Since about 1850, we have all been in a vast, low grade, intercivilizational, economic, 'developmental' rivalry, new to the world in its scope, call it a civilizational somewhat cold war, not always cold.
It overlay what I would call a very long 'Civilizational Civil War of the West', going on for centuries, but getting really catastrophic, for 'the West', only in the 20th Century, with WWI and WWII.
One problem is, most people, at least here, did not know it; really, have had no clue.
This is not a completely 'new' phenomenon. For example, re the 1500s and
1700s, ongoing rivalry within the West,
'...we come to that period, lasting for nearly two hundred years, when ‘war’ and ‘trade’ became virtually interchangeable terms;............................'
But its dimensions now are new, and players, and the post-colonial, industrial-technical, and limited resource, rivalries, the terms of the game, are.
It is still, below the surface, war, just as deadly, in the end.
Who do you think has been 'winning'?
BOOMERBUSTER
OLD CELLO
Saturday, July 31, 2010
STEPHANOMICS TUT TUT AND ALSO ENTRE CHIEN ET LOUP SMART SHOPPER CARTOON MISE EN SCENE
Tata... bought mfg in UK,
UK can't 'sell' to India, (surprise), India is keeping UK 'finance and retailing' out (bogey of protectionism),
about all UK has left to try, feebly, to export. Kind of pathetic really.
Sound familiar?
Original 'home' of laissez faire.
Here's an antidote: call it perhaps 'managed trade' or mercantilist trade.
May seem dated, but...
"As General Monck put it with military directness in demanding a renewal of war against the Dutch in 1662: ‘What matters this or that reason? What we want is more of the trade the Dutch now have.’ Trade meant wealth, wealth enabled one to wage war, war made possible yet more trade: who could resist the lure of this logic?”
“The British Way In Warfare: A Reappraisal”, The Causes Of War, Harvard, 1983.
('SMART SHOPPER' MISE EN SCENE FOR A CARTOON')
Caption above: ENTRE CHIEN ET LOUP:
Conversation bubble from within the hummer:
"Is that a market I see there, in the hazy distance?", TRYING TO FIND WITH GPS, ETC., IN A CONSUMER Hummer, in the foreground.
(No. SURPRISE, it's an enemy camp! Flame throwers on shopper Hummer......., aftermath image at right....)
Caption below right: FIRE SALE
UK can't 'sell' to India, (surprise), India is keeping UK 'finance and retailing' out (bogey of protectionism),
about all UK has left to try, feebly, to export. Kind of pathetic really.
Sound familiar?
Original 'home' of laissez faire.
Here's an antidote: call it perhaps 'managed trade' or mercantilist trade.
May seem dated, but...
"As General Monck put it with military directness in demanding a renewal of war against the Dutch in 1662: ‘What matters this or that reason? What we want is more of the trade the Dutch now have.’ Trade meant wealth, wealth enabled one to wage war, war made possible yet more trade: who could resist the lure of this logic?”
“The British Way In Warfare: A Reappraisal”, The Causes Of War, Harvard, 1983.
('SMART SHOPPER' MISE EN SCENE FOR A CARTOON')
Caption above: ENTRE CHIEN ET LOUP:
Conversation bubble from within the hummer:
"Is that a market I see there, in the hazy distance?", TRYING TO FIND WITH GPS, ETC., IN A CONSUMER Hummer, in the foreground.
(No. SURPRISE, it's an enemy camp! Flame throwers on shopper Hummer......., aftermath image at right....)
Caption below right: FIRE SALE
Friday, July 30, 2010
RE Thoora
Apparently, thoora 'crunches' my remarks into bite sized chunks,
for the hungry old lions out there. That is one solution(?) for 'information' in an age of specialization? Somehow, I doubt it, really.
A cruncher is not an interdisciplinary 'resolution' of gadzillion remarks, but maybe it is a start.......
Thoora will put this up too, no doubt.
Buon appetito.
for the hungry old lions out there. That is one solution(?) for 'information' in an age of specialization? Somehow, I doubt it, really.
A cruncher is not an interdisciplinary 'resolution' of gadzillion remarks, but maybe it is a start.......
Thoora will put this up too, no doubt.
Buon appetito.
Thurston Robert Macaire Howell p 7
True, some urban redev abuse had little to do with trade. Highways routed through black neighborhoods. Busing.
Some folks date a judicial jihad (whatever that means) against property rights to the New Deal period, saying urban problems are caused by a ‘moral’ flaw, and by local corruption and a fall from these ideals, to be cleaned up by judges.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s always been plenty of good old local corruption. I enjoyed a lot of it.
My point is: loss of respect for founding fathers’ ideals didn’t cause urban decline. Furthermore: I helped a few judges get elected. They were grateful.
Urban decline is big-picture stuff, decades of subs directed against business types like me, not founding fathers’ ideals.
‘Real property’ property rights are pretty much passé anyway, even though the average person doesn’t know that.
For example, creditors’ rights have been stronger than real property owner rights. Mortgage holders, banks, for example. (That’s why I invested in them.) Say, who’s more likely to get bailed out, you or me?
Because multi-urban problems aren’t caused at the single city level, they can’t be fixed there.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t say local officials should do nothing.
But most big urban decline can’t be fixed by local redev efforts, more alert local judges, more zealous property rights advocacy, more home, local grass roots, or direct democracy, rule.
Local home rule debates, still go on in some states where we used to have operations. Who cares?
Some folks date a judicial jihad (whatever that means) against property rights to the New Deal period, saying urban problems are caused by a ‘moral’ flaw, and by local corruption and a fall from these ideals, to be cleaned up by judges.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s always been plenty of good old local corruption. I enjoyed a lot of it.
My point is: loss of respect for founding fathers’ ideals didn’t cause urban decline. Furthermore: I helped a few judges get elected. They were grateful.
Urban decline is big-picture stuff, decades of subs directed against business types like me, not founding fathers’ ideals.
‘Real property’ property rights are pretty much passé anyway, even though the average person doesn’t know that.
For example, creditors’ rights have been stronger than real property owner rights. Mortgage holders, banks, for example. (That’s why I invested in them.) Say, who’s more likely to get bailed out, you or me?
Because multi-urban problems aren’t caused at the single city level, they can’t be fixed there.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t say local officials should do nothing.
But most big urban decline can’t be fixed by local redev efforts, more alert local judges, more zealous property rights advocacy, more home, local grass roots, or direct democracy, rule.
Local home rule debates, still go on in some states where we used to have operations. Who cares?
Thursday, July 29, 2010
HONEST SERVICES ETC
Yet another example of unfolding weak American 'checks and balances' system debacle.
ENRON, etc., had been grossly underregulated (the Casanova hand at play), was not meant to be bent to fit honest services anyway.
What a gigantic waste of effort, on top of a fiasco.
On a loosely related topic, all this 'to do' about 'prosecuting' BP recently, when our own police power regulatory systems had failed so miserably.
Why consider prosecuting someone criminally whom you have long been on notice and have failed miserably to regulate civilly?
It is the heighth of political hypocrisy, and failure to attend to reforms in the system.
Once again, politically playing to the crowds, while hiding the ball, to the extent possible, on actual reasons for failure.
ENRON, etc., had been grossly underregulated (the Casanova hand at play), was not meant to be bent to fit honest services anyway.
What a gigantic waste of effort, on top of a fiasco.
On a loosely related topic, all this 'to do' about 'prosecuting' BP recently, when our own police power regulatory systems had failed so miserably.
Why consider prosecuting someone criminally whom you have long been on notice and have failed miserably to regulate civilly?
It is the heighth of political hypocrisy, and failure to attend to reforms in the system.
Once again, politically playing to the crowds, while hiding the ball, to the extent possible, on actual reasons for failure.
ARIZONA IMMIGRATION STATE FEDERAL DISPUTE
SAME KIND OF ISSUE, DIFFERENT DAY, DIFFERENT STATE.
NOT GOING TO GET ANY BETTER GOING FORWARD.
WHY NOT HAVE MORE STATE'S RIGHTS. NO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.
FIFTY DIFFERENT ONES.
SEE HOW THAT GOES, IN THIS KIND OF WORLD.
NOT GOING TO GET ANY BETTER GOING FORWARD.
WHY NOT HAVE MORE STATE'S RIGHTS. NO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.
FIFTY DIFFERENT ONES.
SEE HOW THAT GOES, IN THIS KIND OF WORLD.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Texas Battles Health Care Law Even As It Follows It
This is the kind of state by state federalist fragmentation I have been discussing.
It will not get any better, going forward.
Believe me.
What is your solution, more state's rights?
Of course, that is what you have been taught.
It will not get any better, going forward.
Believe me.
What is your solution, more state's rights?
Of course, that is what you have been taught.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Re Team Mess Cartoon Prior Nixon Shock Post and Fattening Things Up
Here is a reference from '72 on this topic, for those with archival search needs:
Japan's expansion, an American problem; US had let her "fatten herself...,"
Doc 3 National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials Project, White House Special Files, President's Office Files, box 87, memoranda for the President Beginning February 20, 1972
Japan's expansion, an American problem; US had let her "fatten herself...,"
Doc 3 National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials Project, White House Special Files, President's Office Files, box 87, memoranda for the President Beginning February 20, 1972
KRUGMAN ON THE ENVIRONMENT: WHY NOT THE VISIBLE HAND?
Looks like a well thot out piece. Good points.
He is even critical of conservatives, critical even on underlying presuppositions of his field, critical of the Casanova hand among the wealthy conservative spin on climategate, critical it seems of the invisible hand solving the problem.
One problem, though, when it comes to a solution, what does he suggest?
Putting in place a carbon credit market regimen by legislation.
But isn't a 'market system', essentially the one he is criticising, what has given us the global warming situation in the first place, for which he now has another market solution?
Hasn't a 'market' in carbon credits already shown its flawed face?
Isn't booming Asia, industrially/environmentally/MILITARILY, our 'invisible' hand, to a great extent, at work? ('At play', really, is a better term, in that it has been too haphazard, childish, naive, whimsical, blithe, a history to be called 'work'.)
What I suggest, and it is not going to work here, is an old tool of government:
police power; the power to say that certain things, or certain polluting activities in certain measures, will not be permitted, on penalty of such and such.
Call it THE VISIBLE HAND.
But that solution has always been anathema to economic thinking.
He is even critical of conservatives, critical even on underlying presuppositions of his field, critical of the Casanova hand among the wealthy conservative spin on climategate, critical it seems of the invisible hand solving the problem.
One problem, though, when it comes to a solution, what does he suggest?
Putting in place a carbon credit market regimen by legislation.
But isn't a 'market system', essentially the one he is criticising, what has given us the global warming situation in the first place, for which he now has another market solution?
Hasn't a 'market' in carbon credits already shown its flawed face?
Isn't booming Asia, industrially/environmentally/MILITARILY, our 'invisible' hand, to a great extent, at work? ('At play', really, is a better term, in that it has been too haphazard, childish, naive, whimsical, blithe, a history to be called 'work'.)
What I suggest, and it is not going to work here, is an old tool of government:
police power; the power to say that certain things, or certain polluting activities in certain measures, will not be permitted, on penalty of such and such.
Call it THE VISIBLE HAND.
But that solution has always been anathema to economic thinking.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Sherrod Cartoon mise en scene and the business of newspapers
Picture three characters in motion, think of Daumier's Actualities litho:
"Voyons, kaiserlick....., aurons-nous bientot fini ces galanteries avec les femmes?...."
The caption should read "Breitbart".
One might wish that some of Van Jones' editorial 'hopes' would 'come true'.
Unfortunately, an America needing the likes of Walter Cronkite, good as he may have been, or Jones, for its very political or moral 'immune system', even back then, was already woefully inadequate, as a political or moral educational system, and school (and college) systems generally did not fill the chasm. Churches and temples, the varietal welter of them, generally have not, either, contrary to what all of them would say.
For Americans, politics, history, and morals, have overwhelmingly been somebody's else's 'business', because almost all Americans had their own jobs to do and family or whatever to tend to:
American Political Science Convention:
'Professors versus the Laissez-Faire Free Press'
Editor's retort to assembled Scholars: "Don't you know what the newspaper business is all about, you bloody fool...For the past ten minutes you've been trying to make me out as some kind of hideous ogre devoid of any shred of social consciousness.
You act as though you think the job of a newspaper is to be an educational institution for the masses.
Education is your job, not mine.
I run a business. That business is to make money. My stock in trade is something called 'news'. It isn't really news all the time-- it's entertainment in the guise of news quite often.... I am not going to print educational stuff that'll put me in the poor house."
The invisible, the Casanova, hand of the media at play...............
"Voyons, kaiserlick....., aurons-nous bientot fini ces galanteries avec les femmes?...."
The caption should read "Breitbart".
One might wish that some of Van Jones' editorial 'hopes' would 'come true'.
Unfortunately, an America needing the likes of Walter Cronkite, good as he may have been, or Jones, for its very political or moral 'immune system', even back then, was already woefully inadequate, as a political or moral educational system, and school (and college) systems generally did not fill the chasm. Churches and temples, the varietal welter of them, generally have not, either, contrary to what all of them would say.
For Americans, politics, history, and morals, have overwhelmingly been somebody's else's 'business', because almost all Americans had their own jobs to do and family or whatever to tend to:
American Political Science Convention:
'Professors versus the Laissez-Faire Free Press'
Editor's retort to assembled Scholars: "Don't you know what the newspaper business is all about, you bloody fool...For the past ten minutes you've been trying to make me out as some kind of hideous ogre devoid of any shred of social consciousness.
You act as though you think the job of a newspaper is to be an educational institution for the masses.
Education is your job, not mine.
I run a business. That business is to make money. My stock in trade is something called 'news'. It isn't really news all the time-- it's entertainment in the guise of news quite often.... I am not going to print educational stuff that'll put me in the poor house."
The invisible, the Casanova, hand of the media at play...............
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Read Shirley Sherrod's Speech
David Kaiser posted it, with his introduction, on his blog.
Great great stuff.
historyunfolding.blogspot.com
Great great stuff.
historyunfolding.blogspot.com
Friday, July 23, 2010
THE TECHNOCRACY BONOBO CARTOON
Picture the long familiar 'three bonobos', see no evil (at the bottom), hear no evil (in the middle), speak no evil (at the top), 'the mouthpiece'.
They are sitting atop one another three high, legs entwined in differing ways around the neck of the one below. The 'pillar' they form should be zig-zag, rather than straight up and down. These bonobos should be looking frisky and alert, if handicapped.
(For a brief historical reference, there is a resort, in Boca Raton, The B R Resort and Club, which long has had a so called 'Monkey Bar', since the time of its founder, back in the 1920s, who collected exotic things. Although its Spanish colonial decor sadly was modernized under new management, the Monkey Bar was still there, several years ago. The gift shop has all kinds of monkey memorabilia.)
For the really creative, there might be a full length mirror to their left or right, they turned half away from the picture surface, looking into the mirror.
The image in the mirror seen by the viewer will be that of several well dressed serious looking men (or women), in suits, standing in a group, sipping champagne, in conference.
The caption above reads:
"Natural Moral Pillars"
The one below:
"The Pyramid of Experts: Bonobos' Boom"
or "Bonobos In Heaven".
What Would Real Political Reform Look Like?
For that matter, what would real 'philosophy of social science' look like,
rather than punditosophy?
They are sitting atop one another three high, legs entwined in differing ways around the neck of the one below. The 'pillar' they form should be zig-zag, rather than straight up and down. These bonobos should be looking frisky and alert, if handicapped.
(For a brief historical reference, there is a resort, in Boca Raton, The B R Resort and Club, which long has had a so called 'Monkey Bar', since the time of its founder, back in the 1920s, who collected exotic things. Although its Spanish colonial decor sadly was modernized under new management, the Monkey Bar was still there, several years ago. The gift shop has all kinds of monkey memorabilia.)
For the really creative, there might be a full length mirror to their left or right, they turned half away from the picture surface, looking into the mirror.
The image in the mirror seen by the viewer will be that of several well dressed serious looking men (or women), in suits, standing in a group, sipping champagne, in conference.
The caption above reads:
"Natural Moral Pillars"
The one below:
"The Pyramid of Experts: Bonobos' Boom"
or "Bonobos In Heaven".
What Would Real Political Reform Look Like?
For that matter, what would real 'philosophy of social science' look like,
rather than punditosophy?
Mise en Scene for a Dino Free Trade Cartoon
Picture a pig suspended on a spit above a smouldering fire, with the pole running through it left to right, suspended on vertical stakes left and right.
The pig's body is seen from the side, with its head to the right, apple in its mouth, and its tail to the left, and feet at bottom left, rear ones curled up (Texas ham), front ones hanging down 'as Florida'. The pig's shape is in the general identifiable shape of the continental US.
There is a crank to the left coming down from the pole in a simple reverse L shape, and only a very faintly drawn hand, visible at left, holding it, say by one or two fingers, delicately.
The pig's body has "DINO" in large thin capital letters, and be broken up into thinner dotted lines of 'cuts' of beef or pork.
The caption at bottom might read:
"The Invisible Hand".
The one at the top:
"Where's The Beef?"
The pig's body is seen from the side, with its head to the right, apple in its mouth, and its tail to the left, and feet at bottom left, rear ones curled up (Texas ham), front ones hanging down 'as Florida'. The pig's shape is in the general identifiable shape of the continental US.
There is a crank to the left coming down from the pole in a simple reverse L shape, and only a very faintly drawn hand, visible at left, holding it, say by one or two fingers, delicately.
The pig's body has "DINO" in large thin capital letters, and be broken up into thinner dotted lines of 'cuts' of beef or pork.
The caption at bottom might read:
"The Invisible Hand".
The one at the top:
"Where's The Beef?"
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
DEFEATING COMMUNISM
Started out a real, desperate, 'mission'.
Became a, still serious, but, ideological, diversion.
Transformed into an outright ideological pretext.
Ended up a disastrous ideological boon doggle.
Became a, still serious, but, ideological, diversion.
Transformed into an outright ideological pretext.
Ended up a disastrous ideological boon doggle.
CAPACITY UTILIZATION
Say 'excess capacity'. An economist's term.
The US offshored or closed much of its 'capacity'.
Others' capacity, while having grown, still lacks 'demand'.
Why?
Here's a harder question:
Why grow foreign capacity in the first place,
unless your back is to the wall?
One answer (ala the Marshall Plan): To stabilize regimes necessary to one's own national security.
That may be the only correct answer.
FN, April 2014:
The beauty of this, and the horror, really, of our politics, is that both liberals and conservatives, here, would disagree vehemently with me about this.
The US offshored or closed much of its 'capacity'.
Others' capacity, while having grown, still lacks 'demand'.
Why?
Here's a harder question:
Why grow foreign capacity in the first place,
unless your back is to the wall?
One answer (ala the Marshall Plan): To stabilize regimes necessary to one's own national security.
That may be the only correct answer.
FN, April 2014:
The beauty of this, and the horror, really, of our politics, is that both liberals and conservatives, here, would disagree vehemently with me about this.
PHILIPONESQUE THEME FOR A CARTOON: CALL IT "TEAM MESS" RE FATTENING UP POST NIXON SHOCK
Picture four or five enormous young, almost nude, sumos, (all plump effete 'Macaires', with somewhat differing Asian features),
sitting in various poses around an outdoor picnic table already set and with various delicacies on trays, say in a wooded glade,
being obsequiously served another large platter/cornucopia of identifiable food by a tall, old, starved, emaciated, tipsy, male waiter (could be portrayed as an old, male lion) (Bertrand),
with a (Uncle Sam) vertical striped dilapidated tilted top hat, the hat to also resemble a chef's high hat, and a greasy torn, full length white plain cook's apron, casually tied, reading "Free Trade".
The sumos should each be glancing furtively sidelong at eachother, with looks of either anger, suspicion, and/or fear.
Optional: for the really creative, another large almost nude male figure, with tiny vestigial 'wings', also might be 'landing' in the glade near the table, ala the "Flore et Zephyr" lithograph by Daumier. This figure's tiny g-string might read 'India'.
Clouds in the distance.
Below is a caption: 'Laissez faire'. Alternative captions might read "Market Disequalibria" or "Market Anomalies" Or even "Trading Partners".
The caption above might read "Fattening Up The Orient",
or "Team Players".
A discographic reference, Offenbach's music, and Halevy's production, of Lischen & Fritzchen, Conversation Alsacienne, en un acte
sitting in various poses around an outdoor picnic table already set and with various delicacies on trays, say in a wooded glade,
being obsequiously served another large platter/cornucopia of identifiable food by a tall, old, starved, emaciated, tipsy, male waiter (could be portrayed as an old, male lion) (Bertrand),
with a (Uncle Sam) vertical striped dilapidated tilted top hat, the hat to also resemble a chef's high hat, and a greasy torn, full length white plain cook's apron, casually tied, reading "Free Trade".
The sumos should each be glancing furtively sidelong at eachother, with looks of either anger, suspicion, and/or fear.
Optional: for the really creative, another large almost nude male figure, with tiny vestigial 'wings', also might be 'landing' in the glade near the table, ala the "Flore et Zephyr" lithograph by Daumier. This figure's tiny g-string might read 'India'.
Clouds in the distance.
Below is a caption: 'Laissez faire'. Alternative captions might read "Market Disequalibria" or "Market Anomalies" Or even "Trading Partners".
The caption above might read "Fattening Up The Orient",
or "Team Players".
A discographic reference, Offenbach's music, and Halevy's production, of Lischen & Fritzchen, Conversation Alsacienne, en un acte
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
'Prof. Sir Michael Howard on Globalisation' and Market Capitalism: WHY ASK WHY?
Great great interview clip.
youtube.
But questions: how many 'seats' at the table?
A hundred?
A thousand? E.g. Count the big MNCs? 'Market state' 'players' after all?
(BP in the news today, again(!), 'not' influencing release, by Scotland, of
Lockerbie bomber, due to Libya oil deal......................................................(if they didn't influence it, why deny it?
(WELL THEN: WHY ASK WHY?)
As Sir Michael himself asks, aren't 'we' part of the 'problem'?
youtube.
But questions: how many 'seats' at the table?
A hundred?
A thousand? E.g. Count the big MNCs? 'Market state' 'players' after all?
(BP in the news today, again(!), 'not' influencing release, by Scotland, of
Lockerbie bomber, due to Libya oil deal......................................................(if they didn't influence it, why deny it?
(WELL THEN: WHY ASK WHY?)
As Sir Michael himself asks, aren't 'we' part of the 'problem'?
THE LAST EMPEROR
'Beautiful' film. Maybe a little short on actual history.....but good melodrama.
It painted the 'big picture' China Russia Japan, back then, rather well, if very, very sketchy.
The treatment of the 'atmosphere' of the Forbidden City, an atmosphere virtually, now, lost forever, was recovered very well, I thought.
Bernardo Bertolucci, what can one say?
That soundtrack can be a discographic reference for today.
It painted the 'big picture' China Russia Japan, back then, rather well, if very, very sketchy.
The treatment of the 'atmosphere' of the Forbidden City, an atmosphere virtually, now, lost forever, was recovered very well, I thought.
Bernardo Bertolucci, what can one say?
That soundtrack can be a discographic reference for today.
Boom and Bust Real Estate Before and After the New Deal
Here's an article with personal interest, and family history, for me.
Maybe someone else will appreciate the story too.
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/tuma/hrs/chap9.htm
Maybe someone else will appreciate the story too.
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/tuma/hrs/chap9.htm
RE TECHNOCRATS REGULATORY PARADIGM: WHY NOT PLAY THE GAME TO WIN?
Just a few Socratic questions Re 'brontosauran' size new 'regulations':
Why not talk about structural reforms, rather than party politics again?
Because the electorate has long been politically dumbed down (not their fault), such that structural reforms is over their political heads.
(Krugman more or less made the point yesterday. He occassionally, though an economist, makes a good point of wider significance.)
Re regulating what I would call 'fast declining', rather than fast moving, Dino, as far as that limited and flawed constellation of goals goes, what would be the alternative, going out of the government business, I suppose?
The answer implied, it seems, is 'Yes'. Let me guess, the invisible, say, 'Casanova's', hand, again.
Who can blame them, it is the 'gospel' (or Torah) they have learned as technocrats of a certain stripe.
Having made a technocratic decision on 'less regulation' and on implementing no positive industrial/commercial policy
(except globalization trade and commercial concessions to defeat communism),
(and on long having technocratically foregone technocratically regulating compartmentalized legislative and executive decisions, or technocratically guiding promoting or preserving, the direction of industrial and commercial policies,)
has itself been the most disastrous 'technocratic' decision. fn. Prestowitz, etc.
That's a hard objection to dodge, technically, given what effective foreign government technocrats have been able to accomplish.
The one response Brooks got, from someone pointing out the low pay of gov technocrats, is really only the tip of the iceberg of reforms needed, to come abreast.
Which technocrats do you believe, "Pundit Technocrat" (c) (a journalistic expert of some stripe, eg political, economic, social science, experts)? If not, which other ones? How would you choose among them whom to believe? Your preexisting prejudices?
Would you look for criteria among or between them? Whose criteria? Unfortunately, it is a 'technocratic' question.
Thus the reasons why I have been pushing for some disciplinary way among the methods and conclusions of disparate but interrelated expertises.
I posted a comment re the mortgage debacle previously. That itself is an example of very complex private and public 'technocratic' activity; how much more of that type of laissez faire technocracy do you want?
I had dinner with the guy, many years ago, who wrote the software for the mortgage-backed securities instruments. Very nice guy. I don't remember what we talked about. He was just doing his narrow special field as a programmer in the securities industry.
Politicians or CEOs can get technocrats for any goal they select, they can mix or match technocrats, they want 'team players', almost invariably, that is the code word for a group of otherwise disparate experts, willing to shed their respective discipline's norms for a 'higher goal'.
Lawyers can do the same thing, with technical experts in many fields.
What is only good alternative to 'regulatory' technocrats?
Even 'worse' you may think, my suggestion for both regulatory/developmental ones.
At least I am moving toward a more rational and complete model that more successful regimes have been using to kick our ass.
To use a 'team sport' slogan my readers, some of them at least would understand,
WHY NOT PLAY THE GAME TO WIN?
The invisible hand technocracy has long been losing the game miserably.
Why not talk about structural reforms, rather than party politics again?
Because the electorate has long been politically dumbed down (not their fault), such that structural reforms is over their political heads.
(Krugman more or less made the point yesterday. He occassionally, though an economist, makes a good point of wider significance.)
Re regulating what I would call 'fast declining', rather than fast moving, Dino, as far as that limited and flawed constellation of goals goes, what would be the alternative, going out of the government business, I suppose?
The answer implied, it seems, is 'Yes'. Let me guess, the invisible, say, 'Casanova's', hand, again.
Who can blame them, it is the 'gospel' (or Torah) they have learned as technocrats of a certain stripe.
Having made a technocratic decision on 'less regulation' and on implementing no positive industrial/commercial policy
(except globalization trade and commercial concessions to defeat communism),
(and on long having technocratically foregone technocratically regulating compartmentalized legislative and executive decisions, or technocratically guiding promoting or preserving, the direction of industrial and commercial policies,)
has itself been the most disastrous 'technocratic' decision. fn. Prestowitz, etc.
That's a hard objection to dodge, technically, given what effective foreign government technocrats have been able to accomplish.
The one response Brooks got, from someone pointing out the low pay of gov technocrats, is really only the tip of the iceberg of reforms needed, to come abreast.
Which technocrats do you believe, "Pundit Technocrat" (c) (a journalistic expert of some stripe, eg political, economic, social science, experts)? If not, which other ones? How would you choose among them whom to believe? Your preexisting prejudices?
Would you look for criteria among or between them? Whose criteria? Unfortunately, it is a 'technocratic' question.
Thus the reasons why I have been pushing for some disciplinary way among the methods and conclusions of disparate but interrelated expertises.
I posted a comment re the mortgage debacle previously. That itself is an example of very complex private and public 'technocratic' activity; how much more of that type of laissez faire technocracy do you want?
I had dinner with the guy, many years ago, who wrote the software for the mortgage-backed securities instruments. Very nice guy. I don't remember what we talked about. He was just doing his narrow special field as a programmer in the securities industry.
Politicians or CEOs can get technocrats for any goal they select, they can mix or match technocrats, they want 'team players', almost invariably, that is the code word for a group of otherwise disparate experts, willing to shed their respective discipline's norms for a 'higher goal'.
Lawyers can do the same thing, with technical experts in many fields.
What is only good alternative to 'regulatory' technocrats?
Even 'worse' you may think, my suggestion for both regulatory/developmental ones.
At least I am moving toward a more rational and complete model that more successful regimes have been using to kick our ass.
To use a 'team sport' slogan my readers, some of them at least would understand,
WHY NOT PLAY THE GAME TO WIN?
The invisible hand technocracy has long been losing the game miserably.
RE LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM: DINO IN THE DETAILS
For a good visible example of why I say local government consolidation is needed, not necessarily 'outsourcing', take a look at the NYT article on Maywood.
Question: How many other cities are strewn around and about it?
Question: What county underlies them, or those in adjacent counties, say a stone's throw away, fighting or losing the annexation wars?
On the other hand, how many sparsely populated places have the same number of counties as densely populated ones? It goes bsck to transportation and communication constraints, and other things, in the 16 through 19th Centuries.
Take a look at the late Robert Lorch's book, State and Local Politics.
Question: How many other cities are strewn around and about it?
Question: What county underlies them, or those in adjacent counties, say a stone's throw away, fighting or losing the annexation wars?
On the other hand, how many sparsely populated places have the same number of counties as densely populated ones? It goes bsck to transportation and communication constraints, and other things, in the 16 through 19th Centuries.
Take a look at the late Robert Lorch's book, State and Local Politics.
Monday, July 19, 2010
PHENOMENOLITICS: ON PUNDITS, SPENDING, AND ELECTIONS, DELUSIONS
Unfortunately, when one does not have an integral domestic political economy, but rather a globalized one, 'domestic''spending' is like 'walking in the wind', without developmental reform. it might rouse the old lion slightly from his torpor.
Just 'Spending' is not an industrial or commercial policy. It may be better than nothing; it is what American policy makers have been limited to.
Merely either reelecting, or turning out, the usual incumbents, will not move political structures to more effective stewardship of the American peoples' 'general welfare'. (Welfare, for economists since Adam Smith, has usually meant, unfortunately, 'global economic welfare'.)
Americans have been occupied with their everyday lives; trusting that things were politically going along, 'generation to generation', in slow, but merely fitful, trend toward greater prosperity.
That has not been the case, but has caught most Americans, long distracted from the underlying causes for the cul de sac, at a practical and spiritual loss, and turning toward cruder explanations for causes and solutions because those, like the paradigm, sell.
What is the invisible hand now telling you to do?
I, 'on the other hand', would warn my fellow Americans to be alarmed at what this groping, invisible hand, more like the 'The Hand of Casanova'(c) than of Providence, has long been doing 'behind your back'.
This is the kind of spot where I really need a cartoonist..............................
Just 'Spending' is not an industrial or commercial policy. It may be better than nothing; it is what American policy makers have been limited to.
Merely either reelecting, or turning out, the usual incumbents, will not move political structures to more effective stewardship of the American peoples' 'general welfare'. (Welfare, for economists since Adam Smith, has usually meant, unfortunately, 'global economic welfare'.)
Americans have been occupied with their everyday lives; trusting that things were politically going along, 'generation to generation', in slow, but merely fitful, trend toward greater prosperity.
That has not been the case, but has caught most Americans, long distracted from the underlying causes for the cul de sac, at a practical and spiritual loss, and turning toward cruder explanations for causes and solutions because those, like the paradigm, sell.
What is the invisible hand now telling you to do?
I, 'on the other hand', would warn my fellow Americans to be alarmed at what this groping, invisible hand, more like the 'The Hand of Casanova'(c) than of Providence, has long been doing 'behind your back'.
This is the kind of spot where I really need a cartoonist..............................
Sunday, July 18, 2010
The Torah Richard Elliott Friedman
He wrote a great book on this, read it many years ago; just saw an interview.
Interestingly, the interview touches on difficulties re archaeology and biblical studies not collaborating so well lately, because each is getting so specialized.....
whereas the collaboration that had produced his insights and many of those of his teachers at Harvard, Cross, etc., multidisciplinarians, were based on biblical scholarship, archaeology, and other things, together.
They also discuss the unfortunate rise of 'biblical minimalism'.
Interestingly, the interview touches on difficulties re archaeology and biblical studies not collaborating so well lately, because each is getting so specialized.....
whereas the collaboration that had produced his insights and many of those of his teachers at Harvard, Cross, etc., multidisciplinarians, were based on biblical scholarship, archaeology, and other things, together.
They also discuss the unfortunate rise of 'biblical minimalism'.
Cartoonist Wanted
I am looking for a cartoonist.
I need someone who, at short notice, can turn out graphic figures a la Daumier, so that I can inscribe some terse, pregnant, phrases, below their jangling activities. Looking for someone with real skill, con brio (sp).
I need someone who, at short notice, can turn out graphic figures a la Daumier, so that I can inscribe some terse, pregnant, phrases, below their jangling activities. Looking for someone with real skill, con brio (sp).
SOVEREIGNTY AT BAY WHERE'S THE BEEF?
A propos David Kaiser's post today.
It is also for my brother in law, who might get a charge out of this title.
Kind of cute to post this title, after all these years.
Vernon could see it coming....even in the 60s.
In on the Marshall Plan, GATT, etc.
Back when I was at BU, in the late 70s(!), my International Management Course textbook, Manager In The World Economy, was jointly written by Vernon, and someone else, Wells I think.
Kind of pathetic, really, in retrospect.
RE JAMIE GALBRAITH ARTICLE
'TREMBLE...', very nice article. Thanks to David Kaiser for the reference.
Don't hold our breath for the convulsions.
The 'rule of law' is, unhappily, not all that is at stake, for 'reforms'.
We have a gadzillion lawyers, plenty of laws, lot of agencies.
Baled up with laws. They are only one small piece in a very complex puzzle.
Lack of regulation, yes. But,................
going back even to the (relatively weak and intermittently and fitfully enforced)securities and anti-trust laws we once had, not nearly enough, without structural developmental reforms, not merely 'regulatory' ones,
we need further rationalizations of the 'dinosaur for dinner'.
It's what's for dinner.....
(Where's the beef? or WHERE'S THE PORK LOIN?)
Weak old 'watch dogs', biting back at 'Dino', for the rule of law;
toothless tigers;
there are some really great quotes, from Japanese trade negotiators, oddly enough, on warily watching the 'old lion',..... Trading Places...p 268.
Their 'old lion' IS Dino.........
Don't hold our breath for the convulsions.
The 'rule of law' is, unhappily, not all that is at stake, for 'reforms'.
We have a gadzillion lawyers, plenty of laws, lot of agencies.
Baled up with laws. They are only one small piece in a very complex puzzle.
Lack of regulation, yes. But,................
going back even to the (relatively weak and intermittently and fitfully enforced)securities and anti-trust laws we once had, not nearly enough, without structural developmental reforms, not merely 'regulatory' ones,
we need further rationalizations of the 'dinosaur for dinner'.
It's what's for dinner.....
(Where's the beef? or WHERE'S THE PORK LOIN?)
Weak old 'watch dogs', biting back at 'Dino', for the rule of law;
toothless tigers;
there are some really great quotes, from Japanese trade negotiators, oddly enough, on warily watching the 'old lion',..... Trading Places...p 268.
Their 'old lion' IS Dino.........
LOUIS SEIZE
Our political dysfunction is of a comparable magnitude.
Apparently, Schama, bless his heart, has said a similar thing.
Apparently, Schama, bless his heart, has said a similar thing.
RE JAPAN BASHER MONIKER
(Already, no doubt, the term China Basher has also been used, in certain quarters.)
This term was created, as pointed out in Japan Who Governs, Introduction, to dismiss and to defuse calls by spokesmen for reforms, overwhelmingly American reforms. See, for example, for some history of how this term was used and to what other terms it had been related, Whatever Happened To Japan-Bashing, an article by O'Connor.
Thus, the system these people were rightly, but too late, 'bashing', was overwhelmingly our own.
Only those who have not read these works can maintain that they were bashing something other than, overwhelmingly, our system, not theirs.
This term was created, as pointed out in Japan Who Governs, Introduction, to dismiss and to defuse calls by spokesmen for reforms, overwhelmingly American reforms. See, for example, for some history of how this term was used and to what other terms it had been related, Whatever Happened To Japan-Bashing, an article by O'Connor.
Thus, the system these people were rightly, but too late, 'bashing', was overwhelmingly our own.
Only those who have not read these works can maintain that they were bashing something other than, overwhelmingly, our system, not theirs.
EG TRADE REFORMS
Prestowitz had some nice capsules of '80s trade attitutes of federal trade players, in Trading Places, p. 269, 271.
These kinds of political structures are some of the things I have meant by structures needing reforms.
I would add, that our trade 'system' (non-system really), needed major reforms prior to implementation of the Marshall Plan, not after.
These kinds of political structures are some of the things I have meant by structures needing reforms.
I would add, that our trade 'system' (non-system really), needed major reforms prior to implementation of the Marshall Plan, not after.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
GOD DOES NOT PLAY DICE
Although I sympathize with Collingwood's definition of 'metaphysics', I side with Einstein on his point above, re quantum.
I had even heard that some research, 10 years ago or so, subatomic particles, etc., seemed to have 'corroborated' Einstein's 'intuition'.
I had this discussion re quantum with a physicist friend, 15 or so years ago.
She did not quite see where I was coming from, which one can understand.
Why should she have? I never really went past high school physics.
I had even heard that some research, 10 years ago or so, subatomic particles, etc., seemed to have 'corroborated' Einstein's 'intuition'.
I had this discussion re quantum with a physicist friend, 15 or so years ago.
She did not quite see where I was coming from, which one can understand.
Why should she have? I never really went past high school physics.
Friday, July 16, 2010
SOUL AND BODY
Plato created this distinction, an abstraction from earlier diverse traditions on human anatomy and bodily functions, and from speculations on the nature of human beings, their world, and their ways of understanding it.
It does not seem to have struck anyone in Athens, that for all people, but especially Athenians, to have immortal souls, might be inconsistent with the piety required of Athenians for their gods.Maybe a well versed Plato scholar can correct this supposition if wrong.
It was, after all, partly for 'impiety' that Socrates had ostensibly been killed.
Phillip Cary, for the Teaching Company, has a nice talk on Plato's Metaphysics. They do great intros.
It does not seem to have struck anyone in Athens, that for all people, but especially Athenians, to have immortal souls, might be inconsistent with the piety required of Athenians for their gods.Maybe a well versed Plato scholar can correct this supposition if wrong.
It was, after all, partly for 'impiety' that Socrates had ostensibly been killed.
Phillip Cary, for the Teaching Company, has a nice talk on Plato's Metaphysics. They do great intros.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
METAPHYSICS AND DISCIPLINARY CARAVANS
Metaphysics is a term which has a long and chequered history.
However, I believe that there are greater needs now, than ever before
for inquiries, call them 'quasi-generalist studies'('metaphysics' is too arcane).
How disciplines 'play together', among or across fields of specialties, borrowed or mistaken or misrepresented or missed analogies, imitations from other disciplines, are some kinds of areas modern 'metaphysics' might scrutinize from 'generalist', a distanced, and/or comparativist perspectives, scrutinized for different kinds of things, such as consistency, compatibility, etc.
(The various scrutinies of metaphysics are not necessarily 'close scrutiny';'beware' the 'hot breath' of close scrutiny; this aside for the lawyers, jurists, 'Rumpoles',and 'Bullinghams' out there.)
In this world, of one kind of expert or representative relying on other kinds of experts, or groups of them, of many kinds; and relying on them, in most cases, by 'definition', blindly, or almost so, or in constellated ensembles which result in obfuscation; these scenarios can have, have had, and will continue to have, incalculable consequences.
That persons so relying may have power, influence, or authority over, the experts of all kinds whose opinions they propound or rely on, is additional cause for concern about whole systems of such acumen.
The creation of mortgage backed securities, and securitization generally, are current examples of these types of phenomena, where various areas of real estate, contracts, secured transactions law, creditors' and debtors' rights, securities industry practices, brokerage, rating agency, marketing, finance, etc., were harnessed, ad hoc.
Many well intentioned, and some not so well intentioned, people, from different fields, collaborated, fought,earned a living, gave advice, did research of all kinds, to put together, market, and administer, these flawed complex groups of instruments.
What inconsistencies existed among the various topics and fields, hitched to the securitization wagon, that were trampled? Was it 'just greed' 'driving the train', an easy conclusion to reach, or weren't other issues, 'problems of method', also running around there?
(See, re ideas hitched to certain wagons, for example, Roger Hargrave, "Undercover agents", re the history, and attributions, of old stringed instruments.)
MORE GENERALLY, (You generally won't see anything like this at The Stone)
'History' (itself a discipline with 'specialties', its own historiography, including analogies, imitations, etc., from other fields along the way) has itself been subject to similar forces, harnessed to certain wagons, sometimes alone, sometimes in 'disciplinary caravans', so to speak.
More generally, the histories of many fields are literally 'littered' with examples of the kinds of thing I am talking about.
Here, for example, one might think of such things as Collingwood says re Kant's analytic and the history of science, a struggle Collingwood sees partly between Platonism and Aristotelianism, which Kant had not appreciated, (each according to Collingwood, modified through European history), but based at first on conflicting, or at least mutually exclusive 'analogies', each 'absolute presuppositions'(?), from ancient Greek 'fields' of biology, and mathematics.
However, I believe that there are greater needs now, than ever before
for inquiries, call them 'quasi-generalist studies'('metaphysics' is too arcane).
How disciplines 'play together', among or across fields of specialties, borrowed or mistaken or misrepresented or missed analogies, imitations from other disciplines, are some kinds of areas modern 'metaphysics' might scrutinize from 'generalist', a distanced, and/or comparativist perspectives, scrutinized for different kinds of things, such as consistency, compatibility, etc.
(The various scrutinies of metaphysics are not necessarily 'close scrutiny';'beware' the 'hot breath' of close scrutiny; this aside for the lawyers, jurists, 'Rumpoles',and 'Bullinghams' out there.)
In this world, of one kind of expert or representative relying on other kinds of experts, or groups of them, of many kinds; and relying on them, in most cases, by 'definition', blindly, or almost so, or in constellated ensembles which result in obfuscation; these scenarios can have, have had, and will continue to have, incalculable consequences.
That persons so relying may have power, influence, or authority over, the experts of all kinds whose opinions they propound or rely on, is additional cause for concern about whole systems of such acumen.
The creation of mortgage backed securities, and securitization generally, are current examples of these types of phenomena, where various areas of real estate, contracts, secured transactions law, creditors' and debtors' rights, securities industry practices, brokerage, rating agency, marketing, finance, etc., were harnessed, ad hoc.
Many well intentioned, and some not so well intentioned, people, from different fields, collaborated, fought,earned a living, gave advice, did research of all kinds, to put together, market, and administer, these flawed complex groups of instruments.
What inconsistencies existed among the various topics and fields, hitched to the securitization wagon, that were trampled? Was it 'just greed' 'driving the train', an easy conclusion to reach, or weren't other issues, 'problems of method', also running around there?
(See, re ideas hitched to certain wagons, for example, Roger Hargrave, "Undercover agents", re the history, and attributions, of old stringed instruments.)
MORE GENERALLY, (You generally won't see anything like this at The Stone)
'History' (itself a discipline with 'specialties', its own historiography, including analogies, imitations, etc., from other fields along the way) has itself been subject to similar forces, harnessed to certain wagons, sometimes alone, sometimes in 'disciplinary caravans', so to speak.
More generally, the histories of many fields are literally 'littered' with examples of the kinds of thing I am talking about.
Here, for example, one might think of such things as Collingwood says re Kant's analytic and the history of science, a struggle Collingwood sees partly between Platonism and Aristotelianism, which Kant had not appreciated, (each according to Collingwood, modified through European history), but based at first on conflicting, or at least mutually exclusive 'analogies', each 'absolute presuppositions'(?), from ancient Greek 'fields' of biology, and mathematics.
SPECIALIZATION
I am going to start raising issues related to ' specialization '. This topic has come up here momentarily, and I referred to it on David Kaiser's site, but it needs more thorough discussion.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
FOR FELLOW CITIZENS ON BASTILLE DAY
Re The Stone article Thought on a Declaration here For Fellow Citizens On Bastille Day
Americans don't always see it as such, but all political spectrums of Americans, from so called liberals, communists, moderates, to so called conservatives, to republicans, to tea, or what not, all are heirs, really, spiritually, even though the American colonists' rebellion occurred first,
of the late 18th Century upheavals, in many fields at once, that produced also the French Revolution.
Unfortunately, in important ways, the issues that were joined by those struggles, the search for meaning and purpose,
for nation states, the dynastic states which continued to lumber on,
for civilizations, individuals, families, communities,
after the fall of the old regime, still haunt us.
Americans don't always see it as such, but all political spectrums of Americans, from so called liberals, communists, moderates, to so called conservatives, to republicans, to tea, or what not, all are heirs, really, spiritually, even though the American colonists' rebellion occurred first,
of the late 18th Century upheavals, in many fields at once, that produced also the French Revolution.
Unfortunately, in important ways, the issues that were joined by those struggles, the search for meaning and purpose,
for nation states, the dynastic states which continued to lumber on,
for civilizations, individuals, families, communities,
after the fall of the old regime, still haunt us.
Just to unpack this cryptic remark
The US has indeed been a 'developmental' state, not just a 'regulatory' one...
every state is, really.
Well then, you ask, what state(s) was the US developing, say after WWII?
Answer: The non-Communist World.
every state is, really.
Well then, you ask, what state(s) was the US developing, say after WWII?
Answer: The non-Communist World.
Keynesian- Monetarist/ Developmental- Regulatory
Each, after the time of the industrial revolution, are two dimensional, 'mickey mouse', opposites.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
JUST A FEW BRIEF SYLLABLES ON ENTREPRENEURS OR 'GRINDS' VERSUS THE NEED FOR A DEVELOPMENTAL STATE
One hears a lot, from American 'thinkers', about the need for greater good ole fashioned American entrepreneurship, say a lot more of moving and shaking 'grinds'.
Prestowitz wrote a book, about 10 years ago, called Three Billion New Capitalists....must be a lot of entrepreneurs among 3,000,000,000 capitalists. How many capitalists, how many entrepreneurs, is enough? Can you have too many?
Does it matter whether they are your citizens, or somebody else's? If so, how much does it matter, a lot, or a little, or did you think about it yet?
There are a lot of bright new thinkers, in abundance, in the developing world, armed now, thanks overwhelmingly to us, with knowledge, technology,and set free to innovate.
What has been the history of innovation, re patents in the US, to the limited extent intellectual property protection really means much anymore? Apparently, most of them have been going to others elsewhere in recent years. R&D closed down or offshored.
Back when the US did innovate relatively more, up to the mid 20th Century, most of this innovation was taken, licensed, bought, stolen, or imitated, and capitalized on elsewhere, not in the US.
So, given that history, why push for entrepreneurship here to ignite a 'domestic' economy?
What do I suggest?
This is not all about just criticism of the status quo.
I recommend reform towards the type of nation state systems that have been operating against our weak federated system. Everyone without blinkers has been able for a long time to see the results of the differences. Books have been written about it.
The notion of a developmental state is not new, or even just 20th Century in origin. Some people refer to 17th Century Holland as the first, but one can go further back really. There were attempts to move the US somewhat in that direction from the beginning. They were not that successful, past a certain point. You have to look at the history of the North and the South and the world, commercially, in the 18th and early 19th Centuries.......
Lincoln's was the last 'serious' attempt (I say 'serious'), and was a major reason for the Civil War. He had hoped, before the war, to see the South developed, more similarly to then existing industrial development in the North at that time, under what was called the American System, a plank in the Republican Party, not merely to continue the patterns of core and hinterland, foreign trade and competition with foreign manuracturing, and foreign and Northern investment, which had existed in the US for some time by then.
But he was killed. He had also turned away from the theme of Southern development by say 1862. His pre-war intentions were not later carried out. I doubt whether they even could have been, given the flawed political structure he was struggling even to salvage, and the pressures on such an enterprise from all quarters.
There are a lot of different reasons why a transition to a more developmental domestic commonwealth would be difficult now too, but some reasons remain the same.
What are the alternatives? I am not going to get into Shield's or Shell's 'possible worlds' (not 'possible worlds semantics'), because for this topic, one doesn't have to.
Perhaps something remotely like a modern version of the Spartan City State system, but without its virtues.
Prestowitz wrote a book, about 10 years ago, called Three Billion New Capitalists....must be a lot of entrepreneurs among 3,000,000,000 capitalists. How many capitalists, how many entrepreneurs, is enough? Can you have too many?
Does it matter whether they are your citizens, or somebody else's? If so, how much does it matter, a lot, or a little, or did you think about it yet?
There are a lot of bright new thinkers, in abundance, in the developing world, armed now, thanks overwhelmingly to us, with knowledge, technology,and set free to innovate.
What has been the history of innovation, re patents in the US, to the limited extent intellectual property protection really means much anymore? Apparently, most of them have been going to others elsewhere in recent years. R&D closed down or offshored.
Back when the US did innovate relatively more, up to the mid 20th Century, most of this innovation was taken, licensed, bought, stolen, or imitated, and capitalized on elsewhere, not in the US.
So, given that history, why push for entrepreneurship here to ignite a 'domestic' economy?
What do I suggest?
This is not all about just criticism of the status quo.
I recommend reform towards the type of nation state systems that have been operating against our weak federated system. Everyone without blinkers has been able for a long time to see the results of the differences. Books have been written about it.
The notion of a developmental state is not new, or even just 20th Century in origin. Some people refer to 17th Century Holland as the first, but one can go further back really. There were attempts to move the US somewhat in that direction from the beginning. They were not that successful, past a certain point. You have to look at the history of the North and the South and the world, commercially, in the 18th and early 19th Centuries.......
Lincoln's was the last 'serious' attempt (I say 'serious'), and was a major reason for the Civil War. He had hoped, before the war, to see the South developed, more similarly to then existing industrial development in the North at that time, under what was called the American System, a plank in the Republican Party, not merely to continue the patterns of core and hinterland, foreign trade and competition with foreign manuracturing, and foreign and Northern investment, which had existed in the US for some time by then.
But he was killed. He had also turned away from the theme of Southern development by say 1862. His pre-war intentions were not later carried out. I doubt whether they even could have been, given the flawed political structure he was struggling even to salvage, and the pressures on such an enterprise from all quarters.
There are a lot of different reasons why a transition to a more developmental domestic commonwealth would be difficult now too, but some reasons remain the same.
What are the alternatives? I am not going to get into Shield's or Shell's 'possible worlds' (not 'possible worlds semantics'), because for this topic, one doesn't have to.
Perhaps something remotely like a modern version of the Spartan City State system, but without its virtues.
DAVID BROOKS
Illustrative editorial. (For those still in the thrall of 'MacNeil Lehrerism'.)
Brooks' 'grinds', unfortunately, would be more likely to light a fire under him than for his image of America to light one under them, for just the reasons he gives, and others I won't go into.
Perhaps a little less oversight of princes' fiefs, would assist the grinds to better achieve profits, in the periphery way out there, (to allude to one of Braudel's models), far outside, and down from, the 'Casino', as another editorial puts it?
Or, see yet another author's recent editorial, "America Builds An Aristocracy", for more on new princes, and when you get a minute, review the history and details of the 'Rule Against Perpetuities'; that will be a heads' up on technical legalese for those interested in that sort of twaddle.
I sympathize with all those princes, grinds, and all those in between, who would like their great grandchildren and their children and their childrens' children, to be comfortable, in their distant world of the future;
but princes, especially, should perhaps consider, yesterday, what kind of world the US has already become; and what stability there would be for such distant future offspring, based on how things have come to look in the here and now, for some decades now have been looking, and on how things appear to look in the immediate future, not even 10 years from now, never mind the amended Rules Against Perpetuities in over half the 50 states, whether 90 years or 'forever', but rather, for example, perhaps, the day after tomorrow.
A revised or repealed rule against perpetuities, enacted by various several states, may be worth nothing, will definitely be worth nothing whatever to shelter assets, without a lot of drastic reforms, in the intervening 90 years, and probably much sooner rather than later, in that time.
Brooks' 'grinds', unfortunately, would be more likely to light a fire under him than for his image of America to light one under them, for just the reasons he gives, and others I won't go into.
Perhaps a little less oversight of princes' fiefs, would assist the grinds to better achieve profits, in the periphery way out there, (to allude to one of Braudel's models), far outside, and down from, the 'Casino', as another editorial puts it?
Or, see yet another author's recent editorial, "America Builds An Aristocracy", for more on new princes, and when you get a minute, review the history and details of the 'Rule Against Perpetuities'; that will be a heads' up on technical legalese for those interested in that sort of twaddle.
I sympathize with all those princes, grinds, and all those in between, who would like their great grandchildren and their children and their childrens' children, to be comfortable, in their distant world of the future;
but princes, especially, should perhaps consider, yesterday, what kind of world the US has already become; and what stability there would be for such distant future offspring, based on how things have come to look in the here and now, for some decades now have been looking, and on how things appear to look in the immediate future, not even 10 years from now, never mind the amended Rules Against Perpetuities in over half the 50 states, whether 90 years or 'forever', but rather, for example, perhaps, the day after tomorrow.
A revised or repealed rule against perpetuities, enacted by various several states, may be worth nothing, will definitely be worth nothing whatever to shelter assets, without a lot of drastic reforms, in the intervening 90 years, and probably much sooner rather than later, in that time.
Monday, July 12, 2010
KHARTOUM
I don't know why, but I started this film last night.
Never saw it. A lot going on there.
Incidentally, re, for example global warming, and the siting of a major city, Khartoum is supposedly the hottest major city on the planet.
Why not say the soundtrack is the discographical reference for this week?
Never saw it. A lot going on there.
Incidentally, re, for example global warming, and the siting of a major city, Khartoum is supposedly the hottest major city on the planet.
Why not say the soundtrack is the discographical reference for this week?
CITIES AND THE WEALTH OF NATIONS
I am trying to read the parts of this book I haven't yet.
Dated, but she had relied on Braudel and Dore, among others; which is a rather good thing.
She unfortunately skipped the assumption of national economies (because she was understandably suspicious of 'economics profession' assumptions).
(However, models based on weak city-states within weaker regions do not give a good basis for political reform, unless the middle ages is your goal.)
My favorite passage so far may be the Henry Grady passage on an Atlanta funeral.
Dated, but she had relied on Braudel and Dore, among others; which is a rather good thing.
She unfortunately skipped the assumption of national economies (because she was understandably suspicious of 'economics profession' assumptions).
(However, models based on weak city-states within weaker regions do not give a good basis for political reform, unless the middle ages is your goal.)
My favorite passage so far may be the Henry Grady passage on an Atlanta funeral.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Here's one book on the subject
for example:
Power Struggle: THE HUNDRED-YEAR WAR OVER ELECTRICITY
Somewhat dated, but it's a start........
Power Struggle: THE HUNDRED-YEAR WAR OVER ELECTRICITY
Somewhat dated, but it's a start........
EG ENRON AND YOUR STATE AND FREE ENTERPRISE
I will let some states' rights experts 'connect the dots' on what these issues might mean regarding your state as a 'nation state'.
There are reasons, and history, regarding why America has a large, powerful, backward, and corrupt power industry 'sector'. There are actually a few books written about it.
Maybe I got some of these issues all wrong; but then, it would imply Enron needed to be better regulated (or maybe there are those out there who think less regulation of Enron would have worked better?)
This looks like the 'horns of a dilemma' either way.
There are reasons, and history, regarding why America has a large, powerful, backward, and corrupt power industry 'sector'. There are actually a few books written about it.
Maybe I got some of these issues all wrong; but then, it would imply Enron needed to be better regulated (or maybe there are those out there who think less regulation of Enron would have worked better?)
This looks like the 'horns of a dilemma' either way.
Re Conservative views continued
"I will save comments, on the duplicative additional layers of government, thousands of them, at the local levels, within each single state, which would not be eliminated merely by eliminating the federal government, for another post."
I won't get into this deeply, except to suggest that you can also see my point, I think, when I suggest that maybe we also have just too many political entities overlapping eachother, especially in densely populated areas.
Another of the 'professions', which I neglected to mention, which, arguably, we may be thot to have long had 'too many' of, and to have had to attend to and to continue to attend too often to their support and reelection, in almost a kneejerk, turnstyle, manner, and to have long needed reforms regarding, is politicians.
But one has to attend to reforming the structures themselves somehow: getting politicians to reform the political structure they inhabit, an age old problem, sounds like a 'chicken or egg' dilemma unfortunately.
Can Americans require reforms of the structures, not just 'turning out the incumbents' for the 200,000th times, under which their politicians exist? Stranger things may have happened. Direct democracy, bad as its implications are in many respects, may force changes in this direction. It undoubtedly would be a mixed set of outcomes.
I won't get into this deeply, except to suggest that you can also see my point, I think, when I suggest that maybe we also have just too many political entities overlapping eachother, especially in densely populated areas.
Another of the 'professions', which I neglected to mention, which, arguably, we may be thot to have long had 'too many' of, and to have had to attend to and to continue to attend too often to their support and reelection, in almost a kneejerk, turnstyle, manner, and to have long needed reforms regarding, is politicians.
But one has to attend to reforming the structures themselves somehow: getting politicians to reform the political structure they inhabit, an age old problem, sounds like a 'chicken or egg' dilemma unfortunately.
Can Americans require reforms of the structures, not just 'turning out the incumbents' for the 200,000th times, under which their politicians exist? Stranger things may have happened. Direct democracy, bad as its implications are in many respects, may force changes in this direction. It undoubtedly would be a mixed set of outcomes.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
FOR WELLINGTONIANS
I picked up an old pamphlet, some time ago, on Ebay, editted by Sir Michael Howard.
He wrote the last article, "V. Wellington And The British Army", and there is a passage there I liked, I don't know why:
"If the House of Commons had feared Army reform in the eighteenth century because it would increase the influence of the Crown, Wellington feared it no less in the nineteenth because it would increase the influence of the House of Commons. So long as the Army remained unreformed, it could be used as a tool neither of Royal despotism nor of political jobbery."
What comes after this passage is also of interest.
He wrote the last article, "V. Wellington And The British Army", and there is a passage there I liked, I don't know why:
"If the House of Commons had feared Army reform in the eighteenth century because it would increase the influence of the Crown, Wellington feared it no less in the nineteenth because it would increase the influence of the House of Commons. So long as the Army remained unreformed, it could be used as a tool neither of Royal despotism nor of political jobbery."
What comes after this passage is also of interest.
Why not a New Marshall Plan
.........If we're now all that fragile,
after so much irrational exuberance?
This is my idea of a joke,
but some may see the point.
after so much irrational exuberance?
This is my idea of a joke,
but some may see the point.
MORE ON WAITING FOR A TRADE POLICY FOR FRAGILE ECONOMIES
It has been argued in an editorial that we all now need still a little more free trade, bacause almost all advanced economies are so fragile now.
However, one of the things one sees, looking back, is that fragile economies have normally been associated with wars, their aftermaths, or their preludes.
We have fragile industrialized economies, everywhere, in a world long marked by globalized laissez faire 'relative' peace.
What does that say, if anything, about the processes which have been under way?
However, one of the things one sees, looking back, is that fragile economies have normally been associated with wars, their aftermaths, or their preludes.
We have fragile industrialized economies, everywhere, in a world long marked by globalized laissez faire 'relative' peace.
What does that say, if anything, about the processes which have been under way?
THE OTHER SHOE
Just a few words, having mentioned some of the things admittedly we may have too much of, or rather, too much quantity rather than quality of, that is governments;
What do we have 'not enough' of, 'the other shoe', that has dropped?
The most successful countries (still a useful term) have plans and strategies, coordinated between their government and their domestic and MNC industries and commerce (public or private), for 'import substitution', among other strategies.
Various sticks or carrots, other than formal public/private partnerships, or cartels, can work. But they always have something, rather than nothing.
Those strategies work to keep human productive work 'at home', wherever home is for them. Such programs and markets as 'cap and trade' are not at all the kind of thing I am talking about.
What do we have 'not enough' of, 'the other shoe', that has dropped?
The most successful countries (still a useful term) have plans and strategies, coordinated between their government and their domestic and MNC industries and commerce (public or private), for 'import substitution', among other strategies.
Various sticks or carrots, other than formal public/private partnerships, or cartels, can work. But they always have something, rather than nothing.
Those strategies work to keep human productive work 'at home', wherever home is for them. Such programs and markets as 'cap and trade' are not at all the kind of thing I am talking about.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Entre Chien et Loup
This French phrase, between dog and wolf, I first learned about, from graphic work, done on pottery, a series of mostly 'rooster' theme plates, with religious and political themes, by a Roswell Georgia artist, a retired lawyer. They reminded me of Daumier a little.
He referred to its meaning, for him, as 'the twilight zone'.
He referred to its meaning, for him, as 'the twilight zone'.
RE CONSERVATIVE VIEWS ON THE STATES AND THE PROFESSIONS
I want to mention just a couple of thoughts, about how things are in America, that people no doubt think about, from time to time.
One of the big things, apparently, is how big and bad the federal government is.
People often believe that we would really be better off without a larger political entity, say, go back to individual states, and call it a day.
I want to connect this idea, which Many people seem to share, regardless of which state they come from.
They don't like big government. They usually mean the federal one.
They sometimes claim they are closer to their state government, whichever that one happens to be.
They also, often, don't like so many darn lawyers. They wonder why there are so many, and lobbies of adverse medical and insurance professions, themselves other so called parasites, have trained them to hate these parasites (until you happen to need one yourself).
So, I am going to point out just a few basic things, about these different notions. These are really structural things, just doing a little basic math really. I don't have any political axe to grind, but rather just pointing out some basic facts.
One thing, which you might not have stopped to consider, is why there are so many lawyers, or, for that matter, financial advisers, or insurance agents, or chiropractors, contractors, electricians, plumbers, accountants, and a hundred other specialities, each 'very loosely' (to say the least) 'regulated' by your state, individually?
Not that we really need 'monopolies' of professionals dictating prices; but somehow we got oligolopolies/monopolies on the one hand in many areas (weak state and/or federal antitrust laws: we have both kinds); and fragmentary state by state regulation of all small practitioners in many fields, and piecemeal state by state plus federal regulation of oligopolies/monopolists, too.
One of the 'special problems' for Americans, especially patriotic state's rights ones, regarding the number of lawyers, or the number of any other specialists the state has deigned to regulate, has to do with the strange fact that we have 50, count them, 50, separate states in the Union.
Each of these states has its own professional bar association or whatever, and each state has its own very complex and detailed statute and case law and administrative laws, both civil and criminal law, (Louisiana even has the so-called 'civil law', from the French republic, differing substantially from all others of the 50), requiring special skills to master, special nuances to practice, each having its long and venerable history separate from each of the other 49 states' group of lawyers. Evey other profession or calling regulated by each of the several states has its own history, nuances, tradition, and rules. It is a phantasmagoria of different social and economic and legal arrangements.
So, if one wants to embark on just your state, as a political nation state, plan on having much the same cadre of lawyers, admitted only to your state, or perhaps admitted in one or two others at most, because eliminating just the federal government more or less leaves each state with its unique specialist bar, and all other specialities regulated by each several state, individually.
Another thing which you would still have, were you to recommend something drastic like this, say after eliminating the federal government, would be each of your states' legislatures.
Remember, there are still 50, count them, 50, of them. Each is different. Most of them are peopled nowadays by non lawyers. Americans have come to believe that in this simple world they don't need lawyers gumming up the state legislative works with technical legal jargon, and nonlawyers do just as well.
These are just a couple of thots, for so called political reforms that seem to be percolating out there.
I will save comments, on the duplicative additional layers of government, thousands of them, at the local levels, within each single state, which would not be eliminated merely by eliminating the federal government, for another post.
One of the big things, apparently, is how big and bad the federal government is.
People often believe that we would really be better off without a larger political entity, say, go back to individual states, and call it a day.
I want to connect this idea, which Many people seem to share, regardless of which state they come from.
They don't like big government. They usually mean the federal one.
They sometimes claim they are closer to their state government, whichever that one happens to be.
They also, often, don't like so many darn lawyers. They wonder why there are so many, and lobbies of adverse medical and insurance professions, themselves other so called parasites, have trained them to hate these parasites (until you happen to need one yourself).
So, I am going to point out just a few basic things, about these different notions. These are really structural things, just doing a little basic math really. I don't have any political axe to grind, but rather just pointing out some basic facts.
One thing, which you might not have stopped to consider, is why there are so many lawyers, or, for that matter, financial advisers, or insurance agents, or chiropractors, contractors, electricians, plumbers, accountants, and a hundred other specialities, each 'very loosely' (to say the least) 'regulated' by your state, individually?
Not that we really need 'monopolies' of professionals dictating prices; but somehow we got oligolopolies/monopolies on the one hand in many areas (weak state and/or federal antitrust laws: we have both kinds); and fragmentary state by state regulation of all small practitioners in many fields, and piecemeal state by state plus federal regulation of oligopolies/monopolists, too.
One of the 'special problems' for Americans, especially patriotic state's rights ones, regarding the number of lawyers, or the number of any other specialists the state has deigned to regulate, has to do with the strange fact that we have 50, count them, 50, separate states in the Union.
Each of these states has its own professional bar association or whatever, and each state has its own very complex and detailed statute and case law and administrative laws, both civil and criminal law, (Louisiana even has the so-called 'civil law', from the French republic, differing substantially from all others of the 50), requiring special skills to master, special nuances to practice, each having its long and venerable history separate from each of the other 49 states' group of lawyers. Evey other profession or calling regulated by each of the several states has its own history, nuances, tradition, and rules. It is a phantasmagoria of different social and economic and legal arrangements.
So, if one wants to embark on just your state, as a political nation state, plan on having much the same cadre of lawyers, admitted only to your state, or perhaps admitted in one or two others at most, because eliminating just the federal government more or less leaves each state with its unique specialist bar, and all other specialities regulated by each several state, individually.
Another thing which you would still have, were you to recommend something drastic like this, say after eliminating the federal government, would be each of your states' legislatures.
Remember, there are still 50, count them, 50, of them. Each is different. Most of them are peopled nowadays by non lawyers. Americans have come to believe that in this simple world they don't need lawyers gumming up the state legislative works with technical legal jargon, and nonlawyers do just as well.
These are just a couple of thots, for so called political reforms that seem to be percolating out there.
I will save comments, on the duplicative additional layers of government, thousands of them, at the local levels, within each single state, which would not be eliminated merely by eliminating the federal government, for another post.
Re Thomas M Huber book
Unfortunately, re 'reforms' here, compared to and contrasted with
others, I question whether we even have anything like a kind of 'service intelligentsia', to which Huber referred re the Meiji Restoration and other revolutions.
I will omit describing what kinds of things we have, other than a more modern kind of new Gilded Age, as David Kaiser has noted;
but certainly not, it seems to me, a 'service intelligentsia' associated with it, of the kind to which Huber referred.
Most of the people, who might have gone in that direction, here, were redirected, over the decades, to other things, narrow special interests, sports fannism, you name it, even a debauched Ayn Randism, or several things worse.
Additionally, as, for example, Philip Bobbitt mentioned in a televised interview I saw not so long ago, the American political system is extraordinarily difficult to reform. Certainly, political changes are now impending, but based more on new technological possibilities, which he also mentioned in, I believe, The Shield..., re direct democracy referenda etc., than on a service intelligentsia. These changes also will not necessarily be those which some of us would recommend.
others, I question whether we even have anything like a kind of 'service intelligentsia', to which Huber referred re the Meiji Restoration and other revolutions.
I will omit describing what kinds of things we have, other than a more modern kind of new Gilded Age, as David Kaiser has noted;
but certainly not, it seems to me, a 'service intelligentsia' associated with it, of the kind to which Huber referred.
Most of the people, who might have gone in that direction, here, were redirected, over the decades, to other things, narrow special interests, sports fannism, you name it, even a debauched Ayn Randism, or several things worse.
Additionally, as, for example, Philip Bobbitt mentioned in a televised interview I saw not so long ago, the American political system is extraordinarily difficult to reform. Certainly, political changes are now impending, but based more on new technological possibilities, which he also mentioned in, I believe, The Shield..., re direct democracy referenda etc., than on a service intelligentsia. These changes also will not necessarily be those which some of us would recommend.
Thurston Macaire page 6
As our tariffs dropped, American makers of this or that either went out of business or, like me, wisely high tailed it.
Foreign subs, more than FHA/VHA subsidies or the GI bill, caused deindustrialization and urban decline.
Many have argued that American firms just weren’t creative or competitive enough.
Although maybe true, especially for my firm, trade deals reduced American firms’ chances for survival, even boosted foreign competition. As a result, American firms’ multinational sides had to speed up to compete with trade breaks to lower cost foreigners.
Absence of an industrial policy, or even a meaning for ‘competitiveness’ as a basis for one, have lessened chances for domestic firms.
Urban redev efforts were usually paltry local side shows, swimming upstream against global site-competition, even with fed dough.
Foreign subs, more than FHA/VHA subsidies or the GI bill, caused deindustrialization and urban decline.
Many have argued that American firms just weren’t creative or competitive enough.
Although maybe true, especially for my firm, trade deals reduced American firms’ chances for survival, even boosted foreign competition. As a result, American firms’ multinational sides had to speed up to compete with trade breaks to lower cost foreigners.
Absence of an industrial policy, or even a meaning for ‘competitiveness’ as a basis for one, have lessened chances for domestic firms.
Urban redev efforts were usually paltry local side shows, swimming upstream against global site-competition, even with fed dough.
Attacks had also been planned in Manchester
This news item recalled to me, I don't know why, Lincoln's letter, of January 19, 1863, "to the workingmen of Manchester", apparently in response to support given to the union cause by Marx and the IWMA.
Although I don't recommend anyone joining the LaRouche movement, the late W. Allen Salisbury, a black scholar and member of that organization, wrote a useful book on some history and on issues, joined in the Civil War.
As some of you may know, the Confederacy had favored free trade, and Lincoln was a protectionist.
See also my note "On Waiting For A Trade Policy", a propos a NYT article that day, below.
Although I don't recommend anyone joining the LaRouche movement, the late W. Allen Salisbury, a black scholar and member of that organization, wrote a useful book on some history and on issues, joined in the Civil War.
As some of you may know, the Confederacy had favored free trade, and Lincoln was a protectionist.
See also my note "On Waiting For A Trade Policy", a propos a NYT article that day, below.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Hawaii Housing Authority v Midkiff
This reference is for those who might want to connect a few dots among some of the posts here, re property rights,jurisprudence, 'free enterprise', economics, international trade, direct foreign investment, geopolitics, fattening up, and other things.
For those curious about workings of the Hawaii real estate market, and its history and idiosyncracies, this is also of some interest.
For those curious about workings of the Hawaii real estate market, and its history and idiosyncracies, this is also of some interest.
99 CENT STORES CASE
Here are just one or two examples, from among thousands, to which one might advert.
The local redevelopment agency in the 99 CENTS ONLY STORES vs LANCASTER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, and CITY OF LANCASTER case had called itself, quite rightly, a mere 'pawn' of Costco, not to mention,also,99 Cents Only Stores itself. Each was more probably more 'powerful' than Lancaster, and/or the RDA.
KELO, then became the poster child of American sola scriptura property rights archaistic befuddlement.
That episode has merely further confirmed America's adversaries' assessment of the level of American understanding of their 'predicament'.
'Thurston Macaire', presciently, in Boca in 06, had asked "Who do you think they will bail out, you or me?"
WEAK NATION STATES AND LESSER ENTITIES
Some of the problems which 'weak' states, such as the USA, and their lesser principalities and regions, face, (have always faced, in historically different ways), are that, because of their weaknesses and fragmentation, stronger (and now modern) 'developmental' states and their MNCs and cartels, or other merely rational protectionist states, our former MNCs and others, and transnational resources cartels and others, NGOs, fundamentalists networks, and other entities, each with substantial, but often narrow and adverse, economic and political power, take advantage of, Balkanize, overrun, or attack, weak states, and weak areas, for their several narrow economic and/or political reasons.
I can give many examples, but I want those out there, to think of some for yourselves.
I will give a discographic reference or two, for the art and music lovers out there. Think, first, of the themes, and music, from High Noon.
(For the deep thinkers, especially those who have read a little Thurston Macaire, go back especially to It's A Wonderful Life, not a "comedy', when all is said and done.)
For a slightly later 'generation', for those who attend to those things, I cannot improve, musically or thematically, on For A Few Dollars More.
I can give many examples, but I want those out there, to think of some for yourselves.
I will give a discographic reference or two, for the art and music lovers out there. Think, first, of the themes, and music, from High Noon.
(For the deep thinkers, especially those who have read a little Thurston Macaire, go back especially to It's A Wonderful Life, not a "comedy', when all is said and done.)
For a slightly later 'generation', for those who attend to those things, I cannot improve, musically or thematically, on For A Few Dollars More.
PLAYING THREE SIDES IN THE COLD WAR
Another reference for my allusions to team play, playing both sides, and whatever else one can make of this.
Johnson has an interesting passage, in ...WHO GOVERNS? re Cold War trade with PRC, Taiwan, and US, simultaneously, although he also points out it was not a one way street. P. 235 and following
NATURE AND CONVENTION
I always liked Winch's essay on this, even though he acknowledged making a mistake, in the introduction to the volume, Ethics and Action.
'...the social conditions of language and rationality must also carry with them certain fundamental moral conceptions.'
He has an interesting passage on Joe McCarthy there, as well.
'...the social conditions of language and rationality must also carry with them certain fundamental moral conceptions.'
He has an interesting passage on Joe McCarthy there, as well.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Reading a 'new' book
I have been going through an old book I picked up at a thrift store, Thomas M. Huber, The Revolutionary Origins of Modern Japan.
Great book, so far..............................................
I recommend it to anyone trying to figure out how the Japanese pulled through so fast into the 20th Century.
One of the key points has to do with the notion of a state bureaucratic meritocracy, somewhat in the Napoleonic idiom, "careers open to talent".........
This is also a way to give those, wondering about what the last post meant,
an opportunity to smell the coffee..... so to speak.
Great book, so far..............................................
I recommend it to anyone trying to figure out how the Japanese pulled through so fast into the 20th Century.
One of the key points has to do with the notion of a state bureaucratic meritocracy, somewhat in the Napoleonic idiom, "careers open to talent".........
This is also a way to give those, wondering about what the last post meant,
an opportunity to smell the coffee..... so to speak.
Re Political reform state's rights and all that
Unfortunately, I believe real, so called, old, 'state's rights' has been a dead letter, for more than a century now.
A lot of Congress politicians still do major 'pork barrel' legislation, but.....that is not 'state's' rights.
Just a couple of questions, for those who think some drastic reforms, are not, somehow, needed, or, perhaps, for some of us, long overdue:
1. What Americans, citizens of any state, any state, in their right mind, would entrust their economic future, in this globalized world, which 'the several states' and the federal government, together, have wrought, to just their individual state?
Maybe there are some, out there. If so, I say, stand up, and be counted.
You've got to give some 'reason'.......
Say, the 'federal government has squandered our state's 'such and such''; or, 'the federal government has not done what we, here, in our 'so and so' state, really wanted'' or some third, or fourth, reasons.
Or, the federal government has stolen our federal tax dollars, and spent it on twaddle. That is one bound to appeal to tea partiers. Go with that. Use that one for now, by itself.....................................................................
But, still, after all those well, or poorly, founded objections, or reasons,
the question still, I believe, somehow, lurks, there, smouldering.
Some good examples, of 'reasons', or objections, might be:
The federal government has not protected us, here, from foreign competition. (Not, on some theories, even a job of the federal government! How would your state, by itself, do it better? I am not saying it cannot be done, but.....)
The federal government has not paid enough attention to our economic needs, here, in so and so state. (Same kind of comment........Also, arguably, not even the federal government's job, as the outdated, at best, Constitution, is written; sola scriptura and all of that!!!)
,,
The federal government has not promoted commercial activity here, (not the federal government's job, according to the Constitution.) while favoring commerce elsewhere and abroad for foreign policy, the President's job, according to him, apparently. (Good point; but, what can your state do about that, now, in 2010, really?)
The federal government has approved of, and/or has subsidized, our state's corporation (or the federal agency facility), X, Y, or Z Corporation(facility), for closing its plant(s) (facilities) here, and/or moving it(them) outside the US; (Your state couldn't prevent that from happening, could it? Why not, after all? Federal executive and legislative prerogatives. What can your state do, by itself, to replace that economic 'engine', really? Answer: not much, or nothing at all.)>
Putting our citizens here out of work, and impoverishing this (whatever) region, to the detriment of the general welfare all around here. (Same question: what can your state do, by itself, in the larger scheme of current things, to ameliorate such a situation? Answer: not much, or nothing.)
Would you, you, entrust your, and your successors', economic and political 'future', to your state government? Not anyone else's state government, not a federal government, given your objections or reasons?
Would you?
Any answer is ok, really, if there is some reason which you believe is right.
A lot of Congress politicians still do major 'pork barrel' legislation, but.....that is not 'state's' rights.
Just a couple of questions, for those who think some drastic reforms, are not, somehow, needed, or, perhaps, for some of us, long overdue:
1. What Americans, citizens of any state, any state, in their right mind, would entrust their economic future, in this globalized world, which 'the several states' and the federal government, together, have wrought, to just their individual state?
Maybe there are some, out there. If so, I say, stand up, and be counted.
You've got to give some 'reason'.......
Say, the 'federal government has squandered our state's 'such and such''; or, 'the federal government has not done what we, here, in our 'so and so' state, really wanted'' or some third, or fourth, reasons.
Or, the federal government has stolen our federal tax dollars, and spent it on twaddle. That is one bound to appeal to tea partiers. Go with that. Use that one for now, by itself.....................................................................
But, still, after all those well, or poorly, founded objections, or reasons,
the question still, I believe, somehow, lurks, there, smouldering.
Some good examples, of 'reasons', or objections, might be:
The federal government has not protected us, here, from foreign competition. (Not, on some theories, even a job of the federal government! How would your state, by itself, do it better? I am not saying it cannot be done, but.....)
The federal government has not paid enough attention to our economic needs, here, in so and so state. (Same kind of comment........Also, arguably, not even the federal government's job, as the outdated, at best, Constitution, is written; sola scriptura and all of that!!!)
,,
The federal government has not promoted commercial activity here, (not the federal government's job, according to the Constitution.) while favoring commerce elsewhere and abroad for foreign policy, the President's job, according to him, apparently. (Good point; but, what can your state do about that, now, in 2010, really?)
The federal government has approved of, and/or has subsidized, our state's corporation (or the federal agency facility), X, Y, or Z Corporation(facility), for closing its plant(s) (facilities) here, and/or moving it(them) outside the US; (Your state couldn't prevent that from happening, could it? Why not, after all? Federal executive and legislative prerogatives. What can your state do, by itself, to replace that economic 'engine', really? Answer: not much, or nothing at all.)>
Putting our citizens here out of work, and impoverishing this (whatever) region, to the detriment of the general welfare all around here. (Same question: what can your state do, by itself, in the larger scheme of current things, to ameliorate such a situation? Answer: not much, or nothing.)
Would you, you, entrust your, and your successors', economic and political 'future', to your state government? Not anyone else's state government, not a federal government, given your objections or reasons?
Would you?
Any answer is ok, really, if there is some reason which you believe is right.
Commerce Clause Sola Scriptura Confusion Rant
Some of the kinds of 'structural' political backwardnesses of which I have been critical, and which have gotten the US into an overwhelming lot of trouble since WW II, have to do with Constitutional provisions, such for example as the Commerce Clause, and the gymnastics which those, such as Roosevelt, faced from the Judiciary mainly, even with broad popular support, trying to implement national industrial policy.
CARTOONIST WANTED: SHOW ME THE ASTERISK
I have started considering looking for someone to make some of my quips come alive in illustrations. I know many of them are too 'recherche', but hey. Take a look at Major Asterisk.
Apply in email comments, which I will not publish, if interested. I am thinking of Daumier's early work, or perhaps Gaham Wilson, Sendak, Pfeifer, or some others whose names escape me.
I am only half kidding.
Apply in email comments, which I will not publish, if interested. I am thinking of Daumier's early work, or perhaps Gaham Wilson, Sendak, Pfeifer, or some others whose names escape me.
I am only half kidding.
The Nixon Shock 1972 And Fattening Things Up
Shared antagonism to Soviet Union crucial to Sino-American rapprochment.... 72.
Japan's expansion, an American problem; US had let her "fatten herself...,"
Doc 3 National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials Project, White House Special Files, President's Office Files, box 87, memoranda for the President Beginning February 20, 1972
The 'solution' it seems, to fattening the one, since 72, has been to fatten all others.
Now they are worrying about a 'debt dump', and why not, after all that fattening?
Japan's expansion, an American problem; US had let her "fatten herself...,"
Doc 3 National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials Project, White House Special Files, President's Office Files, box 87, memoranda for the President Beginning February 20, 1972
The 'solution' it seems, to fattening the one, since 72, has been to fatten all others.
Now they are worrying about a 'debt dump', and why not, after all that fattening?
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Re W
I had actually felt sorry for W, because I don't think he bargained for, or was up to, anything like the kind of presidency he got, although with such a thing as a presidency, no one can plan on a 'happy' ride, I guess.
The Later Wittgenstein the Search Paradox and Dualism
Back when I was an undergraduate, I ended up in an interdisciplinary self directed program of study, known as 'Jefferson House'.
My thesis advisors came from philosophy and literature fields.
I wrote a rather puerile paper on how the later Wittgenstein had 'solved' problems going back to the beginnings of philosophy, in Meno, dualism problems and such; it's a long story.
It incorporated some of the high points of the history of philosophy, metaphysics and especially 'epistemology'. I threw in some recent actual scientific perceptual systems research (peripheral vision, fighter pilots, etc.), done by James J Gibson, for good measure; and also some aesthetics insights on perception from Gombrich's, Art And Illusion. He had been at the Courtauld.
Funnily enough, the thesis advisors thought I had plagiarized this paper from somewhere, and they spent a week or so, I guess, back there in 1975, looking around for my sources........
It was rather comical really.
My thesis advisors came from philosophy and literature fields.
I wrote a rather puerile paper on how the later Wittgenstein had 'solved' problems going back to the beginnings of philosophy, in Meno, dualism problems and such; it's a long story.
It incorporated some of the high points of the history of philosophy, metaphysics and especially 'epistemology'. I threw in some recent actual scientific perceptual systems research (peripheral vision, fighter pilots, etc.), done by James J Gibson, for good measure; and also some aesthetics insights on perception from Gombrich's, Art And Illusion. He had been at the Courtauld.
Funnily enough, the thesis advisors thought I had plagiarized this paper from somewhere, and they spent a week or so, I guess, back there in 1975, looking around for my sources........
It was rather comical really.
On Waiting for a Trade Policy
Who wrote such nonsense.
Why are these so-called economies, now,
'too fragile'? From not enough 'free trade'?
Or, the other side of a similar coin,
too much government regulation of investments?
Maybe these fragile economies,
poor things, have been overregulated
by mean, overbearing, governmental watch dogs?
The Korea issue is just the kind of 'sub' (my term) Eckes had talked about, in my previous posts.(Another article, along much the same lines re 'subs', is the tax exempt status of contributions by American christian evangelical groups to Israeli initiatives in the West Bank.)
Why are these so-called economies, now,
'too fragile'? From not enough 'free trade'?
Or, the other side of a similar coin,
too much government regulation of investments?
Maybe these fragile economies,
poor things, have been overregulated
by mean, overbearing, governmental watch dogs?
The Korea issue is just the kind of 'sub' (my term) Eckes had talked about, in my previous posts.(Another article, along much the same lines re 'subs', is the tax exempt status of contributions by American christian evangelical groups to Israeli initiatives in the West Bank.)
Monday, July 5, 2010
Kindleberger's The 1930s Depression And Recovery
July 5, 2010
Ch. 19 also talks about Hawley-Smoot, a topic from one of my previous post referring to Kindleberger.
But for this present discussion post, a propos Krugman's article today, and David Kaiser's post touching on topics, related at least in my mind, as well, he points out that Keynsianism scarcely better explains the 30s than monetarism.....
This particularly illuminating chapter has, for me, some arresting points, beginning especially with the paragraph beginning "It cannot be contended....."
Ch. 19 also talks about Hawley-Smoot, a topic from one of my previous post referring to Kindleberger.
But for this present discussion post, a propos Krugman's article today, and David Kaiser's post touching on topics, related at least in my mind, as well, he points out that Keynsianism scarcely better explains the 30s than monetarism.....
This particularly illuminating chapter has, for me, some arresting points, beginning especially with the paragraph beginning "It cannot be contended....."
IMPOSING SANCTIONS AGAIN
IMPOSING SANCTIONS OFTEN MEANS MERELY ENDING PREEXISTING SUBSIDIES,
AS IN EU AND SRI LANKA
Sunday, July 4, 2010
YOU SOMETIMES DON'T APPRECIATE YOUR TEACHERS ENOUGH UNTIL THEY ARE GONE
I write these notes for those teachers whom I have had, and for those from whom I have learned, since leaving academia.
My head of Department in London, where I studied casually for an M.Phil. for three years, in the 70s, Peter Winch, a well known philosopher, used to make drip coffee by the cup, for each of us postgraduates who came to his weekly seminars, in his office, overlooking the Strand.
You have to picture a very small office indeed, seating only perhaps six people, but having a large picture window on the Strand, and overlooking the Religious monument there, at Kings.
We thought nothing much of it, really, at the time. We were, after all, prima donnas(I speak for myself). Wojtek Rappak, and Ralph Latimer were two of my friends who regularly attended, also, back then. They each had widely differing philosophical backgrounds into which I will not go, except to note that what we all shared with Professor Winch was a fascination for Wittgenstein's thinking.
Anyway, Peter Winch made coffee in this way for a year or so (lord knows how long he had had this practice).
Then one week we learned that he had had a bout of what he then called angina, and had been warned off coffee. So the coffee stopped.....
I learned recently that he ended up, some years after I had left London, here in America teaching in Illinois. Amazing things happen.
Call this just a remembrance of him.
MEIJI RESTORATION
This comment will strike some readers as peculiar, but I will say that although the received American wisdom on Japan, for decades after WWII, was that it was a 'medieval' state, at the time of the arrival of
Adm. Perry's 'black ships',
they were actually, politically, more advanced, and internationally more dangerous, say by 1868, than the United States at that time, which was still struggling not only with Jacksonian ultra-democratic fragmentation, but also with the aftermath of the very question of a political union, in the Civil War.
The deeper, lurking, weakness of the US, vis a vis states like Japan, France, and others, has been its crippling, complex, federalism.
They don't have such a political framework, and obviously don't need or want it.
Judge a system by its fruits.
Adm. Perry's 'black ships',
they were actually, politically, more advanced, and internationally more dangerous, say by 1868, than the United States at that time, which was still struggling not only with Jacksonian ultra-democratic fragmentation, but also with the aftermath of the very question of a political union, in the Civil War.
The deeper, lurking, weakness of the US, vis a vis states like Japan, France, and others, has been its crippling, complex, federalism.
They don't have such a political framework, and obviously don't need or want it.
Judge a system by its fruits.
KEYNSIANISM VS MONETARISM
Take a look at the great series of essays, by Kindleberger.
Economists, among all so called 'experts', need 'history', and not just 'economic' history, as a correction, the worst possible way.
One might say, with real truth, that economics fails as an independent discipline, and really is a sort of statistical, clerical, menial, tool box, at best.
Take a look, for example, at Kindleberger's comments, re Hawley-Smoot, in this collection, chs 8,11........
His very thinly veiled sarcasm for so-called 'explanations' re Hawley-Smoot, for the origin of the great depression....
Even the distinction between Keynsian and Monetarism, the title, an open attack on a mickey mouse two dimensional opposites approach.
Economists, among all so called 'experts', need 'history', and not just 'economic' history, as a correction, the worst possible way.
One might say, with real truth, that economics fails as an independent discipline, and really is a sort of statistical, clerical, menial, tool box, at best.
Take a look, for example, at Kindleberger's comments, re Hawley-Smoot, in this collection, chs 8,11........
His very thinly veiled sarcasm for so-called 'explanations' re Hawley-Smoot, for the origin of the great depression....
Even the distinction between Keynsian and Monetarism, the title, an open attack on a mickey mouse two dimensional opposites approach.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
THE EXCOMMUNICATION SANCTION AND THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION
ONE MIGHT, FOR EXAMPLE, COMPARE LINCOLN'S EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION WITH EXCOMMUNICATION MOVES MADE BY THE COUNTERREFORMATION PAPACY, FOR VERY SIMILAR REASONS.
LUTHER AND LINCOLN
Risking the ever-present Whig fallacy, I will say a few words 'comparing and contrasting' them.
Let's pretend for a moment that we are watching the Star Trek episode where an incarnation of Lincoln inhabits the scene...........
Luther religiously 'liberated' the princes, that is, gave them a spiritual alternative to, or at least at first merely a spiritual grievance against, the Papacy.
Lincoln 'politically' liberated the slaves, largely for military advantage.
Question: Was Lincoln more a reformation, or a counterreformation type figure?
My guess, is that, were we to refer the issues which Lincoln held dear back to a 'reformation context', he would more likely have been held to have been in the counter-reformation camp, than the other way around. This might come as a surprise to many Protestants, or for that matter, to many Catholics........
I would say that both moves, Lincoln's and Luther's, were made for 'tactical' reasons, given what each confronted. This detail tells once again in favor of a counterreformation stance for a figure like lincoln.
It has been claimed that each sought to preserve a preexisting 'union', the one spiritual and temporal, the other political and modern; and there is ample evidence for this.
I am sure others have compared them in the past, but the similarities, as much as the differences, struck me only recently.
Let's pretend for a moment that we are watching the Star Trek episode where an incarnation of Lincoln inhabits the scene...........
Luther religiously 'liberated' the princes, that is, gave them a spiritual alternative to, or at least at first merely a spiritual grievance against, the Papacy.
Lincoln 'politically' liberated the slaves, largely for military advantage.
Question: Was Lincoln more a reformation, or a counterreformation type figure?
My guess, is that, were we to refer the issues which Lincoln held dear back to a 'reformation context', he would more likely have been held to have been in the counter-reformation camp, than the other way around. This might come as a surprise to many Protestants, or for that matter, to many Catholics........
I would say that both moves, Lincoln's and Luther's, were made for 'tactical' reasons, given what each confronted. This detail tells once again in favor of a counterreformation stance for a figure like lincoln.
It has been claimed that each sought to preserve a preexisting 'union', the one spiritual and temporal, the other political and modern; and there is ample evidence for this.
I am sure others have compared them in the past, but the similarities, as much as the differences, struck me only recently.
Sola scriptura
I should say a few more words, so that some readers, not otherwise initiated, understand the connection I am making, between the Tea Party adherence to the letter of the Constitution, and Luther's adherence to the letter of the Bible.
TEA SOLA SCRIPTURA INDEPENDENCE DAY PARTY
This all recalls, to the armchair historian, Luther, and the events which his attempts to reform the Catholic Church brought cascading in their train.
Luther 'liberated' the German princes, ostensibly for religious reasons, or did he limit his reasoning just to that? Certainly he ultimately found physical refuge there.....
(Here, one has to skip gingerly around everywhere, to avoid well warranted charges of Whiggism, in Butterfield's sense.)
Think indulgences. The discographical reference for this weekend is,
I am afraid,
Pink Floyd, and especially,
MONEY
Luther 'liberated' the German princes, ostensibly for religious reasons, or did he limit his reasoning just to that? Certainly he ultimately found physical refuge there.....
(Here, one has to skip gingerly around everywhere, to avoid well warranted charges of Whiggism, in Butterfield's sense.)
Think indulgences. The discographical reference for this weekend is,
I am afraid,
Pink Floyd, and especially,
MONEY
WHY US HAS NEEDED POLITICAL REFORM
SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS I WOULD MAKE HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE, BETTER THAN I CAN, BY PEOPLE SUCH AS CHALMERS JOHNSON.
THOUGH DATED SLIGHTLY NOW, THE INTRO TO HIS BOOK JAPAN WHO GOVERNS? IS A GOOD STARTING PLACE, PERHAPS..........................HIS DISCUSSION OF THE FIELD OF ECONOMICS IS PARTICULARLY ENGAGING.
FOR THOSE WITH TOO LITTLE TIME, THE INTRO IS THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY; I SUGGEST READING THE WHOLE BOOK, AND SOME OF HIS OTHER ONES, INCLUDING MITI.
THOUGH DATED SLIGHTLY NOW, THE INTRO TO HIS BOOK JAPAN WHO GOVERNS? IS A GOOD STARTING PLACE, PERHAPS..........................HIS DISCUSSION OF THE FIELD OF ECONOMICS IS PARTICULARLY ENGAGING.
FOR THOSE WITH TOO LITTLE TIME, THE INTRO IS THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY; I SUGGEST READING THE WHOLE BOOK, AND SOME OF HIS OTHER ONES, INCLUDING MITI.
FORMS OF LIFE
WITTGENSTEIN SAID THINGS LIKE 'A LANGUAGE GAME DETERMINES A FORM OF LIFE, SO TO SPEAK'.
MARX, IN A VASTLY DIFFERENT, BUT LOOSELY RELATED, CONTEXT, HAD SAID 'MODE OF PRODUCTION DETERMINES FORM OF LIFE'.
EACH, IN ITS SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS AN 'INTRA-CIVILIZATIONAL REMARK'.
MODE OF PRODUCTION ITSELF CAN NOW BE SEEN AS AN 'ARCANE' TERM, UNLESS GIVEN A SUBSTANTIALLY BROADER READING THAN MARX'S.
WHAT CONNECTIONS, DISTINCTIONS, IRRELEVANCIES, CAN BE DISCERNED, BETWEEN LANGUAGE GAMES AND MODES OF PRODUCTION?
IN SOME CONTEXTS, ONE MIGHT SAY THAT A LANGUAGE GAME AND A MODE OF PRODUCTION ARE SIDES OF A COIN, BUT THIS WOULD BE 'OVERLY REDUCTIONISTIC' IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.
MARX, IN A VASTLY DIFFERENT, BUT LOOSELY RELATED, CONTEXT, HAD SAID 'MODE OF PRODUCTION DETERMINES FORM OF LIFE'.
EACH, IN ITS SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS AN 'INTRA-CIVILIZATIONAL REMARK'.
MODE OF PRODUCTION ITSELF CAN NOW BE SEEN AS AN 'ARCANE' TERM, UNLESS GIVEN A SUBSTANTIALLY BROADER READING THAN MARX'S.
WHAT CONNECTIONS, DISTINCTIONS, IRRELEVANCIES, CAN BE DISCERNED, BETWEEN LANGUAGE GAMES AND MODES OF PRODUCTION?
IN SOME CONTEXTS, ONE MIGHT SAY THAT A LANGUAGE GAME AND A MODE OF PRODUCTION ARE SIDES OF A COIN, BUT THIS WOULD BE 'OVERLY REDUCTIONISTIC' IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.
DAS RHEINGOLD
THE LP OF THE MORNING.
I WILL OCCASIONALLY POST A DISCOGRAPHIC REFERENCE,
FOR THE GRADUAL DEVOLUTION........
I WILL OCCASIONALLY POST A DISCOGRAPHIC REFERENCE,
FOR THE GRADUAL DEVOLUTION........
Friday, July 2, 2010
COSTA BRAVA
After a deal like that, someone, say, as smart as Rumpole, bless his heart, would undoubtedly retire to the..........................................................
PPP PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
This has been the new buzz term, for some kind of 'rebirth' of American competitiveness, ostensibly by 'partnering American business with American government....'
Probably sounds a lot like 'communism' to many bloodhound conservative Americans.
Well, change the subject, to distract these well trained hunting dogs, see which company Florida's inaugural PPP went to, by typing in google 'public private partnership florida'.
That's why 'Thurston', early on, presciently dubbed it probably PFP (public foreign partnerships).
Then, a year or so later, we hear of the European debt issues, cascading from our mortgage issues, and their ample profligacy.
Spain is relatively high on the list.......
Probably sounds a lot like 'communism' to many bloodhound conservative Americans.
Well, change the subject, to distract these well trained hunting dogs, see which company Florida's inaugural PPP went to, by typing in google 'public private partnership florida'.
That's why 'Thurston', early on, presciently dubbed it probably PFP (public foreign partnerships).
Then, a year or so later, we hear of the European debt issues, cascading from our mortgage issues, and their ample profligacy.
Spain is relatively high on the list.......
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE
The upcoming ABA Annual Meeting in SF will address inbound foreign lawyers issues re ABA model rules; and ethical issues re outsourcing of legal work to foreign sites, including a lengthy questionnaire indicating that the ABA is trying to gather information about a fast moving phenomenon, largely regulated at the individual state level (there are 50 of them), long under way now.
That gives something of the flavor of how the federal professional legal association is moving these days, re globalization.
That gives something of the flavor of how the federal professional legal association is moving these days, re globalization.
GO FOR THE GOLD
NOT THAT I AM SO SPORTS ORIENTED, ESPECIALLY COMMERCIALIZED ONES, BUT I CAN'T RESIST THIS PHRASE.
MARKETS BEING CRUSHED AGAIN.
HOW IS THAT FOR 'TEAM PLAY'?
MARKETS BEING CRUSHED AGAIN.
HOW IS THAT FOR 'TEAM PLAY'?
PAUL KRUGMAN'S ARTICLE TODAY
I AM MUCH MORE SYMPATHETIC TO KRUGMAN THAN TO MOST OTHERS
IN HIS DISMAL NARROW FIELD, AND SYMPATHETIC ALSO TO THIS PARTICULAR MESSAGE; SOME AMERICANS LAP THIS STUFF UP.
HIS MESSAGE BEST APPLIES, UNFORTUNATELY, TO A COUNTRY MORE POLITICALLY 'KEYNSIAN', SAY ENGLAND, AND TO A NATION-STATE WORLD, SAY OF THE 1920S, (SKIDELSKY AND ALL OF THAT), THAN TO OUR 'COUNTRY', OR TO OUR AMERICANOMIC WORLD.
(I PUT THE TERM COUNTRY IN PARENTHESES BECAUSE THE US HAS NOT SUFFICIENT POLITICAL INTEGRITY NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE TERM NATION-STATE.) NOWADAYS AMERICA IS RATHER MORE A FIGURE OF SPEECH.
SOME OF THE DETAILED REASONS WHY HIS RECOMMENDATIONS, HOWEVER WELL INTENTIONED, CANNOT ACCOMPLISH MUCH FOR THE DOMESTIC 'AMERICAN' POPULATION WOULD TAKE SOME TIME AND PARAGRAPHS TO UNPACK.
IN HIS DISMAL NARROW FIELD, AND SYMPATHETIC ALSO TO THIS PARTICULAR MESSAGE; SOME AMERICANS LAP THIS STUFF UP.
HIS MESSAGE BEST APPLIES, UNFORTUNATELY, TO A COUNTRY MORE POLITICALLY 'KEYNSIAN', SAY ENGLAND, AND TO A NATION-STATE WORLD, SAY OF THE 1920S, (SKIDELSKY AND ALL OF THAT), THAN TO OUR 'COUNTRY', OR TO OUR AMERICANOMIC WORLD.
(I PUT THE TERM COUNTRY IN PARENTHESES BECAUSE THE US HAS NOT SUFFICIENT POLITICAL INTEGRITY NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE TERM NATION-STATE.) NOWADAYS AMERICA IS RATHER MORE A FIGURE OF SPEECH.
SOME OF THE DETAILED REASONS WHY HIS RECOMMENDATIONS, HOWEVER WELL INTENTIONED, CANNOT ACCOMPLISH MUCH FOR THE DOMESTIC 'AMERICAN' POPULATION WOULD TAKE SOME TIME AND PARAGRAPHS TO UNPACK.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Structural political problems
I am going to mention just a few points, broached on David Kaiser's blog as well, to try to indicate why it is ineffective to look to the Office of the Presidency for domestic relief in 2010, before, or beyond.
Not that one shouldn't try to do something, but here are some comments explaining why it has tended to fail.
The main reason, taking this office in 'isolation', which itself is not recommended,is that the Presidency has increasingly appropriated certain foreign policy tools and agendas. It more or less began under the Marshall Plan, and thus seemed innocent enough in that context.
Since WW II, these tools and agenda, or hats if you will, which he has come to alternately wear, have been progressively, diametrically opposed to domestic policy initiatives he has also been called upon to champion.
It has mattered little which party has worn either hat. Although Clinton talked a good talk about unfair trade, etc, he did little to change the overall pattern of actual foreign policy business as usual.
Even after the 'Cold War' was supposedly over, and which had been the main pretext for presidential foreign policy concessions, the practice continued unabated ostensibly for cobdenist or other ostensible reasons, but mainly now because of political patronage of both domestic and largely offshore interests, whether originally American-based MNCs, or foreign interests, governments, and others.
This history is set out, briefly, in capsule form, for those with limited time or attention, in an article Harold Eckes wrote for Foreign Affairs, called Trading American Interests.
He also wrote a longer work, for those who have the time, on the history of American trade policy from the founding.
Not that one shouldn't try to do something, but here are some comments explaining why it has tended to fail.
The main reason, taking this office in 'isolation', which itself is not recommended,is that the Presidency has increasingly appropriated certain foreign policy tools and agendas. It more or less began under the Marshall Plan, and thus seemed innocent enough in that context.
Since WW II, these tools and agenda, or hats if you will, which he has come to alternately wear, have been progressively, diametrically opposed to domestic policy initiatives he has also been called upon to champion.
It has mattered little which party has worn either hat. Although Clinton talked a good talk about unfair trade, etc, he did little to change the overall pattern of actual foreign policy business as usual.
Even after the 'Cold War' was supposedly over, and which had been the main pretext for presidential foreign policy concessions, the practice continued unabated ostensibly for cobdenist or other ostensible reasons, but mainly now because of political patronage of both domestic and largely offshore interests, whether originally American-based MNCs, or foreign interests, governments, and others.
This history is set out, briefly, in capsule form, for those with limited time or attention, in an article Harold Eckes wrote for Foreign Affairs, called Trading American Interests.
He also wrote a longer work, for those who have the time, on the history of American trade policy from the founding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)