Halloween Harvest Moon

Happy Halloween

In honor of Halloween, I happily present a clip from Monster Squad, arguably the highest watermark of human achievement.  Watch to discover the answer to that oldest of questions: Does Wolf Man have nards?

Planned economies, freedom, and redistribution of social goods

I just read a cool quote by George Orwell, written in 1944:

"Such is our present predicament: Capitalism leads to dole queues [read: unemployment and state subsistence], the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can be combined with freedom of the intellect."

With this, Orwell hints at one of the ironies or contradictions of capitalism: markets have the capacity to destroy social bonds, thus containing the inherent potential to destroy their own stability; yet, markets at both the domestic and international levels also have the great capacity to integrate people.

Ignoring the equal (maybe even greater?) potential for self-inflicted destruction, many Adam Smith-centered libertarians trumpet markets solely as self-regulating forces for good, focusing only on the potential of markets to create peaceful orders that encourage mutual reliance and thus discipline, probity and honesty. Smith, however, proved himself overly utopian in his conception that both the economy and society could be protected from state penetration, could be left to reproduce unfettered, or that they would maintain social solidarity. Never mind the fact that modern capitalist markets depended from the start on the shaping and protecting activities of states. Never mind the fact that, in The Wealth of Nations, Smith himself stakes out a role for the government in defense, public works, education, and especially in the establishment of a framework of law. (For without such a system of justice, a market system is not possible.) Only Marx seems to have called for a total "withering away" of the state with his far-fetched idea of an enlightened proletariat organically developing a stateless society.

As we have seen from capitalism's previous cycles of boom and bust and the state's role in helping put the system upright again, the establishment of an economic order based solely on self-regulating markets (Smith's "invisible hand") are necessarily followed by the sucidal demise of these markets' self-regulation. This has been seen, perhaps most clearly, in the past several months of economic turmoil. The untamed market commits the sin of gluttony and eventually eats itself to death.

Ever since modernity's division of the human experience into state, economy, and society, the sight of ceaseless contestation has not been whether the state should have a role in our economy and society, but how it should do so, with what checks, and with what degree of mass participation and consent. For, as the state shapes and mitigates markets, it redefines the autonomy and flexibility of that market. And, importantly, it also opens up possibilities for self-conscious social engineering.

Our democratic system of government provides we, the people, with quite an honor and challenge to choose how we will redefine our markets and help shape our social system. I respect the conservative inclination to maintain what they believe are traditional methods of virtue, despite my great disagreement in our conceptions of virtuousness. I see the Republican party's virtues being centered on individual gain, self-interest (especially for those already empowered), and a reluctance for the government to use its potentially vast resources for social betterment. The values I see espoused in the Democratic party revolve around the idea that we're all in this together, by working together we make our whole greater than its sum, and that government can work to help make a more equitable and just society while maintaining social and intellectual freedoms.

The challenge, as Orwell states above, is to orchestrate a planned economy with the greatest degree of freedom. The idealist in me hopes, and even believes, that we're currently on that very path now. If so, it'll be amazingly ironic that the greatest government interventions in the history of our country (as obviously occurred over the past 8 years), were brought on by a right-wing, self-described "conservative" administration. Likewise, won't it be great if (when!?!) those state policies are scaled back in some cases by a so-called liberal Democrat, who then plans to redirected that state involvement toward a more just distribution of resources? After all, the purpose of taxes in our nation's history has always been to redistribute wealth and facilitate democratic state intervention. Whether the burden of payment falls on the struggling and disintegrating middle class (as it would if Bush's tax cuts became permanent, which McCain desires), or if the burden falls upon the rich who have a greater ability to shoulder such national responsibilities, tax redistribution always occurs with each year's necessary payment to our government.

I, as you know, favor Obama's policies of each of us helping each other out. That's the mixture of freedom and state intervention that I think can make "Morning in America" all over again.

Top 10 Reasons Conservatives Should Vote for Obama

This comes from a self-avowed conservative writer at The Atlantic.com.

Wassuuuuuup?!

My rapid-fire posts here likely reflect one of two things: either the sparse attention I've been putting into my school work as late, or my powerful urge to communicate the dusty rattlings inside my head and share my recent cultural discoveries.

(Frank! Drebin!) Your both right!

Anyway, here's the youtube joy that fell into my lap today.

(Historical TV-relevance can be found here for those who don't remember, or never saw it.)

If your searching for something even more beautiful than adaptations of old beer commercials, you can find more urgent truth here. The second half of this makes my heart happy. Strength in numbers, baby. TRUE.

Wassssuuuuupp!???? Obama's wassup, y'all. Word.

Reaching Across the Aisle

Post-Partisan Politics at its best:

Debt

Margaret Atwood has an interesting op-ed in the NYTimes on the subject of debt.

Coincidentally, the students in my Colonial American history course just read a bit from Ben Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanac (1757) in which he explains his aversion to debt. I couldn't help but think about it in the context of our growing national debt and its relation to America's increased concern about the rise of China. I'm still trying to figure out how else it might apply now that the American taxpayer has become the creditor to several of our major banks. Anyway, here's what Ben has to say (with his emphasis, not mine) --

“What Madness must it be to run in Debt for these Superfluities!... [T]hink what you do when you run in Debt; You give another Power over your Liberty. If you cannot pay at the Time, you will be ashamed to see your Creditor; you will be in Fear when you speak to him; you will make poor pitiful sneaking Excuses, and by Degrees come to lose your Veracity, and sink into base downright lying; for, as Poor Richard says…Lying rides upon Debt’s Back. Whereas a freeborn Englishman ought not to be ashamed or afraid to see or speak to any Man living. But Poverty often deprives a Man of all Spirit and Virtue….

The Borrower is a Slave to the Lender, and the Debtor to the Creditor, disdain the Chain, preserve your Freedom; and maintain your Independency: Be industrious and free; be frugal and free….

This Doctrine, my Friends, is Reason and Wisdom; but after all, do not depend too much upon your own Industry, and Frugality, and Prudence, though excellent Things, for they may all be blasted without the Blessing of Heaven; and therefore ask that Blessing humbly, and be not uncharitable to those that at present seem to want it, but comfort and help them.”

Click on everything.

http://www.palinaspresident.us/

Oh, baby--Obama!

As soon as summer comes and I have some time, I'll read all the links from your post, Rog :)  Actually, I'd like to get to them soon.  I've also heard Switzerland had a remarkably similar situation in the '90s?

Anyhow, here's a snap of Ella after I asked her, "Hey, how would you like Palin to be your VP?"

Economic collapse - now and then (1873)

This post is for the history dorks like me.

The two articles linked below examine how today's economic meltdown is more similar to the global and American depression in 1873, with a real estate collapse and credit freeze, than it is to the 1929 crash. Both articles are really interesting.

The Chronicle of Higher Education article does a great job of showing how the 1873 crisis was surprisingly a trans-atlantic phenomenon, aided by US economic growth into the global marketplace but based upon European lending policies (read: China's growth and US lending today). At the end, it makes some tentative but interesting predictions for our current situation.

The NYTimes article does a great job of explaining the 1873 Panic from a more domestic perspective, complete with links to old primary documents from that era, as well as some political ramifications of that collapse.

While not metioned in the NYTimes article, I think its interesting that the market recovery to the 1873 collapse coincided in 1877-78 with a troop draw-down of American occupation forces in the post-Civil War southern states. And, that this was soon followed by a shift in military attention to a much earlier but similarly regarded war on terror: the tragic Indian wars in the western states/territories. In these events, do we have our Iraqi 'horizon-line' and our possible shift of military resources to Afghanistan? If so, is there a military-economic lesson to be taken from it?

Finally, in a remarkably related cultural analysis, movie critic A.O. Scott takes a look back at the movie 'Wall Street' by Oliver Stone in this short video post. His analysis is excellent. Seeing some of these clips (the greed speech is incredible) makes me even more excited for this weekend's release of 'W.'!

PS. Last weekend, Bri and I went to see Bill Maher's 'Religulous.' Worth seeing, me thinks, not only for the laughs but for the interesting and important questions he raises.

Absolutely--Though It Looks Like It Won't Be Necessary....

Here's a funny vid Slate did about us liberals moving to Canada if McCain/Palin win:

http://slatev.com/player.html?id=1842856410

Finally, a politician I can believe in...

This is what I'm talking about:

"I would like to bring a younger generation's voice to the council and represent the younger generation in Bellevue," said Olliges, 29. He said his goals include increasing the amount of home owners instead of renters in the city."

Now, just add expanding the city's definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, boosting the education budget, and a commitment to the principles of Obama's blue book of policy, and you're set!

Ugh.

Ugh ugh ugh.  Ugh.  Ugh ugh.  Ugggggghhhhhh.....