Regulatory incident a hoax, officials say

Wall Street Journal:

"What's worse," Mr. Emanuel said, was that "[banks] are now literally lobbying against the very reforms" that are intended to prevent another financial crisis.

Banks are crazy! Just because you explicitly instruct someone to do whatever they want, that's no reason why they should! Banks need to think hard about how record profits, increased market share, and lack of competition fit into their overall business strategy; then ask themselves, "Is it really worth it?" Soul searching at the highest level is always the best remedy for institutional excess.

Banking 101: Bonuses are not loans

New York Times:

How can some banks be prospering so soon after a financial collapse, even as legions of people worry about losing their jobs and their homes?

You know, it's funny. Some people might call it a contradiction. Me? I call it a direct relationship!

To call each thing by its right name

Financial Times:

After massive government bailouts, banks are still enjoying government guarantees, implicit if not explicit. Policymakers have, moreover, slashed the cost of liquidity. Bankers’ handsome compensation is, therefore, in large part underwritten by public money. Second, even before the crisis, inadequate competition failed to whittle away large profits – as enormous returns on equity showed – and therefore outsize compensation, unlike in other industries.

I like to think of capitalism as a system of, by, and for the purpose of capital. If nothing else, it is a system that produces and safeguards capital; administered by whatever group controls the bulk of it.

The fact that this capital class defends its interests through government is not some abrogation of capitalism that suddenly renders it "socialism." It is how the system works, if for no other reason than that this is how power works.

For it's own part, socialism developed out of an acknowledgment that government "picks winners and losers" all the time -- so the public might as well get in the game, rather than perpetually pick up the tab. This is its "social" mandate, which it must fulfill if it is to have any useful meaning.

Talk of "lemon socialism," "socialism for the rich," "Obamunism," and the like, posits some mythical capitalism where privileged minorities don't rely on state protection to secure their interests against the disenfranchised majority at every turn. In a system propped up on myths, this is not surprising; but I don't know of any circumstances in which it is real.

Urbane planning

Peter Eavis, Wall Street Journal:

Forget friendly tellers and the tedious task of making loans. To be successful in banking right now, what you really need are bond traders.

That's good news for a bank like J.P. Morgan Chase -- whose third-quarter results ballooned on the back of strong fixed-income trading revenue -- but augurs badly for financial firms dependent on traditional banking. Indeed, numbers contained in J.P. Morgan's results suggest it will be a long time before the business of making loans recovers.

My understanding of modern banking is that lending institutions are more than happy to extend loans as long you can demonstrate a likelihood of default, and a developer is eyeing your neighborhood.

I guess we're waiting on the developers.

Quid pro blow

Financial Times:

The crisis has been good to JPMorgan. As one rival after another collapsed (Lehman Brothers) or stumbled into the arms of governments (Citigroup, BofA, UBS), JPMorgan emerged as a formidable force. Sifting through the rubble of the financial earthquake, Mr Dimon filled in gaps in an international financial conglomerate that spans complex derivatives and saving accounts. In two opportunistic moves last year, it bought Bear Stearns, the investment bank, and Washington Mutual, the regional lender, through cheap government-assisted deals.

The crisis may have been good for JPMorgan -- but let's not forget just how good JPMorgan has been for the crisis!

The richest continent

Financial Times:

There is enough gold, diamonds, copper and cobalt – among other minerals – to ensure the Democratic Republic of Congo’s emergence from among the world’s poorest and most broken societies. The same can be said of Guinea, in West Africa, which has the world’s largest bauxite reserves. Yet both countries fall woefully short when it comes to exploiting these assets for public gain.

Isn't it a misnomer to call African countries "poor" when their owners can all afford to live in Europe? After all, it's only Africans who are poor -- and since when has anyone counted them?

Bright lights, big pity

Gideon Rachman:

An interesting little item here, on the banning of the works of Noam Chomsky from the prison library at Guantanamo Bay. One has to wonder about the mentality of the Pentagon lawyer, who was trying to obtain a copy of Chomsky for one of the detainees he is representing. Maybe his job at Guantanamo has led him to entertain all sorts of subversive thoughts?

Chomsky predictably interpets the ban on his work as further evidence that the US is slipping towards totalitarianism. But I see it another way. Obama has said that he is banning the use of torture on prisoners at Guantanamo. Subjecting them to the works of Noam Chomsky is clearly incompatible with the torture ban.

Yes, well: That's why I always recommend Understanding Power.

At one point you could get it used at Amazon for a dollar or two; I tried to put as many copies into the hands of my colleagues as possible!

Any other suggestions?

In defense of dudes

I Blame The Patriarchy:

It turns out that dudes who cruise patriarchy-blaming blogs to criticize “dearths” of “actual” revolutionary science, and who demand to know whether a particular spinster aunt is a neo-Molotovian Sputnikist, aren’t interested in a post-patriarchal society at all! They are interested in suckering feminists into tedious “debates” showcasing their tiresome vocabularies.

In all fairness to "dudes who cruise patriarchy-blaming blogs to criticize dearths of actual revolutionary science," it should be said such dudes are interested in suckering anyone into tedious debates showcasing their tiresome vocabularies!

But like most things with internet dudes, women hold a special attraction.

Human rights: Wrong for humans?

William Easterly, Financial Times:

In the US and other rich countries, a “right to health” is a claim on funds that has no natural limit, since any of us could get healthier with more care. We should learn from the international experience that this “right” skews public resources towards the most politically effective advocates, who will seldom be the neediest.

You see, this is why I always thought the so-called "right to vote" was a terrible idea. It amounts to little more than government by people who vote! We all know that this is mostly affluent, educated people; who in turn skew public resources away from apathetic non-voters. For this reason, no one should have the right to vote.

History shows that any ideal not immediately realized must be discarded, for anything less is unjust.

Capitalism: A Tough Love Story

In other news, I saw Michael Moore's new movie this weekend, and I have to admit it inspires the question: How could a successful person ever criticize the system that made him successful?™

Why, it's almost as if the man applied his cognitive powers while observing the plight of others, but failed to reach the entrepreneurial conclusion!

Of course, this is something that capitalism cannot explain, since in every foreclosure lies an opportunity -- not a sob story, Mr. Moore.

Interpreting "good news" on the economy

Brian Wesbury, Wall Street Journal:

When it comes to the economy and financial markets, good news has far outweighed bad news in 2009. Just about every piece of economic and financial market data is tracing out a V-shaped recovery. One would think that this would lead to a little more optimism from the conventional wisdom crowd, but it doesn't.

I have a feeling that the "conventional wisdom" amongst my former colleagues is that they would settle for a lower stock price if only they could have their jobs back!  Anytime I hear a working person say they can't wait for "the economy" to recover, I reach for my standard of living.

"The economy" is mostly an indicator of how wealthy people and their organizations are doing. This class can do well under a variety of scenarios, but it's important to remember that one of them is cutting the costs associated with their employees.

Because most companies are managed with a view toward compensating investors, the productive wealth of these enterprises is always distributed upward and away from ordinary employees by default. Though there are times when companies diverge from this formula, this isn't one of them: the stock markets are doing well because people are losing their jobs and their homes.

This is a cause for optimism amongst some observers, as it lowers the compensation demands of people desperate for work; and points toward a day when employers will be able to rehire at them at less expense. On that day, projected years ahead, recovery will be complete!

Obama attacks moon, wins peace prize; award's legitimacy hinges on one's view of the moon

Stump Lane:

Today we bomb the Moon for suspected water-related activities. The intelligence community has learned that the moon may be concealing significant stores of water in underground facilities. Water is really only suitable for use inside nuclear reactors. Kill the Moon!

Meanwhile, the Mooninites have released an official response.

What's bad about a good idea

Wall Street Journal:

"Commonwealth" is a dark, evil book, and it is troubling that it appears under the prestigious imprimaturof Harvard University Press. Countless millions were slaughtered by adherents of Karl Marx in the 20th century. God help us if the scourge returns in the 21st.

Truth be told, there are few things more dangerous than a persuasive argument.  Marx made a good one against capitalism!  He said: industrial capitalism makes everyone dependent on the industrial capitalist, because the industrial capitalist owns the way things are produced -- and he can produce them faster and more efficiently than the artisan or farmer, undermining their livelihood and fostering a useful dependency on the capitalist for employment.  But precisely because the industrial process conveys so much power to its owners, Marx, like all socialists, felt it should be owned by communities; it was too important to be the exclusive "property" of self-interested agents who bore no greater responsibility than the fulfillment their own short-term gain.  In this respect, socialism was aimed at extending traditional conceptions of freedom and democracy to the industrial era.

The idea has been a big hit!  For one thing, it makes a lot sense, insofar as it is permitted to enter the brain.  For another, capitalism isn't doing a whole lot for huge numbers of people -- to say nothing of animals or the environment -- since property ownership is so concentrated in so few hands.  The world more or less accepts what it can get from the people who own it -- and the world has always resented this.  So the idea of an "anti-capitalism" has always held great power for many people.

The danger that lies in every powerful idea, however, is the fact it is powerful, not that it is an idea.  Power is always the danger, not the freedom to inquire.  This is precisely why the totalitarian fights to suppress ideas -- because he cannot suppress the reality in which they inevitably take root: Ideas that resonate with reality have power.  And because it is the power of an idea which draws people to it, it is the corresponding trust in power to see the idea realized that is the inherent danger, always to be guarded against.   This is as true for socialism as it is for markets, Christianity, liberal democracy, jihad, progress, and so on.

Accumulation by dispossession

Financial Times:

One little-recognised aspect of the rural [China] story is the monetisation of agricultural land – a trend with the potential transformational force to rival the privatisation of the nation’s housing stock from the late 1990s.

The "monetization" of agricultural land -- a trend with the potential transformational force to leave your ass without any land, especially when your best practical options are to "sell" or to "borrow against." Americans know too well how badly the scenario can turn out; one can only imagine the challenges faced by rural Chinese.

This is a good example of what David Harvey calls "accumulation by dispossession," the transfer of productive public assets into the private sphere.  For Marx, the process was central to making people dependent on wage-work for survival, since they were "alienated" from the means of their own self-sufficiency -- the means of production.

American exceptionalismo

Lula da Silva, BusinessWeek:

When a major company wants to make an investment in Brazil, [we have discussions] about what region would be [appropriate for] the investment. Why? So we can encourage regional development. That's the role of the government. I think we learned a lesson from the global crisis. Remember when oil went to $150 a barrel. Soy beans also went up. There was a commodity bubble. That was investors getting out of the subprime market and rushing to the futures markets for food and oil. Otherwise, there is no explanation for oil going from $30 up to $150 in such a short time. We cannot allow this kind of speculation because this harms the poorest people in the world. It brings damage to job creation. We want the welfare of society to grow together with the economy. Otherwise, the economy grows for only half a dozen people.

 I don't know, dude.  It seems like such a foreign concept!

Tempting the triumvirate of terrors

Roger Cohen, New York Times:

I’m grateful to the wise Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic for pointing out that Friedrich Hayek...

Enough said!

Without fear or favour

The Financial Times, on the other hand, is a very trustworthy paper.

Don't trust, but verify

Robert Kaplan:

Throughout the 1980s, I had been coming as a journalist to Yugoslavia. It was a lonely task because few were interested in what was going on in the place, or where it might be headed. On every trip to Belgrade, I paid a visit to the apartment of Milovan Djilas. After the first visits, our conversations become eerie affairs, because I realized Djilas was always right. He was able to predict the future. His technique was a simple one for an East European, but a difficult one for an American: he seemed to ignore the daily newspapers and think purely historically.

There was a time when I ignored the daily news because, instinctively, I did not trust it. I've since changed my ways, having discovered upon close study just how untrustworthy it is! Now I make it a point to watch the headlines -- and my back.

It was interesting to come across this characterization of Djilas. Formerly the #2 Dude under Tito, he was expelled from the Yugoslav Communist Party, unsurprisingly, for being a communist. That kind of shit never sits well with people in high places!

Anyway, I've been reading his Conversations with Stalin, and aside from being intriguing reading, his insights on the travails of party communism almost make you wish the old man Kropotkin and his anarchist legions had taken control of the state -- at least those fuckers distrusted it!

Increasingly, I find the best critics of communism to be communists. For one thing, they begin with the advantage of knowing something about their system, with the added advantage of knowing a thing or two about others. Sadly, this cannot be said of those employed in defense of capitalism, who steadfastly refuse to understand anything about either; hence "the big kablooey in which we currently reside," as IOZ ably noted.

Credit, where it is due

BusinessWeek:

[Credit card] companies have already rethought [interest] rates. Under the new law, issuers can't raise them without 45 days' notice. But there's a loophole: The rules don't apply to variable-rate cards, with rates that float up and down. That's why companies are moving more consumers into such cards, whose rates are likely to soar from their record lows.
...
C.D. Reimer of San Jose was switched to a variable card last month. At the same time the issuer, Barclaycards, upped his rate to 26.99% from around 16%. Reimer could have canceled the account. But the 40-year-old was laid off from his software support job and depends on plastic. Barclaycards declined to comment. 

I'll tell you what: Capitalism today really puts the "dick" back in Dickens!

Capitalism: A Love Story

A colleague with a hospitalized son is asked whether she can adequately balance her work and home life responsibilities; if not, maybe she should take responsibility for her inabilities, do the right thing, and resign.  After all, she does not meet the minimum hours requirement for FMLA, the boss tells her.

It's rarely wise to judge a relationship by what you get out of it under favorable circumstances; but, rather, by what you can do about it should circumstances change.  When power is the disproportional, state-sanctioned prerogative of one side, that inevitably amounts to not very much for the other.  Too often, it is a lesson learned too late; ignored when it happens to others.

Dr. Boli's Celebrated Magazine.

Celebrating China's 60th

You have to admit, if the Democratic Party ran the United States unopposed, ours would be a very democratic country, indeed.

Idiocracy

Thomas Friedman, New York Times:

The American political system was, as the saying goes, “designed by geniuses so it could be run by idiots.” But a cocktail of political and technological trends have converged in the last decade that are making it possible for the idiots of all political stripes to overwhelm and paralyze the genius of our system.

I blame America's bartender!  Does she even have a degree or what?

Harder, better, insolventer, quagmireder

Brian Domitrovic, Wall Street Journal:

In 2003, as the Iraq war got going, France complained that the U.S. was the world's "hyperpower." Yet France itself was partly responsible for this fate. Had France committed to achieving high GDP growth via free-market incentives as the U.S. had in the 1980s and 1990s, it would have been appreciably richer in the 21st century, and thus a greater force in international power politics.

 You know... like us!

Dicks

I've always suspected straight men of being gay.  One example: sexually explicit conversations about women with other men.  No straight man would tolerate it.  Then there are urinals -- which brings up the whole subject of touching one's self; and, handily, never puts it down.

Propaganda by the deed

There is an expression I use at work, adapted from the music scene, which I first learned from lesbians: Clock out with your cock out!

G20 Pittsburgh

WhoisIOZ?:

The people's uprising was a brief and hilarious failure, as I expected, although the sweet scent of tear gas now drifts over my garden, suggesting what might have been. It was mostly kids, and while charmingly earnest, they mostly didn't understand the most basic principles of protest or cooperative action, and so they were easily and swiftly dispersed by the police. We may lament the gaudy police state in which we live and chuckle ruefully at the loudspeaker warning, "This is an illegal assembly"--the fuzz no longer even bothers to change the constitutional language in propounding orders that directly contravene the rights that language is meant to guarantee. Puts a man in a mordant mood. Anyway, you know, a great deal more might have been demonstrated if they'd held hands, sat down, and sung spirituals. If you'll pardon me, their problem is just as much aesthetic as it is political. They are not compelling.

While I am not experienced in direct action standoffs with the state; and while I appreciate that there are other factors at play which may justify concealing one's identity under such circumstances; I've never been able to shake the feeling that dressing like a rebel Mexican peasant is not useful when attempting to communicate your concerns to a US audience.

It seems to me that if there are people in American actions who can "afford" simply to be themselves, and not draw so heavily from the "aesthetics" of the Spanish Civil War or the Zapatistas -- or the general predilection for appearing as bizarre as the shock troops they confront -- it might be a very good thing for public relations!

Also, "people's uprisings" -- people's anything, for that matter -- is usually a recipe for anti-climax. A much stronger claim might invoke the defense of constitutional rights, like freedom of speech and assembly. To this end, just holding ground is a real achievement.

For your consideration.

Crass analysis

Financial Times:

Save for a few small groups, Marxism has become a largely intellectual resource, invoked in the academy more for the study of culture, language and media than of economics. Some of Marx’s insights – as into the prime importance of the economic base of societies – remain, regarded now as common sense. But his own call to arms, as in the Communist Manifesto, is largely ignored.

I like to stick up for Marx if only because everyone who attacks him is indebted to him in the same breath. Only because so many of his ideas are "regarded now as common sense" can anyone pretend to dismiss him.

The fact that his most visible advocates are to be found pursuing careers in places where they can't easily be fired for their ideas is perhaps unsurprising in light of the fact that Marx's "call to arms" to overthrow the employing class tends to be frowned upon by employers.

And let's not forget that there was a 20th century less than ten years ago, and the problem certainly wasn't that Marx was ignored.

The story of my strife

Bertrand Russell, The Will to Doubt; 1958:

The amusements of modern populations tend more and more to be passive and collective, and to consist of inactive observation of the skilled activities of others.  Undoubtedly such amusements are much better than none, but they are not as good as would be those of a population which had, through education, a wider range of intelligent interests not connected with work.   Better economic organization, allowing mankind to benefit by the productivity of machines, should lead to a very great increase of leisure, and much leisure is apt to be tedious except to those who have considerable intelligent activities and interests.  If a leisured population is to be happy, it must be an educated population, and must be educated with a view to mental enjoyment as well as to the direct usefulness of technical knowledge.

That is all well and good -- but did you see that Family Guy episode!?

A prayer for the police officer

via Financial Times:

“You must leave the immediate vicinity regardless of your purpose,” police in full riot gear told protesters over bullhorns about an hour into the march.

It's tough being a cop. It's particularly tough being a cop in any community with a lot of inequality. This is because property can be heavily concentrated in the hands of a few owners, and yet the police officer's job -- indeed, the government's job -- is to defend property rights. Under conditions of great inequality, this puts law enforcement in the unenviable position of policing distressed communities in the name of "law and order" -- which inevitably means the ordering of the many under the law of the few.

Surrendering our freedoms, an American tradition

I spoke with a colleague today about "defending our preferred way of life," which he described vaguely in terms of rights and freedoms. I asked whether he preferred working eight hours a day under the conditions set by our employer, several more under conditions served up by another; and, in either case, surrendering his constitutional rights by doing so!

On closer inspection, it was revealed that my colleague actually devotes very little time to practicing his "preferred way of life," and the better part of it to securing somebody else's. In fact, most of his waking hours are spent in forfeit of his cherished rights completely!

I left him with the time-honored working class motto: As long as you need permission to pee, you are not the one who's free.

Under my (ARM)borella ella ella, eh eh eh

The story of USA Inc. has been to take the constitutional protections of the private citizen, extend them to the enterprise of private citizens, and then watch the protections of the former evaporate as soon as they step onto the property of, or otherwise enter into legal agreement with, the latter.

Entrepreneurial America asks: What is a "union?"

The real question here is: how does one make an effective argument without an advertising budget?

I am not an entrepreneur

The language of inequality is filled with words like "freedom" and "prosperity," but they always describe the prerogatives of the speaker.

The rest of us just use the language: a retired neighbor calls me a "young entrepreneur" when in fact much of the value I "create" is pocketed by my employers; whatever I "innovate" is theirs to keep as well; and with no further obligation to my welfare whatsoever!

So it is the equivalent of calling me a sucker, even if it is intended to hold me in esteem with the very class of scoundrels that rob me daily.

How to communicate this in the course of polite conversation would be a wonderful thing to resolve: "I am not an entrepreneur" are the truest words never said by most of us, because they cannot be understood without a language that accurately describes our lives.

Late nights

Whenever I watch television, I'm struck by the resources behind America's favorite "personalities." For instance, I find Jay Leno wholly unpersuasive as an entertainer. What I suspect is that the man exists -- but what really works in his favor are the generous production budgets and national distribution agreements. Jay Leno could be an avatar and America would not care; he could be a different person entirely and people would like him better.

Take it easy, but take it!

As I retire to the New Jersey shore for a week of off-season splendor, I would like to recommend the Staughton Lynd title, Wobblies & Zapatistas, for anyone interested in further reading on the relationship between Marx, anarchism, and "doing something."

Politics and class

Even if power is intrinsic to every relation, "politics" under capitalism is a role assigned specifically to the state: it is the pursuit of state power by competing groups. In keeping with this technical definition, everything outside the realm of government cannot be "politics," but something else -- "economics," "culture," "science," and so on.

Interpreting the world through the prism of "politics" means seeing things from the vantage point of the political classes. This is the simplest explanation as to why "politics" is an alienating subject for most people, since it proceeds from the self-interested assumptions of a specialized class, not the experiences of ordinary Americans.

As Marx might note, seeing the world through a "political" lens, narrowly defined, produces advantages and disadvantages which are themselves political in the broader sense of the term. For one thing, it preferences the class interests of politicians over the class interests of, say, people who work for a living. These are two totally different groups, with distinct interests; and it's worth noting that they have completely different relations to the employer class, which gives generously to one while taking away from the other -- in fact, for the very purpose of taking away from the other. Under such a scenario, working people are at a huge disadvantage to the extent that their concerns are framed by the prerogatives of a hostile class.

If we interpret this weekend's march on Washington as a "conservative" event, we foreclose the possibility of seeing it as a working class event which has been sponsored by corporate advocates. By and large, these are working people with grievances stemming from economic hardship, who feel that government is too large and unresponsive, and otherwise fails to represent them. They have been organized to confront Obama on behalf of the same corporate concerns that pay Glenn Beck's salary and own his network. They articulate a general dissatisfaction with government in addressing their needs, then carp about "socialism" -- perhaps the natural enemy of the pro-business entertainer; not so much the average American trying to find a job.

From a class perspective, the interests of working people deserve to be consolidated and advanced by working people as a class. This means that people without work or without health care, or anyone vulnerable in this regard, have more important things in common than who they vote for, what God they worship, or whether or not they would have an abortion. After all, one does not go bankrupt and lose their home owing to their party affiliation, but thanks to a different set of relations entirely.

This is an argument that needs to be presented to people suffering from economic problems. It is also a counterargument that can easily undermine the irrationality of corporate populism, were activists inclined to break with the priorities of the Democratic Party in favor of their own.

Communists

Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture:

Every power presupposes some form of human slavery, for the division of society into higher and lower classes is one of the first conditions of its existence. The separation of [women and] men into castes, orders and classes occurring in every power structure corresponds to an inner necessity for the separation of the possessors of privilege from the people. Legend and tradition provide the means of nourishing and deepening in the concepts of [women and] men the belief in the inevitability of the separation. A young rising power can end the dominion of old privileged classes, but it can only do so by creating a new privileged class fitted for the execution of its plans. Thus, the founders of the so-called "dictatorship of the Proletariat" in Russia had to call into being the aristocracy of the Commissars, which is as distinguishable from the great masses of the working population as are the privileged classes of the population of any other country.

As I like to say, the communists are always the first to go -- this holds as true under fascism as it does under liberal democracy as it does under "communism." Anyone advocating equality of power, particularly in the economic sphere -- which is what communism means -- is second only to the anarchist as persona non grata, since the anarchist generalizes equality of power to every sphere of human experience.

For the purposes of power, the two are taken together, since anarchists, as much as they contest various Marxist interpretations, accept communism or some variant as appropriate for economic relations. The important distinction lies in whether control is exercised by the population directly or by some political entity which claims to act on their behalf.

Fulfilling the promise of poverty

Financial Times:

The US poverty rate jumped from 12.5 per cent in 2007 to 13.2 per cent last year, with 39.8m people in poverty. Poverty is defined as an individual with an annual income of less than $11,200 or a family of four earning less than $22,200.

I lived in poverty for several years. Mostly what I took from it was gum disease and narcolepsy; also, a healthy indebtedness to credit card companies, who I ultimately relied on for necessary and unforeseen expenses. Now that I have entered into conjugal partnership those issues stand resolved, but I still err on the side of hoarding food that has not gone obviously bad under an "innocent until proven guilty" clause.

I met the government's standard of "poverty" by working part-time in an entry-level position after college. Suffice it to say, my strongest interests -- learning music and reading books -- were not well-suited to a respectable career, which, experience had counseled, can too quickly become all-consuming. So I worked as little as possible, to reasonably good effect, an aching jaw and occasional loss of consciousness notwithstanding.

Socially, this was alienating -- it is hilarious explaining to friends, all the more family, that you don't want full-time work when the alternative is akin to non-existence; not having money makes social relationships nigh impossible: there is almost no modern recreation that occurs without paying a third party to supply or grant access to the experience. The concept is even more alien when you say it's because you want to do something you love. If fact, whatever you do, don't say that. There isn't a place big enough for "what you love" in corporate culture -- except, of course, if "what you love" is also extremely profitable. Given those not-so-good odds, it's probably easier to chase what is extremely profitable in the hopes it will someday become what you love. Well, good luck with that.

With all the advantages of a privileged upbringing, it is impossible to characterize my experience as poverty except in a strict material sense; and even then I had the advantages of public resources which attend most developed societies. It should also be said that I had excellent health care, thanks only to a union-negotiated labor contract. The reality is more likely that I was not living in poverty at all, since health insurance probably doubled my total compensation. Still, I would not describe it as any kind of life, except insofar as I enjoyed freer range to pursue what interested me.

The main point is that almost everyone is only one layoff or one injury away from poverty, regardless of their background. Most of us are just one misfortune away from losing our residences as well. This doesn't even take into account the fact that our parents will require assistance as they age, or that raising children is expensive; each step of the way, we pay for life's natural progression in ways we can't afford, securing a dependency on others who in turn control us. Never mind that we once had personal ambitions for ourselves!

Marxist Mondays (belated)

Capital is a process of wealth accumulation derived from the unequal relations between employers and employees. Employees may perform the necessary work of production, but because they enter into relationships with employers at a disadvantage, what they receive in return is only a fraction of the value of what they have produced; the "surplus-value," as Marx called it, becomes the property of the employer.

Capitalist economics says this is morally inconsequential: after all, the relationship is voluntary; in a word, "free." Nobody is forcing you to work for this or that employer, whereas in previous economic systems they were. Marx's innovation was to remain unimpressed, never divorcing economic relations from their social meaning -- a meaning that is contested politically between competing groups: employers and employees.

Living in a materialist world, and I am a materialist girl

Thomas Frank, Wall Street Journal:

According to the time-honored rhetoric of the right, elite liberal intellectuals are supposed to control the newspapers, the movies, and academia regardless of who sits in the White House.

You say "elite liberal intellectuals," I say corporation!

What's good for the goose is good for my dander

Financial Times:

The prospect of a government-run health insurance plan in the US appeared to be losing support on Tuesday as senators charged with formulating a bipartisan healthcare reform bill met to hammer out a compromise deal and Democratic leaders emphasised areas of agreement.

If only the senators charged with formulating a bipartisan healthcare reform bill didn't already enjoy their own government-run health insurance plan, prospects for "the US" might be looking up!

Kill the messenger

New York Times:

Were there 1,000 angry people with guns outside the town halls, or just one angry guy we saw 1,000 times?

Yesterday, some parent was interviewed on television saying he didn't want Obama turning his school-aged children into "little community organizers."

Which is only scary insofar as it produces greater intolerance toward the misinformed and greater fidelity to whatever portion of state power will keep them in check.

Culture wars

The relationship between our esteemed business parties is symbiotic. It's important to never lose sight of this fact. They draw working people in to opposing camps, appealing to them on the grounds that corporate structures have thrust liberal New York executives into every modern transaction with one hand, while facilitating the careers of populist charlatans who "expose" this amoral conspiracy with the other. In either case, the rewards are captured by Wall St. while the costs, inevitably, are paid by the party faithful.

A simple prop to occupy our time

New York Times:

“I don’t think businesses will hire back anytime soon, because it doesn’t pay for them to do that,” said Allen Sinai, chief global economist at Decision Economics. “Companies are rewarded by the stock markets for not hiring and keeping their costs down. We will see another jobless recovery.”

Companies are rewarded by the stock markets for not hiring and keeping their costs down; profits in the face human suffering are rewarded by social revolt.

Less labor, more days

The neverending story

Wall Street Journal:

While the U.S. appears to be headed out of one of the steepest recessions in decades, companies are playing hardball with unions and even entire cities in an effort to cut costs, improve efficiency and push through changes that will help them perform better over the long term.

This reminds me of the good times before the recession, when companies played hardball with employees -- and even entire communities! -- in an effort to cut costs, improve efficiency and push through changes that would help them perform better over the long term.

Best laid scams

Financial Times:

Mr Calderón took a swipe at some of the behemoths of the Mexican economy, criticised state monopolies and called for increased competition in telecommunications to reduce costs to consumers.

Alas, the Mexican president's proposal was summarily struck down by a Carlos Slim margin.

Entitlements!

University of Maryland, Program on International Policy Attitudes:

At least three-quarters of Americans say the "US government should be responsible for ensuring that its citizens can meet their basic needs" for education (83%), healthcare (77%), and food (74%).

WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY THAT AMERICANS HAVE A "RIGHT" TO MAKE POLICY!!??

Shortages

Financial Times:

Venezuela was one of the world’s top coffee exporters in the early 20th century. But for the first time last month the country was forced by looming shortages to import coffee from Brazil, even though locals say it is no match for the local quality Arabica beans.

Guatemala is one of the world's top coffee exporters in the early 21st century. But the country will soon be forced by looming shortages to import children from American malls, adapted to life on Starbucks; though locals say they are no match for the local quality of malnutrition, as featured by the Economist.

Disapproval

David Brooks, New York Times:

[P]ublic opposition to health care reform is now steady and stable.

Yeah, you can pretty much ask anybody: America does health care right!

Marxist Mondays

Fortune:

[T]he idea that there is a "free market" in health care for consumers is nonsense. A free market assumes that participants are knowledgeable and understand the choices they're being asked to make. That's not the case with health care, as anyone who has tried to analyze Medicare-supplement plans or pick among insurance options offered by his employer can tell you. Should you find yourself in a rural area far from home with a mysterious and troubling pain, you're not exactly in a position to bargain with the local walk-in clinic or hospital emergency room.

If a market is a place of exchange, calling it "free" doesn't tell us very much about its social meaning. Just because two or more parties agree to a transaction doesn't say anything about the balance of bargaining power, or the external pressures that may bring people to that market in the first place.

Anyone in a position of desperation or dependency will engage the world at a disadvantage; for Marx, this was the premise on which modern markets worked: Inequality, the engine of wealth.

Leadership

Wall Street Journal:

... Mr. Broad is not waiting around for Washington to solve the education crisis. In 2002 the foundation launched the Broad Superintendents Academy, a 10-month management training program to prepare people from business, nonprofits, the military and government backgrounds to take leadership positions in urban public education. The theory is that people with experience in efficiently managing large organizations are the best ones to put in charge of unruly public school districts.

Give me a wealthy douchebag with a "theory," and I will show you a "venture philanthropist" who doesn't "wait around" for a second opinion.

Perfect attendance

Financial Times:

Younger workers are more likely to take sick leave than their older colleagues, and those in their 60s have the best attendance levels.

Mike Emmott, policy adviser at the [Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development], said that, in spite of them entering the workforce with high expectations, something seems to go wrong with this younger age group.

“They can be quite bright-eyed and bushy-tailed when they start work,” he said. “But that enthusiasm rapidly falls off a cliff after a year or two.”

Mr Emmott speculated that younger workers either had unrealistic expectations of the workplace, or were losing faith in their employers when they did not deliver on promises made when they were hired.

Younger workers take sick leave; older workers take antidepressants!

A tall order

Economist:

It is hardly one of Latin America’s poorest countries, but according to Unicef almost half of Guatemala’s children are chronically malnourished — the sixth-worst performance in the world. In parts of rural Guatemala, where the population is overwhelmingly of Mayan descent, the incidence of child malnutrition reaches 80%.

Well! It almost makes you wonder why rural Guatemalans aren't eating! What exactly are they growing in that country, if not children?

American anarchism

The easiest way to challenge American political power at an individual level is to engage people with their own principles and ask them to be consistent in a way that political parties, inevitably, are not.

If a person is liberal, surely they must agree to be liberal toward every individual, and unafraid of any particular view; after all, this is the very foundation of freedom of speech. A consistent liberalism acknowledges this; it defends the right of free expression to every individual, including those with unpopular views. This is quite in contrast with the liberalism of the Democratic Party, which distinguishes itself by attacking the rural poor as too stupid to understand their own affairs in the event they are swayed by conservative appeals pointing out this fact!

Conversely, a conservative who is skeptical only in the face of governmental power, and happily ignores every other variety, is no conservative at all. Conservatism must be a skepticism toward all power, otherwise it is not a principle; anyone who argues that government is the only "coercive" authority under the sun should be invited to planet Earth for a stay, where examples abound. Similarly, arguments that "social order must be preserved," are easily undone by a principled conservatism which preferences certain social orders over others; few would argue that all things are justified simply because they exist.

Liberalism toward the individual, conservatism towards power; by another name, anarchism -- but nobody understands it by this name, and I find it a strong argument to say that most Americans never will. The relevant question for anyone engaged in social action is whether they want to speak persuasively to a clique of overeducated converts or to whomever they encounter in whatever context, usually on their terms.

Many popular principles can be broadened to their libertarian conclusions, obviating endless tutorials on "What is Libertarian Socialism?" -- which amounts to proselytizing the uninitiated with one hand, while sponsoring a kind of intolerance for those who "don't get it" with the other. It is too great a handicap to begin a course of social action anywhere most people are not.

Workplace safety

Put in some hours at the old parcel plantation today. A supervisor forbids me from maintaining a comfortable posture while loading volume into the belly of a 767. Normally, this would not be an issue, but the supervisor is part of a "safety committee" tasked to ensure my employer is not liable in the event of injury. To this end, we sign endless amounts of paperwork governing our every method and memorize reams of seemingly arbitrary "safety slogans" and other asinine catchphrases by rote. I would say a very small portion of this can be parlayed into any practical advantage on the job. But the advantage is always meant to be the company's; ours is simply to injure ourselves by some preapproved means.

Interview with Malcom Gladwell

WhoisIOZ?:

IOZ: Malcolm [Gladwell], what is your new book about?

MG: Well, IOZ, it's about how when you call across a room, street, or open outdoor area to someone who hasn't previously noticed you, they will hear you and become aware of your presence. This is really a remarkable phenomenon, but much of the newest research has yet to be written about for a general audience. I got the idea one day when I was in Manhattan. I was on Bleeker, and suddenly someone called, "Hey!" Before that, I hadn't known he was there. Afterward, I did. So I started to ask myself, what goes on in that moment. What is the real story there? In a broader sense, it is a book about what it means to be human.

I have to admit: I've never heard of Malcom Gladwell. And yet, by listening to NPR, I know him well!

Marxist Mondays

New York Times:

Among [Adam Smith's] more radical observations was that legislators tended to defer to those “masters” of industry, even when their aims would hurt the citizenry.

"Radical" is the observation that is not socially useful for the ruling class, Marx might say.

19th century insights

New York Times:

What unites communities with historically high rates of discrimination against girls is a rigid patriarchal culture that makes having a son a financial and social necessity.

The New York Times prefers a fluid patriarchal culture with high rates of violence and discrimination against women as increased profit and market share remain a financial and social necessity.

But as Marx noted 150 years ago, "That sucks, too!"