Unfortunately, Osama Bin Ladin, and these low grade conflicts, at the edge of the 'Middle East', are really, and have been for a long time now, geopolitical red herrings.
One of the bits of real geopolitical news went almost 'unnoticed' recently, when China declared that it was taking over the sealanes virtually from the Sea of Japan to the Indian Ocean.
Maybe I read this article wrong, and some astute analyst can clarify this bit of news for me.
Kind of puts what has been going on in the Middle east in the shade, so to speak.
BOOMERBUSTER
OLD CELLO
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
RE COLD WAR TRADE INVESTMENT AND AMERICANOMICS
To paraphrase a famous person, re WWII, who was referring to the RAF:
NEVER, IN THE HISTORY OF HUMAN CONFLICT, HAS SO MUCH,
BEEN GIVEN AWAY, TO SO MANY, BY SO FEW.
NEVER, IN THE HISTORY OF HUMAN CONFLICT, HAS SO MUCH,
BEEN GIVEN AWAY, TO SO MANY, BY SO FEW.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
POETIC RELIEF
Some may wonder when I think these prognostications will come to pass?
Some other interdisciplinary pundits, of whom I can think, also punctuate 'possible worlds' chapters, and others, with brief poetic interludes......................................
Why not also I?
I really have no clear idea when, but I think a quote from Thomas Hood, mentioned also by Rumpole, may be in order:
No warmth, no cheerfulness, no healthful ease,
No comfortable feel in any member.
No shade, no shine, no butterflies, no bees,
No fruits, no flowers, no leaves,
no birds, --
No vember.
Say, for the sake of mere speculation, November.
Some other interdisciplinary pundits, of whom I can think, also punctuate 'possible worlds' chapters, and others, with brief poetic interludes......................................
Why not also I?
I really have no clear idea when, but I think a quote from Thomas Hood, mentioned also by Rumpole, may be in order:
No warmth, no cheerfulness, no healthful ease,
No comfortable feel in any member.
No shade, no shine, no butterflies, no bees,
No fruits, no flowers, no leaves,
no birds, --
No vember.
Say, for the sake of mere speculation, November.
MARKET CAPITALISM TANK
The markets are being crushed, on and off now, chronically, as I had long expected to see.
Chartists wouldn't pick up on something like that.....
This will continue to happen until the Dow, for example is down to say 8k, by which time a major military conflict will have begun.
Goldfinger was great to see again.
Chartists wouldn't pick up on something like that.....
This will continue to happen until the Dow, for example is down to say 8k, by which time a major military conflict will have begun.
Goldfinger was great to see again.
Monday, June 28, 2010
THURSTON MACAIRE PAGE 5
That’s laissez faire. It translates ‘let do’. For me, it means, remember the old Cole Porter song, “Anything Goes”!
Foreign subs hurt people like me, ‘til we figured a way to get around them, to Taiwan. (I am going to call foreign subsidies, subsidies to foreigners, “subs”. You figure out what it means. I try to keep the yacht clear of them.)
Although the Constitution had split authority over trade, the presidency railroaded it. Don’t get me wrong, I liked most presidents, even democrats, but they all screwed you and me on trade.
Also important were domestic and foreign breaks to foreigners, and price hikes there in favor of my customers here. Customers here were always told consuming and lower prices are good. Try to tell workers that lower wages are good too. (In America customers and workers wear different hats.)
Americans have long been told: consume, import, and borrow more. I used to love that! I didn’t buy it, but my customers sure did. That’s called ‘consumerism’!
Smarter Cold War ‘partner’ regimes, like Japan, England, Canada, and Germany, cut deals with the big boys for our market share, kept theirs closed, and required their folks to produce, innovate, export, and save more.
That’s ‘producerism’ I guess. Which would you be?
As their prices and wages went up, our prices and wages went down, still going down, going down forever.
Foreign subs hurt people like me, ‘til we figured a way to get around them, to Taiwan. (I am going to call foreign subsidies, subsidies to foreigners, “subs”. You figure out what it means. I try to keep the yacht clear of them.)
Although the Constitution had split authority over trade, the presidency railroaded it. Don’t get me wrong, I liked most presidents, even democrats, but they all screwed you and me on trade.
Also important were domestic and foreign breaks to foreigners, and price hikes there in favor of my customers here. Customers here were always told consuming and lower prices are good. Try to tell workers that lower wages are good too. (In America customers and workers wear different hats.)
Americans have long been told: consume, import, and borrow more. I used to love that! I didn’t buy it, but my customers sure did. That’s called ‘consumerism’!
Smarter Cold War ‘partner’ regimes, like Japan, England, Canada, and Germany, cut deals with the big boys for our market share, kept theirs closed, and required their folks to produce, innovate, export, and save more.
That’s ‘producerism’ I guess. Which would you be?
As their prices and wages went up, our prices and wages went down, still going down, going down forever.
WILL BOOTY ONE DAY AGAIN BE A MOTIVATOR
There was a time, long ago, but after the hay day of feudalism, when 'dynastic' and royal troops in Europe, and even their commanders, were motivated by booty, among other things. Certainly regular troops thought only of booty, and of some modicum of comfort.
Concepts of patriotism, loyalty, etc, were not yet really on the horizon.
It took the rise of the concept of a nation state, especially after the rise of revolutionary France, to partially transform older relationships.
One of the lurking problems, for laissez faire globalist regimes, which pride themselves on thinking outside the nation state box, so to speak, has to do with motivation.
Several modern authors, known even to a layman like me, have addressed these themes. Clausewitz was the first, I guess, among 'modern' authors. (Yet, certainly the Greeks believed, according to their historians, that their patriotism overcame the mercenaries of Darius, and then Xerxes.)
Historically, mercenaries were resorted to by city states and others. Frederick early on shunned them apparently.
Concepts of patriotism, loyalty, etc, were not yet really on the horizon.
It took the rise of the concept of a nation state, especially after the rise of revolutionary France, to partially transform older relationships.
One of the lurking problems, for laissez faire globalist regimes, which pride themselves on thinking outside the nation state box, so to speak, has to do with motivation.
Several modern authors, known even to a layman like me, have addressed these themes. Clausewitz was the first, I guess, among 'modern' authors. (Yet, certainly the Greeks believed, according to their historians, that their patriotism overcame the mercenaries of Darius, and then Xerxes.)
Historically, mercenaries were resorted to by city states and others. Frederick early on shunned them apparently.
JUNK SCIENCE
People sometimes point, not only to corruption in politics, but also to technocrats' and experts' admittedly often weak, fragmentary, or just secular, arguments, to conclude that no intellectual discipline should be trusted, no improvements in rigor or method should be aspired to; and that no unified social vision is possible;
that therefore anti-intellectual feelings should be given full vent;
that it's ok to follow one's nose;
common sense makes good sense.
Although the situation may be grim, these conclusions do not provide a helpful avenue for improvement.
that therefore anti-intellectual feelings should be given full vent;
that it's ok to follow one's nose;
common sense makes good sense.
Although the situation may be grim, these conclusions do not provide a helpful avenue for improvement.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Re Symbolic Analysts
The previous post was not necessarily meant as any aspersion on any of my old friends, on or off Wall Street, at BU, or in London.
SYMBOLIC ANALYSTS : THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE MOST MERITORIOUS
We used to hear a bit about how the 'workforce' is 'shifting' to an emphasis on 'symbolic analysts'.
Is 'the rise of symbolic analysts' an 'absolute presupposition',
along with 'the greatest good for the greatest numbers',
or do they 'conflict'?
Isn't a rise of symbolic analysts the rise of one subset of folks, the rise of
a 'meritocracy'?
Is even a 'symbolic analyst' a post of inherently greater 'merit' than other posts?
Because someone can symbolically analyze something, does that imply greater societal worth?
One might, for example, refer to the culture of Wall Street, and the relatively lowly place occupied by the rating agencies and their symbolic analytic employees, as itself a counterexample.
Other 'cultural values' certainly are afoot, on Wall Street, than symbolic analysis.......as a meritocratic criterion.
And if poor societies can produce engineers like lemmings, doesn't that fact itself imply some 'dilution' of the notion of a symbolic analyst as a meritocratic criterion?
Is a 'meritocracy' inconsistent with 'the greatest good for the greatest numbers'?
In a meritocracy, the 'meritorious' prosper more than others, don't they.
Thus: "The greatest good for the most meritorious."
Is 'the rise of symbolic analysts' an 'absolute presupposition',
along with 'the greatest good for the greatest numbers',
or do they 'conflict'?
Isn't a rise of symbolic analysts the rise of one subset of folks, the rise of
a 'meritocracy'?
Is even a 'symbolic analyst' a post of inherently greater 'merit' than other posts?
Because someone can symbolically analyze something, does that imply greater societal worth?
One might, for example, refer to the culture of Wall Street, and the relatively lowly place occupied by the rating agencies and their symbolic analytic employees, as itself a counterexample.
Other 'cultural values' certainly are afoot, on Wall Street, than symbolic analysis.......as a meritocratic criterion.
And if poor societies can produce engineers like lemmings, doesn't that fact itself imply some 'dilution' of the notion of a symbolic analyst as a meritocratic criterion?
Is a 'meritocracy' inconsistent with 'the greatest good for the greatest numbers'?
In a meritocracy, the 'meritorious' prosper more than others, don't they.
Thus: "The greatest good for the most meritorious."
WHITE HOUSE TO PUSH FREE TRADE DEAL WITH SOUTH KOREA
SEE NYT June 27, 2010
For those out there who may need an example of what I meant, in some of these posts, and in my comments on some of David Kaiser's blog topics, about trade concessions, foreign policy, and other things, this is perhaps as good an example as any.
Prestowitz had an interesting section, in Three Billion New Capitalists, re his visit to Korea, 10 years ago or so. Kind of an eye opener. Etc etc.
For those out there who may need an example of what I meant, in some of these posts, and in my comments on some of David Kaiser's blog topics, about trade concessions, foreign policy, and other things, this is perhaps as good an example as any.
Prestowitz had an interesting section, in Three Billion New Capitalists, re his visit to Korea, 10 years ago or so. Kind of an eye opener. Etc etc.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
WHAT IS TEAM PLAY?
Speaking of 'playing both sides',
what is 'team play' after all?
Is it a smell test?
Is 'playing both sides' 'team play'?
what is 'team play' after all?
Is it a smell test?
Is 'playing both sides' 'team play'?
PLAYING BOTH SIDES
AS DAVID KAISER MENTIONED, IN ONE OF HIS WONDERFUL POSTS, BIG PLAYERS IN AMERICAN POLITICS USUALLY FINANCIALLY SUPPORT BOTH SIDES, BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES, SO THAT WHEN THE ELECTORATE TURNS, THEY ARE MIRACULOUSLY PATRONS THERE, IN THE ERSTWHILE OUT-OF-POWER 'ENEMY' CAMP, TOO.
I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THIS ALSO REPRESENTS THE SO CALLED WELL-RIGGED 'GAME' LEWIS MENTIONED, RE FINANCIAL REFORM, RECENTLY, TOO.
QUESTION:
THUS, WHY SHOULD AMERICAN DIPLOMATS, OR POLITICIANS, SCREAM 'FOUL',
WHEN RASCALLY FOREIGN REGIMES, READ, SAY, TURKEY, ETC,
PLAY BOTH SIDES?
JUST A THOT.
I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THIS ALSO REPRESENTS THE SO CALLED WELL-RIGGED 'GAME' LEWIS MENTIONED, RE FINANCIAL REFORM, RECENTLY, TOO.
QUESTION:
THUS, WHY SHOULD AMERICAN DIPLOMATS, OR POLITICIANS, SCREAM 'FOUL',
WHEN RASCALLY FOREIGN REGIMES, READ, SAY, TURKEY, ETC,
PLAY BOTH SIDES?
JUST A THOT.
RE MICHAEL LEWIS' RECENT ARTICLE ON FINANCIAL REFORM
The previous several posts are examples of how well intentioned experts, in narrow disciplines, end up serving as marionettes for eg MNC, foreign government, foreign policy, and Wall Street interests.
At least Lewis steps boldy outside the mold. He is no one's marionette, except perhaps his publisher. Even that I rather doubt.
At least Lewis steps boldy outside the mold. He is no one's marionette, except perhaps his publisher. Even that I rather doubt.
Flatly Wrong on Internal Stagnation
Back in 88, Huntington said this was the real source of decline, not something Kennedy had inferred; and, said Huntington, we weren't suffering from it.
On the first point, I believe he was right; on the latter part, unfortunately, that we weren't suffering from it, he was 'flatly wrong', too.
On the first point, I believe he was right; on the latter part, unfortunately, that we weren't suffering from it, he was 'flatly wrong', too.
FLATLY WRONG
WAY BACK IN 94, KRUGMAN WROTE AN ARTICLE, CALLING THE DOCTRINE OF COMPETITIVENESS FLATLY WRONG.
PROBLEM IS, KRUGMAN WAS FLATLY WRONG.
PROBLEM IS, KRUGMAN WAS FLATLY WRONG.
STRATEGIC PARTNERS
QUESTION:
When you 'lose' a 'strategic' partner, how do you get your investment back?
On a related theme, when the Cold War is 'over', do you keep on paying erstwhile strategic 'partners' in anticipation of a 'peace dividend'?
Another issue:
When do any viewers believe a peace dividend might become due?
When you 'lose' a 'strategic' partner, how do you get your investment back?
On a related theme, when the Cold War is 'over', do you keep on paying erstwhile strategic 'partners' in anticipation of a 'peace dividend'?
Another issue:
When do any viewers believe a peace dividend might become due?
PLAYING BOTH SIDES
NG
When a regime 'plays both sides', it is taking money from each of two adverse political sugardaddies.
"IMPOSING SANCTIONS"
Americans frequently hear things like, US will 'impose sanctions' against so and so..................
Most Americans do not recognize what that usually means, or what the sordid history of it has been, in practice.
It usually means that some Administration financial aid, trade concession, or gift program, which had previously been provided to a foreign regime by the Administration at taxpayer expense and, almost invariably, to the detriment of domestic economic interests, will now be withdrawn from the undeserving foreign rascals, as a sanction or punishment, for not obeying some unrealistic and misguided Administration directive.
If I have gotten this wrong, somehow, maybe someone who knows more about it can set me straight?
Most Americans do not recognize what that usually means, or what the sordid history of it has been, in practice.
It usually means that some Administration financial aid, trade concession, or gift program, which had previously been provided to a foreign regime by the Administration at taxpayer expense and, almost invariably, to the detriment of domestic economic interests, will now be withdrawn from the undeserving foreign rascals, as a sanction or punishment, for not obeying some unrealistic and misguided Administration directive.
If I have gotten this wrong, somehow, maybe someone who knows more about it can set me straight?
Friday, June 25, 2010
HAMILTONIANS
Too bad, Burr killed Hamilton.
PS
Way too bad, Jackson later came to power......................
PS
Way too bad, Jackson later came to power......................
CHINESE CURRENCY/ EXPORT POLICY DOUBLE RED HERRING
Some commentators blame 'China export policy', not 'currency manipulation', implying currency manipulation is really a 'red herring'.
This is the same economics-driven argument which intellectually gullible Americans have been fed for two generations now.
The problems, which trade, finance, (and foreign direct investment) have caused, have been based on American policies, failures of American governance structures, not on the currency, or export, policies, of so called 'trading' 'partners'.
This is the same economics-driven argument which intellectually gullible Americans have been fed for two generations now.
The problems, which trade, finance, (and foreign direct investment) have caused, have been based on American policies, failures of American governance structures, not on the currency, or export, policies, of so called 'trading' 'partners'.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
SITUATION FOR THE NOVICE
Anyone who wants to get a quick clue, why things are where they are in 2010 re economy and other matters, cannot improve on Trading Places.
Other older works can be mentioned, but the novice should start there, perhaps.
Other older works can be mentioned, but the novice should start there, perhaps.
BACK TO RELATIONSHIP BANKING
Niall Ferguson, whose views I often do not share, hit on one kind of good idea, good not so much for its own sake, in my judgment, but because of some of the bewildering implications, for other speculative constellated arrangements and established practices, adopting relationship banking nowadays would have.
Thurston Macaire page 4
The limeys had pushed so-called free trade, which meant open access for their goods, and for raw materials to flow to them from everywhere.
They had plenty of high sounding reasons, even identifying freer trade with human rights, the reverse of how it was at the time of the founding, or the Civil War.
Urban decline was worsened by local laws, busing, and race riots.
Many Americans now believe free trade naturally brings peace, even human rights.
Yet, they think free trade helped ‘win’ the Cold War.
Now, I’m not that smart, just a wily old chiseler, but I had a thought: if freer trade brings peace, how did it help win a war?
If I have competitors, I want to take their share of a market, by hook or crook, before they take mine! Not offer to share it!
They had plenty of high sounding reasons, even identifying freer trade with human rights, the reverse of how it was at the time of the founding, or the Civil War.
Urban decline was worsened by local laws, busing, and race riots.
Many Americans now believe free trade naturally brings peace, even human rights.
Yet, they think free trade helped ‘win’ the Cold War.
Now, I’m not that smart, just a wily old chiseler, but I had a thought: if freer trade brings peace, how did it help win a war?
If I have competitors, I want to take their share of a market, by hook or crook, before they take mine! Not offer to share it!
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
DRILLING BAN BLOCKED
This is a classic example of why deeper reforms in America, and not just separation of powers issues reforms implied in this story, have been long overdue.
The McCrystal 'story', in other governance structure contexts, discloses a similar, longstanding, crying need for reforms.
The McCrystal 'story', in other governance structure contexts, discloses a similar, longstanding, crying need for reforms.
GOLDFINGER
I have decided to watch this again, after all these years, tonight.
Shirley Bassey, belting out the theme song, and all.
"He loves only gold, ooooooonly gold. He loves goooooooooooooooooooooooooold."
Some of you out there might be able to suss out, at this moment in world
history and the world of investing, why anyone would do this.
Shirley Bassey, belting out the theme song, and all.
"He loves only gold, ooooooonly gold. He loves goooooooooooooooooooooooooold."
Some of you out there might be able to suss out, at this moment in world
history and the world of investing, why anyone would do this.
ABSOLUTE PRESUPPOSITIONS
QUESTION:
"THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBERS"
IS THIS ONE, IN COLLINGWOOD'S SENSE, OR NOT?
"THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBERS"
IS THIS ONE, IN COLLINGWOOD'S SENSE, OR NOT?
CHINA'S PRECIOUS METALS
A lot of free traders are whimpering over China's perfectly legitimate moves to conserve its own resources.
So-called Laissez faire nations need to smell the coffee.
So-called Laissez faire nations need to smell the coffee.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
A HEAP OF SPECIAL INTERESTS
Hitler had in the 1930s, or perhaps even the 20s, called the German Diet a 'Heap of Special Interests'.
Interestingly, a Japanese embassy official, quoted in Trading Places, p. 268, said the same thing about Washington, in 1985.
So right.
THE CRISIS
There are discussions, nowadays, of some date for a 'political' crisis.
Rather than talk about a political crisis date, I would date the loss of what I have called CIVILIZATIONAL ADVANTAGE to about 1971. The Soviet Union fell victim to the same forces.
All else has 'followed' from that, and little has been done to reverse this slide.
There are a lot of good reasons for that approximate date.
Rather than talk about a political crisis date, I would date the loss of what I have called CIVILIZATIONAL ADVANTAGE to about 1971. The Soviet Union fell victim to the same forces.
All else has 'followed' from that, and little has been done to reverse this slide.
There are a lot of good reasons for that approximate date.
New York Times Headlines Today
It was rather ironic, I thought that one headline today discusses a so-called first amendment issue, relating to a ban on support of a terrorist group;
while another article, in this same issue, contains evidence that American taxpayers have been unknowingly supporting mafia type groups, and indirectly, the Taliban, in Afghanistan.
It is often said, moreover, without much sense nowadays, that ignorance of the law is no defense.
Wouldn't 'taxpayers', in such circumstances, be entitled to such a defense?
Was it an 'accident' that these two articles appeared together, or is there some 'deep thinker' at the Times?
while another article, in this same issue, contains evidence that American taxpayers have been unknowingly supporting mafia type groups, and indirectly, the Taliban, in Afghanistan.
It is often said, moreover, without much sense nowadays, that ignorance of the law is no defense.
Wouldn't 'taxpayers', in such circumstances, be entitled to such a defense?
Was it an 'accident' that these two articles appeared together, or is there some 'deep thinker' at the Times?
Sunday, June 20, 2010
VICIOUS FROM THE MOMENT OF THEIR BIRTH
Margaret MacMillan, Paris 1919, quoted Bliss, Paris military attache, re 'surfacing' nations.
Similar comments may be appropriate re other entities......
Similar comments may be appropriate re other entities......
CIVILIZATIONAL DISADVANTAGE
Economists have tended to talk about 'Comparative
Advantage', since Adam Smith.
More recently, the term 'competitive advantage' was coined.
These terms have not been that helpful, really, for anyone, as principles of operation, including the hegemon of the moment.
I prefer to think in terms, derived in part from Huntington, not an economist, and others, terms such as CIVILIZATIONAL ADVANTAGE.
There are those who talk about a 'Long War'.
Not that that is my characterization, but if there were some basis for such a characterization, then perhaps the West's loss of 'Civilizational Advantage' would be one implication of such a Long War, a war ultimately lost by The West, rather than won by the West against Communism, against the rest.
That makes a lot more sense to me than what generally passes for analysis.
Advantage', since Adam Smith.
More recently, the term 'competitive advantage' was coined.
These terms have not been that helpful, really, for anyone, as principles of operation, including the hegemon of the moment.
I prefer to think in terms, derived in part from Huntington, not an economist, and others, terms such as CIVILIZATIONAL ADVANTAGE.
There are those who talk about a 'Long War'.
Not that that is my characterization, but if there were some basis for such a characterization, then perhaps the West's loss of 'Civilizational Advantage' would be one implication of such a Long War, a war ultimately lost by The West, rather than won by the West against Communism, against the rest.
That makes a lot more sense to me than what generally passes for analysis.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Re Office of The Presidency
In case anyone wonders, re authority, for my points about looking to this office for domestic help, several scholarly sources can be provided if anyone asks.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Friday, June 18, 2010
FORMS OF LIFE
Should also mention that the 'later' Wittgenstein was accused, by Gellner, of coopting Durkheim's term; accused, not without some reason, actually; but Wittgenstein went in drastically different directions, really.
Fundamental Principles Again
Here's another one I was always drawn to:
"Mode of production determines form of life."
The 'social sciences' were really just getting under way.
This was one of Marx's great bonne mots.
It is not as simplistic as many fundamental principles.
There are a lot of interesting implications,
but I'll leave working some of those out to the imaginative ones out there.
"Mode of production determines form of life."
The 'social sciences' were really just getting under way.
This was one of Marx's great bonne mots.
It is not as simplistic as many fundamental principles.
There are a lot of interesting implications,
but I'll leave working some of those out to the imaginative ones out there.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
HOW MANY KINDS OF REFORM DO WE NEED
One type of problem facing Americans is that they don't really know what should be done, politically, to get help.
They generally think less government will sort of solve their problems, because their politicians have trained them to respond like that, in a sort of Pavlovian way, and because traditionally Americans have been unnaturally suspicious of government, and ignorant of history.
The politicians who in recent decades taught less is best were being paid by big lobbies which want less government anyway because more government has tended to limit their freedom of action in taking advantage of average Americans who have been trained to consume.
So, how many kinds of reforms do we need?
It's hard to shake a stick at all the ways reforms are needed.
Financial reform, health care reform, are really the tips of an enormous iceberg needing to be broken up by reforms before it crushes the stultifera navis.
They generally think less government will sort of solve their problems, because their politicians have trained them to respond like that, in a sort of Pavlovian way, and because traditionally Americans have been unnaturally suspicious of government, and ignorant of history.
The politicians who in recent decades taught less is best were being paid by big lobbies which want less government anyway because more government has tended to limit their freedom of action in taking advantage of average Americans who have been trained to consume.
So, how many kinds of reforms do we need?
It's hard to shake a stick at all the ways reforms are needed.
Financial reform, health care reform, are really the tips of an enormous iceberg needing to be broken up by reforms before it crushes the stultifera navis.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Keynes In The Clouds
Ch 24 IV The General Theory
But if nations can learn to provide themselves with full employment by their domestic policy...there need be no important economic forces calculated to set the interest of one country against that of its neighbours. There would still be room for the international division of labour and for international lending in appropriate conditions. But there would no longer be a pressing motive why one country need force its wares on another or repulse the offerings of its neighbour...with the express object of upsetting the equilibrium of payments so as to develop a balance of trade in its own favour. International trade would cease to be what it is, namely, a desperate expedient to maintain employment at home by forcing sales on foreign markets and restricting purchases, which, if successful, will merely shift the problem of unemployment to the neighbor which is worsted in the struggle, but a willing and unimpeded exchange of goods and services in conditions of mutual advantage.
But if nations can learn to provide themselves with full employment by their domestic policy...there need be no important economic forces calculated to set the interest of one country against that of its neighbours. There would still be room for the international division of labour and for international lending in appropriate conditions. But there would no longer be a pressing motive why one country need force its wares on another or repulse the offerings of its neighbour...with the express object of upsetting the equilibrium of payments so as to develop a balance of trade in its own favour. International trade would cease to be what it is, namely, a desperate expedient to maintain employment at home by forcing sales on foreign markets and restricting purchases, which, if successful, will merely shift the problem of unemployment to the neighbor which is worsted in the struggle, but a willing and unimpeded exchange of goods and services in conditions of mutual advantage.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Cobdenist Manchester School Corn Law Rant
How's that for a title?
I don't want to ruffle too much any well flounced feathers, but a few words now, here in mid June 2010, re some of these abstruse topics, seems not inapposite....
Americans have long been on a free trade, laissez faire, less government intervention is best, commercial and economic globalization bender.
Everyone has long looked, however, and especially now, to those very economists, those inimitable specialists, who first helped (along with the politicians) in the 30s and especially after WW II to set America on that bender, for guidance, about the emerging situation we all, and the rest of the world, face.
What does anyone now believe that the economists, virtually any of them, will now tell them, about their presuppositions? What explanations will they now give for the inexplicable mess?
Would they opine that they may have been wrong, or misguided, or myopic, or delusional, about the approach to political and economic policy inferred from their narrow special dull field?
No. That is not what one has been hearing from these paragons of scientific virtue; quite the opposite.
'Imperfect' markets was, for a long time, one of their puerile mantras.
Monetary policy is quite sufficient to direct the stultifera navis, they were wont to conclude.
They were relatively innocent, of the abundant research available from other fields, such as military history, or of the political and commercial directions some regimes were moving; when they did attend to it, mere 'free riders' they were usually called, by these doctrinaire pundits, as if this explained away the multifarious phenomena of economic rivalry, as mere evanescent aberrations, imperfect competition, which would resolve themselves naturally by market forces returning to equilibrium in good time.
What nonsense, on which to build a political or military policy, or one 'promoting the general welfare' of a nation state.
I don't want to ruffle too much any well flounced feathers, but a few words now, here in mid June 2010, re some of these abstruse topics, seems not inapposite....
Americans have long been on a free trade, laissez faire, less government intervention is best, commercial and economic globalization bender.
Everyone has long looked, however, and especially now, to those very economists, those inimitable specialists, who first helped (along with the politicians) in the 30s and especially after WW II to set America on that bender, for guidance, about the emerging situation we all, and the rest of the world, face.
What does anyone now believe that the economists, virtually any of them, will now tell them, about their presuppositions? What explanations will they now give for the inexplicable mess?
Would they opine that they may have been wrong, or misguided, or myopic, or delusional, about the approach to political and economic policy inferred from their narrow special dull field?
No. That is not what one has been hearing from these paragons of scientific virtue; quite the opposite.
'Imperfect' markets was, for a long time, one of their puerile mantras.
Monetary policy is quite sufficient to direct the stultifera navis, they were wont to conclude.
They were relatively innocent, of the abundant research available from other fields, such as military history, or of the political and commercial directions some regimes were moving; when they did attend to it, mere 'free riders' they were usually called, by these doctrinaire pundits, as if this explained away the multifarious phenomena of economic rivalry, as mere evanescent aberrations, imperfect competition, which would resolve themselves naturally by market forces returning to equilibrium in good time.
What nonsense, on which to build a political or military policy, or one 'promoting the general welfare' of a nation state.
Fundamentalist Natural Selection
Another interesting 'fundamental principle' is natural selection/ survival of the fittest.
Survival of the fittest has sometimes been embraced, without all the fussy biology baggage.
Sometimes it even dovetails with a type of creationism unaware of the biological/anthropological science inconsistencies.
Survival of the fittest has sometimes been embraced, without all the fussy biology baggage.
Sometimes it even dovetails with a type of creationism unaware of the biological/anthropological science inconsistencies.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Ayn Rand Objectivist Simplicity and Paucity
It's hard to improve on Ayn Rand,
for simplicity and paucity of fundamental logical principles:
A is A. (A is for Ayn, or anything.)
A is not non-A.
One is tempted to call her an Aristotelian (informal logic),
or perhaps post-Aristotelian; but, not-Aristotelian, really.
I don't know, really, what to call her 'field'.
She was not an economist, not a philosopher, not a novelist, really, not a sociologist, not a politician as such; not really anything, 'not-A', really.
for simplicity and paucity of fundamental logical principles:
A is A. (A is for Ayn, or anything.)
A is not non-A.
One is tempted to call her an Aristotelian (informal logic),
or perhaps post-Aristotelian; but, not-Aristotelian, really.
I don't know, really, what to call her 'field'.
She was not an economist, not a philosopher, not a novelist, really, not a sociologist, not a politician as such; not really anything, 'not-A', really.
Underlying principles
Here's another good one, in another field, from the 19th Century:
'History is nothing other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom'.
This sort of partially falls under what I would call a 'Whig (in Butterfield's sense) fallacy'; but with a decidedly Germanic twist (dialectic).
'History is nothing other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom'.
This sort of partially falls under what I would call a 'Whig (in Butterfield's sense) fallacy'; but with a decidedly Germanic twist (dialectic).
Triumph of the Experts
One finds that those experts who focus on politics; or on history; or on economics; etc; etc; etc; usually do not see the implications, from other fields, for their fields and their conclusions, because they have been trained to ignore or to minimize other fields' work and conclusions.
Yet, sometimes, an analogy from another will inform a particular branch of one or another field. It is usually even part of the definitional process of specializations, that they need, want, and do, bracket off other fields and methodologies from theirs. Call it turf; call it whatever.
One sad thing about the underlying principles of many fields is their simplicity and paucity, in spite of a lot of technical elaborations associated with the principles. The underlying principles can be rather simplistic if you take a dispassionate look at them. One good example is, say, 'greatest good for the greatest numbers'. Sounds like a banner to march under doesn't it?
Yet, sometimes, an analogy from another will inform a particular branch of one or another field. It is usually even part of the definitional process of specializations, that they need, want, and do, bracket off other fields and methodologies from theirs. Call it turf; call it whatever.
One sad thing about the underlying principles of many fields is their simplicity and paucity, in spite of a lot of technical elaborations associated with the principles. The underlying principles can be rather simplistic if you take a dispassionate look at them. One good example is, say, 'greatest good for the greatest numbers'. Sounds like a banner to march under doesn't it?
Thurston Macaire's rant page 3
Before WWII, federal programs improved urban conditions caused by WWI and industry (monopolies).
Federal programs fostered an urban and then ‘suburban’ boom, and also some good old fashioned fraud and corruption, selling arid or submerged raw land to absentees. We got in on some of that, in Arizona, California, and Florida, particularly, ‘holding companies’.
We made money ‘the good ole fashioned way’, we stole it. Meanwhile, federal trade and military giveaway deals after the war caused a deindustrialization (I hate big words) bust, affecting companies (except of course military and housing firms), and cities.
Most of my money was made in cities, ‘til we had to go to Taiwan. I actually kept it in the Caymans, of course, not here.
Successive presidents, from FDR on, subordinated state and local economic interests, like mine, yours, and ours, to supposedly military and diplomatic ‘higher’ goals.
Don’t get me wrong, I like a little help for allies, after a war. I like military goals as much as the next guy. I’m a veteran too. But this all went overboard (even by the Minnow’s standards)!
It was too easy to sell trade favors for so-called protection from the bomb, or to ‘fight the spread of world communism’.
Most folks, what you might call ‘MacNeil Lehrer’ watchers, (I did not invent this term) think things like globalization (big word) ‘just happen’. (By the way, Lovey watches it every night, while I get away from my doctors and smoke a cigar!) They don’t know the recent version began as part of WW II military strategy and relief programs, back when I was just starting out. Trade favors were a lot easier than foreign aid for a dysfunctional system to do.
Trade and war have always been close buddies.
Yet, after Eisenhower, who I liked, republicans, except smart ones like me, joined democrats as ‘free traders’. Both parties abandoned the American System for what you might call the British (and the Confederacy’s) System of ‘free trade’. Makes it sound a lot like a founding fathers’ slogan, doesn’t it: “A Free People Needs Free Trade”.
Federal programs fostered an urban and then ‘suburban’ boom, and also some good old fashioned fraud and corruption, selling arid or submerged raw land to absentees. We got in on some of that, in Arizona, California, and Florida, particularly, ‘holding companies’.
We made money ‘the good ole fashioned way’, we stole it. Meanwhile, federal trade and military giveaway deals after the war caused a deindustrialization (I hate big words) bust, affecting companies (except of course military and housing firms), and cities.
Most of my money was made in cities, ‘til we had to go to Taiwan. I actually kept it in the Caymans, of course, not here.
Successive presidents, from FDR on, subordinated state and local economic interests, like mine, yours, and ours, to supposedly military and diplomatic ‘higher’ goals.
Don’t get me wrong, I like a little help for allies, after a war. I like military goals as much as the next guy. I’m a veteran too. But this all went overboard (even by the Minnow’s standards)!
It was too easy to sell trade favors for so-called protection from the bomb, or to ‘fight the spread of world communism’.
Most folks, what you might call ‘MacNeil Lehrer’ watchers, (I did not invent this term) think things like globalization (big word) ‘just happen’. (By the way, Lovey watches it every night, while I get away from my doctors and smoke a cigar!) They don’t know the recent version began as part of WW II military strategy and relief programs, back when I was just starting out. Trade favors were a lot easier than foreign aid for a dysfunctional system to do.
Trade and war have always been close buddies.
Yet, after Eisenhower, who I liked, republicans, except smart ones like me, joined democrats as ‘free traders’. Both parties abandoned the American System for what you might call the British (and the Confederacy’s) System of ‘free trade’. Makes it sound a lot like a founding fathers’ slogan, doesn’t it: “A Free People Needs Free Trade”.
Drawing crowds
Apparently a good way for people to be drawn to a blog is by fetching terms. Apparently terms like Hitler draw crowds.
I say, why not a soup of such names:
Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin
I say, why not a soup of such names:
Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin Hitler Churchill Stalin
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Thurston macaire roughly page 2
This talk explores economic decline in cities, property rights, even home rule. There has been a lot of talk about ‘public-private partnership’. Push infrastructure costs down, down to the local level, to local budgets, and the free local market, down to local mavericks and mavens. Kelo kind of threw a wet blanket on the PPP.
So did Iraq. I’ve made my fortune, so this little confession is just a little way for an old scalawag like me to ‘give back.’
Let’s talk about cities. Cities are sources and barometers of local, state, and national wellbeing. Cities are sources of well-being (and good cigars), in the ‘civilized’ world.
They can decline. When the lights go out, you’re back in the middle ages.
Responsibility for decline is blamed by some ‘conservative’ ‘property rights’ pundits in part on federal subsidies: the GI bill, mortgage tax breaks, home loan guarantees, suburban highways. ‘Communist plots…..’
Some people think the ‘free market’ should have been allowed to ‘take its course’. Why subsidize mortgages, why give anybody a break; why subsidize anything?
I made a killing on tax breaks, especially corporate ones. Let’s put it this way, Thurston Howell likes tax breaks that like him. Is that ‘the free market’, or not? I don’t know. I don’t care.
I do know this: these subsidies created, for some, like me and a few million of my WWII vet pals, the American dream. Sure I fought in the war, too. You kiddin.
These subsidies were promoted to strengthen America, and the so-called free world, against communism, and then, even, supposedly, ‘defeated’ it, in the Cold War.
I hate communism! But tax breaks, concessions, subsidies, and credits, now that’s a little different story. Thurston Howell loves tax breaks.
So did Iraq. I’ve made my fortune, so this little confession is just a little way for an old scalawag like me to ‘give back.’
Let’s talk about cities. Cities are sources and barometers of local, state, and national wellbeing. Cities are sources of well-being (and good cigars), in the ‘civilized’ world.
They can decline. When the lights go out, you’re back in the middle ages.
Responsibility for decline is blamed by some ‘conservative’ ‘property rights’ pundits in part on federal subsidies: the GI bill, mortgage tax breaks, home loan guarantees, suburban highways. ‘Communist plots…..’
Some people think the ‘free market’ should have been allowed to ‘take its course’. Why subsidize mortgages, why give anybody a break; why subsidize anything?
I made a killing on tax breaks, especially corporate ones. Let’s put it this way, Thurston Howell likes tax breaks that like him. Is that ‘the free market’, or not? I don’t know. I don’t care.
I do know this: these subsidies created, for some, like me and a few million of my WWII vet pals, the American dream. Sure I fought in the war, too. You kiddin.
These subsidies were promoted to strengthen America, and the so-called free world, against communism, and then, even, supposedly, ‘defeated’ it, in the Cold War.
I hate communism! But tax breaks, concessions, subsidies, and credits, now that’s a little different story. Thurston Howell loves tax breaks.
GAC Back Then: An Earlier Real Estate Bubble
Attached below is a webaddress for a National Park Service article, dealing with GAC and some other companies re land development and related matters, in various parts of the United States.
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/tuma/hrs/chap9.htm
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/tuma/hrs/chap9.htm
Friday, June 11, 2010
Below is the first page of a short work of fiction. It is told by my fictional character, very loosely based on the millionaire character in Gilligan's Island, on the French scalawag Robert Macaire, of whose imaginary antics Honore Daumier did wonderful illustrations in the first half of the 19th Century, and on the real life career of my uncle, my mother's sister's husband, Richard J. Thomas, originally of Allentown PA, who was VP Personnel of GAC Corporation, before it became insolvent, back in the 70s. Footnotes, appear to have been successfully omitted, in case the offer offense to sensitive entities out there in the cyber world. It should be noted, however, that the footnotes are the only important thing about this piece. The rest is fluff, really. It started out as a reply to property rights pundits' rants re Kelo. What a fiasco for them, and all the rest, it all has been.
THURSTON HOWELL ALIAS ROBERT MACAIRE'S REFLECTIONS
I know it’s hard to believe, but I’m Thurston Howell, after all these years. We were finally rescued. Coast Guard.
It’s amazing the bionics money can buy.
My doctors don’t let me smoke these anymore. Too bad. By the way, there are a few other little things they try not to let me do, at my age, either……...
Some of you may remember me from Boca, after Kelo. That was before the mortgage bubble and global meltdown.
I made a lot of money before it popped. Left a little on the table too. Made still more, selling short, since then.
What else could I do? Kelo dashed plans for a berth for my yacht in New London!
Then I had a side deal to moor it next to a new coal dockyard in J’ville, not all that far from the Bahamas, as the crow flies. Not the most beautiful site, but the price was right. That got screwed up too. Jock talks about it later. I don’t hold a grudge. Got to give credit, big verdict. That’s my kind of ‘property rights’: big, big property rights.
So I figured, I’d hit up the folks at this little joint for an oversize berth. It’s anchored, now, the yacht of course, out here in SF Bay, right over there. We motored in.
Lovey, my wife, likes it here. Bionics helped her a lot too.
What are my credentials for talking economics, history, war, or trade? The best. My credentials are: I’m retired. I got a law degree, finally, grandfathered in, but truly, I hate lawyers, especially the ones in Miami, except the few we had, including me, in my old firm GAC down there, for ‘window dressing’.
These views are mine, Thurston Howell’s. I had my ‘egg head’ grandson go to the library and cook up some fancy citations for what I say here, just to give him something useful to do. He is way off base on some of this (sure I love baseball as much as the next guy), but it kept him out of trouble for a little while.
THURSTON HOWELL ALIAS ROBERT MACAIRE'S REFLECTIONS
I know it’s hard to believe, but I’m Thurston Howell, after all these years. We were finally rescued. Coast Guard.
It’s amazing the bionics money can buy.
My doctors don’t let me smoke these anymore. Too bad. By the way, there are a few other little things they try not to let me do, at my age, either……...
Some of you may remember me from Boca, after Kelo. That was before the mortgage bubble and global meltdown.
I made a lot of money before it popped. Left a little on the table too. Made still more, selling short, since then.
What else could I do? Kelo dashed plans for a berth for my yacht in New London!
Then I had a side deal to moor it next to a new coal dockyard in J’ville, not all that far from the Bahamas, as the crow flies. Not the most beautiful site, but the price was right. That got screwed up too. Jock talks about it later. I don’t hold a grudge. Got to give credit, big verdict. That’s my kind of ‘property rights’: big, big property rights.
So I figured, I’d hit up the folks at this little joint for an oversize berth. It’s anchored, now, the yacht of course, out here in SF Bay, right over there. We motored in.
Lovey, my wife, likes it here. Bionics helped her a lot too.
What are my credentials for talking economics, history, war, or trade? The best. My credentials are: I’m retired. I got a law degree, finally, grandfathered in, but truly, I hate lawyers, especially the ones in Miami, except the few we had, including me, in my old firm GAC down there, for ‘window dressing’.
These views are mine, Thurston Howell’s. I had my ‘egg head’ grandson go to the library and cook up some fancy citations for what I say here, just to give him something useful to do. He is way off base on some of this (sure I love baseball as much as the next guy), but it kept him out of trouble for a little while.
The End of History and the Last Bozo
Rather than make a lot of impertiment and pedantic remarks on other folks' sites, I decided to do one myself, even though I might, still, intrude on theirs as before.
Now, however, they can intrude on mine...or not.
So it goes.
Now, however, they can intrude on mine...or not.
So it goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)