I agree Jackie that unfortunately the Republican party has lost its way. They do use religion to form a voting block which hopes for a quid pro quo. The religious right hopes to shove their values down the throats of those not so enlightened, and I suppose some imagine a lofty position somewhere close to God himself as their reward. Others are pretenders who use religion to collect money from their flock in order to drive a nice mercedes and live in a castle. Call me a cynic, but I believe that propagandists are alive and well on both ends of the political spectrum. I believe they are represented on every network that you can tune your TV into. I also believe that some of the politicians that claim to be looking out for the poor on the left are actually building a voting block similar to what the right does with the religious nuts. They cut deals for votes and look for opportunity to turn power into nice cold cash. The bigger the government is, the more money that is funneled through Washington, the more corruption we can expect.
I know that politics is a distasteful business. I never idealized Democrats. In the best of all realistically possible worlds, we would have political parties that represent separate legitimate perspectives such as "conservatives" and "progressives". We might assume that progress is a good thing, but so is tradition. Conservatism would insure that progress didn't happen more quickly than the culture could assimilate it (which could possibly be destabilizing).
Within constitutional boundaries, ideas should be able to compete without resorting to intellectual dishonesty. The conservatism of Buckley and Goldwater was small government, laissez-faire and libertarian. This could have balanced well with those who believe that the federal (and state and local governments, too) can and should take on certain tasks for the good of the population as a whole.
The big government corporate expansionist agenda of the neoconservatives combined with the religious right's crusades to regulate private lives of citizens was a recipe for either disaster or fascism. Or both. This combination is a deadly mixture of un-American ideologies that is far too heavily involved with social concerns (whether on the macro scale of the neocons with their Zionist and imperialist agendas - Bush Doctrine - or the micro level with the religious right trying to legislate private behaviors) instead of economic concerns, which is really the only true charge of the government when you get down to it.
The decline of the Republicans started in earnest with Reagan. I remember spending Friday evenings during the 80's (one of the few things I remember from that time period) watching Louis Ruykeyser and wondering why it was a good thing to have a big national debt. The fat cats would praise the debt week after week. I didn't buy it then or now.
The New Republicans spawned the New Democrats like Clinton who didn't provide a balance when it came to economic issues. In retrospect, had Clinton not kept Greenspan (had Clinton not been cut from the same economic cloth as the Republicans who preceded him and followed him) we may well have prevented the current economic situation. Our two party system devolved into contrasting on social issues instead of representing alternate perspectives on economic issues as they should have. We lost balance because we were distracted by social issues.I blame the conservative Republican neocons for this pile of poo.
It's unfortunate that Alan Greenspan's admission that he was "shocked and amazed" that he was wrong about his Objectivist laissez-faire principals was overshadowed by the election news coverage. I admire Greenspan's honesty in admitting he was so wrong about something that had such devastating consequences. Many in his position would have gone straight into denial and stayed until they were dead. He had too much faith in the free market.
Money is power and power needs to be kept in check. Some would call this redistribution of wealth. I would say that society as a whole has a responsibility to keep the greedy contained. The government is the social entity that represents everyone. The egoist nature of human beings will exploit for personal advantage until there is nothing left to exploit. Our current situation is simply an example of The Tragedy of the Commons. Individuals acting in their own self interest will sacrifice long term benefits for short term gain unless the community as a whole penalizes them.
We all lose by having a weakened and discredited Republican party. We benefit from diverse ideas and opinions. I hope they get their act together. The hardcore religious right is a relatively small percentage. They should pursue their agendas through their churches and in their private lives. They'd have more success if they stopped wasting energy and attention trying to turn private matters into public crusades. The Republicans need to stop courting this vote. It dumbs them down. The neocons have had their day, too. They have failed miserably and the entire philosophy has been discredited. Boot them.
Big government belongs to Democrats. The Republicans can't handle it. They will apply it to things the government needs to stay out of.
Big government plus laissez-faire economics leads to fascism because it gives the moneyed both the power of money and the power of government. This leaves the disadvantaged and the society at large vulnerable. Big government needs to lend power to those without money.Government should anticipate the greed that leads to exploitation and white collar thievery with appropriate regulation and enforcement of standards.The government should acknowledge that an educated and healthy population ultimately benefits business. To require that business absorb the costs for education and health care through the tax structure is not unfair to business.It is unfair to do otherwise.
No, Alan. The Democratic Party's propaganda machine is a firecracker compared to the Republican's H-bomb. They try to keep up with the Republicans, but their message doesn't lend itself to demagoguery to the degree the Republican message does.It has something to do with the the ideas, I think. Both Kerry and Obama were criticized for being unable to answer questions with short answers. It's hard for me to say what I have to say in a few words. "Conservatives" relate through absolutes. "Liberals" relate through nuance. The Democratic players don't seem to be as willing to stick to scripts or go for the soundbite.
I'm sitting here watching Rachel Maddow who has an unabashed liberal bias. Rachel is no Sean Hannity. Keith Olbermann is no Bill O'Reilly. Al Franken was never on his best day the equal to Rush Limbaugh.
But, sometimes we have to hit the bottom to see the truth for what it is and change direction. It could be that the Republicans have finally become irrevocably unraveled by their own disingenuous tactics. The Sarah Palin wing of the party wasn't supposed to take over from the elites. But it has. It has done this during a time of relative weakness on the part of the religious right - at least as far as leadership and organization goes. Eventually people will expect to see behaviors in people that matches the rhetoric from their mouths. Those who label themselves "Christians", "Conservatives" and patriotic defenders of American values better show characteristics of "Conservatives", "Christians",and "Patriots". I can't be so cynical to believe that given enough time, the truth doesn't win out.
As to money going to Washington being corrupting, I seriously doubt that you are as right as it might seem that you are on the surface. Governments get progressively more corrupt as they get more local. I cringe every time I hear talk about funneling federal funds to local governments. This is where the corruption and waste occurs. It would be far safer in the hands of federal bureaucracy. This sounds intuitively wrong, I know, but the feds actually do a good job in many respects. Government employees are often excellent and honest stewards of the public trust. There is always going to be corruption. This needs to be minimized, of course. But this corruption is not about the government. It's about human nature. Federal officials are under a great deal of scrutiny. They don't get away with as much abuse as people believe.
Privatization is not a good deal for the taxpayer. It adds another layer of expense and a profit motivation. We should not give up control of our military and essential services to private interests. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
Too much regulation is repressive to the markets. Too little invites abuses. Not all tax cuts are needed. There is time to stop lowering taxes. There is a time to require business to pay their fair share. The world doesn't end, and the economy doesn't come screeching to a halt because business and corporate taxes go up.
This is not a good time to endorse deregulation. Deregulation has had it's day, and we need to turn back a bit while we pay the price for the plenty we have been enjoying for too long. I should add that we should be wary of promises of "tax cuts", especially for businesses. Supply-side economics (voodoo economics according to George H.W. Bush)is a seriously flawed model. We need to give up a lot of commonly held beliefs because they have no basis.
I think I've done all I need to do on this blog before the election. I need to work on my mail a bit and get my new garage in order.
My friend Phil called me a while ago to tell me that he had been listening to Air America and heard that the Republicans were going to steal yet another election.Maybe so. What do I know?
LOL! Well, get some sleep. I agree with you on most of what you said. I just don't see eye to eye with you on economics. I do think there is a high likelihood of corruption where ever government funds are concentrated. Local and federal, no doubt about it. I do believe that most CEO's are wildly overpaid but what can we do about that, as a stock holder I hate it but what are we going to do, mandate maximum payments to CEO's ? (hmmm, maybe not a bad idea) I do believe that blue collar workers are underpaid along with a lot of others in society, especially teachers. That is especially unfortunate because our kids are definitely the future of our country and our families. The school system in our city sucks ! Why is it, that a our private school can pay LESS per teacher/student than public schools yet out perform them on standardized tests. This is a fact in Little Rock and from what I have read, we are not an exception. I think there is a place for privatization. The military is not one of them. I believe the current crisis has a lot to do with information transfer being so rapid and regulation not keeping up with those realities. I am especially turned off by the religious right wing of the Republican party. They look like nut jobs to me, but there are plenty on the far left that also look pretty nutty. Did you see Ben Affleck's parody of Keith Olberman on SNL Hilarious!
Ha! I just realized that the clock I've been looking at wasn't set back. I have an extra hour to answer email.
"Man's ego is the fountainhead of human progress."
If this is true, the the opposite is true as well. "Man's ego is a dry well of human regression."
This is for my Howard Roark II (you know who you are ;-)
I intended to say more about Objectivism as it relates to the current economic crisis vis a vis Greenspan's well known adherence to Rand's principles. So here it is.
Objectivism has long been a popular paradigm with young people, but typically loses credibility as people mature. I'm not totally sure why this is. Maybe it is because of her black and white thinking. (and maybe naive, anti-intellectual thinking) This kind of thinking is characteristic of those who believe that their subjective experience IS objective. This is not usually a good thing, Howard II. Usually it is awful for cooperative relationships of any kind, because it ignores the perspectives and needs of the other people involved. Worse, even from a self-interest perspective, is that this egoist attitude precludes learning from those who may know something that would help you be even better.
There is one glaring problem with Howard Roark. His art needed other people's money. The purpose of his buildings was to serve the shelter needs of those other than himself. Building being large and imposing would be seen by people. In other words, Howard needs cooperators. Only a jerk would subordinate the needs of so many others or expect others would acknowledge his "vision" as superior.
This may or may not be relevant, but history has not supported Howard's aesthetic. Modern buildings like Howard's designs can't be torn down fast enough these days. They are considered ugly, soulless, and boring. I recall a high-rise housing project that was destroyed, I think, in the 70's because it was deemed that the design was so empty and cold (heartless) that the building was unfit for human habitation. (that brought to mind the housing project that Howard designed then blew up because his design was compromised) I also recall reading that the sketches of Howard's buildings that were seen in the movie would have been impossible to engineer.
Howard is a humorless, joyless selfish SOB who takes himself way too seriously. His so-called "integrity" is a false virtue based on the narcissist's typically narrow perspective that projects his subjective experience on objects outside himself. This limited perspective should not be idealized as being "true" to himself. Howard's intransigence prevents him from developing his talents because he never learns to incorporate a broader more inclusive perspective in his work. If, as he states, his work is only about HIS needs and HIS visions and the needs of others be damned, he should have chosen a more personal direction for his creative expression instead of violating the boundaries of others by expecting that his needs alone be accommodated when his projects actually belonged to others and would be used and seen by others. He was designing buildings that could not be built without the cooperation of countless other people. He required the creative efforts of others to realize his ideas. He needed creative input in the form of the wealth his financiers created to pay for the buildings. He needed the creative skills of the laborers who actually formed the buildings. He needed to meet the aesthetic and practical needs of those who would use the building. But his work was all about him as far as he was concerned. This is screwy thinking. Especially since his buildings might be shit that other people have to pay for and live with.
I know that you, Howard II, admire Frank Lloyd Wright. I like his buildings myself, but their flat roofs leak. This causes those who own his lovely buildings a lot of trouble - long after Wright himself is dead and gone.
This link is to the courtroom soliloquy Gary Cooper (Howard) makes in The Fountainhead movie. It is pure BS. (The whole screenplay sucks. It was written by Rand herself.) His speech is full of false dicotomies. Life isn't a battle between the individual and the collective. That's crap. Life is about a collective of individuals using their individual talents and working together. There is no either/or. There is only one. And it isn't Howard. Howard is only a small part of the one.
Howard's perspective is childish, immature and destructive. It is completely narcissistic. He requires (demands) that others cooperate with him and acknowledge HIS needs, but he doesn't reciprocate by attending to the needs of others. He grants himself an exemption based on his belief (which may well be wrong) that he is superior. He doesn't even see the possibility that he might not be so great. There are a lot of mediocre talents who make demands like Howard. How are we supposed to accommodate these assholes and their selfish unreasonable demands? They can't be allowed their way. They can't be allowed to break laws, use people, and blow up buildings because their "integrity" has been violated. They will need to learn how to compromise and cooperate or risk being marginalized into irrelevance. Just because Howard believes he is the greatest, doesn't mean he is. Probably, more likely, it means just the opposite. He lacks the creativity to meet his own needs while also meeting the needs of others he relies on to cooperate with him.
The link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4
Maybe the practical problem of Objectivism is that it is not grounded in reality. Narcissism (egoism, selfishness) is about retaining the infantile belief in omnipotence and control. Emotional development stops while intellectual development continues. Eventually these emotional babies learn vocabularies that allow them to rationalize the superiority of their emotional inferiority. To do this they have to ignore a HUGE amount of reality that doesn't support their grandiose selves. They think in simplistic absolutes where their principals are always right. This kind of thinking prevents them from seeing situations where their principals don't apply. This is probably why a smart man like Greenspan was unable to see that the free market worked most of the time, just not all the time.
A lot of people knew better, including poorly educated ordinary me. The thing is, every person in a society can't be living by egoist principals. Altruism is good for` the community. Egoists, more than anyone, benefit from the altruistic and cooperative behaviors of others. When the population of egoists (narcissists, those pursuing selfish agendas) exceeds a certain number, they will use up all the resources (altruists being seen as resources by the egoist) eventually leaving no resources to exploit - just a dog-eat-dog, competitive collection of assholes like themselves.
Greenspan thought the market would self-regulate because it was in the best interest of those concerned to protect the system and the resources. It was in the best interest of the selfish players to protect their resources, but greedy narcissists go for immediate gratification and don't have the depth and breadth in their cognitive functioning to see beyond their own noses or accurately predict consequences. Eventually they screw themselves and take the rest off us down with them.
I told you about seeing Rand on Donahue (a talk show) in 1979. Ewwwwww! I was not quite 23 years old. If I ever entertained the idea that she had anything valuable to say, I lost it after I saw that interview. She was a nasty, bitter bitch. I found her disgusting and narrow minded. I rarely have such a viserally negative reaction to anyone. My reaction told me something about myself, too. It told me I was repressing the nasty, bitter, selfish, narrow-minded bitch in myself. Ha-ha!
It's not that Rand is ALWAYS wrong. To say this is to make the same mistake Rand does. Her mistake was taking an exception and turning it into a rule. Humans are specialized social beings who NEED each other. It is in our best interest to consider collective needs as well as personal needs, wants and desires. I've noticed that egoists have trouble seeing why it is their own interest to help others and cooperate. Sometimes, but not enough, egoists will behave cooperatively if they recognize that they will reap a benefit if they do. I say not often enough because egoists usually have very little interpersonal capital in the bank. They will take what they can get away with and give only what is required. They waste a lot of time on conflicts and fixing problems that could have been avoided had they been more generous and thoughtful.
Ha-ha! I found the Donahue show on line. I've been listening to it as I write this. She sounds a lot like me! As we mature, we should be able to incorporate and use more of our shadow aspects. Without hestition I will say that I am way smarter than Rand. No, joke. I am. And I know why, too. Her selfish bitchiness came too early. Her arrogance allowed her to believe she knew more than she actually did. Instead of emotionally maturing and incorporating more human experience as she aged, she became more habituated to selfish bitchiness. This is what happens with narcissists. Instead of learning better ideas or expanding their perspective, they just develop their bad ideas and make them stronger. It's like having a strong left bicep muscle while the rest of the body is left to atrophy and whither away.
Really, though, what I mean to say is that there are times to tend to your own interests. For instance, if you don't take care of yourself you won't be any use to other people or maybe become a burden to them. When dealing with egoists who are unlikely to be generous or cooperate adequately, you better watch out for yourself, because no one will be doing it for you.
Once, in a situation where I had all the power and control, I worked hard to cooperate with individuals who were supposed to be cooperating with me. They weren't cooperating and everyone was hurt, including my innocent next door neighbor. We all lost. The other parties couldn't really afford to piss me off, but they took advantage beyond my resources. When I realized what was happening, I took back control and started watching out for my own interests without regard for them. I had the power of being able to walk away. They squandered my considerable goodwill. They were fortunate that I continued to work with them at all. They were unfortunate to have fallen out of my good graces because other people were the beneficiaries of my generosity which would have gone to them had they not blown it by being selfish. By being selfish, they ended up with much less than they would have had they been considerate and responsible to me. This is an example of the shortsightedness of the narcissistic perspective.
So, Howard II, I can tell you the direction you need to take in your creative endeavors. Art and all manner of creativity is communication. If we are creative like Roark was creative, it will be necessary to meet the needs of those who pay for our creations as well as our own needs for self expression. In this sense, our creations must be cooperative collaborations and people must want our message and point of view.
Howard's uncompromising attitude toward his work did not reflect "integrity". That's BS. It reflected his own lack of creativity and lack of appropriate regard for the needs of those who would be impacted by his work. He sees a world where there are only two choices. In Howard's case, it was his way or no way at all. There aren't two choices in life. There are infinite choices. A better artist would have known this and found ways to express himself so that the people who paid for and used his buildings could understand and appreciate them.
Howard was messed up in so many ways. If he really had something to say with his art, he should have found more ways to say it. Howard had only one way. There is an assumption that Howard's designs were superior and important when in fact they may have been over-rated by an elite few and without consequential merit. Howard never took the challenge that was placed before him. He didn't try to make his message accessible to a broad audience. Howard, thinking himself a superior architect, refused to take advantage of what he could learn from others, especially ones he considered less sophisticated and intelligent than himself. This is a big mistake. Howard lacked humility and refused to think outside the box he built for himself.
Because Howard refused to consider how his message fit into the bigger picture, he ran a closed loop in his head. All Howard all the time. He was unwilling to access a broader range of information, because he was unwilling to consider the subjective ideas and knowledge base that others could contribute to his overall perspective.
I'm not saying to sell out. Not at all. Anyone can sell out. That's not greatness. Anybody can be a stubborn fool, refuse to learn, and call it "integrity". Big whoop. I am not impressed. Genius can find ways to be accessible to a broad audience without compromising his message. This I know.
This isn't new. I figure Leonardo and the Renaissance artists were able to meet the needs of their patrons without compromising their artistic expression. I figure if people have something important to say, even if it is to a small audience, they will find a way to say it.
Ooops! I spent too much time watching Donahue. Gotta go!
ARE YOU CALLING ME AN EMOTIONAL BABY ! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!
I was calling the character in the book an emotional baby...but if the bootie fits...
When is the market gonna go back up !!
All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else, Grasshopper.
Patricia Neel is HOT in that video !
I like her in A Face in the Crowd.
Sorry, i just finished off half a bottle of cheap red while fending off my 11 yr old in a game of GO. Little whelp almost beat me !!!
Ripple in still water, When there is no pebble tossed, Nor wind to blow, Grasshopper.
I am not sure if I am worthy of posting a comment in your blog. I am a big fan though. Thanks for checking out my blog. Very nice meeting you and your husband this weekend. Look forward to keeping in touch.
As far as the economy goes I have my own theories. The market has reached a low and all should consider reinvestment within the next few weeks for maximum return. If you are not convinced read more about my AUDIBLE theory.
So, what you're saying is that when things turn around you aren't going to buy better wine? Just more cheap wine?
That'll work.
Did you check out Jeffrey's website, Alan? He has the answers you are looking for about the stock market. Thursday, November 6, 2008 is the day things start turning around. It'll take 3-5 years to get back to where it was. I hope you can wait that long.
I guess you haven't heard about Ollie's Big Deck. It is huge, I tell you whut.
The big deck is really a FLAT ROOF for a garage and an extra room or two. IT LEAKS! Under the deck (the garage ceiling is this system of pans and gutters that is supposed to make it water tight. HA! It leaks. We have a 6x12 entry hall that has a flat roof. IT LEAKS!
Well, if things get better in the market I will be able to make the move up to the more prestigious Mad Dog. Right now the Red I am drinking is more like pure grain alcohol with red dye number 5.
I have heard Ollie comment about wanting a big deck. Now he has one and turns out it drips. I see only one solution. Apply for a medical marijuana license and grow pot under each leak!
As soon as I get a little cash built up I am going to buy energy stocks. They are incredibly beat down right now. If peak oil has happened or is about to happen then supply will never keep up with demand. With oil in the 60's and 70's it is not far above the break even point of several of the oil producing states. OPEC has already cut production and they will do so again if the price doesn't suit them. Since the market has turned back up some, oil prices have started climbing. I think that trend will continue until some point in the future oil prices may be high enough to retard the climb in the DOW like this past summer when oil hit the 140s and the market moved inversely to oil and other commodities.
I would like to invest in thin film solar which looks VERY exciting. One that looks good to me is a company called Nanosolar but it is not publicly traded right now. Check this out from You Tube.
Looks like Obama has it. I may be way off base, but I bet he moves to the center on fiscal policy and stays to the left on social policy. I doubt Obama will be able to deliver on a lot of social programs. I think the money is going to be too tight. A good start though would be cuts in the military budget.
A lot of retirement funds will be finished off if taxes are raised too much and the market takes another big hit. It is going to be interesting to watch it all play out.
I believe you are correct about our President-elect, my drunken friend. I still think well targeted social programs can be money savers for the country as a whole, but the payoff often isn't very fast.And Americans are myopic.
What an interesting idea with the solar company! I can't believe it! I was thinking the same thing about energy companies a couple of hours ago myself! What about geothermal? Do you know anything about this? Or any companies? Otherwise, I have been thinking about investing in peer-to-peer lending at sub-usury rates. Can't trust banks.
Yep. I lot of folks have lost a lot at a critical time. With a little detachment, serenity, and some red, red fortified wine, I'm sure we will come through it just fine...
Just a little investment advice from a stock junky. I have invested in the alternative energy stocks and have lost a ton of money. They all seem like great ideas however the problem with these stocks is that it is very speculative. A lot of time the technology is too expensive to implement and is not done properly for mass production.
When investing in Oil invest in Oil infrastructure like Helmerich Payne (HP) that provide the equipment for drilling in the US. Companies like this have stable income and do not take a loss when the well goes dry or is nowhere to be found. Clean Coal is probably the best investment right now in the energy sector.
Steel is also a good investment as Oil prices go down particularly with all the news regarding the terrible quality of imported steel from China. My favorite steel stock for now is United States Steel (X).
In the technology sector you have to buy Apple. This is my career speciality and I have invested about 1/3 of my money in this company as well as IBM. Both are going to surprise with great returns next year.
All of these stocks have been beat down over the last 6 months only as a result of the overall economy. All have already made the turn back up as well in accordance with my AUDIBLE theory. Take my advice for what it is but I have made 30% return on these in the past 3 weeks. Please keep in mind that I am investing for long term and am not looking for swing trades.
Thinking about financial issues isn't my favorite thing. There are so many unknowns it just feels futile to invest much mental energy into it. I'm oddly emotionally detached from money, so I don't have a centering principal or strong motivator to propel me.
I will think about what you said, though, but first I have to face a more pressing financial problem - going to the bank to make my deposits that I've been carrying around for days and days.
Congratulation on your success! I think you might have a real gift!
14 comments:
I agree Jackie that unfortunately the Republican party has lost its way. They do use religion to form a voting block which hopes for a quid pro quo. The religious right hopes to shove their values down the throats of those not so enlightened, and I suppose some imagine a lofty position somewhere close to God himself as their reward. Others are pretenders who use religion to collect money from their flock in order to drive a nice mercedes and live in a castle. Call me a cynic, but I believe that propagandists are alive and well on both ends of the political spectrum. I believe they are represented on every network that you can tune your TV into. I also believe that some of the politicians that claim to be looking out for the poor on the left are actually building a voting block similar to what the right does with the religious nuts. They cut deals for votes and look for opportunity to turn power into nice cold cash. The bigger the government is, the more money that is funneled through Washington, the more corruption we can expect.
I know that politics is a distasteful business. I never idealized Democrats. In the best of all realistically possible worlds, we would have political parties that represent separate legitimate perspectives such as "conservatives" and "progressives". We might assume that progress is a good thing, but so is tradition. Conservatism would insure that progress didn't happen more quickly than the culture could assimilate it (which could possibly be destabilizing).
Within constitutional boundaries, ideas should be able to compete without resorting to intellectual dishonesty. The conservatism of Buckley and Goldwater was small government, laissez-faire and libertarian. This could have balanced well with those who believe that the federal (and state and local governments, too) can and should take on certain tasks for the good of the population as a whole.
The big government corporate expansionist agenda of the neoconservatives combined with the religious right's crusades to regulate private lives of citizens was a recipe for either disaster or fascism. Or both. This combination is a deadly mixture of un-American ideologies that is far too heavily involved with social concerns (whether on the macro scale of the neocons with their Zionist and imperialist agendas - Bush Doctrine - or the micro level with the religious right trying to legislate private behaviors) instead of economic concerns, which is really the only true charge of the government when you get down to it.
The decline of the Republicans started in earnest with Reagan. I remember spending Friday evenings during the 80's (one of the few things I remember from that time period) watching Louis Ruykeyser and wondering why it was a good thing to have a big national debt. The fat cats would praise the debt week after week. I didn't buy it then or now.
The New Republicans spawned the New Democrats like Clinton who didn't provide a balance when it came to economic issues. In retrospect, had Clinton not kept Greenspan (had Clinton not been cut from the same economic cloth as the Republicans who preceded him and followed him) we may well have prevented the current economic situation. Our two party system devolved into contrasting on social issues instead of representing alternate perspectives on economic issues as they should have. We lost balance because we were distracted by social issues.I blame the conservative Republican neocons for this pile of poo.
It's unfortunate that Alan Greenspan's admission that he was "shocked and amazed" that he was wrong about his Objectivist laissez-faire principals was overshadowed by the election news coverage. I admire Greenspan's honesty in admitting he was so wrong about something that had such devastating consequences. Many in his position would have gone straight into denial and stayed until they were dead. He had too much faith in the free market.
Money is power and power needs to be kept in check. Some would call this redistribution of wealth. I would say that society as a whole has a responsibility to keep the greedy contained. The government is the social entity that represents everyone. The egoist nature of human beings will exploit for personal advantage until there is nothing left to exploit. Our current situation is simply an example of The Tragedy of the Commons. Individuals acting in their own self interest will sacrifice long term benefits for short term gain unless the community as a whole penalizes them.
We all lose by having a weakened and discredited Republican party. We benefit from diverse ideas and opinions. I hope they get their act together. The hardcore religious right is a relatively small percentage. They should pursue their agendas through their churches and in their private lives. They'd have more success if they stopped wasting energy and attention trying to turn private matters into public crusades. The Republicans need to stop courting this vote. It dumbs them down. The neocons have had their day, too. They have failed miserably and the entire philosophy has been discredited. Boot them.
Big government belongs to Democrats. The Republicans can't handle it. They will apply it to things the government needs to stay out of.
Big government plus laissez-faire economics leads to fascism because it gives the moneyed both the power of money and the power of government. This leaves the disadvantaged and the society at large vulnerable. Big government needs to lend power to those without money.Government should anticipate the greed that leads to exploitation and white collar thievery with appropriate regulation and enforcement of standards.The government should acknowledge that an educated and healthy population ultimately benefits business. To require that business absorb the costs for education and health care through the tax structure is not unfair to business.It is unfair to do otherwise.
No, Alan. The Democratic Party's propaganda machine is a firecracker compared to the Republican's H-bomb. They try to keep up with the Republicans, but their message doesn't lend itself to demagoguery to the degree the Republican message does.It has something to do with the the ideas, I think. Both Kerry and Obama were criticized for being unable to answer questions with short answers. It's hard for me to say what I have to say in a few words. "Conservatives" relate through absolutes. "Liberals" relate through nuance. The Democratic players don't seem to be as willing to stick to scripts or go for the soundbite.
I'm sitting here watching Rachel Maddow who has an unabashed liberal bias. Rachel is no Sean Hannity. Keith Olbermann is no Bill O'Reilly. Al Franken was never on his best day the equal to Rush Limbaugh.
But, sometimes we have to hit the bottom to see the truth for what it is and change direction. It could be that the Republicans have finally become irrevocably unraveled by their own disingenuous tactics. The Sarah Palin wing of the party wasn't supposed to take over from the elites. But it has. It has done this during a time of relative weakness on the part of the religious right - at least as far as leadership and organization goes. Eventually people will expect to see behaviors in people that matches the rhetoric from their mouths. Those who label themselves "Christians", "Conservatives" and patriotic defenders of American values better show characteristics of "Conservatives", "Christians",and "Patriots". I can't be so cynical to believe that given enough time, the truth doesn't win out.
As to money going to Washington being corrupting, I seriously doubt that you are as right as it might seem that you are on the surface. Governments get progressively more corrupt as they get more local. I cringe every time I hear talk about funneling federal funds to local governments. This is where the corruption and waste occurs. It would be far safer in the hands of federal bureaucracy. This sounds intuitively wrong, I know, but the feds actually do a good job in many respects. Government employees are often excellent and honest stewards of the public trust. There is always going to be corruption. This needs to be minimized, of course. But this corruption is not about the government. It's about human nature. Federal officials are under a great deal of scrutiny. They don't get away with as much abuse as people believe.
Privatization is not a good deal for the taxpayer. It adds another layer of expense and a profit motivation. We should not give up control of our military and essential services to private interests. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
Too much regulation is repressive to the markets. Too little invites abuses. Not all tax cuts are needed. There is time to stop lowering taxes. There is a time to require business to pay their fair share. The world doesn't end, and the economy doesn't come screeching to a halt because business and corporate taxes go up.
This is not a good time to endorse deregulation. Deregulation has had it's day, and we need to turn back a bit while we pay the price for the plenty we have been enjoying for too long. I should add that we should be wary of promises of "tax cuts", especially for businesses. Supply-side economics (voodoo economics according to George H.W. Bush)is a seriously flawed model. We need to give up a lot of commonly held beliefs because they have no basis.
I think I've done all I need to do on this blog before the election. I need to work on my mail a bit and get my new garage in order.
My friend Phil called me a while ago to tell me that he had been listening to Air America and heard that the Republicans were going to steal yet another election.Maybe so. What do I know?
I know I need to stop and go to sleep.
Jackie
LOL! Well, get some sleep. I agree with you on most of what you said. I just don't see eye to eye with you on economics. I do think there is a high likelihood of corruption where ever government funds are concentrated. Local and federal, no doubt about it. I do believe that most CEO's are wildly overpaid but what can we do about that, as a stock holder I hate it but what are we going to do, mandate maximum payments to CEO's ? (hmmm, maybe not a bad idea) I do believe that blue collar workers are underpaid along with a lot of others in society, especially teachers. That is especially unfortunate because our kids are definitely the future of our country and our families. The school system in our city sucks ! Why is it, that a our private school can pay LESS per teacher/student than public schools yet out perform them on standardized tests. This is a fact in Little Rock and from what I have read, we are not an exception. I think there is a place for privatization. The military is not one of them. I believe the current crisis has a lot to do with information transfer being so rapid and regulation not keeping up with those realities. I am especially turned off by the religious right wing of the Republican party. They look like nut jobs to me, but there are plenty on the far left that also look pretty nutty. Did you see Ben Affleck's parody of Keith Olberman on SNL Hilarious!
Gotta take the boys to school.
Later and hope you slept well,
Alan
Ha! I just realized that the clock I've been looking at wasn't set back. I have an extra hour to answer email.
"Man's ego is the fountainhead of human progress."
If this is true, the the opposite is true as well. "Man's ego is a dry well of human regression."
This is for my Howard Roark II (you know who you are ;-)
I intended to say more about Objectivism as it relates to the current economic crisis vis a vis Greenspan's well known adherence to Rand's principles. So here it is.
Objectivism has long been a popular paradigm with young people, but typically loses credibility as people mature. I'm not totally sure why this is. Maybe it is because of her black and white thinking. (and maybe naive, anti-intellectual thinking) This kind of thinking is characteristic of those who believe that their subjective experience IS objective. This is not usually a good thing, Howard II. Usually it is awful for cooperative relationships of any kind, because it ignores the perspectives and needs of the other people involved. Worse, even from a self-interest perspective, is that this egoist attitude precludes learning from those who may know something that would help you be even better.
There is one glaring problem with Howard Roark. His art needed other people's money. The purpose of his buildings was to serve the shelter needs of those other than himself. Building being large and imposing would be seen by people. In other words, Howard needs cooperators. Only a jerk would subordinate the needs of so many others or expect others would acknowledge his "vision" as superior.
This may or may not be relevant, but history has not supported Howard's aesthetic. Modern buildings like Howard's designs can't be torn down fast enough these days. They are considered ugly, soulless, and boring. I recall a high-rise housing project that was destroyed, I think, in the 70's because it was deemed that the design was so empty and cold (heartless) that the building was unfit for human habitation. (that brought to mind the housing project that Howard designed then blew up because his design was compromised) I also recall reading that the sketches of Howard's buildings that were seen in the movie would have been impossible to engineer.
Howard is a humorless, joyless selfish SOB who takes himself way too seriously. His so-called "integrity" is a false virtue based on the narcissist's typically narrow perspective that projects his subjective experience on objects outside himself. This limited perspective should not be idealized as being "true" to himself. Howard's intransigence prevents him from developing his talents because he never learns to incorporate a broader more inclusive perspective in his work. If, as he states, his work is only about HIS needs and HIS visions and the needs of others be damned, he should have chosen a more personal direction for his creative expression instead of violating the boundaries of others by expecting that his needs alone be accommodated when his projects actually belonged to others and would be used and seen by others. He was designing buildings that could not be built without the cooperation of countless other people. He required the creative efforts of others to realize his ideas. He needed creative input in the form of the wealth his financiers created to pay for the buildings. He needed the creative skills of the laborers who actually formed the buildings. He needed to meet the aesthetic and practical needs of those who would use the building. But his work was all about him as far as he was concerned. This is screwy thinking. Especially since his buildings might be shit that other people have to pay for and live with.
I know that you, Howard II, admire Frank Lloyd Wright. I like his buildings myself, but their flat roofs leak. This causes those who own his lovely buildings a lot of trouble - long after Wright himself is dead and gone.
This link is to the courtroom soliloquy Gary Cooper (Howard) makes in The Fountainhead movie. It is pure BS. (The whole screenplay sucks. It was written by Rand herself.) His speech is full of false dicotomies. Life isn't a battle between the individual and the collective. That's crap. Life is about a collective of individuals using their individual talents and working together. There is no either/or. There is only one. And it isn't Howard. Howard is only a small part of the one.
Howard's perspective is childish, immature and destructive. It is completely narcissistic. He requires (demands) that others cooperate with him and acknowledge HIS needs, but he doesn't reciprocate by attending to the needs of others. He grants himself an exemption based on his belief (which may well be wrong) that he is superior. He doesn't even see the possibility that he might not be so great. There are a lot of mediocre talents who make demands like Howard. How are we supposed to accommodate these assholes and their selfish unreasonable demands? They can't be allowed their way. They can't be allowed to break laws, use people, and blow up buildings because their "integrity" has been violated. They will need to learn how to compromise and cooperate or risk being marginalized into irrelevance. Just because Howard believes he is the greatest, doesn't mean he is. Probably, more likely, it means just the opposite. He lacks the creativity to meet his own needs while also meeting the needs of others he relies on to cooperate with him.
The link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4
Maybe the practical problem of Objectivism is that it is not grounded in reality. Narcissism (egoism, selfishness) is about retaining the infantile belief in omnipotence and control. Emotional development stops while intellectual development continues. Eventually these emotional babies learn vocabularies that allow them to rationalize the superiority of their emotional inferiority. To do this they have to ignore a HUGE amount of reality that doesn't support their grandiose selves. They think in simplistic absolutes where their principals are always right. This kind of thinking prevents them from seeing situations where their principals don't apply. This is probably why a smart man like Greenspan was unable to see that the free market worked most of the time, just not all the time.
A lot of people knew better, including poorly educated ordinary me. The thing is, every person in a society can't be living by egoist principals. Altruism is good for` the community. Egoists, more than anyone, benefit from the altruistic and cooperative behaviors of others. When the population of egoists (narcissists, those pursuing selfish agendas) exceeds a certain number, they will use up all the resources (altruists being seen as resources by the egoist) eventually leaving no resources to exploit - just a dog-eat-dog, competitive collection of assholes like themselves.
Greenspan thought the market would self-regulate because it was in the best interest of those concerned to protect the system and the resources. It was in the best interest of the selfish players to protect their resources, but greedy narcissists go for immediate gratification and don't have the depth and breadth in their cognitive functioning to see beyond their own noses or accurately predict consequences. Eventually they screw themselves and take the rest off us down with them.
I told you about seeing Rand on Donahue (a talk show) in 1979. Ewwwwww! I was not quite 23 years old. If I ever entertained the idea that she had anything valuable to say, I lost it after I saw that interview. She was a nasty, bitter bitch. I found her disgusting and narrow minded. I rarely have such a viserally negative reaction to anyone. My reaction told me something about myself, too. It told me I was repressing the nasty, bitter, selfish, narrow-minded bitch in myself. Ha-ha!
It's not that Rand is ALWAYS wrong. To say this is to make the same mistake Rand does. Her mistake was taking an exception and turning it into a rule. Humans are specialized social beings who NEED each other. It is in our best interest to consider collective needs as well as personal needs, wants and desires. I've noticed that egoists have trouble seeing why it is their own interest to help others and cooperate. Sometimes, but not enough, egoists will behave cooperatively if they recognize that they will reap a benefit if they do. I say not often enough because egoists usually have very little interpersonal capital in the bank. They will take what they can get away with and give only what is required. They waste a lot of time on conflicts and fixing problems that could have been avoided had they been more generous and thoughtful.
Ha-ha! I found the Donahue show on line. I've been listening to it as I write this. She sounds a lot like me! As we mature, we should be able to incorporate and use more of our shadow aspects. Without hestition I will say that I am way smarter than Rand. No, joke. I am. And I know why, too. Her selfish bitchiness came too early. Her arrogance allowed her to believe she knew more than she actually did. Instead of emotionally maturing and incorporating more human experience as she aged, she became more habituated to selfish bitchiness. This is what happens with narcissists. Instead of learning better ideas or expanding their perspective, they just develop their bad ideas and make them stronger. It's like having a strong left bicep muscle while the rest of the body is left to atrophy and whither away.
Really, though, what I mean to say is that there are times to tend to your own interests. For instance, if you don't take care of yourself you won't be any use to other people or maybe become a burden to them. When dealing with egoists who are unlikely to be generous or cooperate adequately, you better watch out for yourself, because no one will be doing it for you.
Once, in a situation where I had all the power and control, I worked hard to cooperate with individuals who were supposed to be cooperating with me. They weren't cooperating and everyone was hurt, including my innocent next door neighbor. We all lost. The other parties couldn't really afford to piss me off, but they took advantage beyond my resources. When I realized what was happening, I took back control and started watching out for my own interests without regard for them. I had the power of being able to walk away. They squandered my considerable goodwill. They were fortunate that I continued to work with them at all. They were unfortunate to have fallen out of my good graces because other people were the beneficiaries of my generosity which would have gone to them had they not blown it by being selfish. By being selfish, they ended up with much less than they would have had they been considerate and responsible to me. This is an example of the shortsightedness of the narcissistic perspective.
So, Howard II, I can tell you the direction you need to take in your creative endeavors. Art and all manner of creativity is communication. If we are creative like Roark was creative, it will be necessary to meet the needs of those who pay for our creations as well as our own needs for self expression. In this sense, our creations must be cooperative collaborations and people must want our message and point of view.
Howard's uncompromising attitude toward his work did not reflect "integrity". That's BS. It reflected his own lack of creativity and lack of appropriate regard for the needs of those who would be impacted by his work. He sees a world where there are only two choices. In Howard's case, it was his way or no way at all. There aren't two choices in life. There are infinite choices. A better artist would have known this and found ways to express himself so that the people who paid for and used his buildings could understand and appreciate them.
Howard was messed up in so many ways. If he really had something to say with his art, he should have found more ways to say it. Howard had only one way. There is an assumption that Howard's designs were superior and important when in fact they may have been over-rated by an elite few and without consequential merit. Howard never took the challenge that was placed before him. He didn't try to make his message accessible to a broad audience. Howard, thinking himself a superior architect, refused to take advantage of what he could learn from others, especially ones he considered less sophisticated and intelligent than himself. This is a big mistake. Howard lacked humility and refused to think outside the box he built for himself.
Because Howard refused to consider how his message fit into the bigger picture, he ran a closed loop in his head. All Howard all the time. He was unwilling to access a broader range of information, because he was unwilling to consider the subjective ideas and knowledge base that others could contribute to his overall perspective.
I'm not saying to sell out. Not at all. Anyone can sell out. That's not greatness. Anybody can be a stubborn fool, refuse to learn, and call it "integrity". Big whoop. I am not impressed. Genius can find ways to be accessible to a broad audience without compromising his message. This I know.
This isn't new. I figure Leonardo and the Renaissance artists were able to meet the needs of their patrons without compromising their artistic expression. I figure if people have something important to say, even if it is to a small audience, they will find a way to say it.
Ooops! I spent too much time watching Donahue. Gotta go!
Jackie
ARE YOU CALLING ME AN EMOTIONAL BABY ! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !! When is the market gonna go back up !!
Patricia Neel is HOT in that video !
Sorry, i just finished off half a bottle of cheap red while fending off my 11 yr old in a game of GO.
Little whelp almost beat me !!!
You are right. I love FLW's buildings. :)
ARE YOU CALLING ME AN EMOTIONAL BABY ! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!
I was calling the character in the book an emotional baby...but if the bootie fits...
When is the market gonna go back up !!
All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else, Grasshopper.
Patricia Neel is HOT in that video !
I like her in A Face in the Crowd.
Sorry, i just finished off half a bottle of cheap red while fending off my 11 yr old in a game of GO.
Little whelp almost beat me !!!
Ripple in still water,
When there is no pebble tossed,
Nor wind to blow, Grasshopper.
hmmmm.....ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!!
You are right. I love FLW's buildings. :)
Me, too! Hate leaky flat roofs, though.
I am not sure if I am worthy of posting a comment in your blog. I am a big fan though. Thanks for checking out my blog. Very nice meeting you and your husband this weekend. Look forward to keeping in touch.
As far as the economy goes I have my own theories. The market has reached a low and all should consider reinvestment within the next few weeks for maximum return. If you are not convinced read more about my AUDIBLE theory.
Prediction of Low on the DOW
JEFFREY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I DID read your blog yesterday. Interesting and lots of fun, too. Have you put any pictures up of your Tennessee trip yet?
As for myself, I'm using this current economic downturn for personal development - detachment and serenity mostly.
It's hit Alan hard, though. He can't even afford a decent bottle of wine. You know that M.D. he puts by his name? I hear it stands for "Mad Dog".
Great meeting you guys! We had a fabulous time with you, Cynthia and Isabella. Looking forward to more visits in the future.
Jackie
I am going to buy a case of Mad Dog if the market goes up a little more.
I would like a nice flat roof with a garden on it, that way, I could sip Mad Dog in my Garden of Eden.
So, what you're saying is that when things turn around you aren't going to buy better wine? Just more cheap wine?
That'll work.
Did you check out Jeffrey's website, Alan? He has the answers you are looking for about the stock market. Thursday, November 6, 2008 is the day things start turning around. It'll take 3-5 years to get back to where it was. I hope you can wait that long.
I guess you haven't heard about Ollie's Big Deck. It is huge, I tell you whut.
The big deck is really a FLAT ROOF for a garage and an extra room or two. IT LEAKS! Under the deck (the garage ceiling is this system of pans and gutters that is supposed to make it water tight. HA! It leaks. We have a 6x12 entry hall that has a flat roof. IT LEAKS!
Whaddayagonnadoo?
Jackie
Well, if things get better in the market I will be able to make the move up to the more prestigious Mad Dog. Right now the Red I am drinking is more like pure grain alcohol with red dye number 5.
I have heard Ollie comment about wanting a big deck. Now he has one and turns out it drips. I see only one solution. Apply for a medical marijuana license and grow pot under each leak!
As soon as I get a little cash built up I am going to buy energy stocks. They are incredibly beat down right now. If peak oil has happened or is about to happen then supply will never keep up with demand. With oil in the 60's and 70's it is not far above the break even point of several of the oil producing states. OPEC has already cut production and they will do so again if the price doesn't suit them. Since the market has turned back up some, oil prices have started climbing. I think that trend will continue until some point in the future oil prices may be high enough to retard the climb in the DOW like this past summer when oil hit the 140s and the market moved inversely to oil and other commodities.
I would like to invest in thin film solar which looks VERY exciting. One that looks good to me is a company called Nanosolar but it is not publicly traded right now. Check this out from You Tube.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&q=nanosolar&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#
Looks like Obama has it. I may be way off base, but I bet he moves to the center on fiscal policy and stays to the left on social policy. I doubt Obama will be able to deliver on a lot of social programs. I think the money is going to be too tight. A good start though would be cuts in the military budget.
A lot of retirement funds will be finished off if taxes are raised too much and the market takes another big hit. It is going to be interesting to watch it all play out.
I believe you are correct about our President-elect, my drunken friend. I still think well targeted social programs can be money savers for the country as a whole, but the payoff often isn't very fast.And Americans are myopic.
What an interesting idea with the solar company! I can't believe it! I was thinking the same thing about energy companies a couple of hours ago myself! What about geothermal? Do you know anything about this? Or any companies? Otherwise, I have been thinking about investing in peer-to-peer lending at sub-usury rates. Can't trust banks.
Yep. I lot of folks have lost a lot at a critical time. With a little detachment, serenity, and some red, red fortified wine, I'm sure we will come through it just fine...
Jackie
Just a little investment advice from a stock junky. I have invested in the alternative energy stocks and have lost a ton of money. They all seem like great ideas however the problem with these stocks is that it is very speculative. A lot of time the technology is too expensive to implement and is not done properly for mass production.
When investing in Oil invest in Oil infrastructure like Helmerich Payne (HP) that provide the equipment for drilling in the US. Companies like this have stable income and do not take a loss when the well goes dry or is nowhere to be found. Clean Coal is probably the best investment right now in the energy sector.
Steel is also a good investment as Oil prices go down particularly with all the news regarding the terrible quality of imported steel from China. My favorite steel stock for now is United States Steel (X).
In the technology sector you have to buy Apple. This is my career speciality and I have invested about 1/3 of my money in this company as well as IBM. Both are going to surprise with great returns next year.
All of these stocks have been beat down over the last 6 months only as a result of the overall economy. All have already made the turn back up as well in accordance with my AUDIBLE theory. Take my advice for what it is but I have made 30% return on these in the past 3 weeks. Please keep in mind that I am investing for long term and am not looking for swing trades.
Hope this helps!
Awww, Jeffrey,
Why you spoil our fun with good sense advise?
Thinking about financial issues isn't my favorite thing. There are so many unknowns it just feels futile to invest much mental energy into it. I'm oddly emotionally detached from money, so I don't have a centering principal or strong motivator to propel me.
I will think about what you said, though, but first I have to face a more pressing financial problem - going to the bank to make my deposits that I've been carrying around for days and days.
Congratulation on your success! I think you might have a real gift!
Jackie
Post a Comment