America cannot pass essential legislation that fairly addresses the burden and potential benefit of immigration.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
“A Map of Future Ruins” (On Borders and Belonging)
By: Lauren Markham
Narrated by: Gilli Messer
Lauren Markham (Author, reporter on issues about migration and human rights.)
Immigration is a hot subject around the world.
Lauren Markham writes a somewhat disjointed book about immigration to a Greek island between Turkey and Greece.
Lauren Markham offers a report of a fire in a Lesbos refugee camp in the small town of Moria on September 9, 2010. There were no deaths from the fire but the conditions of the encampment and the government’s response to the crises tell of unfair and inadequate treatment of refugees–reminiscent of other countries dealings with unwanted immigrants.
The camp was designed to hold 3,000 people but grew to nearly 13,000. Seventy percent of the migrants were from Afghanistan. A fire of unknown origin destroyed the immigrant’s shelter that gave notice to the world of the inadequate care offered refugees fleeing crime, poverty, and displacement in their home countries.
Turkey and Greece have a storied history of conflict that is reminiscent of the Afghanis flight from Afghanistan. Turkey’s most revered leader, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, ordered Greeks to leave Turkey in a mass exodus during his reign. Ethnic and religious differences between the Ottoman Empire and Greece came to a boil in 1923. Those differences are reminiscent of the escape of Afghanis from the restrictive life of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Afghanis chose a route from Afghanistan through Iran to Turkey to the Greek Island of Lesbos to escape the Taliban.
Markham shows the initial response of the Greeks was to aid the Afghanis in their flight but as the number of refugees grew, the burden became too great. The conditions of the encampment deteriorated, and the anger of the Greek government escalated. A fire of unknown origin began in the camp. Six Afghanis, two of which were minors under 18 years of age, were arrested and found guilty of setting the fire. Markham shows the evidence for conviction had nothing to do with truth but was manufactured by the Greek Court to find a verdict of guilt.
“Dallas, Texas, United States – May 1, 2010 a large group of demonstrators carry banners and wave flags during a pro-immigration march on May Day.”
The inference from Markam’s report is that America’s border state conflicts will, and undoubtedly have, resulted in unjust treatment of emigrants. The irony is that America needs emigrants to meet the needs of its economic future. America seems to be doing as poor a job of addressing immigration as the story of the Afghanis in Moria. America cannot pass essential legislation that fairly addresses the burden and potential benefit of immigration.
NATO is not an American Marshall Plan but a bulwark for nation-state self-determination.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
“The Marshall Plan” (Dawn of the Cold War)
By: Benn Steil
Narrated by: Arthur Morey
Benn Steil (Author, American economist, senior fellow and director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations.)
Along with an excellent history of America’s “…Marshall Plan”, there is an underlying message about two fundamental forms of government, i.e., one is democratic, and the other is authoritarian. By democratic, the point is not to suggest an idyllic understanding of American Democracy or Russian Authoritarianism. America and Russia have experienced government leadership that has been both authoritarian and democratic in the last 248 years.
One can justifiably argue America’s authoritarianism was experienced during the four years of the Trump administration (2017-2021).
In contrast Russia’s democratic experience was with Mikhail Gorbachev between 1985 and 1991. Before and after Gorbachev, democratic experience in Russia has been limited and largely authoritarian. What history of “The Marshall Plan” shows is the superior value of American democracy’s checks and balances that limit the power of authoritarian leadership by preserving deliberations of the many as opposed to the one. Trump is not the first U.S. President that was an authoritarian.
George Catlett Marshall Jr. (1880-1959, American army officer and statesman, became Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense during the Truman administration.)
History of “The Marshall Plan” shows the resilience of democratic versus authoritarian governance. Steil shows “The Marshall Plan” is created in a boiling cauldron of disagreement among branches of the American government. The conflicts between American political parties and departments of government hammered out a plan that improved the economies of both America and Europe after the war. America became the economic hegemon of the world as Russia’s economy collapsed in the early 60s.
MAO ZEDONG (1893-1976, FOUNDING FATHER OF PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA)Deng Xiaoping and Xi Jinping
One might argue the success of China came as a result of the more inclusive economic decision-making policies of Deng Xiaoping after Mao Zedong’s death. With Deng’s opening the economy to market-oriented reforms in 1978, worker efficiency and productivity created an economic boom in China. China’s danger today is the autocratic rule of Xi Jinping. His one-man rule nearly collapsed the economy during Covid 19. America certainly suffered from Covid, but Trump’s authoritarian character was mitigated by political resistance to unilateral Presidential decision-making.
Steil explains how Molotov delayed negotiations on “The Marshall Plan” with a clear understanding that only one person, Joseph Stalin, made decisions in Russia.
Steil notes “The Marshall Plan” is singularly disparaged and reviled by the Russian government. That disparagement is directed by one person, Joseph Stalin. There is no one to oppose the autocratic rule of Stalin’s leadership. Stalin’s opposition was either sent to the Gulag or murdered. A more balanced power structure in Russia could have taken advantage of “The Marshall Plan” but by singular fiat of one person (Stalin) implementation was impeded after WWII. The errors inherent in communism and authoritarian rule are being recreated by Putin in the 21st century.
What Steil shows is that many elected officials in America fought the principles of “The Marshall Plan”. However, the constant back and forth of government policy arguments in Congress aided European recovery after the war in a way that stabilized Europe and monumentally improved the economic growth of America.
Autocracies can certainly improve their economic growth at a pace that is superior to governments ruled by democratic ideals. However, autocracies have a much greater risk of following the wrong path because of their singular focus on one person’s decisions.
With an autocrat’s decision-making process, economic growth is either stultified or accelerated by one person’s decision. The give and take of democracies offer the benefit of different policy maker’s perspectives that may slow policy decisions but ultimately improve the odds of forward economic growth.
However, it is more than the availability of natural resources that made America economically successful. It is the give and take of a democratic process that protects America from the giant missteps that can come from autocratic rule. America has had some good to great rulers, but it has also had some ignorant, bigoted autocrats that offered minimal support for the ideals of freedom and equality. Checks and balances are the strength of American democracy. Presidents can make a difference, but they cannot destroy America’s future.
Ben Steil’s history of “The Marshall Plan” is not limited to an explanation of how important and difficult it is for America to pass important and consequential legislation.
The last chapters of Steil’s history of the Marshall Plan explains why Russia, China, and North Korea resent American encroachment on their spheres of influence. From the era of Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jong II, there has been a growing concern over the expansion of America’s sphere of influence. Steil explains how the Marshall Plan has morphed into a deepening concern about NATO expansion in Europe. As noted in an earlier, the Marshall Plan is created to aid recovery of countries that were impacted by WWII’s destruction. In reality it aided America to become the hegemon of the world. Because of the economic stimulus that revived the countries damaged by WWII, America created new markets for their industrial growth and international trade.
NATO is viewed as another vehicle for America’s economic growth and ideological threat to Putin, Xi, and Kim Jong Un’s control of their countries.
NATO is viewed as another invidious way for America to expand their influence and power. That seems an unfair evaluation of NATO. NATO is a military defense plan saying one country within NATO that is attacked by another country is an attack on all NATO countries. Every nation that has managed to become an independent country should be able to pursue there own interests.
The iron curtain is rusting but its characteristic strength remains a barrier to international cooperation.
The rusting of the iron curtain comes from the tears of societies ruled by authoritarians. The authoritarians are leaders who believe their way of life is threatened. NATO is viewed as a trojan horse at the front gates of non-aligned countries.
One decries Putin’s slaughter of Ukrainians in an unjust war. Life of innocents have no value to today’s Russian leadership that believes their power and way of life is threatened.
The real-politic of authoritarian’s desire for stability and power outweigh the value of human life. The same is seen in the plight of Palestinians who are not part of the October 7th’ terrorists’ killings and kidnappings but are in the way of Israel’s retaliation against Hamas.
In my amateur opinion, China, Russia, North Korean, or other authoritarian governments have a right to rule their countries as they wish. Their citizens are the key to every leader’s longevity. NATO is an effort to offer freedom of choice to established independent countries but if the citizens of a country support their leaders, there is little NATO, or any alliance can do, except to support the sovereignty of all nations.
NATO is not an American Marshall Plan but a bulwark for nation-state self-determination.
Steil argues George Kennan is right in suggesting NATO expansion would be “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era”. Kennan believed it would inflame nationalist beliefs and reinvigorate the Cold War. And so, it has–as evidenced by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s expressed intention and action toward Taiwan, and North Korea’s armaments support of Russia.
Kaplan’s last chapters make a powerful statement about what America should do to meet today’s and tomorrow’s challenges.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
“Earning the Rockies” (How Geography Shapes America’s Role in the World)
By: Robert D. Kaplan
Narrated by: William Dufris
Robert Kaplan (American Author, freelance journalist and foreign correspondent.)
The first chapters of Robert Kaplan’s “Earning the Rockies” are a travel memoir about America’s growth from 13 colonies to 50 states, but the last two chapters are a considered view of America’s turbulent history and what its role should be in the world.
Kaplan explains he comes from a working-class family born in New York City.
Kaplan was raised on the East Coast. His father was a local truck driver. However, his son became a world traveler who served in the Israeli Army and worked as a freelance writer for major publications. His travels and professional reporting experience undoubtedly influence his opinions about America’s role in the world.
Kaplan’s book begins with memories of his beloved father who talked to him about many things, one of which is a belief that “Earning the Rockies” requires one to work to make a living before traveling across the country.
Kaplan writes an apocryphal story of traveling from the east to west coast of America. In reflecting on his journey, he recalls the history of America’s growth as a nation state. He writes of white settler’s displacement of Indian tribes, a journey to the northwest by leaders of the Mormon church, and America’s growth and assembly of 50 states.
In his travels, Kaplan recalls:
1) America’s territorial growth with the Louisiana purchase,
2) confrontation with Mexico to expand America’s southwestern border,
3) Civil War for union rather than separation, and
4) Mormon and other pioneer travels on the Oregon Trail to see and settle the Northwest.
America becomes an economic giant, protected from foreign interference by two oceans.
In the creation of this American geographic giant, many territorial, political, and economic conflicts were resolved. Kaplan’s suggests America’s economic growth is based on force and compromise, the keys to America’s future in the world.
Kaplan’s American heroes are George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and George H.W. Bush. He adds the extraordinary insight of Ambassador George Kennan in his analysis of Russia. Kaplan notes other great leaders, but these four Presidents and one diplomat are examples of how American leaders use force and compromise to enhance the power and prestige of democracy in the world.
Kaplan explains prudent use of force and compromise is how the west was won and how America became an economic hegemon, a power and influence in the world.
Union of America’s States was perpetuated with force, while compromise continues to ameliorate the wrongs done to Indians and Blacks in America. Those wrongs will never be removed but compromise inures to the benefit of future generations.
Kaplan argues there is an imperial elite in America, similar to what were the elite and influential intellectuals of ancient Greece.
China is working toward a similar goal with its expansion of aircraft carrier and warship production.
Prudent use of power and compromise will expand the influence of every country that has hegemonic ambition. The operative word is “prudent”, i.e., navigating life with a thoughtful eye toward the future. Of course, there is a difference between China’s and America’s political prudence, but each is able to draw on resources that can change the course of history. The question becomes which has a system of government that can prudently use force and compromise to achieve peace and prosperity?
China’s and Russia’s education system leans toward communism which has not had the same level of success as capitalism.
America’s imperial elite is largely educated in American’ ivy league schools. Kaplan suggests, to the extent that these elitists grasp the importance of using force and compromise through democratic capitalism, the world has a chance for peace and prosperity.
Kaplan notes there is less geographic advantage for America today because of technological interconnectedness.
“Apeirogon” is a little too repetitive for this reviewer, but it is cleverly written and shows why political and military occupation is a fool’s leadership style.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
“Apeirogon” (A Novel)
By: Colum McCann
Narrated by: Colum McCann
Colum McCann (Author, Irish writer living in New York.)
At first the idea of an Irish author writing a book about Israel seems incongruous. After the first few paragraphs, one realizes Colum McCann grasps a truth about religious conflict that is far better than most because of Ireland’s “Troubles” between the 1960s and 1990s.
“Apeirogon” is timely novel in regard to Israel’s response to the October 7 Hamas attack in Gaza. A little history helps one understand the complexity and terrible consequence of the slaughter of innocents.
An estimated 30,228 people have been killed in Gaza, 12,000 of which are thought to be Hamas combatants.
Gaza dates back to Egyptian times, populated by Canaanites who share an ancestral connection to Israelites. Gaza later became part of the Assyrian Empire in 730 BC. Assyrians intermixed with Canaanites, Israelites, Philistines and undoubtedly Palestinians. History shows historical connection between ancient Assyrians and Palestinians just as there were with Israelites. However, Israelites were forcibly relocated to Assyria from the Kingdom of Israel. Because the Israelites were descendants of the Canaanites, they predated Palestinian settlement in Gaza. Ethnic precedent and the want of land area is a part of what complicates the idea of a separate Palestinian state. Where is a homeland for a Palestinian state going to come from?
McCann chose a perfect title for his novel. An apeirogon is a geometric shape that has an infinite number of sides; just like the many sides of Israeli/Palestinian arguments for a homeland. Column McCann cleverly explores these arguments in his novel. He creates a series of Israeli/Palestinian incidents that show how each ethnic culture believes and acts in their perceived self-interests. Every chapter is titled as a series of numbers that begin with the number 1, jumps from 500 to the number 1001; then jumps back to 500 and descends to number 1 to end his story. Revelation comes in 1001. Occupation is an evil that cannot stand.
America’s civil war carries some parallels to what is happening in Israel and Gaza.
What is revelatory about McCann’s novel is its similarities to America’s civil war that ended the lives of too many Americans. Today’s conflict in Gaza is instigated by Hamas just as the Civil War was instigated by southern slave holders. America eventually forgave southern slave holders, but Black Americans continue to suffer from institutional racism. Can a one state solution as demanded by Israel’s conservatives serve Palestinians any better than white America has served Black Americans? America’s civil war ended in 1865-1866, some 158 years later, Black Americans are still discriminated against. Can Palestinians wait more than 158 years to have equal rights in an Israeli nation?
McCann’s novel repeats, too many times, the unfairness of Israel’s occupation of Gaza. Hamas has its rebellious leaders like America had John Brown who killed one Marine, wounded another, and killed six civilians. Neither Brown nor the Hamas leaders can justify their murders though both argue with righteous conviction. The United States could have split between abolitionist and non-abolitionist states, or they could move toward reconciliation. Obviously, the U.S. government prevailed with reconciliation. It seems imperative for Israeli and Palestinian leaders to take the same road as Abraham Lincoln. Hamas is a splinter group like that led by America’s John Brown. Their objective is as horribly misguided as Brown’s. Hamas’s hostage taking and murder of Jewish settlers is as reprehensible as Brown’s murders of a Marine and six civilians.
ISRAEL’S OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE
As difficult as it may be, a two-state solution seems unlikely. What American history suggests is as difficult as America has found reconciliation to be for white America’s murder and unjust treatment of Black Americans. That reconciliation remains a work in progress. However, only union offers a way toward peace. America is not there yet but it is making progress.
Two political factions, bound by both religion and ethnicity, must learn to live with each other for peace to be achieved.
There is no other land for Palestinians. Israel may have the older of the two cultures, and both Israelites and Palestinians have a much longer history of religious and ethnic difference than America. America is founded on religious freedom and equality, though not perfect in either principle. In contrast, religion is a primary determinant in Palestinian and Israeli cultures while equality seems a less prominent concern. Peace will not come without hardship, but a beginning is dependent on Israel’s abandonment of occupation. It will be one country’s leaders’ imperative to provide equal opportunity for all its citizens. The struggle will be long as is shown by America’s history but what realistic alternative is there for the Israeli and Palestinian people? What neighboring country is likely to give up their land to create a two state solution?
“Apeirogon” is a little too repetitive for this reviewer, but it is cleverly written and shows why political and military occupation is a fool’s leadership style. Israel, like white America, needs to do better in reconciling ethnic differences.
Capitalism is not a partisan issue but a social imperative for both Republicans and Democrats to work together to benefit all Americans.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
“Capitalism in America” (A History)
By: Alan Greenspan, Adrian Wooldridge
Narrated by: Ray Porter
As one would expect, “Capitalism in America” begins with the British economist, Adam Smith, who defined capitalism in 1776 with “An inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”.
Alan Greenspan (on the left) is an American economist who was chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987-2006. Adrin Wooldridge (on the right) is a British economist and journalist who wrote for “The Economist”. Wooldridge has a doctorate in philosophy and has co-written several books with Richard Micklethwait, the editor-and-chief of Bloomberg News. One might argue Greenspan has a conservative bias but Wooldridge’s experience as a British journalist gives one a sense of balance in this informative and well-written history of American capitalism.
“Capitalism in America” reveals tumultuous times for the American economy but with positive forward momentum. The public in all countries have experienced hard times from market forces. Some countries, like Israel, India, and the U.K. have experimented with socialism as an alternative to capitalism. Communist countries like Russia and China flirt with capitalism and one may argue–benefited from its market results. The author’s history shows capitalism as the primary reason for America’s economic growth and success. However, that’s getting ahead of their story.
Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, presented a “Report on a National Bank” to President Washinton and the House of representatives in 1790. This report notes that Congress, with its authority to collect taxes, could fund the bank and lend money to the government to pay foreign creditors, public services, and private businesses to grow the economy. Jefferson opposed the idea, but Hamilton’s broad interpretation of the Constitution allowed his idea of a national bank to be created. In 1791 the First Bank of the United States is established in Philadelphia and remained chartered for 20 years. This became a giant step for America’s economic growth.
Several future Presidents opposed an American national bank. Of course, Jefferson was one because of his belief in an agrarian future for America. Jefferson’s friend and future President, Madison (the 4th President of the U.S.) opposed the idea of a national bank, and Andrew Jackson (the 7th President of the U.S.) used his power as President to oppose the “Second Bank of the United States” in 1833.
The authors note the successful industrialists of the 19th century capitalized on Hamiltonian creation of an American banking system. They became known as the robber barons of America. Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and J.P. Morgan used capital to produce oil, expand rail transportation, make steel, and provide bank capital to grow the economy.
And then, WWI drew America into events that roil the course of its economic history.
An American economic boom occurs in the first two years of the war with America choosing neutrality. Exports surged from $2.4 billion to $6.2 billion in 1917. Everything from cotton, to wheat, to automobiles, to food, to machines were exported during those years. After joining the war, 3 million Americans were mobilized. When the war was over, the world and the American economy faltered. Recession (1918-1921) hit the world after the war, though America showed it had become a major world power.
As America recovered from WWI, their prowess as a producer of goods and services led to the roaring 20s and a runaway stock market that eventually crashed at the beginning of the Great Depression (1929-1939).
The authors note President Roosevelt is a great salesman who provides relief to many Americans with government employment programs during the depression. However, the authors note Roosevelt’s inept management delays America’s recovery by instituting price controls that distort market forces. Overt price control is a recurring mistake of national economies. The authors are not saying that price control is a singular cause of America’s continuing economic crisis, but it makes market recovery more difficult and longer to achieve.
The authors explain reparations for WWI’s winners helped set the table for WWII.
Germany’s inability to pay reparations, the growth of Antisemitism, and German inflation led to the rise of Hitler. Though not addressed by the authors, Japan felt threatened by American, Chinese, and Russian influence in Asia that led to Pearl Harbor and America’s entry into WWII.
The point is made that America’s depression before the war is not cured by Roosevelt’s economic intervention. The advent of war mobilized American industry.
The authors suggest market interference delayed recovery from the Great Depression. On the other hand, Roosevelt gave hope to the country with his speeches and employment programs. Citizens underlying faith in America’s ability to overcome hardship, and their response to Pearl Harbor reinvigorated the economy. Industries were retooled to meet the demands of war.
The authors argue mistakes in America’s capitalist history have been made by both Democratic and Republican Presidents who interfered with naturally occurring market forces. From Roosevelt to Nixon to Reagan to Obama to Trump, Presidents who institute price controls and/or tariffs interfere with free trade. America’s capitalist economy suffers from those actions. This is not to argue all legislation and federal action on the economy constitutes capitalist interference. Fundamental human rights that ensure freedom to vote, speak one’s mind, practice one’s own religion, work in industries one chooses, while seeking peaceful resolution of differences, are interferences that sustain capitalism.
When natural market forces are interfered with by business leaders and public legislators, capitalism suffers. An inference one may draw from the authors is that legislated programs that aid Americans who are unable or unwilling to participate in the capitalist economy are an interference with capitalism. That raises legislated issues of emigration, social security, health insurance, education, defense, transportation, veteran’s benefits, housing, environmental protection, occupational safety, and other public benefit programs. This is where there is continuing disagreement among Americans. These are not party issues because both Republican and Democratic leaders have both positive and negative arguments for and against these policies.
There is the law of unintended consequences that plague government policies. Some argue Reagan reinvigorated the American capitalist economy by reducing taxes, cutting government programs, reducing government employment, and busting union strikes. He did those things and government debt skyrocketed to a level greater than ever in the history of America. The gap between rich and poor was set on a path that beggared the poor and enriched business managers without comparable enrichment of labor. Like Roosevelt, Reagan sold ideas that had unintended consequences that were not in the long-term interest of Americans.
Democratic capitalism is the most likely form of government to assuage our worry and find a rational solution for our right to privacy.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
“TECHNO-FEUDALISM” (What Killed Capitalism)
By: Yanis Varoufakis
Narrated by: Yanis Varoufakis
Yanis Varoufakis (Author, Greek economist and politician, Minister of Finance of Greece for 7 months in 2015, launched Diem25, the “Democracy in Europe Movement 2025” in February 2016.)
Yanis Varoufakis’s “Techno-Feudalism” argues the advance of technology is killing capitalism. Varoufakis’s argument is that democratic capitalism is either dying or dead. He suggests a survival plan in the last chapter of his book. This misguided book reminds one of Mark Twain’s response to news of his illness, i.e., “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated”.
Varoufakis argues the advance of technology and its intrusion into private lives of citizens will destroy freedom of the individual and result in a government ruled by authoritarian, undemocratic, feudal oligarchs.
Varoufakis infers technology is the cause of the rise of new robber barons that have struck it rich in the internet era. He largely disparages the great wealth accumulation by the founders of Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Apple, and other tech leaders in the 21st century. His argument is based on belief that these new robber barons became rich without the hard work of laborers like those during the industrial revolution. The error in his argument is that labor is adjusting from work with one’s hands to work with one’s mind.
Freedom is the keystone of democracy.
Freedom and democracy have been limited and abused over the centuries but have ultimately led to the wealthiest countries in the world. When freedom is overregulated by democratic leadership, economic progress is diminished. Democracy has historically mitigated mistakes of overregulation with human nature’s desire for freedom. There is no reason to believe human nature will change.
In one sense, Varoufakis’s argument is correct. There is a greater risk of loss of freedom with the advance of technology, i.e., particularly with the rise of artificial intelligence. The evidence of that risk is seen in China and North Korea’s surveillance capabilities today.
As inferred by Varoufakis, authoritarian risk is greater in the 21st century because of surveillance technology and the predictive power of artificial intelligence. Surveillance does not change the nature of humankind. Democratic government only becomes more important. The juggernaut of technology will not be stopped, and our lives will be more intimately understood by strangers than ever before. That truth only means democracy, freedom of choice, and equal opportunity are made more consciously recognized as important.
All forms of government have winners and losers. What democracy does is level the playing field. It is a raucous governing system that leaves some out of success, but it beats any known alternative for broader human opportunity. Democracy will always be a work in progress. America needs better health care for all citizens. America needs improvement in equal rights and opportunity for all citizens. No Americans should be homeless or hungry. Few countries, if any, have adequate health care, equal rights, and opportunities for all its citizens. Most realize, America must do better.
The resurgence of labor unions in America is a good sign for American peace and prosperity.
Varoufakis suggests democracy can be saved by bringing it down to an individual level within companies that generate wealth for the country. In one sense, he is right but his idea of giving one vote to every employee in determining wages, and the direction of a company are a step too far. Labor is a critical part of yesterday’s, today’s, and tomorrow’s economic prosperity. Owners and managers of companies need to include union representation in their corporate decisions. Neither labor nor management have all the answers, but all have money, commitment, and labor in the game. Each should have their say. That is a part of Democracy’s success in the world.
The intimate knowledge of personal behavior is a valid concern in the modern world. In the hands of authoritarians, the risks of surveillance technology are multiplied. In democracy, risks are not eliminated but can be judiciously regulated. Democracy has the best chance of determining how a surveillance economy needs to be handled. Democracy will continue to make mistakes, but historically, its successes outweigh its failures.
Citizens should worry about what others know about their personal lives, but the advance of technology will not be stopped. Democratic capitalism is the most likely form of government to assuage our worry and find a rational solution for our right to privacy. Varoufakis’s “Techno-Feudalism” is more wrong than right, but he makes one think about our future.
Sartre seemed right when he wrote “hell is other people” in “No Exit”. Neither belief in humanism nor God seem to hold an answer for humanity’s future.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
“Humanly Possible” (Seven Hundred Years of Humanist Freethinking, Inquiry, and Optimism)
By: Sarah Bakewell
Narrated by: Antonia Beamish
Sarah Bakewell (British author and professor, received the Windham-Campbell Literature Prize for non-fiction in 2018.
Sarah Bakewell provides a detailed history of humanism. To many, Bakewell’s story is a history of society falling away from God. Bakewell puts religion aside while explaining why and how humanists challenge religious belief and lean toward science as an explanation of life.
Bakewell notes humanism reaches back to the 5th century BCE with the Greek philosopher Protagoras. He was a teacher identified by Plato in a dialogue titled “Protagoras”. Through Plato’s dialogue, one finds Protagoras taught the importance of literature, and art that infers a set of moral principles to guide human behavior. Several centuries later, Diogenes Laertius writes “Lives of the Philosophers” that adds to history’s knowledge of Protagoras’s beliefs. Protagoras taught public speaking, poetry criticism, citizenship, and grammar.
Protagoras (490-420 BCE, Bakewell suggests Protagoras set the foundation for the humanist movement.)
Francesco Petrarch (1304-1374) takes up the humanist movement during the Italian Renaissance. Petrarch became internationally known as a humanist. He traveled extensively, looking for Classical manuscripts and ancient texts to recover the knowledge of Greek and Roman writers. He discovered letters that told of Cicero’s personal life–what it was like in the late Roman Republic (106-43 BCE). Cicero’s observations showed the importance of human character in the way one lives life.
Francesco Petracco (1304-1374, Italian scholar and poet and one of the earliest students and promoters of humanism.)
Collection of ancient manuscripts by Petrarch and Coluccio Salutati (1331-1406) of Florence expanded the humanist movement. Giovanni Boccaccio writes “The Decameron”, a collection of short stories that reinforces the principles of human worth and dignity, belief in reason and human ethics, and the value of critical thinking, i.e., humanist ideals.
Desiderius Erasmus (1469-1536)Sir Thomas More (1478-1535)William Shakespeare (1564-1616)
The humanist mantle is picked up in England and the wider part of continental Europe after the early 15th century. Erasmus, Sir Thomas More, and William Shakespeare, reinforce the movement. Desiderius Erasmus is a Dutch humanist. He attacks the excessive powers of the papacy. He values human liberty more than orthodoxy. He inspires the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation. He emphasizes the study of classics over medieval tradition. Erasmus has great impact on the Renaissance and its religious and intellectual climate with an eye for life on earth, more than an afterlife. He wrote “The Praise of Folly”, satirizing religious practices based on superstition and impiety. Though he hoped for divine mercy, Erasmus emphasized faith and good deeds in life, humanist ideals.
Bakewell notes Sir Thomas More writes “Utopia”, published in 1516, that describes an ideal society that addresses penology, state-controlled education, religious pluralism, divorce, euthanasia, and surprisingly, women’s rights.
Shakespeare’s plays introduce psychological realism and depth to human thought and action. Much of what he writes is secular rather than religious. Shakespeare implies life on earth is more than preparation for an afterlife.
Shakespeare suggests life on earth is more than preparation for an afterlife. Death is viewed as final, a humanist view of life and death.
Bakewell goes on to write of Denis Diderot, David Hume, Kant, Adam Smith, and Voltaire. They become leaders of humanism in the 17th and 18th centuries. Diderot emphasizes critical thinking, education, and secular values. Hume writes “A Treatise of Human Nature” to explain human morality. Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” reflects on national economic growth and how the principle of “raising all boats” comes from free enterprise and free trade, humanity in action.
Denis Diderot (French philosopher 1743-1784)David Hume (Scottish philosopher, 1711-1776) Immanuel Kant (German philosopher, 1724-1804)Adam Smith (Scottish economist and philosopher, 1723-1790)VOLTAIRE aka FRANCOIS-MARIE AROUET (1694-1778, WRITER, PHILOSOPHER, PLAYWRIGHT, HISTORIAN)
The idea of humanism is rocketed into American thought by Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species”.
CHARLES DARWIN (1809-1882) FOUNDER OF THE THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.Thomas Huxley. Coloured portrait of the British biologist Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95). Huxley was the main advocate for the theory of evolution in scientific debates because Charles Darwin, its co-proposer, was a shy man who shunned publicity. One of the most famous debates on Darwin’s theory in which he took part occurred at a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Oxford in 1860. Huxley’s research on primates firmly established man in this biological order, providing further scientific evidence for evolution. Huxley also did work in palaeontology and zoology. This artwork was taken from A Modern Portrait Gallery, volume 3 (1881).
Natural selection became a science-based explanation for the origin of species, including human beings. Its impact is evident in the personal transition of Darwin (the son of a medical doctor and grandson of a botanist), who planned to join the clergy, but became a person who identifies himself as an agnostic. Thomas Henry Huxley publicly endorses Darwin’s theory and coins the term “agnosticism” in 1869. Many of the scientific community joined that endorsement during Darwin’s life.
As Bakewell advances her history into the twentieth century, Thomas Mann and Bertrand Rusell carry the torch of humanism. The interesting point made about humanism by Mann is that a humanist must guard against the tendency to reason too much. The rise of Nazism in Mann’s home country and the repressiveness of Stalin’s (and now Putin’s) communism are examples of what concerned Mann. On the one hand, Mann recognizes the “unbearable pity for the sufferings of mankind” but also the danger of accepting authoritarian leaders who preach nationalist socialism or communism while promoting nationalist hegemony, forced labor, racial discrimination, ethnic cleansing, and gender inequality. The rise of Nazism and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine show how authoritarian reasoning can magnify the sufferings of humanity.
Paul Thomas Mann (1875-1955, German novelist, won Nobel Prize in literature 1929, wrote “Buddenbrooks “and “The Magic Mountain”)Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872-1970, British philosopher, historian, social critic.)
Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher, mathematician, logician, historian, and humanist activist, warned against superstition and preached the importance of education. Both Mann and Russell advance the ideals of humanism. One still reserves judgement about humanist’ rejection of God when both religion and science have a mixed history for humanity.
Bakewell does not end with just a history of humanism. She speculates on where humanism may go from here.
She acknowledges her own beliefs as a humanist. She notes humanism has been noted in the past as a fragile vessel for transporting humanity into a future. The vessel’s fragility is in the nature of human beings.
Few can doubt we are self-interested animals that have to come to grips with what is ultimately in our self-interest.
Human self-interest must change from greed for money and/or power for humanism to work. If self-interest rests anywhere, it needs to be in the prestige that is earned by being engaged with the welfare of humanity. In light of history, human pursuit of societal welfare seems only to appear when annihilation is nigh. The war in Ukraine and human history are evidence of humanity’s failures. When perceived threats to peace and happiness disappear, humanity returns to the destructive self-interest of money and power.
“Confront and Conceal” is a depressing examination of the American Presidency.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
“Confront and Conceal“
By: David Sanger
David Sanger (Author, American journalist for the New York Times, Harvard graduate. Co-winner of 3 Pulitzer Prizes.)
David Sanger offers a journalist eye view of the first four years of the Obama Administration in “Confront and Conceal”. The most impactful impression a reader gets of a U.S. presidential office is that it is a difficult and complex job. Sanger’s observations imply the best a voter can hope for in electing a President is that he/she is a good student of the politics of life and government. Sanger shows Obama has the skill of both while the President who follows only understands the first and cares nothing about the second. This is not to suggest Sanger shows Obama as a perfect President but that his skill in governing far exceeds his successor.
Obama eschewed American intervention in foreign governments but inherited American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
At the same time, the American economy was in free fall. A mortgage crisis was born from the greed of human nature. The cure for the mortgage crisis is initiated by the Bush administration. However, like many Presidents before, American foreign government intervention plagues Obama throughout his tenure.
The horrible consequence and resolution of the mortgage crises fell largely on the poor in America.
The rich generally escaped its devastating impact because they had the resources to cash out debts carrying rising interest rates. An estimated 861,664 families lost their homes to foreclosure. The lending institution’ managers who approved loans to the poor on false pretenses were largely forgiven for their greed. Obama’s administration succeeded in stabilizing the American economy, but the fairness of the process is grossly inequitable.
With the exception of the first Bush’s invasion of Iraq, American military intervention in foreign governments has been a failure in every circumstance since WWII.
One might argue this is less true in the case of Korea but the continued belligerence of North Korea and foreign relations conflicts with China and Russia are a direct result of past American military interventions. Obama attempts to improve relations with China but is unsuccessful. Sanger shows that lack of success is because of suspicion of America’s past history and because of a belief that Obama is simply trying to isolate China’s influence in the world. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine speaks for itself. It will ultimately fail but at the consequence of many lost Russian and Ukrainian lives.
“Confront and Conceal” is no pean to the Obama administration. It is a revealing examination of a well-educated and prudent President who wishes to do what is best for America but is trapped by history and human nature.
Obama, like all 21st century Presidents, has the power to kill individual human beings by remote control and direct covert actions that can and do have unintended consequences. Obama is the first President to wheel the power of drone death to eliminate enemy combatants. Even though Obama martials western powers to participate in the overthrow of the Libyan government, Quaddaffi is not given a trial but murdered by rebel Libyan forces. Libya remains a failed government in search of stability. The idea of an incompetent and revengeful elected President of the United States with the power of drone murder is frightening.
“Confront and Conceal” is a depressing examination of the American Presidency because it shows a decent and intelligent President is only slightly better than an incompetent, dishonest, and poorly educated human being like Donald Trump. President Obama’s biggest contribution to America is in providing better health care for the poor but even that is being challenged by his successors.
Gabriel Bump (Author, MFA in fiction from the University of Massachusetts, grew up in Chicago, Asst. Professor U of M.)
In “The New Naturals” Gabriel Bump shows why societal unity with racial separation is unlikely to be achieved. Without the power and influence of money, leadership is not enough. Bump’s story reminds one of Hamas in Palestine and their deluded belief that they can unify the Palestinian people by creating an underground movement to unify Palestine. Hamas fools themselves just as the leaders of “The New Naturals” show unity fails when the influence and power of money is lost. Of course, the two issues are different because Middle Eastern religion is an element of the fundamental difference between Palestine and Israel. However, money’s influence and power are a major contributor to the Middle East’s conflict.
Bump writes of a Black American movement to create an independent society financed by a donor with great wealth. The donor finances the vision of two Black academics who choose a mountain in Massachusetts to create a literal underground community for Black American citizens. The dream of “The New Naturals” disappears when the financial backer quits her support of the movement. As the donor’s financing disappears, a “smash and grab” mentality infects the movement’s leadership. Loss of financing criminalizes the movement. What could not be achieved with the influence and power of money, led to “smash and grab” criminalization of the movement.
The vision of “The New Naturals” founders is a hope to educate and establish a group of like-minded Black Americans, independent of America’s white dominated culture.
Like the waste of money in building the Hamas’ tunnels in Palestine, these Black separatists choose to use their financial support for tunnels and rooms bored into a mountain. The Black movement is peopled with relatively well-educated Black families wishing for a better life. It devolves with its loss of funding into a group of thugs who insist on separation.
In America, the political choice has been made, i.e., regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity, all who have citizenship in America are Americans.
America has been one nation since 1776. American unity among its citizens is sorely challenged during America’s civil war but it remains the law of the land. Bump’s story explains why, despite continued American inequality, all who have citizenship are Americans. Equality in America is a work in progress. What informs our future is that American identity is a socially and legally enforceable fact.
As noted in 1954 by the U. S. Supreme Court in “Brown v. Board of Education”, the idea of “separate but equal” perpetuates injustice and inequality.
Palestine is considered the birthplace of Ancient Egypt, Israel and the Persian Empire. Though Palestine’s independence was not recognized until 1988, Israel only became a nation-state in 1948. Both societies have a long history as nationalist movements with their own beliefs. Israel and Palestine have earned a right to their own identity. The holocaust was a turning point for the right of a Jewish nation to be created. The current slaughter of innocents in Palestine may be the turning point for Palestine’s right to nationhood.
Civil wars are a lesson to the world. One hopes both Israel and Palestine come to an agreement to either create two nations or one; with unity as separated or as one unified nation-state.
Appelbaum infers no American President has found the magic formula for balancing the needs of its citizens with the concept of Adam Smith’s free enterprise.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
“The Economists’ Hour: False Prophets, Free Markets, and the Fracture of Society“
By: Binyamin Appelbaum
Narrated by: Dan Bittner
Binyamin Appelbaum (Author, winner of a George Polk Award and a finalist for the 2008 Pulitzer Prize, lead writer on economics and business for The New York Times Editorial Board)
Binyamin Appelbaum has written an interesting summary of a difficult but immensely important subject. Economic policy and theory are boring, but they touch every aspect of life. Appelbaum shows economic policy magnifies or diminishes the welfare of every American, let alone every economy in the world.
Adam Smith’s foundational theory of economics.
Though only briefly mentioned by Appelbaum, American economic policy begins with Adam Smith (1723-1790), the Scottish philosopher who wrote “The Wealth of Nations”. Smith advocated free trade and argued against parochial maximization of exports and imports that is manipulated by strict governmental regulation meant only to accumulate gold and silver.
JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES (1883-1946, CONSIDERED FOR NOBEL 3 TIMES FOR DIPLOMACY BUT NEVER AWARDED.)MILTON FRIEDMAN (1912-2006, 1976 NOBEL PRIZE FOR ECOOMIC SCIENCES.)
Appelbaum illustrates how American policy violated the entrepreneurial freedom that Adam Smith advocated. In contrast to Smith, John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) advocates government intervention whenever there is an economic downturn. Equally interventionist is Milton Freidman’s (1912-2006) belief that government should increase or decrease the money supply for national economic stability. The point seems to be that every economist thinks they have a magic bullet that will cure the ills of a faltering economy.
To be fair, Friedman did believe in free enterprise in regard to nation-state currencies. He argued for a floating currency rate that ultimately led to President Nixon’s abandonment of the gold standard. However, the nature of human beings led to speculation and manipulation of nation-state’ currencies that exacerbated trade tariffs and defeated the policy’s free-enterprise objective.
FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT (32ND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, INTHE DEPRESSION, BANKS FAILED, UNEMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY SKYROCKEDTED.GEORGE W. BUSH (43RD PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. 3 MILLION JOBS LOST IN THE 2001 RECESSION)
One concludes from “The Economists’ Hour…”, there is no magic solution for an economy in crises. Neither Franklin Roosevelt, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, or any American President cured what ails an American economy that succumbs to economic crises. Adam Smith would argue an economic crisis is caused by a governments’ interference with free enterprise.
Applebaum explains how every 20th and 21st century President of the United States placed their faith in economists’ economic assessments of their day. All Presidents have found intervention by the government has unintended consequences.
President Nixon adopted Freidman’s monetary policy by imposing a freeze on prices and wages that squeezed the life out of the business economy and beggared the wage-earning public with job loss.
A decade of stagflation (high inflation and slow growth) followed Nixon’s administration. Stagflation is attacked by the Reagan administration with mixed results. A myth from economists like Arthur Laffer grew in 1974. Laffer believes taxation is either too high or too low for any benefit to society. Laffer argued zero tax and maximum taxation are equally harmful and produce economic stagnation and/or collapse.
ARTHUR LAFFER (American economist and author, served on President Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board 1981-1989, Here illustrating the “Laffer Curve”.)
Laffer argued every government that reduces tax revenue decreases the stimulative effect of government spending. On the other hand, he suggested every tax cut increases income for taxpayers that will stimulate business and increase employment while encouraging higher production. He laughably created the “Laffer curve” to imply there is an optimum balance of tax reduction that would stimulate economic growth with proportionate increases in government revenue to provide for better government services. That balance has never been found. President Ronald Reagan experimented with Laffer’s idea, but it fails from unintended consequences. The principal consequence is to increase the gap between rich and poor.
BENEFIT OF TAX REDUCTION
Reagan accelerated a movement for government tax reduction that ultimately reduced income taxes from 70% to 28%. The result of government tax reduction during the Reagan years increased the U.S. budget deficit from $78.9 billion to $1.412 trillion. The benefit of that tax reduction went to the wealthy while school lunches were cut, subsidized housing declined by 8%, and poor families lost $64 a month in welfare payments. In 2023, the budget deficit stood at $1.70 trillion, an imbalance that shows why the “Laffer curve” is sardonically laughable.
President Reagan’s administration (1981-1989) was influenced by Laffer’s curve.
The joke is “There is no perfect balance on the curve because of the nature of human beings.”
Roosevelt, George W. Bush, and Obama choose to follow Keynesian policy. Roosevelt bloated government employment. All three increased the government deficit.
Some suggest the idea of “Cost benefit analysis” (CBA) is recommended to the federal government by two law professors, Michael Livermore and Richard Revesz during the George H. Bush administration but Reagan initiated it with an Executive Order in 1981.
Appelbaum notes that “cost benefit analysis” for government is first used during the administration of Ronald Reagan. However, Bill Clinton reifies its use with an Executive Order in 1993 that required covered agencies to do a CBA on “economically significant” government regulations. Ironically, Clinton was the first President in the post 19th century to balance the budget. Andrew Jackson manages to do it in his term between 1829 and 1837.
An irony of using “cost benefit analysis” is that it required a determination of of a human life’s value. Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, and future Presidents use value per statistical life during their administrations. High-income earners were worth $10 million to $15 million, middle-income earners $1 million to $2 million, and low-income earners $100,00 to $200,000. Of course, these values were always litigable. The point is that CBA became a tool for government to regulate the costs of government policies, ranging from military expense to the health, safety, and welfare of American citizens.
The remainder of Appelbaum’s book reflects on the experience of America, Chile, and Taiwan in the 20th century. The implication of his review of economic policy is that those countries that align with the free enterprise beliefs of Adam Smith have made mistakes. However, America’s, Chile’s, and Taiwan’s economic policies seem to have had more economic success when following Smith’s beliefs.
No American President has found the magic formula for balancing the needs of its citizens with the concept of Adam Smith’s free enterprise.
Along with CBA, Appelbaum notes the ongoing controversy is about regulation by government when it tries to balance American health, education, and welfare with Adam Smith’s concept of free enterprise. Appelbaum infers no American President has found the magic formula for balancing the needs of its citizens with the concept of Adam Smith’s free enterprise.
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 