I hesitate to go into what I think of this period least it interfere with the exploration of others and the answers they find. There is a goldmine of necessary information to be mined, much of which will be vital to constructing/reconstructing the economy. Next time an ideology states that they have all the answers, slam the door in their faces, and check your wallet is intact.

  31. Odd, or not, how some writing about MMT are willing to provide links to what MMT actually says, and others are not.

  32. Formerly T-Bear

    @ Lambert Strether May 28, 2013
    Maybe some whom information must be spoon-fed could arrange with themselves to achieve a level of information competence that it is not necessary to disrupt an opinion for to verify some point of view or interpretation of some statement. Sufficient mass of information is now available that all conceivable opinions can be catered to as well as some inconceivable opinions (though this is yet to be tested).
    Should you actually be interested, you might start the reading of modern monetary theory in the early writings of John Maynard Keynes and as you read his works, observe how his theories develop through time and where seeds of ideas were sown that germinated into his later works; that is if there is an actual desire to know. If you are lucky, you may find some indications within these writings of JMK of changes applied to the economic process long after JMK’s death and there are possibly remedies embedded in the écriture rassemblée. These illuminations are most likely when reading for what JMK was saying rather than what the reader is thinking; but to each their own.
    P.S. Good to see you’re still about.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén