Enlightened Conflict

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? <I will get back to you 10 years from now on that question>.

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.

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 <I am not suggesting I am as smart as any of our forefathers>.

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 <I admit that>.

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.

imbalance creating global unrest

February 17th, 2012

Ok.

This was a complicated one to write. Partially my own issue in that I study cyclical history (the study of the fact we are doomed to make the same errors because of generational experience … or lack of experience depending on where we are in the cycle).

Economist WorldMap global unrest

As well as I see how attitudes affect behavior day in and day out.

Regardless.

I will probably hit on all these things as I think, and discuss what appears to be a world becoming more troublesome and increasingly challenging right before our eyes.

And to some people, the end of the world as we know it … is upon us.

Apparently enough people feel that way because National Geographic Channel has a new reality show, Doomsday Preppers, which profiles Americans who have taken extreme measures to plan for a forthcoming apocalypse — whether natural disaster, nuclear war or economic crisis.

Oh. And the channel commissioned an online survey of 1,007 adults in the USA, and found that 61% of Americans believe the country will experience a major catastrophic event within the next 20 years.

(so … they had proof)

Personally I find programs like that silly and simply fueling the discussion …. But … inevitably they are in the entertainment business (although you would like to believe National Geographic could rise above the entertainment mud).

But.

To give them a break I do know that I have been involved I several bar conversations with friends who have wondered out loud whether “will it really be okay?”

Anyway.

Let me suggest a one word reason for why we all feel this unrest.

Imbalance

Imbalance.

It may sound too simplistic but sometimes the best answers are that simple.

There is imbalance in the inequality of income (haves and have nots).

There is an imbalance in global economic superiority (as the power of economy shifts).

There is an imbalance in government (if you think about it … almost 2/3^rd of the world population will be affected by elections in the next year and a half). Oh. And that doesn’t even take into consideration the ‘unexpected’ elections like in the middle east and countries in Africa.

There is an imbalance in currency & debt (anything financial makes people nervous).

There is an imbalance in military and politics (there is no such thing as a military war anymore … only geopolitical wars using military to enforce ideological aims).

On an even bigger scale … there is an imbalance not just globally but within individual country construct & infrastructure (and THIS creates an unsettling thought of country mortality, i.e., will my country even exist type thinking).

All that imbalance (which is real) unsettles people emotionally. And the perception of risk is based largely on emotion. Inevitably people tend to pay more attention to large-scale events (and troubles) that is unlikely rather than less catastrophic events that are more probable.

Emotionally people are tired … and some unexpected things are arising.

Social revolutions, or social upheavals at a minimum, adds to the general feel of geopolitical & global unrest & turmoil.

We focused (in the West) on the Arab world which has been swept by the Arab Spring that we rushed to label as a chain of “democratic revolutions” (social revolution for ‘the good’).

Unfortunately (although probably foreseeable if we had taken the time to think about it) the Arab spring turned later in the year to new regimes, which combine the old authoritarianism with Islamism, and appear to offer far weaker stability.

In addition. Most ‘developed democratic-leaning’ countries predicted that the seeds of the Arab Spring would spring forth in Russia or China. Yet instead social revolution erupted in places where no one had expected them. in an especially remarkable phenomenon social protests and revolts have burst in the grassroots of affluent Western societies, and although the demonstrators calling for the occupation of Wall Street and other places refer to the example of the Arab Spring, the causes of protests in the West are certainly not rooted in tyranny combined with corruption, or in informational semi-openness and semi-famine evidenced in the Arab world but rather a more foundational “imbalance” (or inequality) which is an inherent belief (if not an actual truth) within democratic societies.

What does all this mean?

Uncertainty of Nations

Well. it translates into creating a larger general uncertainty of nations.

Uhm. Yeah. Uncertainty of nations (and empires). For example … while it is easy to think of today’s European countries as natural sub-units of the continent they were often welded together from a mix of peoples, overlapping in the same physical terrain, but willing to live together in some varying degree of harmony. And time & time again we have seen examples of situations where that welding has come apart (Soviet Union, Austrian empire, ottoman empire to Turkey, Yugoslavia, among examples).

Therefore this deeper emotional underpinning has a longer term functional foundation (based on reality).

Whether there is a conscious inherent knowledge residing in people’s brains or not we are all steeped in a historical knowledge we have gathered over the years.

That means subconsciously we are quite aware that many city/states have disappeared over time.

Do we believe it can happen today … and to us?

Well. I am not sure this is all about “belief” but rather it is about ‘possibilities’.

The possibility it could happen.

It is a possibility & understanding that “nothing lasts forever.” History argues that while today’s major countries may seem permanent, they too will eventually fade, or change into very different forms.

This is, above all, an unprecedentedly swift redistribution of power in the economy, accompanied by an increasing redistribution of power in politics. Even Europe is considering asking for financial assistance from the communist China (who would have ever thought that) and Russia is forcing itself into the oil economy (and using it as a tool to politically maneuver).

We are witnesses to an unfolding sharp competition for natural resources, food and even land/territories that looks much like what happened in 1850 – 1950 period. The old geopolitical struggle is obviously making a comeback – on a markedly new footing.

depth & breadth

I think what is surprising everyone is the depth & breadth of the unrest.

Maybe call it a sea of change.

Yemen, Sudan, USA, china, Afghanistan, Belarus, Ukraine, Israel/Palestine, Egypt, Greece, Tunisia, ivory coast, north & south Korea … the list seems endless.

The list includes big & small.

It feels like the highest level of turmoil and unrest globally I have felt in my lifetime.

What is going on in the Middle East just seems part of something far bigger.

Who would have thought we would see protesters in Iran, New York City, Paris, Moscow, Kiev all at the same time.

It is reminiscent of the labor protests that spanned America and all of Europe in the early 1900s when communism was rearing its head for the first time.

With that 1900 reference …

Does the fetid breath of world war three whispers in our ears? (source: foreign affairs essay)

Well.

On one hand World War Three seems long overdue in the cycle of things. World War Two was supposed to be the war that ended all wars in the world. And while there was a Soviet Union and a USA and a Cold War, the geopolitical situation was balanced. But with the shifting of economic power among a variety of nations vying for superiority (power) things are now unbalanced.

Anyway.

I mention WW2 because it does feel like a WW3 (or some version of it) sometimes feels imminent.

And as noted earlier all we have to think of is the late 1800’s into early 1900’s (uh oh. Didn’t that lead to the Balkan wars which eventually bled into WW1? Yes).

Look.

I am not suggesting we are aiming for a global conflict … but I am suggesting we should be prepared for another couple of years of turmoil.

And mentally be prepared … because it isn’t Armageddon … it is simply a confluence of factors & change.

I mentioned the Balkan Wars (and WW1 earlier) because one of the scary features of WW1 is that few of the great powers attached much value to maintaining the peace as things escalated.

In that I set up a scary proposition.

Is history repeating itself?

Are there things we should think about as we watch what is occurring around the world today?

Let me go back to the late 1880’s leading into World War 1.

Several things created the perfect storm for WW1 but simplistically it was a combination of social unrest (labor & communism), cultural unrest (countries welded together were becoming unglued as each distinct segment sought some individuality) and alliance/national power.

Almost every country was truly trying to deflect domestic issues by focusing on foreign issues. It is a fact that leaders are more likely to engage in diversionary foreign policy behavior only when domestic unrest threatens a loss of political support from groups that are politically important to the leadership.

By the time all aspects of all causes had reached their apex almost every nation involved was just looking for an excuse to start the war.

Regardless. Some interesting things from this time period:

- Dollar diplomacy — President Taft urged American banks and businesses to invest in Latin America. He promised that the United States would step in if unrest threatened their investments.

- Spanish-American War: Puerto Rico was annexed by the United States. The United States asserted the right to intervene in Cuban affairs.

- Panama Canal and the role of Theodore Roosevelt (boy … this one is going to sound an awful like middle east waterways and supporting middle east ‘democracies’)

United States encouraged Panama’s independence from Colombia.

- U.S. efforts to depose Hawaii’s monarchy; U.S. annexation of Hawaii.

- Americans wanted to “make the world safe for democracy.” – Woodrow Wilson

- In 1890’s (report from the Superintendent of the Census):

Many Americans believed U.S. had to expand or explode … increase in population, wealth, and industrial production demanded more resource.

Some feared existing resources in U.S. might eventually dry up

Panic of 1893 convinced some businessmen industry had overexpanded resulting in overproduction & underconsumption

Labor violence and agrarian unrest (Populism) rampant due to industrialism.

- Foreign trade becoming increasingly important to American economy in late 19th c.

Americans considered acquiring new colonies to expand markets further.

And we shouldn’t ignore the ‘little things’ that led to WW1:

Venezuela Crisis, 1902 – Germany sank two Venezuelan gunboats trying to seek forced payment for heavy Venezuelan debt to Germany.

Russo-Japanese War (1904) and Japanese-American relations

Russia and Japan went to war over issue of ports in Manchuria & Korea.

- Japan destroyed much of Russian fleet (this was the first defeat of a non-European power since the Turkish invasion of 1500s

- As war dragged on, Japanese ran short of men and money.

- Theodore Roosevelt eager to prevent either side from gaining a monopoly in Asia but did not seek war (Japan secretly asked Roosevelt to help sponsor peace negotiations)

I am not going to walk through every correlation between past events and current events because some are too obvious to ignore.

Different time and different attitude? Surely.

But to ignore re-occurring events is like putting your head in the sand.

Here is the good news from a military war perspective:

And, in fact, military campaigns have actually turned into international political campaigns. The new strategic logic aims not to destroy an enemy state but to overpower it with a view to subordinating it to the victor’s interests politically and economically. The meaning of war has changed from inflicting a military defeat on the enemy to “tailoring” it to the attacker’s needs.( Alexei Bogaturov, Russian Foreign Ministry.

So.

As I said earlier.

There is an imbalance in military and politics (there is no such thing as a military war anymore … only geopolitical wars using military to enforce ideological aims).

A World War3? Probably not. Today’s ideologies dampen enthusiasm for that extensive a conflict. It is more of a geopolitical conflict than a military one (where military is subservient to politics and more enforcing ideological direction rather than simply destroying the enemy).

But.

I would imagine there is an exception to this thought … where someone with enough military impact decides to break the code. And like dominoes (similar to WW1) militarily things escalate.

If I were in Las Vegas I would put it at low odds … but it could happen.

In the end … individuals or nations?

Interestingly the internet plays a role in the unrest. It has created a platform for a Global Voice therefore making differences between nations and antagonism between peoples less and less on a daily basis. The unrest is actually being created not between nations but rather more often WITHIN the nation.

It is an interesting unexpected dynamic.

It is antagonism between classes moreso than antagonism between nations.

And I imagine that makes the unbalance hit each of us on more of a personal level.

That said.

As I have said many times before. Individuals can make a difference.

And we can impact the depth & breadth as well as the feelings that are all part of social unrest.

And, in the end, the unrest will only really end when we find some balance.

Because the balance will end up linking domestic change and international conflict … ‘war’ conflicts combined with labor/social unrest.

And with today’s far reaching technology, while there are natural Global conflict cycles, conflict (or unrest) feeds upon itself.

Think about this (and bear with me because I won’t have the numbers exactly right but you get the point)..

Over 25% of the world’s countries will have a change in government (this includes China, USA & Russia).

That is natural domestic unrest.

And it creates some global angst … as this affects almost 50% of the population with these three alone.

I say that to help people understand there is going to be some natural unrest globally just due to the cycle of governmental things.

But those things bleed into our psyche.

And it all becomes exacerbated by many countries which are experiencing immense difficulty in adapting to the results of shared unrest (and shared thinking).

And all nations are concerned at any prospect of losing a meaningful role in the global society.

And all governments are haunted by the specter of unrest and revolution <and as a result many are far too happy to deflect conflict from the domestic scene to foreign affairs and to form dangerous domestic alliances>.

Hold on to something tight because this isn’t going to end for another 2 years (at minimum).

My prediction is that this is a decade-long shift of power before we find true balance again (thankfully I believe that decade began in maybe 2009 or so).

Ok.

That’s what I am thinking about all the global unrest … oops … global imbalance.

No solutions here … just observations.

story of 2 americas part 1 – the haves

April 26th, 2011

So.

This is a story about 2 Americas and the recession.

This is a story about the haves and the have nots.

PewResearch calls this the story of the “One Recession, 2 Americas.”

And this article focuses on the ‘haves.’

Ok.

Let me begin with the fact that a lot of people are making a lot of money writing points of view on the effect of the recession on people’s behavior. And while I am not making any money on the topic I surely have written my point of view on the ongoing behavioral effect the recession will have on consumer shopping.

What I do know for sure is that there have been a lot of sweeping generalizations.

And I also know for sure that the media hasn’t helped in forging a quasi-untrue belief that the recession has affected everyone’s behavior and crippled the economy.

But.

It hasn’t.

A little less then ½ of American households are holding their own (and behavior wise aren’t doing a whole lot different than they were before). I have research to support that statement (although I believe it without research).

Ok.

I am going to try and make two points here. First is on current behavior. And second will be what current behavior means to ongoing (future) behavior.

First.

Current behavior. Let’s try this factoid out to maybe reset everyone’s thinking a little.

45% of Americans said they have “held their own” during the recession (PewResearchCenter 9/10).

This 45% of Americans have made some different fiscal decisions but the majority has done nothing differently (per the research).

Look. I am not suggesting that 55% saying they were affected should be ignored (and in fact my next post will be about them) but I am suggesting that there are a boatload of people who are just humming along like they have always been doing (and many are hiding their behavior out of guilt in front of the other 55%). And I do recognize that this study didn’t deeply measure all the attitudinal things that come along with a recession so I imagine even the 45% of America thought some ‘fear’ things and probably were more cautious about expenditures. But the research shows some interesting things about this group that represents almost half of America:

- Only 4% of this group say they have increased debt to pay bills

- Only about 30% said they have cut back on the amount they are saving

- About 50% of this group said the single biggest adjustment they have on their lives is changing some spending patterns (“we cut back on some luxuries & vacations” – me: didn’t eliminate – “we eat out less often”- me: didn’t eliminate)

Note: Pew calls this a minor adjustment

- As for ‘major adjustments?

NO (that’s zero to all my readers) members of this group say the recession has “caused them to make any major changes in the way they live” (yikes). Yes. 45% of Americans made no major adjustments to their behavior.

- Halfway into the 3^rd year of a recession 50% of this group report they are “living quite comfortably” (thank you very much)

Just some interesting things before I move on (just some factoids).

This 45% is more likely to live in suburbs & rural areas and on the east coast, be older, higher educated and more affluent.

Ok. Basically “the haves” (the upper & upper middle income) pretty much was sheltered and lower middle class and lower income got screwed (but that is a different post about the increasing split between the haves and the have nots).

Next.

Ongoing behavior.

Let’s think about some of the implications from the current behavior research information.

Basically 45% of America hasn’t changed current behavior.

So common sense would tell you that their ongoing and future behavior won’t change.

The haves will continue to “feed” the American “can do” spirit and “bigger/more is better” attitude. And, oh by the way, they will continue to grow and increase the gap between themselves and the have nots. At an increasing speed. Yes. This 45% will foster whatever positive growth arises from the recession but they will benefit more so (and foster a very healthy luxury segment to the dismay of the have nots).

Let me finish this thought by saying 45% of America is a boatload of people.

Mucho people and mucho money.

Not to say 55% isn’t a bigger number but 45% ain’t nothin’ to sneeze at (and they represent a disproportionate percentage of the overall American wealth).

So before you say “the recession has changed the way the business will be conducted forever” just take a moment and remember … 45% of America doesn’t seem to have changed a bit.

Looking ahead.

My next post is about the “have nots” or what the PewResearch calls “Lost Ground” (the 55% of those who seem to be truly affected by the recession).

the story of 2 americas part 2 – the “have nots”

April 26th, 2011

Ok.

Back to the story of the 2 Americas. This is chapter two.

As a reminder. The Pew Research Center released survey results titled “Two Recessions, Two Americas.” The Pew pollsters asked people about their economic wellbeing during the recession. Interestingly Pew found that America fell into two distinct groups — one that had multiple financial setbacks since December 2007 (“Lost Ground”) and another that reported they had held their own (“Held Their Owns”).

Chapter one was on the “haves.” The 45% of Americans that clearly stated they were doing just fine (thank you very much) despite the recession. (PewResearch 2010)

Chapter 2 is about the other 55% of America. The group that Pew refers to as the “lost ground” group. (same research source)

Let’s call them the “have nots.”

Look. I fully understand that nobody was untouched by the recession that began in December 2007, but this 55% has been hit hard.

Very hard.

The have nots, this 55 percent, well, this is a tough one in the US because this has been coming for awhile in US (as well as most developed countries).

“This” is the increasing gap between the haves and the have nots. The recession has simply exacerbated the situation.

Exponentially speeding up the size of the gap.

It’s a fact.

According to the statistics of the US government, over 32 million people (12.7 percent of total US population) live under the poverty line.

Just to make a point. This incidence of poverty is higher than in the 1970s and higher than in most other industrialized countries.

So. The “lost ground” 55 percent has not only lost ground but in losing ground has started the slide into a hole. A deep hole.

A poverty lined hole (a hole that has very slippery sides and no hand grips).

In other words. An incredibly difficult hole to climb back out of as the economy and their situation improves.

And (even worse) beyond the recession there several things that are going to keep them in the hole (versus say when we came out of the great depression).

Oh.

And it won’t be the increased gas prices (I wanted to take on the economic media darling first). Because we do have transit. Cars are a choice. Gas simply creates a change in behavior and choice (no matter how much that may kill us).

So what’s gonna keep the majority of the current ‘have not’s in the hole?

Basic living will cost more.

The biggest culprit (keeping them in ‘have not’ land)?

Rising food prices.

It’s the basics that will hold them down. The basics are going to cost more. Over the next 10 years food costs are expected to increase 4% annually outstripping the expected consumer growth (real GDP only 3%).

Seems small difference … but has big repercussions.

It may be surprising to many people but a great number of Americans suffer from poverty and hunger. An investigation by the US Department of Agriculture in March 2000 showed that 9.7 percent of American families did not have enough food. At least 10 percent of families in 18 states and Washington D.C. often suffered from hunger and malnutrition. In 1998, 37 million American families did not have enough food.

Ok.

Next (that will attack the basics of living).

Inflation. It’s on the way. Not extraordinary levels but enough combined with rising food costs to continue to chip away at the basic cost of living.

Will the inflation be crippling? Nope. But it’s like basic living is dying a death of a thousand small cuts.

Next?

Unemployment will remain higher than during the boom.

We will have to learn to accept the fact that while 10% unemployment (kind of like the Mendoza line of unemployment) will not be the norm, 6-8% could certainly be here to stay.

Anyway.

All of these things will not only maintain this big gap between the haves and have-nots but will exacerbate the situation.

The gap between the rich and poor has widened and the living standards of the labor force have gone from bad to worse. The ongoing issues of poverty (and poverty level living), hunger, medical services and homelessness continue to prove difficult to solve.

Some have and have-not gap factoids:

- The gap between the rich and poor in the United States grew at the same pace as the economic growth. Statistics show that the richest 1 percent of the US citizens own 40 percent of the total property of the country, while 80 percent of US citizens own just 16 percent.

- Since the 1990s, 40 percent of the increased wealth went into the pockets of the rich minority, while only 1 percent went to the poor majority.

- From 1977 to 1999, the after-tax income of the richest 20 percent of American families increased by 43 percent, while that of the poorest 20 percent decreased 9 percent, allowing for inflation. The actual income of those living on the lowest salaries was even less than 30 years ago.

The bottom line is that the gap between the wealthiest Americans and the poorest is bigger than at any time since just before the 1920’s Depression. According to an analysis this year by Edward Wolff of NYU, the top 20 percent of wealthy individuals own about 85 percent of the wealth. And the bottom 40 percent own very near 0 percent.

Many in that bottom 40 percent not only have no assets … they have negative net wealth.

Just think about that 40% number for one second.

Now. While the numbers are not exactly apples-to-apples all of what I have typed so far suggests that 55% of America clearly is falling into the “have not” group and almost 2/3rds of that 55% have NEGATIVE net wealth.

Nada.

Nothin’.

That’s a big fat less than zero (just to be clear).

Ok.

Let me continue the downer story for this 55%.

This group of households is scary to look at for a variety of reasons.

They are truly struggling financially now.
They are truly struggling emotionally now (let’s call this the “hope factor”)
They are truly increasingly struggling financially (they are on the financial slippery slope and slipping at an increasing speed which means reversal is increasingly difficult)
Their emotional future “hope factor” looks dismal thru their eyes.

Ok.

What is something that could help the have-nots get out of have-not land and get going toward the have land?

Education (because education and income is tightly intertwined).

Unfortunately the education situation in the United States is surprisingly bad. According to a report in USA Today (11/29/00) illiteracy is still a serious problem (despite the fact America is a highly developed country). Some factoids:

- One in five high school graduates cannot read his or her diploma.

- 85 percent of unwed mothers are illiterate.

- 70 percent of Americans arrested are illiterate.

- 21 million Americans cannot read.

- According to a child protection foundation, 71 percent of fourth graders are not at the education level they ought to be.

- The dropout rate among college students has risen to 37 percent

- College tuition has grown faster than the increase of middle class families’ income.

Statistics from the US Census Bureau show that the income of middle class families increased only 10 percent from 1989 to 1999, while the college tuition increased 51 percent during the same period.

The average college tuition in 1999 was 8,086 US dollars, accounting for 62 percent of the income of low-income families.

The average tuition fee of private colleges was 21,339 US dollars in 1999, up 34 percent over 1989 (while middle class family income only increased 10% over the same period), accounting for 162 percent of the income of poor families, but only making up for four percent of the income of rich families.

Here is the kicker conclusion to this point.

More than 30 million low-income families could not afford to send their children to community colleges (US Census Bureau).

(ouch)

The have-not affect (tighter family budgets) is also appearing in shopping behavior within this 55% of “lost ground. There has been a boom in budget-priced goods. Manufacturers are bundling items such as toilet paper and garbage bags in sizes that can sell for a dollar. And instead of going to Wal-Mart to find bargains, Americans are heading to dollar stores.

The budget mindset has gone to such levels that dollar stores are actually “stealing heavy shoppers” from Wal-Mart (according to one research firm … and I think it’s true). Visits to dollar stores increased 2.6% from June 2009 to June 2010 while during the same period visits to big box stores such as Wal-Mart declined 7%.

Look. 55% of any group changing their overall behavior (shopping or whatever) affects the economy and its components (stores, service providers, etc.)

Oh.

And this isn’t just poverty or lower income people. The 55% is made up of all income levels (below wealthy that, as noted in the first part of this write up, aren’t really changing any behavior). Keeping with the dollar store example. They are no longer just a shopping alternative for low income Americans. Some upper income people are also going to Family Dollar in search of bargains. And LOTS of middle income people are shopping at dollar stores.

In conclusion.

The term “have-not” is far reaching. And deep reaching. ‘Not having’ is going to have repercussions to this group of people to the extent it will affect future generations.

Hunger affects brain power.

Lack of education affects productivity and increases ignorance.

Ignorance leads to increased conflict.

The depth of the have-not is like dominos.

Once the first falls they start going. Oh. And the start going faster and faster because they are placed on a downward incline.

So.

That is my post on the have-nots.

Dismal, wasn’t it? (yes)

Let’s move on to my last chapter of this story.

recession impact the final chapter

April 26th, 2011

Ok. All of these recession impact articles I have been creating.

Part one focused on the haves.

Part two focused on the have nots.

Where does this all take us?

Part 3. My final chapter.

And just some musings on what this all means for the future (or possibilities).

First.

This huge increasing gap between haves and have-nots makes you begin thinking about wealth redistribution. I am NOT a wealth redistribution believer. But I am also a huge believer that when things are really out of whack you need to do something about it. Or maybe better said ‘perpetuate the change that needs to take place to enable it not being out of whack.’

(just one more reason I couldn’t work in government because they would never say something as simple as that)

Look.

This gap is an issue. Ok. Not an issue … a problem.

There was actually a recent American study (sampling young and old, men and women, rich and poor, liberal and conservative) to answer two questions.

They first were asked to estimate the current level of wealth inequality in the United States, and then they were asked about what they saw as an ideal level of wealth inequality.

Results:

- Americans drastically underestimated the current gap between the very rich and the poor.

The typical respondent believed that the top 20 percent of Americans owned 60 percent of the wealth, and the bottom 40 percent owned 10 percent. They knew, in other words, that wealth in the United States was not distributed equally, but were unaware of just how unequal that distribution was.

- Americans definition of desired state is significantly different than reality.

Respondents identified their ideal distribution of wealth as the top 20 percent to own just over 30 percent of the wealth, and the bottom 40 percent to own about 25 percent. They still wanted the rich to be richer than the poor, but they wanted the disparity to be much less extreme.

So why did I decide to include this additional factoid?

Well. Because misperceptions like this create social tension.

And social tension leads to inefficient society (at its least damaging). And leads to conflict (at its most damaging).

Tension? Yup. Not only is the gap very very real. But people underestimate the real gap (and are still unhappy). And they believe the real gap should be significantly different than the current truth.

So when reality becomes a common truth the proverbial shit is gonna hit the fan.

(because 55% of America is a shitload of people … some may even suggest it is a majority).

You can hear the rumblings even now.

I do know some things for sure.

A minority can make a difference in the way things are shaped.

A passionate majority WILL make a difference in the way things are shaped.

Am I suggesting an Egypt like revolt? Geez. I don’t think so. But. Hunger and “have envy” can create some true unruliness when it incorporates the masses (and not a minority).

With that said I will leave this particular musing on my part with a thought pulled directly from the May/June Foreign Affairs magazine:

“ … deteriorating ability to provide basic services and the government’s indifference to widespread unemployment and poverty alienated tens of millions of …”

Yes.

That is headline on page one of the new Foreign Affairs magazine. Is it about America? Nope. Its about Egypt. But quite scarily the phrase could certainly embody the America situation if we are not careful.

Ok.

Back to that wealth redistribution and recognizing things are out of whack and the fact we should (need) to do something about it.

Can I offer a real solution? Nope.

Well. (Maybe I have a point of view type thought solution)

I do believe we can learn from the past.

America pulled itself out of the 1920’s depression though a variety of actions but let me focus on internal infrastructure development.

Face it. FDR was a crafty guy. First. He recognized the idle hands do no mean idle minds so he kept people busy ‘doing things.’ Second. He realized if they were going to ‘do something’ it may as well benefit the entire USofA.

He made a boatload of people go ‘do’ building dams and bridges and roads and highways and … well … infrastructure type stuff.

The result?

A shitload of people were not idle.

A shitload of people were being productive.

And a shitload of things were created that reshaped that world and enabled the life we live these days. It kinda seems the perfect opportunity to do exactly the same thing now.

Build. Create. Do.

On a personal note (about what t actually ‘do’ in this case) … I will suggest that a hi-speed rail system is the most obvious infrastructure project America focus on.

And the costs & returns & usability analysis that are slowing it down are so crazy wrong that … well … its crazy. We are currently a car driven society. Of course all analysis would make hi speed rail look bad. True sweeping behavioral shifts are next to impossible to forecast.

That said.

Build the frickin’ hi speed rail.

Build living infrastructure to support it (cities and towns).

Drive gas prices up to European levels.

Build less cars.

And we will solve a shitload of problems.

Ok.

Back to the post.

Wealth redistribution probably isn’t the answer. But the problem needs to be resolved somehow.

Next.

Moral fiber of America.

Sound silly to bring up when discussing haves and have-nots and income gaps and crap like that? Shit. I don’t know. But it does seem like this whole thing is a test of our moral fiber.

Even a capitalistic society has to have some morals (it cannot just be about survival of the capitalistic fittest and all that stuff).

And can we truly sit back and watch that 55% have-not group slip lower & lower?

And watch them try to claw their way out of the hole they are in as the economy improves (recognizing it is next to impossible to get out of that hole within their lifetime)?

And watch 55% of America mired in despair when they should be invested in hope (because isn’t that what America is supposed to offer)?

I don’t know.

I think it would be tough to sleep at night if we didn’t do something. And I don’t mean token ‘somethings’ but real significant game changing ‘somethings.’

PewResearch called this “2 Americas.”

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I guess the real point of me writing so much on this and saying some of the things I said is …

aren’t we 1 America?