BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Monks return to streets of Burma: "The British ambassador to Burma, Mark Canning, told the BBC he expected further unrest in the country."
My last post about these protests was made during the beginning of the marches. While I followed events closely as the government response became more and more violent, I didn't continue to blog about it, but I did continue to hope.
And now, a month after the brutal crackdown where many, many people were killed and thousands arrested, the monks of Burma are marching in the street again. Their bravery and courage serves as a message to us all. It sends chills down my spine thinking of what these men are doing, standing up for what they believe in despite the tremendous risks involved. They have both my greatest admiration and my prayers.
No matter what happens, the monks have already won.
programmers pithy thoughts
"Programmers learn to fear copying things with their fingers. Copy and paste prevents a lot of bugs."
"Asking code questions in a tech interview is like asking an investigative reporter how to spell."
-Me
"Asking code questions in a tech interview is like asking an investigative reporter how to spell."
-Me
I like Dissent
I like dissenting views, even if I disagree with them, because they provoke thought. They also take a lot of courage to voice, and I respect that. And too, sometimes amidst all the noise there is even a gem or two of truth.
Zeitgeist - The Movie, 2007 is a rather odd duck. I ran into the link while on one of my wikipedia explorations, which for some reason veered off into "tax protesters" and "the federal reserve", which dovetails nicely with some of my recent reading on Alan Greenspan.
Anyway, this movie is a rather odd duck because, although it makes some rather far-reaching claims, I would be hard-pressed to describe an overarching theme. This is a movie dedicated to describing an enormous pile of shit, but spends little time describing the shovel.
So, the pile of shit has specifically to do with the nature of Christianity, the nature of the federal income tax and the federal reserve, and 9/11. The common thread seems to be intentional concentration of power into the hands of a few that is leading to unwitting servitude of the many. Although really the 9/11 datapoint doesn't quite follow this pattern. Indeed, the crux of the last argument is that a few guys living in caves couldn't *possibly* outsmart the US and NORAD.
(Other movies that are related, like America: Freedom to Fascism, offer a few more datapoints like the fact that every war of the 20th century was started for profit, and that the public school system is designed to keep our children stupid. But I digress.)
So the first part of the movie launches into a description of how the details Christian story isn't all that unique. To me, this fact is interesting but hardly an eye-opener. I though it was well-known that religions borrow from each other all the time. And besides, in my view the interesting part of a religion aren't the rites and rituals, but the underlying essence of the thing. But the movie treats these revelations as somehow damning, which frankly I don't get. It's true that atrocities have been commited in the name of Christianity, a lot of them, but atrocities have been committed in the name of peace, and in the name of science, and in the name of virtually everything. Power hungry psychotics aren't really that discriminating when it comes to their rationalizations.
I was very interested in what they had to say about the Fed. I'm not quite sure I understand all of the arguments, but I think the basic assertion is that the Fed releases more money into the world, and that money is only lent (at interest) to large banks. Since the interest can only be paid back with other money, the Fed is always collecting interest on the sum total of all cash flowing around the system, and is therefore printing up debt.
I have to admit that this seems very strange to me, but I'm not prepared to say that this is wrong. I've always wondered about how money works - I mean, if money represents "wealth" what happens when more wealth is created? If no money is printed, then deflation results, which is bad for people who have to pay back loans (but good for people who save). If too much money is printed, then inflation results which is bad for people who save but good for those who borrow. And there are other effects relating to GDP and unemployment that I don't entirely understand.
What's not clear to me is how a gold standard would solve any of this. I guess it would all work out if the rate at which gold is produced is roughly proportional to the amount of other wealth produced by society. However, it seems like the Fed has been able to stabalize the economy. However, one of the assertions of this movie is that the Great Depression was engineered (and only made possible by) the central bank.
I'm extremely wary of this hypothesis, but I think it's possible. The motive given is that, by forcing money out of the markets, those with liquid assets were able to buy up failed enterprises for pennies on the dollar, further consolidating power and money. This is possible from powerful, stupid men who want a large slice of a shrinking pie (there are plenty of short-sighted dictators able and willing to demonstrate this reasoning). Wiser men would want a nice slice of a huge pie, which in the end would constitute more wealth, if not more power.
I'll have to continue this post later...
Zeitgeist - The Movie, 2007 is a rather odd duck. I ran into the link while on one of my wikipedia explorations, which for some reason veered off into "tax protesters" and "the federal reserve", which dovetails nicely with some of my recent reading on Alan Greenspan.
Anyway, this movie is a rather odd duck because, although it makes some rather far-reaching claims, I would be hard-pressed to describe an overarching theme. This is a movie dedicated to describing an enormous pile of shit, but spends little time describing the shovel.
So, the pile of shit has specifically to do with the nature of Christianity, the nature of the federal income tax and the federal reserve, and 9/11. The common thread seems to be intentional concentration of power into the hands of a few that is leading to unwitting servitude of the many. Although really the 9/11 datapoint doesn't quite follow this pattern. Indeed, the crux of the last argument is that a few guys living in caves couldn't *possibly* outsmart the US and NORAD.
(Other movies that are related, like America: Freedom to Fascism, offer a few more datapoints like the fact that every war of the 20th century was started for profit, and that the public school system is designed to keep our children stupid. But I digress.)
So the first part of the movie launches into a description of how the details Christian story isn't all that unique. To me, this fact is interesting but hardly an eye-opener. I though it was well-known that religions borrow from each other all the time. And besides, in my view the interesting part of a religion aren't the rites and rituals, but the underlying essence of the thing. But the movie treats these revelations as somehow damning, which frankly I don't get. It's true that atrocities have been commited in the name of Christianity, a lot of them, but atrocities have been committed in the name of peace, and in the name of science, and in the name of virtually everything. Power hungry psychotics aren't really that discriminating when it comes to their rationalizations.
I was very interested in what they had to say about the Fed. I'm not quite sure I understand all of the arguments, but I think the basic assertion is that the Fed releases more money into the world, and that money is only lent (at interest) to large banks. Since the interest can only be paid back with other money, the Fed is always collecting interest on the sum total of all cash flowing around the system, and is therefore printing up debt.
I have to admit that this seems very strange to me, but I'm not prepared to say that this is wrong. I've always wondered about how money works - I mean, if money represents "wealth" what happens when more wealth is created? If no money is printed, then deflation results, which is bad for people who have to pay back loans (but good for people who save). If too much money is printed, then inflation results which is bad for people who save but good for those who borrow. And there are other effects relating to GDP and unemployment that I don't entirely understand.
What's not clear to me is how a gold standard would solve any of this. I guess it would all work out if the rate at which gold is produced is roughly proportional to the amount of other wealth produced by society. However, it seems like the Fed has been able to stabalize the economy. However, one of the assertions of this movie is that the Great Depression was engineered (and only made possible by) the central bank.
I'm extremely wary of this hypothesis, but I think it's possible. The motive given is that, by forcing money out of the markets, those with liquid assets were able to buy up failed enterprises for pennies on the dollar, further consolidating power and money. This is possible from powerful, stupid men who want a large slice of a shrinking pie (there are plenty of short-sighted dictators able and willing to demonstrate this reasoning). Wiser men would want a nice slice of a huge pie, which in the end would constitute more wealth, if not more power.
I'll have to continue this post later...
Emergency Alert System - is it broken?
Emergency Alert System: "The official EAS is designed to enable the President of the United States to speak to the United States within 10 minutes"
It occurs to me though that as more people use satellite radio, internet radio, and cable TV that "emergency broadcasts" will reach progressively fewer people.
It occurs to me though that as more people use satellite radio, internet radio, and cable TV that "emergency broadcasts" will reach progressively fewer people.
Which candidate is for you? A nifty voting tool that goes in the right direction but falls short.
My mom sent me a link to a nifty voting tool that claims to match you with a candidate that share's your views. (It looks like a legit local news website.)
Now, I really like this idea, but I'm concerned about at least two issues that are missing. To me, one of the most important issues is the extent to which the executive branch of government has extended it's powers and ignored the checks and balances from the other branches. The next President should be one who works diligently to dismantle the structures put in place by this administration - and the sooner this happens, the easier it will be to accomplish.
The other huge issue that is not listed is the issue of the Patriot Act and Guantanomo Bay. I personally would strongly favor a candidate who owns up to the fact that 9-11 could have been prevented using the tools we had at the time, and that new invasive laws and freedom-eroding statutes were not necessary and need to be repealed. (It's unfortunate that Congress cannot make such a bold statement and actually act. But it's not clear to me that most Americans are even aware of the Patriot Act, or even if they are, if they have thought through it's startling implications.)
Of course, what's bound to be a huge issue is our stance toward Iran, and that's not in the quiz either.
This quiz inspired me to consider an important question: what should we really do about Iraq? I know in my heart we should leave because we went in for the wrong reasons (Iraq never posed a threat to the US, never) - but to paraphrase Colin Powell, "we broke it" so shouldn't we do what we can to fix it before we go? Are we able to fix it? What does "fixing it" even mean? Does anyone in power or out of it have any ideas on what the US needs to do in specific terms? The quiz gives 6 possible answers about Iraq:
Most of these are meaningless, of course. The "timetable" solution is especially empty.
To truly reverse our actions we'd have to resurrect Sadam (and thousands of others) from the dead. To maintain Iraq's borders it apparently needs a strongman dictator. It's sad, but true.
But does this help us achieve our tacit goal of energy-security? Perhaps. Does this help us achieve our tacit goal of being within easy striking distance of a newly nuclear Iran? Probably not.
But as Gary Kasparov said so shrewdly on Bill Maher the other day, the US used to be a beacon of hope and freedom - but now has become just another country wielding "Democracy" as a tool for it's own self-interest. This, more than anything, needs to change, and should be at the forefront of this election. We Americans are good people - idealistic, hard-working, intelligent, creative, honest, and tough. Common sense has been a watchword for us since time immemoral. We hate red tape, we are mistrustful of those who wish to concentrate power and wield it over us, we know the risks of being a do-gooder, and the risks of doing nothing.
I don't think we've changed all that much - but we are a distracted people. Our relative wealth distracts us - we are distracted by consumption of goods and information. To reinstate the draft would be a badly needed wake-up call. To make the effects of war felt by everyone would be a wake-up call. The current administration has done an amazing job isolating the effects of war from the population at large - the effects are boiled down to a few impersonal numbers. A few thousand Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqis, and billions upon billions of dollars. A news item about yet another road-side bomb going off in Baghdad. But there's no food rationing. There's no fear of being drafted. And so there are no protests. No one really cares in their heart about the war(s) (there's one in Afghanistan too, remember!)
Of course a big part of the problem is waiting for the right president to be elected! The right person getting the job would be a tremendous boon to be sure, but we as individuals can do our part. We can speak our minds fearlessly and passionately. We can help to wake up our fellow citizens from their sleep. We can encourage dialogue that is incisive and intelligent, rather than one that appeals to the least-common-denominator. Do not fear serious discussion with friends and neighbors. Talk politics with those at the coffee shop. On your front porch. With people at work. Even a few moments a day thinking about something other than Paris Hilton or the latest consumption craze is progress.
Now, I really like this idea, but I'm concerned about at least two issues that are missing. To me, one of the most important issues is the extent to which the executive branch of government has extended it's powers and ignored the checks and balances from the other branches. The next President should be one who works diligently to dismantle the structures put in place by this administration - and the sooner this happens, the easier it will be to accomplish.
The other huge issue that is not listed is the issue of the Patriot Act and Guantanomo Bay. I personally would strongly favor a candidate who owns up to the fact that 9-11 could have been prevented using the tools we had at the time, and that new invasive laws and freedom-eroding statutes were not necessary and need to be repealed. (It's unfortunate that Congress cannot make such a bold statement and actually act. But it's not clear to me that most Americans are even aware of the Patriot Act, or even if they are, if they have thought through it's startling implications.)
Of course, what's bound to be a huge issue is our stance toward Iran, and that's not in the quiz either.
This quiz inspired me to consider an important question: what should we really do about Iraq? I know in my heart we should leave because we went in for the wrong reasons (Iraq never posed a threat to the US, never) - but to paraphrase Colin Powell, "we broke it" so shouldn't we do what we can to fix it before we go? Are we able to fix it? What does "fixing it" even mean? Does anyone in power or out of it have any ideas on what the US needs to do in specific terms? The quiz gives 6 possible answers about Iraq:
- Decentralize Iraq by dividing it into regions of separate governments.
- Draw down the U.S. troops and decentralize Iraq by dividing it into regions of separate governments.
- I favor immediate and orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops.
- There should be a timetable for the removal of U.S. troops.
- We are going to be in Iraq for a long time, as a support force for the Iraqi government and forces.
- U.S. forces need to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes for Iraqi forces to take over.
Most of these are meaningless, of course. The "timetable" solution is especially empty.
To truly reverse our actions we'd have to resurrect Sadam (and thousands of others) from the dead. To maintain Iraq's borders it apparently needs a strongman dictator. It's sad, but true.
But does this help us achieve our tacit goal of energy-security? Perhaps. Does this help us achieve our tacit goal of being within easy striking distance of a newly nuclear Iran? Probably not.
But as Gary Kasparov said so shrewdly on Bill Maher the other day, the US used to be a beacon of hope and freedom - but now has become just another country wielding "Democracy" as a tool for it's own self-interest. This, more than anything, needs to change, and should be at the forefront of this election. We Americans are good people - idealistic, hard-working, intelligent, creative, honest, and tough. Common sense has been a watchword for us since time immemoral. We hate red tape, we are mistrustful of those who wish to concentrate power and wield it over us, we know the risks of being a do-gooder, and the risks of doing nothing.
I don't think we've changed all that much - but we are a distracted people. Our relative wealth distracts us - we are distracted by consumption of goods and information. To reinstate the draft would be a badly needed wake-up call. To make the effects of war felt by everyone would be a wake-up call. The current administration has done an amazing job isolating the effects of war from the population at large - the effects are boiled down to a few impersonal numbers. A few thousand Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqis, and billions upon billions of dollars. A news item about yet another road-side bomb going off in Baghdad. But there's no food rationing. There's no fear of being drafted. And so there are no protests. No one really cares in their heart about the war(s) (there's one in Afghanistan too, remember!)
Of course a big part of the problem is waiting for the right president to be elected! The right person getting the job would be a tremendous boon to be sure, but we as individuals can do our part. We can speak our minds fearlessly and passionately. We can help to wake up our fellow citizens from their sleep. We can encourage dialogue that is incisive and intelligent, rather than one that appeals to the least-common-denominator. Do not fear serious discussion with friends and neighbors. Talk politics with those at the coffee shop. On your front porch. With people at work. Even a few moments a day thinking about something other than Paris Hilton or the latest consumption craze is progress.
The Economics of Trolling
Trolls, I believe, were initially identified on Usenet. They are users who say often outrageous, emotional, polemical, and irrational things. They will say anything to garner a response. All they really want is attention, and no matter what your response - be it angry, peaceful, reasonable, unreasonable, it just feeds "the energy monster".
Trolling has become an economic phenomena. It used to be called "sensationalism" but, by my own anecdotal evidence, it's becoming extremely common. A couple of years ago I recognized Ann Coultre as a mainstream media troll. Indeed, much of the "talking head" culture consists of trolling to some degree. (It totally sucks even mentioning her name, but hopefully this energy monster doesn't get too much out of me!)
Why is it a growing phenomena, what is the problem with it, and how can the problem be corrected?
The bottom line is that companies are hungry for traffic, because traffic equals eyes, and eyes equals clicks, and clicks equals monetizable actions, which equals money.
Psychologically we humans are designed to see the things that are out of place - it may only be a few degrees error, but we can see that out-of-whack picture frame. We have an instinct to respond especially strongly to false statements - and this works well in the real world when we have the (ever decreasing luxury) of face-to-face communication with the person making the statement.
So I click on the Google News item "Put Dumbledore Back in the Closet" from time.com, and I notice the new Anne Coulter book titled "If Democrats had any brains they'd be Republicans" and I know that many people out there will be tempted to care in a way that is sadly
What inspired this post is the incredibly hypocritical, ill thought out, and entirely blameworthy fluff put out by time.com about harry potter:
Put Dumbledore Back in the Closet - TIME
Trolling has become an economic phenomena. It used to be called "sensationalism" but, by my own anecdotal evidence, it's becoming extremely common. A couple of years ago I recognized Ann Coultre as a mainstream media troll. Indeed, much of the "talking head" culture consists of trolling to some degree. (It totally sucks even mentioning her name, but hopefully this energy monster doesn't get too much out of me!)
Why is it a growing phenomena, what is the problem with it, and how can the problem be corrected?
The bottom line is that companies are hungry for traffic, because traffic equals eyes, and eyes equals clicks, and clicks equals monetizable actions, which equals money.
Psychologically we humans are designed to see the things that are out of place - it may only be a few degrees error, but we can see that out-of-whack picture frame. We have an instinct to respond especially strongly to false statements - and this works well in the real world when we have the (ever decreasing luxury) of face-to-face communication with the person making the statement.
So I click on the Google News item "Put Dumbledore Back in the Closet" from time.com, and I notice the new Anne Coulter book titled "If Democrats had any brains they'd be Republicans" and I know that many people out there will be tempted to care in a way that is sadly
What inspired this post is the incredibly hypocritical, ill thought out, and entirely blameworthy fluff put out by time.com about harry potter:
Put Dumbledore Back in the Closet - TIME
Shockingly, Palestinians planned to kill the Isreali PM
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israel reveals 'plot to kill PM': "Palestinian militants planned to kill Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert"
Wouldn't they be more surprised if such a plan didn't exist?
Wouldn't they be more surprised if such a plan didn't exist?
Wrinkle in Time author Madeleine L'Engle dies | Entertainment | Reuters
Wrinkle in Time author Madeleine L'Engle dies | Entertainment | Reuters: "Madeleine L'Engle, author of 'A Wrinkle in Time' and other tales woven with themes of science, religion, and love and read by millions of children and adults, has died in Connecticut. She was 88."
You were a great influence on me, and your heart shone through in every word. Rest in peace.
You were a great influence on me, and your heart shone through in every word. Rest in peace.
Funny or Die Videos - R.Kelly's Trapped in the Closet - by benanderic
For the record, I really dislike the misogyny in R&B and hip hop, and it's parodied here unfortunately.
Iraq and Afghanistan: worth another $190 billion? - Los Angeles Times
Iraq and Afghanistan: worth another $190 billion? - Los Angeles Times: " Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates has announced that the Bush administration will request $190 billion for fiscal year 2008 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "
That's a lot of money.
That's a lot of money.
Saving Burma the right way?
Saving Burma the right way - Los Angeles Times: "The war, poverty and repression are all interlinked; progress on all these fronts needs to happen together."
Thant Myint-U makes a strong plea for reducing sanctions against Burma. He makes the point that, even if the junta were removed, who will be there to take it's place? The west can undermine the junta with prosperity and education. This is a viewpoint worth considering.
Thant Myint-U makes a strong plea for reducing sanctions against Burma. He makes the point that, even if the junta were removed, who will be there to take it's place? The west can undermine the junta with prosperity and education. This is a viewpoint worth considering.
Alan Greenspan's The Age of Turbulence - a book review
For better or worse, I've been reading The Age of Turbulence by Alan Greenspan. The book is quite remarkable in several respects, not the least of which is what is left out. Were there no true personal conundrums to be faced during his 14 year tenure at the Fed? Personal friends who asked for favors, and had to be turned down? Legal but ethically questionable conflicts of interest that may have even taken Mr. Greenspan by surprise? Having to deal with friends directly and seriously affected by his own decisions? All of these questions are unanswered, and it's hard to believe that "Mr. Chairman" didn't step on any of his (very) powerful friends toes in all of those years.
In truth, I can't help but admire the man. He presents himself as fundamentally a technician, something that I find very easy to believe. That this lower-middle class Jewish kid from Brooklyn rose to be one of the most powerful men in the nation makes for stunning revelation in it's simplicity: you just have to be a genius, psychologically stable, and have an interest in something powerful people also have an interest in, money. It doesn't even seem to require any ambition: apparently, with these ingredients, positions of ever increasing influence and power will simply be offered to you. And while some readers may think the same thing with irony, I do not. I believe that Greenspan is an idealist, and humble in his single-minded pursuit of the perfection of his econometric models, and worldly success to him is, at best, a happy side-effect of his interest.
The sheer lack of shrillness in his book speaks highly of his character. True, some sections sound a bit defensive (such as those describing his infamous address to Congress regarding the 2001 Bush Jr. tax cut). But over all, here is a guy who truly believes in the value of capitalism, and doesn't shy away from expressing opinion, but takes care to do so in a way grounded in observable fact. I think that's good.
He makes a very good point toward the end of the book, that the more perfect a market, the more stress "creative destruction" creates for people. And yet this is the price we all pay for increasing material affluence. He makes the further point that some cultures choose less material affluence in return for less stress - citing Germany as one example. Greenspan's personal bias clearly seems to be for "more stress, more materialism" but I'm glad that he lays out the choice so clearly.
Of course, reading this book can't help but make me think about financial markets, and why Greenspan is constantly talking about making them more "flexible". I can't help but think he's been influenced by brokerage firms who make money in proportion to fluidity of markets. I mean, these firms make money on every dollar transfer from point a to point b, right? Therefore, it's in their best interest to keep money moving from point a to point b, then back again, and then back again.... So there's an incentive to do even more "creative destruction" than is strictly necessary, just to make money on the transfers of vast wealth. I read the book quite carefully and never heard this question answered.
The book fails for the lay reader (like me) by getting a bit too technical. Some of the terms I am unfamiliar with, as well as some of the dynamics he sites. But even so one gets a sense of the thought process behind a US$300m/year enterprise (The Federal Reserve) who's primary work is to produce a single number (the long term federal interest rate) every month. I would have liked more of a backgrounder on certain topics, maybe not even in the narrative but in a side bar or even an accompanying website.
I find it remarkable how homogenous Greenspan sees the world. He can abstract whole nations (and their histories) as a set of numbers: GDP, per capita income, productivity levels, exchange rates, authoritarian/democratic, etc. This kind of analysis is so relentless in the book, and I can't help but feel a kind of pull of simplicity - maybe the world isn't such a big, unfathomable place after all! Maybe it can all be understood (at the right level of abstraction) in a way that really matters. And yet, on the other hand, such homogeneity seems to presuppose a globalization process that has already completed - in Alan Greenspan's head.
Globalization is one of those contentious issues that Greenspan addresses briefly, but for the most part takes as an assumed worthy goal. This is easy to understand coming from an ardent Objectivist (he attended Ayn Rand's funeral). He never specifically addresses the workplace problems in third world countries creating textiles, for example.
Another contentious issue is whether or not the world really has gotten better as the result of capitalism. This is not a point of fact that is universally accepted, and yet Greenspan presents it without much evidence. Frankly, my personal inclination is that he's right, but time and time again I've discovered that my anecdotal experience cannot be relied upon to present an accurate global picture! From one very smart person, for example, I've even heard it claimed that the "dark ages" weren't really that dark, and that peasants actually had it pretty good. That seems possible to me, but since it goes against the mainstream it kind of requires a bit of proof.
There's a claim in the book that populist measures don't work. Now, I agree with that just because it seems like history shows it to be true. However, I'm not sure if I buy the explanation: that if you fix an imbalance in one area that you create several imbalances elsewhere. If that holds true for macro economics, why doesn't it hold true for individuals? And if it holds true for individuals, doesn't this mean that we shouldn't ever try to help people, including ourselves, for fear of generating other imbalances in the system? In other words, the fear of taking action because of inadvertently created imbalances seems to be a more general principle.
Greenspan makes a big point that the collapse of the Soviet Union showed empirically that centrally planned economies do not work. I would be curious to know how information technology could be used to potentially solve the problems that plagued central planning. I would have liked Greenspan to address this intriguing possibility.
My overall reaction to this book was quite mixed. Intellectually I found it quite stimulating and interesting - I've always wondered "where the money goes" when I deposit money into the bank, and get a bit cross-eyed when I hear financial news, and this book shed a bit of light on how the game is played at the highest levels. And yet, I can't help but notice the mild depression that hit me as I was reading the book. I'm not sure exactly what caused that - perhaps it was watching as a brilliant man retold his entire long eighty year life mostly in terms of numbers and endless meetings wearing a suit and tie. Greenspan doesn't like the noisy music of the 20th century, and yet that's the culture he helped to create. Could Schumann have lived today? Is it possible to put a dollar amount on peaceful, slower-paced living? What irony that Greenspan is advocating the acceleration of a world in which his favorite art forms could never have been created.
How can capitalism go wrong? Check this out:
In truth, I can't help but admire the man. He presents himself as fundamentally a technician, something that I find very easy to believe. That this lower-middle class Jewish kid from Brooklyn rose to be one of the most powerful men in the nation makes for stunning revelation in it's simplicity: you just have to be a genius, psychologically stable, and have an interest in something powerful people also have an interest in, money. It doesn't even seem to require any ambition: apparently, with these ingredients, positions of ever increasing influence and power will simply be offered to you. And while some readers may think the same thing with irony, I do not. I believe that Greenspan is an idealist, and humble in his single-minded pursuit of the perfection of his econometric models, and worldly success to him is, at best, a happy side-effect of his interest.
The sheer lack of shrillness in his book speaks highly of his character. True, some sections sound a bit defensive (such as those describing his infamous address to Congress regarding the 2001 Bush Jr. tax cut). But over all, here is a guy who truly believes in the value of capitalism, and doesn't shy away from expressing opinion, but takes care to do so in a way grounded in observable fact. I think that's good.
He makes a very good point toward the end of the book, that the more perfect a market, the more stress "creative destruction" creates for people. And yet this is the price we all pay for increasing material affluence. He makes the further point that some cultures choose less material affluence in return for less stress - citing Germany as one example. Greenspan's personal bias clearly seems to be for "more stress, more materialism" but I'm glad that he lays out the choice so clearly.
Of course, reading this book can't help but make me think about financial markets, and why Greenspan is constantly talking about making them more "flexible". I can't help but think he's been influenced by brokerage firms who make money in proportion to fluidity of markets. I mean, these firms make money on every dollar transfer from point a to point b, right? Therefore, it's in their best interest to keep money moving from point a to point b, then back again, and then back again.... So there's an incentive to do even more "creative destruction" than is strictly necessary, just to make money on the transfers of vast wealth. I read the book quite carefully and never heard this question answered.
The book fails for the lay reader (like me) by getting a bit too technical. Some of the terms I am unfamiliar with, as well as some of the dynamics he sites. But even so one gets a sense of the thought process behind a US$300m/year enterprise (The Federal Reserve) who's primary work is to produce a single number (the long term federal interest rate) every month. I would have liked more of a backgrounder on certain topics, maybe not even in the narrative but in a side bar or even an accompanying website.
I find it remarkable how homogenous Greenspan sees the world. He can abstract whole nations (and their histories) as a set of numbers: GDP, per capita income, productivity levels, exchange rates, authoritarian/democratic, etc. This kind of analysis is so relentless in the book, and I can't help but feel a kind of pull of simplicity - maybe the world isn't such a big, unfathomable place after all! Maybe it can all be understood (at the right level of abstraction) in a way that really matters. And yet, on the other hand, such homogeneity seems to presuppose a globalization process that has already completed - in Alan Greenspan's head.
Globalization is one of those contentious issues that Greenspan addresses briefly, but for the most part takes as an assumed worthy goal. This is easy to understand coming from an ardent Objectivist (he attended Ayn Rand's funeral). He never specifically addresses the workplace problems in third world countries creating textiles, for example.
Another contentious issue is whether or not the world really has gotten better as the result of capitalism. This is not a point of fact that is universally accepted, and yet Greenspan presents it without much evidence. Frankly, my personal inclination is that he's right, but time and time again I've discovered that my anecdotal experience cannot be relied upon to present an accurate global picture! From one very smart person, for example, I've even heard it claimed that the "dark ages" weren't really that dark, and that peasants actually had it pretty good. That seems possible to me, but since it goes against the mainstream it kind of requires a bit of proof.
There's a claim in the book that populist measures don't work. Now, I agree with that just because it seems like history shows it to be true. However, I'm not sure if I buy the explanation: that if you fix an imbalance in one area that you create several imbalances elsewhere. If that holds true for macro economics, why doesn't it hold true for individuals? And if it holds true for individuals, doesn't this mean that we shouldn't ever try to help people, including ourselves, for fear of generating other imbalances in the system? In other words, the fear of taking action because of inadvertently created imbalances seems to be a more general principle.
Greenspan makes a big point that the collapse of the Soviet Union showed empirically that centrally planned economies do not work. I would be curious to know how information technology could be used to potentially solve the problems that plagued central planning. I would have liked Greenspan to address this intriguing possibility.
My overall reaction to this book was quite mixed. Intellectually I found it quite stimulating and interesting - I've always wondered "where the money goes" when I deposit money into the bank, and get a bit cross-eyed when I hear financial news, and this book shed a bit of light on how the game is played at the highest levels. And yet, I can't help but notice the mild depression that hit me as I was reading the book. I'm not sure exactly what caused that - perhaps it was watching as a brilliant man retold his entire long eighty year life mostly in terms of numbers and endless meetings wearing a suit and tie. Greenspan doesn't like the noisy music of the 20th century, and yet that's the culture he helped to create. Could Schumann have lived today? Is it possible to put a dollar amount on peaceful, slower-paced living? What irony that Greenspan is advocating the acceleration of a world in which his favorite art forms could never have been created.
How can capitalism go wrong? Check this out:
Funny or Die Videos
Funny or Die Videos is actually very funny. A good time waster for those without a TV (like me).
The secret to a happy marriage
Ben Stiller Loses Heart - TIME: "'Sit back, relax and wait for the sweet embrace of death'"
I don't plan on seeing this movie, but that advice for marital happiness is fucking hilarious.
I don't plan on seeing this movie, but that advice for marital happiness is fucking hilarious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)