Enlightened Conflict

let the bout begin

October 5th, 2012

Alright, time for me to write about the first American presidential debate.

Of course, me being me, I am going to look at the first American presidential debate very differently than all the talking heads on tv are looking at it.

I will let everyone else debate on who won the debate and the excruciating dismantling of each word. Mostly because it was such a mosh pit of he said/she said partial/selective truths which was incredibly annoying and in the end I believe the everyday person had no clue if either told the truth.

Anyway.

What fascinates me is watching what I perceive as two significantly different debate strategies … not ideologies <although they are lurking their within their debate strategies>. And what may make my point of view different than others is:

- I don’t know diddly about politics or debate strategy so I have an unfiltered business <or sports> point of view on what I saw., and

- I truly believe that despite what we all feel about politics and politicians there are some very very smart people thinking about everything that is being done and said and that there is very rarely anything done without a purpose. Anything. Even a perceived disinterested participant.

That said.

Here is what I believe.

Both campaign teams know this is a 3 round boxing bout (with an under card bout). And I think both campaign/bout handlers know exactly what they are doing and the candidates are delivering on a 3 round strategy <no matter how the talking heads want to tear apart one as if it is the end all be all>.

Let me take on the biggest elephant in the room … for example, while we may not have seen the presidents ‘A game’ I do believe he did exactly what he was asked to do by his Angelo Dundee.

Anyway, that is what I believe and here is what I saw.

To me I saw the Raging Bull (or ‘strong like bull’ if you prefer) strategy versus the Muhammad Ali strategy.

Attack, deflect and create doubt (with an eye to knockout) versus absorb, counterpunch and show unshakeable confidence (with an eye to knockout) strategy.

The Romney debate strategy is former and president is latter.

Both extremely viable strategies.

Both really smart strategic plans of action for the appropriate candidate.

Let me begin with the Romney Raging Bull strategy because it was executed flawlessly in the debate.

First.

Attack.

Relentlessly attack.

The Republican trainer told him before he went into the ring “you need to win this round on punches” and “don’t come back to the corner with any punches or energy left. Leave it all out there.”

Now. Here is what truly made this strategy effective in the first debate. The trainer had Romney commit to a brilliant opening psychologically driven tactic.

Intellectually we all know it is an open debate of ideas.

However, psychologically, when the president is involved, there is an additional dynamic. Psychologically we expect our president to be treated with respect so no matter how you prepare yourself for it the first attack, the ‘he was wrong’ or ‘he wasn’t smart’ or ‘he didn’t prioritize correctly’, we bristle. We don’t like it and maybe even get a little angry at the attacker (unless you are Rush Limbaugh of course).

Now. We get over it in a debate, but the first punch hurts.

The republican trainer had Romney rip the band aid off fast and quick and early (opening). He punched the president right in the nose as soon as he stepped in the ring. Painful? You bet. But he got it out of the way and paved the way for a full 40 minutes or so of attack. Well thought out. Well done.

After that it was all about landing punches … didn’t have to be good solid punches but be relentless, don’t give him any space, just keep punching … because something will land and even if they don’t it doesn’t give him any openings to attack.

And attacking played to his strength. Romney is an excellent debater and excellent when the subject is one he has prepared for. His weakness is the unforeseen. He sometimes struggles <and gets flustered> when things aren’t going as planned. Therefore the Romney team avoided the semi-impossible task of guessing every question or possible punch and created the platform for him to win – attack. Just get out there and say what you want to say and what has been scripted.

Oh. They also told him … ‘on anything else? Do. Not. Say. It. <and don’t even think about saying it>.’

Next.

Deflect.

His trainer told him “I do not want you to absorb one punch. Not one.”

Romney was brilliant on this strategic objective. And I mean frickin’ brilliant. It didn’t matter whether the president counter punched with a real truth, a half truth, a partial truth or no truth because whatever the president said the response was “that’s not true” <or ‘you are wrong’>.

He deflected.

And when he actually decided to go on the attack again by counterpunching he simply selected whatever one aspect he had a script memorized on. He slid the punch and counterpunched on his terms. Slightly aggravating to the viewers because that meant he didn’t actually answer the questions but, to the Romney team, it was about punches. And after a while the president simply stopped punching because even he recognized he gained nothing as no matter what he said all people would remember is “that’s not true” every time he said something.

The other brilliant aspect was that it kept the dialogue on parts and not the sum of the parts <brilliant>.

Parts:

Would he increase deficit? Of course not. Never.

Would he cut taxes for the rich? No.

Would he cut back on America’s future investment strategies? Silly, of course not.

Would he raise taxes on the middle class? No.

Would he roll back regulation? No <if it is smart>

Would he cut education? Never <they are our future>.

Sum?

<p.s. – they cannot all be true and add up. It really is arithmetic>

Brilliant. Well played.

Now.

As a truth person I hated the strategy. As a strategy-to-win person I thought it was brilliant.

Lastly.

The trainer told Romney, after he told him he needs to win the round, remember, whatever happens in the fight itself when in doubt you counterpunch with the objective to create doubt in the president – his words, his actions, his knowledge of facts – so that people just aren’t sure about the overall current plan and leader (of course the ultimate hope is the president may even show a crack of doubt or regret at some point for some past decision when I assume Romney would have pounced – rightfully so).

Stay on mission. Whatever you do stay on script and create doubt on whatever he says.

I am not sure that last objective was achieved but that’s not the point. It was the strategic vision. And I think whoever (the Romney Raging Bull trainer) designed the strategy deserves a cocktail.

The risk?

The risk is partially energy (like a real boxing match) but the debates are so spread out (although it does mandate a high level of energy every round) so I believe it is really about rhythm. You only have so many punches. The risk is he slips into some rhythm that can be read before the punch comes or he slightly revises the punch <going slightly off the practiced script> and leaves a big opening. Or he simply runs out of punches and the champ is still standing and has some whoopass punches left. But Romney has a lot more punches he can throw than the president can. Any challenger in a tough economy does. In addition he has the benefit of selective hindsight … punching past actions without having to defend his own actions. And when an economy is doing poorly the challenger has a simplified attack stance as he punches … no need to explain the case of what is wrong … everyone knows <but it is an easy punch to throw if you are suddenly backpedaling>. All Romney has to say is: “I can do this job better than that.” Look. It is always easier to look back and say “stupid, why did you do that?” when no one knows what you would have done in that time and place. But that’s how the bout is fought. Raging bull won a lot of matches. He can win.

- The proof that my theory may be right?

Romney is a bottom line business guy through and through. I would probably love him running a troubled business. I do not doubt for one minute he is a compassionate man but all business leaders have a switch. A switch where it ain’t personal … it is business. And you have to do that sometimes <as a business person>. I imagine he is ruthlessly effective at dissecting past actions of others, revise and improve moving forward. And I tend to believe his business credentials show that this strategy is a mirror reflection of what takes place in a boardroom. What makes him appealing is that when cornered he really doesn’t know how to play politics … he is a business guy. He knows people are involved, and he cares about them, but ultimately he is about making the right business decision and believes the happiness of people will follow. This strategy is perfect for him.

Moving on to the president.

The Muhammad Ali strategy. To me this was the most interesting.

Because while I believe the raging bull strategy was very easy for Romney to implement I believe the Muhammad Ali strategy is a little more difficult for the president to implement.

I believe the democrat Angelo Dundee told the president “remember champ, this is a 3 round bout, not one, and you are the champ, he cannot knock you out in this round, so this round you absorb every punch he’s got. Let him give you the best he has. You will probably lose this round. That said … I only want you to come back at him if, and only if, you think you can put him down on the mat. Other than that, suck it up, absorb what he’s got and just give enough counterpunches to see what else he’s got.”

Well. The president did what he was asked.

Flawlessly if not painfully. He was pushed on the ropes and took a battering.

He used counterpunches to show he was unshakeable in his beliefs on his plan. He used counterpunches to show aspects of his vision. And, yes, there were some openings (albeit not many because frankly the relentless attack was pretty relentless). But if the criteria were “only if you can put him down” then he did what his trainer told him to do.

Let me give a hypothetical, but realistic, example.

The Democrat team is in the bout strategy room and someone says “okay champ, when you get an opening you swing from the hips with the 47% punch and rock him.”

Everyone says ‘hell yeah.’

The republican Angelo Dundee, sitting in the corner with a twisted sweaty towel, clears his throat and growls … “do we know his counter punch if he slips it? … think about this … the other guy says ‘I am glad you brought that up Mr. president because I owe America an apology … especially the 47% but 100% of America. I was wrong to say that and I apologize. I am for 100% of America, have been, and always will be. Please accept my apology’ … all said looking directly at the camera and 67 million people” <plus youtube & media the next day> … Angelo takes a deep breath and then says … “Champ, you can’t ask him if he was flip flopping or changing his mind or even lying … he just apologized to 67 million watchers and 250 million Americans. That punch misses.”

Silence in the room as they think.

(He lets the room ponder that for maybe 30 seconds as he sips some water … clears his throat and turns directly to the president)

“Champ, you can throw that punch if you want, but you need to get your hands up quick to protect your jaw because you know for sure that immediately after he has looked directly at the camera and apologized he is going to turn to you and look directly at you, in front of 67 million people, and ask you ‘is there anything you would like to apologize to America for?’”

He doesn’t even let that one sit in the room but immediately reminds the entire room “in round one the champ only attacks with a punch that will put him on the mat. Let’s move on.”

Someone give the republican Angelo a raise.

Now.

I do not think this was easy for the president. And while some viewers thought he was disinterested or making notes I actually think he was writing something like “remember to take Angelo out to the woodshed, if Michelle doesn’t, and kick his ass for making me do this.” Because while I believe this is a great strategy for a champ it is not an easy one for someone who wants to fight.

Which is why I believe the president was at his best in the closing comments.

He basically got to finally come off the ropes after being battered for 40 minutes and say “I took the best he has, I am bloodied but still standing here, I am unshaken and confident that my plan is the best for America and its people.”

He got to say to Romney “if that is the best you got you, you didn’t hurt me <and you are screwed and should be worried because I am not going away>.”

I am not sure the president can do this strategy, for personal pride reasons, for one more round and wait for the third to finally come out swinging. Well he could, and maybe should, because strategically it is quite possible <although he does need to find some openings in round two to score some solid points> but I think personally this strategy is very difficult for him to take. But if his Angelo Dundee could convince him … I would. Muhammad Ali was one of the best strategist and counter punchers of all time. He waited. And waited. And watched. And waited more. And by taking the best shots and still be standing he gained confidence, he gained some respect, and then he used all he learned and won.

Now.

I think the Democrat Angelo Dundee is going to give a different strategy to Biden … I think he is gonna tell him “go out and kick the young whipper snapper’s ass and feel free and be a jerk about it. Win us the old white folk.” But that is a different post.

Anyway.

The risk here? You can’t deliver the knockout punch in the last round. It’s all or nothin’ in the 3rd round and by this time all of America that will ever even think about voting is watching.

67 million will look like frickin’ peanuts by this debate.

And he has to win by TKO or KO. You are too far behind in points to simply win on points. You need to put him on the mat a couple of times or out for good. It puts a lot of pressure on the champ. But those are the moments champions are defined. Mohammed Ali won a lot of bouts this way. But he did lose some matches. The president can lose.

- The proof my theory may be right? Well. The democrat strategy was exactly the same during the republican primaries. People were jumping up and down saying “why aren’t the democrats defending themselves?!?” as the republicans used the president and the administration’s plan of action as a punching bag. The administration just absorbed the punches and unshakabley kept on keeping on. And then they came out swinging. Time in and time out by biding their time they got the ammunition they have needed for the counterpunch uppercuts. They have used this strategy before.

In addition … the media is actually throwing the punches for him as he rests in the corner for the next round. All the talking bobbleheads are sitting around talking about all the things he could have punched Romney with. Gosh. Romney won the round on punches but the announcers are all talking about the quality of the punches and punches the President could have taken. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm … kinda smart that the president didn’t have to bring them up.

Someone knows their shit in the democrat camp.

Okay.

If I am right, I actually believe these strategies are a reflection of the choice America has and they were outlined pretty clearly in the debate:

- Romney. Aggressively attack the short term issues and deflect the long term (not ignore it but the priority is “create jobs now”).

Private, private, private <with some delegation to states>. Now. I don’t really believe he believes this but this is the message. But he is certainly a believer in unfettered <or minimally fettered> capitalism. Let me use healthcare as an example because it is such a lightning rod.

When people hear him talk the people are confusing state rights and his business acumen. In his heart he wants 50 small businesses managing America. It is irrelevant they are called ‘states’ he just believes that businesses generate effective bottom line and effective cost-efficient solutions. That may be an extreme generalization but that is the core of his belief.

- Obama. Absorb the best punches (issues) we are given and create an unshakable future (this doesn’t suggest ignoring immediate job creation but the priority is a solid foundation for the future).

Balance, balance, balance. People don’t like to hear it. Romney message is a lot easier to grasp. The president pounds away at selective governmental assistance and encouragement of private sector innovation. It ain’t sexy and it ain’t just talking about jobs. The president, using business acumen as an example with regard to healthcare, suggests Massachusetts was a new product test market which can now be rolled out nationally. From a business perspective the president philosophically is actually pretty close to a national franchise business model.

Please note that both are viable approaches with pluses and minuses on each. But do not be fooled into believing one system is better than the other. They are simply systems. It is always the people who manage the systems over the long term (not just a year or 4) that make or break either of those business models.

That’s my thinking.

Oh. And who really wins if I am right? The media and whoever covers the third debate. Viewership will continue to increase as the Obama strategy is to guide everyone to the last round of the bout. Especially if the second round goes the way I think it will <a purposeful draw>.

And, actually, I imagine the candidates do also. In a very close race the last debate becomes the make or break moment.

I am sure a lot of people do not want to agree with what I just wrote but, remember, a lot of these yahoos have Harvard and Princeton and a whole bunch of high falutin’ degrees. They may not be in touch with what happens around the average American kitchen table but that doesn’t make them dumb. They know their shit.

And rarely is something happening that they haven’t planned … they just don’t tell you their plan <that is the Bill Belechik acumen I believe>.

I look forward to rounds two and three … and the undercard also.

Euripides, economists & economy

October 3rd, 2012

“Circumstances rule men and not men rule circumstances.” – Euripides

Let me be clear upfront.

- I am not old enough to have met Euripides,

- I am not an economist (albeit I did get a fake undergraduate economics degree – fake in that it was an essay theoretical driven degree and I have always known how to write and be theoretical …in a good grade drivel way),

- I am not afraid of numbers (and in fact find comfort in them sometimes),

- and, lastly, I am perfectly unclear on what is best to fix the american economy (although I am fairly sure which president we have is irrelevant to fixing).

Now.

I used to think I knew.

At least in broader strokes.

Now? I am simply confused. Ok. Not confused but rather unclear why I can’t choose some items off the Romney menu and why I can’t choose some other things off the Obama menu. And I am also unclear why they wouldn’t want to do the same.

Why do I say this? Well. I read the Wall Street Journal (an unabashed republican skewed paper) and when going into detail … some of what “the Romney plan” suggests is good stuff. Not all (because for some reason they want to make it all about dollars and cents) but a lot. .

And then I watch MSNBC (an unabashed democrat skewed information provider) and some of what “the Obama plan” suggests (and has implemented) is good stuff. Not all (because for some reason they want to make it all about fairness) but a lot.

Then I watch CNN and get really confused because they actually try and be fair by representing all views <which apparently viewers do not like because their ratings are lower despite having the best, by far, news product available today>

— separate note (just in case CNN is reading this): they should hire me … I could change that —

Anyway.

I want to pick and choose ideas.

Now, whenever I get confused <on this stuff> I typically try and get some perspective by reading letters to the editor in The Economist after they have written a British point of view on the topic I may be having some confusion over. I find the letter writers, when critiquing the article, do a nice short portrayal of ‘what really is’ (and regardless of however the Economist may skew an article the letters kind of nail down truth …or as close to truth as one can get) and get to a nice clear point.

I did this … and I am still confused.

The only thing I am not confused about? After watching night after night of negative TV ads from both sides I am perfectly clear that both candidates lie, are stupid, their plans suck and, in general, Wile E Coyote would have a better plan than either of them.

Anyway.

Personally? I want to pick and choose from both menus.

I don’t believe you can go 100percent to invisible hand top down economics. Too slow, not sure I trust business leaders in key segments to look beyond dollars and cents to reinvest in people and some segments just need to be infrastructurally ‘force changed.”

I don’t believe you can go “government dominated” overall. That’s not what free market is all about and, frankly, it’s not America. We have always been about self-made and “selves” have to have an opportunity to “make.”

At crossroads moments like this … the one we are in … it seems to me we need some of both. Government to be heavy-handed where large infrastructures long term changes need to occur (healthcare was one of those in my eyes … secondary education would be another).

Government has to have a softer touch in the involvement of businesses but somehow has to identify regulatory standards to insure some type of moral code (so profit doesn’t trump “what is in the best interest of the people”).

Maybe, in the end, all of what I typed is the reason I don’t get involved in Romney-Obama bashing … it is all complex and quite complicated and each has valuable ideas & thoughts.

The economy situation is one where short term decisions may have minimal short term results with massive long term implications … and at the same time we need long term decisions which maximize some short term results (without massive long term negative impact).

It is a fine tuned dance of which simplicity seems nowhere within any of the plans.

And what makes it more complex? People. Citizens. Us. You & me.

Similar to the business world if we don’t immediately see positive results everyone starts running around like chickens with their heads cut off looking for someone to blame or suggest something is wrong.

I do not envy either candidate … for a variety of reasons <some just listed>.

However … despite the fact I do not envy them I will watch the debate tonight.

Yeah. I know. No one ever wins an election from a debate and, in fact, no matter what happens in the debate afterwards Democrats will wave their hands in the air while chuckling over some Romney miscue and Republicans will pound their fists on tables everywhere saying “see, Obama is a spineless jelly fish” and Libertarians will smoke some pot and mumble something about Ron Paul.

By the way … I predict the media will claim Romney a winner <regardless of what he actually says … unless he drops some verbal bomb pissing off over half, or 47%, of the country or drools or wets his pants or something>. My prediction is based on the fact there is too much Obama positiveness currently going on and they will want to keep the story alive for as long as possible <boy … that was cynical, wasn’t it?>.

In the end … I will watch for 2 reasons:

candidates explaining the economy

- Presenters. Debate format aside … this is really about a string of mini-speeches. What I mean by that is, as a presenter, there are some things that you really, really want to say. Therefore you are always seeking the opportunity to say it. Now, that can lead to trouble. It means you are partially not really listening but simply looking for the verbal cue from which to leverage. It also can get you to create some incredibly absurd links to get to what you want to say. Part of being a great debater/presenter is what you are willing to “leave in the bag.” That is the fun art of watching this.

Plus. Because the economy is so topical I love to watch both of them get twisted in knots trying to explain the math <see chart to left> in a way that doesn’t make anyone think they will have to sacrifice anything.

- Soul. I began with Euripides and will end with him:

“The company of just and righteous men is better than wealth and a rich estate.” – Euripides, Aegeus

Now. I am not foolish enough to believe we will really see the ‘real, authentic’ man but debates have a habit of creating situations where you can get backed into the corner. And to quote that infamous movie Dirty Dancing it can become a “”nobody puts baby in the corner” moment. It is within those fleeting moments you can get a glimpse of what’s inside the person. And how he/she handles the moment. I seek a glimpse of the just & righteous.

Plus. No matter what anyone tries to tell me … a presidential election is not about the economy. Both candidates have a viable plan of action <in some form or fashion>. What I want is one who will pick & choose off the menu to lead America and … well … someone even remotely inspirational … let’s call that someone a dealer in some pragmatic Hope.

news flash: China is not the world’s largest economy

August 31st, 2012

Yup.

Sorry about that folks. China is the number two <and trying harder I believe> economy.

They overtook Japan as world’s second-biggest economy (Japan’s economy was worth $5.474 trillion -£3.414 trillion- at the end of 2010. China’s economy was closer to $5.8 trillion in the same period).

Japan has been hit by a drop in exports and consumer demand, while China has enjoyed a manufacturing boom.

World’s 10 biggest economies (according to IMF 2010):

1. US

2. China

3. Japan

4. Germany

5. France

6. UK

7. Italy

8. Brazil

9. Canada

10. Russia

I begin with this because it seems like I have recently had a bunch of conversations about (1) how bad the American economy is <and the future of it> and (2) how China is kicking everyone’s ass <economically … although I imagine militarily they would if they elected to>.

Some perspective folks.

Please. Some perspective.

Even using current trends, which assume America will not resolve some of its economic issues and China maintains their current growth <both flawed assumptions>, America will remain the world’s largest economy for the foreseeable future (at its current rate of growth, analysts see China replacing the US as the world’s top economy in about a decade … and the US economy is currently almost three times the size of the Chinese economy in dollar terms).

America generates lots of jobs, lots of stuff, lots of money and lots of doom & gloom attitudinally. I am not suggesting some major things don’t need to be fixed but people need to discern attitudes <fear that things are bad in the economy> versus reality <how bad is their own life>.

Ok.

All that said, yes, the mood about economics is exceedingly gloomy around the world.

In a recent PewGlobalAttitudes survey of 21 countries a median of just 27% think their national economy is doing well.

Only in China, Germany, Brazil and Turkey do most people report that current national economic conditions are good.

Less than a third of Americans (31%) say the U.S. economy is doing well.

That figure is up 13% points from 2011 <but it is down 19 points from 2007 which was the year before the financial crunch began>.

A median of just 16% of Europeans surveyed think their economy is performing up to par. That includes just 2% of the Greeks and 6% of the Spanish and Italians.

Among Europeans, only the Germans (73%) give their economy a positive.

Oddly just 7% of Japanese believe their economy is doing well <despite the fact the country has the third largest economy in the world>.

Anyway.

Here is an interesting point to make.

In the study people are generally far more positive about their personal economic condition than they are about their nation’s economic situation. A median of 52% in the 21 nations surveyed feel satisfied with their own circumstances.

And Americans are twice as likely to say their family finances are in good shape as they are to say that the national economic situation is good.

There are larger differences in Britain and Japan, where those who rate their personal economic situation as good exceed the number who have positive views of the national economy by more than four-to-one.

Only the Chinese are significantly more likely to say the national economy is doing better than their families’ finances.

Next.

Capitalism <or the concept of it and how people feel about it>.

The global economic crisis has dented capitalism’s image.

In 11 of the 21 nations surveyed, half or fewer now agree with the statement that people are better off in a free market economy even though some people are rich and some are poor. And such backing is down in 9 of 16 nations with comparable data since 2007, before the Great Recession began.

Anyway.

Regardless.

Being #1 or being #3 or any number in say the top 5 is kind of irrelevant in a reality-based discussion. All in the top 5 generate gobs of revenue & jobs & opportunities. So even if America “slips” from the numero uno slot 10 years from now is the issue pride and attitude or real economic issues? .

For now? America is number one. And approximately 3x, yes … 3 frickin’ times the size of number 2 <by the way … number 2 has 3x more people … uhm … gee … what would be the personal net worth evaluation on that?>.

I share this information with a couple of thoughts in mind:

- We americans act like … well … a leader who is whining so much we are forgetting we are a leader. Our economy makes shit happen. Globally.

The point? Leaders lead. Cause if they don’t they end up following at some point.

- Facts. Whew. The media sure does stir us up. And, yes, it all does sound like monopoly money at times in mind boggling ways. A trillion dollars, to me, is the kind of number that sends a shiver up my spine when I think of my own bank account. And maybe that is the issue … a country’s bank account doesn’t look anything like mine. Heck. Its balance sheet looks nothing like mine. I may have this wrong <because with all the frickin zeroes I think I misplaced some commas> but according to the Economist Pocket World of Figures America has a $14+trillion annual economy. That’s GDP. That’s a lot of money.

When my friends share a beer and talk about how if they can balance their business balance sheet or their personal balance sheet why can’t the country … well … in some ways I think it is almost apples and oranges <although both are fruit>. I cannot fathom the sheer amount of ledger entries you would have to make daily, let alone hourly, if you tracked a country as a true business.

Anyway. We act like our economy is the size, and acts like, Greece. Well. We may not have the nifty ruins or the ouzo but we have more money. Lots more. In fact 3 times more than … well … number 2 <and that ain’t Greece>.

Ok.

Done with this topic. America has a large economy. Even on its worst day it is still very very large. And I wish not only more people recognized this but also recognized the only one who can truly kick america’s economic ass is probably … well .. itself.

question of an ongoing eurozone

August 30th, 2012

So.

It seems like I get asked my thoughts about the Eurozone a lot these days.

And I have been thinking about writing about the euro and the Eurozone for some time.

This could be a painfully long and intense post but I have elected to keep it quasi-brief and summary-like thoughts.

And I know where to begin.

Because I mistakenly thought it was a brilliant idea … but I was naive.

I selfishly thought the brilliance was having one currency when traveling.

My naïve belief was it was going to create a super-country centered around a common currency and creating a ‘super-economy’ to balance America, a growing Asia, emerging countries <Africa> and, at that time, I thought Russia.

Well. Silly me. I ignored <or maybe better said … I was oblivious> to the fact to be truly successful there were three structural components necessary … currency, economic and political.

Without alignment on all three the Eurozone idea was doomed for a long struggle if not dismal failure.

I wish I had seen this following thought from then Chancellor of Germany Helmut Kohl in 1991:

“Political union is the essential counterpart to economic and monetary union. Recent history, not only in Germany, teaches us that it is absurd to expect in the long run that you can maintain economic and monetary union without political union.”

Now.

To be clear.

He was not suggesting a super country but rather an alignment within constituents. The monetary, the euro currency, to be complemented by a fiscal/economic and political union so there could be control of individual country spending and coordination of economic policy within constituents.

The currency came. But not the alignment of the constituents on the remainder.

The discussion of a fiscal alignment fell apart into a set of what they called “convergence criteria” which set limits to public debt as a % of GDP and deficits under 3%.

In my own pea like brain at that time I guess I had envisioned a quasi-euro parliament guiding this super cargo ship of economy insuring the overall interests of the entire Union were met while also permitting individual constituents the highs, or lows, they deserved – within a range.

Nope. And I should have remembered that Caribbean had tried something similar in the late 50s. After dissolving that “union of constituents” in 1962 individual islands have struggled, and some have prospered, and regional combinations of islands have been successful .

Anyway.

Euro zone.

Without a governmental oversight <aligning, at minimum, economic interests> the Eurozone has turned into a one currency pegged to a median while all the constituents, individual countries, may have inflated or deflated economies against the median. Therefore it can make the best even better and the worst even worse. Oh. Which it did <oops>.

For example, while Germany is getting a lot of great press on its austerity and debt management one should remember that they managed a misalignment with debt in maybe the early 2000’s <or they assessed risk well and assumed some short term debt bubble> in addition their economy in particular has benefited from a currency pegged on a median, therefore offering great value in exports, when their economy is prospering. Some reports suggest that the media currency value has added at least three points to their overall GDP growth.

My fleeting point here is that Germany is not the formula for all constituents.

Regardless.

The euro concept has also eliminated a valuable tool – the possibility of floating an individual’s country currency against its individual economy. It doesn’t solve all the issues but it does provide a key economic tool to manage value without being burdened by the success, or failure, of others.

Look. Using Germany (who is doing well now) as a guide for all countries is insanely stupid. Unless the countries revenue generating economy mirrors Germanys (which none do I believe) a country needs to customize economic management based on the country. And, once again, a country loses an important management tool if they cannot manipulate the value of its currency. It is a catch22.

So.

When asked what I believe … I believe the best thing is to dissolve the eurozone as it currently exists. Similar to the Caribbean solution there could possibly end up being euro-regions with their own currency and governmental alignments (with regard to economy) but I would dissolve it.

Oh.

Regardless. I also believe it will fail even if it isn’t dissolved.

And I believe that thought maybe for an odd reason <which I frankly haven’t seen anywhere else>.

Lack of patience.

Let me explain.

The best argument I have seen for why the Euro WILL survive is a simple one … while the Eurozone was a flawed design in conception <mainly because no one really wanted to build that particular house in the beginning> that as each crisis is faced ultimately the partially built house will be completed room by room out of necessity. And I actually agree with that thought. Crisis forces constituents to make the hard choices & decisions.

But.

No one has the patience.

Structural reforms pay off in the longer term. And no one has patience for long term <even if long term is really only 2 to 3 years>.

Even today we see the signs of it. Several of the steps taken to resolve the situations in Spain are 2 year plans <at minimum> to be truly effective. Yet if people do not see results now they clamor for more discussion and more solutions and … well … more of more. Is discussion bad in itself? Nope. But it also takes your eye off the ball.

In addition. While global economy actually needs more spending <and even some inflationary aspects> which leads to some increased deficits in stronger economies, because of overall fear, the people who shouldn’t be seeking to lower deficits will continue focusing on deficit management.

In today’s world we just do not have the patience. Well. Let’s say in the western world we just do not have the patience. Asia <and China> tend to have a longer view.

Anyway.

I could be surprised.

And probably will be I imagine.

I was certainly wrong about the Eurozone when it was created. I could certainly be wrong here. Or maybe better said … I wasn’t wrong … I just had flawed thinking.

There is certainly an opportunity to strengthen the structure and rebuild the flawed institutional architecture but I just don’t see how (1) the constituents will align to do so and (2) withstand the public scrutiny and have the patience to make, and take, the hard choices.

Oh.

And dissolving the Union? Painful. 2 years <at least> of the shit hitting the fan.

But. Maintaining the current course <or current list of actions> is simply absurd as an ongoing solution … globally as well as european-wise.

Me? Rip the bandage off quickly. Lots more immediate pain but less pain overall.

manifesto book end thinking (a series of two)

April 4th, 2012

Ok.

This is going to be a 2 part series discussing 2 incredibly well written and often misunderstood documents. These two documents are a reflection of two of the most important and influential political theories ever created. Both documents continue to influence and provoke discussion on ideology, capitalism and government. And mostly I wanted to write about the documents because if you have ever doubted the power of the written word … and how words can impact how people think & act … read these documents and your doubt will cease to exist.

I, being me, will highlight 2 seemingly opposite manifestos in the series (hence the reason I call this idea ‘bookends’).

The 2 documents? The American Constitution and the Communist Manifesto.

Yup. They are bookends to me.

And two bookends everyone should have on their shelf. I don’t care where you live or what ideology floats your boat or what, culturally, your manifesto may be … well … manifested in. If you believe in enlightened conflict and having an enlightened point of view both documents should be at your fingertips.

And bookends because the creators thought about similar things and evolved into extremely well articulated documents. In 1843 (the communist manifesto was actually completed in 1848) Marx was a young student and more committed to a more democratic form of republicanism. Eventually evolving into what he formed as a communist for of ideology. In the 1780′s America’s founding fathers sought an environment of a combination of pluralism, socialism and democracy ultimately ending up with what America is today – a republic. They didnt trust an unfettered democracy and therefore set up a relatively unique (components had been utilized in Rome, Scotland and Latvia in years past) system of democratic checks & balances within a Republic concept.

Regardless of what your current ideology both documents are beautifully crafted, most portions remain timeless in their thinking may be two of the shortest most impactful documents of all time. Ok. The two documents I will discuss.

This first will be the constitution.

As I have stated before it is one of the most well written forward thinking “white papers” of all time. It is the standard for democratic (or people government driven) rules of the road of all time.

The second will be the Communist Manifesto.

Now. This document is maybe one of the most concise, and well written, ‘power of the everyday people’ social documents of all time. It resonates today and parts of it are … well … relevant to many topics being discussing everywhere today.

Now.

I am not going to tear apart each document but rather try and take the parts that are being discussed today and … well … be enlightening.

Plus.

I get to discuss two documents I believe everyone should read.

And I get to discuss two documents I never tire of picking up and reviewing.

Some caveats.

I am fairly sure I got all the technical aspects correct. I am absolutely sure I got my opinions correct. And more than sure there are some grammatical and typing errors.

Enjoy.

bookend 1: american constitution

April 4th, 2012

“We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land – nor, perhaps, the sun and stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. The chart is the Constitution.” – Daniel Webster

Ok.

I begin the two part series with the American Constitution. With all the dizzying rhetoric wrapped around the constitution these days let’s begin with a fact.

No interpretation.

The American constitution is probably the best written, best though out, best forward thinking practical “ideological white paper” of all time.

Take a look. Read it. Maybe even reread it. The stuff <thoughts, ideas, words> that they had the foresight to build into the document is boggling to the mind if you think about it.

(this link is to the transcript but it also has images of the original document: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html )

Anyway.

I began writing about the constitution because it is being so misused and abused by politicians it is making Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Hancock and any forefather you want to name , who actually participated in the tea party, turn over in their grave.

And how it is being discussed (tearing it apart word by word) is frightening … because … well … while the writers were extremely thoughtful with regard to individual words <incredibly so> the document was written with the intent to be taken in its entirety.

As the sum of its parts.

Plus.

I let the people on the Supreme Court figure out any nuances … they get paid the big bucks and, frankly, they have bigger brains. They were given a job and similar to the guy who was given the job to supervise the jack hammer construction workers, who I assume knows jack hammers better than I ever could, they have better skills at their job than I would.

Ok.

With that rant being aired out let me take a minute and share some information about the Constitution.

We the People.

What an opening.

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, inure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And with that opening I interpret some personal responsibility. “Personal” being you & I. And a responsibility to know the Constitution.

Research continues to show that the vast majority of Americans cherish the U.S. Constitution … but do not know much about it. if this isn’t an example of “choiceful ignorance” I don’t know what it. Why do I say that?
The same research indicates that most of us believe that the health of our Constitutional democracy depends on active and informed citizenry.
some facts from a survey done by the National Constitution center:

- 91% of Americans believe that the U.S. Constitution is important to them

- 84% believe that to work as intended, our system of government depends on active and informed citizens

But.

- More than half of Americans don’t know the number of Senators <100 senators … 2 from each of the 50 states regardless of population … and as a bonus … The House of Representatives has 435 members … I think>

- About 1 out of 3 don’t know the number of branches of the Federal Government <ok. I admit. I am embarrassed to say that I didn’t know this off the top of my head … there are three branches of government: The Executive Branch, The Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch. The Legislative Branch is Congress, Senate & House of Representatives, making laws. The Executive branch executes the laws made by the Legislative. Think the president as the Executive Branch. The Judicial branch big kahuna is the Supreme Court which is made up of nine justices. Each branch functions as a checks & balance for the system. Basically, the Legislative branch creates laws, the Judicial Branch interprets laws, and the Executive branch executes laws>

- 1 out of 6 believe that the Constitution establishes America as a Christian nation <not even close … freedom of religion, including islam, was encouraged and a number of documents from the founding fathers – Washington, Jefferson, Adams – support this belief>

- 20% believe that only lawyers can understand the Constitution <interpret portions maybe … but it is one of the most straightforward documents you will ever read>

- Almost one-quarter cannot name a single right guaranteed to us by the First Amendment <freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly & petition of grievances … I usually miss press, assembly and grievances>

- 84% believe that the U.S. Constitution is the document that states that “all men are created equal” <that is the Declaration of Independence>.

Next.

When asked to describe in their own words what the U.S. Constitution means to them, Americans refer to the Constitution as the bedrock upon which our society and laws are based.

Q.: What Does The U.S. Constitution Mean To You?

Freedom (34%)
Basis of our rights (20%)
Our system of laws (11%)
Established this country (7%)
Established our government
Determines our quality of life (3%)
Everything (3%)

Yet, more than three quarters (83%) admit that they know only “some” or “very little” about the specifics of the document.

Ok.

So more people need to pay attention to the Constitution.

Reading & interpreting it.

People can generally agree on what the words of the Constitution says. Typically we struggle with interpretation.

Generally speaking, there are two main ways in which court justices, judges, and legal analysts interpret laws and constitutions:

- As living documents that evolve as the culture changes

- As fixed documents whose meaning never changes from the time that they were written until now.

Simplistically most who lean toward a more liberal perspective tend to think of it as a living document and a more conservative perspective thinks of it as a fixed document <note: that is a generalization>.

But I say that to help highlight why so much heated discussion takes place over a variety of issues important to America … and how the constitution is being used, and abused, to further people’s initiatives.

Anyway. If you are interested … there is an excellent paper written by Yale Law Review called “How To Interpret the Constitution (and How Not To) by Michael Stokes Paulsen which provides an excellent perspective with sources, of course, to aim you toward more reading if you would like. (http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/115-8/Paulsen.pdf)

It is interesting to note that he suggests the best book of all time explaining the constitution is actually The Federalist written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. I say interesting because it was written so long ago and yet a contemporary Yale Law Journal contributor believes it to be so.

Ok, moving on.

States, federal & balance

It seems one of the wackiest discussions happening today centers on federal government (or how big and what role it should play).

And the popular rhetoric surrounds states and state’s rights.

Ok. Let’s be clear. I am not a big government guy.

Nor am I a state’s guy.

I am a balance guy. And a guy who believes the balance today will be different from the balance tomorrow.

And actually our forefathers were also .

Let me discuss “states’ rights” first (then how politicians abuse this issue … how we permit them to abuse it … and then the whole ‘rights of individuals themselves’).

Ok. What about states’ rights. It is the hot topic du jour.

Many people suggest that The Tenth Amendment limits Congress to those areas in which the Constitution explicitly empowers it to act. And all other responsibility resides with the states.

But … well … no. <sorry … couldn’t figure out how else to say it>

The Constitution was actually written to provide balance (10^th amendment included).

And the flexibility to provide different balance depending on different situations.

And it also has a variety of checks & balances with it (think of the Supreme Court decision making as the ultimate decision maker on balance).

All that said let’s take a minute to look at how balance between the Federal government and states is organized in the Constitution. The issue of states’ rights was very important to a key author of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson. He was the main arguer for the amendments we know as ‘The Bill of Rights’ where the ‘Tenth Amendment’ strikes a crucial balance between State and Federal power.

- Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People – Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In addition, the powers of the Federal government were limited by design see ‘Section 8 Powers of Congress.’ The Federal government was intended to be the glue to hold the states into a nation.

The Federal government responsibilities?

According to the Constitution the Federal government should only handle things that must go into and between the state and national borders. Settle disputes between states, provide a unified defense, foreign and trade policy. War, immigration, postal system, currency and banking.

Oh. And the “biggie” … “promote the general Welfare.”

All other powers are reserved to the States or to the people.

Ok.

And before we start saying things like “the constitution suggests the government shouldn’t be in the business business (like car manufacturers).

Wrong.

In fact early forefather type governments recognized the government HAD to helps support some businesses until they got on their feet. Thankfully it was that attitude, and actions, that made America the global economic power that it is today.

Anyway.

States and people.

We the people.

Clearly stated. Clearly defined.

States are always stated as “United States” in some document we like to call the Constitution. Oh. And the constitution replaced the articles of confederation (which was basically a states driven government constitution) to strengthen a federal government to balance the states’ rights.

So.

Here’s the deal (number 1): States.

States. States have rights as long as the individual parts strengthen the whole (the United States).

Federal. The federal government has rights as long as it strengthens the whole (the United States).

And they have the ability to step in when they see individual parts harming, or weakening, the whole. Individual parts may not like that and they may shout and stamp their feet and have a temper tantrum but someone (the federal government) has to look at the bigger picture.

Sorry. That’s the <American> gig.

If you don’t like that … well …

Here’s the deal (part 2): politicians (elected officials)

Politicians need to step up to the plate. Because here is where our selected politicians are failing us. They are elected to balance our individual needs (their direct constituents) and the wholes needs (the USA). That means sometimes they need to tell the truth to their local constituents (the ones who voted them in).

Yeah. Something like “wow. It would be good for us but in the scheme of things what would be good for us may not represent the best for the whole (the USA). ”

Whew. That doesn’t get you reelected (because it is not selfish enough).

But it is telling the truth.

Ok. Where am I going with this?

Here’s the deal (part 3): Us

We the people. Us. You and I. Because in the end it comes down to us. Seeking the truth and accepting the truth. We the people are not “I the people.”

“The people make the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their own will, and lives only by their will.”
John Marshall, Chief Justice of The Supreme Court

Do we care what happens to us as individuals? Surely. As we live eat and breathe.

Do we need to weigh government <national> decisions as we versus I? Surely <as much as it may pain us to do so sometimes>.

We need to remember that ‘We the people’ is the United States. And despite any despicable behavior of elected constituents we need to take responsibility for their behavior.

And seek to encourage the behavior that reflect honesty so we can truly judge what is best not just for I but for we (no matter how painful that may be).

And today more than ever this is truth because we are making important budget decisions that are inevitably going to hurt somewhere at a local level (it would be naïve to suggest budget cuts are cutting ‘big government’ and that isn’t really ‘local jobs/business’).

But truth be told … the decisions will hurt at a minority of the local level.

And these budget decisions help the whole.

Let me go back to the ‘does this hurt a minority’? Yup.

It is really easy to look at things that hurt your own wallet. And your own house. And your own family. And are you wrong? Well. No. And yes.

No in that your first consideration should be your own family and your own immediate needs.

Yes in that there is a bigger picture.

And what may hurt you today (and your family) may actually be okay in the end (several years from now).

And I imagine the reason I wrote about the constitution is that I believe not only has the everyday person (you & i) lost sight of what it meant when it was written but I also believe the politicians have lost sight of why we elect them.

We elect them to not only represent our personal needs but also to explain to us the greater needs. And this is maybe where we fail them.

Because all we seem to focus on is “me” (or I depending on your grammatical preference).

Because, frankly, what is an elected official to do? Tell us the truth or rather fight to do something to benefit us (even if it is not in the nest interest of “us” – we the people.).

And that is where they sometimes elect to bastardize the constitution.

They play us (and shame on us for permitting that to happen).

They play the ‘rights of the state’ card versus the federal government point of view card.

Look.

There is no “pick one side or the other.” It’s balance.

And the politicians who stand up and thump their chests and create some diatribe on one or the other is screwing with you.

It’s balance.

Sometimes the state carries the day and benefits what you need (and is right for the bigger picture). Sometime the federal government sees the bigger picture and it hurts people locally but is really good for the bigger picture.

So we , the people, need to get our heads out of our asses and see the bigger picture and quit shoving something up our local representations ass trying to get something done (so he/she gets re-elected) and let them do what they were elected to do.

And that is what our forefathers desired … fair state representation, all the time, keeping the USA in mind (the bigger picture) … all the time.

Ok.

Another thing (as we read the constitution).

Democracy, Republic, Socalism & Pluralism

We seem to forget some things.

We are a republic … not a democracy.

In a republic, the citizens do not rule directly but, instead, elect officeholders to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections. Thus, the United States is a republic, not a democracy.

Yup. Our form of government is called a Republic, not a Democracy where a majority rules. Here is a factoid for you.

The Founding fathers kind of disliked the idea of a pure democracy.

Thus they set up a system of limited government that was a federation of states.

In addition.

We need to remember that the Constitution was not written to protect the principles of the majority. James Madison, key writer of the Constitution, understood that in a democratic republic the rights of the majority need no such protection. In fact Madison and his fellow founding fathers believed that the greatest threat to American liberty would be the tyranny of a majority – a tyranny in which “the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker.”

Think about this.

Because it is tricky.

Make sure the majority has the ability to live life to its fullest and yet insure the majority doesn’t ‘oppress the weak’ … oh … and not be a socialist or communist system.

It becomes easy to see how those who opine actually have something to opine about.

All that said.

The constitution is a brilliant document.

And it is brilliantly crafted to enable balance.

And it implies a governing with a lack of selfishness in mind.

Governing with a greater good in mind.

Because the constitution, whether states’ rights believers or federal government believers, clearly has America’s greater good in mind.

Read it.

Interpret it. Discuss it. And hold elected officials accountable to truth.

Ok.

That said.

On to the next post and the next document (and the last in this series).

The next document doesn’t have a country in mind as the ‘greater good.’ It goes completely to the other end of the spectrum and focuses almost solely on a completely different interpretation of ‘we the people.’ It focuses solely on the greater good of people almost in a ‘global community’ frame of reference as nation boundaries

The Communist Manifesto.

Yup.

Speaking of people driven rules of the road you would have to be silly to ignore the communist manifesto. Ignore all the trappings of “communist” and focus on the words.

It represents words of the people.

And it resonates as well today as did it then.

bookend 2: manifesto of the communist party

April 4th, 2012

This is the last of my “manifesto” series.

But it was maybe the first that I thought about. Because as I watch the news and see the pictures in Egypt and Sudan and the middle east <and everything else associated with a populace driven revolution> I thought about the manifesto of the communist party (more commonly known as The Communist Manifesto).

Now. I am not a communist. But all the things happening in the streets of … well … pretty much every city these days started thinking about the power of the common everyday people.

Or ‘every day people unite’ (which is actually the close to the manifesto).

So I plucked my copy of the manifesto off my shelf and reread it.

If you have never read it this comment may seem daunting. But The Communist Manifesto is only 53 pages long.

Less if you skip the Communist Literature section (which was outdated almost at first publishing).

It is an astonishing little read.

And it is also astonishing to think it was written by a 30 and 28 year old (Marx and Engel respectively). It is an amazingly concentrated brief document written with an intellectual stylishly personal perspective.

From its opening “a spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism” to the closing of “the proletariat have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.” the pamphlet is full of simplicity which still rings true today.

There are a couple of “truths” to think about before I get to the Manifesto.

- Truth 1. Communism is better as a theoretical model then as a day to day reality.

- Truth 2. Today’s world actually has nothing to do with the working class/common people … it is actually an uprising of the middle class who is losing what they had.

- Truth 3. Some of the building block thoughts and components of the Communist Manifesto are insightful and truthful and when looked at with vision explain much of what we see around us in today’s world.

Interestingly … in a truly academic point of view … if you look at today’s world … socialism is more a middle class movement and communism a working class movement.

And socialism <or at least aspects of it to those who truly understand what it is> has always been quasi-respectable and communism not.

Marx suggested that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself. Communism therefore is the same as that of all proletariat (working class) parties – formation of the workers into a class and ultimately the overthrow of the bourgeois (wealthy elite) supremacy. Therefore … communism is not based on ideas or principles but rather the rights of a “working class” of people.

Gosh.

When I type something like that … and think about today … well … it sure does make you think.

Anyway.

The Manifesto.

- Note: where appropriate I substituted worker/worker class for proletariat and wealthy elite for bourgeoisie.

Capitalism leads to exploitation. The wealthy elite has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science into its paid wage laborers. It has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation. – Manifesto

- Capitalism does lead to exploitation. However … capitalism also leads to innovation, improvement, increased standard of living as well as a variety of other positives. If I could have sat good ole Karl down I believe I would have suggested an additional word – “unfettered.” Unfettered (or un-managed) capitalism leads to exploitation. But. I am not as smart as Karl so I think I will leave it as is and suggest this is one of the few flaws in the Communist Manifesto. A big flaw but one of the few.

“The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the working class; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests” – Manifesto

- “They defend their future interests.” Oh my. I believe something we tend to forget is that democracy and communism are both class based ideologies. And both are based on protecting the majority classes. I am not suggesting they are the same just have some basic ideological similarities. If you accept that, you can read the Communist Manifesto not as a communist but rather as someone interested in everyone getting a fair shake.

“soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of wealthy elite society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented. – Manifesto

- This is Schumpeter’s Creative Destruction. Schumpeter was not a Marxist, communist nor a Capitalist. He was simply an economist who believed that <simplistically> the new will destroy the old as it evolved into a better place. That destructive crises naturally occurred as a way to replace that which is with what will be.

“In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.” – Manifesto

- Basically Marx outlines a global economy, nation’s interdependent upon each other, as well as intellectual collaboration, before there was ever the world wide web. Go figure.

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. – Manifesto

- Marx did a nice job of providing historical reference for classes and, ultimately, class conflict. Civilization is almost always defined by the struggle between have and have-nots. And the belief by the have nots, realistic or not, that someday they can become a ‘have.’ That being said one of the major flaws in the Communist theory is that it overlooks this basic human attitude (leading to behavior). Have-nots or Have-somes are just fine with the Haves as long as they believe (a) opportunity exists, if they work hard enough, to enter into the Have group and (b) the Haves don’t have disproportionate wealth versus the Have-nots. People inherently like working toward something … even if it is just a dream. Marx designed a utopian ideology where all are equal. In theory it is an interesting concept. In practicality the majority of people don’t desire that.

Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product. – Manifesto

- This is interesting to me because ultimately the concept of Communism is dependent upon a society bereft of a real & viable middle class. Just when communism could have taken hold worldwide capitalism permitted the working class to evolve into a viable thriving middle class. Today? The middle class feels threatened … as it is getting dragged down closer & closer to “proletariat” level. Therefore it is revolting (Occupy movement, Red Square protesters, Middle East upheaval, etc.)

But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes.” – Manifesto

- While components of this are dead on … where Marx/Engel got it wrong was that the development of industry actually increased the strength of the middle class. That doesn’t make this thinking any less thoughtful, or brilliant. That last sentence … makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes … summarizes exactly what is happening today.

“In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced …” – Manifesto

- Marx recognized the emerging middle class it is just that he never envisioned it gaining such a stronghold in developed societies. But, once again, I would like to point out that those who “had” <once part of the ‘haves’> start the slippery slope of having to ‘not have’ <note: just by ‘not having’ does not mean you become a “have not”> they begin to feel supplementary rather than essential. I imagine my real point here is that the economic situation is almost as much about attitudes as it is about real economic issues.

“Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.”- Manifesto

- Well. if there was ever a better written indictment against elitist driven governments I am not sure I have ever read one. The problem with any government in any country is the ability to do what is best for each constituent as well as the whole of the constituents. Unless there is a dictatorship the happiness <derived from some aspect of ‘what is best for me’> of the population dictates the overall success of not only the government but of the nation as a whole. Governments have to be careful they do not become a class in itself.

Ok.

I included this next portion not to really make any point other than many of us have a sense of the underpinnings of communism but they are typically tainted by our view of Communist Soviet Union. Marx/Engel had a vision. A complete vision. And while we may shiver at some aspects (those of us in a social democracy like America) there are other aspects which reflect the fact that Communism was viable on a number of levels:

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

- Once again I say that aspects are too theoretical … and frightening to suggest that such power resides solely within “centralization” … and it is probably within that main flaw that communism was so wrongly implemented … but .. education, public transportation, equal opportunity employment, etc. All are aspects of which create a worthy society and economy. And, once again, I state that this little pamphlet, only 50+ pages, outline an entire ideology and economic and societal state. Pretty amazing stuff.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property.

- Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … the popular American 1%/99% nomenclature of today … only stated at “the 10% at the expense of the 90%.”

So.

I just selected some passages from this incredibly well written pamphlet. Do I agree with everything in it? Absolutely not. But as far as ideological writing it is on par with the Constitution. Well articulated thoughts conducted in absolute brevity.

And.

One last thought.

“In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.” – Marx

In fairness to Marx, and in deference to the fact I call my site enlightened conflict always seeking to lessen hostility <or conflict> … Marx’s ultimate objective was ‘hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.”

So ends my reflection on two of the best written ideological documents of all time. Heck. Two of the best written documents, of any type, of all time.

In this post the Communist Manifesto and the one before the American Constitution.

Depending on where you live you will … well … live by some of these words.

But. Wherever you live you should read these two documents and think.

message to those who will repair

March 30th, 2012

“We are many, many people and yet we are one. What we do today with our thinking, what we do tomorrow with our thoughts, what we do with our actions and our interactions with people determines the course of the universe itself. You are not powerless. You are not without power.” – Little Crow

This is a follow up to my rant on America and its ability to repair its faults. And, hopefully, a message to we happy few who will actually repair america.

I am hoping what I wrote kind of got some people thinking … and thinking about what we can do to repair. And maybe help repair what was the American dream <which is realistic in a semi utopian way>.

And repair in a mature perspective.

And repair with an America’s Kitchen table perspective.

And with that last thought … I figured I would use a couple of Americans’ words to the “repair-people” of America.

Oh.

Actually I imagine these words could pertain to anyone in any country.

I began with Little Crow to remind people that leaders of relatively small groups need to understand their role in the future.

There is a responsibility even among the “small voices” not just to be radicals … but to make their voice heard with a sense of the bigger picture.

Of course … someone could very rightly point out that Little Crow and his people got the shit kicked out of them but I would like to point out that they were actually in the right. Not in using violence or conflict to resolve their rights but rather that they stood up for what was right.

Anyway.

And I end with a good ole Teddy R quote. Teddy, who was a flawed leader, but a charismatic leader nonetheless who fully understood that divisiveness was not effective in terms of reaching the desired goal.

In his quote he uses the word ‘squabbling’.

And “squabbling” is an excellent word.

And a word that seems to embody a lot of what is going on in America today.

And a word I wish some of our existing leaders would think about.

It sounds petty.

It sounds small.

And it sounds like it has nothing to do with possibilities but rather sounds like wasted energy.

“There is no room for hyphenated Americanism … the one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.” – Theodore Roosevelt

Ok.

That’s it for my ‘repairing’ thoughts. I need to go figure out what I can do to help the repairing begin.

repairing your faults

March 29th, 2012

“The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.” – Alexis de Tocqueville

Similar to Alexis lately I am keenly aware of America’s faults … but just as much of its virtues.

I also find that many of my friends are also keenly aware of America’s flaws (and, lately, not so much on the virtues).

We are not alone.

In recent polling, more than two-thirds of Americans said they were pessimistic about the future of their country.

In another survey, however, 86 percent said they were proud patriots who’d live no place else.

America is Flawed

It reminded me of something Sinclair Lewis said:

“Intellectually I know that America is no better than any other country; emotionally, I know she is better than every other country.”

Many of us have troubled hearts and many of us wonder if America can repair her faults.

I love a good philosophical discussion but, in the end, I am a solutions guy.

To my own fault, when asked, inevitably I have an opinion … a solution … an answer … for what I believe should be, and can be, done.

And that being said I am troubled.

I am not sure I have an answer.

I have a lover’s quarrel with the country today. And I don’t believe I am alone in this.

All americans are part of the American story, with all its greatness … and its flaws, and I feel responsible in some way … just as I sometimes feel helpless.

I do wonder what Tocqueville would think of America today.

Democracy in America was written when he was 29. Tocqueville’s work is amazing. His observations on the American legal and political system are astonishing in their perceptiveness and sophistication. His love of our Republic and the sense of the fact that the democratic system we were setting in place would insure a sense of equality among its citizens make for an enlightening read … even today.

But I wonder what he would think with all the recent studies reporting that the United States is now one of the most unequal of societies within Western nations.

And that troubles me.

I do know this.

It is useless for our elected political leaders to say they are doing their best.

They have to do what is necessary.

And it troubles me that they haven’t.

I love this country … flaws and all. And, once again, I don’t believe I am alone in this.

I believe the average person, while hating what is happening absolutely does not hate America … and while worrying … wants it to be right.

We may obsess about certain things & issues and certainly judge them as bad or flawed.

But the reality is they simply are what they are … aspects of what makes America … well … America.

And it has always been that way.

Yeah … America’s flaws are subjective and based on interpretations, perspectives and focus but mostly by frame of reference.

Maturity & Sense of Entitlement

Here is where I am probably going to get in trouble.

Because of two things I am going to say. Maturity. I am not sure America is dealing with the issues with the same sense of maturity a country who has maybe dealt with 100′s of years of turmoil. Next. Sense of Entitlement. I mean too often the discussions come down to “what we had” mentality versus a “what we need” mentality. There is an aspect of ‘entitlement’ which skews a rational perspective on what to do and where to go from here.

Because regardless of how philosophical you get about this situation … most people know something should be done … and CAN be done.

But (big but).

Every time I get into this discussion it gets mired down in a “me” versus “we” discussion.

I call it “kitchen table economics.” And the kitchen table, one could argue, is skewed by the reality of the individual economics but I would argue it is skewed by ‘entitlement economics.’

By that I mean people solely focused on what is best for their kitchen table … and not what would be best for America’s kitchen table.

Tocqueville said in the introduction to Democracy in America that “equality of conditions” was what set the United States apart from Europe. His vision of the United States was an open society where democratic principles of equality could flourish peacefully in harmony with mores.

Once again … I wonder what Alexis would think of America today.

A recent report from the Pew Charitable Trust’s Project on Economic Mobility confirms what previous studies showed: if you’re born into the underclass, you’re likely to die there … stuck in your situation. Similarly, if you’re born to highly-educated parents with a higher than average income and a nice house you are more likely to be that way and your grandchildren probably won’t have to sweat the details.

American income inequality is becoming positively mind numbing with some of the richest US states having the largest populations of poor people.

In California, 22% live in poverty.

In Florida, it’s 20%.

The Pew study also shows that two thirds of all Americans think social inequality is more damaging to the nation than racism.

According to the Pew Research Centre, two thirds of Americans feel there is a strong conflict between the rich and the poor.

At least five recent studies prove that Americans now have less economic and social mobility than those in other English-speaking and western European countries.

But this where we get bogged down in the kitchen table discussion.

America middle class is focused on ‘what we had’ as the measurement. As well as they discuss things without thinking And we won’t get out of the situation if we remain stuck in that mentality.

And this is a tough one to get unstuck from .

The Era of Indulgence

Mainly because it is a struggle of transitioning between two eras. The Futures Company (Yankelovich) suggested in their Darwinian Gale report that we are shifting from an Era of Indulgence to an Era of Consequences.

I would suggest people are not transitioning. They are stuck in Indulgence (figuratively not literally). At every kitchen table people are assessing based on the Era of Indulgence and seeking to make ends meet based on that criteria. Basically it is a “I worked hard for what I had <the indulgences> and I deserve it.”

Well.

No.

It was an Era of Indulgence. Middle class America was permitted to indulge as it had never been able to indulge ever before. And middle class America was bigger size wise than ever before.

More people tasted indulgence … and it tasted good.

Uh oh.

An era of consequences. America got fat. We need to go on a diet. Yeah. Talk about that at the kitchen table.

It sucks.

Diets have consequences. And, yeah, it sucks … but America’s kitchen table will benefit. Your own table will lose ‘indulgences’ <translation: some things you ‘had’ and maybe thought you earned>.

Look.

There are too many “reasons why” we are where we are … but that’s not the point … America’s strength has always been “repairing our own faults.”

And our elected officials won’t, and probably cannot, get us out of this.

(despite the fact I wish they would all remember this)

“This representative assembly should be in miniature an exact portrait of the people at large. It should think, feel, reason, and act like them.” — John Adams

If John were here today he would be admonishing the elected representative assembly … they are not a miniature exact portrait of the people at large.

But lets not bitch & moan over that fact … its wasted energy <for now>.

So.

The truth is <it is kind of the obvious solution>, average people are the only ones who can lead our country out of the quagmire of special interests and party partisanship that is paralyzing it.

That’s because the average person brings a special quality that too many politicians do not have … a pragmatic desire to solve the problems, regardless of ideology, partisanship or career self-interest.

Most average people are far more interested in finding workable solutions than in adhering to a particular political ideology.

The average person almost always demonstrates a willingness to mix and match elements from differing political approaches – market-based, government-based, “conservative” or “liberal” – as long as the result is a solution that will work .

The average person does not ask “does this meet my political beliefs?’

The average person says “will this work?

But to make THIS work … to have America repair its faults … “the average person” needs to move away from kitchen table economics to America kitchen table economics mentality.

First step in getting America back on track?

Here is a thought from a very very smart man …

On july 4^th 1992 former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, at the age of 83, said this in a speech:

We must dissent from the indifference. We must dissent from the apathy. We must dissent from the fear, the hatred and the mistrust. We must dissent from the poverty of vision and the absence of moral leadership. We must dissent because America can do better, because America has no choice but to do better.

Dissent from the indifference.

The average person is sure bitching a lot. And pointing fingers at elected officials. And it’s not getting us anywhere.

And, frankly, if we think it will get us somewhere than shame on us.

Repairing our faults begins at your own kitchen table.

We are no longer in an Era of Indulgence.

We are in an Era of Consequences.

Maybe if we all thought a little ‘smaller.’

Our retirement plans became smaller.

Our houses became smaller.

Our desires for “more” became smaller.

Maybe it would make it easier for America to reach some smaller goals.

And we could fix some big faults.

And do big things.

And we need to exhibit some bigger picture maturity. Let me explain using someone else’s words. I read this written by author Olen Steinhauer in one of his books:

“Americans are distinctive in the developed world. Your people still believe in Utopia. Maybe it’s because of your founding myth – the search for the perfect home. In the 21st century Americans still think it is possible to have a society in which a level of civility is constant where a perfect balance of control and freedom can be maintained. It’s quaint. Try a few hundred years of war and civil strife on your own land and see how much of your faith remains. Recent failures have shown us the flaws in our utopian dreams and it is a terrible thing to face. Traumatic when it happens. America typically lashes out when it happens. It snaps. There is an irrational side to it. Something wild. No one likes to be shown that their core beliefs are wrong particularly when those illusions fuel their happy dreams. So when America’s dreams have been bruised the nation comes out like an express train. God help anyone standing in it’s path.”

We are in a traumatic time. And, in a way, our american dreams have been bruised. And I am interested in including this thought because while we may all be staring at our bank statements and thinking that this is about our wallets … it is more about what resides in our hearts & souls. It has become personal.

And that makes ‘repairing our flaws’ even more difficult. It will take some maturity and less “lashing out.” And maybe remember that it IS possible to have a society in which a level of civility can resolve the issues AND maintain what Olen called ‘our Utopian belief.”

You know something? I don’t mind that he suggests America has a utopian belief. In fact … I kind of like it. It makes us distinctive in the developed world

And, frankly, we have to be what we are … and what got us to where we are today as a successful country.

Regardless. It is time to repair our faults.

how an arms race begins

March 4th, 2012

Ok.

I am not a pacifist. And while I do believe having a viable military, and using it properly, has a role I am constantly reminded of what Hemingway said .. “Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.”

Regardless. I do wonder how arms races (which inevitably lead to war conflict) begin. No. This isn’t going to use America selling Taiwan arms. Or Russia in the MidEast. Or China in Africa. Let’s go small. Because maybe this is really is how an arms race begins …

One of the richest countries in Africa, Equatorial Guinea, is rapidly expanding its naval power.

Some perspective for ya.

The fleet of the 600,000 population country will be larger than that of 160 million population Nigeria.

So this is how it begins (it is kind of like dominos sometimes).

The strategic framework and the correlation of forces in the Gulf of Guinea — one of the most significant and growing energy resource regions of the world — is changing rapidly.

Now.

Please note for my geographically challenged readers … this is on the OTHER side of Africa from where all the Middle East/Tunisia activity is happening.

The region is quickly moving from an area of low technology defense and security systems, and minimal command and control at national levels, to one of growing sophistication & higher mobility.

This doesn’t guarantee military confrontation but it does increase the potential for military confrontation.

Countries on a micro level are just like people. When we feel threatened we flee or fight (or puff out our chests and pound them a little … sort of like gorillas).

Some facts.

In January of 2012, the Navy of Equatorial Guinea officially added a 2,500-ton frigate <now their flagship>. It was built in Bulgaria with help from Ukrainian experts. The ship has a powerful enough weapon by the standards of the region: one 76-millimeter and two 30-mm automatic guns and two helicopters.

This is all part of a five-year, $250-million Equatorial Guinea maritime security program – essentially the build-up of an integrated naval and air capability (all this announced February 2010)

What that means is it signals the start of a re-defined strategic architecture in West Africa.

It has brought a coherent military-security framework into reality which means surrounding countries begin looking at what may be vital to their own welfare – in a way in which, to this point, earlier boundary disputes were not looked at.

Given the strategic belief that military planning must be based, to a large degree, on the capabilities (and not the stated intent> of neighboring countries, the move by Equatorial Guinea serves as an intial domino for a response by regional strategic planners.

Capabilities take years to develop.

Intent can change in moments.

This means that Equatorial Guinea’s neighbors must address changing realities.

I read this …

Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, is fond of saying that it takes 30 years to develop an army up to corps level, whereas political realities can change a nation’s intent overnight. This means that defense planners must develop capabilities over the long term to be ready for any rapidly-emerging eventuality.

Equatorial Guinea is changing the reality in the region.

In the past two years the Navy of the country has changed beyond recognition. Another like ship was received earlier then the newest in addition in March of 2011 two 470-ton 62-meter patrol vessels were delivered from Israel <wow … the list of countries involved is getting longer>.

In addition Equatorial Guinea ordered from Israel two corvettes, and is in talks about acquiring a modernized Brazilian Barroso corvette with the displacement of two thousand tons, and another three ships of the same class from South Korea.

Does Equatorial Guinea really this?

“This is designed to defend the country’s maritime borders, and because of this equipment, if necessary, the frigate can land on any part of the coast of Equatorial Guinea in all weather conditions,” said President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo .

He added that the new frigate is necessary, considering a large sea area of Equatorial Guinea and the long border with Cameroon, Nigeria, Gabon, Sao Tome and Principe, and Angola.

On a separate note.

At the same time he announced the creation of Marine Corps.

On another separate note.

The President also announced the procurement of an aircraft Marco Antonio for the armed forces “specially designed for the protection of the country and ensuring its security. They will fly over the territory in order to identify upcoming cases of betrayal, as it happened before.”

A few years ago the country’s “Air Force” virtually existed only on paper and included only civil and trainer aircraft. However, more recently it purchased two batches of Ka-29 and Mi-26, and four Russian Su-25, as well as five attack helicopters Mi-24 and one Mi-17 helicopter.

Now.

To try and make everyone feel better …

According to the President, “the acquisition of this equipment does not mean that this country wants regional or territorial supremacy.”

(now I feel better)

On another separate note.

They have also recently acquired mortars, Russian and Chinese artillery, and three older T-55 as well as approximately 40 different armored vehicles (BMP-1, BTR-152, and a small number of BRDM).

Ok.

Moving on.

And Algeria (back to the other side of Africa).

A large batch <185!> of Russian T-90 tanks will be delivered to Algeria – the country that borders on Tunisia and Libya.

The good news?

Defense ministry officials say that the ministry would not be making any orders for armor in the near future.

Oops.

Not so fast.

Apparently the recent events in the region, which have already resulted in the toppling of political regimes in three different countries, has made the country want take care of its own defense. In the fall of 2011, Algeria signed another contract with Russia for the delivery of 120 brand new Russian tanks.

Ok.

I know too much detail.

But the point of this? Maybe this is how arms races begin.

Because if the “little guys” have military stuff you can bet the “big guys” are gonna be sure to have ‘more military stuff.’