President Obama's Afghanistan Troop Reduction: A Tragedy and a Farce.

Below, interspersed into the actual text of President Obama's speech, is my analysis and my response.

This may seem very arrogant on my part (to critique the President's speech). However, I was deeply incensed and insulted by the patronizing, self-serving tone, and the ridiculous arguments presented in this speech.

========================

Good evening. Nearly 10 years ago, America suffered the worst attack on our shores since Pearl Harbor. This mass murder was planned by Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network in Afghanistan, and signaled a new threat to our security — one in which the targets were no longer soldiers on a battlefield, but innocent men, women and children going about their daily lives.

In the days that followed, our nation was united as we struck at al-Qaida and routed the Taliban in Afghanistan. Then, our focus shifted. A second war was launched in Iraq, and we spent enormous blood and treasure to support a new government there. By the time I took office, the war in Afghanistan had entered its seventh year. But al-Qaida's leaders had escaped into Pakistan and were plotting new attacks, while the Taliban had regrouped and gone on the offensive. Without a new strategy and decisive action, our military commanders warned that we could face a resurgent al-Qaida, and a Taliban taking over large parts of Afghanistan.

No matter how long we stay, no matter how many more lives are lost and people maimed, in the end the Taliban will regain a major role in Afghanistan. al-Qaida is probably no longer significant but other forms of Muslim extremism will emerge. Thus. all additional casualties and all additional money spent will be a complete waste.

For this reason, in one of the most difficult decisions that I've made as president, I ordered an additional 30,000 American troops into Afghanistan. When I announced this surge at West Point, we set clear objectives: to refocus on al-Qaida; reverse the Taliban's momentum; and train Afghan security forces to defend their own country. I also made it clear that our commitment would not be open-ended, and that we would begin to drawdown our forces this July.

The successes against al-Qaida, as in killing bin Laden and other leaders, is completely separate from the military operations in Afghanistan.

The Taliban's momentum (whatever that means) has not been reversed -

this is their home; they will just sit back and wait until the US leaves.

The Afghan security forces will continue to be a joke and no match for the fanatical education of the Taliban, no matter how long we train them and how much we pay them.

Tonight, I can tell you that we are fulfilling that commitment. Thanks to our men and women in uniform, our civilian personnel, and our many coalition partners, we are meeting our goals. As a result, starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge I announced at West Point. After this initial reduction, our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.

All additional casualties between now and 2014 (if indeed that date holds) will be completely in vain, and the President and military leaders who advocate for this delay in removing all our troops will have to live with these unnecessary and senseless casualties on their consciences.

We are starting this drawdown from a position of strength. Al-Qaida is under more pressure than at any time since 9/11. Together with the Pakistanis, we have taken out more than half of al-Qaida's leadership. And thanks to our intelligence professionals and Special Forces, we killed Osama bin Laden, the only leader that al-Qaida had ever known. This was a victory for all who have served since 9/11. One soldier summed it up well. "The message," he said, "is we don't forget. You will be held accountable, no matter how long it takes."

These types of actions against al-Qaida, if necessary, can be continued without a single US soldier in Afghanistan or Iraq.

The information that we recovered from bin Laden's compound shows al-Qaida under enormous strain. Bin Laden expressed concern that al-Qaida has been unable to effectively replace senior terrorists that have been killed, and that al-Qaida has failed in its effort to portray America as a nation at war with Islam — thereby draining more widespread support. Al-Qaida remains dangerous, and we must be vigilant against attacks. But we have put al-Qaida on a path to defeat, and we will not relent until the job is done.

Again, nothing to do with retaining troops in Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, we've inflicted serious losses on the Taliban and taken a number of its strongholds. Along with our surge, our allies also increased their commitments, which helped stabilize more of the country. Afghan security forces have grown by over 100,000 troops, and in some provinces and municipalities we have already begun to transition responsibility for security to the Afghan people. In the face of violence and intimidation, Afghans are fighting and dying for their country, establishing local police forces, opening markets and schools, creating new opportunities for women and girls, and trying to turn the page on decades of war.

I predict with virtual certainty that, no matter when the US finally leaves Afghanistan, the Taliban will return in full force, and quite possible topple the hapless buck we leave in charge as the "government".

Of course, huge challenges remain. This is the beginning — but not the end — of our effort to wind down this war. We will have to do the hard work of keeping the gains that we have made, while we drawdown our forces and transition responsibility for security to the Afghan government. And next May, in Chicago, we will host a summit with our NATO allies and partners to shape the next phase of this transition.

We do know that peace cannot come to a land that has known so much war without a political settlement. So as we strengthen the Afghan government and security forces, America will join initiatives that reconcile the Afghan people, including the Taliban. Our position on these talks is clear: They must be led by the Afghan government, and those who want to be a part of a peaceful Afghanistan must break from al-Qaida, abandon violence and abide by the Afghan Constitution. But, in part because of our military effort, we have reason to believe that progress can be made.

This observation is "politically correct" but ignores thousands of years of historical experience. This part of the world has never been "pacified" into a nation-state; it has always, and will for the foreseeable future be dominated by tribal rule, which we do not understand. America, in its simple-minded foreign policy, still believes that it has the one and only correct answer to how countries should be governed. America barely knows how to govern itself, let alone telling other societies how to do it.

The goal that we seek is achievable, and can be expressed simply: no safe-haven from which al-Qaida or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland, or our allies. We will not try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains indefinitely. That is the responsibility of the Afghan government, which must step up its ability to protect its people; and move from an economy shaped by war to one that can sustain a lasting peace. What we can do, and will do, is build a partnership with the Afghan people that endures — one that ensures that we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign Afghan government.

Here we go again! Another definition of "achievable goals" for Afghanistan. 

Complete fantasy.

Of course, our efforts must also address terrorist safe-havens in Pakistan. No country is more endangered by the presence of violent extremists, which is why we will continue to press Pakistan to expand its participation in securing a more peaceful future for this war-torn region. We will work with the Pakistani government to root out the cancer of violent extremism, and we will insist that it keep its commitments. For there should be no doubt that so long as I am president, the United States will never tolerate a safe-haven for those who aim to kill us: They cannot elude us, nor escape the justice they deserve.

If we think we need to, and if we are arrogant enough to feel we have the right to, we can continue the anti-terrorist activity in this region without any soldiers on the ground. I would argue that the death of Osama bin-Laden was not at all aided by US troops in Afghanistan.

My fellow Americans, this has been a difficult decade for our country. We have learned anew the profound cost of war — a cost that has been paid by the nearly 4,500 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq, and the over 1,500 who have done so in Afghanistan — men and women who will not live to enjoy the freedom that they defended. Thousands more have been wounded. Some have lost limbs on the field of battle, and others still battle the demons that have followed them home.

An now, with your inability to LEAD, more will die and be maimed fo no good purpose whatsoever.

Yet tonight, we take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding. Fewer of our sons and daughters are serving in harm's way. We have ended our combat mission in Iraq, with 100,000 American troops already out of that country. And even as there will be dark days ahead in Afghanistan, the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance. These long wars will come to a responsible end.

What is a "responsible end" to this war? As I have stated above, Afghanistan will NOT be a stab country after we leave (whenever that is), forget about being a "democracy". The goals stated above will not be achieved!

As they do, we must learn their lessons. Already this decade of war has caused many to question the nature of America's engagement around the world. Some would have America retreat from our responsibility as an anchor of global security, and embrace an isolation that ignores the very real threats that we face. Others would have America overextend ourselves, confronting every evil that can be found abroad.

We must chart a more centered course. Like generations before, we must embrace America's singular role in the course of human events. But we must be as pragmatic as we are passionate; as strategic as we are resolute. When threatened, we must respond with force — but when that force can be targeted, we need not deploy large armies overseas. When innocents are being slaughtered and global security endangered, we don't have to choose between standing idly by or acting on our own. Instead, we must rally international action, which we are doing in Libya, where we do not have a single soldier on the ground but are supporting allies in protecting the Libyan people and giving them the chance to determine their destiny.

What is the threat to the US from Afghanistan (or Iraq and Libya, for that matter)? The events of 9/11 could and should have been prevented is our "intelligence" operations had indeed been intelligent, rather than being characterized by petty turf-wars and incompetent leadership ("slam-dunk").

A recurrence of 9/11 will not be averted by maintaining large US military presence in countries such as Afghanistan. 

A believable argument can be made that the massive military reaction to 9/11 was nothing more than a smoke screen to hid the complete failure of our intelligence agencies.

And let's get real about "America's singular role in the course of human events" -- one could make an argument that this was true through the end of WW II and the demise of the Soviet Union. However since then, the US, as the only super-power left, has been singularly inept in using its power to bring about a better more peaceful world.

And in terms of how America is handling its own democracy, and its "standing" in comparison to other "advanced" nations, it is a pretty dismal picture. 

See Death of Democracy in America  | http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0053T3OJ2

In all that we do, we must remember that what sets America apart is not solely our power — it is the principles upon which our union was founded. We are a nation that brings our enemies to justice while adhering to the rule of law, and respecting the rights of all our citizens. We protect our own freedom and prosperity by extending it to others. We stand not for empire but for self-determination. That is why we have a stake in the democratic aspirations that are now washing across the Arab World. We will support those revolutions with fidelity to our ideals, with the power of our example, and with an unwavering belief that all human beings deserve to live with freedom and dignity.

This is a disgustingly disingenuous statement and an insult to any intelligent person. Bombing Libya, it seems, is "fidelity to our ideals, with the power of our example, and with an unwavering belief that all human beings deserve to live with freedom and dignity".

If we were serious about this, then we would NOT use military power in Libya, but instead invest these monies in those place (like Egypt and Tunisia) which have a reasonable chance of making meaningful changes.

Above all, we are a nation whose strength abroad has been anchored in opportunity for our citizens at home. Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times. Now, we must invest in America's greatest resource — our people. We must unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industry, while living within our means. We must rebuild our infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy. And most of all, after a decade of passionate debate, we must recapture the common purpose that we shared at the beginning of this time of war. For our nation draws strength from our differences, and when our union is strong no hill is too steep and no horizon is beyond our reach.

America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home.

In this effort, we draw inspiration from our fellow Americans who have sacrificed so much on our behalf. To our troops, our veterans and their families, I speak for all Americans when I say that we will keep our sacred trust with you, and provide you with the care, and benefits, and opportunity that you deserve.

This too is a bold-faced lie. Veterans are left to their own devices to rot on the streets. Only the high-tech, media-effective medical interventions of those "lucky" enough to have had their legs blown off get some initial treatment. But even they, once their PR effectiveness has been exhausted, are left to fight the VA for follow-up treatment. And those poor should, who come home psychically and emotionally destroyed, get virtually no help. I run across Vietnam era veterans every day on the streets of our cities, begging for handouts, and trying to survive off the garbage in the alleys.

I met some of those patriotic Americans at Fort Campbell. A while back, I spoke to the 101st Airborne that has fought to turn the tide in Afghanistan, and to the team that took out Osama bin Laden. Standing in front of a model of bin Laden's compound, the Navy SEAL who led that effort paid tribute to those who had been lost — brothers and sisters in arms whose names are now written on bases where our troops stand guard overseas, and on headstones in quiet corners of our country where their memory will never be forgotten. This officer — like so many others I have met with on bases, in Baghdad and Bagram, at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval Hospital — spoke with humility about how his unit worked together as one — depending on each other, and trusting one another, as a family might do in a time of peril.

That's a lesson worth remembering — that we are all a part of one American family. Though we have known disagreement and division, we are bound together by the creed that is written into our founding documents, and a conviction that the United States of America is a country that can achieve whatever it sets out to accomplish. Now, let us finish the work at hand. Let us responsibly end these wars, and reclaim the American Dream that is at the center of our story. With confidence in our cause; with faith in our fellow citizens; and with hope in our hearts, let us go about the work of extending the promise of America — for this generation, and the next.

May God bless our troops. And may God bless the United States of America.

Just wonderful! Even on this solemn and hugely important issue, we're in political campaign mode again.

Comments on "Obama’s perilous assault on the rich"

Comment on: Obama’s perilous assault on the rich By Clive Crook

Published: May 1 2011 19:14 | Last updated: May 1 2011 19:14

Original article here.

The indisputable fact is that since the mid 1970's, the income distribution has shifted very dramatically to the top 1%, and that this coincides time-wise with the dramatic tax cuts first passed by the Reagan administration - the expected rise in tax revenue did not materialize and to avoid an even bigger budget deficit, Mr Greenspan made his brilliant suggestion to rob the Social Security Trust Fund. "Income redistribution", which the conservatives complain about as a sign of "class warfare" has actually been in favor of those on the top of the income distribution.

See my Blog for details.

Part of the solution is to make the wealthy, who benefited from the lower taxes and the raiding of the Social Security Trust Fund, pay for replenishing that Trust Fund by extending the payroll (SSA) taxes to the very high incomes and by reversing the tax cuts for the very wealthy. The effect on jobs of such "tax increases", as everyone knows, will be minimal to non-existent.

Comment on Editorial by David Brooks, "What Government Does":

Comment on Editorial by David Brooks, "What Government Does":

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/opinion/29brooks.html

Mr. Brooks' commentary, for a change, was insightful, and surprisingly honest for a "conservative" observing "government in action" -- until the very last sub-sentence ... "-- and to see the limitations inherent in government planning".

Remember, what Brooks is observing is treatment and housing for VETERANS, our "heros", which our politicians love to reference in every speech (but then immediately neglect in funding their services). If in no other area, when it comes to helping VETERANS it is the "government" (i.e. all of us) and ONLY the government which has the responsibility to care for them. To imply, however obliquely, that perhaps "private enterprise" could do a better job of planning and implementing care for VETERANS is just stupid,stupid, stupid. It would put VETERANS into the same position as the rest of us dealing with for-profit health insurance -- DENY benefits to increase profit. If there is any group in our society that should not be subjected to that cruel indignity, it is our VETERANS.

Book Review: “The New Capitalist Manifesto” by Umair Haque

On the lookout for some perspective on the future of free-market capitalism which can get us past the unsustainable Anglo-American laissez-faire capitalism, with its reliance on never-ending growth, desperate consumerism, externalizing of environmental and social destruction which cannot easily be monetized and its creation of extreme economic inequality, I seized upon this title.

The Foreword is written by Gary Hamel, who famously held out Enron as a model of outstanding management shortly before it’s infamous collapse. He also espouses the worn-out capitalist’s mantra, including the efficiency of markets in allocating scarce resources, and minimizing  the regulatory burden on business, all of which led me to be somewhat suspicious of what was to follow.

The Preface is full of the breathless hyperbole du-jour of paradigm shift, rebooting capitalism, transformative, enlightenment, shifting tectonic plates, and institutional innovation, to make me suspect that this book evolved from a marketing brochure for the author’s company, Bubblegeneration, an agenda-setting advisory boutique (boutique - a small outlet for elite and fashionable items). However, there were enough enticing hints to encourage me to read on.

In Chapter 1, “The Blueprint for a better Kind of Business”, the breathless hyperbole continues as Mr. Haque (and his research team .. wow) analyzes the shortcomings of current capitalism, and formulates the needed “institutional innovations”. He concludes (drum-roll) that there exists a “great imbalance”: “industrial era capitalism ... undercount[s] costs (ignoring many flavors of loss and damage) and over-count[s]  benefits ...” 

This is presented as a ground-breaking (breathless) discovery - the author seems (but can’t really be, can he?) unaware that many environmental and social organizations have been trying to make this point for decades. The polluting of rivers, groundwater reservoirs and entire oceans by ruthless mining and manufacturing corporations, the foisting of increased health costs resulting from the carelessly and uselessly processed foods upon an ignorant and duped public, are among issues which have been discussed for several decades. Economists have been complicit in perpetuating these problems by insisting that these costs could not be monetized (and thus must be “externalized) into their pretty little supply/demand models, which supposedly control the efficient allocation of resources.

These are issues which “green” groups and Greens (political parties) have been fighting for for several decades.

The next big “breakthrough” in Mr. Haque’s “research” is the notion of “thin value” versus “deep or thick value”. To help us poor ignorant non-economists visualize “thin value” as produced by today’s “industrial era” (= old/dumb) capitalism, he leads us through the calculations of a $3.00 hamburger which actually “costs” $30,00, and a $8.00 widget which is sold to the customer for $10.00. He then argues, that if the production of the widget depleted more than $2.00 worth of non-renewable resources, the value created is “unsustainable” (duh...), and if the buyer received less than $10.00 of “meaningful” (definition, please) value, he was cheated (double duh...).

Mr. Haque is big on “cornerstones” -- his “research” has identified five cornerstones, which “define” industrial-era capitalism and replaces them with five new cornerstones for “constructive capitalism”:

• Value chains  -->   Value cycles
• Value propositions -->  Value conversations
• Strategies  -->  Philosophies
• Protection  -->  Completion
• Goods  -->  Betters

The further I get into this book, the more it becomes obvious that this is a huge marketing exercise to improve the “image” of some companies by giving them the sheen of “sustainability” and social responsibility. And guess which companies Mr. Haque’s “research” has identified as “today’s revolutionaries ...[who are] rebooting capitalism”: Walmart, Nike, Google and Unilever are some of the most rapacious companies of the past, who could certainly do with a marketing make-over.

Chapter 2 discusses the first of the new “cornerstones”, value cycles, and Walmart is the prime example cited as an example of the “revolutionary ... rebooting capitalism” with value cycles. Now, values cycles are nothing more than a rebranding of numerous proposals over the past 20 to 30 years to use recycling as an approach to achieve sustainable economies. Since Saatchi & Saatchi, one of the premier marketing/branding companies in the world, was responsible for introducing Walmart to these concepts at a time when Walmart was under increasing pressure for being one of the most ruthless, rapacious companies in the world, it is fair to assume (and acknowledged by Saatchi’s CEO) that this was part of a marketing white-wash effort. The fact that some of these suggestions started making sense to Walmart (such as minimizing packaging to reduce transportation costs) as a way of improving their bottom-line, is fortunate and laudable, but does not make them a “revolutionary” for “constructive capitalism”.

If Walmart were truly on the forefront of a new socially responsible form of capitalism, they would not treat their employees like chattel, most of whom live below the poverty level and a third of whom are “part-time”, and thus not eligible for health insurance. On both of these counts Walmart is externalizing a huge proportion of its employee costs to society at large in the form of support payments for low income families and medical care for the uninsured. A socially conscious company could, for example, pay living wages (minimum wages have been kept artificially low precisely because of the lobbying power of companies like Walmart), or could sponsor health clinics for its employees who have no health insurance. 

Another company cited as being “revolutionary” in its acceptance of ecologically and socially responsible capitalism is Nike. They too may be discovering some benefits from recycling materials used in their shoes to improve their bottom-line. But that is a far cry from making this company a leader in a supposed revolution for “constructive capitalism”. Nike has a long history of moving its manufacturing sites from one slave labor country to another, and even in these countries it broke records of violations of what little worker protection exists there.

In Chapter 3 we are introduced to the second of the new cornerstones - “responsiveness” as an implementation of the concept of “value conversations”. The revolutionary company cited as an example is Threadless, a company that invites internet consumers to vote on new t-shirt designs (actually just decals). This is cited as a competitive advantage over companies like Tommy Hilfiger, The Gap, Banana Republic and Old Navy. That’s a pretty threadbare argument (pun intended). As if someone using the internet to duplicate the many tourist trap t-shirt shops, where you can have any inane decal plastered on an ugly, ill-fitting t-shirt can be said to “revolutionize capitalism”. 

To argue that today’s “industrial era” corporations make product decisions by blind, autocratic board-room decisions is ludicrous. Before (for example) Boeing or Airbus make e decision to launch a new airplane program, they most certainly do exhaustive research, including input from their customers, before committing the billions of dollars required. The notion that there are not many, many “conversations” which take place leading up to such decisions is just mind-boggling nonsense. Any secrecy (as opposed to the completely free and open association of Wikipedia, which is cited in this context) is a function of competition between Boeing and Airbus -- that can only be resolved if all our enterprises were to pursue the “open source” model pioneered by Linux and MySQL.

The example of “veto power” for the NGO’s supposedly involved in Walmart’s sustainability decisions are nothing more than marketing ploys to allow them to plaster meaningless “certifications” on their products. Already the Marine Stewardship Council is under attack for certifying certain fisheries (most likely after pressure from corporations like Walmart) which are anything but sustainable.

This whole chapter is further evidence of the breathless, hyperbole-filled nonsense emanating from the marketing bluster typical of this whole book.

And on we go to Chapter 4, about Resilience ... and Philosophy. I thought the gibberish could not get worse, but I stand corrected. 

The argument here takes off from a comparison between Google and Microsoft and the “open” versus “closed” environments, and that only the “open” environment of Google can produce truly superior, “resilient” products with “thick value”. And here I thought (as economists have argued vociferously since Adam Smith) that all of free-market capitalism, with its all-knowing, perfectly informed consumers, and its self-regulating supply/demand equilibrium models, would ensure the emergence and survival of superior products. 

I certainly agree with Mr. Haque that this is not the case, as “Marketing” is basically a hugely powerful tool for spreading dis-information and lies, and thus preventing a rationally optimal choice. I am not a big fan of Microsoft and many of its products, and I do use Google a lot (search and e-mail), but it is far from obvious that Google Mail and Docs, for example, are (or will ever be) superior to Microsoft Exchange and Word. The big difference for the “casual” user is that the Google products are FREE.

And that, in turn, is because Google sells information (about what people do on the Web), while Microsoft sells products, primarily for the PC. Thus, to offer as many free products through which Google can observe and track what we do on the Web enhances its ability to sell it’s REAL product, namely information about almost everything we do via the Web.

And make no mistake about it, Google’s core product, the search engine and how it collects its data about us, is anything but open for everyone to see the innards of and improve upon.

Mr. Haque then compares the wonderfully open Google “philosophy” to Big Food (the bad guy) because they use dictatorial “planned market” tactics to “stifle free and fair exchange”. Remember that in the previous chapters, Walmart (which derives almost 50% if its income from food distribution and dominates the Fig Food industry) was hailed by Mr. Haque as one of the “revolutionaries” of “constructive capitalism”.

If Big Food were in the business only of selling data about what, how, when and where we buy groceries, rather than supplying us with food itself (admittedly, much of it junk), then they could afford the luxury of allowing anyone to freely share (virtual) shelf space. As a matter of fact, then it would be in their profit-making interest to be “open”.

Mr. Haque’s hyperventilating about the marvels of the Google’s “philosophy” is all based on a basic misunderstanding about what Google’s “product” is versus what Microsoft and Big Food sell. Google sells INFORMATION, which it collects by giving away “stuff” for free (admittedly a lot of their free “stuff” is pretty cool), which is its instrumentation, or “spy-ware” to collect huge amounts of information about us (so is their “stuff” really “free”? i.e. we pay for the “stuff” with information about us), and this information about us, they sell, sometimes to our detriment.

One of Google’s cited “philosophies” is “You can make money without doing evil”. In Germany their Google Maps project was halted because it was discovered that their instrumented trucks were secretly recording wireless and cell phone traffic as they were collecting their “street-views”. I wonder what they were planing to do with that information?

To be clear, I would love to see corporations, big and small, stop using Marketing as a means of deceiving customers into buying inferior products or even worse, products with no value, let alone “meaningful” value (whatever that means). However, the evidence presented by Mr. Haque that “revolutionary” companies are moving in that direction out of an altruistic sense of ecological and social responsibility is, to paraphrase the name of another one of Mr. Haque’s revolutionary companies, a bit threadbare.

Chapter 5 describes the fourth cornerstone, “Completing” (rather than Protecting) a Marketplace, which is to be done via “Creativity”.

The implicit claim Mr. Haque makes is that, aside from “creative marketing”, free market capitalism has been devoid of creativity until he and his research team stumbled upon it. The first layer of horse manure has been spread.

This chapter is interesting because for the first time Mr. Haque attempts to define some of his breathlessly hyperbolic terms.

thin value:  products with diminishing returns for the already best-off.

thick value:  products which make the least well-off the most better-off.

socio-productivity:  creating ultra-high-need-ultra-low-cost markets, segments and industries.

That lays down two additional layers of horse pucky.

Mr. Haque pretends that he and his “research team” have discovered a new type of “creativity” in what Apple is currently doing with all of its products (but especially iPod, iPhone and iPad, which I agree are extremely innovative), which defines a new form of “constructive capitalism”. He completely ignores the fact that “creativity” in creating new products and new markets has been the hallmark of free-market capitalism since its inception, and that companies go through ups and downs in terms of their “creative” successes. He holds up Apple as a “uniquely creative” company, heralding in a new age of capitalism, ignoring the fact that just a few decades ago (still in the age of dumb industrial-era capitalism) Sony dominated the portable music market with its Walk-Man, which was then considered a uniquely “creative” product.

Mr. Haque correctly points out that laissez-faire capitalism creates increasing economic inequality, even though he frames this observation in the rather simplistic area of percent spent on transportation. The degree to which free-market capitalism creates inequalities is much more pervasive and much more insidious

. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in what he defines as “socio-productivity” which will help to reverse this inequality in current free-market economies.

Having said that, I do applaud all of the efforts, such as micro-credit and cell-phones to jump start communication networks in under-developed countries, which will help these countries lift themselves out of their abject poverty. However, I don’t see anything in Apple’s “i” technologies or Nintendo’s Wii, or the ability to time-share an executive jet which would qualify these companies as representatives of a new breed of socially and environmentally responsible capitalism.

Let’s look at the “revolutionary Nano” by India’s Tata. Tata has used it creativity to design and build a car which matches the requirements of it’s particular market, as well as a potentially huge market in other developing countries. More power to them. But from a larger ecological perspective, it will only serve the increase the destructive influence of the automobile (pollution, congestion, destruction of arable land by suburbanization, etc.).

Apart from that, such “creativity”, however is as old as free-markets, or even not-so-free-markets. “Necessity is the mother of invention” has led to amazingly creative developments for a long, long time.  The Italian designed Isetta, built by BMW starting in 1957, helped that company fight its way back after near total destruction during the WW II and filled a huge demand for low cost automobiles in post-war Germany. Just as Italian/BMW creativity then was not the harbinger of a new socially-responsible form of free-market capitalism, but rather an exploitation of a potential market (something free-market capitalism is indeed very good at), so Tata’s Nano is nothing more or less than its exploitation of a perceived market segment.

Onward to Chapter 6, where we are introduced to “betters”, which are supposed to replace the “goods [and services]” produced by old-style capitalism. Isn’t that cute? Get it, “goods” to “betters”?

Again, this chapter, like the others, has snatches of sensible critique of free-market capitalism, in that it depends on ever more consumption of ever more crappy products and services, and that this blind focus on consuming (after meeting our “basic” needs for shelter, food, health) does very little to increase our “happiness”.

Beyond that, however, this chapter follows the pattern of all the previous chapters of hyperventilating with made-up, hyperbolic terminology, which is never defined (or only defined by reference to other hyperbolic nonsense terms used earlier in the book). The author seems to feel that by prefixing “socio” to terms such as “productivity” or “effectiveness” that he has defined a socially-responsible version of this economic terminology.

Here is a sampling of Mr. Haque’s definitions (I kid you not):

“Socio-effectiveness has to do not with the goodness of outputs, but the goodness of outcomes. It isn’t about doing things right or doing the right things. It is about righting the things we do -- ensuring that our products and services ultimately result in positive, tangible benefits and refraining from those that don’t, can’t, and won’t”  [emphasis in original text].

That’s as clear as mud. This goes on for several more paragraphs, which only serve to obfuscate more.

The “revolutionary” company which Mr. Haque extolls as exemplifying the production of “betters” is Nike because of its “Nike Plus” website, “its revolutionary online community. ...Nike Plus will, if you give it a chance, work furiously to make you a better runner”.

I’m not a runner, but I was intrigued, so I went to the site. The landing page is all about selling Nike products (shoes, watches, jackets, etc -- surprise!). Under “Quick Links” one can go to various Blogs with such scintillating topics as “Should you eat before of after you run” and “Learning to love 400m” -- possibly interesting, but certainly nothing “revolutionary”. There are many company-sponsored Websites, which try to foster “product loyalty” by providing “communities”.

Another example is Whole Foods, which has staked its fortune on people “infatuation” with “natural” and “organic” foods.  This is just another example of a company riding the wave of a current trend, which may or may not be long lasting and in the process perverting the teems “natural” and “organic” to suit their own needs. Most certainly the management attitude of Whole Foods is anything but socially and economically responsible (as pointed out by Mr. Haque himself), given the CEO’s vociferous opposition to healthcare reform and union representation.

Finally we come to Chapter 6, the “capstone” in the new set of “cornerstones”, describing “smart growth” versus “dumb growth”.

Here are some more Haque-style definitions:

“...smart growth by increasing returns to investment in the least well-off beats growth by diminishing returns to consumption from the most well-off”.

“.. ‘smart’ growth is the growth of thick, high-quality value”.

“Constructive strategy is the art of redrawing the boundaries of prosperity by turning dumb growth smart”.

Crystal clear, right?

In the final chapter Mr. Haque makes a number of “humble suggestions” (Mr. Haque’s marketing hyperbole is anything but “humble”) as to what “constructive capitalism” is:

“It’a time to replace [old-style capitalism] with a better kind of capitalism, that is intelligent, beautiful, just, virtuous -- and that does deliver the goods”.

“It is to profit more from less economic harm, instead of being trapped to profit only through more harm.”

Summary and Conclusion

The above “humble suggestions” are typical of the breathless, hyperbolic, meaningless, feel-good slogans which makes up the bulk of this book. Mr. Haque unleashes a flood of  undefined terminology (thick value vs. thin value, betters vs. goods, authentic economic value, meaningful value, socio-productivity, socio-efficiency, socio-effectiveness, and on and on), which he uses in circular definitions, one undefined term supposedly defining the next layer of undefined terms.

Mr. Haque correctly points to some of the most egregious failings of laissez-faire capitalism, such as the need for endless growth of consumption of shoddier and shoddier products and services, which does irreversible harm to the environment, concentrates wealth and power in a very small elite, and does little or nothing to increase well-being and “happiness”. 

However, the psycho-babble of his breathless marketing hype, and the inane examples he cites of companies which supposedly show an emergence of his “constructive capitalism”, only serves to reenforce the impression that Mr. Haque is a snake-oil salesman selling his companies’ (Havas Media Lab and Bugglegeneration) charter to consult with venture capitalists, start-ups and clients to find new ways of reaching consumers via digital channels, making this book almost entirely a marketing brochure.

Mr. Haque seems desperate to show that free-market capitalism, from its own sense of responsibility for the larger society and world within which it operates, can reform itself to be “intelligent, beautiful, just, virtuous”. However, capitalism is still capitalism, where “greed is good”, self-interested decision making is the rule, and everything that can be externalized will be externalized in the name of profit and stockholder value. To believe otherwise is to set yourself up for the kind of “ah-ha” moment “of shocked disbelief” which Mr. Greenspan admitted to during his infamous Senate testimony about the collapse of the financial industry.

Getting this kind of nonsense published and reviewed as a "revolutionary", "brilliant" road map to a brighter from of capitalism is sad enough (it shows how desperate the publishing industry is). What is however, even more disturbing is that this kind of nonsense is given additional credibility by the "Harvard Business Review", where Mr. Haque is a blogger.

Income Redistribution: What is it ... really

On reading a fascinating book by Larry M. Bartels, “Unequal Democracy - The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age”, I was struck anew by the degree to which the economic well-being of different groups (“classes”) within our society are determined not so much by how well individuals are equipped to prosper in a “free-market economy” (education, initiative, work-ethic, etc), but at least equally by the degree of their political influence (or lack thereof) in shaping the political environment within which this “free”-market economy operates (tax laws, loop-holes, government subsidies, etc).

Thus, since the discourse about the political infrastructure and policies is so important to the welfare of all of us, it is vital that the words and phrases we use in conducting this political discourse are not perverted by being loaded with ideological bias in one direction or another. 

In the current political debate in America, the term “income redistribution” has taken on a decidedly one-sided, ideologically loaded meaning. It is used almost exclusively in a derogatory way to refer to the transfer payments, mostly through government programs, to the poorest among us, such as unemployment benefits, Social Security benefits, Medicare benefits, food stamps, etc.. It is often used in conjunction with the loaded term “class warfare”, meant to conjure up the image of old-style socialism or even communism. In this way, instead of discussing substantive policy alternatives to maintain economic equity and political equality, use of the term “income redistribution” is meant to immediately move from the substantive to the emotional FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) level, thus short-circuiting further rational discussion.

One graph in the Bartels book (Chapter 1, Figure 1.3), showing the distribution of real income among various income groups, is a real eye-opener in the context of “income redistribution”. I have reproduced this data below, using a publically available database from the research team cited by Bartels as the source for this data.

This graph shows that the direction of “income redistribution” flows very dramatically from the lower incomes to the top 1% and 0.1% of the income spectrum.

Until about 1970 the trend of all the income lines was more or less horizontal, showing income differentials among different segments, reflecting the “meritocracy” typical of a society with a free-market economy, where initiative and skill is rewarded. However, after 1970 the income growth of the top 5%, and especially the top 1%, started increaing at an exponential rate, reflecting a massive income redistribution from 99% of the population to the top 1%.

Most tellingly, since the numbers shown include the aggregate effect of existing government programs to direct income to the lower income groups (unemployment, food stamps, educational subsidies, etc.), as well as the effect of programs which benefit the top earners (such as tax policies, subsidies, etc.) the net flow of income redistribution over the last 30 years is decidedly in favor of the top 5%. 

Applying the polemics of “class warefare” associated with the current usage of “income redistribution” in light of this evidence, it is quite obvious that the “upper classes”, repersented by the top 1% (and especially by the top 0.1% - representing a true oligarchy of the 13,000 super-rich) have been waging a very effective guerilla war against the 99% of the rest of us. Huge amounts of income have been “redistributed” from the poor and middle class to the super rich.

Comment on "Defection Track", by David Brooks, NYT

This morning, during my usual review of the NYT editorials/opinions, the column by David Brooks, "Defection Track", caught my eye and raised my blood pressure. I felt compelled to submit the following comment:

Trust a conservative commentator to support another senseless, unwinable, expensive, war in a place where (other than oil) the US has no direct stake, and from which there is no direct threat against us. To imply that "the policy the Obama administration is actually implementing is more flexible and thought-through" is ridiculous. We are following the same old pattern, popular since the Vietnam war, of making one poorly thought-through decision after the other (CIA, arms deliveries, "advisors", "limited troops", ... and 50,000 casualties later watching Americans being evacuated from rooftops by helicopter) in order to make the previous dumb decision look less stupid. Again, like in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have no definitive goal or exist strategy, and again, unless we get very lucky, we will get in deeper and deeper, and in the end we will leave behind a devastated country.

It is amazing how conservatives get all fluttery with "humanitarian purposes" when it involves bombing the hell out of people in other countries, while at the same time they are cutting one "humanitarian" program after the other in our own country.

It’s Time for a Change: Obama must go

I was one of the millions who cheered on election night 2008 when Barack Obama became President-elect. Although a die-hard supporter of Hillary Clinton during most of the primaries, I still felt that not only had America dodged the bullet of McCain/Palin in the White House, and that a truly historic moment in American history had arrived, but also that we had elected a competent person to run the country for the next four years.

Unfortunately it became obvious very quickly that one rousing speech during a Democratic Convention four years earlier does not a competent president make. It does not even ensure a President who is capable of properly communicating his goals, policies and achievement outside of the campaign environment.

His first legislative challenge, the Health Care Reform Bill was a complete failure. In spite of the Democratic majority in both houses, he felt compelled to pursue a “bi-partisan” mirage in the face of open and repeated assertions by the Republican leadership that their highest goal was to ensure the failure of President Obama. As the President lost the initiative, Health Care Reform morphed into Health Insurance Reform, missing the key ingredient of a “public option” to keep the rapacious health insurance industry in check.

A major part of the failure lies in the President’s unwillingness or inability to forcefully make his case for true Health Care Reform. As eloquent as he was during the campaign trail, he turned out to be a complete flop as a communicator when it really counted. This allowed the tide of public support, which was palpable during the campaign, to dry up and eventually, with the drumbeat of Republican misinformation, turn into opposition.

Yes, the resulting bill does include some useful components regarding pre-existing conditions and allowing young people to remain on their parent’s insurance through college. But, for a very large number of people, the most visible net result is that their insurance premiums have been raised dramatically by insurance companies, who claim that higher rates are needed to allow them to provide for the new coverage requirements.

And that was it for the first legislative period of Obama’s presidency. Then came the drubbing of the mid-term election. It is a testament to the depth of Obama’s failings that his sellout to the Republicans on the extension of the Bush Tax Cut, supposedly necessary to obtain an extension of unemployment funding to help Americans survive the Republican orchestrated financial and economic meltdown, was hailed as a “victory” for President Obama during the lame duck session.

Fast forward to March 2011. Popular unrest in North Africa. Massive demonstrations in Egypt. The Obama Administration obviously caught completely unprepared. The embarrassing admission by Leon Panetta, before the Senate, admitting about the impending resignation of Hosni Mubarak  that “I got the same information you did, that there's a strong likelihood that Mubarak may step down this evening." A president at some level is only as good as the people he surrounds himself with.

President Obama got a pass in Egypt: Hosni Mubarak did actually resign - not when the CIA (eh.. the press) said he would, but he did go. And then comes Libya.

Again, completely clueless. Who are the “rebels”? What is their organization? How strong are they militarily? When a revolutionary council was formed, who are the players? Do we recognize them? Where is the CIA with its billions of dollars worth of “intelligence” (now there is an oxymoron)?

For once the Europeans got ahead of us. France recognized the provisional government in Benghazi and, together with the UK, committed to enforce a no-fly zone. Statements were made by Obama that “Gaddafi must go”. The media mounted a campaign to intervene with military force by providing a drumbeat of completely one-sided accounts (and as it turns out, incorrect) of the rebel successes and Gaddafi’s impending ouster. Again, where was our billion dollar CIA?

In the meantime the see-saw in Libya goes on. The rebels quickly “gain control” of a large portion of the country and Gaddafi is seemingly on the ropes - the word from the provisional government is “stay out of it”. Platitudes from Obama. Libyan government forces come seemingly out of nowhere and quickly regain control of most of the country, threatening to unleash a “blood-bath” in Benghazi. Now we finally have a “humanitarian disaster” which must be averted. The Arab League and the UN are mobilized to give the US the legitimacy to unleash our awesome military power to reap destruction on Libya to make it safe for democracy. 

Thank you, Mr. President. Now we have three “?????” (turd sandwiches?) without defined objectives, with no clear US interest being threatened, with no exit strategy, indeterminate costs, and, very likely, constantly changing “guidelines”. Does anyone really believe (after Afghanistan and Iraq) that we can effect “regime change” without ground forces? Just like Vietnam, first CIA operative, arms delivery, trainers, limited troops and 50,000 casualties later we see Americans being evacuated from rooftops in Saigon. 

And to top it all off, our fabled communicator, President Obama, presents his eagerly anticipated speech to the nation on Tuesday to provide direction and clarity to a seemingly confused and confusing set of objectives and actions, only to leave us all .... completely confused.