This is a disturbing book because it brings a wolf to the door. The wolf may blow your house down whether it is made of brick or straw.
Herman Cain (Previous Presidential candidate, Tea Party Activist who believes in returning to a gold standard for the American dollar. Most recently, President Trump tried, unsuccessfully, to have Cain appointed to the Federal Reserve Board.)
President Trump’s harangue about the independence of the Federal Reserve is old news. Packing the Federal Reserve has been done before. The selection of Herman Cain reflects on an Executive branch that lives in the past.
James Rickards infers the sky is falling because we are in a war that cannot be won without returning the American dollar to a gold standard. The argument is that returning to a gold standard will create a level playing field for currency that will stabilize the economy and break down barriers to free trade; i.e. not free trade exactly but regulated trade. Somehow, currency backed up by gold will be more stable than the full faith and credit of a government—really?
What is roiling the market today is a trade war; not currency manipulation.
Gold was over $1600 per ounce when Rickards was published. It ranged between $1529 and $1800 per ounce since this was published. Without a fixed standard, Rickards argues national economic security is at risk. Rickards argues that America has fought two currency wars in its history and is now in the middle of its third war, using weapons that cannot defend America in a currency war.
America is part of a world market; not a singular self-sufficient economic island.
Trade wars between nations is twentieth century thinking. World interconnection through travel, media, and education demand constructive cooperation between nation-state economies. It is economic improvement of all nations that makes each nation stronger. As national economies improve, free trade flourishes. It is a waste of human life to engage in restrictive trade policies or artificial standards of value like gold.
BEN BERNANKE (CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE 2006-2014)
Rickards believes Bernanke, in 2012-13, misreads a primary cause of the depression. Rickards believes Bernanke is steering the U.S.’ economy into a ditch. He argues that “quantitative easing” is a road to hyper-inflation and economic calamity because it artificially stimulates the economy with newly printed money that has no intrinsic value.
Rickards goes on to suggest the Euro crises are examples of currency instability and the unpredictability of many battles being fought in the currency wars. His assessment is that political interests of China and Germany are the only glue that keeps countries like Greece from economic collapse.
Rickards is an attorney and an economist. That makes him capable of structuring an argument about the economy with more credibility than a bumbling blogger. However, to this bumbler, Rickards’ arguments are specious.
First, other economists disagree with Rickard’s considered argument about the gold standard, Ben Bernanke for one. Second, what evidence is there that one country’s decision to return to a gold standard will reduce economic conflict among nations? Finally, history shows Rickards to be wrong in terms of America being steered into a ditch. One can reasonably argue that Bernanke’s, Geithner’s, and Paulson’s actions kept America out of a ditch.
In contrast, it appears President Trump may be steering the American economy into an economic ditch.
Countries are run by different government philosophies, different national interests, and rely on different economic resources—how will creating a gold standard for currency in one country or all countries reduce conflicting self-interests? The currency war will not be changed with a return to the gold standard, i.e., currency wars will continue and evolve based on whatever standard is used for currency to determine value.
The gold standard is not a magic bean that can be exchanged for a milk cow. There is no bean stock to golden egg land.
Geo-political thinking and self-interest do not change because of a gold pegged American dollar. Currency conflicts will not disappear, i.e., they will re-set to commodity wars, or maybe bitcoin wars. America is as capable as any post-industrial nation to compete on that basis.
Rickards observes the trillion-dollar American Treasury bill hoard held by China and sees the sword of Damocles raised to slice America’s neck. Why would Jack want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? America is “Mr. and Mrs. Consumer” on steroids.
AMERICA’S BULLY
Currency wars are real, but America has fought them before with results that have made it the bully of the world. Maybe America needs to learn how to be a little humbler rather than gamble on a currency play or trade war that has as much chance of causing as curing world economic collapse.
Consumption is threatening humanity. Human resource should be deployed to improve living standards of all people, but economies that strictly focus on consumption are killing the golden goose.
Work on the environment is truly an improvement that “lifts all boats”. Better waste management, clean water, clean air, and education are investments with infinite returns. Wars of any kind between nations is twentieth century thinking.
FAREED ZAKARIA (AMERICAN AUTHOR, EDITOR, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR)
Fareed Zakaria published “The Future of Freedom” in 2003; a lot has happened since then. This Indian born American, a Yale and Harvard educated government policy wonk, has written a fascinating treatise on a glaring weakness of democracy that continues to resonate in 2021.
The recent storm in Texas caused massive failure in the energy and water services of the state. The disaster fills the headlines in today’s papers.
TEXAS POWER GRID FAILURE.
TEXAS WATER SHORTAGE.
The line between Nanny State and Freedom has been clearly drawn in two WSJ’ articles addressing the “…Texas Power Grid…” failure. On the one hand, the Republican governor says private industry failed by being free to make their own decision about hardening the power grid against extreme weather events. The governor argues government should intervene in the private sector energy business to insure against future catastrophic failure.
The inference of the Governor’s argument is that profit motive is not enough to incentivize Texas energy producers to invest in backup systems for catastrophic weather events. After all, those energy producers that hardened their production and distribution systems would make more profit because they would be able to continue service to the public. The governor’s implication is that government should either incentivize or demand private sector backup investment. He implies self-interest and profit are not enough to make an unfettered private sector invest in hardening. To some, this is a “nanny state” argument.
In contrast, in the WSJ’ editorial page (on the same day), Holman Jenkins writes “A cold snap that touches all of Texas with subfreezing temperatures is a once-a-century event.” The implicit meaning of his argument is that disasters will always occur; get over it, and stay out of private sector business. To like-minded Americans that argument is a part of being free.
The world is in the midst of the Covid19 pandemic; struggling with death, government dysfunction, climate disruption, and economic hardship. In American democracy the difficulty is in knowing where to draw the line between Nanny State, and Freedom.
Zakaria notes that an unexpected consequence of sunshine, sunset, and open meetings laws change the way elected officials represent their constituency. Zakaria implies the “swamp” in Washington D.C. is created by an incorrect interpretation of the Republic outlined in the American Constitution.
Zakaria argues lobbying and population poling have replaced individual conscience in the American electorate. His argument is that the consequence of lost individual judgment is confused, and conflicted legislation. Zakaria suggests frequent political grid lock is exacerbated by lobbyists who do not represent the public at large. He argues population poling (surveys of constituent interests), and industrial lobbyists distort public interest.
Americans have become indoctrinated to be more interested in “keeping up with the Jones-es” than being individuals.
Zakaria’s argument reinforces a belief outlined by David Riesman in “The Lonely Crowd” in 1950. Riesman, a Harvard educated sociologist, conducted a study that suggests Americans are becoming more “other directed” rather than “inner directed”. His point is that Americans are more concerned about what other people think than what individuals think for themselves.
Elected officials are “Mad Men & women” manufacturing public interests created by lobbyists. Elected officials sell lobbyist’ ideas as though they are their own opinions.
Zakaria implies surveys of the public are designed and conducted by lobbyists and special interests who hire pollsters with motives to advance private interests rather than public good. The lobbyist appeal is “other directed”. Zakaria infers it is not what the “I” (elected representative) thinks, it is what the “other” (lobbyist or special interest) sells. Public interest is unrepresented. It is distorted by private interest being sold by falsely characterized political representatives–the men and women who hold political office.
Zakaria suggests a “Mad Men” advertising process invades 20th and 21st century American politics.
Elected officials are not “inner directed” and representing what they think is right but what others think is right. Poling becomes a primary source for decisions. Elected officials are influenced by interest groups, not by any clear reflection of their constituency or the American public.
In Zakaria’s reality, it is not possible to capsulize opinion of the American public. Zakaria is saying original framers of the Constitution focused on a Republic that separated church and state and focused on freedom of choice based on the conscience of elected officials. Elected officials were meant to vote for what they, as representatives of a State and nation, believed. Fareed Zakaria argues too many elected officials do not vote what they believe but vote what special interests and media trolls promote.
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION FOCUSED ON A REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF GOVERNMENT
The truth, consequence, and viciousness of this cycle of public-interest-deceit is: 1) there is no way of accurately knowing what the public believes and 2) being re-elected becomes more important than voting for what one believes is right. Zakaria suggests the framers of the constitution expected elected representatives to vote their individual conscience based on being popularly elected. He argues that lobbyists and a minority of Americans falsely define public interest and unduly influence representative’ decisions.
EXCEPT FOR LOBBYIST’S AND SPECIAL INTERESTS
This slippery slope is made slipperier by lobbyists who are interested in perpetuating their high paying jobs. Lobbyists push for 1 year laws with sunset provisions so they can be “helpful lobbyists” next year to get similar legislation passed. Zakaria infers sunset laws have little to do with public interest.
The goal of lobbyists and their employers is to push elected officials to vote for legislation that benefits their private interests. Zakaria’s point is that elected officials do not base legislative decisions on their conscience as representatives of their public constituency. Representatives create legislation and vote based on what lobbyists convince them is in the public interest. Zakaria suggests in today’s American government “public” interest is narrowly defined by lobbyist, and a minority that pays for government access and something to gain.
The election of Trump is a reflection of a government that looks at freedom as a transactional paradigm for American Democracy. What is good for Texas private industry is good for its people.
A part of Zakaria’s argument is that American Democracy is increasingly dis-respected by many outside countries, but more importantly, it seems dis-respected by a growing number of voters in its own population. (One could argue that is why America elected a non-politician to head its government.)
Zakaria is not saying democracy is not the best form of government in the world, but today’s democracy fails to operate as a Republic. He believes it is in danger of dissolving into a chaos of unpredictability and dysfunction. And so it did, on January 6, 2021.
Zakaria implies freedom is diminished by political representatives that fail to vote their conscience. Public interest is a fiction manufactured by lobbyists working for special interests.
Peter Baker’s “Days of Fire” offers a picture of George W. Bush’s administration that compares favorably and unfavorably with today’s American government.
Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough
(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the White House
By: Peter Baker
Narrated by Mark Deakins
PETER BAKER (AUTHOR, EMPLOYED BY NYTIMES, FORMER REPORTER FOR THE WASHINGTON POST)
Peter Baker’s “Days of Fire” offers a picture of George W. Bush’s administration that compares favorably and unfavorably with today’s American government.
The pain of 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq remain raw for many Americans. Baker’s exploration of George Walker Bush’s administration offers historical information but perspective requires more time.
Baker’s book will not change minds about the success or failure of George W. Bush’s administration. It offers details to supporters and detractors of Bush’s tenure as 43rd President.
GEORGE W. BUSH (43RD PRESIDENT OF THE U.S., SON OF 41ST PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.)
DICK CHENEY (46TH V.P. OF U.S., FORMER U.S. SECY. OF DEFENSE)
Supporters will admire Bush’s tenacious spirit. Detractors will decry Bush’s obstinate belief in “experts”. Supporters will admire Cheney’s toughness in the face of unexpected problems. Detractors will vilify Cheney for not foreseeing consequences.
Baker shows Bush’s tenacity in following the lead of people hired to do a job. However, Baker infers Bush does not provide enough vetting or oversight of “experts” he hires. When vetting is done, Bush is shown to minimize serious concern about candidate’s faults. When “experts” are hired, Bush prizes loyalty over results in sticking with the chosen.
TRUMP & ROBERT REDFIELD, AN AMERICAN VIROLOGIST AND DIRECTOR OF CDC
There is also a loyalty demand with today’s American President, but it seems one-sided. Mr. Trump expects loyalty from subordinates but undermines associates who report to him. In contrast, George W. stood by Cheney through the worst years of the Iraq war.
Administration turnover is high in Trump’s administration. Too often, Trump chooses image over substance.
JAMES MATTIS (FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE)
For Trump, believing in one’s own judgement and being in charge take precedence over collaborative decision-making. The most recent evidence of this willful characteristic of President Trump is the resignation of General Mattis.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DEPARTURES
Baker shows Cheney as a tough-minded, defense oriented protector of American freedom. At the same time Baker reflects on Cheney’s five heart attacks, lack of respect for differing opinions, and single-minded pursuit of simple solutions for complicated problems. Baker suggests multiple heart attacks may have affected Cheney’s view of life. He suggests Cheney’s actions may have been compromised by medical conditions affecting his health. There are some (mostly Democrats) who question the state of Trump’s personal health and his actions.
Parenthetically, one might argue Trump views himself as protector of capitalist freedom. An apropos example is Trump’s single-minded pursuit of simple solutions for America’s trade deficit.
Baker leaves little doubt about President “W’s” role as decider. The same may be said of Trump, but their leadership success or failure will be based on history; not on today’s view of their actions and results.
LEADERSHIP SUCCESS OR FAILURE IS BASED ON HISTORY; NOT CURRENT CONCEPTION.
Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed as our next Supreme Court Justice on October 26, 2020.
Barrett describes herself as a strict constructionist, not a legislator. History will determine the quality of Barrett’s appointment. As a Supreme Court justice, one must recognize it is up to Congress to clarify what they mean when they pass legislation.
Barrett’s appointment is today’s reality. Her decisions, just as Trump’s, Obama’s, and W’s actions, have tomorrows’ consequences. The appointment of Barrett needs the perspective of history; not the praise or condemnation of the present.
Barrett, like all high government leaders, brings her own life history of successes and failures. Cheney left a long public life to become CEO of Halliburton, a multi nation oil field services company. Returning to government opens Cheney to conflict of interest questions.
Baker notes that former associates of pre-VP Cheney feel he changed. Pre-VP Cheney was conservative but more open to others opinions and easier to get along with. (Some argue that Trump is not open to other’s opinions.) Pre-VP Cheney served in the Nixon, Ford, and George H. W. Bush administrations. He also served as a 5 time elected representative of the State of Wyoming.
Halliburton receives multi-million dollar contracts from the American government for support in Iraq. Cheney argues that no other American company had equal resource capability. Trump chooses to surround himself with people like Jared Kushner, Wilbur Ross, and Carl Icahn who have Cheney-like commercial conflicts of interest; not to mention hotel and real estate interests of President Trump himself.
JARED KUSHNER, WILBUR ROSS, CARL ICAHN, AND TRUMP’S SONS AND DAUGHTER–EXAMPLES OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND CONFLUENCE OF INTEREST
Baker raises the specter of heart attacks and Halliburton experience affecting Cheney’s personality, demeanor, and actions as Vice President of the United States. The author, like every human being, cannot know what he does not know. The same is true for Mr. Trump. Trump is healthy and highly intelligent because he says he is. As Socrates is believed to have said–“I know something that I know nothing.
Trump was a showman before he became President. Some suggest he remains a showman today. In today’s view, mage is substance to Mr. Trump.
Cheney was who he was before and after he became V.P. of the United States. Of course, age and experience changes everyone; only time and history will confirm or deny today’s opinions of the George W.’s and Trump’s administrations. Many details of Bush and Cheney’s lives are reported in Baker’s book. The data compilation offers color, if not insight, to Bush and Cheney’s characters. Today’s comments and actions of President Trump are equally colorful (in the worst sense of the term) but insight to his administration remains for history to determine.
Baker’s choice of details endears readers to Bush more than Cheney. Bush interactions with the public after 9/11; his bravado in flying to Iraq to meet with troops, and Baker’s description of Bush’s love for his dying 15-year-old Springer Spaniel, tug at a reader’s heart. Details of Cheney’s emotional life are limited to descriptive interactions with family. Baker describes Cheney’s experience with the twin tower terror, heart attacks, and affection for anyone other than family as fatalistically analyzed incidents.
Baker links Bush and Cheney’s early life experiences. He exposes different consequences of their linked experience. Both men are shown to be smart but Bush’s rebelliousness seems parentally sheltered while Cheney’s rebelliousness seems experience driven. Bush graduates from Yale and Harvard while Cheney flunks Yale, returns to work as a power lineman; returns to Yale, flunks again, and eventually graduates with BA and MA political science degrees from University of Wyoming.
BUSH AND TRUMP SHARE THE GOOD FORTUNE OF A LIFE OF PRIVILEGE
Bush’s silver spooned life is contrasted with Cheney’s stainless steel life. Bush’s parental-rebellion is contrasted with Cheney’s “who gives a damn”’ wilding. Because Bush and Cheney both attended Yale, they had some common experience but Bush graduated; Cheney did not. This detail reinforces the argument that Bush may have respected Cheney but felt more qualified to be the decider; not only by virtue of position but by virtue of accomplishment. Baker infers that possibility, particularly in the second term of Bush’s administration.
Cheney offers his resignation before the second election campaign. The decision to invade Iraq is perceived to be hugely influenced by Cheney and Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense. The mistaken intelligence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction is a potential re-election killer. Bush considers Cheney’s resignation but chooses not to accept.
Baker suggests that Bush moves away from Cheney toward the end of his first four years in office. Baker reports that some Cheney’ colleagues felt resignation was a Machiavellian-Cheney’ gesture to keep his position; others suggest it was a fall-on-his-sword move to protect the leader; a needed act to get Bush re-elected.
Internal conflicts in “W’s” administration show politics at its best and worst. When Bush pushes for a revision in the Medicare prescription plan for senior citizens, he is stonewalled by his own party on a vote for approval. Baker suggests passage was dead in the water until Bush tacitly agrees, with an Arizona Republican congressman (Trent Franks), to fight any attempt to appoint a Supreme Court Justice that supports women’s rights to abortion. The Medicare prescription plan barely passes, after the meeting.
Bush’s judgment is called into question when he tries to get Harriet Miers appointed to the Supreme Court. Bush believes Miers is qualified without fully vetting her background and education. Ms. Miers, though a lawyer, is shown to be ignorant of basic legal interpretations of practiced law. President Trump has had his share of judgement questions in his foolish twitter comments.
A QUESTION OF LEADERSHIP JUDGEMENT
Baker explores hard feelings between Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Condoleeszza Rice. Rumsfeld mentored Cheney but was dismissed by President Bush in his second term; in part, because of Abu Ghraib but largely because of pentagon and secret service chafing under Rumsfeld management style. Rice succeeds Colin Powell as Secretary of State in the second administration.
Bush felt Powell was not a team player and that he used the media to get around disagreements with Rumsfeld’s military defense decisions. Rice steers the State Department back to diplomacy from being an adjunct of defense. President Trump’s Attorney General is called out as “not a team player” but not for the same reason as Powell.
BOTH BUSH AND TRUMP ENDORSED TORTURE IN INTERROGATION OF POLITICAL PRISONERS.
Baker reflects on the “torture” memorandum approval by John Yoo, Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General, during “W’s” first administration. “Enhanced interrogation techniques” were approved for the CIA by Bush with Yoo’s tortured legal reasoning. Dick Cheney insists torture saved lives after 9/11. Trump endorses water boarding as a justified torture of political prisoners.
Bush’s second term also replaces John Ashcroft with Alberto Gonzales as U. S. Attorney General. Baker infers the change is due to Ashcroft’s refusal to reverse a Justice Department ruling on a part of the Patriot Act regarding privacy. On the other hand, it could have been Ashcroft’s health. With Ashcroft’s refusal to sign Bush’s reaffirmation of the law, Bush chose to overrule Ashcroft and the Justice Department by Executive Order.
Baker shows how and why Americans have become so closely divided over Bush’s war on terror; his belief in democracy as a guarantee of freedom, and the inference that privacy is a privilege, not a right.
Though it is too soon to write an unbiased history of “W’s” time in office, Baker reports some interesting details about the George W. Bush’ years. Both Bush and Cheney survive the days of fire but Cheney appears more scarred than Bush at the end of Baker’s tale. America seems more divided today; not only in regard to the war on terror, but in more ways than realized during George W. Bush’s administration.
In Trump’s administration, the country seems as divided as it was in the Bush/Cheney years. But, of course, views of the Bush and Trump administration are without the perspective of history. History has hugely changed perceptions of Presidents Grant, Wilson, Eisenhower Truman, Kennedy, and Nixon since their deaths.
Some Presidents were considered better; some worse, when they were leaders. One wonders how the 22nd century will look at the George W. and Trump years.
Three thousand years of history are compressed into a twenty-one day tour of China. Aside from dramatic images of China’s economic growth, one of the most interesting political observations made by our tour guide is the 70% rule of leadership.
In a self-limited group of 15 American tourists, Overseas Adventure Travel produces a personalized tour of Zhonggou; a.k.a. the “Middle Kingdom”–so named because China grew from a number of small provinces into a singular nation; i.e. a nation the size of the continental United States. Like all maps drawn by a nationalist country, China became the center of the world (a self-identified “Middle Kingdom”).
Our professional guide introduced himself as “Jason” (on the left). “Jason” is born and raised in China. He is educated and trained as a natural-medicine pharmacist like his mother. However, he chooses to abandon that career to see the world. He applies for a position with O.A.T., and after extensive interviews, training, and testing he becomes an independent, licensed tour guide.
Being a guide is no easy task. When guiding 15 people, and seeing sites only read about in literature and the news, things get complicated.
In many ways, tourists are like ostriches. Ostriches are known to bury their heads in the sand when scared. As tourists, we often do the same, not out of fear, but in astonishment.
China’s great wall, giant cities, panda parks, public monuments, landscaped byways, and city parks overwhelm the senses. O.A.T. guides are charged with gathering, and managing 15 tourists while directing and telling a cultural history of the country in which they live.
This is a panda reserve in Chengdu, China. As with many indigenous species around the world, the panda is endangered and restricted to sanctuaries where they can reproduce without fear of poachers who covet their fur.
The immense surroundings of an awakening political, and economic giant arrives in a rush of cityscapes, bullet trains, and water ways.
China is a country of 1.3 billion in a land the size of America with 327 million. Population density difference is immense. (In China there are 134 people per square kilometer vs. 30 in the U.S.) Instead of big cities of 8,000,000 citizens in the U.S., China’s big cities have 20,000,000.
While explaining China’s complicated history, “Jason” juggles arrangements for traveling cross-country. He assigns rooms at hotels, arranges meals, schedules meetings, and offers lectures prepared by local historians and residents. At the same time, “Jason” prepares 15 people to board trains, boats, and planes for the next city.
PARTY BOAT
ROOM ACCOMMODATION FOR OVERNIGHT TRIP
BEIJING AIRPORT
BULLET TRAIN
A constant refrain from our guide is “don’t forget your passport”. Sometimes, a passport is forgotten at the hotel; other times personal luggage exceeds air-travel weight limits. “Jason” smiles, calms fears, and explains how problems can be overcome. He says he has a “cousin”. He doesn’t, but somehow problems are solved and the group moves on.
China is a closely watched country. The government requires surrender of your passport at hotels, and often insists on presentation of passports at particular sites like Tienanmen Square.
Two areas we visited (Tibet and Hong Kong) are called autonomous (actually they are, at best, semi-independent) provinces in China. These “autonomous” regions have a different set of rules but the influence of main-land China is obvious in conversations with local residents.
Since our trip to China, Tibet and Hong Kong’s semi-independent status is being challenged by Xi’s desire for conformity. To Xi, the future of China is dependent on control by the communist party. Any ethnic, economic, or political independence from the party is suppressed.
A famous Tibetan monastery (Depung Monastery), originally designed to house Dali Llamas in life and death–is converted to a government building during the cultural revolution. It falls into disrepair but is renovated by President Xi as a museum. The current Dali Llama (forbidden to return to China) is unlikely to be entombed, like former Dali Llamas, in this monastery.
Tibet requires a passport, a special visa, and security checks. All interior China flights have security stations to x-ray baggage and inspect passports when you board. Wi-fi is generally available at hotels but an unsettling feeling comes with use of wi-fi because of a feeling everything you do is monitored.
Some hotels have only Chinese stations and those that have CNN or BBC seem to limit coverage of any news that is critical of China
Additionally, it seems certain information is not available on the internet. These anomalies do not change one’s interest in China but “Big Brother” seems ever present.
Of course, the same is true in America but “Big Brother” is more likely a private company like Facebook, Apple, or Google.
Government surveillance is restricted by “rule of law” in America. America retains “checks and balances” that mitigate autocratic decisions by singular leaders.
“Jason” notes–in his experience, people all over the world are the same. People love; people hate; people believe and disbelieve, but cares and feelings of individuals are the same.
However, there seems a distinct philosophical difference in views of freedom. Freedom seems more feared in China than America. National coverage of Tibetan, Uighur, and Hong Kong independence suggests great concern over ideological differences between ethnic groups, provinces, and the government; particularly differences that encourage public demonstration against government policy.
As “Jason” unfolds Chinese history, one thinks about how important powerful, and singular leaders have been in governing China. Three cultural constants in Chinese history seem to be:
great care for familial relationship,
pursuit of higher education, and
autocratic rule.
MAO ZEDONG (1893-1976, FOUNDING FATHER OF PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA)
DENG XIAOPING (CHINA’S CHAIRMAN OF THE CENTRAL ADVISORY COMMISSION 1982-1987)
Through generations, China relies on strong leaders who are able to unite disparate interests of provinces, religions, and ethnic groups.
From the great dynasties of ancient history to the eras of Mao, Deng, and now Xi, our guide suggests many Chinese believe “…great leaders must achieve 70% of what is right for the Chinese people” to advance the country. Those leaders that do not achieve that level of public good, are failures.
In other words, Mao and Deng may have made mistakes, but they were at least 70% right. President Xi seems in the process of proving himself. Ancient China’s lead in the world of science and economic growth suggest some truth in a 70% rule–after all, no one is always right.
CHIANG KAI-SHEK (CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF CHINA 1943-1948) Leader of China during WWII was labeled as corrupt by communist forces in China.
China, like all surviving nations in history, have fallen and risen. In the 1940’s and into the 50’s, Mao overcame, what is considered by some, a corrupt government with a revolution that advanced the economic and political strength of China. Mao eliminated feudal farming that enriched the few at the expense of the many.
In the 1950’s China rapidly improved farming production of the country. On assuming power, Mao’s goal is to eliminate landed gentry who fail to make their farms produce what they were capable of producing. Redistribution of land became a primary goal of the communist revolution.
Mao’s means were to split the land among the peasants and allow them to own their own land. Individual small land owners formed collectives to improve farming productivity. In the 50’s that plan worked magnificently. China advanced rapidly in the early years of Mao’s reign.
However, with the initial success of small farm-collectives, Mao made the mistake of increasing the size of the collective with communist overseers. Mao’s intent is to advance productivity more quickly. The overseers undermine productivity with an economic program titled the “Great Leap Forward”.
Communist bureaucrats begin saying production is steadily increasing when it is not. Individual farmers no longer control productivity.
Farmers lose their passion to improve productivity as they become smaller cogs in a bigger machine. The bigger machine is layered with bureaucrats that want to look good on paper, but as overseers they overstate the productivity of the collective.
The communist party overestimates its ability. The “Great Leap Forward” replaces farmer’s with Communist bureaucrats. In the late stages of Mao’s “Great Leap Forward”, millions of Chinese die because of bureaucratic lies about farm production. Presumably, this falls into the 30% failure of Mao’s leadership.
Nearing the end of Mao’s life, he may have recognized his error but a cabal, called the Gang of Four (which included his wife), seized control of the government and continued the failed policy of communist control of agriculture. Mao, or this Gang of Four, started the cultural revolution (1966-1976); causing the death of millions. With the question of Mao’s intent, and the usurpation of power by the Gang of Four, the mistakes of the cultural revolution seem less attributed to Mao than the “Gang of Four”.
After removal of the “Gang of Four”, Deng Xiaoping, a pragmatic leader during Mao’s reign, opened the door to a form of capitalism. The door is nearly shut with the Tienanmen Square slaughter. At Deng’s order, a massive protest in Tienanmen Square, is to be ended by “any means necessary”. An unknown number of Chinese men, women, and children are murdered by the military.
Some suggest that Tienanmen Square is a turning point in the history of China. Deng did not apologize for the Tienanmen decision, but he overcame his mistake by arguing that “It doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice. …. “ Deng seems to have listened to some of what the Tienanmen protesters were saying. Undoubtedly, many protesters were attempting to make communism better; not to destroy what works for the masses. but to focus on what enriches their lives.
The principle of the collective in China remains. Land is largely owned by the State. However, a version of a free market is created which allows private sale of vertical construction (particularly space within buildings) in China’s cities. (This is somewhat misleading because the sales price in a private transaction requires approval by the government, but the government does allow profit to the individual on the sale.)
Small farms are still owned by some Chinese, but the trend is for continued collectivization. Additionally, the growth of cities changes the desirability of farming. Older Chinese may stay on the farm but their children migrate to the city. When aged farmers die, the land is retained by the family but often as tenant farms; unless the government makes an offer they cannot refuse. The tenant farms still operate as a part of a collective. Produce is determined by individual farmers but brokers sell farm product to retail stores for purchase by the public.
A construction boom began with Deng’s pragmatic solution that seemingly combines communist oversight with capitalist ambition. Chinese entrepreneurs work hard, become wealthy, and live a better life. Small farms are steadily re-acquired in China through a process of payment to farmers in the following way:
families are offered (collectively owned) small-parcel farms equal in size to their parent’s land. They become absentee landlords that receive rent in the form of farming profits,
various incentives are offered by the government to families for their move; sometimes, a pension or medical insurance policy, and
the government offers a condominium or house in a different location.
In using this method of acquisition, the government is able to build new condominiums, shopping centers, and infrastructure projects–like the “Three Gorges Dam” that controls flooding. Infrastructure work is ubiquitous in China.
Roads, bridges, and rails are being built to influence and connect Chinese provinces. The most recent monumental evidence of this practice is a high-speed train connection over a bridge between the mainland and the “autonomous” province of Hong Kong.
The process of government acquisition of privately owned farmland is complicated. A team of Chinese bureaucrats measures the house in which a farmer lives, the size of the land the family owns, the product they produce, and the livestock they have. The government determines the price that will be paid. The land owner must accept the decision. In return the farmer may be offered an equally sized piece of land in a collective that is farmed by others; personal incentives like a pension or medical insurance, and a condominium or home in which to live.
BARGE NEAR THREE GORGES DAM
SHIP’S WAITING TO ENTER LOCK AT THREE GORGES DAM
LOCK AT THREE GORGES DAM
State acquisition of land allows massive infrastructure projects to be built. These projects offer jobs to Chinese farmers and their children who are migrating to the city. In some cases, the small farm is retained while the farmer’s children go to the city for a job. With payment from a city job, some call on their farmer parents to help them with a down payment on a condominium in the city. The price of condominiums rises. They rent the condo they have, and make a down payment on a second condo. With each transaction, they become wealthier; i.e. at least, wealthier on paper.
Construction activity is endemic in every city visited. A striking observation is that many of the condominiums seem unoccupied. The question becomes whether construction is too far ahead of real economic growth.
However, retail businesses appear to be booming in China’s cities. Shopping centers are full of residents, and travelers. Restaurants of every kind compete with each other in high-rise shopping malls. Our local guide in Hong Kong notes that the original street markets are disappearing because of conventional retail construction.
Another striking difference between big American and Chinese cities is that you see few homeless citizens in China. In China, government subsidizes housing for the poor. It is not luxurious. It is small and crowded. The dilemma of government is in drawing the line between central planning and public service. It appears to keep the poor from being homeless.
There seems an underlying fear of the effect of the tariff war (started by President Trump) on the local economy. An example of the consequence of the tariff war is a new 90% tax on purchase of a new Tesla in Hong Kong. There was no tax when Tesla first entered the market. Before the tax, Musk’s cars were widely purchased in Hong Kong. One doubts that continues with a 90% tariff.
Another great surprise is that air pollution in Beijing, when we were there, seems no worse than it is in America. However, we were there during the African conference which may explain why the air seemed relatively clear. China successfully cleared the air by limiting polluters during the Beijing Olympics.
Environmental degradation is a concern in China. Over 60% of their energy comes from coal. The largest Hydroelectric dam in the world, the Three Gorges Dam, only produces 2% of China’s energy needs. Three Gorges is considered a dam for flood control more than energy. Interestingly, the Yangtze river shows a lot more debris and garbage below the dam than above it. Generally, water ways seem polluted with debris like plastic and other human debris. In an effort to abate pollution around Hong Kong, sampan life is discouraged. Much fewer sampan are licensed in modern Hong Kong.
Tap water is considered undrinkable throughout China; which means nearly all water for daily consumption is bottled. Hong Kong is vitally dependent on the mainland for water. There are 21 treatment works in Hong Kong but treatment changes the taste of the water so much that Hong Kong residents drink bottled water.
As noted in a previous blog, President Xi, the current leader of China, is determined to reassert the dominance of the Communist Party in China. Strong centralized rule has been a hallmark of rapid economic and political advance in China’s history.
PRESIDENT XI’S CENTRALIZED RULE CONTINUES TO BE CHALLENGED BY HONG KONG DEMONSTRATORS–NEW YORK TIME’S ARTICLE 6.14.19.
Time will tell if President Xi is a 70% or 30% leader. Xi’s decision to initiate a China’s “Road and Belt” program for the world may be a harbinger of great success or abject failure. The worry may be whether Xi is like an early Mao, and pragmatic Deng, or a singular version of “The Gang of Four”.
Having just returned from China (more about the trip in a future blog), it seems apropos to revisit Jonathan Sperber’s biography of Karl Marx. In many respects, China’s resurgence as a major economic power suggests Marx may have outlined an economic system with some strengths, but communism and China’s form of communism have catastrophic weaknesses.
Johnathan Sperber has gathered an impressive amount of data in his history of Karl Marx’s life. Sadly, his presentation is not equal to his collection. Unlike biographies done by Robert Caro (who wrote “The Power Broker” about Robert Moses, the land planner of New York, and former President, Lyndon Johnson) or William Manchester (a Winston Churchill Biographer), Sperber fails to bring his subject to life.
KARL MARX (BORN TRIER, GERMANY 1818-DIED LONDON, ENGLAND 1883)
Marx is considered by some to be one of the three most influential economists that ever lived (Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes being the other two.) That high praise is not forcefully presented in Sperber’s biography. Sperber offers facts but leaves coherence to the reader.
Marx means something to the 21st century. Some might argue America is reaching a point in the history of capitalism that is foretold by Marx’s theory of socialist economics. As Sperber notes, Marx believed capitalism was a step in the economic evolution of the world, leading to a governmental revolution. Marx believed capitalism would reach a nadir of conflict between haves and have-nots because of social inequity inherent in capitalist economies.
As Sperber notes, Marx lived through and wrote about social conflict created by feudalism and capitalism in the mid-nineteenth century. Marx is raised in Prussia, ruled by a Czar in a feudal economic system. He witnesses growing discontent of feudalistic working-class Russia.
Marx created a theory of economic evolution showing feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and communism as progressive improvements in the lives of all people.
Feudalism grew out of the rule of Kings and Czars with a small aristocracy receiving privileges of wealth and property with the bulk of human civilization indentured to the privileged class.
As the indentured, under-privileged population grew, discontent led to revolution.
In 1776, America broke with English aristocracy to form a “checks and balances” democracy; in 1789, the French population broke with absolute monarchy to form a populist democracy; in 1848, German states rebelled against the aristocratic Prussian confederation of thirty-nine states ruled by an aristocracy and chose various forms of government to establish their own nationalist identities.
DENG XIAOPING (CHINA’S CHAIRMAN OF THE CENTRAL ADVISORY COMMISSION 1982-1987,) In 1980 Deng Xioping, though maybe not in a revolutionary sense, changed the direction of communism in China.
Each Chinese change in governance led to more liberal, slightly more democratic, and capitalist economies.
Hong Kong is presently in the throes of resistance to China’s encroachment on their semi-autonomous existence. Hong Kongers’ discontent could be seen in traveling to Hong Kong months before today’s demonstrations.
As nations prospered during the industrial revolution, more mercantile economies formed. Aristocracy became broadly defined by wealth rather than inheritance. Parliaments and congresses were created to represent wider population interests.
However, Sperber explains Marx believed that the greatest part of nation-state citizens remained in poor economic condition; even when based on mercantilism. Marx, looked at the economic condition of the world, and noted that transition from feudalism to mercantilism only marginally improved living conditions for the majority of state citizens and, in fact, actually worsened the condition of the young and impoverished who worked long hours for little pay. To Marx, capitalism just exacerbates the mercantile economic condition of the poor.
CHINA IS MOVING 250 MILLION PEOPLE INTO CITIES ACCORDING TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (Housing is un-affordable for a large percentage of new city dwellers. The government of China subsidizes housing for many Chinese that come from rural areas.)
In 2018, it seems China may be reaching a capitalist tipping point where low wages do not cover the cost of living. Though many Chinese have moved from rural areas, wages remain low in comparison to the cost of living. Housing and health coverage is un-affordable for a large percentage of new city dwellers. The government of China subsidizes housing for many Chinese that come from rural areas to mitigate the plight of the poor.
ADAM SMITH (1723-1790, AUTHOR OF -THE WEALTH OF NATIONS) Marx developed the labor theory of value to suggest that classical economic theory suggested by Adam Smith leaves too many people in the gutter.
Marx felt Smith did not properly quantify the value of labor. Marx argued that capital was created to benefit owners at an unfair expense to labor.
Marx believed capitalist aristocracy continued to victimize the working class, trading one form of indenture for another. Marx suggested democracy was an evolution for economies that widened the benefited population but still left most workers underpaid, undernourished, and disadvantaged.
Sperber clearly points out that Marx did not believe that communal ownership of property redressed the inequities of state’ economies; i.e. Marx argued that inequity is caused by capital creation that only benefited ownership and undervalued labor that created capital.
China’s current experience seems to show Marx may have been right to believe communal ownership has little to do with state’ economics because communal ownership remains a dominant factor in China’s extraordinary economic resurgence. Property is not owned by individuals in China. Land is either owned by a collective or by the State.
Though land cannot be owned by Chinese citizens, distribution of capital has been widely increased through rising prices of high-rise condominiums. Many high-rise condominiums are owned by individual Chinese. Some citizens inherited or bought condominiums at such low prices–appreciation made them rich.
The fly in the ointment of their newfound wealth is the price of sale must be agreed upon by the government which creates an artificial bubble that may burst into hyper-inflation, with the potential for a nation-wide economic collapse.
China moves to address a potential economic collapse in an inventive and creative way. What China is doing--is trying to widen their market for goods with an economic growth plan called "Belt and Road". China invests billions of dollars in other countries infrastructure. China is betting that these improvements will create consumers for Chinese manufactured products. A side benefit is that these infrastructure improvements offer employment to Chinese citizens and businesses. (As can be read in news magazines like the Economist and papers like the Wall Street Journal and New York Times, some nations resent China's investments in their countries for various nationalist and economic reasons.)
China is also investing in the world's natural resources to expand their manufacturing capability. The question is whether these long-term investments will pay off in time to stabilize China's construction market. The construction market is where individual Chinese citizens carry their wealth. Condominium prices will reach a limit. In 2018, a 300 square foot condominium sells for over $500,000 in China's larger mainland cities. That is nearing $2,000 per square foot (and Chinese buyers do not own the land). In the United States, most housing is less than $200 per square foot; including the land. Continued wealth distribution in China depends on the success of the "Belt and Road" program.
Marx supported worker unionization’s effort to equalize benefit through a more equitable distribution of capital. He was deeply involved in the “International Workingmen’s Association” (aka First International). Herein lays the evolution of capitalism to socialism and Marx’s belief (and maybe Xi’s belief) in the fairness of economic communism. Modern China seems to be addressing the idea of a more equitable distribution of capital on paper, but the paper is based on what appears to be an unsustainable real estate market.
Piketty argues that the income gap widens once again, after World War II. He estimates 60% of 2010’s wealth is held by less than 1% of the population; with a lean toward the historical 90% threshold. Moneyed interests have become the new aristocracy, as repressive and privileged as the Kings and Czars of the mid-19th century.
One can disagree with Marxian theory but the widening gap between haves and have-nots (the 1% and 99%,) is a real-world concern in the 21st century.
Marx’s solution for economic inequity is flawed but the condition he describes in the evolution of economies seems prescient. To most Americans, Marx’s communism is not the answer.
When CEOs of companies are making over 200 times average laborers’ income, there is a glaring problem in the current condition of capitalist economies. Instead of income differences, it is housing value in China. China is on a razor’s edge that may as easily cut their throat as shave their face.
This is a disappointing book because it garners too little interest in the power and influence of Marx’s economic theories. However, it offers insight to what Marx may have had right (the importance of distribution of wealth) and what he had wrong (communal productivity). China is using a different vehicle than America for distribution of wealth but the principle of wealth-distribution addresses what ails all forms of government.
UPTON SINCLAIR, JR. (1878-1968, WINNER OF THE PULITZER PRIZE FOR FICTION)
It seems appropriate to revisit Sinclair’s book in light of the current administration in Washington D.C.
In the era of Trump, it is not meat packing but the coal industry that needs help. Trump’s pandering to the American coal miner offers air without oxygen to an industry that is dying.
Private industry and the American government need to step in and offer a way out for coal industry’ laborers. The Trump administration undervalues American labor by presuming laborers can only be cogs in a machine rather than complete human beings.
Instead of insisting on continuing an industry destined to fail, private industry and government should be offering living-wage transition, and education for new jobs; i.e. jobs that look to a future rather than a past.
Sinclair exposes the dark side of poverty and immigration in the United States. It reminds one of Charles Dickens’ stories of child labor in London but does not offer much warmth or balance. Sinclair’s story offers no respite from utter degradation. There is no respite for the reader to believe there is any redemption for being poor in Chicago in the early 1900s.
“The Jungle” is a grim tale written by Upton Sinclair about the meat-packing industry in early 20th century America.
Lessons of “The Jungle” are reminders of the limits of unregulated capitalism, industry’ greed, and government neglect. Sinclair attacks the meat-packing industry of the 1900’s.
Descriptions are given of spoiled meat ground into sausages; loaded with chemicals for appearance and smell, with too much production to be adequately inspected by too few inspectors. Employees lose limbs and lives in accidents; with corporate lawyers preparing to swindle the uneducated with unfair financial settlements. Wages are too low to offer enough money for shelter and food; let alone any savings, to break the cycle of poverty. Promotion is limited to those who are willing to compromise their morality by feeding a corrupt system that thrives on human exploitation.
Herbert Hoover is the 31st President of the U. S. when the meat packing industry is at its worst. Like Herbert Hoover, Trump seems to think the strong survive and the poor deserve their fate.
To some, this is the same as today’s stories of the coal industry.
Don Blankenship (Former CEO of the 6th largest coal company in the U.S., Massey Energy)
Convicted on a misdemeanor charge of conspiring to willfully violate mine safety and health standards in 2015. Sentenced to 1 year in prison and fined $250,000.
Images of poverty and what it leads to are still seen in American cities; i.e. people living on the street, begging for a dollar to eat; some drinking the dollar away at a local tavern because it blunts the pain of being poor and offers a haven from a cold winter day. Young people, some children, turning tricks to survive; selling their body because low paying jobs of high volume/low price conglomerates do not pay enough for rent and food.
Hearing of the meat industry–its lax government oversight, greedy corporate owners, and corrupt politicians deeply offends American ideals. Grinding poverty changes a family of ambitious immigrants into cogs in a meat butchering machine that breaks spirits and turns good people into bums and latent criminals.
In Dickens novels, there are some remnants of human joy; even in impoverished London. In Sinclair, the only glimmer of light is small-scale concern for fellow human beings. The early days of the union movement offer some hope. However, even Sinclair’s positive sentiments are corrupted by politics. Sinclair idealizes socialism and touches on early communism.
America still offers the best known vehicle for freedom in a regulated democracy.
Since 1789, America’s relationship to immigrants has been a work in progress.
The United States has a growing need for younger workers; not to the extent of countries like Japan, but after 2020 it is increasingly important.
America needs more youth to re-balance its economic growth.
The influx of immigrants generated much of America’s success in the industrial age. Immigrants offer the same opportunity for America in the tech age.
To some immigrants, the avenue out of poverty is crime and immorality, but that has always been true in America’s history. That is why American democracy is founded on rule-of-law. Human nature does not change.
The life cycle for an honest immigrant is grim; arriving poor; staying poor, and dying. American Presidents who only focus on the business of business fail to understand or care about the trials of the poor, the newly arrived immigrant, or the social condition of impoverished communities.
Every country in the world benefits and suffers from the nature of man and the effects of urbanization; none offer Eden. America remains a land of opportunity, but to close our doors to those who want to improve their lives with freedom and honest work is an unconscionable mistake. Demographics are destiny. America’s and many post-industrial economy’s populations need help.
Modern America is not quite so dark but inequality of opportunity still plagues capitalism with wealth, greed, and political corruption hiding the dire condition of the poor.
As long as the poor remain hidden; the rich and middle class will avert their eyes, mutter “get a job”, and think the poor get what they deserve.
America is Constitutionally responsible for the welfare of its citizens.
Those who think the business of government is only business are incorrect. Business is a tool to use in forming a more perfect union; governing with justice, supporting domestic tranquility, providing for a common defense, and promoting the general welfare.
This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate
Written by: Naomi Klein
Narration by: Ellen Archer
NAOMI KLEIN (CANADIAN AUTHOR, SOCIAL ACTIVIST, FILMAKER)
A change of book titles comes to mind in reviewing Naomi Klein’s book, “This Changes Everything”. A first thought is a title like “Beat the Drum.” On second thought, it is the question “Who Gets to Decide?” Ninety seven percent of “…actively publishing climate scientists” say climate warming trends are likely due to human activity.
Deniers think current weather phenomena are a natural aberration that will be corrected by time. Others are apathetically fatalistic and call global warming a myth. But almost universally, science is saying climate warming is real.
Deniers think current weather phenomena are a natural aberration that will be corrected by time. But almost universally, science is saying climate warming is real.
A “Beat the Drum” title is meant to convey appreciation of Naomi Klein’s studied effort to awaken the general public to the truth of global warming. (She is not a scientist but a writer, researcher, and social activist.) However, the title “Who Gets to Decide?” is meant to convey a monumental weakness in Klein’s spun presentation on solutions for the problems of global warming.
Klein’s argument that global warming is a consequence of capitalism is false. Global warming is a consequence of human nature.
Klein’s argument that global warming is a consequence of capitalism is false. Global warming is a consequence of human nature. To date, democratic capitalism is the only economic form of government that offers a degree of freedom for all Peoples subject to rule of law. Democratic capitalism unleashes the power of human nature, both good and bad. Until some better form of governance is created, the best chance for a global warming solution is captialism. History shows freedom, subject to rule of law, is essential to a deliberative process that will provide best-case solutions to seemingly unsolvable problems.
Capitalism is not the proximate cause of global warming. It is the failure of the E.P.A., the President, and congressional legislators to do their job.
Global warming solutions lie in politics and science; not one or the other, but both.
Global warming solutions lie in politics and science; not one or the other, but both.
Einstein and fellow scientists prove that energy and mass are always equal. That scientific proof leads to Nagasaki and Hiroshima’s atom bombs just as 97% of the scientific community’s proof leads to earth’s climate bomb.
Great Britain, France, Russia, and Germany were worn down by WWII. American democratic capitalism makes the decision to end the war by using the atomic bomb. One may argue that this decision is morally reprehensible but it ended a war that would have continued without definitive action based on the deliberative process of a democratic capitalist country. The same may be said for a pragmatic solution for global warming.
The world is suffering from a global warming war. Eventually, that suffering will create a political consensus for something to be done to combat its consequence. Evidence of something being done is everywhere. By beating the drum Klein is creating sense of urgency about global warming. What is misleading and spun by Klein is discounting of rich entrepreneurs, like Gates, Bloomberg, Branson, and Buffett, who are taking self-interested steps to curb global warming. Yes, they are self-interested steps but self-interest is not inherently bad. Self-interest is in the fight to abate global warming.
Klein suggests that Branson expands his airline to make more money at the cost of further pollution.
Klein suggests Branson expands his airline to make more money at the cost of further pollution. (In truth Branson did sell his airline in 2016.) Branson is a pariah to Klein because of his self-interest in vertically integrating research for alternative fuels for plane travel.
Klein explains Branson is only spending two to four hundred million dollars for research on alternate fuels while having pledged three billion dollars over ten years. One wonders, how many rich have spent one million dollars, let alone two to four hundred, on alternate fuels. Klein infers Branson is all show and no go by reaping publicity benefit while raping the global environment. Whatever Branson’s motive may be, two to four hundred million dollars for a less polluting fuel is better than doing nothing.
Klein vilifies Buffett for buying railroads because they are transporting coal. Klein offers no suggestion that railroads are a more energy-efficient than some other forms of material transportation. Klein infers Buffett made the railroad investment out of self-interest. He probably did but that is not proof of a lack of concern about global warming. Klein infers Buffett’s investment decisions should be dictated by whom? Who gets to decide?
Klein vilifies Buffett for buying railroads because they are transporting coal. Klein offers no suggestion that railroads are a more energy-efficient than some other forms of material transportation.
Because people like Klein are beating the drum, the largest coal producer in the world has lost 95 percent of its stock value. The investing public finds that the industry misleads investors on its liability as a climate polluter. This is democratic capitalism in action.
Self-interest, good and bad, is the nature of human beings. Klein and others need to continue to “Beat the Drum” but decisions on what is to be done will be from a political consensus and action from leaders of the world and the scientific community. It is not what Klein says so much as how she says it. Money, power, and prestige are human nature’s motivations. It will be a matter of competing self-interests that reach a consensus on the preservation of life.
Klein and others should continue to raise awareness and sense of urgency, but it is self-delusion to think human nature will change within the time frame of this world’s declining environment.
In a free society, all realize they have “skin in the game”. Those governments that validate individual freedom offer the best hope for a global warming solution. The answer to the question of “Who gets to decide?” is best left in the hands of nation-states that validate individual freedom. America is one that holds the hope for a solution to global warming, in spite of its democratic capitalist leaning and today’s inept Executive and Legislative branch leadership.
Privacy, Property, and Free Speech: Law and the Constitution in the 21st Century
The Great Courses Series
Lectures by: Professor Jeffrey Rosen
JEFFREY ROSEN (AUTHOR, AMERICAN ACADEMIC, LEGAL HISTORIAN, PROFESSOR AT GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL)
Are Americans more or less free in the 21st Century? Professor Jeffrey Rosen in “Privacy, Property and Free Speech” leaves the question unanswered. However, he clearly frames the question for listeners to draw their own conclusion. It is difficult to give a definitive answer for three reasons. One, new technology redefines freedom. Two, September 11, 2001 redefines security. Three, globalization redefines nationalism.
Technology encroaches on privacy with internet access by the public and private sectors. The public sector continually revises laws regarding the internet. Laws passed by government attempt to regulate internet use, ownership, and censorship by redefining freedom of speech and expression, the freedom of religion, and the freedom from want and fear. Government classifies organizations and decides which can legally access the internet. Government is in the process of defining who can own the internet and how access can be regulated. Government has the power to censor information that it views detrimental to the freedoms historically held by Americans. Control of internet use, ownership, and censorship by the government encroaches on freedom.
Technology encroaches on privacy with internet access by the public and private sectors. Web-based profiling steers the public by profiling individuals and algorithmically congregating personal information.
Professor Rosen addresses the issue of property by lecturing on women’s rights and the right of government to claim eminent domain on property owned privately that can be taken for the public good. In addressing women’s rights, Rosen reviews the history of Roe v. Wade and implies that the judicial system may have acted too quickly by not allowing the States and the general public to fully address the issue. Rosen is equally conflicted by the government’s right to claim eminent domain. He notes how confiscation of private property at fair market value has a spotted history of success when claimed by the government for the public good. In some cases, the taking has resulted in failed projects; in others, like Baltimore’s revitalized harbor, the taking revitalized a neglected and deteriorated landmark. The American judicial system encroaches on the freedom of women to choose and the fifth amendment’s clause that says private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Rosen is equally conflicted by the government’s right to claim eminent domain. In some cases, the taking has resulted in failed projects; in others, like Baltimore’s revitalized harbor, the taking revitalized a neglected and deteriorated landmark.
The private sector uses the internet to define consumers. What an internet user purchases becomes a profile factoid used to pander to consumer desires. The detailed profile can affect the price advertised and the personalized pitch made by a retailer. Private sector search engines use consumer profiles to pitch private sector businesses for advertising. Consumer manipulation by the private sector encroaches on freedom. Web-based profiling steers the public by profiling individuals and algorithmically congregating personal information.
Governments have changed the world of travel by invading the privacy of minds and bodies to reduce the chance of a terrorist act. Rosen suggests governments cross the line when citizens are detained or incarcerated for what they think rather than what they do
The Trade Center tragedy redefines security for America and the world. September 11th convinces the world that there are no un-breachable terrorist constraints. Terrorism is like lighting in a storm; i.e. it is a force of nature that can strike anyone at any time. Governments have changed the world of travel by invading the privacy of minds and bodies to reduce the chance of a terrorist act. Rosen suggests governments cross the line when citizens are detained or incarcerated for what they think rather than what they do. The fear one has is that thought becomes grounds for prosecution. To the extent that terrorism is like lightning in a storm, one can only wait for the storm to pass. Invading one’s privacy and arresting citizens for what they think is a slippery slope to totalitarianism.
Despite Brexit and nationalist sentiment of aspirants to the American Presidency, Congress, and Supreme Court, all human beings are citizens of one world. There is less and less room for nation-state nationalism. Encroachment on privacy, property, and free speech are inevitable in the 21st century (and beyond). In reality, freedom’s encroachment is an inherent part of civilization. When the first man and woman joined together as a couple; when the first tribe became a hunting and gathering troop, and when the first hunter-gatherers became part of a farming community, freedom diminished.
Encroachment on privacy, property, and free speech are inevitable in the 21st century (and beyond). In reality, freedom’s encroachment is an inherent part of civilization.
The last lecture in Rosen’s series is about the right to be forgotten. Now, we are citizens of nation-states; tomorrow we will be citizens of the world. With each regrouping, there is a diminishing of freedom. The last bastion of freedom will be “the right to be forgotten”. It will be a programming code designed to volitionally erase one’s identity. This volitional reboot will be with less rather than more freedom because of the nature of becoming part of a larger human congregation.
ALEX JONES (RADIO SHOW HOST AND CONSPIRACY THEORIST)
Professor Rosen offers an excellent and informative outline of America’s history of privacy, property, and free speech. A listener will draw their own conclusions about present and future freedoms from Rosen’s lectures.
As reprehensible as conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones may be, we have to ask ourselves where the line should be drawn between idiocy and doing harm to others.
My view is that freedom has always been thankfully limited.
The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin
Written by: Steven Lee Myers
Narration by: Rene Ruiz
Steven Lee Myers, NYT’s reporter and author.
Steven Lee Myers has written a highly polished and informative biography but fails to convince one that Putin is a Tsar. Putin is more Richard Nixon than Catherine the Great. Putin, like Nixon, is smart and thin-skinned. Putin, like Nixon, makes personnel decisions based on loyalty, and views the world in real-politic terms.
Myers shows Putin comes from a family of Russian patriots with a grandfather and father that fought in Russian armies in different generations. Each lived during the Stalinist years of Gulags and terror but none rebelled against the power of Russia’s leadership.
Myers explains how Putin becomes interested in the KGB at the age of 16 and grooms himself for a life in the secret service. Putin’s KGB-influenced’ career-path is to become an attorney. He learns German and is assigned to East Germany in his first years as a KGB agent.
Myers explains how Putin’s steely disposition grows in East Germany, and later St Petersburg, Russia. Putin keeps a low profile but exhibits bravery, independence, and initiative when his country’s leaders are overwhelmed by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain.
Putin becomes the “go-to” guy for the Mayor of Leningrad (aka St. Petersburg). Putin’s relationship to the Mayor of Leningrad, Anatoly A. Sobchak, is founded on loyalty.
Sobchak is initially recognized as a representative of new Russia but the power of his position is diminished by the ineptitude of his administration. In spite of Sobchak’s mistakes, Myers shows that Putin stands by him. Loyalty is a characteristic of Putin that is expected of all who work with him. Eventually Sobchak is electorally defeated and Putin is left out of a job.
Putin’s relationship with the mayor of Leningrad reminds one of his support for Lukashenco, the President of Belarus, who illegally diverted a commercial airline to capture a government political dissident (Roman Protasevich).
Roman Protasevich (Belarusian journalist and political dissident.)
Alexander Lukashenko (President of Belarus)
In a televised June 4th, 2021 confession by Protasevich, Lukashenco embarrasses himself and his country with coerced praise by the Belarus President. This reminds one of Stalin’s show trials.
Russia is unlikely to return to hegemonic control of adjacent countries. Ethnic nationalism and desire for greater freedom are unquenchable thirsts. Ukraine, Georgia, and even Belarus, seem unlikely to rejoin Russia in a new Socialist Republic.
Russia is equally unlikely to be ruled by a Tsar again because its population is better educated; aware of the value of qualified freedom, insured by relative social stability, and security.
Russia will remain a major international power and influence in the world. Nuclear capability and cybernetics (particularly as a weapon of political and economic disruption) guarantees Russia’s position in world affairs.
Forcing Ukraine or Georgia to return to the Russian block is beyond the military strength of Russia’s Putin or his successors. Putin successfully destroyed Chechen resistance in Russia but only by severe repression within the Russian state’s border, mobilization of the press against Chenchen terrorism, and co-optation of a Chechen leader who is now a Putin’ mercenary in Ukraine. Reassembly of a form of the U. S. S. R. is only conceivable based on political accommodation based on economic influence or volitional federation. Neighboring countries can only be seduced, i.e., either by economics, or cybernetic influence. A majority vote of neighboring countries; not military dominion, will be the “modus vivendi” for Russian expansion.
But what about the Crimea. It is a part of the Ukraine.
An argument can be made that territory of the Crimea is not an exception. Millions of dollars were spent by Russia to modernize Crimea for the Olympics. Undoubtedly, a great deal of time was spent influencing Crimea’s population (which is ethnically 65% Russian). It is conceivable that a majority of the Crimea residents voted to become part of Russia.
Of course, this sets aside the truth of Crimea’s territorial and nationalist connection with Ukraine. One might argue this is analogous to Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia. Hitler used the excuse that ethnic Germans were being abused in the Sudetenland. In this view, Putin is no Tsar; i.e. he is more Stalinist accolade.
(To make Crimea the equivalent of the Sudetenland one might ask oneself if the majority in the Sudetenland were ethnic Germans, and was there a vote by Sudetenland residents.)
Undoubtedly, a great deal of time was spent influencing Crimea’s population. 65% of the Crimea’s population is ethnically Russian. It is not inconceivable that a majority of Crimea residents voted to become part of Russia
Myers cogently reveals the strengths and weaknesses of modern Russian rule. In a limited sense (limited by Myers’ independent research and fact checking), Myers’ corroborates the experience noted in William Browder’s book, “Red Notice”. Putin is certainly capable of undermining the influence or action of any person who chooses to challenge his authoritarianism.
American-born British financier and political activist.
In spite of Putin’s great power, Myers shows there are chinks in his invincibility. Putin’s sly manipulation for re-election after Medvedev’s only term as President fails to quell the desire for freedom of Russian citizens. Just as Watergate exposed the hubris of Nixon, Putin will suffer from the sin of being a flawed human being. Putin, like Nixon, is a great patriot of his country but neither exhibit the inner moral compass that make good leaders great leaders. This is a reminder of the 45th American President who focused on the business of America; not its role as a beacon for freedom and equality of opportunity.
An odd article in the NYTs (4/6/22) notes America is perplexed by what Putin owns in order to punish him with confiscation or restriction of assets. Putin is a true believer in communism. His position and property are owned by the State. In one sense that makes Putin vulnerable because his money, power, and prestige is dependent on his government’ position. In another, his position insulates him from international economic sanction.
U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands as they hold a joint news conference after their meeting in Helsinki, Finland, July 16, 2018. REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger
Myers creates a convincing portrait of a man who is subject to the sins of most who rise to power. Putin believes he has become a god among men. He rationalizes his greed by thinking the fate of Russia’s re-ascendance lies in his hands. Even in the days of Stalinist governance, relationship to the leader was the sine ne quo of wealth and power. Putin carries on that tradition. Putin’s friends and associates from the KGB and his tenure in St. Petersburg are critical components of Putin’s control of the economy and government.
Putin is no Tsar but he could have been if education had not advanced society and freedom of expression had not entered the internet age.
Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy
Written by: Francis Fukuyama
Narrated by: Johnathan Davis
FRANCIS FUKUYAMA (AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENTIST, POLITICAL ECONOMIST, AND AUTHOR)
Francis Fukuyama offers a benediction and warning about democracy in “Political Order and Political Decay”. His book is difficult to absorb because of its wide view of politics and a listener’s sense that political theory is being justified as much as proven. However, Fukuyama impressively argues that democracy is the best form of government in the world and may evolve into a form of government that is best for all modern societies.
Fukuyama writes this with an examination of the current state (actually pre-Trump) of American democracy. He addresses other forms of democracy developed, or developing, in other countries.
Fukuyama explains there are three pillars of democracy.
First, a state must be formed to protect its citizens and its territory.
Second, rule of law must be established to constrain power held by the few over the many.
And three, accountability must be established for policies that serve the interest of all the people; not only factions or special interests. When any of these supports are weakened, democracy decays.
Many examples of good and bad democracies are given by Fukuyama. To narrow the territory, this review will focus on the United States but the author offers many more examples that reinforce his theory.
In the U. S., the founding fathers address forming a nation-state with rule of law and a balance of power formula intended to serve the interest of all of its citizens. For over two hundred years, America has adhered, in principle, to these three pillars of democracy.
However, America has failed, at different times, in different degrees, in ways that have shaken each of democracy’s pillars.
The iniquity of slavery is played out. The right of national governance of all states of the union is clarified and mandated by the victory of Union forces. Through the blood and treasure lost in the war, the nation became one.
The nation-state is nearly destroyed by the American civil war.
There have been numerous attacks on the rule of law when addressing equality of opportunity, the right to vote, and freedom of expression. Victories and losses are referred to in Fukuyama’s book with a trend toward betterment in America but still as a work in progress. Fukuyama notes that many nations are not ready for democracy because they have not adopted rule of law that requires human rights for all citizens.
Accountability has been distorted by political gerrymandering, special interest influences, patronage, and what Fukuyama calls “clientism” (selling one’s vote for reward).
Concern is expressed over the role of special interest money in its distortion of the political will of the many by the few.
Fukuyama decries the growing extremism in America because of political parties that rely on local political caucuses controlled by minorities, or special interests. These special interests nominate candidates who are not qualified to be leaders but are beholding to small interest groups. If elected, they become clients of special interests rather than representatives of their districts.
Fukuyama spends a good deal of time giving examples of Presidents like Jackson (a President which some compare to Trump) who strongly endorses patronage appointments based on relationship rather than merit. Fukuyama notes that patronage is significantly changed when a disgruntled acquaintance is denied a foreign post by President Garfield. The denied acquaintance assassinates the President.
The Pendleton Act is passed and a merit system of appointment is established for government positions. Fukuyama notes that the Pendleton Act did not eliminate patronage but it reduced its use–the Civil Service came into being.
Fukuyama makes the point that institutionalization of the ideals of the three pillars of democracy ensures government stability and longevity. The Civil Service is an example of another step taken by America to preserve democratic government.
Fukuyama implies vilification of civil service employees undermines democratic stability.
At a Summit, Trump discounts the CIA’s intelligence system.
Marie Yovanovitch (Former Ambassador to Ukraine is summarily fired by President Trump.)
The main points of “Political Order and Political Decay” revolve around the pillars of democracy. Fukuyama shows that there are many democracies in the world but those that violate any of the three pillars are likely to decay over time.
Fukuyama argues–when institutions fail to maintain the state as sovereign, defensible, and dependent on the good will of many, willing to guarantee individual rights by rule of law, and accountable for political leader’s actions, democracy decays.
Fukuyama infers countries that choose not to be democratic, based on the three pillars he describes, will not rival the success of modern nation-states that have achieved economic and political stability.
Fukuyama suggests the United States will not necessarily remain the super power it has become. Fukuyama argues that warning signals are flashing in America because of changes occurring in its political system. Recognition of corporations as individuals by the Supreme Court opens the door wider for special interest influence on public policy.
Corporations are able to contribute as much money as they want to super-pacs as clients for political representatives who are primarily influenced by corporate interests rather than public good. History has made it clear that what is good for General Motors is not necessarily good for the country.
The Supreme Court’s decision to recognize corporations as people opened the flood gate to corporate influence in government.
Another warning bell in America is the blurring lines for separation of powers. The Supreme Court is entering the realm of legislature. Veto power has disrupted compromise between the Legislature and Presidency. Rules in Congress are being used to block negotiation that results in “do-nothing” legislation.
Confidence in the American Federal Government is diminishing. Belief in the legislative process is at an all-time low. The public grows to believe government serves special interests more than the common good.
Fukuyama suggests every developing sovereign country should be treated with respect based on their road to nationhood. Governments will form based on acquiring their own state identity. America’s role should be support of nations trying to establish rule of law that serves the interests of their citizens. Finally, America’s role is to demonstrate, encourage, and supplement other nations’ efforts to create institutional organizations that promote the pillars of democracy.
Trump relationship with traditional democratic allies is considered by some to be more confrontational than friendly.
President Trump’s vilification of traditional democratic allies bodes ill for Fukyama’s theory of “Political Order and Political Decay”. Trump diminishes America’s example as a good democracy.
If Fukuyama’s theory is correct, it offers a road map for how America can recover and retain a leadership role in the world. The road map starts with America righting its own ship of state by being a good example of democracy. If one accepts Fukuyama’s theory, America should support outside countries efforts to become independent democracies.
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 