Review of: "The Day After the Dollar Crashes", by Damon Vickers.

This book is fascinating, not so much for what the title promises (that, it turns out, seems almost incidental), but more for the seeming multiple personality disorder of the author, where a different "personality" seems to be in charge in each chapter.

In Chapter 1 the emphasis is on a "liberation" and 'free trade" world view, mixed with a generous sprinkling of "environmentalist"/Green warnings. All the well known and well worn statistics are rolled out about the huge national debt, the trade imbalance, and environmental ravages brought on by heedless pursuit of growth and consumption, and the dependence on entitlement programs. He states that GDP is not an appropriate measure for the wealth and health of a country and its economy (agreed) but then states that "The only real gauge of our worth is what we export".

Towards the end of this chapter he seems to be vying with Glenn Beck for the honor of "confused crazy", perhaps hoping for a seat at the table of television punditry.

Chapter 2 his Dr. Phil/Suze Orman/Glenn Beck personality mix takes full flight and the book takes a turn to the "How to Heal Thyself" genre, admittedly a good source of income, if you can develop a following - perhaps Oprah will sign him on to OWN. This chapter is full of platitudes and conflicting advice. He goes on an on about how US workers cannot hope to compete internationally, but does not offer any solutions (except perhaps accepting the incomes and lack of social services of third world countries). He ends this chapter out in left field with an admonition to reduce our prison population -- they get a free ride, shelter, food, medical care - still not quite sure how this fits into the New World Order.

In Chapter 3 Mr. Vickers seems to want to go back to the Silver Standard: "According to the 1792 Coinage Act, one single US dollar bill equals 0.77344 ounces of silver. That was sound money". I'm not an economists or finance expert, but that seems to be a dead horse since Nixon repudiated the ability to redeem gold for Dollars in 1971. In this regard Mr. Vickers is again aligning himself with some of the libertarian crazies.

He also states in the same section that "If you look at the period between 1800 and 1941, inflation did not exist while the currency was sound". That seems to be a completely false statement if you look at any of a number of historical inflation data sets. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Historical_Inflation.svg shows that inflation in 1920 peaked at over 20%.

Mr. Vickers has an amazing capacity for forceful arguments on both sides of an issue without seeming to realize that he is contradicting himself. He argues that jobs are leaving the US because American workers are too bloated and selfish and will not accept that demanding a living wage, some healthcare and old age pension will cause their jobs to leave forever. He offers the same old tired free-market arguments to demonstrate that this is inevitable and that "government regulations never work".

In the very next section he thunders against the unethical corporations, which act "against the common good in exchange for profits to the shareholders". He gets on his little soapbox and calls for "a social uprising that hits these conglomerates and this club of economic elites in the pocketbook". Then he goes on to "pray that the New world Order…includes powerful and enforceable policies to prevent this kind of financial pressure" which allow the corporate excesses.

So on the one hand he argues that "government regulations never work" but then calls for a "New World Order [which] includes powerful and enforceable policies". Mr Vickers seems to have separate compartments in his brain which don't communicate with each other.

Then Mr. Vickers morphs back into his Buddhist personality (the third personality of his multi-personality disorder?) with statements like "people saw clearly that we are one world, one ocean, one atmosphere… and acted with a new awareness that every living thing on earth was connected". This from the same man who only a few paragraphs earlier has berated the self-indulgent American worker for wanting a living wage and not acknowledging the wonders of free-market capitalism and its self-regulating, resource optimizing truths.

Mr. Vickers seems to keep gyrating back and forth between his libertarian self, where the government is nothing but a money grubbing, inefficient, self-serving, unaccountable menace to We the People, his Green/Buddhist self, where he bemoans the unsustainable, consumer-oriented, environment-destroying economic system of the West, and the corporate and political elite which control it to their own advantage, and the somewhat insane "New World Order" proponent, where, through some miraculous turn of events, all the ills of the current separate governments and corporate entities are morphed into a benevolent and all-knowing global governing entity which brings us into Nirvana.

Sprinkled into this melange are some real zingers - I'll quote just one:

"We Westernized citizens spend 80 percent of our time working for profit, thinking that someday we will evan enough money to allow us time to fish and garden [apparently his idyll]. In comparison, the third world citizen spends 80 percent of his time fishing and gardening [when he is not busy being slave labor for us]".

In Chapter 4, having not yet defined what the New World Order is, except vague references to some form of benevolent world government, which has miraculously managed to solve all the numerous problems he has enumerated, he turns to thermodynamic theory (entropy) to "prove" that a collapse of our current systems is inevitable. And like the tension between the Old and New Testaments, Mr. Vickers goes into "preacher mode" and pats us on the head and tells us not to be afraid of the "new order", for it is inevitable/ordained, and will lead us to Nirvana.

This religious fervor is mixed with some good old fashioned right-wing big-bad-government rhetoric (nationalizing various industries, stealing money through taxes, forcing through wasteful healthcare, etc). And this whole bizarre discussion ends with another zinger:

"We must realize that we infect the atmosphere with our thoughts. We create exactly what we think about. That may sound like some simplistic, new-thought mumbo-jumbo, but your belief is not required for this to be true. It is the law of the universe and no amount of resistance will change it. It is simply the way it is".

Yes, Your Vickers Holiness, we bow to your superior insights!

Chapter 5 is odd, in that it makes a lot of suggestions, again a confused mixture of libertarian, environmentalist, new-age and plain-old revolutionary, which we should follow, whether to avoid the cataclysmic collapse or to prepare for the New World Order afterwards - not clear which.

The Federal Reserve is lambasted, we are exhorted to "vote on character, not by party", we are told to go back to a self-sustaining agricultural society (after having previously been told that only exports count!), and to shift our consciousness to Oneness, and finally, to "take it to the street".

As if the previous chapters were not confusing and weird enough, Chapter 6 goes into a completely different direction. Here Mr. Vickers seems to be "pitching" a disaster movie script to Hollywood by giving a minute by minute account of the cataclysmic events, as only he is privy to, leading to the New World Order. 

Tellingly, at the end of this chapter Mr. Vickers morphs back into his investment advisor personality with this piece of advise (could be right out of his firm's brochure): 

"We embrace bull and bear markets equally, seeking to profit from what the market gives us, just as we did in both the 2000-2003 and the 2007-2008 market collapses".  So people, not to worry, the world as we know it will collapse, governments and institutions will be swept away, but Mr. Vickers' investment advisors will survive and stand ready to help you profit.

So perhaps the movie Mr. Vickers is pitching is a combination of "War of the Worlds" and "Wall Street".

Enough said, this is complete BS.

In the remaining chapters Mr. Vickers brings down the tablets from the mountain and tells us how the "Central Government" of the "New World Order" should/will function. The image that jumps to my mind when reading this, was the scene from the original "The Wizard of Oz" when we finally see "The Wizard" behind the curtain, flashing lights, smoke and pulling levers.

Although these chapters, as indeed the whole book, contain nuggets of interesting, admirable, and worthwhile (but certainly nothing new) ideas, Mr. Vickers' presentation of this wild melange of conflicting, often completely unproven ideas and scenarios is just too schizophrenic to be taken seriously.

If one were serious about investigating the possibility of, and the path to, a New World Order, one could, for example, study the origins and evolution of the European Union and the Euro, from the cataclysm of two World Wars, to the humble beginnings of the "Montanunion" (Coal and Steel free trade), to the Rome Treaty creating the European Union, all the way to the creation of the common currency and the difficulties that has spawned.

The schizophrenic, confused, self-serving and pitifully incoherent book by Mr. Vickers, in my view, does more harm than good in charting a course into the future.

Review of: "DEMONIC: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America" by Ann Coulter.

The existence of "mob mentality" and "group psychology", as described by Gustave LeBon and studied by sociologists and psychologists since then, is a fact. As Ms. Coulter points out, we can see it in action in history (French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Nazi Germany, on both sides of the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War protests) and on and on the list goes. Mobs are not only evident in large national and historic events; they are just as evident, for example, in school bullying and gang rapes. 

Mob mentality is evident in all forms of political activity, be they on the left or the right or in between. With the developments in modern media, from radio to TV, and now the internet and social media, it is no longer necessary to actually physically gather together a "crowd", but mobs can be incited, controlled and directed from far away and over lengthy periods of time. This combination of modern mass media technology (both "technology" in the strict sense, as well as the methodology of mass persuasion perfected by the advertising industry), together with the virtually unconstrained American interpretation of "free speech", is indeed a very real danger to the survival of civil and democratic societies.

If Ms. Coulter had chosen to present a balanced description and analysis of mass psychology and mob mentality in American political life in history and today, and the very real danger it presents to civil society and meaningful democracy, then this might indeed have been a worthwhile read. However, her demonic obsession with turning this discussion into a one-sided political harangue makes this book into exactly what she accuses "liberals" of - an effort to incite marginally informed masses into a mob movement against any thought or action which does not conform to her rather myopic view of "correct" political views. With this book Ms. Coulter has become exactly what she decries - the Joseph Goebbels of the extreme right-wing.

Even reading the dust cover, it struck me as odd that Ms. Coulter was at pains to describe the French Revolution as liberal and mob-controlled (which undoubtably it was in some aspects), of which the Democrats are supposedly direct "heirs", while "Republicans, heirs to the American Revolution, have regularly stood for peaceable order". Right there is the first instance of Ms. Coulter's use of mob psychology for her own purposes, by wrapping Republicans in the American flag, and associating the Democrats with a foreign flag, culture and mentality - a text-book exercise in inciting mob hysteria.

By the way, Ms. Coulter might be interested in reading "A Note on Mobs in the American Revolution" by Gordon S. Wood, assuming she is open to reading something which might disturb her myopic world view.

For every instance Ms. Coulter cites where liberals, Democrats, progressives (or whatever label she wishes to attach to those she accuses of destroying America) use tools of mob psychology, there are equivalents used by conservatives and Republicans. Take slogans. Ms. Coulter states that "Conservatives don't cotton to slogans", and then goes on to list many of the whoppers coined by liberals and Democrats. But what about "Death Panels" and "taxing the job creators" to name just two. 

Ms. Coulter accuses liberal mobs of "foisting faddish ideas … on the rest of us … which would never have occurred to anyone fifty years ago"; I guess civil rights is a faddish idea in her view.

The negative term "mob" is quickly equivalenced with Democrats (a classic ploy of mob psychology to establish automatic negative associations with your "enemies"), as in "The Mob's Compulsion to Create Messiahs". But hold on, Ronald Reagan has been elevated to a demigod by conservatives, with "supply-side economics" or trickle-down the equivalent of the holy grail.

Overall, Ms. Coulter is obviously a gifted and effective propagandist. I can easily imagine "Demonic" being prominently displayed on the coffee tables of the true believers, as some of the other propaganda masterpieces, "Mein Kampf",  "Das Kapital", and Mao's Little Red Book, are still proudly displayed in other quarters. 

"Dignity is at the Heart of our Declaration of Independence"

Commentary on:

"Dignity is at the Heart of our Declaration of Independence"

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/02/dignity-is-at-heart-our-declaration-independence/

The Declaration and Constitution are indeed inspiring documents. It is, however, one of the tragedies of America and Americans in recent years that we interpret events in other countries as if they too have come through the same European intellectual, social and political experience as we have, and that therefore events like the "Arab Spring" signify the same desire for "dignity" and "democracy" which the American Revolution signified (even that may be over-romanticized).

This skewed world view has led America into the mis-adventures of "nation-building" in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya. Try to think of it in terms of the French, who helped the American revolutionaries, if they had come in with the same "overwhelming force" of "shock and awe" to build a nation in the Americas in their own image. Would that have been appreciated by American colonials? Would they have turned against the French?

And remember, that the French, just like the Americans now, did not come to help for altruistic reasons - they had their own agenda in a centuries-long struggle with the British for colonial dominance.

So let's try and keep both feet on the ground when we "analyze" events such as the Arab Spring, and remember that the spark which ignited these protests were not a search for "dignity" or "democracy", but a protest against high food prices. And let's try and remember that the "American way of life", as much as most of us may like it, is not what everybody in the world wants or needs.

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.