DILANTTANTISM

As a reviewer of “The Great Deformation”, I am personally repelled by Stockman’s analysis but choose to rely on professional economists’ opinion, more than a politician/businessman who had a role in tanking the American economy.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Great Deformation (The Corruption of Capitalism in America)

AuthorDavid Stockman

Narration by: Willaim Hughes

David Stockman (Author, American politician, businessman, and former Director of the Office of Management and Budget for the Reagan Administration.)

David Stockman has written a troubling book about the American economy. Despite his having been an elected representative of Congress and a former Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the Reagan administration, he argues the fiscal responsibility of America’s government has corrupted “…Capitalism in America”. This is a surprising comment from a former Republican congressman with Republican ties who is a graduate of theological studies, not economics, from Harvard.

Stockton is not educated as an economist. He derides Reagan for profligate spending while having been Reagan’s OMB Director. He feels qualified to argue the crises of 2008 was badly managed because it did not allow the market to allow bankruptcy of major corporations in America. Stockton suggests AIG (American International Group) and the major banking conglomerates of America that have bad debt on their books should file for bankruptcy if they cannot meet their financial obligations without a government bailout. Of course, this is the road not taken so no one can know whether Stockton is right or wrong.

Though the harm done to many Americans by the solution of the Bush’ and Obama’ administrations is fresh in most American’s minds, one cannot help but be skeptical of Stockton’s opinion. If bankruptcy had been allowed by those companies that could not meet their debt obligations, would American capitalism and its economy have been any better? How many Americans would have been harmed by those bankruptcies? The loss of jobs from bankruptcy would have been immense. Consider the number of people with no income who would be unable to pay their bills. What would happen to their ways of life? Would America’s government stand by and allow them to become homeless and hungry? Today’s homelessness suggests America’s government might stand by and do nothing.

Franklin Roosevelt shows America’s government can finance a solution for crisis through public works that would bring America back to prosperity. Is that different than bailing out employers of the American public to sustain family incomes from a potential financial melt-down. Are the ideals of capitalist greed worth continued impoverishment of the poor?

Stockton’s solution is to cut the defense budget, reduce Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and let the public fend for itself. Stockton argues to have corporate subsidies and tax expenditures reduced with deep cuts in domestic discretionary spending. He goes on to support binding spending caps, no new tax cuts without an equal offset in expenditures, no bail outs with a belief that nothing is too big to fail, a reversal of Trumps 2017 tax cuts, a balanced budget, no long-term deficit financing, no permanent emergency spending, and a smaller federal footprint on the economy. These seem easy solutions for one who is financially secure but draconian for those who have been unable to grasp the economic opportunities of American capitalism.

More people will die from inability to receive medical care, more will go hungry and suffer from malnutrition, and homelessness. Stockman believes the current system is unsustainable. Let’s accept that point but victimizing and creating more homeless and poorer Americans only cheapens democratic capitalism.

Stockman is right in explaining the U.S. debt increase is unsustainable.

Interest costs are creating extraordinary pressure as a line-item cost for America’s budget. Reform is immensely difficult because of political differences of opinion. According to most economists with education as economists, Stockman’s observations are true, but most economists do not believe that truth will lead to a sudden market collapse. The majority of economist suggest Stockman’s explanation of long-term fiscal challenges can be ameliorated to avoid a wide market collapse. Though Kenneth Rogoff, Carmen Reinhart, and Olivier Blanchard agree with Stockman’s diagnosis, they do not think his doom scenario is likely. Jason Furman, Douglas Elmendorf, and Ben Bernanke do not believe a bond-market revolt will crater government financing. Though all agree government debt is unsustainable, interest costs are rising too fast, and political discord is a problem. These “educated economists” believe entitlements can be gradually reformed, and a sudden collapse of the economy will be abated.

In general, most economists recognize America cannot continue to increase its debt but most economist believe the U.S. will adjust its economic policy to avoid collapse. As a reviewer of “The Great Deformation”, I am personally repelled by Stockman’s analysis but choose to rely on professional economists’ opinion, more than a politician/businessman who had a role in tanking the American economy.

INDIVIDUAL POWER

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. President Trump exemplifies that truth.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

48 Laws of Power 

Author: Robert Greene

Narration by: Richard Poe

Robert Greene (American author, wrote seven international bestsellers, received his degree from University of Wisconsin-Madison in classical studies.)

This is a long book that shows a breadth of understanding about the history of power. How power and influence is acquired and wielded by human beings. Power and influence ranges from idealism to pragmatism to nihilism. In some sense, the “48 Laws of Power” is a study of emperors, courtiers, generals, con artists, and others who acquired power over others in history. What Greene reflects on is the social and human art of gaining and wielding power over other human beings. Whether one is low or high in the hierarchy of humanity, the general key to having power according to Greene is “never outshine superiors” but “always court attention that gains either respect, influence, or control of others”.

Greene brilliantly summarizes many characteristics of leaders in history to support his fundamental beliefs about power. He suggests all humans are primarily self-interested. One may disagree with that belief as a universal truth because there are many examples of social cooperation to achieve a common good or a stable system of governance. However, there is always a prime mover, a powerful person behind the scenes who drives the effort to succeed or fail.

Greene argues power is the result of interpersonal relationships. There is a great deal of truth in Greene’s analysis of power but from an institutional or organizational point of view, power is spread among departments’ leaders who report to a single leader. This is not to contradict Greene’s examples of interpersonal power but to temper belief that all power rests with one wielder of power. There is a great deal more to power than individual human manipulation. Organizations of the modern world are built around individual departments with singular powers beyond singular organizational leaders.

American Capital.

To give an example: regardless of who is President of the United States, there are Constitutional and legal systems that constrain his/her power. The bureaucracy of governance operates within rules set by law and precedent. In the case of business enterprise, shareholders, boards, and regulatory frameworks diminish the power of its executives. Further, even in the marketplace of business, capital limitation, supply chains, national platforms like Google, Amazon, and credit card companies have major influences on power exercised by any singular entity. Power in every human organization is also influenced by religions, social myths, and societal norms.

In this increasingly interconnected world, power has become impersonal, sometimes structural and emergent in ways that are non-intentional but significantly more powerful than one individual.

The weakness of the “48 Laws of Power” is that it fails to address institutionalized power that multiplies the power of individuals. A leader of a government or corporation works within a framework of historically developed departments that have their own powers and influences on public and private functions. The dynamics of power Greene explains apply within departments of government and corporations that go beyond the power of one leader.

This often leads to unintended consequences. ICE and Trump’s power are a current example of unintended consequence because of the murder of two Minneapolis American citizens who demonstrated against the President’s immigration policy. One doubts that the President of the United States wishes for the murder of American citizens who disagree with his immigration policies. However, power of the individual still matters as is demonstrated by today’s American President. Greene precisely explains how one person gains power over another despite a modern world that complicates individual power.

ICE murder of American citizens in Minneapolis who are protesting Trump immigration policy.

President Trump demonstrates his power over education, government employment, health and human services, birth control, and immigration policy. However, both good and bad government policy is magnified by Departments of Government that report to the President, i.e., bad policy coming from a President’s power is only made worse through implementation by subordinates who create their own power structures.

It is not that Greene’s analysis of power is wrong but that it applies to individual relationships without addressing distortions of power exercised by departments of business and government that have developed their own hierarchies of power.

One doubts any President of the United States who orders elimination of illegal immigration wishes to have ICE agents murder American citizens. This is not to absolve President Trump but to suggest the ICE employees on the ground bare the weight of two unjustified murders in Minneapolis.

Greene’s explanation of power is spot on, but it is about every person’s rise to power, not the reality of one leader’s power. Organizations are made up of many other managers using the same laws of power as their presumed superior. The end result is a level of unintended consequence. Or as Lord Acton noted: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. President Trump exemplifies that truth.

JESUS SAYS

Fugelsang preaches to the choir in writing about Trump’s ignorant Immigration policy. It is not a matter of being or not being Christian but a matter of having a pragmatic and compassionate immigration policy that serves the needs of America’s future.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Separation Church and Hate (A Sane Person’s Guide to Taking Back the Bible from Fundamentalists, Fascists, and Flock-Fleecing Frauds)

AuthorJohn Fugelsang

Narration by: John Fugelsang

John Fugelsang (Author, American actor, comedian, television host, political commentator.)

John Fugelsang argues President Trump’s immigration policies are unjust, hypocritic, and unchristian. Fugelsang, as the son of a mother and father who have deep religious backgrounds, appears to have carefully read the Bible. In his Christian’ beliefs about humanity, Fugelsang argues Trump distorts Christian teaching, has no compassion for immigrants, and pursues an immoral immigration policy that exemplifies a false relationship between “…Church and Hate”.

Good government, not religion, is what is needed to solve America’s immigration problem.

As one who is not raised with any particular religious beliefs, much of what Fugelsang argues makes sense. The gestapo tactics of the Trump administration are appalling. Whether one is a Christian or not, the terrorism created by Trump’s policy of home, school, and street attacks on people who may or may not be immigrants is un-American and, according to Fuigelsang, contrary to the teachings of Jesus. Where Fugelsang is off the mark in his criticism is in attacking presumed motives of the President as opposed to the substantive reasons for managing illegal immigration. Trump’s methodology is cruel and unjust. The point of being Christian is superfluous. Fugelsang’s knowledge of the Bible is exemplary but who cares? It is not whether one is following Christian beliefs but whether one with power is acting with compassion and good judgement in addressing what is wrong with America’s immigration policy.

America needs immigration reform.

It is easy to agree with much of what Fugelsang has to say but it is not addressing the complexity of the problem of immigrants’ desire to have a better life. Trump is making the same mistakes past Presidents have made with native Americans. Rather than addressing the reasonable needs of human beings, past American Presidents made deals for Indian land, broke promises, murdered native populations and rejected inherent human rights. Trump is doing the same with today’s immigrants.

The starting point for correcting the problem of illegal immigration is in the creation of a fair, compassionate, and workable immigration policy.

Money is being wasted on gestapo-like actions by our government that terrorizes the public with armed ICE officers who continue to send the wrong message to the world about American democracy. We are not a police state. We are the nation that said, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”.

Trying to turn back time is a waste of American revenue and manpower.

Trump, Congress, and the Judiciary need to back-off from a show of power. Our government needs to get to work on practical solutions that help American gain control of immigration. A show of power will not solve illegal immigration. It is only Trump’s theatrical way of making it look like he is doing something about illegal immigration. What he is doing is making America look like Hitler’s Germany. This is not America or what it stands for.

Fugelsang may be right from a Christian’s perspective about Trump’s lack of Christian belief but that is the easy part. The hard part is creating a compassionate solution by the American government for immigrants that have entered the country illegally. America needs an immigration policy that works for the future. Immigrants made America. American power and prosperity will decline without the help of immigrants. Modernization and a falling birth rate in America will reduce available labor for its future.

Fugelsang preaches to the choir in writing about Trump’s ignorant Immigration policy. It is not a matter of being or not being Christian but a matter of having a pragmatic and compassionate immigration policy that serves the needs of America’s future.

2 + 2 = what?

Democratic socialism is a great ideal but offers no solution for the flaws of human nature. The slim hope for Orwell’s democratic socialism is “The Ministry of Truth” which ironically is its greatest danger.


Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Ministry of Truth (The Biography of George Orwell’s 1984)

AuthorDorian Lynskey

Narration by: Andrew Wincott

Dorian Lynskey (Author, journalist, based in London)

Dorian Lynskey has written an informative biography of George Orwell’s most well-known book, “1984″. Orwell, a 6’ 3” political activist and theorist, shakes the foundations of communism and democracy. He argues both systems of government fail their citizens. Orwell argues the power of the few in communism and rising authoritarianism in capitalist democracy create an environment of inequality that victimizes the powerless and poor of society.

Orwell believes government run by the few is seduced by personal interests. Lynskey argues that Edward Bellamy influenced Orwell by showing how the utopian visions of all governments, however well‑intentioned, become authoritarian when they demand total social conformity. From that insight, Orwell writes “1984”

Edward Bellamy (American author, journalist and political activist, died at the age of 48 in 1898.)

Orwell’s “1984” becomes more relevant and threatening today because of artificial intelligence. The potential of A.I. for thought manipulation by purveyors of misinformation, and its surveillance capabilities threaten societal norms.

Lynskey argues that 1984 is relevant today because the forces of communism and democracy manipulate truth, are authoritarian, and define language in ways that harm society. Lynskey’s view isn’t that we live in Orwell’s world, but that we live in a world where Orwell’s insights may help us understand what is happening around us.

George Orwell (1903-1950, died at age 46.)

Orwell pillories the Soviet Union and communism in his satirical book “Animal Farm” which he wrote between 1943 and 1944. He had experienced Stalinist-like repression in the Spanish Civil War. Those who have travelled to the Baltics and listened to families that lived under Stalin’s reign over their countries will understand Orwell’s view of communism. Pigs in Animal Farm are Stalin’s apparatchiks that become the ruling class in Animal Farm, just as they did in the Baltics. They claim leadership, privileges and exempt themselves from labor. As “…Farm” leaders they squeal propaganda, censor activists that resist their piggish control and manipulate language to exploit the working class of the farm. The pigs lie among themselves by believing sacrifice of everyone is necessary for the “greater good” while the pigs feed on farming production and others grow hungry.

“1984” does not directly attack democracy but it reveals its weaknesses, illusions, and vulnerabilities.

“1984” is written near the end of Orwell’s life and becomes his most successful publication. He shows how democracies can sleepwalk into authoritarianism. Some would argue that is happening today in the guise of immigration policies that deny basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Agencies designed to serve America are being dismantled by today’s government. The idea of “it can’t happen here” is happening here. Propaganda and misinformation distort what is actually happening across America. Many Americans are becoming complicit with the rhetoric of a punitive federal government.

The rhetoric of misdeeds.

Lynskey explains “1984” is relevant today because the struggle over truth, language, surveillance, and authoritarian thinking has intensified, making Orwell’s warnings seem like a toolkit for understanding the present.

Orwell went to Morocco primarily for his health—specifically to recover from severe lung problems that are later recognized as tuberculosis. Morocco was a cheap place to live with a warmer climate that eased his respiratory illness. He left Morocco in 1939 and returned to Britain during WWII. After the war, he spent his last years (1946-1949) writing “1984” in Jura, Scottland. He died in London on January 21, 1950.

Lynskey explains Orwell, like Martin Luther King, believed in socialist democracy.

What is missing in “The Ministry of Truth” is an Orwellian solution to capitalist greed in western culture. Human nature interferes with the ideal of socialist democracy. “The Ministry of Truth” shows how prescient Orwell is about the ills of government but discounts the dark side of today’s democracies, i.e., namely capitalism. The underlying weakness of capitalism is the consequence of a permanent underclass because of economic inequality. Lynskey notes Orwell rejects capitalism because of its flaws, but socialist democracy is no answer because of human nature. Orwell seems to acknowledge that material life with capitalism is better, more freedom is inherent, but less perfect. However, socialist democracy offers no solution to that part of human nature that is human greed. He criticizes democracy without offering any alternative.

The ubiquitous internet and iPhone are not foreseen by Orwell.

The internet is a medium for “alternative facts” that can as easily offer lies as truth. When power speaks with “alternative facts” truth is lost and the public is misled. Society is diminished. Democratic socialism is a great ideal but offers no solution for the flaws of human nature.

Inequality in America.

The slim hope for Orwell’s democratic socialism is “The Ministry of Truth” which ironically is its greatest danger. A “…Ministry if Truth”, with the potential of A.I., can aid or destroy democratic socialism by focusing on concrete recommendations to mitigate inequality. On the other hand, A.I. in the hands of an unchecked tyrant can increase inequality.

A VIEW OF GENIUS

Like all world changing inventions and discoveries, iPhone came with costs ranging from children’ and adults’ addiction, to rare minerals depletion, to environmental pollution. The long-term effect of iPhones has changed the world with unexpected, often unforeseen, consequences.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The One Device (The Secret History of the iPhone)

AuthorBrian Merchant

Narration by: Tristan Morris

Brian Merchant (Author, American technology journalist, writes for The New York Times, Wired, Slate, The Atlantic, and the Guardian.)

Brian Merchant works around the tech world but never quite in it. His understanding of today’s technology has made him a popular writer for national news outlets. Never having been employed by a tech company, his analysis of iPhone history, the role of Jobs, and the history of its development is as an outsider to the process of invention. As a writer about technology, there is a level of objectivity but also reservation about an outsider’s details. Merchant reports what others tell of iPhone’s history rather than as a person being there as a part of its development.

Merchant’s investigation explains the iPhone’s creation is a messy human process entailing the dangers of mining, involvement of other companies and individuals, patent questions, and labor struggles. The impact of the iPhone’s invention is world changing. In a fundamental way, Merchant discounts the mythology of iPhone’s invention by one person or company. There were decades of prior invention before the iPhone became more than an idea, let alone a world changing device.

The scope of manufacturing iPhones made Foxconn the leading international labor subcontractor in the world. Foxconn is estimated to employ 800,000 employees in China alone. Many have been contracted by Apple for iPhone product assembly.

The mining industry and assembly line development were in place before the raw material and labor that would be needed for iPhone development. Merchant suggests Apple became the central orchestrator rather than singular inventor of the iPhone. Merchant argues the iPhone is a synthesis of decades of technological improvement, unnamed engineers, labor and organizations of miners and factory workers, and innovations needed to produce Apple’s revolutionary product.

Genius and invention go hand in hand. However, Merchant explains in the early 20th century, much of the technology that became a part of the iPhone’s foundation were already invented. He notes touchscreens, voice recognition tools, motion tracking, and early iterations of what became Artificial Intelligence had already been discovered. Merchant’s intent is not to diminish the genius of Apple, Jobs, or its employees but to show the public that every extraordinary human invention has precursors and essential earlier discoveries. It took Apple’s leadership and employees to integrate the many technologies that had been discovered earlier to create what has become a handheld window to the world. Merchant explains no great inventions are created out of thin air. He suggests every invention of the present is dependent on thought, labor, experience, and invention of the past.

Merchant discounts the idea of the “lone genius” because every genius depends on insight and events of the past to correlate what she/he invents in the present. The iPhone unifies decades of technological progress. The iPhones’ invention reorganizes global behavior, creates a new economic and industrial model, and gives the world a pocket supercomputer. The geniuses of Apple earned their reputations, but they relied on discoveries of the past.

Thinking of Curie, Einstein, Newton, and other giants of science, one wonders how Merchant’s belief about genius is valid. He would argue the brilliance of Curie, Einstein, and Newton are built on prior knowledge, their predecessors, and the tools of their time. Their genius is in connecting past knowledge and discovery of others with the present. Their genius is dependent on predecessors. Merchant is not diminishing Jobs’ or Apple’s genius, but their breakthroughs could only come from groundwork established by others.

Like all world changing inventions and discoveries, iPhone came with costs ranging from children’ and adults’ addiction, to rare minerals depletion, to environmental pollution. The long-term effect of iPhones has changed the world with unexpected, often unforeseen, consequences.

CAPITALISM’S HISTORY

A surveillance society is a choice that can be made with careful deliberation or by helter-skelter judgement to return manufacturing to America without clearly understanding its impact on American society. That is the underlying importance of Beckert’s history of capitalism.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Capitalism (A Global History)

AuthorSven Beckert

Narration by: Soneela Nankani & 3 more

Sven Beckert (Author, Professor of History at Harvard, graduated from Columbia with a PhD in History.)

Professor Beckert defines capitalism as an economic form of privately owned capital reinvested in an effort to produce more capital. In defining capitalism in that way, Beckert suggests capitalism reaches back to 1000 CE, long before some who argue it came into being in 18th century England. Beckert argues the Italian city-states, like Venice, Genoa, and Florence, are the origin of capitalism. That is when accumulated wealth is invested in long-distance trade networks, early banks, and trade by wealthy Italian families. Beckert’s point is that England simply expanded what had begun hundreds of years earlier with trade investment by wealthy Italian families.

Economic theories.

Becker briefly compares many economic theories like capitalism, Marxism, Keynesianism, and Polanyian theories which he calls institutional economics. All bare the flaws of human nature. His economic history is about the addition of slavery to capitalism in the late 15th through 18th centuries. Beckert notes Portugal, Spain, Britain, France, and the Netherlands strengthened their capitalist economies. They were able to secure cheap, controllable labor, expand production, and increase profits with slavery.

Beckert explains the monumental changes and expansion that occurs with England’s adoption of early capitalism. As early as the 17th century, Beckert notes England revolutionizes capitalism in good and morally corrupt ways. Nation-state power combines with private capital to create a massive capitalist influencer around the world. With the dominance of British naval power, colonialism expands, slavery becomes part of international trade, and capitalist monopolies grow to dominate economies. England’s industrial revolution with mechanized production, factory labor, and capital accumulation is able to expand market influence and hugely improve their countries infrastructure and legal protections. Creating patent laws raises potential for monopolization of some market goods.

For several reasons, slavery declines during the later years of industrialization. However, Beckert notes its immorality is not the primary reason.

Free labor became more efficient for capital accumulation. The enslaved became discontented with their role as cheap labor. By the 19th century, slavery became politically and legally incompatible with capitalism. Capitalists began to understand how they could gain more wealth by indenturing rather than enslaving workers, offering sharecropping, or leasing convicts. Capitalists found they could get cheaper labor through contracts with prisons, or sharing of income than slave ownership by being more flexible with the political and physical environment in which labor worked. Slavery faded because capitalists found new ways to reduce costs of labor. At the same time, slave revolts were escalating, the U.S. Civil War is being fought, policing of slavery became too expensive, and investors felt their investments would be at risk in company’s dependent on slave labor. Morality had little to do with abolishing slavery in Beckert’s opinion.

Beckert shows how capitalism systematically expands investment of private capital. Capital is put to work rather than hoarded and consumed by a singular family, political entity, or economic system. Capitalism provides a potential for moving beyond slave-based economies, though racial discrimination remains a work in progress. Beckert notes capitalism is different from other economic systems because it invests private capital that theoretically moderates the need for nation-state’ capital investment in the health, and welfare of a nation’s citizens.

The interesting judgement made by Beckert is that capitalism’s foundation was initially based on slavery, colonialism, and state violence.

The violence of which he writes is based on several factors, i.e., historical slavery, territorial seizure, nation-backed monopolies, worker mistreatment or suppression, and global coercion with military backing. Beckert seems to admit no major historical economic system is free of violence. It seems every economic system is imperfect. Violence appears a fundamental part of human nature in all presently known economic systems.

In the mid to late twentieth century, Beckert notes how manufacturing becomes a global rather than local capitalist activity.

This reorganization creates global inequalities that America is late to understand and adjust to in their capitalist economy. The financial and investment industry of America benefited by becoming world investors, but the local economy fails to remain competitive with the production capabilities of other countries. To become competitive seems an unreasonable expectation for America because of the cost of labor. Trump’s belief appears to be that the solution is to force a return of manufacturing to America. To do that, the rich seem to ignore the fact that to be competitive manufacturing has to have its costs reduced. Where will that reduction come from? Reducing labor costs creates a downward spiral in the families dependent on income from labor. Can America capture a larger part of raw materials for manufacturing to offset higher costs of labor? That is conceivable but it will require a more focused American investment in raw materials that other nations are equally interested in capturing.

AI is a tool of human beings and will be misused by some leaders in the same way atom bombs, starvation, disease, climate, and other maladies have harmed the sentient world.

A capitalist’ economy’s violence has multiple drivers but A.I. has the potential of early detection of conflict hotspots, better predictive policing, more efficient allocation of material resources, and improved mental-health triage and intervention. A.I. is not a perfect answer to human nature’s flaws or the reestablishment of manufacturing in America. There is the downside of the surveillance society pictured by George Orwell.

A surveillance society is a choice that can be made with careful deliberation or by helter-skelter judgement to return manufacturing to America without clearly understanding its impact on American society. That is the underlying importance of Beckert’s history of capitalism.

SAVING THE BABY

Like in Solomon’s parable, the baby must be saved. That is the mind-set required for a negotiated peace between Israelites and Palestinians in Agha’s and Malley’s “Tomorrow is Yesterday”.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Tomorrow is Yesterday (Life, Death, and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel/Palestine)

AuthorHussein Agha, Robert Malley

Narration by: Imani Jade Powers

Hussein Agha (on the left) is a senior associate of Oxford University and was part of the Palestinian team that negotiated the Oslo II agreement in 1994-95. Robert Malley (on the right) is an American lawyer, political scientist and specialist in conflict resolution.

Imani Jade Powers (Actor, writer, and singer based in New York City and London.)

It is interesting that a female actor is asked to narrate “Tomorrow is Yesterday”. There is a harshness in Agha’s and Malley’s assessment of negotiations for peace between Jews and Palestinians in what seems an unresolvable conflict. It is the conflict between two peoples’ desire to live in a land that has historically been occupied by two different ethnicities. Presumably, a female narrator takes some (but not much) of the edge off the strong opinions expressed by the authors about the intransigence of Israeli/Palestinian leaders in coming to an agreement on their territorial rights in the Middle east. There is an irony in the choice of a woman narrator for the two men who wrote the book. One might presume a woman is chosen because of a woman’s longer association with nurturing rather than roiling humanity.

King Solomon ruled for 40 years in the Kingdom of Israel and built the First Temple in Jerusalem.

One may ask themselves of these two men’s history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict–where is the wisdom of Solomon that challenged two women who claimed the same baby? Solomon orders the baby be cut in half, giving each woman one half. One woman agrees and the other begs the king to spare the child and give him to her rival. This seems the essence of the conflict between the State of Israel and the stateless Palestinians. What Agha and Malley imply is the leadership of the Israelites and Palestinians refuse to agree on sharing their land and choose to kill each other instead. There are no leaders that seem to have the compassion to save their progeny by either sharing or dividing the disputed territory upon which they live.

The Oslo Accord with Clinton, Rabin and Arafat in its first iteration.

The authors suggest the only negotiation that had any success was in the Oslo accords in which one of the negotiators is Hussein Agha (the co-author of this book). His experience with both sides of the negotiation offers some surprising and interesting profiles of the participants. Yasser Arafat is the symbolic father of the Palestinians, but he is shown as an ambiguous negotiator who is charismatic but contradictory which makes him both indispensable and obstructive. It is his identity as a leader of the Palestinians, rather than any negotiating skill, that makes him a player in the negotiations. In the second iteration of the Oslo Accords, the pragmatic Palestinian is Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) but he did not have the legitimacy of Arafat in the authors’ opinions. On the Israeli side there is Barak, Olmert, and Netanyahu. The first two seem to be rationalist pragmatists but Netanyahu, not surprisingly, is characterized as a skeptic who believed the Oslo Accords were a threat to Israel. On the American side is Clinton who focused on closing a deal which fails to confront the historical and emotional roots of the conflict.

In the end, at best, the authors argue Oslo creates a process for negotiating but not peace.

The process allows both sides to avoid confronting the deeper issues of their conflict. The Oslo Accords gave the illusion of progress without any real movement on either side. October 7th is clear evidence of the truth of that observation.

World superpowers of the future.

None of the world’s most powerful leaders, including America, China, Russia, the UK, Germany, South Korea, France, Japan, Saudi Arabia, or Israel show the wisdom of a Soloman. All the leaders on both sides of the negotiation appear to have their heads in the sand with agendas that fail to understand or address the fundamental concerns of the opposing sides. The results have been to allow events to unfold where Israeli’ and Palestinian’ families are torn apart, kidnapped, imprisoned, raped or murdered.

“Tomorrow is Yesterday” is a painful recitation of the failure of the world to understand and resolve the conflict between the Israelites and the Palestinian people. These two authors have an opinion about how “Tomorrow…” can be different than “…Yesterday”. They argue steps toward peace can only occur with a better understanding of what drives their conflict. The writers note there needs to be a mutual understanding of the trauma and injustice of their conflicts. Their respective suffering, and a sense of injustice needs to be accountably recognized by both Israeli and Palestinian leaders for a chance of a negotiated peace.

The authors do not show a plan, roadmap, or political structure that will settle disagreement between Israelis and Palestinians.

What they explain is why previous plans have failed. They diagnose the disease which is revealed in the history of failed plans for reconciliation. There seem to be only two options. One is a two-state solution, and the other is one state with equal representation, along the lines of the relative peace between Irish Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Like in Solomon’s parable, the baby must be saved. That is the mind-set required for a negotiated peace between Israelites and Palestinians in Agha’s and Malley’s “Tomorrow is Yesterday”.

SCHIZOPHRENIA REDUX

The boon and bane of a brilliant mind is that it can correlate facts with causes to reveal the mysteries of the universe but also the demons of false correlation and belief.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Best Minds (A Story of Friendship, Madness, and the Tragedy of Good Intentions)

AuthorJonathan Rosen

Narration by: Jonathan Rosen

Jonathan Rosen (Author, Yale graduate, writes for The Jewish Daily Forward, and the Free Press.)

As a person who has lived through the same generation as Jonathan Rosen, his story is interesting partly because it tells what it is like to be born a Jew in America. In many ways, one finds life as a Jew is no different than it is for any American. Most Americans are born into a family that cares for them and influences who they become as adults. Children are born with innate abilities that are either cultivated or ignored by their parents. Some parents are too busy with their own lives to offer care a child may benefit from with more attention. It appears Jonathan Rosen is born into a family that cultivates his abilities despite their busy lives. One wonders if that is a matter of ethnic tradition or inherent nature. One suspects it is a little of both.

In “The Best Minds”, an important part of being raised a Jew is education that encourages and reinforces Jewish identity through rituals like the bar mitzva.

The bar mitzva and bat mitzva (for girls) is a coming-of-age ceremony at age 13 (sometimes 12 for girls) where a Jewish child memorizes and recites passages from the Torah. On the one hand it reinforces one’s identity with a particular ethnicity. On the other, it is one of many exercises of memory that reinforces one’s ability to succeed academically. Much of one’s success as an accomplished adult is recall of information whether a doctor, lawyer, or merchant chief. From a young age, memorization is an important skill for Jewish children. One wonders how much tradition has to do with the brilliance of Einstein, Oppenheimer, Salk and so many other Jews of the world. This is not to suggest being raised in a Jewish family is not as traumatic and unpredictable as any child born but to recognize ethnic customs make a difference in children’s lives. The great contributions to science and art by Jews makes one wish they might live life over again with more positively ritualized cultivation.

Michael Laudor (Yale graduate, subject of “The Best Minds)

However, there is much more to Rosen’s story. His life is intertwined with the life of Michael Laudor, a close childhood friend who is raised in a similar environment and recognized as a prodigy. However, Lauder succumbs to schizophrenia. This is not to suggest Jews or any ethnicity is prone to psychological imbalance. Psychiatric imbalance is not defined by ethnicity but exists as a potential for every human being. One doubts there is any defense against psychological abnormality whether Jew, gentile, or other.

Laudor and Rosen as childhood friends.

Laudor and Rosen were close friends. Rosen recognizes his friend has a superior mind, i.e., one of “The Best Minds” of Rosen’s high school’ years. Rosen struggles to understand what happened to his childhood friend. Both Rosen and Laudor are accepted at Yale. Laudor chooses law as his course of study. Rosen goes on to California to get a PhD in literature. Their dual biographies make Rosen’s story impactful. Rosen explains how intelligence, ambition, and success can be destroyed by mental illness.

Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut.

Laudor is a wunderkind who performs at a level far beyond his age group. He graduates from Yale and decides wealth is a goal to be achieved. He is hired by an investment consulting firm which offers him an opportunity to become super-rich. Rosen infers Laudor succeeds. From the outside, Laudor appears to be highly successful, but he becomes dissatisfied with his life and quits the firm that hired him. Rosen stays in touch with Laudor and writes “The Best Minds” to reveal what he thinks he knows about what happened to his childhood friend. The beginning of Laudor’s imbalance appears to Rosen when Laudor explains he is being followed, monitored and targeted by unknown malefactors. Before that conversation, the erratic behavior of Rosen’s friend seemed like a matter of burnout from his high-flying experience as an investment consultant. The intensity of Laudor’s paranoia makes Rosen believe something more serious is at the root of his friend’s behavior.

Rosen stays in touch with Laudor–talking to him about what is going on in his life. He tries to get Laudor to see the falseness of his delusions without triggering defensiveness. Rosen avoids contradicting Laudor by trying to be supportive and encouraging him to seek help. On the one hand one wonders what more could Rosen do. How else could he intervene in Laudor’s spiral into what is later diagnosed as schizophrenia? A reader/listener wonders what they would or could have done.

Michael Laudor murders his fiancée, Carrie Costello, in 1998. She is pregnant at the time of her death.

Laudor had grown to believe his girlfriend had become a part of a conspiracy to harm him and that he needed to defend himself despite her trying to care for him. His brilliant mind manufactured a false reality. His delusion leads to the fatal stabbing of Ms. Costello. After the homicide, Laudor calls 911. He is arrested and transferred to a psychiatric facility and later found guilty by reason of insanity. He died in 2022 at the age of 56 in a New York State psychiatric hospital, never recovering from severe schizophrenia.

“The Best Minds” is Rosen’s effort to understand how genius and madness can be intertwined. The boon and bane of a brilliant mind is that it can correlate facts with causes to reveal the mysteries of the universe but also the demons of false correlation and belief. Correlation is not causation without objective and repeatable experimental proof.

The question one asks oneself after finishing Rosen’s book is what one can do differently to keep someone from losing their way in life whether he/she is a genius or not?

American Leadership

Without a competent Chief of Staff, democracies are subject to authoritarian tyranny.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Gatekeepers (How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency)

AuthorChris Whipple

Narration by: Mark Bramhall

Chris Whipple (Author, political analyst, documentary film maker, journalist.)

Democratic government is complicated and messy, but decisions are made based on an understanding of the interests of many as opposed to the dictate and judgement of one.

“The Gatekeepers” may be viewed by most as an historical account of White House Chiefs of Staff based on many interviews of former government officials. However, one is inclined to see this history as a chronical of American government effectiveness. The facts and incidents reported give reader/listeners a view of America’s government function. Whipple details a series of relatively prudent and sometimes bad decisions made by late twentieth and twenty-first century presidents. Whipple’s history suggests the decision-maker for pursuit of government policy is America’s elected President. However, the road to policy approval or rejection is paved by White House’ Chiefs of Staff.

Whipple covers Nixon’s, Ford’s, Carter’s, Reagan’s, both Bush’s, Clinton’s, Obama’s, and Trump’s first administration. It does not address Biden’s Presidency or the Chief of Staff for Trump’s second term. The many interviews Whipple bases his history on offer a credible and enlightening history of American government. It is H. R. Haldeman, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker, Panetta, Card, and Rahm Emanuel that are the most prominent examples of effective and consequential Chiefs of Staff in Nixon’s, Ford’s, Reagan’s, Clinton’s, first and second Bush’s, and Obama’s administrations. The definition of effective is their ability to achieve a desired result whether good or bad for America. This is where one’s personal political beliefs come into question. It is always easy to see the errors of the past retrospectively. Whipple is careful to report facts and results without much judgement about their consequences.

H.R. Halderman (1926-1993, former Chief of Staff for President Nixon.)

Haldeman was Nixon’s Chief of Staff. There is no evidence that he had anything to do with the planned or ordered Watergate break-in, but Whipple shows he participated in a Watergate cover-up. Though Haldeman’s actions after the Watergate scandal are reprehensible, the point made by Whipple is that Haldeman set the table for what an effective Chief of Staff should be for a President. Haldeman acts as a consummate gatekeeper. One can criticize Haldeman’s bad decision to try and coverup Watergate, but he defined the role of a President’s Chief of Staff. Whipple shows Haldeman manages access to the President, understands where the power of government lies, has a good understanding of staff members surrounding the President, protects the President’s time, and balances a President’s policies with the politics of his party.

Donald Rumsfeld (1932-2021, Secretary of Defense and former Chief of Staff for President Ford.)

President Ford’s Chief of Staff is Donald Rumsfeld with Dick Cheney as Deputy Chief of Staff. Rumsfeld is characterized as a mentor to Cheney. They had a close relationship according to Whipple. Ford’s political decision to give a full pardon to Nixon and clemency for Vietnam draft dodgers were hot potato issues that were abetted (if not endorsed) by Rumsfeld and Cheney. Most significantly Ford ended America’s war in Vietnam. Ford endorses tax increases to reduce inflation while supporting tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Ford increases congress’s role in foreign policy.

Dick Cheney (1921-2025, second Chief of Staff for President Ford.)

In a cabinet reorganization Cheney becomes the Chief of Staff and Rumsfeld switches to Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld and Cheney, in their roles as Chiefs of Staff, control access to President Ford, coordinate policy actions, shape internal decision-making, and advise Ford on strategy to influence people who accomplish these acts. The two Chiefs influenced Ford to replace Kissinger as National Security Advisor, promote George Bush as CIA Director, and prepare Ford for the next election which is ultimately lost to Jimmy Carter.

Hamilton Jordan (1944-2008, Chief of Staff of President Carter.)

When elected, President Carter felt he did not need a Chief of Staff. However, he relented in 1979, when he found the job was needed. Carter hired Hamilton Jordan who had been his campaign strategist when he ran for President. Whipple notes that appointment became a mistake because of Jordan’s lack of discipline. Though the Ford administration fought the idea of promoting Reagan for President, the public felt otherwise.

James Baker (1930-, Chief of Staff for President George H.W. Bush.)

After Carter, when Reagan is elected, he chooses James Baker as his Chief of Staff. Whipple suggests Baker is the quintessential model of a great Chief of Staff which all could be measured against. Baker is characterized by Whipple as an expert at managing the White House, the press, and Capitol Hill. Baker understood the process, the politics, communication, and presidential management requirements of the job. He never confused himself with the power of the President. He became manager of what is called the Reagan Revolution. The political and social movement revolves around ideas of smaller government, deregulation, cutting taxes, and endorsement of free enterprise. Whipple infers the success of the Reagan Revolution is largely due to the skill of James Baker.

Leon Panetta (1938-, Chief of Staff for President Clinton.)

One may argue Reagan caused America’s 1990-91 recession. Unemployment had risen to 7.8%. This set the table for a Democratic President named Bill Clinton. The initial Chief of Staff for Clinton is John Podesta who served from 1998-2001 and is replaced by Leon Panetta who, in the author’s opinion, rivals James Baker as a great Chief of Staff. Whipple infers that, without Panetta, Clinton would not have been reelected after the Monica Lewinsky affair. Panetta brought discipline and structure to the Clinton White House. Panetta could say “no” to the President, at least, in private. Panetta gained a reputation for being an honest broker as a negotiator for the President.

Andrew Card on the left. Joshua Bolten on the right.

George W. Bush, the next President, is noted to have two Chief’s of Staff during his two terms as President. It appears both Andrew Card and Joshua Bolten were more soldiers than Chiefs of Staff for George W. Bush. The policy decider is certainly George W. Bush but the influence of Dick Cheney as Bush’s V.P. seem a major influence on George W.’s decisions. Bush’s two Chief’s of Staff may have been effective as screeners but not as Chiefs of Staff that could say no to a President influenced by his cabinet and personal opinions. The entry to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq suggests Card and Bolten were unduly influenced by others in the administration.

No one seems inclined to say no to President Bush in private. In retrospect, President Bush seems let down by his Chief’s of Staff and the research and judgement of his Department Heads. Both Afghanistan’s and Iraq’s invasions by the American military are retrospectively shown by most (if not all) histories as American mistakes, if not tragedies.

Rahm Emanuel (1959-, Chief of Staff for President Obama.)

The final chapters address Chief’s of Staff for Obama and Trump. Obama became President when the American economy is in an economic crisis that threatens the financial industry, the general economy, and the mortgage market for many American homeowners. He asks Rahm Emanuel to become his Chief of Staff. Emanuel is a tough Chicago politician who recognizes the pressure of the office and has some level of fear about the future of the American economy. He understood the gravity of the job he is being asked to take. However, his reputation as a tart tongued fighter for what he believed as right made him the best Chief of Staff that could be found. His role as gatekeeper gave Obama the support needed to pass the Obama Health Care plan and work through the economic crisis that nearly bankrupted America.

Reince Priebus (1972-, Chief of Staff for President Trump.)

Trump’s choice of Reince Priebus as his first Chief of Staff is short lived and lasts for less than 8 months. His short tenure is not evaluated, and history shows he is replaced three times in the remaining years of Trump’s first term. A pro-Trump person will have one opinion about those facts while an anti-Trump person will have another.

Whipple convinces reader/listeners that a competent Chief of Staff is critically important for any organization that approaches the complexity of a nation-state government. Without a competent Chief of Staff, democracies are subject to authoritarian tyranny.

ECONOMIC CRISES

Sorkin’s “1929” makes one think about 20th and 21st century American Presidents who may have set a table for a second economic crisis. As the Turkish proverb says “…fish stinks first at the head.”

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

1929 (Inside the Greatest Crash in Wall Street History–and How It Shattered a Nation)

AuthorAndrew Ross Sorkin

Narration by: Andrew Ross Sorkin

Andrew Sorkin (American author, journalist, and columnist for The New York Times.)

“1929” is a history of the build-up to the stock market crash and the advent of the depression with opinions about how today’s economy compares and what should be done to keep it from happening again. Though Sorkin is not an economist, he has written an interesting history of the build-up to the 1929 depression.

Faltering economies.

There is a sense of danger being felt by some today when reading/listening to Sorkin’s history of the 1920s. Few seem to have a clear understanding of world market forces and whether we are heading for an economic catastrophe or a mere hiccup in the growth of the economy. Neither bankers, regulators, nor politicians in the 1920s (or for that matter now) seem to have a clue about the economy’s trouble and what can be done to ameliorate risks. Like 1929, today’s insiders, power brokers, and rich have more options to protect themselves than most of the world’s population.

Increasing homelessness in America.

In America, it seems those in power have no concern about the rising gap between rich and poor or the immense increase in homelessness. Without a plan by those in power, there seems little concern about reducing inequality, the common denominator for the wealth gap and homelessness. Sorkin’s book outlines the reality of 1929 that gives reader/listeners a feel of history that may repeat itself.

Sorkin’s history seems credible as he notes human nature does not change.

Today’s leaders are like yesterday’s leaders. Not because they are venal but, like most if not all human beings, leaders in power are concerned about themselves and what there is in life that serves their personal needs and wants. Of course, the difference is that leaders that are power brokers affect others that do not have the same influence or options to protect themselves. We all have blinders that keep us from seeing the world as it is because human nature is to ask what is in it for me, i.e., whatever “it” is. The 1920s had a merger bubble in manufacturing and communication that is fed by the industrial revolution. Today, we have a merger bubble with mega-corporations like Tesla, Apple, Amazon and others that are mega-corporations capitalizing on a new revolution coming with A.I., the equivalent of the Industrial Revolution. Some critics argue mega-corporations, like what happened with the oil industry could be broken up to increase competition which is the hallmark of improved production, cost reduction, and lower consumer prices.

Charles E. Mitchell (American banker, led the First Nation City Bank which became Citibank.)

What makes this history interesting is Sorkin’s identification of the most responsible power brokers who bore responsibility for the stock market crash. Charles Mitchell of Nation City Bank is identified as the central driver of the stock market bubble. Mitchell denied the reality of the financial systems fragility. His ambition and unfounded optimism magnified the systemic risk of the financial crises. He openly defied the Federal Reserve’s warning to curb margin lending that risked other people’s money and their financial stability. He continued to promote purchase of stocks on credit that were fueling the stock market bubble. Mitchell appears to have misled the public in order to increase his power and protect his personal wealth by creating the illusion of market stability and his bank’s profitability. Though Mitchell is not the sole villain, he became the most powerful banker in the nation while breaking the financial backs of many Americans. In general, it is the self-interest of those who listened to him that have responsibility for their financial collapse, but it is always hard to know who is lying to you. Part of the blame is the hesitation of the Federal Reserve Board to act because the people in charge could not agree but that was more a matter of omission than commission which Mitchell was charged with but not convicted. Of course, the political leaders of that time also failed but hindsight is a lot easier than foresight.

Artificial Intelligence is today’s equivalent of the Industrial Revolution of the twentieth century.

Similar to the corporate mergers and investment from growing industrialization of the 1920s, today’s mania is mega corporation’ investment in Artificial Intelligence. Sorkin notes the ease of trading stocks, expectations of crypto investments, and A.I. hype may well move the market beyond its value. He argues for stronger guardrails on speculative investments, more limits on margin lending, and transparency on high-risk investments. He cautions easier credit as seen this Christmas season with buying based on delayed payment incentives and increasing credit card availability, card balance increases, and more liberal repayment terms. In general, Sorkin wants to see more, and better government oversight and regulation of credit offers. He believes too many lenders are overly optimistic about the future with the gap between rich and poor widening and trending to get worse. That inequality threatens the success of capitalism as a driver for shared prosperity, and economic growth.

Herbert Hoover (President 1929-1933, though characterized as the primary villain for the depression, Sorkin identifies his role as one of omission rather than commission.)

The Presidents shown below carry some responsibility for where the American economy is today but that would be another book.

Clinton, the first Bush, the second Bush, Obama, Biden, Trump.

Sorkin’s “1929” makes one think about 20th and 21st century American Presidents who may have set a table for a second economic crisis. As the Turkish proverb says “…fish stinks first at the head.”