One of the favorite activities of the left is to wander around and accuse folks labeled as conservatives of "black and white thinking."
For that matter, in school some 20 years ago, I was taught the same technique.
The technique has actually been around for generations.
The goal is to create the image that the group labeled "conservative" is intolerant, while group laying claim for whatever left leaning label is in vogue at the moment is the standard bearers of reason.
I find the use of this tag line sad because, when you get down to it, the tag line is itself an assault on reason.
The goal of logic is to come up with clean definitions and propositions that we can use in making important life decisions.
Quality science depends totally on coming up with good definitions and clean statements that can be tested against reality.
Our whole modern society is dependent on people cleanly defining terms and making judgments … black and white thinking.
There are many things in our life that resolve to a yes or no. For example, an airplane chartered to fly from New York to Paris either has enough fuel for the trip, or it doesn't. A plane without enough fuel for the voyage only makes it as far as the crash site. People making transatlantic voyages are dependent on engineers, mechanics, weather services agencies, and what not, to make sure the plane has the fuel for a safe voyage.
Before taking off, there is a black and white statement made: Yes, we have the fuel for the plane flight.
Our modern system of commerce is infused with people using black and white reasoning in day to day affairs. Meat inspectors spend their days examining carcasses declaring some good and others bad. A good meat inspector should err on the side of caution and toss out a fair amount of good meat.
The meat inspection process means that we can reasonably assume the food at the store is safe for human consumption.
The mortgage industry depended on black and white thinkers making critical judgments about borrower's inclination and ability to repay. These black and white thinkers were shouted down by community organizers.
A decade into the new enlightened era of nonjudgmental lending, the financial world found itself enmeshed in a catastrophic failure as banks were unable to value their assets.
The act of making propositions based on carefully defined terms is the heart of logic, yet, in school we are taught to dismiss political opponents of the left as black and white thinkers.
A few minutes ago I turned on my digital computer. Logged into a digital network and transferred a packet of digital signals from a massive bank of digital switches blogspot.com. A digital algorithm deciphered the digital signal and displayed on my digital monitor an accusation that I am a horrible black and white thinker.
I suspect that the dimwit who repeated the talking point that people who are not members of the left are black and white thinkers failed to realize that the only reason he is able make insults through cyberspace is the "black and white" logic behind digital technology.
The whole key to digital technology is creating a system of signals that can be reliably resolved to on or off. When the routers in this great digital network become enlightened and stop being judgmental about the signals they send and receive, a black and white thinking technician rips it out the broken router and replaces it with one that works.
I routinely say outlandish statements in this blog. The purpose of this type of blog is random thoughts on issues of the day. There is a central conflict in my writing. Back when I aspired to being an enlightened progressive thinker, enlightened progressive professors taught me all sorts of mean biting tricks that could be used to attack the hated conservatives.
Through the years, I've become much more appreciative of classical thought and writing.
The problems of the world are not the result of traditional logic (which is vilified as black and white thinking). The problems are the result of people doing bad things to each other. A modern enlightened thinker is as likely to do bad things to people as the traditional black-and-white thinker.
No, I take that back. I've come to trust the decisions made by people vilified as black and white thinkers more than drones claiming to have achieved nonjudgmental enlightened state of thought.
The world enjoyed a wonderful spurt of growth driven by the Information Technology revolution. During the computer revolution, there was a new found appreciation for the value of logic. Today, we find our nation and the world regressing to radical methodologies conceived during the great social revolutions of the 20th century.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Black Friday Results
I can't believe it! One of my web sites had a sale on Black Friday. Someone bought a MicheBag. A MicheBag is a really clever purse with an exchangeable outer shell. You buy a purse and several shells to match your clothes. You can then quickly accessorize for different outfits without moving the content between purses.
They have a wide selection of shells to fit just about every outfit ... well, except, of course, they don't have shells that go well with outfits worn by men.
Truth be told. I have not purchased a MicheBag myself because I would only be able use it on Friday nights ... and I already have a this nice pink frilly handbag with sequines. It is so cute. It goes perfect with my pink spiked heels, and is barely big enough to hold my pistol ...
... and, err, I think I may have given more information than people care to hear.
Back to reality. Black Friday is supposed to be the biggest shopping day of the year. So, every year, I check the directory to see if I made a black friday sale. Most years I don't; So I am happy to have broken the trend.
The fun part of the affiliate game is you never know what people will actually buy. The things I sell most often are purses, are purses, Scrapbooking Supplies, and Temple clothing.
Clearly, people are not reading my blog.
Personally, I have this self image where I am the rough rugged outdoorsy type; So, i thought I would be selling a lot of rough, rugged outdoorsy gear, which I don't.
Of course, my definition of a well equipped backpack has a bivvy sack, a down comforter, a thermarest, an old pair of sneakers, a coat, a spoon, a plate that can be used for cooking and the food.
I could never work at a sporting goods store. If they asked me what one needs to go camping, the answer is "not much." We could go broke. The site that most fits my attitude toward life is Walkabout Travel Gear. This store started in Moab. They seem to change their address on occasion.
People pointing in my direction often say: "eeeeek, a geek." So, I thought I would end up selling a lot of electronics. My answer to computer questions is: If you put linux on your old PC, you will have a pretty fast machine. My operating environment is pretty much down to a laptop and web hosting acccount. So, I don't sell much there either.
BTW, the one product I hope to sell this Christmas season is a fun little thing called the iPig. It is a docking station for an iPod.
They have a wide selection of shells to fit just about every outfit ... well, except, of course, they don't have shells that go well with outfits worn by men.
Truth be told. I have not purchased a MicheBag myself because I would only be able use it on Friday nights ... and I already have a this nice pink frilly handbag with sequines. It is so cute. It goes perfect with my pink spiked heels, and is barely big enough to hold my pistol ...
... and, err, I think I may have given more information than people care to hear.
Back to reality. Black Friday is supposed to be the biggest shopping day of the year. So, every year, I check the directory to see if I made a black friday sale. Most years I don't; So I am happy to have broken the trend.
The fun part of the affiliate game is you never know what people will actually buy. The things I sell most often are purses, are purses, Scrapbooking Supplies, and Temple clothing.
Clearly, people are not reading my blog.
Personally, I have this self image where I am the rough rugged outdoorsy type; So, i thought I would be selling a lot of rough, rugged outdoorsy gear, which I don't.
Of course, my definition of a well equipped backpack has a bivvy sack, a down comforter, a thermarest, an old pair of sneakers, a coat, a spoon, a plate that can be used for cooking and the food.
I could never work at a sporting goods store. If they asked me what one needs to go camping, the answer is "not much." We could go broke. The site that most fits my attitude toward life is Walkabout Travel Gear. This store started in Moab. They seem to change their address on occasion.
People pointing in my direction often say: "eeeeek, a geek." So, I thought I would end up selling a lot of electronics. My answer to computer questions is: If you put linux on your old PC, you will have a pretty fast machine. My operating environment is pretty much down to a laptop and web hosting acccount. So, I don't sell much there either.
BTW, the one product I hope to sell this Christmas season is a fun little thing called the iPig. It is a docking station for an iPod.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Appointments
I am really happy with the appointment of Paul Volcker to Obama's economic recovery team. Paul Volcker, more-so-than Greenspan, moved the country from the Keynesian insanity where our leaders believed they could micromanage the economy with taxing and spending, to one concentrating on sound monetary policy.
One of the most important events in monetary history came when Volcker gave up the position as head of the Federal Reserve, showing that that the ideas behind the reserve matter more than the personality.
I always felt that Greenspan was punch drunk on the influence of the position. Many of our currently problems are the result of Greenspan staying in the position for far too long.
I was also surprised at the appointment of Lawrence Summers. The faculty of Harvard struggled against Summers a few years back. Most people who are struggled against quietly fade away.
BTW, I hope that people understand that the snide posts in this blog are about negative methodologies. Change campaigns tend to release ugly political forces.
A politician positioned as a change agent is faced with the problem that they must either continue the process of social upheaval that brought them into power, or sit down and try to do what is best for the country. Stopping the agitation for change means selling out one's political base. Continuing the agitation for change leads to an economy that thrashes and falls into a pattern of action/reaction that leads to self destruction.
The centerpiece of my personal political beliefs is that I dislike self-destruction. I want to live in a country where people are trying to find the best path to broadbased prosperity.
My anger for the last several years is directed at the change campaign as it diverts us from a real discussion about how to structure a society with broadbased prosperity.
One of the most important events in monetary history came when Volcker gave up the position as head of the Federal Reserve, showing that that the ideas behind the reserve matter more than the personality.
I always felt that Greenspan was punch drunk on the influence of the position. Many of our currently problems are the result of Greenspan staying in the position for far too long.
I was also surprised at the appointment of Lawrence Summers. The faculty of Harvard struggled against Summers a few years back. Most people who are struggled against quietly fade away.
BTW, I hope that people understand that the snide posts in this blog are about negative methodologies. Change campaigns tend to release ugly political forces.
A politician positioned as a change agent is faced with the problem that they must either continue the process of social upheaval that brought them into power, or sit down and try to do what is best for the country. Stopping the agitation for change means selling out one's political base. Continuing the agitation for change leads to an economy that thrashes and falls into a pattern of action/reaction that leads to self destruction.
The centerpiece of my personal political beliefs is that I dislike self-destruction. I want to live in a country where people are trying to find the best path to broadbased prosperity.
My anger for the last several years is directed at the change campaign as it diverts us from a real discussion about how to structure a society with broadbased prosperity.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Fundamental Rights
The classical liberal tradition, as I understand the term, gave a great deal of import to logical consistency. Logicians would be concerned with both internal consistency and applicability to the nature. The idea is to have a small number of consistent rules that are known and relatively well understood and followed.
This is pretty much the way science works. Scientists seek small number of physical laws that explain a great deal. In science, a person puts forth a hypothesis then checks to see how the hypothesis stacks up against nature and how well it fits within the current existing framework of scientific ideas.
Scientists tend to be conservative lot. They don't like changing the basic logical framework of science on a whim. For example, I think it would be better to say that objects are repelled from the heavens, but the cabal of scientists at the university is sticking with a gravitational theory that has objects attracted toward the earth.
In my opinion, moralists looking to define civil rights should do so by defining rights that are logically independent and consistent with other fundamental rights.
The surest way to destroy our basic civil liberties is to overload the system with claims of contradictory rights.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where people can start claiming any notion to be a right.
For example, in the segregated South there apparently were people who held the notion that they should be able to drink from water fountains that were only touched by people of their race.
The "right" to drink from racially segregated water fountains is in direct opposition to the right of others to participate in the public sphere of life. A century ago, a whole generation of politicians rose to influence on this belief that people had a right to exist within a sphere of racial purity.
In hindsight, rights to live in separate but equal spheres caused a great deal of division and really looks absurd. The notion of segregation was contradictory to the other rights enumerated by the founders, and needed to go.
The classical liberal ideal is anchored in the Artistotelean tradition. Classical liberals sought a small number of logically independent rights. The system falls apart when people start asserting rights (like segregation) which are contradictory to the other rights.
Kant (like many people before him) realized that there were intrinsic problems at the edges of reason. For example, there will always conflicts in defining the beginning and end of life. Likewise there are problems making assertions about free will. If there is no such thing as free will, then the whole debate about rights is absurd. There are also the standard problems with absolutes, continuity, the infinite and the reflexive paradox.
Do I have the right to oppress others? What about the right to own others as slaves?
Hegel was a master at using the foundation laid by Kant in proofs that "freedom is slavery, and slavery freedom."
Hegel and Marx presented a world view where the world spirit was eternally locked in thesis antithesis conflicts. The Dialectics has a history of master/slave reversals.
You can actually express these conflicts in terms of rights.
A group will rise to hegemony. In this hegemony, the people in power express a system of rights to maintain their power. Kings, emperors and feudal lords gave themselves rights over the serfs in their dominion.
Overtime, the disenfranchised would grow in number and influence, and demand a new set of rights to replace old system.
In the material dialectics, the thesis/antithesis conflict would resolve in a massive catharsis (e.g., the revolution). The new hegemony would then try to cement in its power with its new set of rights and the process would repeat as the newly disenfranchised would start forming a new system of rights.
Marx considered the rights enumerated in the Constitution as just an attempt by a horrible group of terrible people called the bourgeoisie to cement in their hegemony. There next revolution would demand a new set of rights that are in conflict with the petty rights held by the petty bourgeoisie.
In the dialectical view, rights are always in conflict and are constantly evolving in an unending spiral of social conflict and violence.
Such people are happy with the Bill of Rights, despite its many short fallings.
The classical liberal wants to defend individual rights, while the modern liberal wants to take the offensive and assert sexy new rights.
The new rights favored by the modern liberal tend to conflict with those established by previous generations.
I believe that the classical liberal approach has a better chance of creating a sustainable base for a free and prosperous society. The modern liberal approach is sexy, but chaos created by having overloading the system of civil rights with contradictions is leads to deep societal divisions, and conflict.
This is pretty much the way science works. Scientists seek small number of physical laws that explain a great deal. In science, a person puts forth a hypothesis then checks to see how the hypothesis stacks up against nature and how well it fits within the current existing framework of scientific ideas.
Scientists tend to be conservative lot. They don't like changing the basic logical framework of science on a whim. For example, I think it would be better to say that objects are repelled from the heavens, but the cabal of scientists at the university is sticking with a gravitational theory that has objects attracted toward the earth.
In my opinion, moralists looking to define civil rights should do so by defining rights that are logically independent and consistent with other fundamental rights.
The surest way to destroy our basic civil liberties is to overload the system with claims of contradictory rights.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where people can start claiming any notion to be a right.
For example, in the segregated South there apparently were people who held the notion that they should be able to drink from water fountains that were only touched by people of their race.
The "right" to drink from racially segregated water fountains is in direct opposition to the right of others to participate in the public sphere of life. A century ago, a whole generation of politicians rose to influence on this belief that people had a right to exist within a sphere of racial purity.
In hindsight, rights to live in separate but equal spheres caused a great deal of division and really looks absurd. The notion of segregation was contradictory to the other rights enumerated by the founders, and needed to go.
The classical liberal ideal is anchored in the Artistotelean tradition. Classical liberals sought a small number of logically independent rights. The system falls apart when people start asserting rights (like segregation) which are contradictory to the other rights.
Dialectic View of Rights
Modern Liberalism, of course, starts with Kant, Hegel and Marx.Kant (like many people before him) realized that there were intrinsic problems at the edges of reason. For example, there will always conflicts in defining the beginning and end of life. Likewise there are problems making assertions about free will. If there is no such thing as free will, then the whole debate about rights is absurd. There are also the standard problems with absolutes, continuity, the infinite and the reflexive paradox.
Do I have the right to oppress others? What about the right to own others as slaves?
Hegel was a master at using the foundation laid by Kant in proofs that "freedom is slavery, and slavery freedom."
Hegel and Marx presented a world view where the world spirit was eternally locked in thesis antithesis conflicts. The Dialectics has a history of master/slave reversals.
You can actually express these conflicts in terms of rights.
A group will rise to hegemony. In this hegemony, the people in power express a system of rights to maintain their power. Kings, emperors and feudal lords gave themselves rights over the serfs in their dominion.
Overtime, the disenfranchised would grow in number and influence, and demand a new set of rights to replace old system.
In the material dialectics, the thesis/antithesis conflict would resolve in a massive catharsis (e.g., the revolution). The new hegemony would then try to cement in its power with its new set of rights and the process would repeat as the newly disenfranchised would start forming a new system of rights.
Marx considered the rights enumerated in the Constitution as just an attempt by a horrible group of terrible people called the bourgeoisie to cement in their hegemony. There next revolution would demand a new set of rights that are in conflict with the petty rights held by the petty bourgeoisie.
In the dialectical view, rights are always in conflict and are constantly evolving in an unending spiral of social conflict and violence.
Classical v. Modern Liberalism
I think there is a profound difference between the way that classical liberals and modern liberals view rights. A classical liberal is looking for a small number of well defined non-contradictory rights that can be used as a foundation for a society that has an overall respect for individuals.Such people are happy with the Bill of Rights, despite its many short fallings.
The classical liberal wants to defend individual rights, while the modern liberal wants to take the offensive and assert sexy new rights.
The new rights favored by the modern liberal tend to conflict with those established by previous generations.
I believe that the classical liberal approach has a better chance of creating a sustainable base for a free and prosperous society. The modern liberal approach is sexy, but chaos created by having overloading the system of civil rights with contradictions is leads to deep societal divisions, and conflict.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
A Civil Rights Issue?
Dennis Prager published a post on Frontpage Magazine that is similar to the one I was about to sit down and write.
Prager surmises that the reason black Americans voted for proposition 8 was efforts by the progressive community to equate the gay marriage with the civil rights movement. This makes more sense than the claim that the black community in fundamentally conservative, but are just too silly to know it.
I would add to his article that observation that slavery denied the slaves the right to marriage. The bossman's ownership trumped sacraments of the church. The children dropped by slaves were products to be sold. Being denied a right makes one more protective of that right.
Since Prager's article on this subject is better than mine, I guess I will say something else.
I suppose I should mention that back in the early 1980s I was a proponent of gay marriage. My reasoning was that gay marriage might stop the spread of AIDS and might reduce the number of kids molested by gays (I kept meeting people with stories of molestation).
There were some extremely angry people in the Gay Lobby who pointed out the selfrighteousness of my viewpoint. They wanted a new radicalized world where sex was free of committment. Everyone was to have thousands of different partners. They were very strongly opposed to marriage.
Many of the people holding this view died.
The really big change came when radicals realized that if gay marriage were made a legal equivalent to hetrosexual marriage then they could use the courts to attack their enemies. You could sue a church adoption service if they refused the request of two men wanting a boy. They could sue small bridal shops that only had wedding gowns in women sizes. They could have in your face honeymoons at that quaint bed and breakfast. If the innkeeper made any form of protest, there would be a protest and lawsuit.
These people just wanted to be bullies. BTW, you know that a movement is not a civil rights movement if it leaves a large number of people forced to live silently in fear.
The last experience that convinced me that the gay marriage issue was an intentional effort by the left to create a wedge issue came when I fould people fundamentally opposed to marriage as an institution actively supporting gay marriage as an institution.
Unlike the civil rights movement which was about a group of people denied real fundamental rights. The gay marriage issue lacks real depth.
In conclusion, I would like to quote Natalie R. Collins, who is a published author who takes extreme pride in her writing and always quick to point out gaffs in her foes:
Natalie, projecting hate and divisiveness on your opponents is an act of hatred and division. This tag line is appearing all over the place ... which is a bit scary. In a bizarre Utah twist, Natalie also makes the statement:
As I recall Mr. Hinckley was supportive of the civil rights movement. Ms. Collins seems to be trying to equate the civil rights movement with the gay marriage ploy ... the very thing Dennis Plager was talking about.
I doubt that any of the leading figures of the civil rights movement such as MLK, LBJ, or Kennedy would say that Proposition 8 was the equivalent of Jim Crow laws or that throwing leaflets in the Mt. Hope Church. But, I can't see inside their heads.
Prager surmises that the reason black Americans voted for proposition 8 was efforts by the progressive community to equate the gay marriage with the civil rights movement. This makes more sense than the claim that the black community in fundamentally conservative, but are just too silly to know it.
Gay and straight activists who liken their demand to redefine marriage to black suffering under Jim Crow merely cheapen historic black suffering.
I would add to his article that observation that slavery denied the slaves the right to marriage. The bossman's ownership trumped sacraments of the church. The children dropped by slaves were products to be sold. Being denied a right makes one more protective of that right.
Since Prager's article on this subject is better than mine, I guess I will say something else.
I suppose I should mention that back in the early 1980s I was a proponent of gay marriage. My reasoning was that gay marriage might stop the spread of AIDS and might reduce the number of kids molested by gays (I kept meeting people with stories of molestation).
There were some extremely angry people in the Gay Lobby who pointed out the selfrighteousness of my viewpoint. They wanted a new radicalized world where sex was free of committment. Everyone was to have thousands of different partners. They were very strongly opposed to marriage.
Many of the people holding this view died.
The really big change came when radicals realized that if gay marriage were made a legal equivalent to hetrosexual marriage then they could use the courts to attack their enemies. You could sue a church adoption service if they refused the request of two men wanting a boy. They could sue small bridal shops that only had wedding gowns in women sizes. They could have in your face honeymoons at that quaint bed and breakfast. If the innkeeper made any form of protest, there would be a protest and lawsuit.
These people just wanted to be bullies. BTW, you know that a movement is not a civil rights movement if it leaves a large number of people forced to live silently in fear.
The last experience that convinced me that the gay marriage issue was an intentional effort by the left to create a wedge issue came when I fould people fundamentally opposed to marriage as an institution actively supporting gay marriage as an institution.
Unlike the civil rights movement which was about a group of people denied real fundamental rights. The gay marriage issue lacks real depth.
In conclusion, I would like to quote Natalie R. Collins, who is a published author who takes extreme pride in her writing and always quick to point out gaffs in her foes:
Wake up, right-wing America. The battles you are fighting in your God’s name are not battles of love, but those of hate and divisiveness.
Natalie, projecting hate and divisiveness on your opponents is an act of hatred and division. This tag line is appearing all over the place ... which is a bit scary. In a bizarre Utah twist, Natalie also makes the statement:
Gordon B. Hinckley is turning over in his grave, as all the spinning he did to bring the Church into the “mainstream” Christian fold is going to turn out for naught.
As I recall Mr. Hinckley was supportive of the civil rights movement. Ms. Collins seems to be trying to equate the civil rights movement with the gay marriage ploy ... the very thing Dennis Plager was talking about.
I doubt that any of the leading figures of the civil rights movement such as MLK, LBJ, or Kennedy would say that Proposition 8 was the equivalent of Jim Crow laws or that throwing leaflets in the Mt. Hope Church. But, I can't see inside their heads.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Lame Duck Mischief
A few posts back I attributed the damage done by the Credit Default Swaps to the Bush Administration. Wikipedia says attributes CDFs to the bipartisan Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which was past during a lame duck session and signed by President Bill Clinton.
The CMFA essentially turned the entire United States into an Enron style risk management scheme. Undoubtedly, it gave the the departing members of the Clinton Administration extremely cushy jobs in the financial sector.
The TARP appears to be the same type of lame duck mischieviousness ... that is a bipartisan effort to heap the American taxpayers with debt in order to land lucrative campaign contributions for those going into office and jobs with generous salaries for those on the way out.
Reach Upward pointed out an article on the WSJ. The quote sticking in my mind about the NY Financial sector: "This is 212,000 people making nearly $80 billion in wages and salaries last year..." That is an average salary of $378k/year!
They weren't producing wealth. The financial sector of late did little more than fill balloons with hot air to watch them blow up in other people's faces.
I wish the economic conversation was about removing programs like CFMA and nake short selling, rather than this game of serving up ladles of government slop in the form of TARP. Regardless, lame duck sessions should not be the time for introducing major new initiatives.
The CMFA essentially turned the entire United States into an Enron style risk management scheme. Undoubtedly, it gave the the departing members of the Clinton Administration extremely cushy jobs in the financial sector.
The TARP appears to be the same type of lame duck mischieviousness ... that is a bipartisan effort to heap the American taxpayers with debt in order to land lucrative campaign contributions for those going into office and jobs with generous salaries for those on the way out.
Reach Upward pointed out an article on the WSJ. The quote sticking in my mind about the NY Financial sector: "This is 212,000 people making nearly $80 billion in wages and salaries last year..." That is an average salary of $378k/year!
They weren't producing wealth. The financial sector of late did little more than fill balloons with hot air to watch them blow up in other people's faces.
I wish the economic conversation was about removing programs like CFMA and nake short selling, rather than this game of serving up ladles of government slop in the form of TARP. Regardless, lame duck sessions should not be the time for introducing major new initiatives.
Family Values = Hate
I am extremely depressed. Watching the news, I find myself inundated with angry looking people waving signs trying to equate the defense of traditional family values with hatred.
Websites I visited today were selling stickers trying to equate family values with hatred as well. I've read several self-righteous blog posts claiming that the people voting against proposition 8 in California are open minded, while the people who voted for it are motivated by hate, and are using their hatred to divide the country.
Arrgggghhhhh!
It seems to me that the act of accusing one's opponents of hatred for simply holding different views is itself an act of hatred. Of course, I can't see into the minds of the angry people waving protest signs and tell if they are motivated by hate or if there is a more solid foundation of reason behind their political tactics.
I watched images of Drew Barrymore and other starlets say passionate things in favor of declaring same sex marriage to be the logical and moral equivalent of heterosexual marriage. If a man and women are allowed to form a union, have children and raise family; then a man and a man or a woman and a woman should be able to couple together, produce children and, um, raise a family.
It is only fair.
Drew Barrymore is clearly one of the prime intellectual forces of the left, and I am inches away from accepting the righteousness of the cause.
Unfortunately, having had too many bad experiences with progressive thought, I've developed a nagging sympathy for the rightwing reactionary side of things.
A central argument of progressives is that the people against their cause are motivated by hate. I don't have the magical ability to see other people's motivations. It seems more likely to me that the people wishing to retain the traditional definition of marriage are not motivated by hate, but simply have an authentic desire to defend a long rational tradition that stretches through antiquity.
One might even say that the tradition reaches through the fossil record to the dawn of cellular life when strands of DNA gained an evolutionary edge over other strands of DNA through the process of sexual reproduction.
My observation is that humans, like most other plants and animals on this planet perpetuate through sexual reproduction. This form of reproduction involves a male and female. We aren't just talking about the nature of man, we are talking about the nature of terrestrial life!
Different species have different takes on reproduction. In many cases the offspring are dependent on their instincts and are left to fend for themselves from the moment of birth. Others care for their child. A paradox is that predators often care for their offspring longer than herbivores.
Humans have a relatively long time to maturation and require a great deal of care and nurturing. As with other species, the two humans best positioned to this nurturing are the parents of the children.
The institution of marriage is not about the happiness of the couple being wed. The institution of marriage evolved around the benefits that ensue when couples are deliberative in the reproductive process and make a commitment to raising their offspring.
Marriage isn't about the happiness of the married couple. Marriage involves moral issues such as abstinence until a couple is in a financial position to raise children. The institution of marriage is not about the couple but about the family.
Just like the harvest festivals around the world celebrate the natural process of bringing in the harvest, marriage celebrates the natural process of a man and woman forming a bond to raise the child that they produce.
Equating family values to hate makes as much sense as saying that the harvest festival is about hating Spring. My eating turkey on Thanksgiving says nothing about my feelings toward Spring.
The institution of marriage is based on a long rational tradition grounded in solid reasoning based on the nature of man.
The position for proposition 8 makes more sense to me than the one against it. While trying to understand the opposition, I realized something about the poor state of rationality in our society.
The vote shows that Hollywood stands in opposition to the majority of Californians who voted against the proposition 8. Even Republican celebrities like Arnold Schwarzenegger support declaring same sex marriage the logical and moral equivalent to heterosexual marriage.
The striking gap between celebrity point of view and the point of view of the people made me stop and take notice.
Celebrities live in a world where image is king.
As such, celebrities reflect a new think which is driven entirely by manufactured images, metaphors and movie themes. In such a world one's reasoning is a matter of placing images through popular themes.
A common storybook theme is that people find happiness in marriage. Hence, this rational tradition of marriage as a foundation for raising kids gets processed into an image of people being denied happiness.
One of the most prominent movie themes involves a hero standing up for the disenfranchised. Being the hero who stands up for the disenfranchised people denied happy is the greatest role to which an actor can aspire.
Standing up for declaring gay marriage the logical and moral equivalent to heterosexual marriage is a dream role. Conversely, taking the other side is a career killer.
Perhaps the anger over proposition 8 is really not about the issue itself but about a clash between rationality and new think.
It has been almost three generations since the John Dewey and cohorts ripped logic from the curriculum. The appreciation of rationality is now a minority position.
People weaned on new think of images and themes appear to be unable to see the wonderful western rational tradition and recognize the solid rational foundation of institutions such as marriage, the free enterprise system and (dare I say) even the value of the scientific method.
Unable to see the rational tradition, the protestors simply seem to be projecting divisiveness and hatred onto their opponents.
I have not seen conservatives presenting arguments the rational foundations of marriage. Instead they seem to wanting to play the role of O'Reilly style culture warrior.
The LDS Church in particular seems to have a problem. The Christian tradition had marriage ending in death. (The end of marriage is one of the big advantages of death). Joseph Smith created an image of a Celestial Kingdom where one's terrestrial family is not only preserved, but is key to one's position in the afterlife.
If you aren't married; you aren't making it into heaven.
Some polygamist sects seem to be holding to the image that having multiple wives is the key to entrance into heaven.
The first step is to emphasize the rational foundations of marriage. The institution of marriage is a demand that couples put off having children until they have the resources to care for the children. It is hard life that demands sacrifice such as abstinence before marriage and a very strong commitment. Marriage is about a commitment to raise children.
The second key to defending marriage is to accept that marriage is not for everyone, and that there should be a place in society for people who've chosen not to get married.
We live in an overpopulated world. The rapid rate of reproduction is to our detriment.
The unmarried are often the most productive in society.
Traditional Christian society made these people priests, nuns and often soldiers. Essentially, the system made the unmarried the leaders of the culture as the priests and nuns were the scholars and educators.
People don't like the image of these roles. Churches and social institutions wishing to defend marriage would actually do well to create a place for the unmarried in their fold.
In my opinion the worst example of religious thinking comes from the polygamist sects in Southern Utah that simply tosses out a large number of its young men as old men compete for young wives.
A rational religious tradition needs to find ways to assure that it nurtures its youth while assigning a valuable role for all of the members of the society. This is both the right thing to do. The way things are rigged, if religious groups fail to find positive roles for singles, it is a crucial matter for the preservation of the rational tradition of marriage.
Websites I visited today were selling stickers trying to equate family values with hatred as well. I've read several self-righteous blog posts claiming that the people voting against proposition 8 in California are open minded, while the people who voted for it are motivated by hate, and are using their hatred to divide the country.
Arrgggghhhhh!
It seems to me that the act of accusing one's opponents of hatred for simply holding different views is itself an act of hatred. Of course, I can't see into the minds of the angry people waving protest signs and tell if they are motivated by hate or if there is a more solid foundation of reason behind their political tactics.
I watched images of Drew Barrymore and other starlets say passionate things in favor of declaring same sex marriage to be the logical and moral equivalent of heterosexual marriage. If a man and women are allowed to form a union, have children and raise family; then a man and a man or a woman and a woman should be able to couple together, produce children and, um, raise a family.
It is only fair.
Drew Barrymore is clearly one of the prime intellectual forces of the left, and I am inches away from accepting the righteousness of the cause.
Unfortunately, having had too many bad experiences with progressive thought, I've developed a nagging sympathy for the rightwing reactionary side of things.
A central argument of progressives is that the people against their cause are motivated by hate. I don't have the magical ability to see other people's motivations. It seems more likely to me that the people wishing to retain the traditional definition of marriage are not motivated by hate, but simply have an authentic desire to defend a long rational tradition that stretches through antiquity.
One might even say that the tradition reaches through the fossil record to the dawn of cellular life when strands of DNA gained an evolutionary edge over other strands of DNA through the process of sexual reproduction.
My observation is that humans, like most other plants and animals on this planet perpetuate through sexual reproduction. This form of reproduction involves a male and female. We aren't just talking about the nature of man, we are talking about the nature of terrestrial life!
Different species have different takes on reproduction. In many cases the offspring are dependent on their instincts and are left to fend for themselves from the moment of birth. Others care for their child. A paradox is that predators often care for their offspring longer than herbivores.
Humans have a relatively long time to maturation and require a great deal of care and nurturing. As with other species, the two humans best positioned to this nurturing are the parents of the children.
The institution of marriage is not about the happiness of the couple being wed. The institution of marriage evolved around the benefits that ensue when couples are deliberative in the reproductive process and make a commitment to raising their offspring.
Marriage isn't about the happiness of the married couple. Marriage involves moral issues such as abstinence until a couple is in a financial position to raise children. The institution of marriage is not about the couple but about the family.
Just like the harvest festivals around the world celebrate the natural process of bringing in the harvest, marriage celebrates the natural process of a man and woman forming a bond to raise the child that they produce.
Equating family values to hate makes as much sense as saying that the harvest festival is about hating Spring. My eating turkey on Thanksgiving says nothing about my feelings toward Spring.
The institution of marriage is based on a long rational tradition grounded in solid reasoning based on the nature of man.
The position for proposition 8 makes more sense to me than the one against it. While trying to understand the opposition, I realized something about the poor state of rationality in our society.
Imaging v Reasoning
Apparently, the vast majority of the Hollywood celebrities are fore treating same sex marriage the logical and moral equivalent of heterosexual marriage. The Hollywood group seems to be the origin of the belief that anyone who opposes the dictates of the left is motivated by hate. Actors, after all, spend their day contemplating the motives of their characters.The vote shows that Hollywood stands in opposition to the majority of Californians who voted against the proposition 8. Even Republican celebrities like Arnold Schwarzenegger support declaring same sex marriage the logical and moral equivalent to heterosexual marriage.
The striking gap between celebrity point of view and the point of view of the people made me stop and take notice.
Celebrities live in a world where image is king.
As such, celebrities reflect a new think which is driven entirely by manufactured images, metaphors and movie themes. In such a world one's reasoning is a matter of placing images through popular themes.
A common storybook theme is that people find happiness in marriage. Hence, this rational tradition of marriage as a foundation for raising kids gets processed into an image of people being denied happiness.
One of the most prominent movie themes involves a hero standing up for the disenfranchised. Being the hero who stands up for the disenfranchised people denied happy is the greatest role to which an actor can aspire.
Standing up for declaring gay marriage the logical and moral equivalent to heterosexual marriage is a dream role. Conversely, taking the other side is a career killer.
Perhaps the anger over proposition 8 is really not about the issue itself but about a clash between rationality and new think.
It has been almost three generations since the John Dewey and cohorts ripped logic from the curriculum. The appreciation of rationality is now a minority position.
People weaned on new think of images and themes appear to be unable to see the wonderful western rational tradition and recognize the solid rational foundation of institutions such as marriage, the free enterprise system and (dare I say) even the value of the scientific method.
Unable to see the rational tradition, the protestors simply seem to be projecting divisiveness and hatred onto their opponents.
Reactionary Thinking
Unfortunately, I can't really say the right is doing well in their argument for the defense of marriage. I fear that many of the people on the right are driven by the same visual mentality.I have not seen conservatives presenting arguments the rational foundations of marriage. Instead they seem to wanting to play the role of O'Reilly style culture warrior.
The LDS Church in particular seems to have a problem. The Christian tradition had marriage ending in death. (The end of marriage is one of the big advantages of death). Joseph Smith created an image of a Celestial Kingdom where one's terrestrial family is not only preserved, but is key to one's position in the afterlife.
If you aren't married; you aren't making it into heaven.
Some polygamist sects seem to be holding to the image that having multiple wives is the key to entrance into heaven.
The Best Way to Defend Marriage
I prefer coming up with answers to complaining about problems; So, I thought that I would type out what I consider key to defending marriage.The first step is to emphasize the rational foundations of marriage. The institution of marriage is a demand that couples put off having children until they have the resources to care for the children. It is hard life that demands sacrifice such as abstinence before marriage and a very strong commitment. Marriage is about a commitment to raise children.
The second key to defending marriage is to accept that marriage is not for everyone, and that there should be a place in society for people who've chosen not to get married.
We live in an overpopulated world. The rapid rate of reproduction is to our detriment.
The unmarried are often the most productive in society.
Traditional Christian society made these people priests, nuns and often soldiers. Essentially, the system made the unmarried the leaders of the culture as the priests and nuns were the scholars and educators.
People don't like the image of these roles. Churches and social institutions wishing to defend marriage would actually do well to create a place for the unmarried in their fold.
In my opinion the worst example of religious thinking comes from the polygamist sects in Southern Utah that simply tosses out a large number of its young men as old men compete for young wives.
A rational religious tradition needs to find ways to assure that it nurtures its youth while assigning a valuable role for all of the members of the society. This is both the right thing to do. The way things are rigged, if religious groups fail to find positive roles for singles, it is a crucial matter for the preservation of the rational tradition of marriage.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Role of Ideology in Market Reform
I contend that the market is a creation of the mind. We know this because the human mind is the only thing that directly interfaces with the market.
There are a large number of objects that indirectly affect the market. Likewise, there are many things are indirectly affected by the market. The driving force behind the market, however, is the human mind.
The indirect forces are quite strong. Physical needs force people to engage in the market. Conversely, the market motivates people to take actions in the physical world. It is also notable that people tend to keep physical tokens including metal coins, pieces of paper or even splotches of electrons on computer discs to keep track of their position in the market.
The value of these tokens is not inherent in the token, but assigned to the tokens through a collective bargaining process that originates in our minds.
Considering that the market is a product of the mind; then the ideas we have about the market are paramount. It is through the market that our minds shape the reality around us.
People use the term "ideology" to refer to a collection of ideas.
Pundits love to give names to ideologies. However, there is an infinite number of ideas, meaning that there is an infinite number of possible ideologies.
There is a subtle point to be made here. If the market is a product of a collection of ideas, then, pretty much by definition, there is an ideology that rules the market at any given moment.
The ideas that rule the market change on a frequent basis. For example, in 2007, people thought mortgaged backed securities re-insured by the Government Sponsored Enterprise FreddieMac were a sound investment. That changed in the mortgage mess of 2008.
At any given time, you will find the market being ruled by a different mix of ideas (ideology). The mix of ideas that exist at any time transcends all of the named ideologies. The collection of ideas that rule the market at any given moment is transcendent and changing. This collection of ideas is an ideology, none the less.
So, if my contention that the market is a collective product of our minds, then the market at any moment entails a collection of ideas. A collection of ideas is called an "ideology."
This means that, no matter how we mince the debate about reform, the debate will involve discussions of ideologies.
As I write, there is a great deal of concern about market reform. To have successful market reform, we must be able to talk about different ideologies.
There are a large number of objects that indirectly affect the market. Likewise, there are many things are indirectly affected by the market. The driving force behind the market, however, is the human mind.
The indirect forces are quite strong. Physical needs force people to engage in the market. Conversely, the market motivates people to take actions in the physical world. It is also notable that people tend to keep physical tokens including metal coins, pieces of paper or even splotches of electrons on computer discs to keep track of their position in the market.
The value of these tokens is not inherent in the token, but assigned to the tokens through a collective bargaining process that originates in our minds.
Considering that the market is a product of the mind; then the ideas we have about the market are paramount. It is through the market that our minds shape the reality around us.
People use the term "ideology" to refer to a collection of ideas.
Pundits love to give names to ideologies. However, there is an infinite number of ideas, meaning that there is an infinite number of possible ideologies.
There is a subtle point to be made here. If the market is a product of a collection of ideas, then, pretty much by definition, there is an ideology that rules the market at any given moment.
The ideas that rule the market change on a frequent basis. For example, in 2007, people thought mortgaged backed securities re-insured by the Government Sponsored Enterprise FreddieMac were a sound investment. That changed in the mortgage mess of 2008.
At any given time, you will find the market being ruled by a different mix of ideas (ideology). The mix of ideas that exist at any time transcends all of the named ideologies. The collection of ideas that rule the market at any given moment is transcendent and changing. This collection of ideas is an ideology, none the less.
So, if my contention that the market is a collective product of our minds, then the market at any moment entails a collection of ideas. A collection of ideas is called an "ideology."
This means that, no matter how we mince the debate about reform, the debate will involve discussions of ideologies.
As I write, there is a great deal of concern about market reform. To have successful market reform, we must be able to talk about different ideologies.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Brittle Thinking and System Faults Lead to Collapse
In 2008 the American financial system imploded. This implosion is causing worldwide turmoil.
I believe it worthwhile to look in detail at this implosion to figure out how to prevent similar crises in the future. During the crisis, several financial instruments came to the fore. Notably,
I could have made the list longer. For example, wage labor and pensions belong in the list, but I will talk about those later. Keeping the list short makes the post succinct.
A hedge fund uses complex formulas to hedge risks. Such funds might short $30 for every $100 invested.
The goal of insurance is to pool a large number of related risks; so that people can address risks on a pay as you go basis. The goal of an insurer is to have a pool of risk large enough that the pool can handle predictable fluctuations of costs. The insurer changes a premium that gives the insurer a handsome little profit in excess of the anticipated risk.
Credit Default Swaps are a new financial innovation. These are part of a new system devised to let banks sell risks associated with loans.
A key component of the above tools is size. Hedge funds, insurance and credit default swaps all seek security in size. The reports I've read about credit default swaps indicate that they went from nothing to being larger than the Gross Domestic Product of the planet earth in less than a decade.
Perhaps the most dangerous part of our financial system is that consumers, businesses and even banks have become addict to debt financing.
We are seeing the lending and borrowing of massive amounts of money at fixed interests. Banks borrow from the Federal Reserve at prime then lend at prime plus a premium. Their goal is to loan out as much as possible. They can protect themselves with FreddieMac and credit default swaps.
Looking beyond the moral hazard arguments, what we have at the moment is a financial system flush with financial instruments set on finding guaranteed fixed rates of return on an extremely large amount of money for a preferred class of investors.
I've heard some people refer to this process of manipulating the system to give a class of investors a large fixed income as rent seeking.
When one look at this mess from a macro level, one realizes that, from the very start, the idea is untenable. The world economy does not grow at a fixed rate. Prices continually fluctuate. The economy does not grow at fixed rates, but tends to skip around.
I suspect that the proponents of the financial regime believed that they were creating a self regulating financial system. What they did in actuality is to create a brittle market with systemic flaws and deep inequities.
The hue and cry at the moment (especially from the financial sector itself) is that the system requires stricter government regulation.
However, before imposing any new regulations, I believe we should engage in a much deeper conversation about what the market is and what we want to achieve with the market.
In watching the financial meltdown, I've come to believe that the primary fault in our financial system is that the system is being driven by a desire of the financial system to give a class of investors a high guaranteed rate of income (rent seeking).
This fault exists regardless of the aggressiveness of government regulators.
Designing regulations and corporate bailouts to preserve the current financial regime might simply have the effect of institutionalizing the systemic faults in the system.
I believe that the better path is to rethink the market from scratch and to find ways to wean ourselves away from debt financing. Rather than seeking new regulations for hedge funds and credit default swaps. I believe that the wise path may be to eliminate these tools altogether.
After all, both hedge funds and credit default swaps exist solely to give one class of investors advantage over the market at large.
I believe it worthwhile to look in detail at this implosion to figure out how to prevent similar crises in the future. During the crisis, several financial instruments came to the fore. Notably,
- Hedge Funds (short sells and options),
- Credit Default Swaps,
- Insurance (and reinsurance),
- Fixed Wages
- and Debt Financing.
I could have made the list longer. For example, wage labor and pensions belong in the list, but I will talk about those later. Keeping the list short makes the post succinct.
A hedge fund uses complex formulas to hedge risks. Such funds might short $30 for every $100 invested.
The goal of insurance is to pool a large number of related risks; so that people can address risks on a pay as you go basis. The goal of an insurer is to have a pool of risk large enough that the pool can handle predictable fluctuations of costs. The insurer changes a premium that gives the insurer a handsome little profit in excess of the anticipated risk.
Credit Default Swaps are a new financial innovation. These are part of a new system devised to let banks sell risks associated with loans.
A key component of the above tools is size. Hedge funds, insurance and credit default swaps all seek security in size. The reports I've read about credit default swaps indicate that they went from nothing to being larger than the Gross Domestic Product of the planet earth in less than a decade.
Perhaps the most dangerous part of our financial system is that consumers, businesses and even banks have become addict to debt financing.
We are seeing the lending and borrowing of massive amounts of money at fixed interests. Banks borrow from the Federal Reserve at prime then lend at prime plus a premium. Their goal is to loan out as much as possible. They can protect themselves with FreddieMac and credit default swaps.
Looking beyond the moral hazard arguments, what we have at the moment is a financial system flush with financial instruments set on finding guaranteed fixed rates of return on an extremely large amount of money for a preferred class of investors.
I've heard some people refer to this process of manipulating the system to give a class of investors a large fixed income as rent seeking.
When one look at this mess from a macro level, one realizes that, from the very start, the idea is untenable. The world economy does not grow at a fixed rate. Prices continually fluctuate. The economy does not grow at fixed rates, but tends to skip around.
I suspect that the proponents of the financial regime believed that they were creating a self regulating financial system. What they did in actuality is to create a brittle market with systemic flaws and deep inequities.
The hue and cry at the moment (especially from the financial sector itself) is that the system requires stricter government regulation.
However, before imposing any new regulations, I believe we should engage in a much deeper conversation about what the market is and what we want to achieve with the market.
In watching the financial meltdown, I've come to believe that the primary fault in our financial system is that the system is being driven by a desire of the financial system to give a class of investors a high guaranteed rate of income (rent seeking).
This fault exists regardless of the aggressiveness of government regulators.
Designing regulations and corporate bailouts to preserve the current financial regime might simply have the effect of institutionalizing the systemic faults in the system.
I believe that the better path is to rethink the market from scratch and to find ways to wean ourselves away from debt financing. Rather than seeking new regulations for hedge funds and credit default swaps. I believe that the wise path may be to eliminate these tools altogether.
After all, both hedge funds and credit default swaps exist solely to give one class of investors advantage over the market at large.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Here's to a Change from Change
I have to chock up the last five years of presidential election campaigning as one of the darkest episodes in American history.
Ironically, the person who I thought was the best candidate won the election. I simply don't like how he won. As I care more about ideas than power, I worry about the ideas that will surface in his administration.
The primary problem I see at this point in history is that nature of the campaign that just gave a super majority to the Democratic Party. The Party used a very dangerous style of change campaign. The form of the effort is that you capture the press, and then assemble groups that simply agitate for change. In no time you have a shrill noise surrounding all political and economic issues.
As the divisions in society grow deeper and the ability to engage in discourse diminishes, the group the best organized group is able to step into the power vacuum.
I've heard several laud the change campaign as a non-ideological revolution.
The notion is that all of the problems of the past were the result of ideologies, or of religions. Therefore, if you have no ideas or beliefs, then paradise will ensue.
The change campaign has never been about ideology. It is a form for rising to power.
The change campaign is the very heart of radicalization. You can radicalize anything. You can radicalize socialism, you can radicalize religions. You can even radicalize pragmatism.
I find it absurd. We just gave a party a super majority for change without a discussion of the form of the change.
The biggest hope for the country is that Obama has enough sense to realize the negative nature of this effort.
I am an optimist. The American people are sick and tired of a corrupt bloated government. The result of this is that during both the Clinton and Bush administration, the nation moved in the opposite direction of the stated ideology of the president.
Personally, I have a very strong dislike for presidential politics. This is a part of the reason why I do such a bad job blogging about it.
I believe strongly that the direction that the people are taking has a bigger influence than the ideology of the president. The Clinton years saw a sharp turn toward the free market, and we had tremendous prosperity.
The Bush years saw a giant leap leftward. American businesses and investors stopped seeking innovation and were primarily engaged in finding ways to avert risk through hedge funds, reinsurance, credit swaps and complex formulas that used shorting so that they would win in both bear and bull markets.
People, driven by an irrational hatred of Bush were primed to fall for anything other than the person they were conditioned to hate.
Noam Chomsky knows that it is far easy to manufacture discontent than it is to manufacture consent.
Anyway, now that the change campaign has resulted in the designed power shift, we find ourselves in a situation where we need to dig ourselves out of a big financial pit.
Attempts to save the day with debt financed bailouts and stimulus packages have not achieved desired results.
In all likelihood, just leaving the market alone and letting it correct itself would do the job.
We are in a day when people are receptive to ideas. So, starting tomorrow, I will start blogging about what I consider to be the best set of ideas for turning things around.
For our nation to get back on track we need to realize what knocked us off track.
The point of this post is simply to reiterate my belief that the change campaign is part of the problem. The change campaign was the source of much of the current division in our country. It is the source of the lack of confidence in the investment community. Investors fear committing resources while a political party with a super majority has a mandate for unspecified change. Consumers don't buy cars or eat out fearing the change. Companies lay off workers in anticipation of the unspecified change as well.
The biggest problem is that that the change campaign has consolidated even more power in a Federal government that appears to be bankrupt and out of ideas.
So, starting tomorrow, I will stop doing what I dislike (blogging about politics) and start doing what I like ... blogging about ideas.
Ironically, the person who I thought was the best candidate won the election. I simply don't like how he won. As I care more about ideas than power, I worry about the ideas that will surface in his administration.
The primary problem I see at this point in history is that nature of the campaign that just gave a super majority to the Democratic Party. The Party used a very dangerous style of change campaign. The form of the effort is that you capture the press, and then assemble groups that simply agitate for change. In no time you have a shrill noise surrounding all political and economic issues.
As the divisions in society grow deeper and the ability to engage in discourse diminishes, the group the best organized group is able to step into the power vacuum.
I've heard several laud the change campaign as a non-ideological revolution.
The notion is that all of the problems of the past were the result of ideologies, or of religions. Therefore, if you have no ideas or beliefs, then paradise will ensue.
The change campaign has never been about ideology. It is a form for rising to power.
The change campaign is the very heart of radicalization. You can radicalize anything. You can radicalize socialism, you can radicalize religions. You can even radicalize pragmatism.
I find it absurd. We just gave a party a super majority for change without a discussion of the form of the change.
The biggest hope for the country is that Obama has enough sense to realize the negative nature of this effort.
I am an optimist. The American people are sick and tired of a corrupt bloated government. The result of this is that during both the Clinton and Bush administration, the nation moved in the opposite direction of the stated ideology of the president.
Personally, I have a very strong dislike for presidential politics. This is a part of the reason why I do such a bad job blogging about it.
I believe strongly that the direction that the people are taking has a bigger influence than the ideology of the president. The Clinton years saw a sharp turn toward the free market, and we had tremendous prosperity.
The Bush years saw a giant leap leftward. American businesses and investors stopped seeking innovation and were primarily engaged in finding ways to avert risk through hedge funds, reinsurance, credit swaps and complex formulas that used shorting so that they would win in both bear and bull markets.
People, driven by an irrational hatred of Bush were primed to fall for anything other than the person they were conditioned to hate.
Noam Chomsky knows that it is far easy to manufacture discontent than it is to manufacture consent.
Anyway, now that the change campaign has resulted in the designed power shift, we find ourselves in a situation where we need to dig ourselves out of a big financial pit.
Attempts to save the day with debt financed bailouts and stimulus packages have not achieved desired results.
In all likelihood, just leaving the market alone and letting it correct itself would do the job.
We are in a day when people are receptive to ideas. So, starting tomorrow, I will start blogging about what I consider to be the best set of ideas for turning things around.
For our nation to get back on track we need to realize what knocked us off track.
The point of this post is simply to reiterate my belief that the change campaign is part of the problem. The change campaign was the source of much of the current division in our country. It is the source of the lack of confidence in the investment community. Investors fear committing resources while a political party with a super majority has a mandate for unspecified change. Consumers don't buy cars or eat out fearing the change. Companies lay off workers in anticipation of the unspecified change as well.
The biggest problem is that that the change campaign has consolidated even more power in a Federal government that appears to be bankrupt and out of ideas.
So, starting tomorrow, I will stop doing what I dislike (blogging about politics) and start doing what I like ... blogging about ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)