If you look at the motivations of the Milner Group, read Quigley's book, you see that these people were not motivated, at all, ever, by money.
Of course they, mostly, came from privilege, but that, for them, was a given.
That is what you call a service aristocracy.
One of the really big big things the colonists repudiated, as Bailyn noted many times, and have lacked, from the beginning, and forever after, was an aristocracy, and I would add, a service aristocracy.
This fact, that they, the Milner Group, as a group had little economic or financial sense, had tragic consequences, but that is another story here.
Maybe Lord Rothschild is a special case, but his financial activities, connected with the group, are hardly discussed by Quigley.
BOOMERBUSTER
OLD CELLO
Sunday, September 13, 2015
RE REAL LEADERSHIP
Frederick could not have accomplished as much without the Prussian aristocracy, a service aristocracy, to back him.
Neither, later, could Bismarck.
Louis XIV, earlier, controlling but taking counsel with, the French aristocracy, most of whom. he insisted, attend upon him at court, a locus classicus.
Maybe someone will correct me, if this rambling remark is off the mark.
Neither, later, could Bismarck.
Louis XIV, earlier, controlling but taking counsel with, the French aristocracy, most of whom. he insisted, attend upon him at court, a locus classicus.
Maybe someone will correct me, if this rambling remark is off the mark.
RE REAL LEADERSHIP
A good, modern example, of real, although in several important ways tragically flawed leadership, can be found in the Milner Group. Additionally, this Group accounted for only a segment, and not the whole, of the British aristocracy of the time.
WHAT WOULD REAL LEADERSHIP LOOK LIKE?
Let's go back to that question.
If you look at past leadership, it has generally tended to be based on some class or group that was traditionally socially politically and or dynastically prominent in the state or civilization, not really or actually on any one single individual.
Some traditional examples are aristocracies, general staffs, ministries, etc.
If a single leader emerged somewhat, he traditionally came from such a class or group. If the leadership class or group broke down, he could come from anywhere.
Modern examples of the breakdown of a leadership class or group, and a so called real leader, emerging from elsewhere, are Hitler, Lenin.
If you look at past leadership, it has generally tended to be based on some class or group that was traditionally socially politically and or dynastically prominent in the state or civilization, not really or actually on any one single individual.
Some traditional examples are aristocracies, general staffs, ministries, etc.
If a single leader emerged somewhat, he traditionally came from such a class or group. If the leadership class or group broke down, he could come from anywhere.
Modern examples of the breakdown of a leadership class or group, and a so called real leader, emerging from elsewhere, are Hitler, Lenin.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
RE DK CURRENT POST WIDE VARIETY OF REASONS
Here's Randall Collins' current post first page:
"Everything in the human world has four aspects. They are easy to remember by putting them in four boxes:
The ECONOMIC box: This is a short-hand for the ways in which things are material, practical, or economic.
The POLITICAL box: Again a short-hand, for everything that involves power and conflict.
The SOCIAL box: the ways that people interact with each other, especially their emotions, rituals, and networks.
The CULTURAL box: people’s ideas and ideals about what they are doing.
Everything human has these four requisites. If one or more is missing, the thing will fail.
Success requires all four in the right amounts. What are the right amounts? We shall see."
RE DK CURRENT POST
"For a wide variety of reasons, which I cannot possibly take up today, it is less likely than at any time in my lifetime that either the government or the public could achieve a real strategic grasp of these problems."
Great sentence. Everyone who reads it, and stops to think in their whatever fashion, now may, or may not, think to ask, what reasons?
Kettle of worms really. Hard to answer that.
Whatever the reasons are, what are the solutions?
Here are some of the traditional candidates:
Make the www freer, and more open, (liberal international technological order) than we already blunderingly have? Not really....
Beef up NATO even more? Not really....
More Ridenour prizes? Not really..
More journalism as usual please? Not really.....
A little more McNeill Lehrerism? Not really....
More Fox News ism? Not really...
More Rush? Not really.....
Party reforms? Not really...
More congressional committees? Not really...
More presidential Committees? Not really...
Less government generally? Not really....
More government generally? Not really...
More trickle down economics? Not really...
More trickle out economics? Not really...
More free trade please (Terms search Brooks) ? Not really...
More globalization? (What about, then, a regional union, say bond politically with China in a 'PU' Pacific Union? Not really...
More American educational system? Not really...
How about credential pyramiding, say post post doctoralism? Not really...
Why not let MNCS, especially the big defense finance and technology ones, dictate strategy? What do you think?
Turn the government over to actors, even very famous ones?
Not really......
How about not only universal suffrage, from age, say, 14, they're precocious, but direct democracy for all of them, on every political issue state, local, international, and federal? Not really.......
Great sentence. Everyone who reads it, and stops to think in their whatever fashion, now may, or may not, think to ask, what reasons?
Kettle of worms really. Hard to answer that.
Whatever the reasons are, what are the solutions?
Here are some of the traditional candidates:
Make the www freer, and more open, (liberal international technological order) than we already blunderingly have? Not really....
Beef up NATO even more? Not really....
More Ridenour prizes? Not really..
More journalism as usual please? Not really.....
A little more McNeill Lehrerism? Not really....
More Fox News ism? Not really...
More Rush? Not really.....
Party reforms? Not really...
More congressional committees? Not really...
More presidential Committees? Not really...
Less government generally? Not really....
More government generally? Not really...
More trickle down economics? Not really...
More trickle out economics? Not really...
More free trade please (Terms search Brooks) ? Not really...
More globalization? (What about, then, a regional union, say bond politically with China in a 'PU' Pacific Union? Not really...
More American educational system? Not really...
How about credential pyramiding, say post post doctoralism? Not really...
Why not let MNCS, especially the big defense finance and technology ones, dictate strategy? What do you think?
Turn the government over to actors, even very famous ones?
Not really......
How about not only universal suffrage, from age, say, 14, they're precocious, but direct democracy for all of them, on every political issue state, local, international, and federal? Not really.......
RE US DROPS CHARGES NYT
Rather ridiculous, really, in the larger scheme of things at this late date.
Terms search: game over, smell the coffee.
Terms search: game over, smell the coffee.
Monday, September 7, 2015
POWER AND PLENTY
The authors hardly have even a sniff of civilizational issues, and then they pooh pooh them, at the end of the book.
Civilizational issues biting them on the butt, throughout their account really, and they don't even feel the bites.
They call it North and South, developed and undeveloped.
That's as far as they go really.
it's an economist's ideological agenda, crossing civilizational lines, to human welfare in general.
They say things like 'China and India are returning to their natural great power weight'.
Neither China nor India ever had a great power weight for very long. They each had large sedentary fragmented populations.
That made them potential victims, not great powers.
For much of the time, each of them was dominated by neighboring or remote civilizations, the Mongols or Manchus, Europeans or Japan, for China, and the Muslims, or British, for India. Most of the time they merely wallowed disjointedly, and played defense against invasion or encroachment.
Civilizational issues biting them on the butt, throughout their account really, and they don't even feel the bites.
They call it North and South, developed and undeveloped.
That's as far as they go really.
it's an economist's ideological agenda, crossing civilizational lines, to human welfare in general.
They say things like 'China and India are returning to their natural great power weight'.
Neither China nor India ever had a great power weight for very long. They each had large sedentary fragmented populations.
That made them potential victims, not great powers.
For much of the time, each of them was dominated by neighboring or remote civilizations, the Mongols or Manchus, Europeans or Japan, for China, and the Muslims, or British, for India. Most of the time they merely wallowed disjointedly, and played defense against invasion or encroachment.
GLOBALIZATION AS THE CAUSE OF WAR NOT AS THE CAUSE OF PEACE
Let's focus on this theme for a while here, what do you say.
Back in the days of mercantilism, they could not really even distinguish trade from war. "What matters this or that reason..." At least they, back then, had a clearer concept of the relationship than contemporary specialized economics and other experts in other fields now do. Sad commentary on knowledge, specialization, and history.
"As General Monck put it with military directness in demanding a renewal of war against the Dutch in 1662: ‘What matters this or that reason? What we want is more of the trade the Dutch now have.’ Trade meant wealth, wealth enabled one to wage war, war made possible yet more trade: who could resist the lure of this logic?”
“The British Way In Warfare: A Reappraisal”, The Causes Of War, Howard, 1983.
Back in the days of mercantilism, they could not really even distinguish trade from war. "What matters this or that reason..." At least they, back then, had a clearer concept of the relationship than contemporary specialized economics and other experts in other fields now do. Sad commentary on knowledge, specialization, and history.
"As General Monck put it with military directness in demanding a renewal of war against the Dutch in 1662: ‘What matters this or that reason? What we want is more of the trade the Dutch now have.’ Trade meant wealth, wealth enabled one to wage war, war made possible yet more trade: who could resist the lure of this logic?”
“The British Way In Warfare: A Reappraisal”, The Causes Of War, Howard, 1983.
the London menu for Bupe
Basturma sausages, roast lemon potatoes, Greek salad, pita, baklava (optional), red w, brandy.
Sunday, September 6, 2015
RE RANDALL COLLINS' CURRENT POST MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
http://sociological-eye.blogspot.com/2015/07/four-requisites-for-success-or-failure.html
RE POWER AND PLENTY GLOBAL CONVERGENCE AND WAR
The last half century has been an unparalleled period of trade globalization and convergence. With that I would agree wholeheartedly.
They see fitful but substantial, and hopeful, but far from full blown laissez faire, convergence, between North and South, in the last half of the 20th Century.
What does this mean? It means, really, that the Western growth has been steadily declining, relative to growth of the Rest, for the last half century plus, since WWII. West is North, Rest is South, in their vernacular.
They think this relative convergence (they do not talk much about it as a relative decline of the West, but some passages acknowledge this candidly) of global trade is a good thing for everyone, everywhere. ' Human welfare ' is how they put it.
They implicitly have the concept of limitless growth; although they discuss limits of growth, and market and frontier saturation, this fact does not seem to alter their model of globalization growth as a universal good, and a force for peace, even given gathering materials scarcity and environmental degradation.
What does it all really mean?
"The great wars of history....are the outcome, direct or indirect, of the unequal growth of nations...." Mackinder
They see fitful but substantial, and hopeful, but far from full blown laissez faire, convergence, between North and South, in the last half of the 20th Century.
What does this mean? It means, really, that the Western growth has been steadily declining, relative to growth of the Rest, for the last half century plus, since WWII. West is North, Rest is South, in their vernacular.
They think this relative convergence (they do not talk much about it as a relative decline of the West, but some passages acknowledge this candidly) of global trade is a good thing for everyone, everywhere. ' Human welfare ' is how they put it.
They implicitly have the concept of limitless growth; although they discuss limits of growth, and market and frontier saturation, this fact does not seem to alter their model of globalization growth as a universal good, and a force for peace, even given gathering materials scarcity and environmental degradation.
What does it all really mean?
"The great wars of history....are the outcome, direct or indirect, of the unequal growth of nations...." Mackinder
Saturday, September 5, 2015
POWER AND PLENTY TRADE AND WAR
They do talk about globalization as a cause of war.
This is how they put it: The deglobalization, breakdown of global trade, caused by WWI lead to or caused WWII.
Deglobalization causes war, globalization prevents war, that is the implicit thesis of the passage, and of the book.
This is how they put it: The deglobalization, breakdown of global trade, caused by WWI lead to or caused WWII.
Deglobalization causes war, globalization prevents war, that is the implicit thesis of the passage, and of the book.
POWER AND PLENTY
Paints the economists' perennial picture of their concept of the relationship between post mercantilist war and trade: Good trade liberalization and globalization, hampered intermittently in its march toward universalization by imperialism and wars.
War is the bad boy, trade is the good boy.
I want to paint for you a different picture, a darker picture, of the relationship between war and trade, both before and after mercantilism.
War is the bad boy, trade is the good boy.
I want to paint for you a different picture, a darker picture, of the relationship between war and trade, both before and after mercantilism.
RE MIGRATION
Blocking mass movements of people from other civilizations into yours is not a bad thing.
There are 122 million Mexicans, who are basically American Indians Civilization, not European.
There is a reason why The Great Wall Of China was built. It was built to block the Mongols, and then the Manchus, who could otherwise simply ride, or even walk, into China.
That is also the primary reason why China turned away from its coastal border, and from engagement with long distance oceanic trade after 1500, in order to concentrate on the Mongol threat which had been ever present for hundreds of years.
There are 122 million Mexicans, who are basically American Indians Civilization, not European.
There is a reason why The Great Wall Of China was built. It was built to block the Mongols, and then the Manchus, who could otherwise simply ride, or even walk, into China.
That is also the primary reason why China turned away from its coastal border, and from engagement with long distance oceanic trade after 1500, in order to concentrate on the Mongol threat which had been ever present for hundreds of years.
Thursday, September 3, 2015
SPEAKING OF CIVIL WAR BLUNDERSHIP
Lee almost took the Capitol, early on. Well, maybe a slight exaggeration, but the South could have, at that point it seems. Lee 20 miles from Washington...the South was still engaging armies, not taking or destroying cities.
What an idiotic thing, to force the secessionists, with much better military men in charge down there, to that extremity.
What an idiotic thing, to force the secessionists, with much better military men in charge down there, to that extremity.
RE FOIBLES OF THE CIVIL WAR AND REAL BLUNDERSHIP
"After the Republican Party largely abandoned the freed slaves after 1876,..." DK
It had been the Republican Party, after all, 12 years before, which had freed them, as a war measure, under Lincoln.
Sad commentary all around, really. freeing the slaves as a war measure was real blundership, not real leadership.
Not really about real leadership, any where you turn, back then.
It had been the Republican Party, after all, 12 years before, which had freed them, as a war measure, under Lincoln.
Sad commentary all around, really. freeing the slaves as a war measure was real blundership, not real leadership.
Not really about real leadership, any where you turn, back then.
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
RE TRADING AMERICAN INTERESTS
Power And Plenty, p 455 has a nice passage reprising how the US moved toward free trade already in 1930, and the Presidency, fatefully, took over trade from Congress, The U.S. Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, 1934. It happened under FDR.
Of course, Congress was no place to lodge responsibility for anything requiring long term leadership, such as trade or industrial policy.
But then, neither was the Presidency.
The Japanese had MITI, Chalmers Johnson. We had nothing that even came close.
New Deal free trade was for liberal, peace loving, regimes everywhere, to fight the global Depression, not just for Depression era Americans.
In the wake of other consequences flowing from WWI, this free trade would lead, in decades to come, to a frightful series of developments both environmentally, commercially, and militarily, including the industrial military and agricultural booming of most of the then underdeveloped world, and the hollowing out of the US industrial base, first by Japan, then by everyone else with low wages.
Of course, Congress was no place to lodge responsibility for anything requiring long term leadership, such as trade or industrial policy.
But then, neither was the Presidency.
The Japanese had MITI, Chalmers Johnson. We had nothing that even came close.
New Deal free trade was for liberal, peace loving, regimes everywhere, to fight the global Depression, not just for Depression era Americans.
In the wake of other consequences flowing from WWI, this free trade would lead, in decades to come, to a frightful series of developments both environmentally, commercially, and militarily, including the industrial military and agricultural booming of most of the then underdeveloped world, and the hollowing out of the US industrial base, first by Japan, then by everyone else with low wages.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)