WHY NOT
THE CHINESE CONNECTION
That makes some sense, given the larger circumstances.
BOOMERBUSTER
OLD CELLO
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
RE DAVID KAISER'S CURRENT POST
"The entire intellectual elite, I am convinced, must also share much of the blame."
I believe that he is right about this, but what might be some incidental implications of his remark?
I am not going to suggest that he thinks any of the things I think, but 'weaknesses' of the US intellectual elite are there for all to see, I believe.
Some of my comments re the compartmentalization of disciplines plays some part in the failure of the intellectual elite, I believe.
Further, it is hard to really coherently refer to an 'intellectual elite' as a distinct and identifiable 'body', in the American public and private academic, and private sector, 'system'.
There are, just one example, political pundits, often with certain academic credentials, politics or economics or medicine or law or management or investment, other than the 'nonacademic' one of 'journalist'.
These credentials, and the scope of their expertises, are seldom seriously questioned, except among the academic disciplines themselves from which these pundits emerge politically.
A larger political voice for them is strictly gratuitous under our system, where no higher authority governs technical punditry itself.
Also the tendency for politicians, and powerful segments of society, to 'coopt' both exact and social sciences, both within and outside academia, is another powerful factor in the processes that got us here.
Good examples are medicine and architecture. Back at the time Ayn Rand, a pseudo-intellectual elite, wrote The Fountainhead, architecture ruled construction projects. Not any more.
Similarly for medicine and the control drug companies have increasingly exerted over the field of medicine.
This presents the spectre of scientific intellectuals, perhaps part of the so-called intellectual elite, serving as handmaidens of this or that political or commercial cause, which they may support, or which supports them, or their research.
I believe that he is right about this, but what might be some incidental implications of his remark?
I am not going to suggest that he thinks any of the things I think, but 'weaknesses' of the US intellectual elite are there for all to see, I believe.
Some of my comments re the compartmentalization of disciplines plays some part in the failure of the intellectual elite, I believe.
Further, it is hard to really coherently refer to an 'intellectual elite' as a distinct and identifiable 'body', in the American public and private academic, and private sector, 'system'.
There are, just one example, political pundits, often with certain academic credentials, politics or economics or medicine or law or management or investment, other than the 'nonacademic' one of 'journalist'.
These credentials, and the scope of their expertises, are seldom seriously questioned, except among the academic disciplines themselves from which these pundits emerge politically.
A larger political voice for them is strictly gratuitous under our system, where no higher authority governs technical punditry itself.
Also the tendency for politicians, and powerful segments of society, to 'coopt' both exact and social sciences, both within and outside academia, is another powerful factor in the processes that got us here.
Good examples are medicine and architecture. Back at the time Ayn Rand, a pseudo-intellectual elite, wrote The Fountainhead, architecture ruled construction projects. Not any more.
Similarly for medicine and the control drug companies have increasingly exerted over the field of medicine.
This presents the spectre of scientific intellectuals, perhaps part of the so-called intellectual elite, serving as handmaidens of this or that political or commercial cause, which they may support, or which supports them, or their research.
RE THE TALENT CODE BOOK AND DEEP PRACTICE VERSUS GENIUS PARADIGM
The author makes some revealing observations about both individual achievement, and social (also familial, national, or civilizational) motivation, based both on recent research and on his investigations.
Meadowmount, Tiger Woods, Clint Eastwood's 'look', Russian tennis stars, Toyota mfg techniques, and many other things.
His comments on comparative educational, and socio/civilizational, paradigms are particularly arresting.
Well worth 'close scrutiny' (those fateful words).
Meadowmount, Tiger Woods, Clint Eastwood's 'look', Russian tennis stars, Toyota mfg techniques, and many other things.
His comments on comparative educational, and socio/civilizational, paradigms are particularly arresting.
Well worth 'close scrutiny' (those fateful words).
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Re Democratic Party Krugman Keynsian FDR 'jobs' solutions to US problems REALLY ONCE AGAIN THE WRONG OLD DEBATE THAT GOT US HERE
The Republicans have long been in the pocket of the really big MNC freer trade cartels, and really want to ignore so-called domestic employment, and economic matters altogether, as no longer directly relevant.
Their agenda is global rather than American in focus, but the average Republican still does not know this because of all the redirected moralistic propaganda.
To fight this pestilence, the Democrats have been limited to largely the same systemically limited economic tools of both parties, for generations now, because they have been limited to the political system within which there are no other, real, more aggressive, economic or social options for the federal government, and the federal government itself would rein in any highly unlikely big socio-economic initiatives of individual states.
You either blindly, and unilluminatingly, 'reduce taxes' and government with Republicans, or 'tax and spend' ('jobs', any old jobs, simpliciter) with Democrats, although technically these 'alternatives' have not even held true, over time, with Republicans often outspending Democrats.
The actual differences between their constituencies, agendas, policies, and basic tools, has not been that great, really, in spite of the shrill rhetoric.
Neither party has had much incentive to change markedly the sliding status quo, and neither has the political will (read powerful political patronage) to move toward drastic reform.
No thought can be given to any larger or deeper types of roles between government and private sector activities.
Little thought could be given, in the present political framework, to agendas in which industrial and commercial sectors were promoted, strengthened, or encouraged, in ways seen so successful in some other countries.
In this context, the notion of creating just 'jobs' simpliciter, or conversely of just reducing taxes simpliciter, rather than inspiring and promoting larger competitive, or even merely productive, domestic initiatives, will not engender a movement out of the economic and political malaise into which the US has long been sinking as against its so-called 'strategic partners'.
Their agenda is global rather than American in focus, but the average Republican still does not know this because of all the redirected moralistic propaganda.
To fight this pestilence, the Democrats have been limited to largely the same systemically limited economic tools of both parties, for generations now, because they have been limited to the political system within which there are no other, real, more aggressive, economic or social options for the federal government, and the federal government itself would rein in any highly unlikely big socio-economic initiatives of individual states.
You either blindly, and unilluminatingly, 'reduce taxes' and government with Republicans, or 'tax and spend' ('jobs', any old jobs, simpliciter) with Democrats, although technically these 'alternatives' have not even held true, over time, with Republicans often outspending Democrats.
The actual differences between their constituencies, agendas, policies, and basic tools, has not been that great, really, in spite of the shrill rhetoric.
Neither party has had much incentive to change markedly the sliding status quo, and neither has the political will (read powerful political patronage) to move toward drastic reform.
No thought can be given to any larger or deeper types of roles between government and private sector activities.
Little thought could be given, in the present political framework, to agendas in which industrial and commercial sectors were promoted, strengthened, or encouraged, in ways seen so successful in some other countries.
In this context, the notion of creating just 'jobs' simpliciter, or conversely of just reducing taxes simpliciter, rather than inspiring and promoting larger competitive, or even merely productive, domestic initiatives, will not engender a movement out of the economic and political malaise into which the US has long been sinking as against its so-called 'strategic partners'.
Re Philip Davis
See Philip Davis' Seeking Alpha article:
Trade War Tuesday: China, Japan and U.S. at Odds
Almost all you need to know, at the moment.
Trade War Tuesday: China, Japan and U.S. at Odds
Almost all you need to know, at the moment.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Re Krugman editorial NYT today
He makes some obvious points for the millionth time.
One problem, alluded to by others, is that federal stimulus money would find many foreign firms vying for it now, very different from the 30s, albeit using some American workers especially in construction etc.
Re another 'structural' view, See post re World Is Flat, etc, on this site.
Also discussions of the blinkers of one narrow 'field', sprinkled throughout the site.
One problem, alluded to by others, is that federal stimulus money would find many foreign firms vying for it now, very different from the 30s, albeit using some American workers especially in construction etc.
Re another 'structural' view, See post re World Is Flat, etc, on this site.
Also discussions of the blinkers of one narrow 'field', sprinkled throughout the site.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
RE JAPAN RETREATS EDITORIAL AND PRIOR POSTS THE END OF COBDENISM NOT THE END OF HISTORY AND THE LAST MAN
It seems that there are now so many politico-economically 'fattened up' Asian regimes, China now being apparently the fatter, that they each can't get enough 'food' for their large economic girths, over there. A quite understandable situation for all concerned.
This editorial, with its frankly militarist implication of 'retreat', also gives the lie to all the Cobdenist free trade pacifism which Americans have been fed, and still are being fed by their Executive Branch, about the peaceful consequences of economic development for all comers. This is so even though China is Japan's largest export market now.
What does that imply re power, and trade as a peace loving pastime?
New or recently developed economies are as unlikely to be peace loving, going forward, toward their erstwhile economic benefactors, or their neighbors, as wasteland countries and regions, shunned by any development, were and are.
See prior post re Margaret MacMillan's Paris 1919, quote from a British diplomat there, 'vicious from the moment of their birth'.
The big bad difference, the terrible, seldom voiced, implication for longstanding American foreign and economic policies, is that developed and developing economies are much more formidable economic and military adversaries, in the global struggle for resources and power, than undeveloped wastelands.
It is not a good direction to have blithely gone, all these decades, really, since the 19th Century, Republicans since 1930 or so. The Democrats were free traders since before the Civil War, for reasons hardly identified with Cobdenism.
See prior posts re Nixon Shock, 1972, Fattening Things Up, Trading Poker, Trading Places, Trading American Interests, Prestowitz, Eckes, cartoons, Maverick Executive, etc., etc., etc., on this site.
This editorial, with its frankly militarist implication of 'retreat', also gives the lie to all the Cobdenist free trade pacifism which Americans have been fed, and still are being fed by their Executive Branch, about the peaceful consequences of economic development for all comers. This is so even though China is Japan's largest export market now.
What does that imply re power, and trade as a peace loving pastime?
New or recently developed economies are as unlikely to be peace loving, going forward, toward their erstwhile economic benefactors, or their neighbors, as wasteland countries and regions, shunned by any development, were and are.
See prior post re Margaret MacMillan's Paris 1919, quote from a British diplomat there, 'vicious from the moment of their birth'.
The big bad difference, the terrible, seldom voiced, implication for longstanding American foreign and economic policies, is that developed and developing economies are much more formidable economic and military adversaries, in the global struggle for resources and power, than undeveloped wastelands.
It is not a good direction to have blithely gone, all these decades, really, since the 19th Century, Republicans since 1930 or so. The Democrats were free traders since before the Civil War, for reasons hardly identified with Cobdenism.
See prior posts re Nixon Shock, 1972, Fattening Things Up, Trading Poker, Trading Places, Trading American Interests, Prestowitz, Eckes, cartoons, Maverick Executive, etc., etc., etc., on this site.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
RE DAVID KAISER'S CURRENT POST
Great summary.
He quotes, at the end, a snipet of Afghanistan politics comparing it with ours.
Is it just a coincidence that Krugman, I think, in a NYT editorial today, had called the current trend here a move toward a Banana Republic?
David and Paul seem to be thinking somewhat alike, at least at the moment.
He quotes, at the end, a snipet of Afghanistan politics comparing it with ours.
Is it just a coincidence that Krugman, I think, in a NYT editorial today, had called the current trend here a move toward a Banana Republic?
David and Paul seem to be thinking somewhat alike, at least at the moment.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
RE CHINA JAPAN ETC ETC
Been expecting it to emerge for some time now. Amazing that such longstanding animosities could be glossed over for so long.
For the US, it is not really a question of 'advantage', but belated additional confirmation of 'game over', really.
'Heavyweight American' executives having questions for the Chinese.........another symptom of much else yet to come.
Casanova hand low wage gravy train coming to a kind of halt perhaps, yet another instance, of something really big, and developing for a long time, in broad daylight, 'catching US policymakers by surprise'.
Kind of pathetic really.
For the US, it is not really a question of 'advantage', but belated additional confirmation of 'game over', really.
'Heavyweight American' executives having questions for the Chinese.........another symptom of much else yet to come.
Casanova hand low wage gravy train coming to a kind of halt perhaps, yet another instance, of something really big, and developing for a long time, in broad daylight, 'catching US policymakers by surprise'.
Kind of pathetic really.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Re The Lowry 10th Anniversary Spencer Tunick Everyday People Manchester UK
Re current art, such as it now is:
See Spencer Tunick's Everyday People, at the Lowry, and on the web.
Rather unusual. A modern rendition of not-so-matchstick people.
I noted, in passing, that there seem not to be any everyday people of color inTunick's current Lowry piece (although Lowry had often included some in his crowd scenes). Perhaps it is just an oversight, or I missed
them, or they did not apply.
I still rather prefer my drawing, below. There are some images of a white
man on the reverse of my drawing, but he is also idiosyncratic in a Lowryesque way.
See Spencer Tunick's Everyday People, at the Lowry, and on the web.
Rather unusual. A modern rendition of not-so-matchstick people.
I noted, in passing, that there seem not to be any everyday people of color inTunick's current Lowry piece (although Lowry had often included some in his crowd scenes). Perhaps it is just an oversight, or I missed
them, or they did not apply.
I still rather prefer my drawing, below. There are some images of a white
man on the reverse of my drawing, but he is also idiosyncratic in a Lowryesque way.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
RE FRIEDMAN AREN'T WE CLEVER? EDITORIAL NYT
NO.
Fools.
That is what the article is all about.
This has been the pattern since the War (WW II).
Unfortunately, Friedman joins the cavalcade of American pundits, over five decades, starting with Japan, SE Asia, etc., arguing that the US should now partner with China on technical innovations, and set up joint projects over there, rather than trying to accomplish anything like that over here by political reforms.
Some US thinkers have long known where those initiatives have lead.
Fools.
That is what the article is all about.
This has been the pattern since the War (WW II).
Unfortunately, Friedman joins the cavalcade of American pundits, over five decades, starting with Japan, SE Asia, etc., arguing that the US should now partner with China on technical innovations, and set up joint projects over there, rather than trying to accomplish anything like that over here by political reforms.
Some US thinkers have long known where those initiatives have lead.
Re entrepreneur Maverick Executive rail to rail nyt editorial language games forms of life Pre Batch market states create market persons cartoon
Many different possible cartoons spring to mind reading this article.
Seth 'Pre Batch' presents an ideal steed for the Maverick Executive to ride jauntily into the sunset of Western Civilization upon.
Think Frederick Remington, Bronco Buster, something like that, for a start.
'Maverick Entrepreneurs': Really erratic: they change overnight, black, then, mauve. Thurston Robert Macaire Howell, will turn on you, overnight, one slip up.
Marx had pointed out, 'mode of production determines form of life'.
Wittgenstein had elaborated, looking at different aspects of similar phenomena, in a very different, very loose, but loosely related set of contexts, 'A language game determines, so one could say, a form of life.'
Oligopolistic Market Capitalism has combined these and other 'insights', with still others, technical and otherwise, to generate such nonsensical human 'mercantile' forms of behavior, unmoored from all that had gone before, really.
Market states create, among many other innovations, so called 'market language games persons' (there is not one kind of game, but a whelter of them, just as there is not one kind of 'market game person', but many kinds).
A helpful fool to the truly Hitlerian entrepreneur, say Gilligan, 'one mistake, little buddy, out of the 'life boat', stultifera navis!'
That's the model for global start up success here in America.
Hypomania is also, oddly enough, arguably, a description of a really good hunting dog; some might equivocate on this.
You don't stay with these good quick ventures. Venture capitalists are short term pimps of the Casanova hand.
Hit and run investing, make it big, sell before the idea is stolen in the global underworld, converted suddenly to an offshore mega industry.
We once, long ago, had one, a bird dog puppy, a Scvngr-like animal, named 'Flirt', really super erratic, totally;
sadly, she was actually run over by a train, broad daylight, 'rail to rail' as the venture capitalists also so picturesquely point out, while we were hunting with her.
Seth 'Pre Batch' presents an ideal steed for the Maverick Executive to ride jauntily into the sunset of Western Civilization upon.
Think Frederick Remington, Bronco Buster, something like that, for a start.
'Maverick Entrepreneurs': Really erratic: they change overnight, black, then, mauve. Thurston Robert Macaire Howell, will turn on you, overnight, one slip up.
Marx had pointed out, 'mode of production determines form of life'.
Wittgenstein had elaborated, looking at different aspects of similar phenomena, in a very different, very loose, but loosely related set of contexts, 'A language game determines, so one could say, a form of life.'
Oligopolistic Market Capitalism has combined these and other 'insights', with still others, technical and otherwise, to generate such nonsensical human 'mercantile' forms of behavior, unmoored from all that had gone before, really.
Market states create, among many other innovations, so called 'market language games persons' (there is not one kind of game, but a whelter of them, just as there is not one kind of 'market game person', but many kinds).
A helpful fool to the truly Hitlerian entrepreneur, say Gilligan, 'one mistake, little buddy, out of the 'life boat', stultifera navis!'
That's the model for global start up success here in America.
Hypomania is also, oddly enough, arguably, a description of a really good hunting dog; some might equivocate on this.
You don't stay with these good quick ventures. Venture capitalists are short term pimps of the Casanova hand.
Hit and run investing, make it big, sell before the idea is stolen in the global underworld, converted suddenly to an offshore mega industry.
We once, long ago, had one, a bird dog puppy, a Scvngr-like animal, named 'Flirt', really super erratic, totally;
sadly, she was actually run over by a train, broad daylight, 'rail to rail' as the venture capitalists also so picturesquely point out, while we were hunting with her.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Re Keynes in the Clouds post and China Japan America Krugman cartoon
One could also show in the above cartoon, above the de la Tour game, Keynes, sleeping rather fitfully, on a cloud, in an elegant smoker.
The caption below might contain an addendum re, say,
'The Open Society, its friends, and its Muse' , or some such thing,
referring, of course, to Keynes. Keynes of course would have objected.
The caption below might contain an addendum re, say,
'The Open Society, its friends, and its Muse' , or some such thing,
referring, of course, to Keynes. Keynes of course would have objected.
Re filibuster
See David Kaiser's current post, and if he decides to post it, my and others' comments.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
RE SORELL CITING HONDERICH ON NOT RETURNING TO NORMAL nyt
'Equalizing global inequality.'
Professor of Global Ethics.........
What nonsense.
See elsewhere here for various reasons why.
'Keynes In The Clouds' might be a starting point, point of entry.
'Greatest good for the greatest numbers'. Comments re Adam Smith follow.
Professor of Global Ethics.........
What nonsense.
See elsewhere here for various reasons why.
'Keynes In The Clouds' might be a starting point, point of entry.
'Greatest good for the greatest numbers'. Comments re Adam Smith follow.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
DAVID BROOKS DAY AFTER TOMORROW EDITORIAL NYT PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
He is ostensibly attacking anti statist, actually nonstatist, trends in his own party, which hold up the banner of principles of freedom of the individual and imaginative and creative entrepreneurship against ostensible socialism, and against any noticeable government whatever (Ryan and Brooks);
(I guess they would still want a strong military (maybe entrepreneurial, nimble team players), even though no other big agency left standing? Maybe Big VA for wounded, etc.),
even while David Brooks nevertheless somehow claims unbounded respect for these same authors; it is a not even clever and ill concealed species of plain hypocrisy;
in fact his, and their, views are so close, it really doesn't matter much, and also those of none other than The Maverick Executive, a time honored icon regaled repeatedly on these pages, along with Robert Macaire, the Maverick's ancestor in French satire.
Ideologically, Brooks, like almost everyone else over here, is lost at sea in a stultifera navis looking for the mainland, a three hour tour, but turns out, entre chien et loup, to be Gilligan's Island.
(I guess they would still want a strong military (maybe entrepreneurial, nimble team players), even though no other big agency left standing? Maybe Big VA for wounded, etc.),
even while David Brooks nevertheless somehow claims unbounded respect for these same authors; it is a not even clever and ill concealed species of plain hypocrisy;
in fact his, and their, views are so close, it really doesn't matter much, and also those of none other than The Maverick Executive, a time honored icon regaled repeatedly on these pages, along with Robert Macaire, the Maverick's ancestor in French satire.
Ideologically, Brooks, like almost everyone else over here, is lost at sea in a stultifera navis looking for the mainland, a three hour tour, but turns out, entre chien et loup, to be Gilligan's Island.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
RE BARRY BLITT
I would like for Mr Blitt to do some cartoons.
I am perhaps not as good a political 'librettist' as Philipon.
We live in dumbed down times.
He only needs to clone himself, re his other obvious responsibilities.
A good cartoon might be Blitt cloning himself, in case he hasn't already done this.
(Pygmalion etc. Daumier did a nice one, I recall.)
I am perhaps not as good a political 'librettist' as Philipon.
We live in dumbed down times.
He only needs to clone himself, re his other obvious responsibilities.
A good cartoon might be Blitt cloning himself, in case he hasn't already done this.
(Pygmalion etc. Daumier did a nice one, I recall.)
Monday, September 13, 2010
MISE EN SCENE RE CHINA JAPAN AMERICA KRUGMAN NYT TODAY DE LA TOUR CARD PLAYERS THE OPEN SOCIETY AND ITS FRIENDS
He talks about sharp, simple realities, re currencies, bonds, trade, jobs etc.
American policymakers, 'being taken', goes way back. See some of the prior posts, 'Playing Three Sides In the Cold War', Team Play, Maverick, etc.
There are sharper, simpler, realities, however.
One could do an interesting cartoon, using de la Tour's The Ace of Diamonds, or The Ace of Clubs, as a model.
Uncle Sam would be the 'taken' old lady, but would have to be in drag for this one; it's not that far fetched. Could also be the Maverick Executive in drag.
Cards could also double for currency, and for bonds.
MISE EN SCENE:
To one side, a fireplace; at the hearth a large long metal log poker, labelled 'Wittgenstein's Poker' (or 'Wittgenstein's Wien'). On the playing table, an elaborate decanter, glasses all around, the decanter labelled 'Gin'.
One player, call her Europa, is nodding off. Another, an Asian male, whispering to a third, Asian male, next to the nodder, 'Poke Her'. The Maverick, on the other side of nodder, gesticulating "Pop Her" (Popper).
The Caption above might Read
"Trading Poker (Popper):
The Open Society and Its Friends"
The one below, being announced apparently by the old Lady Uncle Sam Maverick, laying down her cards on the table, the one word
"Gin".
American policymakers, 'being taken', goes way back. See some of the prior posts, 'Playing Three Sides In the Cold War', Team Play, Maverick, etc.
There are sharper, simpler, realities, however.
One could do an interesting cartoon, using de la Tour's The Ace of Diamonds, or The Ace of Clubs, as a model.
Uncle Sam would be the 'taken' old lady, but would have to be in drag for this one; it's not that far fetched. Could also be the Maverick Executive in drag.
Cards could also double for currency, and for bonds.
MISE EN SCENE:
To one side, a fireplace; at the hearth a large long metal log poker, labelled 'Wittgenstein's Poker' (or 'Wittgenstein's Wien'). On the playing table, an elaborate decanter, glasses all around, the decanter labelled 'Gin'.
One player, call her Europa, is nodding off. Another, an Asian male, whispering to a third, Asian male, next to the nodder, 'Poke Her'. The Maverick, on the other side of nodder, gesticulating "Pop Her" (Popper).
The Caption above might Read
"Trading Poker (Popper):
The Open Society and Its Friends"
The one below, being announced apparently by the old Lady Uncle Sam Maverick, laying down her cards on the table, the one word
"Gin".
Sunday, September 12, 2010
RE PHILOSOPHERS' PRIVATE LANGUAGE SARTREAN BONOBO DOG OR CAT PET POSSIBLE WORLDS SEMANTICS INTELLIGENCE
Only in the US could such a concatenation of outlandish notions be given serious attention, if not also research funding.
Simian moral philosophy.
Not that animals, pets or not, should not be treated with greater respect, care, and kindness, even those destined for slaughter as food; the horrors of factory farming should be abhorred;
but there is a reasonable limit on these abstruse intellectual endeavors.
Simian moral philosophy.
Not that animals, pets or not, should not be treated with greater respect, care, and kindness, even those destined for slaughter as food; the horrors of factory farming should be abhorred;
but there is a reasonable limit on these abstruse intellectual endeavors.
RE TROUBLE IN THE MONKEY HOUSE
September 8 NYT article.
This has a lot of possibilities for my cartoon predilections.
Did she happen to see some of my prior posts, on bonobo pyramids, pillars, of experts,
Andy Martin, ugly philosophers, phenomenologists,
Marilyn, Sartre?
This has a lot of possibilities for my cartoon predilections.
Did she happen to see some of my prior posts, on bonobo pyramids, pillars, of experts,
Andy Martin, ugly philosophers, phenomenologists,
Marilyn, Sartre?
Is this a monkey shine?
RE THE MAVERICK EXECUTIVE BITING BACK FRANK RICH BIG DOG BITING BACK CARTOON BARRY BLITT STYLE
Why not do a cartoon take-off of Rich's article today, and Blitt's cartoon, with the Maverick Executive (America's special interest MNC Big Mustang), biting back Barry Blitt's Big Dog, on the behind, through the ring ropes, even as he is still sitting in the corner of the ring?
Big Dog could be spilling his coffee everywhere as he is jumping up, shocked by the bite, Maverick's teeth still in him, visible from the side.
The Maverick, HALF MAN HALF HORSE, looking a lot like Robert Macaire, should be looking a little drunk, dressed in a luxurious smoker, cigar in the other hand, and even while biting Big Dog, will be holding, casually, even wantonly, a dry martini, with olive, in the other.
The Caption above:
It's What's for Dinner.
The Caption below:
How The Maverick Executive Likes His Hors d'oeuvre
See Blitt cartoon adjacent to Rich's column NYT today.
I like Blitt's somewhat 'Daumieresque' style of depiction. He can do a wonderful action scene, and physionomy caricature, both very well. Very rare.
Big Dog could be spilling his coffee everywhere as he is jumping up, shocked by the bite, Maverick's teeth still in him, visible from the side.
The Maverick, HALF MAN HALF HORSE, looking a lot like Robert Macaire, should be looking a little drunk, dressed in a luxurious smoker, cigar in the other hand, and even while biting Big Dog, will be holding, casually, even wantonly, a dry martini, with olive, in the other.
The Caption above:
It's What's for Dinner.
The Caption below:
How The Maverick Executive Likes His Hors d'oeuvre
See Blitt cartoon adjacent to Rich's column NYT today.
I like Blitt's somewhat 'Daumieresque' style of depiction. He can do a wonderful action scene, and physionomy caricature, both very well. Very rare.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
RE WORLD IS FLAT CARDBOARD MADE IN CHINA BOX CRUSHED CARTOON HOLLOWING OUT MISE EN SCENE
The caption above:
"The World Is Flat"
Picture a 'tag team' wrestling match.
The teams are, say, the West, US and EU,
on one team, two Asian wrestlers forming a team, they could look like sumos, you pick them, on the other.
The teams are at the end of the match.
The US wrestler is LITERALLY 'flat' on the ring floor. He can't tag anyone.
This player is in the shape of an empty cardboard box, he has been wrestling as an empty box with legs and arms and, and is now being crushed flat by his Asian opponent in this scene.
He has a dollar sign on his visible top side being stomped flat, preferably by a very large sumo type wrestler sitting on him.
Elsewhere, his box torso is stamped 'Made In China'.
He has a flattened Uncle Sam hat. It too has a China stamp.
The Eu wrestler, euro symbol somewhere, is being held back (from the tag of his 'partner') in its corner of the ring by various other handlers, say by a Greek in an ancient loin cloth, and others.
The caption below reads:
"Team Play Aftermath of Hollowing Out."
"The World Is Flat"
Picture a 'tag team' wrestling match.
The teams are, say, the West, US and EU,
on one team, two Asian wrestlers forming a team, they could look like sumos, you pick them, on the other.
The teams are at the end of the match.
The US wrestler is LITERALLY 'flat' on the ring floor. He can't tag anyone.
This player is in the shape of an empty cardboard box, he has been wrestling as an empty box with legs and arms and, and is now being crushed flat by his Asian opponent in this scene.
He has a dollar sign on his visible top side being stomped flat, preferably by a very large sumo type wrestler sitting on him.
Elsewhere, his box torso is stamped 'Made In China'.
He has a flattened Uncle Sam hat. It too has a China stamp.
The Eu wrestler, euro symbol somewhere, is being held back (from the tag of his 'partner') in its corner of the ring by various other handlers, say by a Greek in an ancient loin cloth, and others.
The caption below reads:
"Team Play Aftermath of Hollowing Out."
Friday, September 10, 2010
RE NYT TONELSON KEARNS ARTICLE TRADING AWAY THE STIMULUS
Something like this approach should have been under way, for the past 40 years now.
Americans don't really even understand what is at stake at this point.
They think a free society needs free trade.
It's a dumbed down situation.
Politicians and their big backers decided that they wanted a dumbed down electorate situation, good for business; they concluded that was in their interests.
Unfortunately, now, for them, and for all of us, at some point soon,
GAME OVER.
Refer to previous posts here, eg "Trading American Interests" article by Eckes, Trading Places, etc.
As I pointed out in a prior post, a 'Smoot Hawley' solution is kind of weak, long after the production horse has 'left the barn';
not that reindustrialization cannot and should not be tried and eventually accomplished, but one needs a resolute, far sighted, powerful central government to do such a thing, and an electorate somehow brought on board, and the US has never had that, except as a concession in time of war.
Americans don't really even understand what is at stake at this point.
They think a free society needs free trade.
It's a dumbed down situation.
Politicians and their big backers decided that they wanted a dumbed down electorate situation, good for business; they concluded that was in their interests.
Unfortunately, now, for them, and for all of us, at some point soon,
GAME OVER.
Refer to previous posts here, eg "Trading American Interests" article by Eckes, Trading Places, etc.
As I pointed out in a prior post, a 'Smoot Hawley' solution is kind of weak, long after the production horse has 'left the barn';
not that reindustrialization cannot and should not be tried and eventually accomplished, but one needs a resolute, far sighted, powerful central government to do such a thing, and an electorate somehow brought on board, and the US has never had that, except as a concession in time of war.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
RE AMERICAN LEAD MARKET GLOBALIZATION TAKING DOWN THE EU WITH IT
The title really says it all.
We really lead them into this cul de sac.
Few European nations have been very enthusiastic about expansive globalization of production. They have sort of had to get into it, as a race to the bottom of production costs.
Globalization has been, once the Marshall Plan recovery was successful, if not a uniquely American predilection, at least mainly our foreign policy agenda.
Time to pay the piper, so to speak.
Some people think this will have a peaceful and happy denoument of gradual devolution.
I am not one of those.
We really lead them into this cul de sac.
Few European nations have been very enthusiastic about expansive globalization of production. They have sort of had to get into it, as a race to the bottom of production costs.
Globalization has been, once the Marshall Plan recovery was successful, if not a uniquely American predilection, at least mainly our foreign policy agenda.
Time to pay the piper, so to speak.
Some people think this will have a peaceful and happy denoument of gradual devolution.
I am not one of those.
THURSTON MACAIRE HOWELL P 15
I remember, no one even back in 1980 could really say they were wrong. The Four Tigers which later followed Japan’s lead, and now China, and others, would agree.
Yet, without subs to ours, and our ‘quote’ allies’ markets, no Japanese ‘robber barons’ would have been able to buy the time of day, much less land, in Hawaii in 1985, (Midkiff) barely 40 years after Pearl Harbor.
An export trade economy, absent military responsibilities, can be a way of gathering strength over a long period.
Bin Laden had been subsidized to fight the Soviets.
Policy makers’ horizons on whom, where, how, and why to subsidize, have been short and blinkered.
American cities, and industries without overt military implications, have largely been left out.
Yet, without subs to ours, and our ‘quote’ allies’ markets, no Japanese ‘robber barons’ would have been able to buy the time of day, much less land, in Hawaii in 1985, (Midkiff) barely 40 years after Pearl Harbor.
An export trade economy, absent military responsibilities, can be a way of gathering strength over a long period.
Bin Laden had been subsidized to fight the Soviets.
Policy makers’ horizons on whom, where, how, and why to subsidize, have been short and blinkered.
American cities, and industries without overt military implications, have largely been left out.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
re AMERICAN NATIONALISM
Unfortunately, many of the principles of what I would call American nationalism, are the very principles which have gotten Americans into the economic and ideological messes they are now deeply in.
So, a call to a new American solution, a 'New Deal', or an 'America first' nationalist statist solution, is about the last thing most Americans are well placed to ideologically understand, adopt, or benefit from, going forward.
They are too sold on other, old, individualist, anti-communist, exceptionalist, fundamentalist, hegemonic, ideas.
For Americans, 'team concepts', still ubiquitous, long after their socio-economic efficacy, the lifetime employment they once generally implied, and MBA OB allure, have vanished, are a bankrupt, outdated, and bewildering aggregation of half-baked and now-burnt notions, having little explanatory relevance anymore, but are still relied on everywhere to assert flagging vestigial corporate inclusion, as there is nothing else, no other purely pretextual paradigm, left.
The closest thing Americans have to a nationalistic tradition is perhaps best described by Huntington, Who Are We. It is not very promising as a blueprint for nationalistic ideological coalescence, going forward.
So, a call to a new American solution, a 'New Deal', or an 'America first' nationalist statist solution, is about the last thing most Americans are well placed to ideologically understand, adopt, or benefit from, going forward.
They are too sold on other, old, individualist, anti-communist, exceptionalist, fundamentalist, hegemonic, ideas.
For Americans, 'team concepts', still ubiquitous, long after their socio-economic efficacy, the lifetime employment they once generally implied, and MBA OB allure, have vanished, are a bankrupt, outdated, and bewildering aggregation of half-baked and now-burnt notions, having little explanatory relevance anymore, but are still relied on everywhere to assert flagging vestigial corporate inclusion, as there is nothing else, no other purely pretextual paradigm, left.
The closest thing Americans have to a nationalistic tradition is perhaps best described by Huntington, Who Are We. It is not very promising as a blueprint for nationalistic ideological coalescence, going forward.
RE EU EURO
When the Euro crashes, eventually, how much of what will they each give their citizens, for their Euros, in exchange?
Will they each go back to their old currencies?
Will they peg them to anything, besides fiat?
By then, who will still hold them? How many?
What will they have been hoarding instead, by then?
Take a wild guess.
Will they each go back to their old currencies?
Will they peg them to anything, besides fiat?
By then, who will still hold them? How many?
What will they have been hoarding instead, by then?
Take a wild guess.
Monday, September 6, 2010
A PROPOS A VISION OF THE FUTURE AN IDEOLOGICAL CUL DE SAC
A propos David Kaiser's current topic, a few remarks re what I would call an idelogical cul de sac into which American politics has now pulled.
We have finally come to a point, I believe, where even some of the most devout market capitalist and/or conservative ideologues, thinkers not pundits, although they would still give different explanations depending on party (eg socialist sabotage, Republican sabotage, etc.),
may be beginning to see the 'end of history', to which their free market and weak government programs, both parties, have now lead (the Democrats have long been on the free market train, by the way, longer than the Republicans):
How much smaller can government get, under the status quo system? (Certainly can't get that much weaker, in spite of their views.)
Krugman talks in an editorial today about a political trap, and he has compared this I believe, with an economic analysis of an 'economic' trap. Sort of gives one a sense of a cul de sac, too.
I sympathize with his side of the issue, the need for greater job stimulus, as far as that paltry topic goes.
As Reich described the economic slide, the other day in a NYT editorial, I am afraid that such a mere WPA type job stimulus (eg mickey mouse census worker 'jobs'!) won't really help Americans recover what has been lost in that slide, Reich says lasting 30 years, I say 50 or so.
As I said in a prior post, don't we need a New Deal? Who's kidding who?
The political cul de sac reminds me of the old remedy of bleeding the sick patient. Here are the tools which have always been at the electorate's disposal:
Turn the incumbents out; tax, or spend, or tax, or spend, or tax, or spend, or tax, or spend, and so on,.................................. to infinity.
More free trade, more open markets, less regulation, more free trade, less regulation, more free trade.............................................to infinity.
If he doesn't get better, better bleed him some more with both, tax or spend, more free trade, less regulation.
Market capitalism as a more or less one trick Maverick pony.
If we aren't prospering, markets must not yet be open enough, or we haven't taxed or spent enough.
On another topic:
Note that China recently expanded its public sector in response to flagging world demand. Maybe that is a big mistake, but I believe others long needed to smell the coffee.
Another natural resource topic, besides the end of cheap oil, has been the tremendous large long term contracts some developing governments have made for essential resources.
Weak laissez faire lazy fare, mere tax or spend, regimes haven't been able to follow suit.
If the resource source nations, for these huge deals renig, guess what?
We have finally come to a point, I believe, where even some of the most devout market capitalist and/or conservative ideologues, thinkers not pundits, although they would still give different explanations depending on party (eg socialist sabotage, Republican sabotage, etc.),
may be beginning to see the 'end of history', to which their free market and weak government programs, both parties, have now lead (the Democrats have long been on the free market train, by the way, longer than the Republicans):
How much smaller can government get, under the status quo system? (Certainly can't get that much weaker, in spite of their views.)
Krugman talks in an editorial today about a political trap, and he has compared this I believe, with an economic analysis of an 'economic' trap. Sort of gives one a sense of a cul de sac, too.
I sympathize with his side of the issue, the need for greater job stimulus, as far as that paltry topic goes.
As Reich described the economic slide, the other day in a NYT editorial, I am afraid that such a mere WPA type job stimulus (eg mickey mouse census worker 'jobs'!) won't really help Americans recover what has been lost in that slide, Reich says lasting 30 years, I say 50 or so.
As I said in a prior post, don't we need a New Deal? Who's kidding who?
The political cul de sac reminds me of the old remedy of bleeding the sick patient. Here are the tools which have always been at the electorate's disposal:
Turn the incumbents out; tax, or spend, or tax, or spend, or tax, or spend, or tax, or spend, and so on,.................................. to infinity.
More free trade, more open markets, less regulation, more free trade, less regulation, more free trade.............................................to infinity.
If he doesn't get better, better bleed him some more with both, tax or spend, more free trade, less regulation.
Market capitalism as a more or less one trick Maverick pony.
If we aren't prospering, markets must not yet be open enough, or we haven't taxed or spent enough.
On another topic:
Note that China recently expanded its public sector in response to flagging world demand. Maybe that is a big mistake, but I believe others long needed to smell the coffee.
Another natural resource topic, besides the end of cheap oil, has been the tremendous large long term contracts some developing governments have made for essential resources.
Weak laissez faire lazy fare, mere tax or spend, regimes haven't been able to follow suit.
If the resource source nations, for these huge deals renig, guess what?
RE KRUGMAN'S NYT 1938 AND 2010 ARTICLE
Great short essay.
Especially the part about getting out of the Depression being accidental.
Keynes' General Theory was not published until 36. The New Deal, an ad hoc series of good, but half measures, and still not major political reform.
The big purely lucky break was a war, but the really important thing was it was a war, most importantly, fought and won elsewhere.
Too bad, then, before then, and now, we have always been short intellectual power and political will. As I have pointed out, it has been a political systemic thing.
Nobody really touches it. Hardest thing in the world.
Real major redevelopment type political reform has been off the table for Americans since the Civil War, itself a fiasco.
They will go down, so to speak, with the ship.
Especially the part about getting out of the Depression being accidental.
Keynes' General Theory was not published until 36. The New Deal, an ad hoc series of good, but half measures, and still not major political reform.
The big purely lucky break was a war, but the really important thing was it was a war, most importantly, fought and won elsewhere.
Too bad, then, before then, and now, we have always been short intellectual power and political will. As I have pointed out, it has been a political systemic thing.
Nobody really touches it. Hardest thing in the world.
Real major redevelopment type political reform has been off the table for Americans since the Civil War, itself a fiasco.
They will go down, so to speak, with the ship.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
RE FRANK RICH FREEDOM'S JUST ANOTHER WORD ARTICLE
At least Rich is able to mention various different areas, rather than just one myopic topic, of the American political enterprise, that somehow (mysteriously for him?) seem connected (at least in the essay), in their failure, and in their need for some new insight, program, or framework. He even refers to another writer on military affairs, whose ideas he agrees with.
But he does not get to the point of saying anything it seems, unless I missed it, about what might really be needed, either in terms of political reform, or in terms of some new way ahead.
A mere critique, even a correct one, of how both parties have failed the American people, without more, is not that new, really, now, and not that much in doubt, by those who have more than a media understanding of things.
But mere public wringing of hands, and gnashing of teeth, however truthful, does not get anyone anywhere further, now, really.
But he does not get to the point of saying anything it seems, unless I missed it, about what might really be needed, either in terms of political reform, or in terms of some new way ahead.
A mere critique, even a correct one, of how both parties have failed the American people, without more, is not that new, really, now, and not that much in doubt, by those who have more than a media understanding of things.
But mere public wringing of hands, and gnashing of teeth, however truthful, does not get anyone anywhere further, now, really.
RE NYT ARTICLE RE FLORIDA FORECLOSURES
This is the kind of finance and investment situation, which had cried out for greater and better regulation, oversight, and perhaps political consolidation as well, long before the mortgage backed securities debacle.
Now, the situation is played out, state by state, and courthouse by courthouse, with the usual tales of overbearing influence, corruption, and abuse.
Had it not been the free play of market forces that fomented the scenarios we see unfold?
Securitization, even, of the unconscious; id overcoming superego.
The foibles of the purely legal side, as these cases are litigated, are the least interesting; but those legal issues, legal concerns, frauds and legal fictions now on a colossal scale, futile objections, were the ones previously overriden by the investment machines; and overriden now by judges on the ground as well, it seems, in the headlong grind of local foreclosure case overloads, if the assertions of article are to be believed, in a legal system not at all geared for massive securitization breakdown.
Could it have been any other way?
Now, the situation is played out, state by state, and courthouse by courthouse, with the usual tales of overbearing influence, corruption, and abuse.
Had it not been the free play of market forces that fomented the scenarios we see unfold?
Securitization, even, of the unconscious; id overcoming superego.
The foibles of the purely legal side, as these cases are litigated, are the least interesting; but those legal issues, legal concerns, frauds and legal fictions now on a colossal scale, futile objections, were the ones previously overriden by the investment machines; and overriden now by judges on the ground as well, it seems, in the headlong grind of local foreclosure case overloads, if the assertions of article are to be believed, in a legal system not at all geared for massive securitization breakdown.
Could it have been any other way?
Friday, September 3, 2010
RE REICH HOW TO END THE GREAT RECESSION
Good summary of portions of why we got here.
Interestingly, Reich does not talk about any major political reforms or consolidation.
The existing political structure is good enough for his initiatives as is, it seems.
But, has it not been that status quo political structure itself that got us the 'structural' economic problems he bemoans?
Theories that, say, it was just :
unhelpful individual politicians,
or unwise or corrupt political parties,
or just decades of bad economic advice,
or smarter or luckier or more industrious foreigners,
don't wash.
The existing political system made these outcomes, and this situation, feasible,
and in some ways, I would surmise, inevitable.
Interestingly, Reich does not talk about any major political reforms or consolidation.
The existing political structure is good enough for his initiatives as is, it seems.
But, has it not been that status quo political structure itself that got us the 'structural' economic problems he bemoans?
Theories that, say, it was just :
unhelpful individual politicians,
or unwise or corrupt political parties,
or just decades of bad economic advice,
or smarter or luckier or more industrious foreigners,
don't wash.
The existing political system made these outcomes, and this situation, feasible,
and in some ways, I would surmise, inevitable.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
RE REVKIN GATES DOT EARTH ENERGY INITIATIVES
What kind of free market, carbon credit, dream world, are they really in?
To say they are not 'strong on politics', understatement.
To say they are not 'strong on politics', understatement.
FOLLOWING UP THE COMPARTMENTALIZATION POSTS
A somewhat different difficulty emerges as the process of specialization occurs, and as new strengths or perceived strengths in one area or technique become more generalized or enlarged; resulting in shrinking, sometimes, or elimination, of previously dominant or related areas of knowledge.
There can be what I would call 'good', and 'bad', examples of such generalizations and shifts within and across fields and subfields.
There are also examples of borrowings , sharings, thefts, from one field by others or another, analogies, models, paradigms, gimmicks even, what have you.
These can present, once again, opportunities that I would call 'good'; and some pitfalls, both for practitioners and others affected directly or indirectly, which I would call 'bad'.
There can be what I would call 'good', and 'bad', examples of such generalizations and shifts within and across fields and subfields.
There are also examples of borrowings , sharings, thefts, from one field by others or another, analogies, models, paradigms, gimmicks even, what have you.
These can present, once again, opportunities that I would call 'good'; and some pitfalls, both for practitioners and others affected directly or indirectly, which I would call 'bad'.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
RE SPECIALIZED COMPARTMENTALIZED KNOWLEDGE ITS OWN CRITERION
One of the implications of differentiation and specialization of knowledge, is that, whatever it is, it tends often but not always, to need or want to get narrower still, within a given larger field, in order to get deeper still into a refined subject matter area. There are countervailing tendencies, which seem not to have been as strong.
We have seen a relentless march of specialization in many fields along these lines.
With this specialization, has come a self-authenticating system of validation for particular areas or subfields.
So the argument might go: Who knows more about the special validity or special qualifications or constraints of this particular subfield than its practitioners?
Medicine, many specialties and subspecialties, of anatomy, of systems, carving out niches for themselves against their neighbors, forensic areas in litigation fraught with difficulties, very common; often with not very good or helpful consequences for patients, clients, or the public.
Law, similar issues pervade the field.
Economics, self-authenticating pundits, traditionally narrow absolute presuppositions, dogmatism, and similar issues.
Other social sciences, sociology, psychology, anthropology, similarly.
Accounting, imploded recently, many subfields, consulting, etc., showing their colors.
Many areas of technical exact science research, particularly at universities endowed by private or various nations' money, handmaidens of particular industrial or national masters.
Many 'exact' sciences, especially their forensic areas, engineering of many specific types, handmaidens of other fields: politics, private industry, or law, and all three, quite often, in a given specialty.
Sometimes, where the stakes are high enough, industry, government, or law, commandeer various subspecialties in technical ensembles, often career forensic experts usually seen in disparate fields, harnessed toward a particular desired scientific, industry, or litigation outcome.
Another implication is that technical knowledge seems to need, to some extent at least, to get specific criteria of its own in order to validate its technical advances.
We have seen a relentless march of specialization in many fields along these lines.
With this specialization, has come a self-authenticating system of validation for particular areas or subfields.
So the argument might go: Who knows more about the special validity or special qualifications or constraints of this particular subfield than its practitioners?
Medicine, many specialties and subspecialties, of anatomy, of systems, carving out niches for themselves against their neighbors, forensic areas in litigation fraught with difficulties, very common; often with not very good or helpful consequences for patients, clients, or the public.
Law, similar issues pervade the field.
Economics, self-authenticating pundits, traditionally narrow absolute presuppositions, dogmatism, and similar issues.
Other social sciences, sociology, psychology, anthropology, similarly.
Accounting, imploded recently, many subfields, consulting, etc., showing their colors.
Many areas of technical exact science research, particularly at universities endowed by private or various nations' money, handmaidens of particular industrial or national masters.
Many 'exact' sciences, especially their forensic areas, engineering of many specific types, handmaidens of other fields: politics, private industry, or law, and all three, quite often, in a given specialty.
Sometimes, where the stakes are high enough, industry, government, or law, commandeer various subspecialties in technical ensembles, often career forensic experts usually seen in disparate fields, harnessed toward a particular desired scientific, industry, or litigation outcome.
Another implication is that technical knowledge seems to need, to some extent at least, to get specific criteria of its own in order to validate its technical advances.
ASIA DO SI DO MISE EN SCENE
Why think tango, when there are so many good dancers on the floor?
This is really 'square dance' territory.
The Maverick Executive is easily pulled into convivial situations like this.
I will let you flesh out the details.
This is really 'square dance' territory.
The Maverick Executive is easily pulled into convivial situations like this.
I will let you flesh out the details.
RE HARD TIMES IN BIG SKY COUNTRY UNCOMMON WISDOM
This is the kind of story one gets from savvy advisors. Things are really bad in my home town in Montana re real estate and jobs, but booming real estate market in China, so savvy investors should invest in real estate there, never mind about other issues here, at home, that's irrelevant; or troublesome issues, long term, re investing there, but......
That's a really great bit of advice, long term perspective for all Americans.
In the long run, all comparable things will be the same price everywhere, macro economics efficiency speak.
That's a really great bit of advice, long term perspective for all Americans.
In the long run, all comparable things will be the same price everywhere, macro economics efficiency speak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)