BOOMERBUSTER
OLD CELLO
Saturday, August 11, 2012
RE DOWN WITH SHAREHOLDER VALUE NYT NOCERO
He makes old, obvious, points here.
A corporation, and its charter, a matter of state law and policy technically, really should be about a public purpose, in the sense of a national public purpose, still the only criterion really that should be standing.
The older concept of a corporate charter, as a tool of the Crown, and often involving grant of a monopoly or nearly so, was even then an instrument of state policy.
A corporation, and its charter, a matter of state law and policy technically, really should be about a public purpose, in the sense of a national public purpose, still the only criterion really that should be standing.
The older concept of a corporate charter, as a tool of the Crown, and often involving grant of a monopoly or nearly so, was even then an instrument of state policy.
Friday, August 10, 2012
HARD TO TELL ECONOMIC SANCTIONS FROM GLOBAL INVESTMENT BOOM
Think Iceland, Mexico, The US, Europe, China, Etc.
Big investment or no investment, it comes to the same thing pretty soon.
Big investment or no investment, it comes to the same thing pretty soon.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
AS A MATTER OF FACT RE THOMAS FRIEDMAN
American higher education has helped foreigners much more in the last few decades than it ever helped American citizens prior to and during that time.
Many of these new global elites Friedman refers to, CEOs, most of them now foreign nationals, were trained in American elite higher educational centers, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Georgetown, etc. My old alma mater, BU is a locus classicus of foreign grooming for the highest posts in public and private entities, mostly now posted elsewhere.
Some of his commenters inadvertently make my point, eg the man who works for an agile global corporation where execs compete from institutions of higher learning all over the world.....
The Credential Society explains in a thumbnail sketch, where these institutions originally came from, and explains to some extent, in my judgment, how this whole credential system got so out of hand, and also by implication, became, and remains, (perhaps Collins would say I read too much into his narrative) so counterproductive for Americans themselves.
Re Friedman's story about what CEOs now require above average in the global labor market, Collins shows quite clearly how it was never really a meritocracy toward the top anyway.
Re Friedman's 'neither in nor out' but 'good better best' criteria, as one can see good better best are discussed in the same breath with the critical term 'cost'.
One has only to watch Michael Lewis' 2012 baccalaureate address at Princeton, and read Liar's Poker, to see that something has always been terribly unmeritocratic about Wall Street Society;
much less the chains of directorates and musical chair positions among CEOs which Faux chronicles in The Global Class War ,
which, as I have commented recently, occur across industries,
regardless of so called meritocratic or technocratic principles.
Many of these new global elites Friedman refers to, CEOs, most of them now foreign nationals, were trained in American elite higher educational centers, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Georgetown, etc. My old alma mater, BU is a locus classicus of foreign grooming for the highest posts in public and private entities, mostly now posted elsewhere.
Some of his commenters inadvertently make my point, eg the man who works for an agile global corporation where execs compete from institutions of higher learning all over the world.....
The Credential Society explains in a thumbnail sketch, where these institutions originally came from, and explains to some extent, in my judgment, how this whole credential system got so out of hand, and also by implication, became, and remains, (perhaps Collins would say I read too much into his narrative) so counterproductive for Americans themselves.
Re Friedman's story about what CEOs now require above average in the global labor market, Collins shows quite clearly how it was never really a meritocracy toward the top anyway.
Re Friedman's 'neither in nor out' but 'good better best' criteria, as one can see good better best are discussed in the same breath with the critical term 'cost'.
One has only to watch Michael Lewis' 2012 baccalaureate address at Princeton, and read Liar's Poker, to see that something has always been terribly unmeritocratic about Wall Street Society;
much less the chains of directorates and musical chair positions among CEOs which Faux chronicles in The Global Class War ,
which, as I have commented recently, occur across industries,
regardless of so called meritocratic or technocratic principles.
RE ANOTHER CYNICAL MISLEADING ARTICLE FROM MR GLOBALIZATION AVERAGE IS OVER PART II
Cannot spare time to pick apart this diatribe anymore.
One has to wonder whether he only gets his salary for this,
or other perks from the Global Ruling Class?
Has to be the latter.
Re average is over, the ground under both education and credential inflation, and plug and play technocrats and symbolic analysts, has been removed, and these phenomena have been chronicled in books like The Credential Society and The Global Class War.
To think that at the CEO level Friedman looks up toward, it is really a meritocracy is also delusional. See eg The Credential Society...
I can vouch for The Global Class War's conclusions re meritocracies here.
One has to wonder whether he only gets his salary for this,
or other perks from the Global Ruling Class?
Has to be the latter.
Re average is over, the ground under both education and credential inflation, and plug and play technocrats and symbolic analysts, has been removed, and these phenomena have been chronicled in books like The Credential Society and The Global Class War.
To think that at the CEO level Friedman looks up toward, it is really a meritocracy is also delusional. See eg The Credential Society...
I can vouch for The Global Class War's conclusions re meritocracies here.
RE WHO DO YOU THINK THEY WILL BAIL OUT NAFTA SET A STANDARD
A reference to the Mexico bail out of Mexican bondholders and banks, following the bubble following NAFTA. A bipartisan thing.
See The Global Class War, Ch.6
Term search Thurston
See The Global Class War, Ch.6
Term search Thurston
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
RE PLUG AND PLAY EXPERTS ECONOMISTS ARE THE PRIME EXAMPLES
Bruce Wilder unfortunately thinks the role of economists is to educate us.
These are just another type of expendable plug and play symbolic analysts.
See Jeff Faux, The Global Class War, index terms Robert Reich, symbolic analysts.
Here Wilder's comment on DKs site:
"This is a blog about what is wrong with economics, not what is wrong with the economy, but the reason what is wrong with economics matters is because what is wrong with the economy can be traced, in many ways, to what is wrong with economics. Economics and economists ought to help us to understand how the economy -- our decentralized decentralized system of production and trade and investment -- works, and macroeconomics ought to help us understand what choices we are making collectively. In that sense, it ought to inform government, especially democratic government. But, mostly, it doesn't. It confuses, and talks up a lot of rot. But, there are a few people out there, who are zeroing in on the essence of the choices we are making. Michael Hudson is one. Michael Hudson: Productivity, The Miracle of Compound Interest, and Poverty « naked capitalism:
I have pointed out how deluded it is to think of the media, and its economics pundits, in such an edifying role.
One can also point to innumerable aspects of academia, not just economists, symbolic analysts of all stripes, which also are not really called by their profession to edify the public at large, or to seriously reconcile the due diligence requirements of their field with those around them or at some distance.
The Credential Society is a sort of a tour de force of how that very complex higher industry of education developed, and what its objectives have tended to be.
These are just another type of expendable plug and play symbolic analysts.
See Jeff Faux, The Global Class War, index terms Robert Reich, symbolic analysts.
Here Wilder's comment on DKs site:
"This is a blog about what is wrong with economics, not what is wrong with the economy, but the reason what is wrong with economics matters is because what is wrong with the economy can be traced, in many ways, to what is wrong with economics. Economics and economists ought to help us to understand how the economy -- our decentralized decentralized system of production and trade and investment -- works, and macroeconomics ought to help us understand what choices we are making collectively. In that sense, it ought to inform government, especially democratic government. But, mostly, it doesn't. It confuses, and talks up a lot of rot. But, there are a few people out there, who are zeroing in on the essence of the choices we are making. Michael Hudson is one. Michael Hudson: Productivity, The Miracle of Compound Interest, and Poverty « naked capitalism:
"After World War II many women stayed home and raised families. But since the 1950s they have been forced increasingly into the labour force for what are called two-job families – and now, three-job families (with only two family members). If you project labor participation rates, by the year 2020 every woman will have to work 18 hours a day or economic trends will falter. What was applauded as a post-industrial economy has turned into a financialized economy. The reason you have to work so much harder than before, even when wages rise, is to carry your debt overhead. You’re unable to buy the goods you produce because you need to pay your bankers. And the only way that you can barely maintain your living standards is to borrow even more. This means having to pay back even more in years to come. That is the Eurozone plan in a nutshell for its economic future. It is a financial plan that is replacing industrial capitalism – with finance capitalism. Industrial capitalism was based on increasing production and expanding markets. Industrialists were supposed to use their profits to build more factories, buy more machinery and hire more labor. But this is not what happens under finance capitalism. Banks lend out their receipt of interest, fees and penalties (which now yield credit card companies as much as interest) in new loans. The problem is that income used to pay debts cannot simultaneously be used to buy the goods and services that labor produces. So when wages and living standards do not rise, how are producers to sell – unless they find new markets abroad? The gains have been siphoned off by finance. And the financial dynamic ends up in austerity. And to make matters worse, it is not the fat that is cut. The fat is the financial sector. What is cut is the bone: the industrial sector. So when writers refer to a post-industrial economy led by the banks, they imply deindustrialization. And for you it means unemployment and lower wages."This is so important to understand. In 2008, the finance sector, after failing spectacularly, demanded that government take emergency measures to preserve the financial sector, alleging that any other course would destroy the global economy. Those emergency measures have destroyed the global economy. And, yet, we -- the general, voting public and the politicians, who represent us and the centrist busybodies, who decide what is wise and "serious" policy -- are apparently paralyzed, like deer in the headlights, unable to understand and move forward on a sensible rational policy And, why? Well, one critically important reason is that economics -- particularly macroeconomics -- has never bothered to figure out what money and finance is all about. What is the function of money? What is the function of finance? These are basic questions. The answers are not exactly rocket science. And, yet the essentially predatory nature of financialization is ignored, except by a few, articulate scholars, like Michael Hudson, who are marginalized for their trouble."
I have pointed out how deluded it is to think of the media, and its economics pundits, in such an edifying role.
One can also point to innumerable aspects of academia, not just economists, symbolic analysts of all stripes, which also are not really called by their profession to edify the public at large, or to seriously reconcile the due diligence requirements of their field with those around them or at some distance.
The Credential Society is a sort of a tour de force of how that very complex higher industry of education developed, and what its objectives have tended to be.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
see David Kaiser's current post
This was one favorite remark for me:
"It was evidently entirely possible during the last twenty years to become nearly a billionaire without a substantial grasp of economics, and that was bound to have consequences."
I am tempted to add, even if one had a substantial grasp of economics (whatever that may be held to mean, really), that would not necessarily get you very far in the real world, so to speak.
See also Faux's comments, re the 19 economics studies used to undergird NAFTA by President Clinton and his Conservative partners. The Global Class War, early chapter.
"It was evidently entirely possible during the last twenty years to become nearly a billionaire without a substantial grasp of economics, and that was bound to have consequences."
I am tempted to add, even if one had a substantial grasp of economics (whatever that may be held to mean, really), that would not necessarily get you very far in the real world, so to speak.
See also Faux's comments, re the 19 economics studies used to undergird NAFTA by President Clinton and his Conservative partners. The Global Class War, early chapter.
re helping others some rough ideas
My views here have long been in evidence to the intellectual cognoscenti:
I am, first, an economic nationalist, in a time, and in a country, for which that otherwise historically quite reasonable view is widely seen as a species of anathema, or is otherwise, more generally here, not fully understood.
My economic views are more sympathetic to those taken in the past by Japan, or more recently China, to develop their domestic economies as best they can by managed trade, in the global market they have been forced to confront.
Of course, the US would not have had to develop an export orientation, as they have been forced to do.
We pushed them into it, really, first Japan along with Europe after WW II, and then China and the rest of Southeast Asia, after the Nixon shock of 1972.
They have tended to promote such prosperity as they could for their own people, but especially for their elites who have colluded with ours, at times with mixed success.
They have not tried to promote utopian ideals of democracy or universalist laissez faire government on a global scale.
The United States was at one time in a rather unique position, in the 19th Century, and even into the 20th, to consolidate itself, politically and economically, and to flourish on the North American continent, without resort to substantial international trade. This can be shown, and has been argued, by some writers whom I have quoted here.
Yet from the beginning really, 1787, but reaching farther back to the Articles of Confederation and before, 'These United States' suffered from what some very knowledgeable thinkers called a politically fragmented, weak, disorganized, and contradictory, political structure, what Vernon called in Sovereignty at Bay fragmented federalist pluralism.
I am, first, an economic nationalist, in a time, and in a country, for which that otherwise historically quite reasonable view is widely seen as a species of anathema, or is otherwise, more generally here, not fully understood.
My economic views are more sympathetic to those taken in the past by Japan, or more recently China, to develop their domestic economies as best they can by managed trade, in the global market they have been forced to confront.
Of course, the US would not have had to develop an export orientation, as they have been forced to do.
We pushed them into it, really, first Japan along with Europe after WW II, and then China and the rest of Southeast Asia, after the Nixon shock of 1972.
They have tended to promote such prosperity as they could for their own people, but especially for their elites who have colluded with ours, at times with mixed success.
They have not tried to promote utopian ideals of democracy or universalist laissez faire government on a global scale.
The United States was at one time in a rather unique position, in the 19th Century, and even into the 20th, to consolidate itself, politically and economically, and to flourish on the North American continent, without resort to substantial international trade. This can be shown, and has been argued, by some writers whom I have quoted here.
Yet from the beginning really, 1787, but reaching farther back to the Articles of Confederation and before, 'These United States' suffered from what some very knowledgeable thinkers called a politically fragmented, weak, disorganized, and contradictory, political structure, what Vernon called in Sovereignty at Bay fragmented federalist pluralism.
RE FAUX THE GLOBAL CLASS WAR CH 6
"Alan, Larry, and Bob..." Ch 6.
Great stuff. (NAFTA AND THE MEXICAN BUBBLE, AND BAIL OUT OF ELITES.)
It really does take a priest of the economics discipline to unravel the underbelly of these events.
Great stuff. (NAFTA AND THE MEXICAN BUBBLE, AND BAIL OUT OF ELITES.)
It really does take a priest of the economics discipline to unravel the underbelly of these events.
RE NYT SMYRNA TENNESSEE NISSAN PATHETIC
Rather a blinkered article, as all these editorial articles have to be.
Don't want to do any hard thinking or reading here.
Hasn't it been a sad and embarrasing experience, on reflection, governors being told by the President to go to Japan, barely 40 years after Pearl Harbor, and beg them, each of you, separately and collectively in cut throat state by state competition with each other and the rest of the advanced world, for a measly car factory in your state? That's just one aspect of numerous issues raised here.....
Politically, but more importantly, spiritually, pathetic, really.
Term search 99 Cent Stores
See also on larger issues both intellectual and political economic, terms like Boca, pyramid of experts, trading american interests, ignoramitocracy, Steingart, etc.
Don't want to do any hard thinking or reading here.
Hasn't it been a sad and embarrasing experience, on reflection, governors being told by the President to go to Japan, barely 40 years after Pearl Harbor, and beg them, each of you, separately and collectively in cut throat state by state competition with each other and the rest of the advanced world, for a measly car factory in your state? That's just one aspect of numerous issues raised here.....
Politically, but more importantly, spiritually, pathetic, really.
Term search 99 Cent Stores
See also on larger issues both intellectual and political economic, terms like Boca, pyramid of experts, trading american interests, ignoramitocracy, Steingart, etc.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
RE MARY CARILLO HOSTING A PIPER INTERLUDE AT THE OLYMPICS COVERAGE
Please.
I really could have done without this.
But the big media want to push this angle of coverage, regardless. I guess the Scots want this rather than nothing.
I really could have done without this.
But the big media want to push this angle of coverage, regardless. I guess the Scots want this rather than nothing.
ALL LEFTIST THEORISTS WANT TO PAINT RECENT GLOBALIZATION AS A RIGHTIST DEVELOPMENT STARTING AFTER WWII WITH REAGAN
(Even people like Jeff Faux. He starts, really, with Clinton's betrayal, but Democratic free trade and universalism and 'trade pacifism' (Cobdenism), went much farther back.
Also, the rise of the bi partisan elites he rightly excoriates, deriving from the large monopolies and early multi national corporations, did not spring 'full blown from the head of Zeus' only at the time of Ronald Reagan, or even at the time of Sovereignty At Bay, 1960s to 1971. Vernon and others, Mills for example, had chronicled their rise back into the 19th Century.)
That has not been the case. Globalization came on strong with Woodrow Wilson, and the Cobdenists of his time, especially driven by events of WW I, toward some international peace keeping organs. Of course there were US agriciltural interests and industrial interests. Ford wanted to sell cars even then, the 20s, in Europe.
The US majority at that time was more sympathetic to social welfare programs and politics, and against big private monopolies and trusts; they were reluctant even to enter WWI a 'rich man's war', until the Russian Revolution occurred, which American elites totally misconstrued at that time, as George Kennan so poignantly pointed out in Russia and The West Under Lenin and Stalin.
Greater international trade, believe it or not, in some bourgeois circles, was seen then as a peace keeping activity among nations.
And then of course the American South had always been a free trade oriented area, especially after WW I.
See Eckes, Vernon.
Also, the rise of the bi partisan elites he rightly excoriates, deriving from the large monopolies and early multi national corporations, did not spring 'full blown from the head of Zeus' only at the time of Ronald Reagan, or even at the time of Sovereignty At Bay, 1960s to 1971. Vernon and others, Mills for example, had chronicled their rise back into the 19th Century.)
That has not been the case. Globalization came on strong with Woodrow Wilson, and the Cobdenists of his time, especially driven by events of WW I, toward some international peace keeping organs. Of course there were US agriciltural interests and industrial interests. Ford wanted to sell cars even then, the 20s, in Europe.
The US majority at that time was more sympathetic to social welfare programs and politics, and against big private monopolies and trusts; they were reluctant even to enter WWI a 'rich man's war', until the Russian Revolution occurred, which American elites totally misconstrued at that time, as George Kennan so poignantly pointed out in Russia and The West Under Lenin and Stalin.
Greater international trade, believe it or not, in some bourgeois circles, was seen then as a peace keeping activity among nations.
And then of course the American South had always been a free trade oriented area, especially after WW I.
See Eckes, Vernon.
NOW THAT GLOBALIZATION IS FINALLY BEGINNING TO BE SEEN BY THE WEST AS THE 800 POUND TAR BABY IN THE ROOM FRIEDMAN AND BROOKS ARE STILL ON BOARD
Liberals, not just Republicans, all globalists (think Thomas Friedman, Brooks, whichever they each might actually be),
not just Buchanan rightists,
but also erstwhile leftists, like Faux, (think also Krugman)
a worshipper of bygone days of Keynesian, globalist leaning but national economy, leftism,
will soon be running now for the exits as fast as they can.
Brooks and Friedman still want to "go down with the globalist ship" apparently, see their recent articles
Friedman's July 22, entitled "The Launching Pad" (a dream world, like Gingrich's fifty laboratories),
Brooks' July 17, " More Capitalism, Please "
not just Buchanan rightists,
but also erstwhile leftists, like Faux, (think also Krugman)
a worshipper of bygone days of Keynesian, globalist leaning but national economy, leftism,
will soon be running now for the exits as fast as they can.
Brooks and Friedman still want to "go down with the globalist ship" apparently, see their recent articles
Friedman's July 22, entitled "The Launching Pad" (a dream world, like Gingrich's fifty laboratories),
Brooks' July 17, " More Capitalism, Please "
RE PACE FAUX RE GLOBALIZATION NOT IDEOLOGICAL PER SE SOVEREIGNTY AT BAY IDEOLOGY RE GLOBALIZATION MATTERED AMONG NEOCLASSICAL ECONOMISTS UNDER ROOSEVELT
Pace Faux' equivocations re globalization not being per se driven by ideology, not true, not even his own view elsewhere:
Vernon had acknowledged as much in 1971, a long passage recounting the laissez faire neoclassical underpinnings, both before and after WW II, p. 210, 211: "...that ideological commitment mattered...."
Faux, elsewhere in The Global Class War, acknowledges similar themes re globalization being an ideological movement, eg at p. 89:
"Liberating the transnational corporation in the global marketplace required other nations to open up as well....So the conservative campaign was duplicated abroad. With some guidance from the American conservative movement, business in other nations created similar ideological campaigns...."
Vernon had acknowledged as much in 1971, a long passage recounting the laissez faire neoclassical underpinnings, both before and after WW II, p. 210, 211: "...that ideological commitment mattered...."
Faux, elsewhere in The Global Class War, acknowledges similar themes re globalization being an ideological movement, eg at p. 89:
"Liberating the transnational corporation in the global marketplace required other nations to open up as well....So the conservative campaign was duplicated abroad. With some guidance from the American conservative movement, business in other nations created similar ideological campaigns...."
Re GEOGRAPHY AND TECHNOLOGY
You won't hear something like this from an economist,
or an American politician (except perhaps someone like Perot, Buchanan, Nader: either nationalist right, or globalist left, back then...)
it takes a sociologist, citing a geographer:
"...the United States has been the wealthiest of all industrial societies, not because it is technologically and organizationally the most advanced, but most importantly because it controls the wealthiest territory upon the earth." Collins citing Bartholomew, Physical World Atlas.
This is not the economists', (from Adam Smith onward), product, natural resource, industry, education, or technology- centered, notions of comparative or competitive advantage,
but, if anything, the geographic antithesis of most of these, in a situation such as the United States,
(because virtually all economists' examples of comparative advantage assume relative national scarcities of capital and resource inputs, thus inherently encouraging presumptively mutually beneficial, or at least not harmful, international trade among nations).
"Hence the United States' world leadership in GNP (both absolute and per capita) must be attributed to geographical peculiarities that cannot simply be imitated by other countries. This fact has often been lost in discussions of economic development that attribute the observed world patterns to social organization or culture, and which hold out the United States as a stage through which all societies will pass. In explanations of current American social structure, it is important to see that the high level of economic productivity is determined by factors other than the output of the educational system or by the shape of the modern professions; indeed, these appear primarily to be luxuries that a resource-rich society has been unusually able to afford. Thus introducing geographical peculiarities into our view of an economy enables us to see the direction of causality more clearly." Collins, The Credential Society, p. 77.
or an American politician (except perhaps someone like Perot, Buchanan, Nader: either nationalist right, or globalist left, back then...)
it takes a sociologist, citing a geographer:
"...the United States has been the wealthiest of all industrial societies, not because it is technologically and organizationally the most advanced, but most importantly because it controls the wealthiest territory upon the earth." Collins citing Bartholomew, Physical World Atlas.
This is not the economists', (from Adam Smith onward), product, natural resource, industry, education, or technology- centered, notions of comparative or competitive advantage,
but, if anything, the geographic antithesis of most of these, in a situation such as the United States,
(because virtually all economists' examples of comparative advantage assume relative national scarcities of capital and resource inputs, thus inherently encouraging presumptively mutually beneficial, or at least not harmful, international trade among nations).
"Hence the United States' world leadership in GNP (both absolute and per capita) must be attributed to geographical peculiarities that cannot simply be imitated by other countries. This fact has often been lost in discussions of economic development that attribute the observed world patterns to social organization or culture, and which hold out the United States as a stage through which all societies will pass. In explanations of current American social structure, it is important to see that the high level of economic productivity is determined by factors other than the output of the educational system or by the shape of the modern professions; indeed, these appear primarily to be luxuries that a resource-rich society has been unusually able to afford. Thus introducing geographical peculiarities into our view of an economy enables us to see the direction of causality more clearly." Collins, The Credential Society, p. 77.
RE THE UBIQUITOUS TOPIC OF TRADE FOREIGN INVESTMENT AND AND GLOBALIZATION
We are going to discuss shortly two final missing puzzle pieces of the discussion re these themes and this history.
We are going to talk about technology and how it relates to them.
And we are going to discuss comparative geography in relation to trade and investment.
That will pretty much put the nail in the coffin of these discussions, as these issues have caused some of the most profound confusion in these areas if inquiry.
We are going to talk about technology and how it relates to them.
And we are going to discuss comparative geography in relation to trade and investment.
That will pretty much put the nail in the coffin of these discussions, as these issues have caused some of the most profound confusion in these areas if inquiry.
Friday, August 3, 2012
re like a weasel sucks out an egg
The Republicans have actually made the argument I had made against it recently, about the Obama stimulus.
A stimulus is for a Keynesian national economy, what we no longer have.
I had also commented on Krugman's (among others') call for stimulus, some time ago.
http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2011/12/ecb-stimulus.html
Many people have made this rather obvious point. See also Faux.
Term search: weasel
Term search: weasel
RE THE GLOBAL CLASS WAR BOOK Faux faux science economics
He gives a fairly accurate and useful account so far.
One or two places I would quibble with him about, eg p 87,
"Globalization per se is not a product of political ideology. The gradual expansion of world markets is a natural consequence of evolving technology, communications, and business organization in search of efficiencies of scale."
He gives examples, both before and after p 87, of ways in which it has been largely a question of greater and greater globalization as in fact the product of political ideology set up by institutions, notably those first developed, as he acknowledges, by Keynes, p. 88, one of his heroes, nonetheless, for Keynes' continuing reaffirmation of nationalism.
(I share an affirmation of nationalism, but Keynes per se , so to speak, is not my paradigm for it.).
Further, pace Faux, globalization is as little a natural process as are the notions, in management, of a product life cycle, or of so-called mature industries, eg manufacturing, or mature products, moving off shore, to make room for 'service economies', and symbolic analyst entrepreneurs (Faux' passage on how this played out is wonderful p.72-74), in 'post industrial societies'.
As he says, re Robert Reich's symbolic analysts paradigm, MNCs overcame this would-be geekocracy by turning these 'knowledge workers' once again into 'plug-and-play' pieces....p. 74.
As I have remarked elsewhere here, the economics field, (as Randall Collins also might perhaps remark, a pseudo discipline specialization,) had been a doomsday machine for the West.
Ironically, Faux' work contains numerous good examples of faux science in economics, in spite of his stubborn reverence for Keynes.
One might all along very well have been a trade, commercial, and military, nationalist,
without the pseudo discipline of economics, which always was ill suited to underpinning it.
One or two places I would quibble with him about, eg p 87,
"Globalization per se is not a product of political ideology. The gradual expansion of world markets is a natural consequence of evolving technology, communications, and business organization in search of efficiencies of scale."
He gives examples, both before and after p 87, of ways in which it has been largely a question of greater and greater globalization as in fact the product of political ideology set up by institutions, notably those first developed, as he acknowledges, by Keynes, p. 88, one of his heroes, nonetheless, for Keynes' continuing reaffirmation of nationalism.
(I share an affirmation of nationalism, but Keynes per se , so to speak, is not my paradigm for it.).
Further, pace Faux, globalization is as little a natural process as are the notions, in management, of a product life cycle, or of so-called mature industries, eg manufacturing, or mature products, moving off shore, to make room for 'service economies', and symbolic analyst entrepreneurs (Faux' passage on how this played out is wonderful p.72-74), in 'post industrial societies'.
As he says, re Robert Reich's symbolic analysts paradigm, MNCs overcame this would-be geekocracy by turning these 'knowledge workers' once again into 'plug-and-play' pieces....p. 74.
As I have remarked elsewhere here, the economics field, (as Randall Collins also might perhaps remark, a pseudo discipline specialization,) had been a doomsday machine for the West.
Ironically, Faux' work contains numerous good examples of faux science in economics, in spite of his stubborn reverence for Keynes.
One might all along very well have been a trade, commercial, and military, nationalist,
without the pseudo discipline of economics, which always was ill suited to underpinning it.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
re reference below in re BBC I am with the Poles to The Shield of Achilles Bobbitt
The passage I had in mind in this prior post
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2973239501462830480#editor/target=post;postID=1341211654496405337
is at p. 230,
in the paragraph beginning "If the nation-state..."
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2973239501462830480#editor/target=post;postID=1341211654496405337
is at p. 230,
in the paragraph beginning "If the nation-state..."
these apparently are Russian referring URLS
http://www.devscripts.net/frame.php?url=http%3a%2f%2ft.co%2fYwAPiP08
http://myhealthscore.com/frame.cfm?page=http%3a%2f%2ft.co%2fz1v6ZazZ
http://myhealthscore.com/frame.cfm?page=http%3a%2f%2ft.co%2fz1v6ZazZ
RE DEMOCRATIZATION SEE ALSO FAUX' DISCUSSIONS OF NAFTA
RE PRIOR POST:
http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2011/11/thomas-friedman-in-arab-world.html
See Faux' treatment The Global Class War, of the US approach to Mexican government, and voting re socialist ballot box threat. Great stuff.
Also a helpful book for how the party elites have come together at the top, and against the hopes and dreams of liberal and conservative non super rich Americans alike.
http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2011/11/thomas-friedman-in-arab-world.html
See Faux' treatment The Global Class War, of the US approach to Mexican government, and voting re socialist ballot box threat. Great stuff.
Also a helpful book for how the party elites have come together at the top, and against the hopes and dreams of liberal and conservative non super rich Americans alike.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
RE BBC I AM WITH THE POLES PROTESTING ON MADONNA BUT ALSO TAKE A LOOK AT OTHER LARGER ISSUES
Her stuff does, as they say, promote pornography and sexual deviation, just as Gaga's also promotes sadism and masochism, etc. 'Two female rock stars'.
Not to single out degenerate women only. There are more than ample degenerate men out there, doing much the same things.
One also has to distinguish legitimate gay interests expressions from overreaching gay mass economic and cultural capitalisms (to use Randall Collins' distinction, somewhat).
Same shtick.
Of course. It is also a 'big' media, 'big media', thing.
Speaking of Big, The main point about Big Government is that it has long now been Government of Big Interests, not small liberal ones, or small conservative ones, that are slammed by the term Big Government.
In the US, the electorate responds uncomprehendingly. They still don't realize that the upper financial class, a class increasingly non partisan and globalist not American ist, has controlled Big Government for a long time now.
They have been making (others') ignorance chic for a long time. See also eg: http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2010/10/cinderella-three-penny-opera-marilyn.html
As Jeff Faux writes, The Global Class War, it has become class as style p. 61; quoting Thomas Frank, "When two female rock stars exchange a lascivious kiss on TV, Kansas goes haywire Kansas screams for the heads of the liberal elite. Kansas comes running to the polling place. And Kansas cuts those rock stars' taxes." (You could substitute male rock stars, same theme.)
The actual upper class, the ' Market State ' class, so to speak, to paraphrase Bobbitt, doesn't mind the immoral, or perhaps better amoral, antics of these stars, so long as it does not interfere with the free and open market, a market fueled by an amoral and laissez faire media and press, a media and press now owned at the top by bipartisan campaign contributing, rich, Big (that word again) corporations. This point, re market states' ethics, is even made, somewhere, in The Shield of Achilles.
Term search: your state, Lorch,
Not to single out degenerate women only. There are more than ample degenerate men out there, doing much the same things.
One also has to distinguish legitimate gay interests expressions from overreaching gay mass economic and cultural capitalisms (to use Randall Collins' distinction, somewhat).
Same shtick.
Of course. It is also a 'big' media, 'big media', thing.
Speaking of Big, The main point about Big Government is that it has long now been Government of Big Interests, not small liberal ones, or small conservative ones, that are slammed by the term Big Government.
In the US, the electorate responds uncomprehendingly. They still don't realize that the upper financial class, a class increasingly non partisan and globalist not American ist, has controlled Big Government for a long time now.
They have been making (others') ignorance chic for a long time. See also eg: http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2010/10/cinderella-three-penny-opera-marilyn.html
As Jeff Faux writes, The Global Class War, it has become class as style p. 61; quoting Thomas Frank, "When two female rock stars exchange a lascivious kiss on TV, Kansas goes haywire Kansas screams for the heads of the liberal elite. Kansas comes running to the polling place. And Kansas cuts those rock stars' taxes." (You could substitute male rock stars, same theme.)
The actual upper class, the ' Market State ' class, so to speak, to paraphrase Bobbitt, doesn't mind the immoral, or perhaps better amoral, antics of these stars, so long as it does not interfere with the free and open market, a market fueled by an amoral and laissez faire media and press, a media and press now owned at the top by bipartisan campaign contributing, rich, Big (that word again) corporations. This point, re market states' ethics, is even made, somewhere, in The Shield of Achilles.
Term search: your state, Lorch,
RE THOMAS FRIEDMAN DAVID BROOKS AND TODAYS NYT EDITORIAL
He criticizes the GOP for out Israeling the Democrats, even though apparently no one has outdone the Obama administration for kowtowing to the Israelis' whims on security.
Similar comments might apply to David Brooks.
He would criticize the party du jour, but keep that good financial and military support for Israel coming (notice that Friedman does not say cut back on anything like that from way overly generous Obama).
The truth, perhaps, is that Friedman himself is now running scared about how overly far the US, both parties, long have gone,
for decades now,
in coddling his favorite resolutely anti globalist nation state.
for decades now,
in coddling his favorite resolutely anti globalist nation state.
For the dyed in the wool globalist,
Israel, and Israeli expansionist nationalism, are a dreadful liability. However, the subtext has to be that he couldn't be happier that both parties have clambered over themselves to support his Israel.
Similar comments might apply to David Brooks.
He would criticize the party du jour, but keep that good financial and military support for Israel coming (notice that Friedman does not say cut back on anything like that from way overly generous Obama).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)