Market politics

[Off Shore]

As the "Chink" a shaman-like hermit in one of Tom Robbin's novels is made to say, "Nothing is true, everything is sacred. Everything is true, nothing is sacred." Must be a mantra for creative thought.

I've forgotten the name of the heroine in this novel, Even Cowgirls Get the Blues, but she was unique. She was perfectly formed except for her thumbs which were the size of baseball bats. It was several years before she discovered her calling: hitch hiking. She was so good at it once she stopped a fire truck on the way to a fire. I remember more but that would mildew the yarn. Or worse, it might end up as KarenRei's rope.

That'd be Sissy Hankshaw Gitche.

 

[Curt Renz]

Electrek - yesterday: Trump seeks ‘severe’ 70 percent cut to renewable energy funding, report says

 

[EVNow]

Electrek - yesterday: Trump seeks ‘severe’ 70 percent cut to renewable energy funding, report says

Congress never cares about what budget administration requests - esp. if it is the opposing party.

 

[wdolson]

You simply crack me up with the broad depth of your exposure to life. Cowgirls was a new high. I'd forgotten about that one

Still, nothing beats being darted in a tree (no men beyond this point).

Wdolson,

Having work on the West Coast of Africa in my younger years, Trevor Noah got it right. It never ceased to amaze me how some countries went from kleptocratic elected dictator to military coup and back in a never ending circle.

It all comes down to money folks. If it is not earned, it is corrupting. A society that values earned wealth when it values wealth is healthy.

There are basically three ways to get rich: earn it, steal it, or inherit it. Looking at the super rich in the US and around the world, those who did earn their wealth tend to be the most serious about doing good with it. Though I have also noticed that those who inherited it and also lived in the real world around people who weren't wealthy tend to be more down to earth than those who inherit their wealth and live in ivory castles.

The legal community lately has been talking a lot about circumstantial criminals vs those who are wired to be criminals. Circumstantial criminals either fell in with a bad crowd or due to their circumstances turned to crime. These people stand a chance to be rehabilitated given the right motivation and resources (psychological as well as material assistance).

Those wired to be criminals are often, but not always sociopaths and they will always be criminals. It's part of their reason for existence. About 2% of the population are sociopaths and a higher percentage of US CEOs are sociopaths than the general population. Smart or lucky sociopaths learn to fly below the radar.

A lot of sociopaths can lie with conviction because they don't have a conscience. During times of upheaval, they can convince enough of the population of their country they alone can save the country and they rise to power. They are perfectly happy to lie, cheat, and steal anything that catches their fancy. So in countries with chaotic societies, these thugs rise to power.

The US is somewhat of an exception except that fox News has convinced a segment of the US population that the country is facing existential crisis that only their people can fix. They primed the pump for someone like Donald Trump.

The US has problems, but nothing like what some developing world countries face. But convince enough people that the US is as bad off as Haiti or Venezuela and those people will vote for a strongman who is a third world dictator.

Electrek - yesterday: Trump seeks ‘severe’ 70 percent cut to renewable energy funding, report says

Fortunately all spending bills and budgets have to start in the House, and the Senate has enough Republicans in states where renewables are a big deal (Idaho, Arizona, and Kansas are just three) that the votes to make any major changes to the House's budget for that office are not there.

 

[neroden]

If NY state issues a warrant, they could apply for extradition in Washington DC.

And the DC city judges would grant it, but the DC police don't have jurisdiction over the White House, Capitol, or National Mall...

"Prisoner in the White House" ? (google "prisoner in the Vatican")

There is an ever widening split in the world between those who have retreated into nationalism and those who are globalists in their view of the world. Brexit was driven by that, it showed up in the French presidential election, it has also played out in many other countries where nationalists were elected or came close to getting elected.

I find it very concerning. The world had a similar split during the 1930s and that didn't end well. It was also the only other time a crazy, extreme nationalist came to power in a fully industrialized country with a professional military.

It happened in Japan too, remember. I find that situation less comprehensible than what happened to Germany.

Anyway, I think "think globally" is going to win everywhere, because the climate emergency is becoming too obvious to everyone. This is not quite the same as old-fashioned "globalism".

 

[neroden]

The Syrian war was a result of Iraq war (and Libyan debacle)

Also the result of climate change causing serious crop failures. And dumbass neoliberal economists promoting "market solutions" (i.e. rich people eat, poor people starve) to this.

 

[neroden]

There are basically three ways to get rich: earn it, steal it, or inherit it.

Some also just get lucky. (In ways other than inheritance.) I'd put Zuckerberg in that category: he's actually just a dumb doofus. A dozen people developed almost identical products almost simultaneously. Due to the way network effects work, only one such product can win, and Zuckerberg happened to be sitting on the one which won (due to attracting more people on it at some critical moment). Despite being worse than the competitors. Just sheer random chance like winning the lottery.

Gates is somewhere between "get lucky" and "steal".

 

[EVNow]

Some also just get lucky. (In ways other than inheritance.) I'd put Zuckerberg in that category: he's actually just a dumb doofus. A dozen people developed almost identical products almost simultaneously. Due to the way network effects work, only one such product can win, and Zuckerberg happened to be sitting on the one which won (due to attracting more people on it at some critical moment). Despite being worse than the competitors. Just sheer random chance like winning the lottery.

Gates is somewhere between "get lucky" and "steal".

I've a slightly different hypothesis.

People like Gates, Zuckerberg & Bezos - have luck, right time & execute ruthlessly. It is the last part that sets them apart from others who get lucky and make a few million (or even 100s of millions).

Even Musk - 20 years from now it Tesla is a $200 Billion auto major, it could be because of quick ruthless actions like laying off a lot of people whenever needed. Asking people to work 12 hour days instead of listening to their personal needs and be kind to them etc.

Its not just business. Its also politics - Obama wouldn't have made it in politics if he wasn't ruthless.

 

[wdolson]

And the DC city judges would grant it, but the DC police don't have jurisdiction over the White House, Capitol, or National Mall...

"Prisoner in the White House" ? (google "prisoner in the Vatican")

Another one for the courts to decide. It might be a similar situation like when someone in the military commits a state crime and tries to stay away from the state authorities by staying on base. The state can extradite the person from the military.

It happened in Japan too, remember. I find that situation less comprehensible than what happened to Germany.

Anyway, I think "think globally" is going to win everywhere, because the climate emergency is becoming too obvious to everyone. This is not quite the same as old-fashioned "globalism".

Italy and Germany were in similar places that brought about the rise of their dictators, but Japan is/was a different animal culturally. The authoritarian regime came out of the Meiji Restoration. Japan really evolved quickly from a Medieval cultural to the top dog in Asia in only a couple of generations. To do this they warped the Samurai code into the Code of Bushido.

The Code of Bushido was the reason why Japanese soldiers fought so fanatically in World War II, but it also led to staggering casualties, usually pointlessly.

Admiral Takeo Kurita was one of the few Japanese commanders who saw the pointlessness of getting all his men killed. He was quite popular among his men because of it. His father was a scholar of Japanese history and Kurita learned to read several older dialects of Japanese as a child. He knew the real history of Japan and what the Samurai code really meant. He didn't speak up about the Code of Bushido, but he quietly loathed it.

As an officer he followed orders, but always interpreted them to not unnecessarily put his forces at risk. He was in command of the Central Force at the Battle of Leyte Gulf that caught Taffy 3 off Samar on the morning of Oct 25, 1944. At that point in the war it was very rare for the Japanese to have any kind of force advantage and here they had one of the most lopsided advantage imaginable. Kurita had 4 battleships (including the 68,000 ton Yamato with 18 inch guns), 6 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers, and 11 destroyers vs 6 escort carriers built on merchant ship hulls, 3 destroyers, and 4 destroyer escorts.

Kurita damaged or sank the entire American force, then withdrew. He was supposed to go after the American transports unloading at Leyte Gulf, but figured he had done his duty and withdrew to save the lives of his crews. He knew the war was lost, so he wasn't going to get a lot more of his men killed in a lost cause.

Kurita was the exception rather than the rule. Most of Japan had drunk the Kool Aid and believed each Japanese soldier was superior in spirit to anyone they faced.

Some also just get lucky. (In ways other than inheritance.) I'd put Zuckerberg in that category: he's actually just a dumb doofus. A dozen people developed almost identical products almost simultaneously. Due to the way network effects work, only one such product can win, and Zuckerberg happened to be sitting on the one which won (due to attracting more people on it at some critical moment). Despite being worse than the competitors. Just sheer random chance like winning the lottery.

Gates is somewhere between "get lucky" and "steal".

Everyone thought Myspace was going to be the social platform that made it, until it wasn't. Facebook could still fail if enough people decide to move to another platform. A lot of younger people have moved on to other services.

Bill Gates' father and grandfather were partners in the most cutthroat tall building law firm in Washington State. He grew up in an atmosphere of you cut their throat before they cut yours. He's nowhere near as aggressive as his father or grandfather, but for the tech biz of the 70s and 80s, he was a shark among the minnows.

 

[S'toon]

Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life – money, power, jobs, university admission – should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the ‘even playing field’ upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events.

Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the UK, 84 per cent of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either ‘essential’ or ‘very important’ when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69 per cent of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.

Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called ‘grit’, depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.

This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck (2016), the US economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best.

<snip>

Full article at:
Here’s why a belief in meritocracy is not only false — it’s bad for you – Alternet.org

 

[Brando]

Trump recap - for a comedic break - OR our leading elites aspirations -

 

[S'toon]

The pushback against shareholder value maximization, the idea that public companies primarily exist to serve shareholders, has been part of the business world for years. But for Nick Hanauer, an influential Seattle-based investor and activist, it's time average Americans get in on the debate.

In an episode of his podcast "Pitchfork Economics," Hanauer called shareholder value maximization "the world's dumbest idea," a reference to a line from former General Electric CEO Jack Welch.

Hanauer said that "it's super important for people to recognize that, so that when they see that policies ask corporations and rich people to pay more in taxes or more of their fair share," they won't believe the arguments that such policies will "crush the economy."

Hanauer is a proud capitalist and isn't ashamed of his wealth (he was an early Amazon investor and sold his company to Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion), but he thinks that today's capitalism is warped by four decades of bad policy — and shareholder primacy is at the top of the list.

<snip>

In a separate interview, he told us that he was open to significantly larger taxes on the wealthy, as proposed by other presidential candidates like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders. To him, the way to revere the lasting effects of a destabilizing inequality in America would be to let go of the ideas we've taken for granted for far too long.

"One of the anchor claims of trickle-down economics and neoliberalism is this idea that the more profitable corporations are, the more jobs that will be created and the better off everyone else will be, and the more investment that's created, and there's this sort of enduring idea that the lower taxes are on corporations, the more money they will invest and make everyone better off," he said on his podcast. "And all of that turns out to be bulls---. Just a straight up lie."

Full article at:
Why a wealthy venture capitalist thinks it's crucial Americans realize trickle-down economics is 'a straight up lie'

See also:
According to wealthy investor Nick Hanauer, the wrong approach to capitalism has been weakening the American Dream for the past 40 years

 

[lolachampcar]

so where is all this talk and analysis going?

Sure, there are a ton of external factors that can affect your trajectory in life. There always have been things well beyond ones control.

This still does not change basic concepts like, if you live in a seasonal climate with harsh winters, you either bust butt in the summer to squirrel away enough food to survive the winter or you perish. Hard work is rewarded with survival. That does guarantee that a flood will not take out your food stores and you end up starving anyway but you are guaranteed to starve if you do not build the stores in the first place.

Yes, it is an over simplified example. It is only offered in support of the question. What is the alternative to a merit based approach, even one flawed with Murphy and human nature to game the system?

 

[neroden]

Full article at:
Here’s why a belief in meritocracy is not only false — it’s bad for you – Alternet.org

Yeah. I mean, the very personality traits and mental abilities which make me able to make money on the stock market... basically luck of the genetic / epigenetic lottery. Not teachable.

 

[S'toon]

so where is all this talk and analysis going?

Sure, there are a ton of external factors that can affect your trajectory in life. There always have been things well beyond ones control.

This still does not change basic concepts like, if you live in a seasonal climate with harsh winters, you either bust butt in the summer to squirrel away enough food to survive the winter or you perish. Hard work is rewarded with survival. That does guarantee that a flood will not take out your food stores and you end up starving anyway but you are guaranteed to starve if you do not build the stores in the first place.

Yes, it is an over simplified example. It is only offered in support of the question. What is the alternative to a merit based approach, even one flawed with Murphy and human nature to game the system?

Humanity has never been "survival of the fittest, the most industrious, and the strong." We are a herd species, who have always co-operated with each other to accomplish common goals. This myth of the strong individual is a modern myth promoted by right wing libertarians.

You live in Florida. Did you know that Publix is the largest employee-owned corporation in the world? The rich person living off the productivity of workers is not the only model that works.

 

[neroden]

so where is all this talk and analysis going?

Sure, there are a ton of external factors that can affect your trajectory in life. There always have been things well beyond ones control.

This still does not change basic concepts like, if you live in a seasonal climate with harsh winters, you either bust butt in the summer to squirrel away enough food to survive the winter or you perish. Hard work is rewarded with survival. That does guarantee that a flood will not take out your food stores and you end up starving anyway but you are guaranteed to starve if you do not build the stores in the first place.

Yes, it is an over simplified example. It is only offered in support of the question. What is the alternative to a merit based approach, even one flawed with Murphy and human nature to game the system?

Well, obviously, there are some merits to meritocracy -- hire an engineer who has a record of succesfully building bridges if you want to build a bridge; hire an auditor with a record of catching frauds if you want to root out fraud; etc.

But for most things -- things where skill/talent isn't so clear or so critical -- the obvious alternative is equality, which used to be a major value of Americans. Give everyone the same opportunities and the same resources. This is the idea behind the right to vote -- obviously, I'm a much better voter than the average American because I do far more research, but we let *everyone* vote the same. This is the idea behind public parks, and public roads, and public services in general. This is the idea behind jury duty.

And of course, we are a social cooperative species, so "everyone do what they can and help the community out" is also a thing. This is VERY VERY OFTEN the way to survive and thrive in the natural world, under the pressures of natural selection.

 

[Brando]

so where is all this talk and analysis going?

Sure, there are a ton of external factors that can affect your trajectory in life. There always have been things well beyond ones control.

This still does not change basic concepts like, if you live in a seasonal climate with harsh winters, you either bust butt in the summer to squirrel away enough food to survive the winter or you perish. Hard work is rewarded with survival. That does guarantee that a flood will not take out your food stores and you end up starving anyway but you are guaranteed to starve if you do not build the stores in the first place.

Yes, it is an over simplified example. It is only offered in support of the question. What is the alternative to a merit based approach, even one flawed with Murphy and human nature to game the system?

46 million rate as poor, 43 million no health insurance, 37th in the world for healthcare cost. +2 million in jail, big business $50-$70,000
half the people don't have $1,000 in the bank, auto loans are now often rated "prime loans" - meaning people don't really qualify some think 7 million people late on car loans. OK, I'll shut up. getting depressing.
</rant

 

[StarFoxisDown!]

46 million rate as poor, 43 million no health insurance, 37th in the world for healthcare cost. +2 million in jail, big business $50-$70,000
half the people don't have $1,000 in the bank, auto loans are now often rated "prime loans" - meaning people don't really qualify some think 7 million people late on car loans. OK, I'll shut up. getting depressing.
</rant

There are a lot of things that can get in the way of someone changing their life projection(Example: Extreme poverty to middle class). It's incredibly unfair to people trying to improve life when their starting point is poverty/poor level verses starting at middle class. Even then, the middle class doesn't get the same freebies as upper class/wealthy get. It's so much easier to accrue wealth when you have some wealth to start with.

Having said all that...……….I know from experience that a good chunk of Americans are their worst enemy when it comes to improving their life and circumstances. I have family and friends in the rural south, in middle of nowhere Arizona, etc....They literally refuse to change their circumstances by moving to locations that have jobs based in growing industries. It's not because they can't afford to move to a new city. There is an entitlement/expectation among a pretty sizable group of Americans that they should be provided the same kind of job/income opportunities in their small or middle sized towns as major cities have. It's feels like I'm in the twilight zone when I visit family in these places because all they do is complain about the lack of high paying jobs, lack of health coverage(they mainly live in Republican states with local republican elected officials that they voted for), and refuse to do training for new careers......even when it's free. This group is predominately white, both the same things is happening in communities of color as well. They want some magical thing to happen where suddenly their town is relevant again.

There's no greater example of America's stubbornness than coal miners(I know some)…….they refuse to move to a new city even though their town/city sinks lower and lower in obscurity, they refuse to take training for new jobs even though it's mostly free if not completely free, and they complain about the fact that they can't get health coverage when even they know their job is literally going to kill them in the end...…...The excuse I hear the most is not "I can't afford to move", it's my family has been in this town for decades, my dad was a coal miner and I'm good at it, etc. There's really no helping this group of Americans and they will continue to live in poverty, without health care.....taking ridiculous loans with high interest, filing bankruptcy, do the cycle again......all while complaining

 

[Intl Professor]

The current contretemps over Ihan Omar's recent remarks raise again the old question: aren't slurs against Palestinians anti-semitic?

This from Wikipedia; it is an old argument.

"Objections to the usage of the term, such as the obsolete nature of the term "Semitic" as a racial term and the exclusion of discrimination against non-Jewish Semitic peoples, have been raised since at least the 1930s.[20][21]"

Since it is Sunday I accidentally dropped into one of the opinion shows and immediately regretted my mistake on hearing one commentator’s condemnation of the recently passed anti-bigotry bill by the House. Two of his concerns were curious to me. It was biased because of a false equivalence and because it failed to directly condemn Representative Omar. Others have also made similar comments.

I think one has to read the text of the bill to understand how bizarre this criticism is.

https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20190304/BILLS-116hres183-SUSv1.pdf

The argument of false equivalence implies that only discrimination against Jews is important, not any other. That implies that my victimhood is greater than others. When others criticize the bill because it does not include discrimination against Christians, of Whites, of police as others condemn below, it seems to me a competition in the victimhood game becomes rather silly if not on the face of it. Also critics fault the bill for not noting the increase in hate crimes against Jews, when in fact the increase of 37% against Jews is reported along with the 99% increase against Muslims. (Dissimilar time spans.)

Justice is the goal, not a by the numbers competition for who is more a victim. Two incidents in my experience come to mind. I had a long intimacy with a black journalist friend who had experienced racism. She was obviously concerned about discrimination and once said, “I think after reporting on it, Native Americans have suffered more than blacks from slavery.” That kind of comparison is notable from a credible source. The other incident was after touring the mass graves at what was then Leningrad many years ago on a study course I led. I noted on the bus when we left how in this one city over twice as many Russians died as in all of our World War II losses who were mostly soldiers. The local Russian guide offered, “I think these numbers aren’t important. Any one person killed unjustly is wrong.” That from a member of the Communist Party we so commonly believed was anti-individual.

The bill does not mention Omar by name but does single out for direct attention the issue for which she has apologized: questioning one’s allegiance to the U.S. based on religious faith, citing among others concern about JFK’s Catholicism during the 1960 campaign. Pelosi has covered that concern well.

Do critics demand vengeance? Have they not read the Bible revelation that God has said “vengeance is mine?” A quick Google reveals there were many occasions supporting the interpretation God’s punishment is severe, others that humans are so presumptuous to judge, and finally the dangers of pitting one member of the faith against others. All in the old testament.

Republicans need more Bible study. Watch Mitch save Republicans having to vote on such an odious bill.

My dearly beloved, for those demanding homework, here are some random discussion with opposition points of interest.

Cheney rips Dems for lack of action taken against Omar for comments

Collins cites reasons for opposing bigotry bill

House Votes to Condemn All Hate as Anti-Semitism Debate Overshadows Congress

Everyone's against bigotry, right? Not 23 House Republicans, apparently

Edit: Here's a nuanced concern from a conservative. The subtitle, "The inevitable decline of left-wing philo-Semitism" is probably accurate:

Opinion | Is Anti-Semitism Exceptional?

 

[Heart Land]

There are a lot of things that can get in the way of someone changing their life projection(Example: Extreme poverty to middle class). It's incredibly unfair to people trying to improve life when their starting point is poverty/poor level verses starting at middle class. Even then, the middle class doesn't get the same freebies as upper class/wealthy get. It's so much easier to accrue wealth when you have some wealth to start with.

Having said all that...……….I know from experience that a good chunk of Americans are their worst enemy when it comes to improving their life and circumstances. I have family and friends in the rural south, in middle of nowhere Arizona, etc....They literally refuse to change their circumstances by moving to locations that have jobs based in growing industries. It's not because they can't afford to move to a new city. There is an entitlement/expectation among a pretty sizable group of Americans that they should be provided the same kind of job/income opportunities in their small or middle sized towns as major cities have. It's feels like I'm in the twilight zone when I visit family in these places because all they do is complain about the lack of high paying jobs, lack of health coverage(they mainly live in Republican states with local republican elected officials that they voted for), and refuse to do training for new careers......even when it's free. This group is predominately white, both the same things is happening in communities of color as well. They want some magical thing to happen where suddenly their town is relevant again.

There's no greater example of America's stubbornness than coal miners(I know some)…….they refuse to move to a new city even though their town/city sinks lower and lower in obscurity, they refuse to take training for new jobs even though it's mostly free if not completely free, and they complain about the fact that they can't get health coverage when even they know their job is literally going to kill them in the end...…...The excuse I hear the most is not "I can't afford to move", it's my family has been in this town for decades, my dad was a coal miner and I'm good at it, etc. There's really no helping this group of Americans and they will continue to live in poverty, without health care.....taking ridiculous loans with high interest, filing bankruptcy, do the cycle again......all while complaining

I doubt you know these people as well as you say you do. If you did, then you would not look down on them as much, and understand them more.