Globalization Fantasy
If the average American worker had any economic literacy, they would look at this chart and scream, “I’ve been getting royally screwed since 2001!” Capitalism was not supposed to work this way–as the workers become more productive their wages fall. But of course as wages fall and layoffs grow, the working class is well aware that they can no longer borrow from their home equity or their ten credit cards and so they cut back on discretionary spending. This means that our ten years of overcapacity in what’s left of our industrial plant will get worse.
Percent utilization of industrial capacity
Ben Bernanke says the recession is over, but he is wrong.
The so-called underemployment rate (which includes people whose hours have been cut, and those working part-time for lack of full-time positions, along with the jobless) reached 17 percent, the highest level since the government began tracking it in 1994.
Think of what 17% real unemployment means. It means that thousands of retail businesses will limp through Christmas on a wing and a prayer and then shut down. It means that state and local tax revenues will fall even further leading to more School and University layoffs. ultimately American’s will be less prepared to compete, because they will be less educated.
Since 1980 politicians of both parties have preached the gospel of globalization–the ability of American multinationals to move their financial and physical resources anywhere on the globe to get the best return. For a while we were able to mask the hollowing out of our domestic industrial base with the fantasy that we would export our services all over the world and that the financialization of the American economy would make up for the shortfall in our industrial output. And now we are reaping the whirlwind of that bankrupt notion. Yes we have poured trillions into Wall Street banks to restart the casino economy, but the average American isn’t buying it. She wants to pay off her credit cards, not borrow more. The small businessman does not have enough orders to need to borrow money. And as a country, the only durable good we make that anyone wants to buy are weapons of war.
A couple of weeks ago Gordon Crawford, the most savvy media investor I know participated in one of my “Art of the Long View” seminars. He said that if you masked the name of the countries on a chart of exports, borrowing, industrial output, etc you would think the U.S. was a developing nation and China was the developed nation.
We are in a desperate bind, trapped by conventional thinking. If we look like a developing nation, perhaps we need to seed an industrial base like a developing nation would. That would mean both tax breaks and subsidies for companies who bring their manufacturing back to America or build new plants here. That would mean favoring American manufactured solar cells and wind turbines over Chinese and German imports. I can hear all the free trade economists screaming “No, no”, but when the real unemployment rate hits 21% next year, what will be their answer to the American jobs crisis?
In a speech in 2002 to the National Economists Club, Ben Bernanke, (then a Fed Governor) tried to distinguish a deflationary recession, from the garden variety.
However, a deflationary recession may differ in one respect from “normal” recessions in which the inflation rate is at least modestly positive: Deflation of sufficient magnitude may result in the nominal interest rate declining to zero or very close to zero. Once the nominal interest rate is at zero, no further downward adjustment in the rate can occur, since lenders generally will not accept a negative nominal interest rate when it is possible instead to hold cash. At this point, the nominal interest rate is said to have hit the “zero bound.”
Today the nominal interest rate has hit the “zero bound”. Bernanke’s solution in this speech was to “turn on the printing presses” and flood the system with dollars. This in effect is what he is doing today. He is trying to inflate another bubble, because that seems to be the only solution to an American economy that no longer produces anything that other countries will pay for (we produce lots of movies, music and videogames, but they are all stolen, not paid for).
In Andrew Ross Sorkin’s wonderful telling of “Wall Street’s Near Death Experience” in the new Vanity Fair (not online yet), you get a true sense of Benanke, Paulson and Geithner in total panic. They have no idea what will solve the crisis so they are going in every direction at once, grasping for a lifeline. From the outside in September of 2008, they seemed cool and collected, but in reality they were puking (literally in Paulson’s case) from terminal nervous exhaustion. They didn’t have a clue.
Today we are not about to witness the wholesale destruction of the financial system that almost occurred one year ago. But Bernanke’s worries about the deflationary spiral that hit Japan in the 1990′s (and still affects it today) are worth hearing.
That this concern is not purely hypothetical is brought home to us whenever we read newspaper reports about Japan, where what seems to be a relatively moderate deflation–a decline in consumer prices of about 1 percent per year–has been associated with years of painfully slow growth, rising joblessness, and apparently intractable financial problems in the banking and corporate sectors.
I know that Larry Summers and Tim Geithner seem cool and calm. I know that Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner don’t really believe we are still in a financial crisis. Either they are good fakers for the camera or somehow they think the good old American consumer is going to go back to their old ways, max out their credit card and get the mall economy rolling again. This is a fantasy and until we face facts that we have to rebuild an American manufacturing and exporting economy that can put America back to work we will remain prisoners of the globalization fantasy.
And both parties got us to this point. Good job, idiots.
And both parties got us to this point. Good job, idiots.
And both parties got us to this point. Good job, idiots.
And both parties got us to this point. Good job, idiots.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/global/05yuan.html?_r=1&hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/global/05yuan.html?_r=1&hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/global/05yuan.html?_r=1&hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/global/05yuan.html?_r=1&hp
“That would mean both tax breaks and subsidies for companies who bring their manufacturing back to America or build new plants here.”
What’s that whoopin’ I hear? Morgan Warstler’s ghost yellin’ “I win! I win! I told you so! I am God! I am prescient!”
Completely off the beam “we” have to negotiate as a species. Our horizons and thinking are bounded by nation or tribe or smaller units, and I don’t think the people who move the levers have a clue which way to move them to “make things better.” And of course, Bernanke and Summers and Geithner (who referred recently to the unfortunate accounting problem that was sharp enough to pop a bubble, the greed and hubris and fuck-you attitude that “the banks” have shown their refusal to change, the too-big-to-fix structure, as the “unfortunate vulnerabilities of the banking system”) will have moved along to their next big posts and thence to extremely comfortable retirements. “Freedom” for these folks pretty much means “freedom from consequences,” and “liberty” means “license to fuck the culture and walk away without even leaving a sawbuck on the bureau.
“That would mean both tax breaks and subsidies for companies who bring their manufacturing back to America or build new plants here.”
What’s that whoopin’ I hear? Morgan Warstler’s ghost yellin’ “I win! I win! I told you so! I am God! I am prescient!”
Completely off the beam “we” have to negotiate as a species. Our horizons and thinking are bounded by nation or tribe or smaller units, and I don’t think the people who move the levers have a clue which way to move them to “make things better.” And of course, Bernanke and Summers and Geithner (who referred recently to the unfortunate accounting problem that was sharp enough to pop a bubble, the greed and hubris and fuck-you attitude that “the banks” have shown their refusal to change, the too-big-to-fix structure, as the “unfortunate vulnerabilities of the banking system”) will have moved along to their next big posts and thence to extremely comfortable retirements. “Freedom” for these folks pretty much means “freedom from consequences,” and “liberty” means “license to fuck the culture and walk away without even leaving a sawbuck on the bureau.
“That would mean both tax breaks and subsidies for companies who bring their manufacturing back to America or build new plants here.”
What’s that whoopin’ I hear? Morgan Warstler’s ghost yellin’ “I win! I win! I told you so! I am God! I am prescient!”
Completely off the beam “we” have to negotiate as a species. Our horizons and thinking are bounded by nation or tribe or smaller units, and I don’t think the people who move the levers have a clue which way to move them to “make things better.” And of course, Bernanke and Summers and Geithner (who referred recently to the unfortunate accounting problem that was sharp enough to pop a bubble, the greed and hubris and fuck-you attitude that “the banks” have shown their refusal to change, the too-big-to-fix structure, as the “unfortunate vulnerabilities of the banking system”) will have moved along to their next big posts and thence to extremely comfortable retirements. “Freedom” for these folks pretty much means “freedom from consequences,” and “liberty” means “license to fuck the culture and walk away without even leaving a sawbuck on the bureau.
“That would mean both tax breaks and subsidies for companies who bring their manufacturing back to America or build new plants here.”
What’s that whoopin’ I hear? Morgan Warstler’s ghost yellin’ “I win! I win! I told you so! I am God! I am prescient!”
Completely off the beam “we” have to negotiate as a species. Our horizons and thinking are bounded by nation or tribe or smaller units, and I don’t think the people who move the levers have a clue which way to move them to “make things better.” And of course, Bernanke and Summers and Geithner (who referred recently to the unfortunate accounting problem that was sharp enough to pop a bubble, the greed and hubris and fuck-you attitude that “the banks” have shown their refusal to change, the too-big-to-fix structure, as the “unfortunate vulnerabilities of the banking system”) will have moved along to their next big posts and thence to extremely comfortable retirements. “Freedom” for these folks pretty much means “freedom from consequences,” and “liberty” means “license to fuck the culture and walk away without even leaving a sawbuck on the bureau.
We have been looted and destroyed from within. The looting continues. The destruction is nw planetary. They have the guns and the forces. We have lost.
Adapt or die.
We have been looted and destroyed from within. The looting continues. The destruction is nw planetary. They have the guns and the forces. We have lost.
Adapt or die.
We have been looted and destroyed from within. The looting continues. The destruction is nw planetary. They have the guns and the forces. We have lost.
Adapt or die.
The truly sad thing about this post, Jon, is that other than rant at the facts [might as well be the moon]. They are so overwhelming as to be almost crushing.
There is little to add I think… which is sadly unfortunate.
The truly sad thing about this post, Jon, is that other than rant at the facts [might as well be the moon]. They are so overwhelming as to be almost crushing.
There is little to add I think… which is sadly unfortunate.
The truly sad thing about this post, Jon, is that other than rant at the facts [might as well be the moon]. They are so overwhelming as to be almost crushing.
There is little to add I think… which is sadly unfortunate.
The truly sad thing about this post, Jon, is that other than rant at the facts [might as well be the moon]. They are so overwhelming as to be almost crushing.
There is little to add I think… which is sadly unfortunate.
Are American workers really more “productive”? How much of the profit is really the result of the massive stupid borrowing of Chinese (and other) money, combined with massive deficit spending?
I suspect that what has really been happening is that the super-wealthy have used their puppet government to borrow a ton of money, used it to make yet more money, and they’re leaving it to us to pay the loans back. They will skip out of town to Monaco or Turks and Caicos or wherever the super-wealthy skip off to on their 400-foot yachts these days.
Argentina is apparently where the Bush family plans to skip off to.
Are American workers really more “productive”? How much of the profit is really the result of the massive stupid borrowing of Chinese (and other) money, combined with massive deficit spending?
I suspect that what has really been happening is that the super-wealthy have used their puppet government to borrow a ton of money, used it to make yet more money, and they’re leaving it to us to pay the loans back. They will skip out of town to Monaco or Turks and Caicos or wherever the super-wealthy skip off to on their 400-foot yachts these days.
Argentina is apparently where the Bush family plans to skip off to.
Are American workers really more “productive”? How much of the profit is really the result of the massive stupid borrowing of Chinese (and other) money, combined with massive deficit spending?
I suspect that what has really been happening is that the super-wealthy have used their puppet government to borrow a ton of money, used it to make yet more money, and they’re leaving it to us to pay the loans back. They will skip out of town to Monaco or Turks and Caicos or wherever the super-wealthy skip off to on their 400-foot yachts these days.
Argentina is apparently where the Bush family plans to skip off to.
Are American workers really more “productive”? How much of the profit is really the result of the massive stupid borrowing of Chinese (and other) money, combined with massive deficit spending?
I suspect that what has really been happening is that the super-wealthy have used their puppet government to borrow a ton of money, used it to make yet more money, and they’re leaving it to us to pay the loans back. They will skip out of town to Monaco or Turks and Caicos or wherever the super-wealthy skip off to on their 400-foot yachts these days.
Argentina is apparently where the Bush family plans to skip off to.
The music is stolen or dumped? Here’s a story how the music industry is supplying it themselves to China: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,501030127-409647,00.html
The music is stolen or dumped? Here’s a story how the music industry is supplying it themselves to China: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,501030127-409647,00.html
The music is stolen or dumped? Here’s a story how the music industry is supplying it themselves to China: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,501030127-409647,00.html
A question and a few criticisms:
Q. do your income statistics include healthcare and fringe benefits as income? Do they include incomes of freelance and independent workers, who often file as a type-S or LLC? Do they include commission-based workers? If not, this graph is all but completely worthless.
C. I believe you are falling prey to aggregate head. Analsysis of hyper-aggregate data that is not just flawed, but masks the nature of the mechanics that underlie it. “Industrial capacity” is virtually meaningless as a national aggregate. Which industry? What is “capacity”? How do you measure utilization?
Also, your analysis of the manufacturing capacity of the US appears to a misrepresentation. Our industry is not just the world’s leading manufacturer, but one in the highest value products.
Lastly, the worry about the balance of trade is nonsensical. Britain ran a trade deficit for 150 years, straight through the entirety of its peak of global power. This issue with global imbalances has much more to do with governments buying other other government’s debts (namely Asian government financing an out-of-control US government).
The fact of the matter is that free trade is a net benefit to the world and to the US consumer. It is a benefit to certain US producers who are competitive and can export their goods to new markets and a challenge to weak competitors.
But an expanded market and rising standard of living world wide is good for everyone ultimately. Voluntary trade has never been a zero-sum game.
“We” are building capacity if by “we” you mean American entrepreneurs. If “we” means the government agents of protectionism and payola, the only thing that “we” has demonstrated is an ability to punish all of us to the benefit of the politically connected few, be it sugar growers, unionized tire workers or Wall Street fatcats.
A question and a few criticisms:
Q. do your income statistics include healthcare and fringe benefits as income? Do they include incomes of freelance and independent workers, who often file as a type-S or LLC? Do they include commission-based workers? If not, this graph is all but completely worthless.
C. I believe you are falling prey to aggregate head. Analsysis of hyper-aggregate data that is not just flawed, but masks the nature of the mechanics that underlie it. “Industrial capacity” is virtually meaningless as a national aggregate. Which industry? What is “capacity”? How do you measure utilization?
Also, your analysis of the manufacturing capacity of the US appears to a misrepresentation. Our industry is not just the world’s leading manufacturer, but one in the highest value products.
Lastly, the worry about the balance of trade is nonsensical. Britain ran a trade deficit for 150 years, straight through the entirety of its peak of global power. This issue with global imbalances has much more to do with governments buying other other government’s debts (namely Asian government financing an out-of-control US government).
The fact of the matter is that free trade is a net benefit to the world and to the US consumer. It is a benefit to certain US producers who are competitive and can export their goods to new markets and a challenge to weak competitors.
But an expanded market and rising standard of living world wide is good for everyone ultimately. Voluntary trade has never been a zero-sum game.
“We” are building capacity if by “we” you mean American entrepreneurs. If “we” means the government agents of protectionism and payola, the only thing that “we” has demonstrated is an ability to punish all of us to the benefit of the politically connected few, be it sugar growers, unionized tire workers or Wall Street fatcats.
Here’s a nice one for you all…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091005/ts_afp/undevelopmentpoverty_20091005115324
Every country on that list above us had some form of national health care. Every one spends a significantly lower amount of GDP on the MIC.
Here’s a nice one for you all…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091005/ts_afp/undevelopmentpoverty_20091005115324
Every country on that list above us had some form of national health care. Every one spends a significantly lower amount of GDP on the MIC.
Here’s a nice one for you all…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091005/ts_afp/undevelopmentpoverty_20091005115324
Every country on that list above us had some form of national health care. Every one spends a significantly lower amount of GDP on the MIC.
I knew those unionized tire workers were skimming trillions off the top. I just had a feeling.
I knew those unionized tire workers were skimming trillions off the top. I just had a feeling.
I knew those unionized tire workers were skimming trillions off the top. I just had a feeling.
And at what ranking do we officially slip into being a 3rd world country? How many years will that take at the rate we’re plunging? With leaders who refuse to call a recession a recession until we’ve been in one for three years and who will still not admit that we’re perilously close to the “New Depression”, I have to wonder seriously about my two questions.
And at what ranking do we officially slip into being a 3rd world country? How many years will that take at the rate we’re plunging? With leaders who refuse to call a recession a recession until we’ve been in one for three years and who will still not admit that we’re perilously close to the “New Depression”, I have to wonder seriously about my two questions.
And at what ranking do we officially slip into being a 3rd world country? How many years will that take at the rate we’re plunging? With leaders who refuse to call a recession a recession until we’ve been in one for three years and who will still not admit that we’re perilously close to the “New Depression”, I have to wonder seriously about my two questions.
And at what ranking do we officially slip into being a 3rd world country? How many years will that take at the rate we’re plunging? With leaders who refuse to call a recession a recession until we’ve been in one for three years and who will still not admit that we’re perilously close to the “New Depression”, I have to wonder seriously about my two questions.
I think we can both agree that what’s taken place over the past two years is nothing short of the greatest theft from people to the wealthiest politically connected few in history at the expense of national stability.
Obama should have put his political capital into the reform and repair of the banking system. He should have unwound fannie, freddie, AIG, BofA, Citi and the rest of the walking dead that are dragging our economy down. He should have put the losses on the creditors to these institutions on whose back the responsibilities legally should have fallen.
Instead, he’s spending 800 billion on nothing and getting bogged down in a healthcare “reform” plan that no honest person can expect to be a success at either containing costs, achieving universal coverage or improving quality.
It is a frightening and disheartening show to watch unfold. At least the same old crew is calling for even more debt spending on digging ditches.
Watch the UK in the coming years. They are further along in their public finance collapse than we are, though we’re catching up fast. As the UK’s spendthrift chickens come home to roost, the only thing “universal” about any of their government services will be their rapidly deteriorating availability and quality.
If only liberals and classic liberals could unite to form a new coalition in civil and economic rights. We’d have a shot. A true political movement in the mold of Andrew Jackson reborn. One can hope.
I think we can both agree that what’s taken place over the past two years is nothing short of the greatest theft from people to the wealthiest politically connected few in history at the expense of national stability.
Obama should have put his political capital into the reform and repair of the banking system. He should have unwound fannie, freddie, AIG, BofA, Citi and the rest of the walking dead that are dragging our economy down. He should have put the losses on the creditors to these institutions on whose back the responsibilities legally should have fallen.
Instead, he’s spending 800 billion on nothing and getting bogged down in a healthcare “reform” plan that no honest person can expect to be a success at either containing costs, achieving universal coverage or improving quality.
It is a frightening and disheartening show to watch unfold. At least the same old crew is calling for even more debt spending on digging ditches.
Watch the UK in the coming years. They are further along in their public finance collapse than we are, though we’re catching up fast. As the UK’s spendthrift chickens come home to roost, the only thing “universal” about any of their government services will be their rapidly deteriorating availability and quality.
If only liberals and classic liberals could unite to form a new coalition in civil and economic rights. We’d have a shot. A true political movement in the mold of Andrew Jackson reborn. One can hope.
I think we can both agree that what’s taken place over the past two years is nothing short of the greatest theft from people to the wealthiest politically connected few in history at the expense of national stability.
Obama should have put his political capital into the reform and repair of the banking system. He should have unwound fannie, freddie, AIG, BofA, Citi and the rest of the walking dead that are dragging our economy down. He should have put the losses on the creditors to these institutions on whose back the responsibilities legally should have fallen.
Instead, he’s spending 800 billion on nothing and getting bogged down in a healthcare “reform” plan that no honest person can expect to be a success at either containing costs, achieving universal coverage or improving quality.
It is a frightening and disheartening show to watch unfold. At least the same old crew is calling for even more debt spending on digging ditches.
Watch the UK in the coming years. They are further along in their public finance collapse than we are, though we’re catching up fast. As the UK’s spendthrift chickens come home to roost, the only thing “universal” about any of their government services will be their rapidly deteriorating availability and quality.
If only liberals and classic liberals could unite to form a new coalition in civil and economic rights. We’d have a shot. A true political movement in the mold of Andrew Jackson reborn. One can hope.
I think we can both agree that what’s taken place over the past two years is nothing short of the greatest theft from people to the wealthiest politically connected few in history at the expense of national stability.
Obama should have put his political capital into the reform and repair of the banking system. He should have unwound fannie, freddie, AIG, BofA, Citi and the rest of the walking dead that are dragging our economy down. He should have put the losses on the creditors to these institutions on whose back the responsibilities legally should have fallen.
Instead, he’s spending 800 billion on nothing and getting bogged down in a healthcare “reform” plan that no honest person can expect to be a success at either containing costs, achieving universal coverage or improving quality.
It is a frightening and disheartening show to watch unfold. At least the same old crew is calling for even more debt spending on digging ditches.
Watch the UK in the coming years. They are further along in their public finance collapse than we are, though we’re catching up fast. As the UK’s spendthrift chickens come home to roost, the only thing “universal” about any of their government services will be their rapidly deteriorating availability and quality.
If only liberals and classic liberals could unite to form a new coalition in civil and economic rights. We’d have a shot. A true political movement in the mold of Andrew Jackson reborn. One can hope.
John,
I think the point is not that the finance industry is ‘dragging our economy down’. Rather, it’s that we simply haven’t had an economy that’s anywhere near as robust as what we’ve assumed.
That’s not to say that the banks haven’t done extraordinary damage. The have. But in their case, severity of the harm is a direct function of how long they were able to underpin the illusion of prosperity that obscured how anemic our real economy had become in the last, what, 20 years?
It’s worth noting that the common interpretation of the word “apocalypse”, which has largely been shaped by the Bible, has subtle but important differences from the Greek word Ἀποκάλυψις (Apokálypsis), which means – literally – “the lifting of the veil”.
Unlike the common interpretation, which tends to treat apocalypse as some cataclysmic external event (like an earthquake or tsunami) the Greeks had the notion that apokálypsis refers to an event within the mind, where an individual suddenly sees what was either hidden completely, or obscured enough so that its true nature went unrecognized.
Unlike a dawning realization, this event is sudden. And yes, very dramatic. For individuals, it really does feel like the end of the world – or at least, the end of the world as they knew it.
In reality, we haven’t suffered any Biblical-grade catastrophes. From where I’m sitting, today is actually a picture-perfect day. No smoldering ruins anywhere. It’s the inner sense of things that has suffered the most. And I know I’m far from alone in thinking we can’t ever go back.
So yes, those who ignore this view may also be hindering the process of adjustment. But the rest of us need to be clear about what – exactly – they’re trying to ‘recover’. Especially if these efforts run directly counter to the far more important (though grueling) work of actually rebuilding.
Or, in this case, just building period. After all, we’ve never really had an economy like the one we need.
And if you think that a more accurate headcount of working freelancers will change this picture, well, I just don’t know what to say.
John,
I think the point is not that the finance industry is ‘dragging our economy down’. Rather, it’s that we simply haven’t had an economy that’s anywhere near as robust as what we’ve assumed.
That’s not to say that the banks haven’t done extraordinary damage. The have. But in their case, severity of the harm is a direct function of how long they were able to underpin the illusion of prosperity that obscured how anemic our real economy had become in the last, what, 20 years?
It’s worth noting that the common interpretation of the word “apocalypse”, which has largely been shaped by the Bible, has subtle but important differences from the Greek word Ἀποκάλυψις (Apokálypsis), which means – literally – “the lifting of the veil”.
Unlike the common interpretation, which tends to treat apocalypse as some cataclysmic external event (like an earthquake or tsunami) the Greeks had the notion that apokálypsis refers to an event within the mind, where an individual suddenly sees what was either hidden completely, or obscured enough so that its true nature went unrecognized.
Unlike a dawning realization, this event is sudden. And yes, very dramatic. For individuals, it really does feel like the end of the world – or at least, the end of the world as they knew it.
In reality, we haven’t suffered any Biblical-grade catastrophes. From where I’m sitting, today is actually a picture-perfect day. No smoldering ruins anywhere. It’s the inner sense of things that has suffered the most. And I know I’m far from alone in thinking we can’t ever go back.
So yes, those who ignore this view may also be hindering the process of adjustment. But the rest of us need to be clear about what – exactly – they’re trying to ‘recover’. Especially if these efforts run directly counter to the far more important (though grueling) work of actually rebuilding.
Or, in this case, just building period. After all, we’ve never really had an economy like the one we need.
And if you think that a more accurate headcount of working freelancers will change this picture, well, I just don’t know what to say.
John,
I think the point is not that the finance industry is ‘dragging our economy down’. Rather, it’s that we simply haven’t had an economy that’s anywhere near as robust as what we’ve assumed.
That’s not to say that the banks haven’t done extraordinary damage. The have. But in their case, severity of the harm is a direct function of how long they were able to underpin the illusion of prosperity that obscured how anemic our real economy had become in the last, what, 20 years?
It’s worth noting that the common interpretation of the word “apocalypse”, which has largely been shaped by the Bible, has subtle but important differences from the Greek word Ἀποκάλυψις (Apokálypsis), which means – literally – “the lifting of the veil”.
Unlike the common interpretation, which tends to treat apocalypse as some cataclysmic external event (like an earthquake or tsunami) the Greeks had the notion that apokálypsis refers to an event within the mind, where an individual suddenly sees what was either hidden completely, or obscured enough so that its true nature went unrecognized.
Unlike a dawning realization, this event is sudden. And yes, very dramatic. For individuals, it really does feel like the end of the world – or at least, the end of the world as they knew it.
In reality, we haven’t suffered any Biblical-grade catastrophes. From where I’m sitting, today is actually a picture-perfect day. No smoldering ruins anywhere. It’s the inner sense of things that has suffered the most. And I know I’m far from alone in thinking we can’t ever go back.
So yes, those who ignore this view may also be hindering the process of adjustment. But the rest of us need to be clear about what – exactly – they’re trying to ‘recover’. Especially if these efforts run directly counter to the far more important (though grueling) work of actually rebuilding.
Or, in this case, just building period. After all, we’ve never really had an economy like the one we need.
And if you think that a more accurate headcount of working freelancers will change this picture, well, I just don’t know what to say.
John,
I think the point is not that the finance industry is ‘dragging our economy down’. Rather, it’s that we simply haven’t had an economy that’s anywhere near as robust as what we’ve assumed.
That’s not to say that the banks haven’t done extraordinary damage. The have. But in their case, severity of the harm is a direct function of how long they were able to underpin the illusion of prosperity that obscured how anemic our real economy had become in the last, what, 20 years?
It’s worth noting that the common interpretation of the word “apocalypse”, which has largely been shaped by the Bible, has subtle but important differences from the Greek word Ἀποκάλυψις (Apokálypsis), which means – literally – “the lifting of the veil”.
Unlike the common interpretation, which tends to treat apocalypse as some cataclysmic external event (like an earthquake or tsunami) the Greeks had the notion that apokálypsis refers to an event within the mind, where an individual suddenly sees what was either hidden completely, or obscured enough so that its true nature went unrecognized.
Unlike a dawning realization, this event is sudden. And yes, very dramatic. For individuals, it really does feel like the end of the world – or at least, the end of the world as they knew it.
In reality, we haven’t suffered any Biblical-grade catastrophes. From where I’m sitting, today is actually a picture-perfect day. No smoldering ruins anywhere. It’s the inner sense of things that has suffered the most. And I know I’m far from alone in thinking we can’t ever go back.
So yes, those who ignore this view may also be hindering the process of adjustment. But the rest of us need to be clear about what – exactly – they’re trying to ‘recover’. Especially if these efforts run directly counter to the far more important (though grueling) work of actually rebuilding.
Or, in this case, just building period. After all, we’ve never really had an economy like the one we need.
And if you think that a more accurate headcount of working freelancers will change this picture, well, I just don’t know what to say.
John, please look at the disastrous effect of the MIC on draining our country of its “vital bodily fluids”…to quote a certain character in Dr. Strangelove. And yes, I agree re. the transfer of wealth to those least deserving, as well through the medium of collusion between big biz and bought and paid for politicians. Amazing what demagoguery can accomplish, isn’t it? The middle class got snookered right good…
All those nice shiny things…”Buy it, you can try it, you can pay me next week”, to quote one of our great songwriters. Well, the bills have come due, and the goods are spoiled.
John, please look at the disastrous effect of the MIC on draining our country of its “vital bodily fluids”…to quote a certain character in Dr. Strangelove. And yes, I agree re. the transfer of wealth to those least deserving, as well through the medium of collusion between big biz and bought and paid for politicians. Amazing what demagoguery can accomplish, isn’t it? The middle class got snookered right good…
All those nice shiny things…”Buy it, you can try it, you can pay me next week”, to quote one of our great songwriters. Well, the bills have come due, and the goods are spoiled.
John, please look at the disastrous effect of the MIC on draining our country of its “vital bodily fluids”…to quote a certain character in Dr. Strangelove. And yes, I agree re. the transfer of wealth to those least deserving, as well through the medium of collusion between big biz and bought and paid for politicians. Amazing what demagoguery can accomplish, isn’t it? The middle class got snookered right good…
All those nice shiny things…”Buy it, you can try it, you can pay me next week”, to quote one of our great songwriters. Well, the bills have come due, and the goods are spoiled.
John, please look at the disastrous effect of the MIC on draining our country of its “vital bodily fluids”…to quote a certain character in Dr. Strangelove. And yes, I agree re. the transfer of wealth to those least deserving, as well through the medium of collusion between big biz and bought and paid for politicians. Amazing what demagoguery can accomplish, isn’t it? The middle class got snookered right good…
All those nice shiny things…”Buy it, you can try it, you can pay me next week”, to quote one of our great songwriters. Well, the bills have come due, and the goods are spoiled.
“I think the point is not that the finance industry is ‘dragging our economy down’.”
I think that’s incorrect. We are seeing short-term deflation because the effective nominal GDP is contracting as these insolvent and fatally wounded firms sit on their freshly printed reserves. Economies grow by translating savings into investment and a broken, malformed financial system is a major reason why firms that see opportunities to grow today are having trouble.
“Rather, it’s that we simply haven’t had an economy that’s anywhere near as robust as what we’ve assumed.”
I think that’s absolutely true. We had a cheap-credit ponzi economy. Many good things were developed along the way, but a large chunk of the wealth we thought we had was simply fake credit expansion. That’s gone and now the reality of our relatively poorer real economy has been revealed.
“But in their case, severity of the harm is a direct function of how long they were able to underpin the illusion of prosperity that obscured how anemic our real economy had become in the last, what, 20 years?”
Agreed. The Austrians call this “mall-investment” and what you are describing is a 100% Austrian analysis. Excellent.
What is being overlooked in the general analysis is that all kinds of capital investments were made in production lines whose demand was fake. The result is a mountain of mal-invested physical and human capital. People that trained for the past 4 years in finance and real estate are now seeing those skills as devalued by the real demand.
The recovery is the process of discovering what is really in demand and retooling our capabilities around that. All of the government supports for specific politically connected sectors like housing and autos, which America is already overloaded on as it is, are a negative for real recovery. They prevent the healing process of discovery and make prices stickier.
“I think the point is not that the finance industry is ‘dragging our economy down’.”
I think that’s incorrect. We are seeing short-term deflation because the effective nominal GDP is contracting as these insolvent and fatally wounded firms sit on their freshly printed reserves. Economies grow by translating savings into investment and a broken, malformed financial system is a major reason why firms that see opportunities to grow today are having trouble.
“Rather, it’s that we simply haven’t had an economy that’s anywhere near as robust as what we’ve assumed.”
I think that’s absolutely true. We had a cheap-credit ponzi economy. Many good things were developed along the way, but a large chunk of the wealth we thought we had was simply fake credit expansion. That’s gone and now the reality of our relatively poorer real economy has been revealed.
“But in their case, severity of the harm is a direct function of how long they were able to underpin the illusion of prosperity that obscured how anemic our real economy had become in the last, what, 20 years?”
Agreed. The Austrians call this “mall-investment” and what you are describing is a 100% Austrian analysis. Excellent.
What is being overlooked in the general analysis is that all kinds of capital investments were made in production lines whose demand was fake. The result is a mountain of mal-invested physical and human capital. People that trained for the past 4 years in finance and real estate are now seeing those skills as devalued by the real demand.
The recovery is the process of discovering what is really in demand and retooling our capabilities around that. All of the government supports for specific politically connected sectors like housing and autos, which America is already overloaded on as it is, are a negative for real recovery. They prevent the healing process of discovery and make prices stickier.
“I think the point is not that the finance industry is ‘dragging our economy down’.”
I think that’s incorrect. We are seeing short-term deflation because the effective nominal GDP is contracting as these insolvent and fatally wounded firms sit on their freshly printed reserves. Economies grow by translating savings into investment and a broken, malformed financial system is a major reason why firms that see opportunities to grow today are having trouble.
“Rather, it’s that we simply haven’t had an economy that’s anywhere near as robust as what we’ve assumed.”
I think that’s absolutely true. We had a cheap-credit ponzi economy. Many good things were developed along the way, but a large chunk of the wealth we thought we had was simply fake credit expansion. That’s gone and now the reality of our relatively poorer real economy has been revealed.
“But in their case, severity of the harm is a direct function of how long they were able to underpin the illusion of prosperity that obscured how anemic our real economy had become in the last, what, 20 years?”
Agreed. The Austrians call this “mall-investment” and what you are describing is a 100% Austrian analysis. Excellent.
What is being overlooked in the general analysis is that all kinds of capital investments were made in production lines whose demand was fake. The result is a mountain of mal-invested physical and human capital. People that trained for the past 4 years in finance and real estate are now seeing those skills as devalued by the real demand.
The recovery is the process of discovering what is really in demand and retooling our capabilities around that. All of the government supports for specific politically connected sectors like housing and autos, which America is already overloaded on as it is, are a negative for real recovery. They prevent the healing process of discovery and make prices stickier.
I am totally in agreement on the MIC. 100%. It’s a boondoggle of truly keynesian proportion. War spending is stimulus, right? Bullshit. Investments that make our economy more productive are what delivers the goods. Building F22s is nothing buy a parasitic transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to the military contractor.
Trust me, we are closer than you may think.
I am totally in agreement on the MIC. 100%. It’s a boondoggle of truly keynesian proportion. War spending is stimulus, right? Bullshit. Investments that make our economy more productive are what delivers the goods. Building F22s is nothing buy a parasitic transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to the military contractor.
Trust me, we are closer than you may think.
I am totally in agreement on the MIC. 100%. It’s a boondoggle of truly keynesian proportion. War spending is stimulus, right? Bullshit. Investments that make our economy more productive are what delivers the goods. Building F22s is nothing buy a parasitic transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to the military contractor.
Trust me, we are closer than you may think.
I am totally in agreement on the MIC. 100%. It’s a boondoggle of truly keynesian proportion. War spending is stimulus, right? Bullshit. Investments that make our economy more productive are what delivers the goods. Building F22s is nothing buy a parasitic transfer of wealth from the taxpayer to the military contractor.
Trust me, we are closer than you may think.
Alex, cavils, as usual:
“we’ve never really had an economy like the one we need.”
My 2 cents’ worth is that most of “the problem” lies in the definition of that word “we.” Who are “we?” How are “we” related? Maybe if all the intellectual horsepower and currently random emotional energy could be concentrated on thinking all this through and acting on something that looks like my favorite rocking horse, “homeostasis,” y’know, dynamic metastability tending toward steady-state conditions with buffers and lots of sensitive-amplitude negative-feedback loops to (evil word, I know, but it’s what our bodies are smart enough to do even if our greedy-ass tribal drum-beating head-knocking brains in their external functions are not) REGULATION, of which some kind of state power and that, as usual elegantly explicated, apokálypsis has to be a necessary part.
How do “we” do that with 310 million people, let alone or maybe as a first step toward doing it with 6.7 , oops, 6.8, nope, the number’s wandering toward 6.9 billion of “us?”
And remember to pity the poor financial sector denizens, who have had to suffer through serial bouts of “irrational exuberance” and the latest misfortune, the “tragic vulnerability” of their Gigantic Sucking Sound Machine to a Real Economy that can’t ever produce enough Real Wealth to support the Cheops’ Pyramid that’s just collapsed.
Alex, cavils, as usual:
“we’ve never really had an economy like the one we need.”
My 2 cents’ worth is that most of “the problem” lies in the definition of that word “we.” Who are “we?” How are “we” related? Maybe if all the intellectual horsepower and currently random emotional energy could be concentrated on thinking all this through and acting on something that looks like my favorite rocking horse, “homeostasis,” y’know, dynamic metastability tending toward steady-state conditions with buffers and lots of sensitive-amplitude negative-feedback loops to (evil word, I know, but it’s what our bodies are smart enough to do even if our greedy-ass tribal drum-beating head-knocking brains in their external functions are not) REGULATION, of which some kind of state power and that, as usual elegantly explicated, apokálypsis has to be a necessary part.
How do “we” do that with 310 million people, let alone or maybe as a first step toward doing it with 6.7 , oops, 6.8, nope, the number’s wandering toward 6.9 billion of “us?”
And remember to pity the poor financial sector denizens, who have had to suffer through serial bouts of “irrational exuberance” and the latest misfortune, the “tragic vulnerability” of their Gigantic Sucking Sound Machine to a Real Economy that can’t ever produce enough Real Wealth to support the Cheops’ Pyramid that’s just collapsed.
Alex, cavils, as usual:
“we’ve never really had an economy like the one we need.”
My 2 cents’ worth is that most of “the problem” lies in the definition of that word “we.” Who are “we?” How are “we” related? Maybe if all the intellectual horsepower and currently random emotional energy could be concentrated on thinking all this through and acting on something that looks like my favorite rocking horse, “homeostasis,” y’know, dynamic metastability tending toward steady-state conditions with buffers and lots of sensitive-amplitude negative-feedback loops to (evil word, I know, but it’s what our bodies are smart enough to do even if our greedy-ass tribal drum-beating head-knocking brains in their external functions are not) REGULATION, of which some kind of state power and that, as usual elegantly explicated, apokálypsis has to be a necessary part.
How do “we” do that with 310 million people, let alone or maybe as a first step toward doing it with 6.7 , oops, 6.8, nope, the number’s wandering toward 6.9 billion of “us?”
And remember to pity the poor financial sector denizens, who have had to suffer through serial bouts of “irrational exuberance” and the latest misfortune, the “tragic vulnerability” of their Gigantic Sucking Sound Machine to a Real Economy that can’t ever produce enough Real Wealth to support the Cheops’ Pyramid that’s just collapsed.
Alex, cavils, as usual:
“we’ve never really had an economy like the one we need.”
My 2 cents’ worth is that most of “the problem” lies in the definition of that word “we.” Who are “we?” How are “we” related? Maybe if all the intellectual horsepower and currently random emotional energy could be concentrated on thinking all this through and acting on something that looks like my favorite rocking horse, “homeostasis,” y’know, dynamic metastability tending toward steady-state conditions with buffers and lots of sensitive-amplitude negative-feedback loops to (evil word, I know, but it’s what our bodies are smart enough to do even if our greedy-ass tribal drum-beating head-knocking brains in their external functions are not) REGULATION, of which some kind of state power and that, as usual elegantly explicated, apokálypsis has to be a necessary part.
How do “we” do that with 310 million people, let alone or maybe as a first step toward doing it with 6.7 , oops, 6.8, nope, the number’s wandering toward 6.9 billion of “us?”
And remember to pity the poor financial sector denizens, who have had to suffer through serial bouts of “irrational exuberance” and the latest misfortune, the “tragic vulnerability” of their Gigantic Sucking Sound Machine to a Real Economy that can’t ever produce enough Real Wealth to support the Cheops’ Pyramid that’s just collapsed.
Yeah, about THIS close…
Yeah, about THIS close…
Yeah, about THIS close…
Yeah, about THIS close…
Wow.
Do I ever feel well and truly fucked.
I want to thank everyone here for their comments and observations. Before encountering Jon’s blog, my understanding of economics extended to balancing a check book, so I really appreciate the time and effort everyone here takes. I just wish to God you got more of this caliber of informed and illuminating dialogue in the mainstream media.
And Alex, thanks for the definition of apocalypse. I think I just had one.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going back to bed.
Wow.
Do I ever feel well and truly fucked.
I want to thank everyone here for their comments and observations. Before encountering Jon’s blog, my understanding of economics extended to balancing a check book, so I really appreciate the time and effort everyone here takes. I just wish to God you got more of this caliber of informed and illuminating dialogue in the mainstream media.
And Alex, thanks for the definition of apocalypse. I think I just had one.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going back to bed.
Wow.
Do I ever feel well and truly fucked.
I want to thank everyone here for their comments and observations. Before encountering Jon’s blog, my understanding of economics extended to balancing a check book, so I really appreciate the time and effort everyone here takes. I just wish to God you got more of this caliber of informed and illuminating dialogue in the mainstream media.
And Alex, thanks for the definition of apocalypse. I think I just had one.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going back to bed.
Wow.
Do I ever feel well and truly fucked.
I want to thank everyone here for their comments and observations. Before encountering Jon’s blog, my understanding of economics extended to balancing a check book, so I really appreciate the time and effort everyone here takes. I just wish to God you got more of this caliber of informed and illuminating dialogue in the mainstream media.
And Alex, thanks for the definition of apocalypse. I think I just had one.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going back to bed.
Just heard that there is a rather major population decline in the former Soviet Union…the head count is down by millions over the last few years. Malthusian? The result of folks not wanting to be burdened with children they can’t put immediately to work? The result of education?
One way to look at it would be that it’s a damned good thing…fewer people to suck up resources, and that should mean greater wealth for those left, right? hmmm… That’s what it should mean, but probably doesn’t.
Just heard that there is a rather major population decline in the former Soviet Union…the head count is down by millions over the last few years. Malthusian? The result of folks not wanting to be burdened with children they can’t put immediately to work? The result of education?
One way to look at it would be that it’s a damned good thing…fewer people to suck up resources, and that should mean greater wealth for those left, right? hmmm… That’s what it should mean, but probably doesn’t.
Just heard that there is a rather major population decline in the former Soviet Union…the head count is down by millions over the last few years. Malthusian? The result of folks not wanting to be burdened with children they can’t put immediately to work? The result of education?
One way to look at it would be that it’s a damned good thing…fewer people to suck up resources, and that should mean greater wealth for those left, right? hmmm… That’s what it should mean, but probably doesn’t.
Just heard that there is a rather major population decline in the former Soviet Union…the head count is down by millions over the last few years. Malthusian? The result of folks not wanting to be burdened with children they can’t put immediately to work? The result of education?
One way to look at it would be that it’s a damned good thing…fewer people to suck up resources, and that should mean greater wealth for those left, right? hmmm… That’s what it should mean, but probably doesn’t.
I knew this group would rise to the challenge and find much more to say…
Oh, how about we now live in an oligarchy. Not sure how to end that?
I knew this group would rise to the challenge and find much more to say…
Oh, how about we now live in an oligarchy. Not sure how to end that?
There’s nothing Malthusian about Russias population decline (currently anticipated by some demographers to drop by 50% in the next 30 years).
They aren’t starving, it’s mostly economic.
No one immigrates to Russia, the kleptocrats there have destroyed all industry that takes investment and work in favour of creaming off the easy weath and standards of living continue to fall (well, there was apparently a lessening of the speed of decline in 2009).
As a result nobody wants kids, plenty of people don’t enjoy life or have hope of better for children so there simply aren’t many children being born while vast numbers of people are drinking themselves to death.
The average Russian womens fertility is 1.3 children where replacement is 2.1.
Russian life expectancy has fallen to about 62 years.
It’s a politically created and economicaly driven contraction – the Tsars still rule Russia but no longer need peasants to tax as they take their wealth more directly from the lands resources.
There’s nothing Malthusian about Russias population decline (currently anticipated by some demographers to drop by 50% in the next 30 years).
They aren’t starving, it’s mostly economic.
No one immigrates to Russia, the kleptocrats there have destroyed all industry that takes investment and work in favour of creaming off the easy weath and standards of living continue to fall (well, there was apparently a lessening of the speed of decline in 2009).
As a result nobody wants kids, plenty of people don’t enjoy life or have hope of better for children so there simply aren’t many children being born while vast numbers of people are drinking themselves to death.
The average Russian womens fertility is 1.3 children where replacement is 2.1.
Russian life expectancy has fallen to about 62 years.
It’s a politically created and economicaly driven contraction – the Tsars still rule Russia but no longer need peasants to tax as they take their wealth more directly from the lands resources.
There’s nothing Malthusian about Russias population decline (currently anticipated by some demographers to drop by 50% in the next 30 years).
They aren’t starving, it’s mostly economic.
No one immigrates to Russia, the kleptocrats there have destroyed all industry that takes investment and work in favour of creaming off the easy weath and standards of living continue to fall (well, there was apparently a lessening of the speed of decline in 2009).
As a result nobody wants kids, plenty of people don’t enjoy life or have hope of better for children so there simply aren’t many children being born while vast numbers of people are drinking themselves to death.
The average Russian womens fertility is 1.3 children where replacement is 2.1.
Russian life expectancy has fallen to about 62 years.
It’s a politically created and economicaly driven contraction – the Tsars still rule Russia but no longer need peasants to tax as they take their wealth more directly from the lands resources.
There’s nothing Malthusian about Russias population decline (currently anticipated by some demographers to drop by 50% in the next 30 years).
They aren’t starving, it’s mostly economic.
No one immigrates to Russia, the kleptocrats there have destroyed all industry that takes investment and work in favour of creaming off the easy weath and standards of living continue to fall (well, there was apparently a lessening of the speed of decline in 2009).
As a result nobody wants kids, plenty of people don’t enjoy life or have hope of better for children so there simply aren’t many children being born while vast numbers of people are drinking themselves to death.
The average Russian womens fertility is 1.3 children where replacement is 2.1.
Russian life expectancy has fallen to about 62 years.
It’s a politically created and economicaly driven contraction – the Tsars still rule Russia but no longer need peasants to tax as they take their wealth more directly from the lands resources.
One of the more interesting Russian exports is human talent. A Russian friend of mine is studying for her PhD in art history, and she works as a curator at the Museum of Making Music in Carlsbad. She’s one smart woman, and they lost her. She’s one of thousands of talented Russians getting the hell out.
One of the more interesting Russian exports is human talent. A Russian friend of mine is studying for her PhD in art history, and she works as a curator at the Museum of Making Music in Carlsbad. She’s one smart woman, and they lost her. She’s one of thousands of talented Russians getting the hell out.
One of the more interesting Russian exports is human talent. A Russian friend of mine is studying for her PhD in art history, and she works as a curator at the Museum of Making Music in Carlsbad. She’s one smart woman, and they lost her. She’s one of thousands of talented Russians getting the hell out.
One of the more interesting Russian exports is human talent. A Russian friend of mine is studying for her PhD in art history, and she works as a curator at the Museum of Making Music in Carlsbad. She’s one smart woman, and they lost her. She’s one of thousands of talented Russians getting the hell out.
John-The wage stats are the median wages, which the labor department releases. To deny that the benefits of globalization have flowed to capital and not labor is to live in a Milton Friedman /Ayn Rand Fantasy world.
As to your dismissal of the industrial capacity problem, I have laid it our in more detail by sector here.
http://jontaplin.com/2009/06/21/will-the-politicians-listen-to-the-people/
Your belief that we have a world class industrial plant is just not supported by the facts. Both France and Germany (never mind China, Japan and Korea) derive a greater percentage of their GDP from Exports than we do.
The UK maintained a trade deficit, but never a current account deficit. It lent money to its colonies from which it imported raw goods. You are completely confused with your economic understanding.
Finally, I do mean that I hope that American entrepreneurs begin to build solar and wind power capacity in this country, Currently our largest solar power company has plants in Germany and China, but none in the US.
I must say I appreciate your more civil defense of the Randian worldview than your predecessor. That however doesn’t make your theories any less crack-brained.
John-The wage stats are the median wages, which the labor department releases. To deny that the benefits of globalization have flowed to capital and not labor is to live in a Milton Friedman /Ayn Rand Fantasy world.
As to your dismissal of the industrial capacity problem, I have laid it our in more detail by sector here.
http://jontaplin.com/2009/06/21/will-the-politicians-listen-to-the-people/
Your belief that we have a world class industrial plant is just not supported by the facts. Both France and Germany (never mind China, Japan and Korea) derive a greater percentage of their GDP from Exports than we do.
The UK maintained a trade deficit, but never a current account deficit. It lent money to its colonies from which it imported raw goods. You are completely confused with your economic understanding.
Finally, I do mean that I hope that American entrepreneurs begin to build solar and wind power capacity in this country, Currently our largest solar power company has plants in Germany and China, but none in the US.
I must say I appreciate your more civil defense of the Randian worldview than your predecessor. That however doesn’t make your theories any less crack-brained.
John-The wage stats are the median wages, which the labor department releases. To deny that the benefits of globalization have flowed to capital and not labor is to live in a Milton Friedman /Ayn Rand Fantasy world.
As to your dismissal of the industrial capacity problem, I have laid it our in more detail by sector here.
http://jontaplin.com/2009/06/21/will-the-politicians-listen-to-the-people/
Your belief that we have a world class industrial plant is just not supported by the facts. Both France and Germany (never mind China, Japan and Korea) derive a greater percentage of their GDP from Exports than we do.
The UK maintained a trade deficit, but never a current account deficit. It lent money to its colonies from which it imported raw goods. You are completely confused with your economic understanding.
Finally, I do mean that I hope that American entrepreneurs begin to build solar and wind power capacity in this country, Currently our largest solar power company has plants in Germany and China, but none in the US.
I must say I appreciate your more civil defense of the Randian worldview than your predecessor. That however doesn’t make your theories any less crack-brained.
John-The wage stats are the median wages, which the labor department releases. To deny that the benefits of globalization have flowed to capital and not labor is to live in a Milton Friedman /Ayn Rand Fantasy world.
As to your dismissal of the industrial capacity problem, I have laid it our in more detail by sector here.
http://jontaplin.com/2009/06/21/will-the-politicians-listen-to-the-people/
Your belief that we have a world class industrial plant is just not supported by the facts. Both France and Germany (never mind China, Japan and Korea) derive a greater percentage of their GDP from Exports than we do.
The UK maintained a trade deficit, but never a current account deficit. It lent money to its colonies from which it imported raw goods. You are completely confused with your economic understanding.
Finally, I do mean that I hope that American entrepreneurs begin to build solar and wind power capacity in this country, Currently our largest solar power company has plants in Germany and China, but none in the US.
I must say I appreciate your more civil defense of the Randian worldview than your predecessor. That however doesn’t make your theories any less crack-brained.
“Heads on pikes” would be a start.
“Heads on pikes” would be a start.
“Heads on pikes” would be a start.
“Heads on pikes” would be a start.
I’m reading your link carefully. I’m about two years worth of 3 daily hours of public transit personal education in economics, so it’s certainly possible that I’m dead wrong. That British comment was a quote from a trade economist. I don’t know the history so perhaps it’s a bad example.
I’m definitely not of the Friedman view on macro economics or Randian, since I’ve neither read her books nor believe in “objective” reality or value. I consider myself an amateur Austrian economist in training (a director by trade).
As for the balance of trade & current account balance… I still don’t see the issue. The current account balance is simply the trade balance plus the net inflow from domestically owned foreign assets/production factors. A GM plant in china building cars for chinese people adds to the current account “deficit” when the profits flow into the US. Okay. So what?
What you aren’t talking about here is that the deficit in the current account flows back into the United States in the form of net capital inflows. Those dollars being sent overseas come back to the US in the form of foreign investment. What’s the difference between a California firm investing in New Jersey and a Chinese firm investing in New Jersey? Nothing. Both are seeking a return. Both are employing their capital in the US. The concern about foreign ownership is nothing more than Xenophobia masked in patriotism (though I’m not saying that’s your underlying approach, I just think you’ve got the economics wrong).
The real problem appears to be that the capital inflows were directed into mal-investments in housing and other capital goods that were unproductive and not coordinated with real demand. Why did that happen? Government housing policy combined with low short-term rates from the Fed. Mortgage securitization, a market that was created by the government and has never been viable on its own without government supports, is at the heart of this mess. Hardly a strong argument for even more government guidance of our nation’s investment (as if ethanol & countless other examples aren’t enough).
As for your link about chronic under “capacity utilization”… smells like Malthus to me and the problems of under consumption or the warmed-over Keynesian drop in “aggregate demand”. Your quote from Josef Steindl appears to be the paradox of thrift. Though he may have been from Austria and studied with Von Mises, he appears to have converted to Keynesianism via the polish Marxist Michal Kalecki. Hence the under consumption paradox of thrift nonsense.
The element of truth in this thinking is that credit expansion-driven mal-investments, whose unprofitability are revealed when production factor inflation and interest rates rise, do in fact lead to devalued capital. How many construction industry capital goods are being underutilized right now? A ton. Is that a flaw in capitalism? Nope.
Entrepreneurs make mistakes all the time. Apple releases the Newton… it bombs, and the capital built up for that project becomes under-utilized during a retooling or liquidation period. That slack is inherent in a dynamic world. The more dynamic and vibrant the economy, the more likely there will be industrial change and “under-utilization” of certain capital goods at certain periods of time.
The Austrian insight, which was as true for the depression as it is today, is that a credit expansion (leverage) in excess of the real monetary equilibrium will cause a cluster of entrepreneurial error (boom) that will then need to be corrected in a cluster (bust).
The American public were indeed put on an insane path of leverage thanks to free-lunch deficits, artificially low interest rates that were inflating asset bubbles. Government coordination and encouragement of leverage as well as easy money from the Fed did this. Reagan deficits didn’t help, as they were a sunk cost. But they weren’t stimulus. Government spending, especially Military spending doesn’t multiply but simply crowds out private investment, as Barro recently demonstrated. That’s more keynesian nonsense.
As Lawrence H. White and George Selgin have pointed out, there are a number of examples (Scotland, Canada, Sweden) where liberal free banking with no central bank produced decades (indeed a century in some case) without major financial panics or the kind of crises that drive the Keynesian “animal spirits” thinking. Canada saw NO bank failures during the depression, for example.
This is quite a screed. Sorry. I don’t think it’s “crack-brained”. It’s certainly not Freidmanite or Randian.
Fun debate, though. One last thing: why should we believe that Wind and Solar is best investment right now?
How about this. We wind down the military industrial complex. Stop using our military to secure private oil supplies. Kill all energy subsidies. See where the natural market price for oil other energy sources go without these supports. That’s be a better approach than more Keynesian corporatist boondoggles.
I’m reading your link carefully. I’m about two years worth of 3 daily hours of public transit personal education in economics, so it’s certainly possible that I’m dead wrong. That British comment was a quote from a trade economist. I don’t know the history so perhaps it’s a bad example.
I’m definitely not of the Friedman view on macro economics or Randian, since I’ve neither read her books nor believe in “objective” reality or value. I consider myself an amateur Austrian economist in training (a director by trade).
As for the balance of trade & current account balance… I still don’t see the issue. The current account balance is simply the trade balance plus the net inflow from domestically owned foreign assets/production factors. A GM plant in china building cars for chinese people adds to the current account “deficit” when the profits flow into the US. Okay. So what?
What you aren’t talking about here is that the deficit in the current account flows back into the United States in the form of net capital inflows. Those dollars being sent overseas come back to the US in the form of foreign investment. What’s the difference between a California firm investing in New Jersey and a Chinese firm investing in New Jersey? Nothing. Both are seeking a return. Both are employing their capital in the US. The concern about foreign ownership is nothing more than Xenophobia masked in patriotism (though I’m not saying that’s your underlying approach, I just think you’ve got the economics wrong).
The real problem appears to be that the capital inflows were directed into mal-investments in housing and other capital goods that were unproductive and not coordinated with real demand. Why did that happen? Government housing policy combined with low short-term rates from the Fed. Mortgage securitization, a market that was created by the government and has never been viable on its own without government supports, is at the heart of this mess. Hardly a strong argument for even more government guidance of our nation’s investment (as if ethanol & countless other examples aren’t enough).
As for your link about chronic under “capacity utilization”… smells like Malthus to me and the problems of under consumption or the warmed-over Keynesian drop in “aggregate demand”. Your quote from Josef Steindl appears to be the paradox of thrift. Though he may have been from Austria and studied with Von Mises, he appears to have converted to Keynesianism via the polish Marxist Michal Kalecki. Hence the under consumption paradox of thrift nonsense.
The element of truth in this thinking is that credit expansion-driven mal-investments, whose unprofitability are revealed when production factor inflation and interest rates rise, do in fact lead to devalued capital. How many construction industry capital goods are being underutilized right now? A ton. Is that a flaw in capitalism? Nope.
Entrepreneurs make mistakes all the time. Apple releases the Newton… it bombs, and the capital built up for that project becomes under-utilized during a retooling or liquidation period. That slack is inherent in a dynamic world. The more dynamic and vibrant the economy, the more likely there will be industrial change and “under-utilization” of certain capital goods at certain periods of time.
The Austrian insight, which was as true for the depression as it is today, is that a credit expansion (leverage) in excess of the real monetary equilibrium will cause a cluster of entrepreneurial error (boom) that will then need to be corrected in a cluster (bust).
The American public were indeed put on an insane path of leverage thanks to free-lunch deficits, artificially low interest rates that were inflating asset bubbles. Government coordination and encouragement of leverage as well as easy money from the Fed did this. Reagan deficits didn’t help, as they were a sunk cost. But they weren’t stimulus. Government spending, especially Military spending doesn’t multiply but simply crowds out private investment, as Barro recently demonstrated. That’s more keynesian nonsense.
As Lawrence H. White and George Selgin have pointed out, there are a number of examples (Scotland, Canada, Sweden) where liberal free banking with no central bank produced decades (indeed a century in some case) without major financial panics or the kind of crises that drive the Keynesian “animal spirits” thinking. Canada saw NO bank failures during the depression, for example.
This is quite a screed. Sorry. I don’t think it’s “crack-brained”. It’s certainly not Freidmanite or Randian.
Fun debate, though. One last thing: why should we believe that Wind and Solar is best investment right now?
How about this. We wind down the military industrial complex. Stop using our military to secure private oil supplies. Kill all energy subsidies. See where the natural market price for oil other energy sources go without these supports. That’s be a better approach than more Keynesian corporatist boondoggles.
I’m reading your link carefully. I’m about two years worth of 3 daily hours of public transit personal education in economics, so it’s certainly possible that I’m dead wrong. That British comment was a quote from a trade economist. I don’t know the history so perhaps it’s a bad example.
I’m definitely not of the Friedman view on macro economics or Randian, since I’ve neither read her books nor believe in “objective” reality or value. I consider myself an amateur Austrian economist in training (a director by trade).
As for the balance of trade & current account balance… I still don’t see the issue. The current account balance is simply the trade balance plus the net inflow from domestically owned foreign assets/production factors. A GM plant in china building cars for chinese people adds to the current account “deficit” when the profits flow into the US. Okay. So what?
What you aren’t talking about here is that the deficit in the current account flows back into the United States in the form of net capital inflows. Those dollars being sent overseas come back to the US in the form of foreign investment. What’s the difference between a California firm investing in New Jersey and a Chinese firm investing in New Jersey? Nothing. Both are seeking a return. Both are employing their capital in the US. The concern about foreign ownership is nothing more than Xenophobia masked in patriotism (though I’m not saying that’s your underlying approach, I just think you’ve got the economics wrong).
The real problem appears to be that the capital inflows were directed into mal-investments in housing and other capital goods that were unproductive and not coordinated with real demand. Why did that happen? Government housing policy combined with low short-term rates from the Fed. Mortgage securitization, a market that was created by the government and has never been viable on its own without government supports, is at the heart of this mess. Hardly a strong argument for even more government guidance of our nation’s investment (as if ethanol & countless other examples aren’t enough).
As for your link about chronic under “capacity utilization”… smells like Malthus to me and the problems of under consumption or the warmed-over Keynesian drop in “aggregate demand”. Your quote from Josef Steindl appears to be the paradox of thrift. Though he may have been from Austria and studied with Von Mises, he appears to have converted to Keynesianism via the polish Marxist Michal Kalecki. Hence the under consumption paradox of thrift nonsense.
The element of truth in this thinking is that credit expansion-driven mal-investments, whose unprofitability are revealed when production factor inflation and interest rates rise, do in fact lead to devalued capital. How many construction industry capital goods are being underutilized right now? A ton. Is that a flaw in capitalism? Nope.
Entrepreneurs make mistakes all the time. Apple releases the Newton… it bombs, and the capital built up for that project becomes under-utilized during a retooling or liquidation period. That slack is inherent in a dynamic world. The more dynamic and vibrant the economy, the more likely there will be industrial change and “under-utilization” of certain capital goods at certain periods of time.
The Austrian insight, which was as true for the depression as it is today, is that a credit expansion (leverage) in excess of the real monetary equilibrium will cause a cluster of entrepreneurial error (boom) that will then need to be corrected in a cluster (bust).
The American public were indeed put on an insane path of leverage thanks to free-lunch deficits, artificially low interest rates that were inflating asset bubbles. Government coordination and encouragement of leverage as well as easy money from the Fed did this. Reagan deficits didn’t help, as they were a sunk cost. But they weren’t stimulus. Government spending, especially Military spending doesn’t multiply but simply crowds out private investment, as Barro recently demonstrated. That’s more keynesian nonsense.
As Lawrence H. White and George Selgin have pointed out, there are a number of examples (Scotland, Canada, Sweden) where liberal free banking with no central bank produced decades (indeed a century in some case) without major financial panics or the kind of crises that drive the Keynesian “animal spirits” thinking. Canada saw NO bank failures during the depression, for example.
This is quite a screed. Sorry. I don’t think it’s “crack-brained”. It’s certainly not Freidmanite or Randian.
Fun debate, though. One last thing: why should we believe that Wind and Solar is best investment right now?
How about this. We wind down the military industrial complex. Stop using our military to secure private oil supplies. Kill all energy subsidies. See where the natural market price for oil other energy sources go without these supports. That’s be a better approach than more Keynesian corporatist boondoggles.
I saw some stats that 100K each Chinese and Indian people will go home this year alone… not a good brain drain at all!
I saw some stats that 100K each Chinese and Indian people will go home this year alone… not a good brain drain at all!
I saw some stats that 100K each Chinese and Indian people will go home this year alone… not a good brain drain at all!
You have to wonder how long the belief structure, the Alabaster Cities Shining on the Hill, will outlast the reality — I guess as long as there are educational and a few employment opportunities here that are better than elsewhere, but will the teached, let alone the learned, maybe see better living opportunities, complete with decent health care, elsewhere than this nuclear-armed, anti-intellectual, howling wildness chanting “We’re Number One!” and “Don’t like it here? Go back where you came from!”?
You have to wonder how long the belief structure, the Alabaster Cities Shining on the Hill, will outlast the reality — I guess as long as there are educational and a few employment opportunities here that are better than elsewhere, but will the teached, let alone the learned, maybe see better living opportunities, complete with decent health care, elsewhere than this nuclear-armed, anti-intellectual, howling wildness chanting “We’re Number One!” and “Don’t like it here? Go back where you came from!”?
John-The point I was making about the current account is simple. The Brits had lots of capital to lend to other countries, even though they were net importers of goods. We on the other hand are both net importers of goods AND CAPITAL. That is a nasty combination. As to support for the Austrians, I think Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” thesis was right and the U.S. car business could be the case study. Once an oligopoly forms, innovation goes out the window and the possibility of entrepreneurs entering the car business was next to zero.
As for your last suggestion on the MIC, I vote yes, with the caveat that we tax carbon at a sufficient rate that it pays for the externalities (cleaning up the air, lung disease, asthma, etc) and helps level the playing field for new clean tech entrepreneurs.
John-The point I was making about the current account is simple. The Brits had lots of capital to lend to other countries, even though they were net importers of goods. We on the other hand are both net importers of goods AND CAPITAL. That is a nasty combination. As to support for the Austrians, I think Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” thesis was right and the U.S. car business could be the case study. Once an oligopoly forms, innovation goes out the window and the possibility of entrepreneurs entering the car business was next to zero.
As for your last suggestion on the MIC, I vote yes, with the caveat that we tax carbon at a sufficient rate that it pays for the externalities (cleaning up the air, lung disease, asthma, etc) and helps level the playing field for new clean tech entrepreneurs.
John-The point I was making about the current account is simple. The Brits had lots of capital to lend to other countries, even though they were net importers of goods. We on the other hand are both net importers of goods AND CAPITAL. That is a nasty combination. As to support for the Austrians, I think Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” thesis was right and the U.S. car business could be the case study. Once an oligopoly forms, innovation goes out the window and the possibility of entrepreneurs entering the car business was next to zero.
As for your last suggestion on the MIC, I vote yes, with the caveat that we tax carbon at a sufficient rate that it pays for the externalities (cleaning up the air, lung disease, asthma, etc) and helps level the playing field for new clean tech entrepreneurs.
Well, with regards to the Canadian banking system, the Bank of Canada was created in 1935, so take it for what it’s worth as to if it’s absence stopped bank failures or not. I would point out that I think that Canada is the only western nation that I am aware of whose banking system didn’t collapse, or need a government bailout of any kind.
And that’s why I wouldn’t want to see the Bank of Canada dissolved – the lack of a collapse in our banking system is due to the way our banks are regulated. Canadian banks have had a reputation for decades as being one of the safest and most dependable investments around. They are strictly limited to an 18-to-1 fractional reserve, and all regulations seem to follow a simple and straightforward mentality.
For example, the Bank of Canada refused to allow anything approaching a sub-prime loan(the closest thing was a 30-year no down payment mortgage – it lasted about 3 months before the Governor of the BoC said ‘Unhh, no that’s stupid.’) Canadian banks are treated as the fuel for the economy and not the engine – therefore they aren’t allowed to make stupid risks.
You can disagree with that analysis if you like, but again, we are the only western nation I know of whose banking system didn’t need a bailout.
Well, with regards to the Canadian banking system, the Bank of Canada was created in 1935, so take it for what it’s worth as to if it’s absence stopped bank failures or not. I would point out that I think that Canada is the only western nation that I am aware of whose banking system didn’t collapse, or need a government bailout of any kind.
And that’s why I wouldn’t want to see the Bank of Canada dissolved – the lack of a collapse in our banking system is due to the way our banks are regulated. Canadian banks have had a reputation for decades as being one of the safest and most dependable investments around. They are strictly limited to an 18-to-1 fractional reserve, and all regulations seem to follow a simple and straightforward mentality.
For example, the Bank of Canada refused to allow anything approaching a sub-prime loan(the closest thing was a 30-year no down payment mortgage – it lasted about 3 months before the Governor of the BoC said ‘Unhh, no that’s stupid.’) Canadian banks are treated as the fuel for the economy and not the engine – therefore they aren’t allowed to make stupid risks.
You can disagree with that analysis if you like, but again, we are the only western nation I know of whose banking system didn’t need a bailout.
Well, with regards to the Canadian banking system, the Bank of Canada was created in 1935, so take it for what it’s worth as to if it’s absence stopped bank failures or not. I would point out that I think that Canada is the only western nation that I am aware of whose banking system didn’t collapse, or need a government bailout of any kind.
And that’s why I wouldn’t want to see the Bank of Canada dissolved – the lack of a collapse in our banking system is due to the way our banks are regulated. Canadian banks have had a reputation for decades as being one of the safest and most dependable investments around. They are strictly limited to an 18-to-1 fractional reserve, and all regulations seem to follow a simple and straightforward mentality.
For example, the Bank of Canada refused to allow anything approaching a sub-prime loan(the closest thing was a 30-year no down payment mortgage – it lasted about 3 months before the Governor of the BoC said ‘Unhh, no that’s stupid.’) Canadian banks are treated as the fuel for the economy and not the engine – therefore they aren’t allowed to make stupid risks.
You can disagree with that analysis if you like, but again, we are the only western nation I know of whose banking system didn’t need a bailout.
The dumped into the Time portal page not the article. What did the article say?
The dumped into the Time portal page not the article. What did the article say?
The dumped into the Time portal page not the article. What did the article say?
The dumped into the Time portal page not the article. What did the article say?
I’m not sure what to make of that article not being a media investor. It is cognitively discordant with the experience of last weekend in Great Barrington, Massachusetts in totality. Something changes when the small is emphasized.
Sidenote: I didn’t think a display of Norman Rockwell paintings would move me. I was wrong.
I’m not sure what to make of that article not being a media investor. It is cognitively discordant with the experience of last weekend in Great Barrington, Massachusetts in totality. Something changes when the small is emphasized.
Sidenote: I didn’t think a display of Norman Rockwell paintings would move me. I was wrong.
I’m not sure what to make of that article not being a media investor. It is cognitively discordant with the experience of last weekend in Great Barrington, Massachusetts in totality. Something changes when the small is emphasized.
Sidenote: I didn’t think a display of Norman Rockwell paintings would move me. I was wrong.
John,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I must point out, however, that I never asserted that the major banks weren’t creating counterproductive drag (they are).
Of course, this is damaging. No denial there. But the larger point is that focusing on what they banks are (or aren’t) doing at this stage distracts from the larger questions about why – as you so rightly point out – our economy became a Ponzi scheme in the first place. This was not an overnight process.
My own supposition is that the cause lies not on Wall Street or Madison Avenue. Yes, they’re both pillars in the boom / bust cycle of artificial supply and demand, but neither is capable of producing the havoc we’re living through without active cooperation from a government that appears to have lost all sense of the long term consequences of, well, everything.
So yes, it’s easy to get upset with the self-serving nature of the various private institutions that have served the public badly. But why would anyone expect otherwise? After all, the basic (and still sound) premise of liberal economies is that this self serving principle is actually the best and most reliable engine for everything we want from an advanced economy. Accepting this is as basic as understanding that fire can both hurt and help, all depending on the way it’s handled.
What frustrates me is that the most basic analysis of how Congressmen get into, then keep their seats, reveals the most horrifically skewed set of incentives an conflicts imaginable. Given the toxic combination of gerrymandered districts, overwhelming dependence on special interests for campaign finance, the freedom to transfer one’s own “excess” election funds to the campaigns of fellow representatives, and the use of earmarks to defend against challengers, you have a recipe for legislative catastrophe. (These are what I’d call the four points of congressional corruption).
Of course, it’s too simple to just say “blame the government”. Far better to focus on how an institution that rates a 9% approval rating also charts reelection rates of 85 % and 98 % in the House and Senate respectively.
Answer that, and you’ll have gotten to the root cause of our trouble with the economy, our health care system, and yes, the MIC.
John,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I must point out, however, that I never asserted that the major banks weren’t creating counterproductive drag (they are).
Of course, this is damaging. No denial there. But the larger point is that focusing on what they banks are (or aren’t) doing at this stage distracts from the larger questions about why – as you so rightly point out – our economy became a Ponzi scheme in the first place. This was not an overnight process.
My own supposition is that the cause lies not on Wall Street or Madison Avenue. Yes, they’re both pillars in the boom / bust cycle of artificial supply and demand, but neither is capable of producing the havoc we’re living through without active cooperation from a government that appears to have lost all sense of the long term consequences of, well, everything.
So yes, it’s easy to get upset with the self-serving nature of the various private institutions that have served the public badly. But why would anyone expect otherwise? After all, the basic (and still sound) premise of liberal economies is that this self serving principle is actually the best and most reliable engine for everything we want from an advanced economy. Accepting this is as basic as understanding that fire can both hurt and help, all depending on the way it’s handled.
What frustrates me is that the most basic analysis of how Congressmen get into, then keep their seats, reveals the most horrifically skewed set of incentives an conflicts imaginable. Given the toxic combination of gerrymandered districts, overwhelming dependence on special interests for campaign finance, the freedom to transfer one’s own “excess” election funds to the campaigns of fellow representatives, and the use of earmarks to defend against challengers, you have a recipe for legislative catastrophe. (These are what I’d call the four points of congressional corruption).
Of course, it’s too simple to just say “blame the government”. Far better to focus on how an institution that rates a 9% approval rating also charts reelection rates of 85 % and 98 % in the House and Senate respectively.
Answer that, and you’ll have gotten to the root cause of our trouble with the economy, our health care system, and yes, the MIC.
John,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I must point out, however, that I never asserted that the major banks weren’t creating counterproductive drag (they are).
Of course, this is damaging. No denial there. But the larger point is that focusing on what they banks are (or aren’t) doing at this stage distracts from the larger questions about why – as you so rightly point out – our economy became a Ponzi scheme in the first place. This was not an overnight process.
My own supposition is that the cause lies not on Wall Street or Madison Avenue. Yes, they’re both pillars in the boom / bust cycle of artificial supply and demand, but neither is capable of producing the havoc we’re living through without active cooperation from a government that appears to have lost all sense of the long term consequences of, well, everything.
So yes, it’s easy to get upset with the self-serving nature of the various private institutions that have served the public badly. But why would anyone expect otherwise? After all, the basic (and still sound) premise of liberal economies is that this self serving principle is actually the best and most reliable engine for everything we want from an advanced economy. Accepting this is as basic as understanding that fire can both hurt and help, all depending on the way it’s handled.
What frustrates me is that the most basic analysis of how Congressmen get into, then keep their seats, reveals the most horrifically skewed set of incentives an conflicts imaginable. Given the toxic combination of gerrymandered districts, overwhelming dependence on special interests for campaign finance, the freedom to transfer one’s own “excess” election funds to the campaigns of fellow representatives, and the use of earmarks to defend against challengers, you have a recipe for legislative catastrophe. (These are what I’d call the four points of congressional corruption).
Of course, it’s too simple to just say “blame the government”. Far better to focus on how an institution that rates a 9% approval rating also charts reelection rates of 85 % and 98 % in the House and Senate respectively.
Answer that, and you’ll have gotten to the root cause of our trouble with the economy, our health care system, and yes, the MIC.
Alex, you and I are on the exact same page it would seem.
Have you read anything about James Buchanan and the Public Choice theory of government. It’s great stuff and very simple. Government agents act on self interest.
Nowhere is that more ridiculously transparent then the fact that the SEC and CFTC can not be merged due to the congressional fiefdoms each of these overlapping regulators represents. Regulatory arbitrage was a major part of this meltdown that everyone agrees on and yet it will not be addressed.
Nothing is more insane than this system. It is as baldfaced a form of “greed” as any profiteering and rent-seeking in the private sector.
As JTM points out, the question is how you define “we”. My point is that there is no “we”. Not in the sense that statists call the government “we”. It is not. It is they. And they are little more than a big, lumbering, poorly run company with guns.
Private firms have the same political disputes and turf wars. I know first hand from seeing them play out and the inefficiencies they create. But I’ve also seen those issues washed away as the firm must ultimately focus on making a profit and delivering for the customer. The government is different because that last part doesn’t happen. It need not be solvent so long as it has a printing press or a world prepared to lend it trillions. It need not deliver a good product when it has a monopoly and the only mechanic for customer feedback is a silly popularity contest based on who you’d rather hang out with at a bar.
Society needs some degree of order. So far, an advanced, large scale society relies on some form of government. I think we need one far more like that of the America long past where the constitution was in play and not a dead letter.
One note about that dead letter. I believe it’s illegal for the Federal government to break legal contracts. They’ve now done so repeatedly.
A government which does not recognize that itself is among the governed is not a good government.
Alex, you and I are on the exact same page it would seem.
Have you read anything about James Buchanan and the Public Choice theory of government. It’s great stuff and very simple. Government agents act on self interest.
Nowhere is that more ridiculously transparent then the fact that the SEC and CFTC can not be merged due to the congressional fiefdoms each of these overlapping regulators represents. Regulatory arbitrage was a major part of this meltdown that everyone agrees on and yet it will not be addressed.
Nothing is more insane than this system. It is as baldfaced a form of “greed” as any profiteering and rent-seeking in the private sector.
As JTM points out, the question is how you define “we”. My point is that there is no “we”. Not in the sense that statists call the government “we”. It is not. It is they. And they are little more than a big, lumbering, poorly run company with guns.
Private firms have the same political disputes and turf wars. I know first hand from seeing them play out and the inefficiencies they create. But I’ve also seen those issues washed away as the firm must ultimately focus on making a profit and delivering for the customer. The government is different because that last part doesn’t happen. It need not be solvent so long as it has a printing press or a world prepared to lend it trillions. It need not deliver a good product when it has a monopoly and the only mechanic for customer feedback is a silly popularity contest based on who you’d rather hang out with at a bar.
Society needs some degree of order. So far, an advanced, large scale society relies on some form of government. I think we need one far more like that of the America long past where the constitution was in play and not a dead letter.
One note about that dead letter. I believe it’s illegal for the Federal government to break legal contracts. They’ve now done so repeatedly.
A government which does not recognize that itself is among the governed is not a good government.
Alex, you and I are on the exact same page it would seem.
Have you read anything about James Buchanan and the Public Choice theory of government. It’s great stuff and very simple. Government agents act on self interest.
Nowhere is that more ridiculously transparent then the fact that the SEC and CFTC can not be merged due to the congressional fiefdoms each of these overlapping regulators represents. Regulatory arbitrage was a major part of this meltdown that everyone agrees on and yet it will not be addressed.
Nothing is more insane than this system. It is as baldfaced a form of “greed” as any profiteering and rent-seeking in the private sector.
As JTM points out, the question is how you define “we”. My point is that there is no “we”. Not in the sense that statists call the government “we”. It is not. It is they. And they are little more than a big, lumbering, poorly run company with guns.
Private firms have the same political disputes and turf wars. I know first hand from seeing them play out and the inefficiencies they create. But I’ve also seen those issues washed away as the firm must ultimately focus on making a profit and delivering for the customer. The government is different because that last part doesn’t happen. It need not be solvent so long as it has a printing press or a world prepared to lend it trillions. It need not deliver a good product when it has a monopoly and the only mechanic for customer feedback is a silly popularity contest based on who you’d rather hang out with at a bar.
Society needs some degree of order. So far, an advanced, large scale society relies on some form of government. I think we need one far more like that of the America long past where the constitution was in play and not a dead letter.
One note about that dead letter. I believe it’s illegal for the Federal government to break legal contracts. They’ve now done so repeatedly.
A government which does not recognize that itself is among the governed is not a good government.
John,
Recognizing the importance of legislators following their own rules is as old as the Magna Carta.
With the passage of that document (at sword-point, no less) the barons managed to check the power of a central authority. In many ways, I think our situation today represents the opposite extreme, where the barons have entirely co-opted the central authority, creating a demand for it to reassert its own independence, and freedom to legislate with its own interests in mind, and not those of its nominal subjects.
Only now we live in representative democracy, not a monarchy, so the central authority is not, of course, a king, but our Congress. What this really means is a realignment of Congressional interests with those of their constituents – few of which overlap with the interests of election financiers.
As an aside, I think it’s naive to assume that Congress is totally beholden to special interests. They’re not. The interests they truly represent are now theirs and theirs alone.
“But wait,” you say “isn’t that what you were asking for not two seconds ago?”
Not exactly. The desirable thing is for Congress to operate as a trusted proxy for the people they represent. They are agents, so their independence is only a good thing in as far as it benefits those they represent.
Trouble starts when they start factoring a third interest into the mix (their own). In a system with a strong level of accountability, this will lead to swift rebuke. The fact that it hasn’t is prima facie evidence that we’re dealing with a bad case of the agency problem.
What we face today is not as simple as a legislative body that has been totally captured by special interests, even if it seems that way at times. Rather, we have a body that manages its dependence on special interests by periodically playing them off against the interests of voters. Accordingly, it’s possible to see both a fundamental opposition to the public interest (which is what cynicism on this level represents) combined with decisions that appear to map to the needs and rights of voters.
But when a fundamentally corrupt (i.e. cynical) legislator happens to do what you’d hope, he is not, in fact, representing you. To the contrary, he is representing himself in his own effort to keep the special interests on which he depends in a position of mutual dependence. Of course, this game can only be played for so long before he has to turn on his constituents, and supply his financiers with the means to exploit those constituents in some hideous and unnatural manner – for instance, exempting health insurance providers from anti-trust laws, while outlawing interstate competition between them, thereby permitting a level of abuse and overreach that customers in an open market would never tolerate.
Many legislators complain about how much time they need to spend raising funds. But this is simply cynicism in its most extreme form. After all, how many of these people are then jumping to the obvious conclusion that public financing is the way to go?
Virtually none. Because while it would certainly provide them with (theoretically welcome) independence from special interests, it would also concentrate their dependence on voters. And though this would be an obvious win for voters (who could now count on reliable agents) it would be a major blow for the agents themselves, who have developed a strong taste for the near-royal autonomy they currently enjoy.
To the extent that this band of pseudo royalists can keep the general public bitterly divided along partisan lines, they’re likley to maintain the status quo almost indefinitely.
But if and when enough people see past this theater, focusing instead on the damage done to them by their representatives (Democrat or Republican), it may become possible to focus enough sentiment on the need for more loyal agents in general.
Given the accumulated damage of the necessary sell-outs, my hope is that economic interests will end up trumping cultural fluff, with the locus resting on gross distortions in a handful of key areas; specifically, the markets for food, education, health care, employment, housing, and retirement-grade investments.
These are all areas where ideological differences can be swiftly leveled by considering the greatest good for the greatest number. They’re also areas in which (virtually) everyone can see that they’re suffering personally due to Congressional giveaways to market operators. In other words, they’re areas where people to the left an right can find common cause in the extent to which they’ve all been shafted by a Royal Congress.
In the same way that democracy allowed people to enjoy the benefits of civilization without enduring subservience to clerics and kings, a reformed Congress would allow people to enjoy the benefits of a modern economy without having to subordinate their own interests to the needs of the particular operators who make that economy function at any given moment.
At the moment, the power of people in Congress comes at our expense, with the extent of that cost limited only by what current market operators manage to extract from largely defenseless customers. But ending the ability of Congress to supply unearned advantage would simultaneously force their allegiance to voters, while decapitating those who have managed to distort markets for nearly all of civilized life’s most important elements.
My question, now, is whether it takes a President to do this.
John,
Recognizing the importance of legislators following their own rules is as old as the Magna Carta.
With the passage of that document (at sword-point, no less) the barons managed to check the power of a central authority. In many ways, I think our situation today represents the opposite extreme, where the barons have entirely co-opted the central authority, creating a demand for it to reassert its own independence, and freedom to legislate with its own interests in mind, and not those of its nominal subjects.
Only now we live in representative democracy, not a monarchy, so the central authority is not, of course, a king, but our Congress. What this really means is a realignment of Congressional interests with those of their constituents – few of which overlap with the interests of election financiers.
As an aside, I think it’s naive to assume that Congress is totally beholden to special interests. They’re not. The interests they truly represent are now theirs and theirs alone.
“But wait,” you say “isn’t that what you were asking for not two seconds ago?”
Not exactly. The desirable thing is for Congress to operate as a trusted proxy for the people they represent. They are agents, so their independence is only a good thing in as far as it benefits those they represent.
Trouble starts when they start factoring a third interest into the mix (their own). In a system with a strong level of accountability, this will lead to swift rebuke. The fact that it hasn’t is prima facie evidence that we’re dealing with a bad case of the agency problem.
What we face today is not as simple as a legislative body that has been totally captured by special interests, even if it seems that way at times. Rather, we have a body that manages its dependence on special interests by periodically playing them off against the interests of voters. Accordingly, it’s possible to see both a fundamental opposition to the public interest (which is what cynicism on this level represents) combined with decisions that appear to map to the needs and rights of voters.
But when a fundamentally corrupt (i.e. cynical) legislator happens to do what you’d hope, he is not, in fact, representing you. To the contrary, he is representing himself in his own effort to keep the special interests on which he depends in a position of mutual dependence. Of course, this game can only be played for so long before he has to turn on his constituents, and supply his financiers with the means to exploit those constituents in some hideous and unnatural manner – for instance, exempting health insurance providers from anti-trust laws, while outlawing interstate competition between them, thereby permitting a level of abuse and overreach that customers in an open market would never tolerate.
Many legislators complain about how much time they need to spend raising funds. But this is simply cynicism in its most extreme form. After all, how many of these people are then jumping to the obvious conclusion that public financing is the way to go?
Virtually none. Because while it would certainly provide them with (theoretically welcome) independence from special interests, it would also concentrate their dependence on voters. And though this would be an obvious win for voters (who could now count on reliable agents) it would be a major blow for the agents themselves, who have developed a strong taste for the near-royal autonomy they currently enjoy.
To the extent that this band of pseudo royalists can keep the general public bitterly divided along partisan lines, they’re likley to maintain the status quo almost indefinitely.
But if and when enough people see past this theater, focusing instead on the damage done to them by their representatives (Democrat or Republican), it may become possible to focus enough sentiment on the need for more loyal agents in general.
Given the accumulated damage of the necessary sell-outs, my hope is that economic interests will end up trumping cultural fluff, with the locus resting on gross distortions in a handful of key areas; specifically, the markets for food, education, health care, employment, housing, and retirement-grade investments.
These are all areas where ideological differences can be swiftly leveled by considering the greatest good for the greatest number. They’re also areas in which (virtually) everyone can see that they’re suffering personally due to Congressional giveaways to market operators. In other words, they’re areas where people to the left an right can find common cause in the extent to which they’ve all been shafted by a Royal Congress.
In the same way that democracy allowed people to enjoy the benefits of civilization without enduring subservience to clerics and kings, a reformed Congress would allow people to enjoy the benefits of a modern economy without having to subordinate their own interests to the needs of the particular operators who make that economy function at any given moment.
At the moment, the power of people in Congress comes at our expense, with the extent of that cost limited only by what current market operators manage to extract from largely defenseless customers. But ending the ability of Congress to supply unearned advantage would simultaneously force their allegiance to voters, while decapitating those who have managed to distort markets for nearly all of civilized life’s most important elements.
My question, now, is whether it takes a President to do this.
“My question, now, is whether it takes a President to do this.”
Don’t look to the President for this. a) Not his to do really. b) The incumbent is a bot.
As long as the current gerrymandering persists unquestioned and unrectified, what you see is what you will continue to see. Both parties are doing it and the wasted votes are frozen like meat in a floor freezer. The Congressional reps are standing in a circle with guns at the back of each head. Neither party will consider this seriously. The Republicans would seek to increase their share and the Democrats will not risk their majority.
It’s like the Alabama Constitution. Every year proposals to rewrite it are made by minority interests and just as quickly rebuffed by the entrenched who use fear of hanky panky to keep the voters of the opinion that the extant perfidies are preferable to risking further perfidy. (the devil they know).
It is astonishingly difficult to get the electorate to trust and unknown yet they just did that. If Obama persists in being the bot he is so far, then that mistrust will treble and the damage done by electing him will be incalculable.
“My question, now, is whether it takes a President to do this.”
Don’t look to the President for this. a) Not his to do really. b) The incumbent is a bot.
As long as the current gerrymandering persists unquestioned and unrectified, what you see is what you will continue to see. Both parties are doing it and the wasted votes are frozen like meat in a floor freezer. The Congressional reps are standing in a circle with guns at the back of each head. Neither party will consider this seriously. The Republicans would seek to increase their share and the Democrats will not risk their majority.
It’s like the Alabama Constitution. Every year proposals to rewrite it are made by minority interests and just as quickly rebuffed by the entrenched who use fear of hanky panky to keep the voters of the opinion that the extant perfidies are preferable to risking further perfidy. (the devil they know).
It is astonishingly difficult to get the electorate to trust and unknown yet they just did that. If Obama persists in being the bot he is so far, then that mistrust will treble and the damage done by electing him will be incalculable.
“My question, now, is whether it takes a President to do this.”
Don’t look to the President for this. a) Not his to do really. b) The incumbent is a bot.
As long as the current gerrymandering persists unquestioned and unrectified, what you see is what you will continue to see. Both parties are doing it and the wasted votes are frozen like meat in a floor freezer. The Congressional reps are standing in a circle with guns at the back of each head. Neither party will consider this seriously. The Republicans would seek to increase their share and the Democrats will not risk their majority.
It’s like the Alabama Constitution. Every year proposals to rewrite it are made by minority interests and just as quickly rebuffed by the entrenched who use fear of hanky panky to keep the voters of the opinion that the extant perfidies are preferable to risking further perfidy. (the devil they know).
It is astonishingly difficult to get the electorate to trust and unknown yet they just did that. If Obama persists in being the bot he is so far, then that mistrust will treble and the damage done by electing him will be incalculable.
“My question, now, is whether it takes a President to do this.”
Don’t look to the President for this. a) Not his to do really. b) The incumbent is a bot.
As long as the current gerrymandering persists unquestioned and unrectified, what you see is what you will continue to see. Both parties are doing it and the wasted votes are frozen like meat in a floor freezer. The Congressional reps are standing in a circle with guns at the back of each head. Neither party will consider this seriously. The Republicans would seek to increase their share and the Democrats will not risk their majority.
It’s like the Alabama Constitution. Every year proposals to rewrite it are made by minority interests and just as quickly rebuffed by the entrenched who use fear of hanky panky to keep the voters of the opinion that the extant perfidies are preferable to risking further perfidy. (the devil they know).
It is astonishingly difficult to get the electorate to trust and unknown yet they just did that. If Obama persists in being the bot he is so far, then that mistrust will treble and the damage done by electing him will be incalculable.
Alex,
I love your post. I don’t think the solution exists in the political process because the problem is actually run-away power and the inherent flaws in a welfare state democracy itself.
Everything you’re talking about is in Public Choice theory and the rich in Austrian individualist philosophy.
Public choice: http://fee.org/audio/174/
The brilliance of the American constitution and the the founders were their appreciation for the limits of majoritarian rule and its ability to descend into a mob feeding frenzy that eats itself. Madison surely understood this.
The powers congress uses to redistribute wealth rather than maintain rule of law are and have always been instantly captured by the powerful. It is better for that power not to exist in the hands of a central monopolist at all and have institutions designed to decentralize the power. To, ehem, balance the power.
The concept of constitutional democracy is just that. A supermajority or even unanimous vote establishes the bounds for the majoritarian branches. None of the welfare/warfare corporatist state is constitutional. It’s all illegal BS.
So the change that must happen is not with the politicians but with the people. “We” the people must come to understand that each of us can NOT live at the expense of all of us.
That’s my belief. I participate here as part of my own effort to work through that belief as I seek to spread it.
The president(s) are part of the problem, not the solution. Especially not the imperial Bush/Obama regimes.
Jon wrote a review of the book “liberal fascism”. The more interesting book on the same subject, that of corporatism and the capture of big government from day one, is this one:
Triumph of Conservatism
http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Conservatism-Gabriel-Kolko/dp/0029166500
The author considers himself of the left but my understanding of this book (having heard it described, since I just ordered it) is that it’s a rebuke of the progressive era for its construction BY the “regulated” corporations.
It’s not about who holds the lever of power. We need to break off the lever all together.
Alex,
I love your post. I don’t think the solution exists in the political process because the problem is actually run-away power and the inherent flaws in a welfare state democracy itself.
Everything you’re talking about is in Public Choice theory and the rich in Austrian individualist philosophy.
Public choice: http://fee.org/audio/174/
The brilliance of the American constitution and the the founders were their appreciation for the limits of majoritarian rule and its ability to descend into a mob feeding frenzy that eats itself. Madison surely understood this.
The powers congress uses to redistribute wealth rather than maintain rule of law are and have always been instantly captured by the powerful. It is better for that power not to exist in the hands of a central monopolist at all and have institutions designed to decentralize the power. To, ehem, balance the power.
The concept of constitutional democracy is just that. A supermajority or even unanimous vote establishes the bounds for the majoritarian branches. None of the welfare/warfare corporatist state is constitutional. It’s all illegal BS.
So the change that must happen is not with the politicians but with the people. “We” the people must come to understand that each of us can NOT live at the expense of all of us.
That’s my belief. I participate here as part of my own effort to work through that belief as I seek to spread it.
The president(s) are part of the problem, not the solution. Especially not the imperial Bush/Obama regimes.
Jon wrote a review of the book “liberal fascism”. The more interesting book on the same subject, that of corporatism and the capture of big government from day one, is this one:
Triumph of Conservatism
http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Conservatism-Gabriel-Kolko/dp/0029166500
The author considers himself of the left but my understanding of this book (having heard it described, since I just ordered it) is that it’s a rebuke of the progressive era for its construction BY the “regulated” corporations.
It’s not about who holds the lever of power. We need to break off the lever all together.
Alex,
I love your post. I don’t think the solution exists in the political process because the problem is actually run-away power and the inherent flaws in a welfare state democracy itself.
Everything you’re talking about is in Public Choice theory and the rich in Austrian individualist philosophy.
Public choice: http://fee.org/audio/174/
The brilliance of the American constitution and the the founders were their appreciation for the limits of majoritarian rule and its ability to descend into a mob feeding frenzy that eats itself. Madison surely understood this.
The powers congress uses to redistribute wealth rather than maintain rule of law are and have always been instantly captured by the powerful. It is better for that power not to exist in the hands of a central monopolist at all and have institutions designed to decentralize the power. To, ehem, balance the power.
The concept of constitutional democracy is just that. A supermajority or even unanimous vote establishes the bounds for the majoritarian branches. None of the welfare/warfare corporatist state is constitutional. It’s all illegal BS.
So the change that must happen is not with the politicians but with the people. “We” the people must come to understand that each of us can NOT live at the expense of all of us.
That’s my belief. I participate here as part of my own effort to work through that belief as I seek to spread it.
The president(s) are part of the problem, not the solution. Especially not the imperial Bush/Obama regimes.
Jon wrote a review of the book “liberal fascism”. The more interesting book on the same subject, that of corporatism and the capture of big government from day one, is this one:
Triumph of Conservatism
http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Conservatism-Gabriel-Kolko/dp/0029166500
The author considers himself of the left but my understanding of this book (having heard it described, since I just ordered it) is that it’s a rebuke of the progressive era for its construction BY the “regulated” corporations.
It’s not about who holds the lever of power. We need to break off the lever all together.
Alex,
I love your post. I don’t think the solution exists in the political process because the problem is actually run-away power and the inherent flaws in a welfare state democracy itself.
Everything you’re talking about is in Public Choice theory and the rich in Austrian individualist philosophy.
Public choice: http://fee.org/audio/174/
The brilliance of the American constitution and the the founders were their appreciation for the limits of majoritarian rule and its ability to descend into a mob feeding frenzy that eats itself. Madison surely understood this.
The powers congress uses to redistribute wealth rather than maintain rule of law are and have always been instantly captured by the powerful. It is better for that power not to exist in the hands of a central monopolist at all and have institutions designed to decentralize the power. To, ehem, balance the power.
The concept of constitutional democracy is just that. A supermajority or even unanimous vote establishes the bounds for the majoritarian branches. None of the welfare/warfare corporatist state is constitutional. It’s all illegal BS.
So the change that must happen is not with the politicians but with the people. “We” the people must come to understand that each of us can NOT live at the expense of all of us.
That’s my belief. I participate here as part of my own effort to work through that belief as I seek to spread it.
The president(s) are part of the problem, not the solution. Especially not the imperial Bush/Obama regimes.
Jon wrote a review of the book “liberal fascism”. The more interesting book on the same subject, that of corporatism and the capture of big government from day one, is this one:
Triumph of Conservatism
http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Conservatism-Gabriel-Kolko/dp/0029166500
The author considers himself of the left but my understanding of this book (having heard it described, since I just ordered it) is that it’s a rebuke of the progressive era for its construction BY the “regulated” corporations.
It’s not about who holds the lever of power. We need to break off the lever all together.
Found this:
“Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.”
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776
There is no reason to be worried about the balance of trade nor the balance of accounts.
This concept is the “mercantilist” view and it does indeed put the producer ahead of the consumer. It is a fundamentally pro-business position, and the fact that both parties parrot this nonsense is just more proof that they are both on in the same corporatist party.
http://www.friesian.com/smith.htm
Found this:
“Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.”
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776
There is no reason to be worried about the balance of trade nor the balance of accounts.
This concept is the “mercantilist” view and it does indeed put the producer ahead of the consumer. It is a fundamentally pro-business position, and the fact that both parties parrot this nonsense is just more proof that they are both on in the same corporatist party.
http://www.friesian.com/smith.htm
Found this:
“Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.”
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776
There is no reason to be worried about the balance of trade nor the balance of accounts.
This concept is the “mercantilist” view and it does indeed put the producer ahead of the consumer. It is a fundamentally pro-business position, and the fact that both parties parrot this nonsense is just more proof that they are both on in the same corporatist party.
http://www.friesian.com/smith.htm
Found this:
“Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.”
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776
There is no reason to be worried about the balance of trade nor the balance of accounts.
This concept is the “mercantilist” view and it does indeed put the producer ahead of the consumer. It is a fundamentally pro-business position, and the fact that both parties parrot this nonsense is just more proof that they are both on in the same corporatist party.
http://www.friesian.com/smith.htm
J.P.,
This view seems to necessitate the manufacture of wants, and therefore the confusion of percieved wants with actual needs. Is this not so? Is this, in part, why we now speak of modern health care as a natural right?
J.P.,
This view seems to necessitate the manufacture of wants, and therefore the confusion of percieved wants with actual needs. Is this not so? Is this, in part, why we now speak of modern health care as a natural right?
J.P.,
This view seems to necessitate the manufacture of wants, and therefore the confusion of percieved wants with actual needs. Is this not so? Is this, in part, why we now speak of modern health care as a natural right?
J.P.,
This view seems to necessitate the manufacture of wants, and therefore the confusion of percieved wants with actual needs. Is this not so? Is this, in part, why we now speak of modern health care as a natural right?
@len,
The question was rhetorical. I’ve stopped believing our current President has any intention of even mentioning the elephant in the living room, let alone challenging it it any way.
With any luck, he will be the last Senator elected to the White House in a very long time.
I also suspect he’ll have killed off any further attempts to win office through vague and ungrounded promises of membership in a Hope Powered Change Machine cheered on by those simply chanting ‘Yes We Can’ without ever specifying what, how, when, or why.
Given that he was competing against the Ghost of GWB and prospect of President Palin, I can see why standards were so relaxed. And his personal story was inspiring. I mean, he’s seems like the kind of thoughtful, conscientious, and quietly determined man that you want in the White House.
And of course, it was essential that America demonstrate to itself and the world that it is not dominated by fundamentalists, racists, and jingoists – even of the previous eight years suggested otherwise. So that was a big win for intelligence and basic decency.
Unfortunately, the guy himself has proven to be next to useless . For instance, he talks about being the ‘last’ President to take on health care reform. “Oh wow”, you say, “does this mean that he’s going to challenge the structural underpinnings that have created this monster in the first place?”
Well, no. Actually, he’s not even going to mention them. Instead, he’s going to leave them entirely untouched. Yes, he’ll advocate for an end to some of the most egregious abuses that inevitably result from exempting private companies from anti-trust legislation while protecting them from interstate competition then handing them major tax advantages to boot. But honestly, this is like putting a Band Aid on cancer.
Which means he won’t be the last President to deal with this stuff. The last President to deal with this stuff will be the President who actually deals with this stuff.
In them meantime, this White House is responding to resistance by quietly assuring industry that the dysfunction will (contrary to all flashy televised promises) remain unchallenged, and that the costs (to the industry) of ending the most flagrant forms of abuse will be offset by forcing more people into their abusive system, and using taxpayer dollars to subsidize those who cannot cover the full cost of their own screwing.
So we’re not exactly talking about leadership for the 21st Century or anything here. More like the kind of Chicago politics that this guy was supposed to be above.
As he acknowledged himself, chances were good that he’d never be more than a transitional President. When it comes to breaking the political power of groups who are using it to assault and pillage the middle class, Obama has already failed – twice.
But if, in the process, he clarifies the standard by which he’s failed, then progress will still have been made.
@len,
The question was rhetorical. I’ve stopped believing our current President has any intention of even mentioning the elephant in the living room, let alone challenging it it any way.
With any luck, he will be the last Senator elected to the White House in a very long time.
I also suspect he’ll have killed off any further attempts to win office through vague and ungrounded promises of membership in a Hope Powered Change Machine cheered on by those simply chanting ‘Yes We Can’ without ever specifying what, how, when, or why.
Given that he was competing against the Ghost of GWB and prospect of President Palin, I can see why standards were so relaxed. And his personal story was inspiring. I mean, he’s seems like the kind of thoughtful, conscientious, and quietly determined man that you want in the White House.
And of course, it was essential that America demonstrate to itself and the world that it is not dominated by fundamentalists, racists, and jingoists – even of the previous eight years suggested otherwise. So that was a big win for intelligence and basic decency.
Unfortunately, the guy himself has proven to be next to useless . For instance, he talks about being the ‘last’ President to take on health care reform. “Oh wow”, you say, “does this mean that he’s going to challenge the structural underpinnings that have created this monster in the first place?”
Well, no. Actually, he’s not even going to mention them. Instead, he’s going to leave them entirely untouched. Yes, he’ll advocate for an end to some of the most egregious abuses that inevitably result from exempting private companies from anti-trust legislation while protecting them from interstate competition then handing them major tax advantages to boot. But honestly, this is like putting a Band Aid on cancer.
Which means he won’t be the last President to deal with this stuff. The last President to deal with this stuff will be the President who actually deals with this stuff.
In them meantime, this White House is responding to resistance by quietly assuring industry that the dysfunction will (contrary to all flashy televised promises) remain unchallenged, and that the costs (to the industry) of ending the most flagrant forms of abuse will be offset by forcing more people into their abusive system, and using taxpayer dollars to subsidize those who cannot cover the full cost of their own screwing.
So we’re not exactly talking about leadership for the 21st Century or anything here. More like the kind of Chicago politics that this guy was supposed to be above.
As he acknowledged himself, chances were good that he’d never be more than a transitional President. When it comes to breaking the political power of groups who are using it to assault and pillage the middle class, Obama has already failed – twice.
But if, in the process, he clarifies the standard by which he’s failed, then progress will still have been made.
@len,
The question was rhetorical. I’ve stopped believing our current President has any intention of even mentioning the elephant in the living room, let alone challenging it it any way.
With any luck, he will be the last Senator elected to the White House in a very long time.
I also suspect he’ll have killed off any further attempts to win office through vague and ungrounded promises of membership in a Hope Powered Change Machine cheered on by those simply chanting ‘Yes We Can’ without ever specifying what, how, when, or why.
Given that he was competing against the Ghost of GWB and prospect of President Palin, I can see why standards were so relaxed. And his personal story was inspiring. I mean, he’s seems like the kind of thoughtful, conscientious, and quietly determined man that you want in the White House.
And of course, it was essential that America demonstrate to itself and the world that it is not dominated by fundamentalists, racists, and jingoists – even of the previous eight years suggested otherwise. So that was a big win for intelligence and basic decency.
Unfortunately, the guy himself has proven to be next to useless . For instance, he talks about being the ‘last’ President to take on health care reform. “Oh wow”, you say, “does this mean that he’s going to challenge the structural underpinnings that have created this monster in the first place?”
Well, no. Actually, he’s not even going to mention them. Instead, he’s going to leave them entirely untouched. Yes, he’ll advocate for an end to some of the most egregious abuses that inevitably result from exempting private companies from anti-trust legislation while protecting them from interstate competition then handing them major tax advantages to boot. But honestly, this is like putting a Band Aid on cancer.
Which means he won’t be the last President to deal with this stuff. The last President to deal with this stuff will be the President who actually deals with this stuff.
In them meantime, this White House is responding to resistance by quietly assuring industry that the dysfunction will (contrary to all flashy televised promises) remain unchallenged, and that the costs (to the industry) of ending the most flagrant forms of abuse will be offset by forcing more people into their abusive system, and using taxpayer dollars to subsidize those who cannot cover the full cost of their own screwing.
So we’re not exactly talking about leadership for the 21st Century or anything here. More like the kind of Chicago politics that this guy was supposed to be above.
As he acknowledged himself, chances were good that he’d never be more than a transitional President. When it comes to breaking the political power of groups who are using it to assault and pillage the middle class, Obama has already failed – twice.
But if, in the process, he clarifies the standard by which he’s failed, then progress will still have been made.
@len,
The question was rhetorical. I’ve stopped believing our current President has any intention of even mentioning the elephant in the living room, let alone challenging it it any way.
With any luck, he will be the last Senator elected to the White House in a very long time.
I also suspect he’ll have killed off any further attempts to win office through vague and ungrounded promises of membership in a Hope Powered Change Machine cheered on by those simply chanting ‘Yes We Can’ without ever specifying what, how, when, or why.
Given that he was competing against the Ghost of GWB and prospect of President Palin, I can see why standards were so relaxed. And his personal story was inspiring. I mean, he’s seems like the kind of thoughtful, conscientious, and quietly determined man that you want in the White House.
And of course, it was essential that America demonstrate to itself and the world that it is not dominated by fundamentalists, racists, and jingoists – even of the previous eight years suggested otherwise. So that was a big win for intelligence and basic decency.
Unfortunately, the guy himself has proven to be next to useless . For instance, he talks about being the ‘last’ President to take on health care reform. “Oh wow”, you say, “does this mean that he’s going to challenge the structural underpinnings that have created this monster in the first place?”
Well, no. Actually, he’s not even going to mention them. Instead, he’s going to leave them entirely untouched. Yes, he’ll advocate for an end to some of the most egregious abuses that inevitably result from exempting private companies from anti-trust legislation while protecting them from interstate competition then handing them major tax advantages to boot. But honestly, this is like putting a Band Aid on cancer.
Which means he won’t be the last President to deal with this stuff. The last President to deal with this stuff will be the President who actually deals with this stuff.
In them meantime, this White House is responding to resistance by quietly assuring industry that the dysfunction will (contrary to all flashy televised promises) remain unchallenged, and that the costs (to the industry) of ending the most flagrant forms of abuse will be offset by forcing more people into their abusive system, and using taxpayer dollars to subsidize those who cannot cover the full cost of their own screwing.
So we’re not exactly talking about leadership for the 21st Century or anything here. More like the kind of Chicago politics that this guy was supposed to be above.
As he acknowledged himself, chances were good that he’d never be more than a transitional President. When it comes to breaking the political power of groups who are using it to assault and pillage the middle class, Obama has already failed – twice.
But if, in the process, he clarifies the standard by which he’s failed, then progress will still have been made.
How do you mean? Everyone has needs and wants for some manner of consumption (food, clothing, shelter, medicine, etc). Prosperity is simply the means to pursue consumption for pleasure and leisure time. All production is simply the means to deliver that consumption.
I don’t find anything about that particularly controversial.
There is no natural right to another person’s labor. That is a nonsensical idea that ultimately leads to slavery of the medical provider to the patient’s “right” to care. If you and I have a right to healthcare, but there are not enough doctors and hospital beds to provide for both of us at the same time, how does that work?
Rights are not contentious in that way.
If, however, demand in excess of supply allows prices to rise, those profits will attract more doctors into the field to meet that demand.
Here’s a few links to consider:
Medicare denies more Physician claims than any private insurer (though Aetna comes within the margin of error).
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-do-we-keep-medicare-honest-it.html#links
Canada and the UK provide universal rights to wait in line for less care:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjhmOGU0MDdhM2Y5YmEyMzVmNjZhZWZiMTA3ZTQyOTA=
Maybe those links are wrong. They aren’t the whole story. But they do highlight that healthcare is a market for scarce resources with inevitable tradeoffs. Talk of “rights” is counterproductive and irrelevant.
But just wait. The “reform” hinges on 500 billion in Medicare cuts that are politically impossible. So they won’t happen. So the system will collapse and everyone knows it. Whose “rights” will be upheld at that point?
We shall see…
How do you mean? Everyone has needs and wants for some manner of consumption (food, clothing, shelter, medicine, etc). Prosperity is simply the means to pursue consumption for pleasure and leisure time. All production is simply the means to deliver that consumption.
I don’t find anything about that particularly controversial.
There is no natural right to another person’s labor. That is a nonsensical idea that ultimately leads to slavery of the medical provider to the patient’s “right” to care. If you and I have a right to healthcare, but there are not enough doctors and hospital beds to provide for both of us at the same time, how does that work?
Rights are not contentious in that way.
If, however, demand in excess of supply allows prices to rise, those profits will attract more doctors into the field to meet that demand.
Here’s a few links to consider:
Medicare denies more Physician claims than any private insurer (though Aetna comes within the margin of error).
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-do-we-keep-medicare-honest-it.html#links
Canada and the UK provide universal rights to wait in line for less care:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjhmOGU0MDdhM2Y5YmEyMzVmNjZhZWZiMTA3ZTQyOTA=
Maybe those links are wrong. They aren’t the whole story. But they do highlight that healthcare is a market for scarce resources with inevitable tradeoffs. Talk of “rights” is counterproductive and irrelevant.
But just wait. The “reform” hinges on 500 billion in Medicare cuts that are politically impossible. So they won’t happen. So the system will collapse and everyone knows it. Whose “rights” will be upheld at that point?
We shall see…
How do you mean? Everyone has needs and wants for some manner of consumption (food, clothing, shelter, medicine, etc). Prosperity is simply the means to pursue consumption for pleasure and leisure time. All production is simply the means to deliver that consumption.
I don’t find anything about that particularly controversial.
There is no natural right to another person’s labor. That is a nonsensical idea that ultimately leads to slavery of the medical provider to the patient’s “right” to care. If you and I have a right to healthcare, but there are not enough doctors and hospital beds to provide for both of us at the same time, how does that work?
Rights are not contentious in that way.
If, however, demand in excess of supply allows prices to rise, those profits will attract more doctors into the field to meet that demand.
Here’s a few links to consider:
Medicare denies more Physician claims than any private insurer (though Aetna comes within the margin of error).
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-do-we-keep-medicare-honest-it.html#links
Canada and the UK provide universal rights to wait in line for less care:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjhmOGU0MDdhM2Y5YmEyMzVmNjZhZWZiMTA3ZTQyOTA=
Maybe those links are wrong. They aren’t the whole story. But they do highlight that healthcare is a market for scarce resources with inevitable tradeoffs. Talk of “rights” is counterproductive and irrelevant.
But just wait. The “reform” hinges on 500 billion in Medicare cuts that are politically impossible. So they won’t happen. So the system will collapse and everyone knows it. Whose “rights” will be upheld at that point?
We shall see…
@J.P.,
“How do you mean? Everyone has needs and wants…”
What I mean, is, to paraphrase an old friend, the association of thirst with the “need” for a Coke.
@J.P.,
“How do you mean? Everyone has needs and wants…”
What I mean, is, to paraphrase an old friend, the association of thirst with the “need” for a Coke.
I would say this. It only comes to be that people can afford sugar water or be persuaded to pay for it AFTER the society has become prosperous enough through trade and specialization that they have the spare dollars.
This is why china and India have now for the first time a blossoming middle class. Save to invest.
I do think that the “consumer culture” of spending as fullfillment is thoroughly Keynesian is origin and nature. The notion of keeping that circular flow on motion is all about Keynes.
The new old liberalism will come to acknowledge that through the green lens. Spending for the sake of maintaining “aggregate demand” via immoral boondoggle like “cash for clunkers” should horrify any green.
> Once an oligopoly forms,
> innovation goes out the window
> and the possibility of entrepreneurs
> entering the car business was next to zero.
The name Tucker comes to mind.
Expand your geography and time sample. Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai and Kia. Meanwhile, the former oligarchy is a charred wasteland. Monopoly profits leads to laziness and stagnation leads to entrepreneurial opportunity. IBM to Apple to Microsoft to google and Apple.
No private oligopoly hold forever. The post office and federal reserves buddies on the otherhand…
J.P.,
You may recall that Nixon flacked for PepsiCo, whereas Carter carried water for Coke. (And still does.) After Carter took office one of the country’s prominent editorial cartoonists published a panel with the Great Wall in the background and, in the foreground a caption reading, “Long March go better with Coke!”
As I’ve said repeatedly, I’m the farthest thing from an economist, but I don’t see how you can bill yourself as a libertarian one if you’re not in the habit of drawing the sharpest distinctions between genuine needs, alleged needs, and putative wants.
P.S. I welcome enthusiastically these several twists on Jon’s theme of oligopoly. Reckon you relish them too.
Jon– you sure you disconnected Mr. Warstler?
JP: Just curious: Are the medical professionals drawing a salary from “the government” for their care of military veterans “enslaved?”
Because by statute and regulation, and not by any “natural right” to medical care (just ask all the vets who don’t meet the qualifications how THAT sits, and the guys exposed to Agent Orange and nuclear tests and “wonder what would happen if…” involuntary experiments with bugs and drugs on “serving” GIs) the qualifying vets get care, and poop on all you folks who say “yabbut it’s lousy care and you wait in long lines,” that’s flat NOT TRUE in most of the system.
As a nurse and qualifying vet I can tell you, as I’ve said here many times, that VA care is CARING, and is good medicine, and is inexpensive comparatively and absolutely but not “cheap,” and meds ARE cheap for Libertarian-market-force-poser-negotiation reasons, and we all have our single Electronic Medical Records that help ensure, within the range of human idiocy, against errors from wrong meds and procedures, and there’s a concentration on primary care and health promotion that is missing in action in the Unsurance-profit-driven world.
There are reasons Medicare denies claims, a lot having to do with incorrect coding and billing (and of course because there are self-interested, self-serving humans involved, lots of fraud) along with weaknesses inherent in any bureaucracy most notably including all the major Unsurance companies.
My experience in a clinical practice is that there are one hell of a lot more denials and demands for “prior authorization” and “peer-to-peer” bullshit and other efforts to evade payment from the Unsurance than from the Government. Do you have any idea how many ICD and CPT codes there are, the codes that are used to characterize “encounters” and what can be billed and thus what gets paid by Medicare and Unsurance? As that link shows, nobody else does either, but it’s tens of thousands. “Somebody” or “-bodies” in every practice and hospital and nursing home has to know all those fucking codes and where to put them in the little boxes on the forms that every bureaucracy generates and when to submit them (not too soon but not too late) for the chance to wait to get paid for services done sometimes years earlier.
Your comparison of “claims denied” is meaningless tripe and of interest only in any kind of realistic effort to simplify “the system” and reduce the enormous overhead involved in billing and payment, carried to a higher power by the number of Unsurance “products,” each with its own sub-sub-sub-sub-subsets of differentiating characteristics and rules and “coverages” and exclusions and reasons to deny and rescind, whether “part of the tiny small print in the contract” or just what in the insurance area is called “bad faith.” Jump to this link for a quicky that will give you an idea of how Unsurance companies and their “products” are supposed to work, and mostly don’t, and keep in mind that getting an attorney to “sue the hell out of” an Unsurance company for “bad faith” denial of coverage or recission is in the vast, vast, vast majority of otherwise worthy cases simply not possible. No remedy, no right, no real bilateral contract.
Healthcare resources are scarce for a lot of reasons, so many of which have to do with how efficiently the few have been able to steal the future from the many. If you want to deny universal health care as a right, well, how about at least noting that in nation-states that have it as part of the social contract, your holy business world, all those inventive people, are a lot more productive over a longer period and the businesses seem to do so much better against the US competition (whatever hasn’t been able to flee the sinking ship)? And that Unsurance companies are going to send tens of millions of “policy holders,” involuntarily, every year, to those same foreign socialist lands to get treated by nationalized-medicine doctors in government-built and -staffed (or REAL non-profit managed) hospitals that suddenly are “just as good” as anything the “superior” US medical system has to offer?
But then, as the all-wise Mr. Warstler also used to say, “We shall see…” No way you can lose, with that as your tag line…
Is somebody channeling MW?
JP: “no natural right to the labor of another.” Maybe, but there does seem to be a little more reality to the existence of some kind of “social contract,” without which we have anomie, anarchy and nothingness.
Just curious: Are the medical professionals drawing a salary from “the government” for their care of military veterans “enslaved?”
Because by statute and regulation, and not by any “natural right” to medical care (just ask all the vets who don’t meet the qualifications how THAT sits, and the guys exposed to Agent Orange and nuclear tests and “wonder what would happen if…” involuntary experiments with bugs and drugs on “serving” GIs) the qualifying vets get care, and poop on all you folks who say “yabbut it’s lousy care and you wait in long lines,” that’s flat NOT TRUE in most of the system.
As a nurse and qualifying vet I can tell you, as I’ve said here many times, that VA care is CARING, and is good medicine, and is inexpensive comparatively and absolutely but not “cheap,” and meds ARE cheap for Libertarian-market-force-poser-negotiation reasons, and we all have our single Electronic Medical Records that help ensure, within the range of human idiocy, against errors from wrong meds and procedures, and there’s a concentration on primary care and health promotion that is missing in action in the Unsurance-profit-driven world.
There are reasons Medicare denies claims, a lot having to do with incorrect coding and billing (and of course because there are self-interested, self-serving humans involved, lots of fraud) along with weaknesses inherent in any bureaucracy most notably including all the major Unsurance companies.
My experience in a clinical practice is that there are one hell of a lot more denials and demands for “prior authorization” and “peer-to-peer” bullshit and other efforts to evade payment from the Unsurance than from the Government. Do you have any idea how many ICD and CPT codes there are, the codes that are used to characterize “encounters” and what can be billed and thus what gets paid for by Medicare, Medicaid and Unsurance? As that link shows, nobody else does either, but it’s tens of thousands. “Somebody” or “-bodies” in every practice and hospital and nursing home has to know all those fucking codes and where to put them in the little boxes on the forms that every bureaucracy generates and when to submit them (not too soon but not too late) for the chance to wait to get paid for services done sometimes years earlier.
Your comparison of “claims denied” is meaningless and of interest only in any kind of realistic effort to simplify “the system” and reduce the enormous overhead involved in billing and payment, carried to a higher power by the number of Unsurance “products,” each with its own sub-sub-sub-sub-subsets of differentiating characteristics and rules and “coverages” and exclusions and reasons to deny and rescind, whether “part of the tiny small print in the contract” or just what in the insurance area is called “bad faith.” Jump to this link for a quicky that will give you an idea of how Unsurance companies and their “products” are supposed to work, and mostly don’t, and keep in mind that getting an attorney to “sue the hell out of” an Unsurance company for “bad faith” denial of coverage or recission is in the vast, vast, vast majority of otherwise worthy cases simply not possible. You might look up “contract of adhesion,” while you’re at it.
No remedy, no right, no real bilateral contract.
Healthcare resources are scarce for a lot of reasons, so many of which have to do with how efficiently the few have been able to steal the future from the many. If you want to deny universal health care as a right, well, how about at least noting that in nation-states that have it as part of the social contract, your holy business world, all those inventive people, are a lot more productive over a longer period and the businesses seem to do so much better against the US competition (whatever hasn’t been able to flee the sinking ship)? And that Unsurance companies are going to send tens of millions of “policy holders,” involuntarily, every year, to those same foreign socialist lands to get treated by nationalized-medicine doctors in government-built and -staffed (or REAL non-profit managed) hospitals that suddenly are “just as good” as anything the “superior” US medical system has to offer?
But then, as the all-wise Mr. W also used to say, “We shall see…”
No way you can lose, with that as your tag line…
Heh. Jon’s notion of oligopoy is very neoclassical. As a fan of amAistrian thinking, I see that there is mo such thing as “perfect competition”. All industries have a finite number of firms which is defined generally by how well they can serve their customers at profits sufficient to attract or disinterest other entrants.
Microsoft’s flailing in mobile operating systems is just one proof of how well the market works to crush monopoly power all by itself.
Markets aren’t static world at some “equilibrium” where lines cross. They are dynamic, rivalrous worlds of discovery and constant trial and error. My wife and I are seeing that as qe try to get our cloth diaper business off the ground.
As for being a good libertarian economist or remembering Carter and Nixon… Heh… I’m 32, and only got seriously into this stuff on my own in late 2007 thanks to the inspiration of Ron Paul.
So there’s all manner of thing I know nothing about. That will always be the case for sure.
When it comes to needs, wants and whatnot, I see no useful distinction from the standpoint of public policy. Why? Because the discretionary power to determine subjective valuations like needs vs. wants leaves open all manner of tyranny. Is mandated insurance coverage for drug abuse rehab a “need”? How about invitro fertilization?
Biology tells us what we need to survive. Minimal food, adequate water, tolerable climate, etc. Nearly everything wr debate here is able more than that baseline.
Here’s something to consider. If we define “poverty” as “the bottom 10%”, than we will always have poverty. It’s worth stepping back sometimes and considering how amazing we have it. There’s a story of a kid that built a windmill power generator from just seeing a picture. He was on the daily show last night. Amazing story of image human potential and, in fact, the power of capitalism. He saved and invested in capital and the productivity gain made him wealthier. Amazing.
You’re a good egg, J.P. Better still, a good egghead.
Hey, also, did you hear the one about the high school senior in Florida who won a science contest with his proof of turning kudzu into ethanol? Oh holy whatever, what a win-win. I should look him up and see at which elite university he now matriculates with benefit of a full ride! (Perhaps he enjoys an internship in D.C.; who knows?)
Thanks, Hugo. Right back at you.
Here’s a link to that amazing story:
http://williamkamkwamba.typepad.com/
Real capitalism (specialization through private savings and investment built on property rights) is magic.
J.P.,
Thanks for the link to Stewart’s interview of young Mr. Kamkwamba. His story is even better than the one about the Floridian turning kudzu into a silk purse. Both those inventors should get MacArthur grants, y’aksme. Perhaps Jon Taplin, in his capacity as a philanthropist, will help to disseminate Kamkwamba’s thinking.
J.P.,
Thanks for the link to Stewart’s interview of young Mr. Kamkwamba. His story is even better than the one about the Floridian turning kudzu into a silk purse. Both those inventors should get MacArthur grants, y’aksme. Perhaps Jon Taplin, in his capacity as a philanthropist, will help to disseminate Kamkwamba’s thinking.
J.P.,
Thanks for the link to Stewart’s interview of young Mr. Kamkwamba. His story is even better than the one about the Floridian turning kudzu into a silk purse. Both those inventors should get MacArthur grants, y’aksme. Perhaps Jon Taplin, in his capacity as a philanthropist, will help to disseminate Kamkwamba’s thinking.
J.P.,
Thanks for the link to Stewart’s interview of young Mr. Kamkwamba. His story is even better than the one about the Floridian turning kudzu into a silk purse. Both those inventors should get MacArthur grants, y’aksme. Perhaps Jon Taplin, in his capacity as a philanthropist, will help to disseminate Kamkwamba’s thinking.