tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post4057098195013509354..comments2024-03-28T04:58:13.341-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Nonpolitical (!) News, Wonders and Marvels...David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-46376744237530007752008-09-27T12:56:00.000-07:002008-09-27T12:56:00.000-07:00"There are some $100 “raffle” prizes for participa..."There are some $100 “raffle” prizes for participating. Here is the link to the survey:"<BR/><BR/>But there is no link there, just the next section heading.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-15905816679479155932008-09-20T19:10:00.000-07:002008-09-20T19:10:00.000-07:00As for the "molten aluminum" arguments... that is ...As for the "molten aluminum" arguments... that is a fallacy. There is only one thing that could keep aluminum molten for a long period of time: insulation. If aluminum truly got so hot that it took "that long" to cool down... then it would have <I>vaporized</I>. Metals do that. You can easily watch metal boil... just put some mercury on your stovetop and watch it bubble away cheerfully into mercury vapor (which will then poison you and do horrible things to you so don't. I'm using this as an example, and my vaporizing mercury is safely in an air-sealed environment with proper methods of venting and capturing the mercury vapor so it doesn't contaminate the environment.)<BR/><BR/>You do realize that the reason the aluminum girders broke at clean angles was due to the intense force involved with the vast majority of the girders during the main collapse. What you were witnessing was metal cleavage, and the metal breaking along fault-lines that exist because of the atomic bonding patterns.<BR/><BR/>All that was needed was <I>one area</I> of the building to be weakened. When that area collapsed, it brought about a massive failure of the structure because the upper section no longer had proper support. It proceeded to piledrive the entire mass straight down, causing metal shear and snapping girders like twigs. You had a boatload of mass falling at an ever-increasing rate of speed with gravity gleefully encouraging it along the way.<BR/><BR/>Do note that when they implode buildings, they do not mine every single inch of the building. Instead, they knock down key supports in key areas and the weight of the building itself brings the rest of it down. The rest of the building doesn't need explosives. All it needs is the weight of the building above working on supports that no longer have the ability to hold up that weight.<BR/><BR/>Also, please remember that just a decade before, Al Qaida tried to take out the WTC towers with a car bomb. The terrorists parked a car in the basement, hoping to break a support to cause the same thing that demolition professionals use in taking down buildings. They underestimated the strength of those supports.<BR/><BR/>Al Qaida <I>knew</I> what it was doing. The use of airplanes to destroy these buildings was deliberate because they knew it had a far better chance of working than just knocking out a couple supports in the basement would.<BR/><BR/>Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-15105930375237587912008-09-20T18:58:00.000-07:002008-09-20T18:58:00.000-07:00Thank the Goddess there are still a few people who...Thank the Goddess there are still a few people who don't buy into the hysteria of conspiracy-thinking. It's like the more I shove facts into the frenzy, the less they matter. It's very much a reverse of Zorgon's little article about conservatives ignoring facts and digging in their heels about their party and their beliefs about the Democrats... only in reverse.<BR/><BR/>Then again, Dr. Brin himself has fallen into this thinking though he doesn't let it blind him. I truly doubt that conspiracy was behind what the Shrub did to this country. I believe that instead, it was ineptitude and stupidity on the part of our leadership that caused so many of our problems.<BR/><BR/>Of course, this could likewise be a version of this rigid thinking... I perhaps could be so intent on refusing to acknowledge conspiracies that even when there is one, I ignore it because obviously conspiracies don't exist outside of fiction. ^^<BR/><BR/>Or in other words, clearly I cannot choose the wine in front of you.<BR/><BR/>Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-63987022167569577742008-09-20T18:44:00.000-07:002008-09-20T18:44:00.000-07:00"Travc said...@William Shatner,On the WTC collapse...<I>"<BR/>Travc said...<BR/>@William Shatner,<BR/>On the WTC collapse, you have no concept for the sort of forces involved. You also have no clue what a collapsing hi-rise structure 'should' look like. These are completely out of any normal person's realm of experience.<BR/>"</I><BR/><BR/>Pretty insulting stuff there Travc. Do you think I want to bore everyone with a 25 page screed of the physics involved. There is a consortium of 3,000 physics pros who say the pancake collapse is bunk.<BR/><BR/>The first person I ever heard utter the "pancake collapse theory" was actually myself. I was in the WTC in 1999 with my soon to be wife -- and we were talking about the bombing when Clinton first took office. She asked me if a Plane could ever bring down this building -- I said; "Yes, but only with the fire. This building is built like a bridge -- if you managed to burn enough and have a big enough blast to collapse two sections, then the weight could overwhelm the next floor. A chain reaction would then mean that each floor would be overwhelmed by the floor above it." So, how many geniuses figured that out before? Call me a liar.<BR/><BR/>The thing I would have never said, is it could happen in 8 seconds, and that the core would fall as well. The core is inner tubes of steel, and damn right they would hold -- they could hold the entire building four times over -- so what the hell brought them down? Every damn floor sits on those tubes 24/7/365. That is a very strong structure.<BR/><BR/>The demolition is pretty clear -- don't trust me, read this from Eager; http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_jom/eagar_0112.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>Now for fairness, I read Nova's rebuttal; http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1.html<BR/><BR/>To me, the attempts to dismiss Eagar's arguments are pretty craptastic. It would take me a day or two to go through every line and say way Eagars is right and they are wrong.<BR/><BR/>Take a look at some of the pictures just after the collapse. There are many steel collumns with diagonal cuts -- either pre-cut or a shaped charge. You can't get steel to rip apart that cleanly -- it bends first. The many reports of molten steel weeks later -- I saw bright yellow steel flowing in video, and the color indicates the temperature -- not possible with anything in a normal office or with jet fuel. Aluminum, is a bright white when melting -- it never shows yellow.<BR/><BR/>If I were doing this job, I'd hire a Demolition crew and dress them up as security guards. In fact, many people reported whole floors shut down weeks before the disaster, because security was doing some upgrades. NO dogs were allowed in security sweeps after that. And on the day of the disaster, the cameras in the building quit working -- BEFORE the planes hit. The video, apparently, goes off site, so I'm guessing that is how they know.<BR/><BR/>The Bush administration blocked the FBI from investigating the credit cards that were alleged evidence of al Qaeda's involvement. The head of security for the FAA destroyed all tapes from the radar with no excuse given. So we cannot confirm any talk about other planes, or that no plane hit the pentagon -- one theory holds that a small missile of some sort came in at the same time as the plane flew low and the explosion covered this up. I won't argue one way or the other -- because there is no video of the most highly guarded building on the planet.<BR/><BR/>>> I am not saying that the WTC cannot pancake collapse. I'm saying that our administration has done everything to prevent a real investigation -- including recycling all the steel immediately in China when a bidder in New Jersey offered more.<BR/><BR/>The one bit of steel tested by an independent -- which was to be used by an artist to commemorate 9/11, showed the presence of thermate. Could this person be making it up? Sure. Also, a well known group of liars in the white house, remember, they killed a few hundred thousand Iraqis to make money?<BR/><BR/>Motive, Means, Opportunity. A consistent pattern of criminal behavior. What are we missing here? The only thing incredible about it, is that people cannot emotionally deal with the idea that our government -- or people in it, would intentionally do this. After Katrina, I think that is an easier pill to swallow.Fake_William_Shatnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027049743048836086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-14778865296958768252008-09-20T17:16:00.000-07:002008-09-20T17:16:00.000-07:00@William Shatner,On the WTC collapse, you have no ...@William Shatner,<BR/>On the WTC collapse, you have no concept for the sort of forces involved. You also have no clue what a collapsing hi-rise structure 'should' look like. These are completely out of any normal person's realm of experience.<BR/><BR/>The 'central core' argument is beyond silly. You really expect a 400m tall spire of drywall and steel to stand independent as massive amounts of material attached to falls.<BR/><BR/>The 'wired for demolition' argument is also absurd. Do you have any clue what wiring a building for implosion involves? Notching the columns and placing huge quantities of charges would be neigh impossible to hide. But the windows blew out! you might cry... ever heard of air pressure?<BR/><BR/>You really should drop it if there is simply no way to change your mind. About 3/4 of what you say otherwise is somewhat reasonable or at least interesting.Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45127507029711558212008-09-20T12:36:00.000-07:002008-09-20T12:36:00.000-07:00"@Zorgon said;One thing that has been getting my a...<I>"@Zorgon said;<BR/>One thing that has been getting my attention lately is trying to figure out why people choose to believe things which are irrational. A certain blog entry I read through had an interesting discussion about it. Although their focus was urban legends, I think a lot of the ideas could easily be applied to politics.<BR/>"</I><BR/><BR/>Those people thinking that P&G was from the devil, are the same nut-cases supporting Palin. Getting people worked up on fringe issues, and putting apocalyptic language into speeches is a scary and growing phenomenon from Republicans.<BR/><BR/>Certain urban legends are silly, while some are not. Why are you falling into the trap of grouping ALL CONSPIRACY THEORIES? Because people don't pay a million dollars to go to a country club because they just like the catering. It's for access to power. Powerful people stay that way by planning -- and scheming.<BR/><BR/>There isn't much evidence for Big Foot -- but there also isn't much evidence that only one person was involved in the Kennedy Assassination. Like how did the single shooter steal Kennedy's brain? Would it surprise people to learn that a later government trial concluded that there was a conspiracy? TV and movies not-withstanding, by simply stating the actual findings I can be labeled a conspiracy theorist.<BR/><BR/>If I read the Declaration of Independence, to some of our people in congress, without giving them the title -- I'd probably be hauled off as a Commie Terrorist.<BR/><BR/>>> I really wonder if you don't have mood swings. You seem to go from really rational, to an absolutist. And insisting that people who have questions are conspiracy theorists when you don't and NOBODY HERE, has all the facts, is pretty much trying to declare yourself right by fiat. Only one vote counts.<BR/><BR/>Conspiracies happen all the time. Read up about the Lusitania. All conspiracies and urban legends do not have to be true or false together.Fake_William_Shatnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027049743048836086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34547639514689414102008-09-20T12:23:00.000-07:002008-09-20T12:23:00.000-07:00David Brin said... Last week, the neocons becam...<I> David Brin said...<BR/><BR/> Last week, the neocons became the biggest socialists in the world, nationalizing about 600 billion dollars in assets and obligations...<BR/><BR/> ...and today they make that minuscule, effectively creating a National Mortgage Agency, assuming the bad debts of a hundred thousand jerks who ought to be on a big chain gang, right now.<BR/><BR/> It is the biggest act of socialism in the US, ever, making even FDR look like a piker.</I><BR/><BR/>>> Naomi Cline wrote the book; "The Shock Doctrine." She points out that this administration loves disasters, because they give them opportunities to enrich themselves.<BR/><BR/>The failing economy will make it seem plausible that we do not have the money for Social Security and Medicaide/Medicare. We have a few trillion to bail out banks and the mortgage companies -- but we don't have the money for people who actually earned it.<BR/><BR/>>> When I was talking about this collapse a few years ago, I was writing about the solution; Nationalizing the Big Energy companies, and instead of putting an armada of ships off the coast of Iran, move that armada off the coast of the Island banks. After seizing all the assets there -- we would say that anyone who wants their account back, needs to come in person and backtrack how they earned it. So, we would be able to keep 90% of this money to shore up our economy -- since most of it is ill gotten gain, and people like Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney helped folks escape taxes and put it there.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure there are people who would call this theft -- what the fuck did we do in Iraq and in Latin America the past 40 years but discover ways to steal other people's money. Is it more legitimate now that it sits in a buildings covered with marble?<BR/><BR/>Then we would have a war profits tax, and declare that the war on Iraq an illegal enterprise, and the culprits should pay us all back.<BR/><BR/>>> The rest of the fix is to go back to all the rules that FDR and Truman put in place -- you know, to deal with the PREVIOUS market collapse that was caused for the same reasons. No more mortgages without 20%. Return to USURY laws. Force capital markets to increase their reserve requirements and assets in trades. And nationalize the banking system and federal reserve -- there is no excuse for these to be private companies. President Lincoln once quipped during the civil war that he was more afraid of the banks than of the South. The Banks won the civil war, and started our modern boom and bust economy.<BR/><BR/>>> I once worked with a group of people who were trying to create a new international trading system, that would NOT require the exchange of assets, and would force all participants to balance trade value of exports with imports -- you could not create a deficit, unless you pumped in cash. We could definitely fix international trade and the ability for companies to bribe politicians to rip off their citizens -- but that is a longer conversation, and Multinationals have no interest in solving these problems that benefit them immensely.<BR/><BR/>>> Well, that's my pipe dream anyway. We will let the bad guys take their money to Dubai, and slowly build ourselves back up, probably blaming the average citizen along the way in thoughtful, hand wringing books.Fake_William_Shatnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027049743048836086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-28685389646954565742008-09-20T12:21:00.000-07:002008-09-20T12:21:00.000-07:00@ Nicholas MacDonald said...Like the long winded r...@ Nicholas MacDonald said...<BR/>Like the long winded rant. You had me worried at first, because you still respect Ayn Rand, who has brought a failed Straussian idealism to most of the culprits in our economic collapse. But your points about community and extended family are poignant. The one silver lining to another Depression, is that it will force people out of 3000+ square feet homes -- two to a house, and back into some shared space with many family members. Everyone in my neighborhood has a lawn mower -- where one good one good service all the homes. If we shared these resources again, we'd get to know each other again.<BR/><BR/>@Zorgon,<BR/>That link the the Popular Mechanics "debunking" does a great job dealing with the nutty stuff, but does nothing to explain what really happened or address that the only plausible explanation was that the WTC buildings were set for demolition. I don't want to rehash this stuff. It really irks me about the transponder nonsense on airplanes -- NORAD uses our civilian Radar inside the US, and other equipment. If you have a military guy tell you NORAD never saw a need to look inside the US -- beat them about the head for me and tell them that you think Russia has airplanes.<BR/><BR/>The Inside Job is pretty easy to explain, and all it required was confusion, and the owner of the WTC to hire Marvin Bush's security company to protect the building. Silerstein bought it for something like a $149 Million per year lease from Ports Authority, and he made a cool $7 Billion + without having to spend about a billion on cleaning up the Asbestos. Without the terrorist attack (which he doubled his insurance on in July), it would have been a huge investment blunder.<BR/><BR/>There were no forensics from the WTC collapse -- everything was done under cover. The company contracted to do the investigations? "Controlled Demolitions." I'd love to track where those guys were a few months before 9/11 -- like maybe they put on clothes like security guards. IN Bush land, you always have the Fox, checking the chicken feathers for prints.<BR/><BR/>You don't have all the evidence BEFORE the trial. How can you expect some young kids gleaning info off the internet and making the movie Loose Change to have all the facts?<BR/><BR/>I've seen a lot of brilliant comments from you -- but to buy this garbage about 9/11 from a government that did nothing but obscure and cover up and stall any investigation -- if they didn't do it, they are covering for someone who did. There is a lot of speculation about 9.11 because all the evidence from the government appears to have been taken by a pin-hole camera in a fog.<BR/><BR/>>> YES, the twin towers were constructed like a bridge. AS I've pointed out numerous times -- if it was a pancake collapse, the disconnection of the floors from the inner core would have meant that the core would STILL BE STANDING. It also requires about 60 to 90 seconds to collapse one level on another. Buildings cannot fall at the speed of gravity unless you have an explosive charge destroying each floor when the other floor reaches it.Fake_William_Shatnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027049743048836086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-66536104230073058882008-09-20T12:20:00.000-07:002008-09-20T12:20:00.000-07:00" Matt DeBlass said...For many years we've lived i...<I>" Matt DeBlass said...<BR/>For many years we've lived in small villages and one-room homes where sex education meant mom and dad didn't check to make sure junior was asleep first, and pretty much everybody knew everybody's business. ... "</I><BR/><BR/>I've used that example myself a few times. My boys were born with a tit in their mouths, and yet somehow, the puritans in our country would like to tell us all that after the age of 4, it is damaging for humans to see them again.<BR/><BR/>If you were to admit your kids were in the same room while you and your wife got busy -- they'd call that child abuse today. Yeah, times change, and the attitudes people have are rarely grounded in reason.<BR/><BR/>>> Transparency of the elite is not happening -- because corporations have been GETTING rights, that we the people are giving up for our security. Transparency might work if this nation weren't becoming a Fascist Plutocracy.<BR/><BR/>But I think Brin does understand these things with this comment; <I>"<BR/>We got our freedom by dividing the elites into reciprocally antagonistic lumps and siccing them on each other. NOT by expecting every little guy to have equal power to every big guy.<BR/>"</I><BR/><BR/>Again -- I totally, absolutely agree with that.<BR/><BR/>I've also said that MLK would never have convinced some crackers to let the peace movement work, if they hadn't started becoming afraid of the Black Panthers. Gandhi was an alternative, to millions of angry Indians barbecuing the English. The Peace movement and a return to Democracy will happen AFTER, the NeoCons and the Religions fanatics in this country finally figure out they have been duped, and start getting REALLY violent. We are not going to get out of the Bush administrations crime family without violence. I said that in 2000 and I don't see anything yet that is truly surprising -- other than how incredibly obvious the crimes are, and how the excuses by the complicit media are so weak. We got robbed by the Keystone Cops.<BR/><BR/>People will be wanting to lynch some bankers before next year -- if they don't, we will probably be headed towards a militaristic alternative, and use more war to help our ailing economy. If McCain steals this next election -- then I'll sell my home and find a new place to live, because that will be our future.Fake_William_Shatnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027049743048836086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-68426222457909980702008-09-20T10:53:00.000-07:002008-09-20T10:53:00.000-07:00I do often cite Smith, as a weapon against today's...<I>I do often cite Smith, as a weapon against today's so-called defenders of markets, who can only see socialists as threats, and refuse to perceive the chief threat that Adam Smith recognized, aristocratic cheaters.</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks for that. We can throw most Economists into a dark pit, as far as I'm concerned. But Adam Smith wrote the gospel.<BR/><BR/>The argument of transparency vs. a right to privacy -- if we can distill it that far, needs to follow the same sort of nuance as when we talk about "regulation." The Republicans usually always talk about it as bad -- as a hindrance, while Dems fall into the role of always defending it. Well, most of the legislation that pushes regulation in this country gets sponsored by very big corporations. They can afford the overhead, and the paperwork hurdles -- and enjoy the barriers to entry that prevents smaller and faster corporations taking their market.<BR/><BR/>Regulations that give banks some unique privileges while preventing them from speculating -- like the Glass Stegal act did before it was gutted, are important. Regulations like Oxley Sarbanes, which was the last 'phony' remedy for the S&L bailout -- and the crooks promised never, ever to do it again -- are barriers to entry that reduce competition. Oxley Sarbanes promises to find the evil-doer's needle in the haystack by adding more hay.<BR/><BR/>>> It's important to remember, that the people entrusted with solving the crisis on Wall Street -- namely Paulson and Bernanke, were appointed by Bush Inc. I don't think that pack of snakes is comfortable with anyone but a Barney Fife or a Gordon Gecko and don't know anyone both honest and smart.<BR/><BR/>Of course, they are TRYING to keep markets sound -- but their allegiance is to protect the elite. And you can't provide a golden parachute at the same time as you keep the markets viable.<BR/><BR/>The problem is Transparency and Honesty in our markets. The foxes have been guarding this hen house -- and until all the foxes go to jail --- see the problem? The Central Banks and investors are losing faith in the integrity of their investments in the US. But they are fundamentally unsupportable. Having too many crooks and foreign investors is like having a parasite that is bigger than the host.<BR/><BR/>The Bail-out of Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac, as well as AIG may have been to placate China, which invested heavily in these groups and wanted high yield (high risk) returns. But they won't continue to buy our paper, if we don't guarantee they don't lose their profits.<BR/><BR/>So the American people are going to pay for this -- and pay again, because the smarter money will leave these investments. The Media, will tell everyone it has bottomed out and that the smoke is actually just steam -- no need to worry.<BR/><BR/>If you see nobody going to jail and no efforts and transparency -- I recommend you head for the door and put your money into tangible things. I sold my last stock Monday morning.<BR/><BR/>>> I'm also worried what has happened to people in Galviston Texas, because our government will not allow the press to go there on threat of jail, and planes to fly over. Not a good sign.Fake_William_Shatnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027049743048836086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39576404695257111232008-09-20T10:20:00.000-07:002008-09-20T10:20:00.000-07:00Brin said...."... Yes, we've been ruled by a malig...<I>Brin said....<BR/>"... Yes, we've been ruled by a malignant and ruinous and deliberate conspiracy. But the actually deliberately treasonous part was limited to maybe five guys. The others were all venal rationalizers. Alas, those five were "manchurians" at the very top, where competence wasn't needed. Only persistence.<BR/>..."</I><BR/><BR/>Not sure if you are talking about some false flag, or the troubles in the hedge funds -- but I would say; YES, absolutely.<BR/><BR/>The watchdogs are either Barney Fife or Gordon Gecko.<BR/><BR/>Who is going crazy?<BR/><BR/>A person who has been doing a great job of chronicling what is wrong, and screaming about it for years is; http://market-ticker.denninger.net/<BR/><BR/>I've been mentioning him for some time. None of the events this past week were a surprise -- nor how they were dealt with -- nor that they will prove to fail. This is just keeping everyone calm while the Gordon Geckos board the lifeboats.<BR/><BR/>>> I was listening to Thom Hartmann, and he made some interesting comments about a 4-generation and 80 cycle of boom to bust. We are in the 4th Generation of selfish "me" folks -- right at an the fall, which is almost exactly like the Florida land speculation bubble that lead the into the first Republican Great Depression.<BR/><BR/>But he talked about the cycles that lead to the Civil War, and how the generations go from the first; steadfast and hard working. The second; builders. The third; spiritual and eschewing materialism. The fourth; materialistic and not into sharing.<BR/><BR/>The philosophies of the Right, are exactly those that people had during the gilded age.<BR/><BR/>>> I'm wondering if there aren't a lot of really wealthy people who don't know about this cycle, and were getting involved in the Bush government, in order to loot the place -- transferring wealth to countries that would compensate them (like the Saudis and the UAE).<BR/><BR/>There doesn't need to be a lot of people involved in these conspiracies, but if you create litmus test for advancement of either being a cool-aide drinking, brain dead follower, or being a person who can be paid-off/extorted, then the people committing the bigger crimes can get away with what they want to do.Fake_William_Shatnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027049743048836086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-41678255971344438682008-09-20T01:10:00.000-07:002008-09-20T01:10:00.000-07:00Dr Brin said:And when I generalize about Transpare...Dr Brin said:<BR/><EM>And when I generalize about Transparency, it is only to say that those prescribing "solutions" based on reducing the knowledge streams of people, markets and democracy ought to bear the burden of proof.</EM><BR/><BR/>Very well said. I guess you are a writer for a reason :)<BR/><BR/>I agree, and hold a similar view with respect to libertarian/classic liberal ideals. I think I'll steal your "solutions... burden of proof" explanation.Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1885642676286785012008-09-20T01:05:00.000-07:002008-09-20T01:05:00.000-07:00Dr Brin,The next time you decide to do an essay on...Dr Brin,<BR/><BR/>The next time you decide to do an essay on GAR vs FIBM / right-hand vs left-hand (more please, they are very good)... perhaps discussing 'cap-and-trade' would be a good angle. Not only topically relevant, but a very good example of using both hands to solve a problem IMO.<BR/><BR/>Just a thought... hell, for all I know you already have such an essay buried someplace ;)Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-77684425621331456072008-09-20T00:49:00.000-07:002008-09-20T00:49:00.000-07:00The deal that comes out will nationalize the bad w...The deal that comes out will nationalize the bad while preserving the golden parachutes and profit streams of private wealth. It's called socialism for the wealthy or privatization of benefits and profits and socialization of costs and risk.<BR/><BR/>If a dem legislator stands firm and balks, until the people get the good assets, as well as the bad, then he or she will be a hero.<BR/><BR/>And when I generalize about Transparency, it is only to say that those prescribing "solutions" based on reducing the knowledge streams of people, markets and democracy ought to bear the burden of proof. A burden that (I give examples) can be met. Still, given that human nature will make the powerful ALWAYS claim and rationalize such a "need" - our impulse should be to stay true to what gave us this party.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43470653850281412482008-09-20T00:35:00.000-07:002008-09-20T00:35:00.000-07:00Zorg, Nicholas didn't mis-define socialism... he m...Zorg, Nicholas didn't mis-define socialism... he merely pointed out that his understanding of the word is different from that of someone else he knew. A story which you entirely missed the point of apparently :p<BR/>--<BR/><BR/>I think I've got a generalization.<BR/><BR/>Hayek laid out good arguments against GAR. But some people (arguably Hayek himself) fear a slippery slope and conclude that anything GAR will inevitably lead to totalitarian doom.<BR/><BR/>Others have argued the same thing from the FIBM side (Marx not very convincingly, others much better).<BR/><BR/>Sterling and Zorg postulate a slippery slope of transparency ending in some sort of hellish world. Dr Brin when he gets a bit riled up may temporarily fall for the same thing in reverse (at least rhetorically).<BR/><BR/>So my grand generalization... fearing a slippery slope leads to bullshit conclusions.<BR/><BR/>All of these systems have some checks in them, and therefore aren't destined to always trend one way or another. It is much more useful to debate marginal shifts and the limitations/checks to keep them from going too far.<BR/>--<BR/><BR/>BTW: I'm getting incredibly annoyed a people talking about the bailouts as 'nationalization' or 'socialization'. If the government decides to exercise some operational control of the enterprises, then those terms make some sense to me. (And maybe we could actually eek some public good out of the situation.)Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52640104048965351502008-09-19T22:12:00.000-07:002008-09-19T22:12:00.000-07:00"Brin often makes the claim that Adam Smith&#..."Brin often makes the claim that Adam Smith's ideas about economics are the best known way to run an economy. "<BR/><BR/>As usual, whenever Bad Zorgon comes out to bay at the moon... a complete damned lie.<BR/><BR/>I do often cite Smith, as a weapon against today's so-called defenders of markets, who can only see socialists as threats, and refuse to perceive the chief threat that Adam Smith recognized, aristocratic cheaters.<BR/><BR/>And indeed, Smith was far smarter about this than List, whose quasi-mercantilist imbuements of sacred wisdom in the benevolent state ignored the Lockean truth that human beings are self-deceivers, the most fundamental of all human truths, around which all economic and social systems must be judged. <BR/><BR/>The fundamental wisdom of Locke and Smith was not the atomization of trade down to the individual, but the recognition that narrowing of ruling clades will always tend to happen if those clades are allowed to get away with it. <BR/><BR/> They may have Listian rationalizations, or Catholic/feudal, or Nazi/Hegelian, or Marxist/Hegelian, or simply damned-evil/Hegelian (a redundancy since that association is automatic. The rationalizations all boil down to the same thing. "My favored group ought to be allowed unaccountable, benevolent, greater good power to commit GAR, without interference by pesky folks who disagree."<BR/><BR/>Yes, Smith & Locke created a new cult of FIBM, but both men would disown it today. It is made up of cultists who are simply rationalizing another form of GAR. <BR/><BR/>And now I've done with Zorgon. His insults have gone six in a row, diametrically opposite to truth. This version of the fellow is a damned fool.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55284673779156315922008-09-19T22:02:00.000-07:002008-09-19T22:02:00.000-07:00This didn't stay non-political for long. Long tim...This didn't stay non-political for long. Long time reader, occasional poster with a few comments.<BR/><BR/>Someone commented on You tube and transparency. I think it would be a mistake to underestimate this and similar websites. Two things that make modern times so interesting are 1) anyone with a modern phone can be a sort of journalist. With built in cameras - and increasingly video capture. When something happens, witnesses can not only see and describe it, but record it as well and post it for all to see. When politicians make a public comment, the visual record is no longer limited to news crews but is widespread. 2) Rebroadcast of information is widespread. If a politician (or anyone else) contradicts themselves, there are millions of people out there who can catch them, have the recordings, can place them side by side and make the doubletalk extremely clear. I suspect this may be part of the reason that the younger (and more connected) generation tends to be more onboard with Obama.<BR/><BR/>Memes also spread faster and wider in this new format. Of course this is a double edged sword, as faulty memes can spread as easily as virtuous ones, but I have - for lack of a better term - faith in my fellow humans to (mostly) learn to become better consumers of information in separating the wheat from the chaff. After all, that is the key assumption of our great experiment - that a well educated and well informed populous can make good decisions more often than not (or at least more often than a few oligarchs).<BR/><BR/>The 9/11 conspiracy theories frustrate me more than most crackpot theories in that they make a great straw man in deflecting far more legitimate criticism - that Bush and company abused the tragedy for massive unrelated political gain (such as selling the Iraq war).<BR/><BR/>One thing that has been getting my attention lately is trying to figure out why people choose to believe things which are irrational. A certain <A HREF="http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/09/false-witnesses.html" REL="nofollow">blog entry</A> I read through had an interesting discussion about it. Although their focus was urban legends, I think a lot of the ideas could easily be applied to politics. The author's contrarily approach - assuming the opposite of what people usually assume about the spread of rumors - struck me as interesting food for thought.<BR/><BR/>I will resist the urge to post large swaths of comments from the interesting discussion that follows, but will link a few of what I consider the highlights for anyone who would like to look.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/09/false-witnesses.html#comment-129662344" REL="nofollow">A simulation on refutation and the spread of rumors</A><BR/><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/09/false-witnesses.html#comment-129671366" REL="nofollow">are believers and skeptics talking past one another?</A><BR/><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/09/false-witnesses.html#comment-129678262" REL="nofollow">'intentional stupidity' as a failure in human pattern recognition</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39726012045693983562008-09-19T21:41:00.000-07:002008-09-19T21:41:00.000-07:00Concerning the real consequences of real economic ...Concerning the real consequences of real economic policies in the real world -- they do matter. <BR/><BR/>That's why I'm getting a little tired of all the talk about Adam Smith's golden wisdom. Smith lived in and talked about a world in which manufacturing meant small workshops turning out handmade goods rather than giant factories opulated by robots or Asian computer-code sweatshops piping their "product" back to other countries via the internet; and to Adam Smith, "businesses" meant one guy with some gold coins financing the purchase of some textile looms or Maudslay lathes, not giant multinational vertically integrated monopolistic corporations. So the applicability of Smith's claims to a modern economy remains somewhat suspect and seems clearly debatable. (I suspect I'd come down on Smith's side in a debate, but we need to have a genuine debate. Efforts to foreclose discussions of alternatives to Smith's "invisible hand," viz., Freidrich List's ideas, by fiat, merely declaring that Smith's claims are "the best method that has ever been discovered," simply fall flat. That's an attempt to shut down criticism by ending discussion, which just doesn't work.)<BR/><BR/>All of which serves as preface to the fact I don't know just how serious the current economic crisis has become, but this sounds chilling:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/washington/19cnd-cong.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss" REL="nofollow">Link.</A>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10994509912655287453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78549145201664046362008-09-19T21:29:00.000-07:002008-09-19T21:29:00.000-07:00Nicholas McDonald:You claim I made the error of de...Nicholas McDonald:<BR/>You claim I made the error of defining terms incorrectly -- then you turn around and clearly define your terms incorrectly in your failed and faulty counterargument.<BR/><BR/>You claim:<BR/><BR/><I>-Central Economic Planning<BR/>-State Ownership of Property and the Means of Production<BR/><BR/>That's "socialism".</I><BR/><BR/>No, entirely incorrect. Socialism runs the full range from Shaker barn-raisings to credit unions to FDIC insurance to Japanese keiretsus (interlocking companies directed by a single central board of directors) to Koren chaebols (combination private-public corporate entities partially directed and financed by the Korean government) to the U.S. Federal Reserve banking system (a quasi-public entity with a half-and-half mix of public and private features) to bureaucratically dominated state-funded and state-controlled organs like the British National Health Service, to completely state-owned and state-controlled industrial systems like the USSR. <BR/><BR/>Is a Shaker barn-raising "central economic planning"? Obviously not. Yet it's <I><B>one form</B></I> of socialism, just as much as the USSR's planned economy. Shaker barn-raising merely represents one end of the range of socialism, while the USSR represents the other.<BR/><BR/>Do Korea's chaebols represent state ownership of property and means of production?<BR/><BR/>Clearly not.<BR/><BR/>Your inability to distinguish between these crucially important types of economies tells us (a) that you don't understand what socialism is; and (b) you can't be taken seriously when you discuss economics.<BR/><BR/>Among Western nations, Adam Smith and Locke and Rousseau and Hobbes are the great theorists of modern economics. Current Western economies in the first world are based on the ideas of these philosophers.<BR/><BR/>Among Asian nations, however, Friedrich List and Georg Friedrich Hegel are the great theorists of modern economics. Current Asian economies in the Pacific Rim, the Little Tigers, as well as Japan and Taiwan, all base their economies on the ideas of these philosophers.<BR/><BR/>Neither you nor Dr. Brin seem to be familiar with the economic theories of Friedrich List, and so neither of you can be taken seriously when you purport to discuss economics.<BR/><BR/>Here's a link to a brief summary of Friedrich List's economic ideas.<BR/><A HREF="http://lincoln.pps.k12.or.us/jcurry/Economics/fallows.html" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>Brin often makes the claim that Adam Smith's ideas about economics are the best known way to run an economy. This is of course false, as we'd expect when Dr. Brin makes claims about the field of economics. The ideas of Friedrich List also work in the real world and are also optimum, but for different things in different ways. Adam Smith's ideas optimize for consumption, while Friedrich List's ideas optimize for production. Adam Smith's ideas work best for import-driven economies, while Friedrich List's ideas work best for export-driven economies.<BR/><BR/>To prove that you'll familiar with what I'm talking about, please quote paragraph 2 on page 17 of Friedrich List's <I>The National System of Political Economy.</I><BR/><BR/>When you fail to do so, we'll all know that both you and Brin are unfamiliar with the source material and you're faking it, trying to bluff your way through a discussion of economics when you in fact appear to be pervasively uninformed about the subject.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10994509912655287453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1340445393744213302008-09-19T20:24:00.000-07:002008-09-19T20:24:00.000-07:00There is an aroma of the better Zoregon, in that l...There is an aroma of the better Zoregon, in that last post. So, shall I forgive and forget that he ascribed to me beliefs that are absolutely diametrically opposite to those expressed in The Transparent Society, or that he implies that he read it, when, in fact, he could not possibly have even seen a copy?<BR/><BR/>I leave it up to you guys.<BR/><BR/>I do know that the previous post (by the Bizarro Z) included fabulations about the positions of F Hayek, as well.<BR/><BR/>You can tell when a libertarian is growing up, when he (usually he) shifts from loony Rand to cogent and interesting Hayek, whose fundamental premise is that flawed knowledge always screws up asset-allocation decisions, and hence the more competitive and knowledgeable players, the better accountable a system will be and the more errors get discovered. His complaint about socialism is not that it is state-run, but that it inherently reduces the number of competing players to a level where human self-delusion will inevitably lead to massive errors.<BR/><BR/>THE SAME DELUSIONS could happen under any other system of GAR (Guided Allocation of Resources), including many that are NOT socialistic, like monarchal/aristocratic cronyism or too-narrowly monopolistic capitalism. <I>As we are seeing right now!</I><BR/><BR/>Cultists who believe in Faith In Blind Markets FIBM may draw upon Hayek, but they do not follow him, because they make excuses for monopolists and aristocrats, simply because they aren't socialists. I don't know, but I would guess that Hayek would call them just as foolish as any other cult.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81806371829300182622008-09-19T20:06:00.000-07:002008-09-19T20:06:00.000-07:00TIme once again to point out that Dr. Brin is corr...TIme once again to point out that Dr. Brin is correct. He's right about 80% of the<BR/>time, so this is not unusual, but fairness compels me to point it out once again.<BR/><BR/>Brin forwarded a missive from Joe Carroll that points out the vile history of the slimy poltical appointee Chris Cox. Turns out <A HREF="http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/09/regulatory-exem.html" REL="nofollow">SEC Regulatory Exemptions Helped Lead to Collapse.</A><BR/><I>"As we learn this morning via Julie Satow of the NY Sun, special exemptions from the SEC are in large part responsible for the huge build up in financial sector leverage over the past 4 years -- as well as the massive current unwind.</I><BR/><I>Satow interviews the above quoted former SEC director, and he spits out the blunt truth: The current excess leverage now unwinding was the result of a purposeful SEC exemption given to five firms.</I><BR/><I>You read that right -- the events of the past year are not a mere accident, but are the results of a conscious and willful SEC decision to allow these firms to legally violate existing net capital rules that, in the past 30 years, had limited broker dealers debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-to-1.</I><BR/><I>Instead, the 2004 exemption -- given only to 5 firms -- allowed them to lever up 30 and even 40 to 1.</I><BR/><I>Who were the five that received this special exemption? You won't be surprised to learn that they were Goldman, Merrill, Lehman, Bear Stearns, and Morgan Stanley.</I> <BR/><I>As Mr. Pickard points out that "The proof is in the pudding — three of the five broker-dealers have blown up."</I> <BR/><A HREF="http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/09/regulatory-exem.html" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>Brin is also correct in pointing out the absurdity as well as the simple contrafactual proven incorrectness of conspiracy theories about the twin towers collapse.<BR/><BR/>Robert is also correct in pointing out that the fire softened the structural steel inside the World Trade Center, and thus arguments involving the fire's temperature simply don't deal with the basic science behind the twin towers collapse. <BR/><BR/>However, there's a lot of evidence converging on the conclusion that the WTC collapse was indeed due to the fire and not controlled demolition, or, as my democrat neighbor claims vociferously, phaser beams (!) from a defense department satellite. <BR/><BR/>You want crazy, Dr. Brin? <I><B>That's</B></I> crazy. <BR/><BR/>The two best general sources of info debunking 9/11 twin towers collapse conspiracy theories are:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.debunking911.com/" REL="nofollow">Link 1.</A><BR/><A HREF="http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html" REL="nofollow">Link 2.</A><BR/><BR/>As David Hume remarked when skeptically evaluating claims about religious miracles, we must apply the test that enough evidence of sufficiently high quality must be provided for a miracle that a reasonable person would find it more extraordinary that the miracle didn't happen, than that there is a pedestrian but merely unlikely mundane explanation. In short, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -- at a minimum, at least the kind of hard forensic evidence we typically demand to convict someone of a murder in a court of law. That means not just eyewitness testimony, and not just forensic evidence, and not just a pattern of coincidence, but much more, forming a cohesive pattern of comprehensive evidence that convinces us beyond a reasonable doubt.<BR/><BR/>We must apply the same test to extraordinary claims like controlled demolition or an "inside job" for the WTC collapse.<BR/><BR/>This means that we would require not just multiple insiders to come forward and testify they were involved (no one has done so); not just forensic evidence, say, from taggants in the military explosives allegedly used to blow up the twin towers by the CIA (once again, this evidence doesn't appear to exist); not just a pattern of suspicious coincidence (there are a few coincidences surrounding the 9/11 hijacking, but not many -- for example, the national air traffic control system didn't mysterious glitch and stop giving transponder info when Mohammed Atta's 757 took off and started flying toward the WTC, which we might expect in a conspiracy. Likewise, none of the 19 hijackers had inexplicably blank pasts, which we might expect if they were CIA agents. There's nothing mysterious about how the 9/11 hijackers got their pilot training...and so on.)<BR/> <BR/>In short, none of the so-called "evidence" brought forward in films like <I>Loose Change</I> even rises to the level of rumour, much less proves sufficient to convict anyone of anything in a court of law. The so-called "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy is not only no extraordinary, it isn't even ordinary -- it's not even at the level we'd demand for a traffic citation, for instance.<BR/><BR/>Robert, there's more to be said about the reason the WTC collapsed in the fire.<BR/><BR/>The Twin Towers had a unique construction, different from all other skyscrapers that have ever been built. That's the real reason why the WTC collapsed, while no other skyscraper has imploded due to a fire.<BR/><BR/><I>Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extended across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all.</I><BR/><BR/><I>Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings's high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.</I><BR/><A HREF="http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>At the time of its construction, the twin towers of the WTC were the tallest buildings in the world. This spurred radical innovation in their design. However, if you study the WTC design closely, you discover that a key issue was also to maximize rentable floor space. This ultimately proved unwise, and led to the towers' collapse.<BR/><BR/><I>75 percent of the floor space in each tower was rentable, a significant improvement over 62 percent, the highest yield achieved in earlier skyscrapers.<BR/>That 75 percent was also made possible by another innovation. Previous high-rises had relied for their structural integrity on a forest of supporting columns on each floor. Typically, architects spaced these 30 feet apart throughout the interior. The exterior walls of such buildings were merely curtain walls, which let light in and kept weather out but provided little support.<BR/>Such was not the case in the World Trade Center. Consulting engineers Leslie Robertson and John Skilling invented an entirely new method of construction. The forest of interior columns vanished; such columns only appeared in and around the central core of elevator shafts, stairwells, and bathrooms. Then it was nothing but open space—60 feet of it on two sides, 35 on the other two sides—before one reached the outside walls. These were not curtain walls but cages of steel columns spaced just over a yard apart, with 22 inches of glass in between. (Minoru Yamasaki, the building's architect, designed it this way in part because he was insecure with heights and felt more comfortable with such narrow windows.)<BR/>The shafts of steel in the exterior walls shouldered not only gravity loads pressing down from above but also lateral loads caused by gusty winds nudging the building from the side.</I><BR/><A HREF="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/innovation.html" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>The key here is the phrase <B>"The shafts of steel in the exterior walls shouldered not only gravity loads pressing down from above but also lateral loads."</B><BR/><BR/>Unlike all other skyscrapers, the twin towers did <B>not</B> consist of a dense interlocked network of steel griders forming a structural cage. Instead, the twin towers used a design like two tubes, one inside the other. You can see just by thinking about it that a dnesely interlocked set of steel girders is much more structurally resistant to damage than two concentric hollow tubes. However, it's important we understand why the 2-tube construction was used: to increase the amount of rentable floorspace, which translates to "get more money." <BR/><BR/>When the fire reached 1100 degrees F, the inner tube, the inner set of steel supports, buckled. Since the other tube of supports now had extreme lateral as well as vertical stress, it buckled too, resulting in a series of sudden collapses. Traditional steel girder construction would not have collapsed this way, because there's a network of interlocking girders connecting all the points on each floor of the WTC. But the Twin Towers' unique construction did NOT feature all those interlocking girders, because it would've cut down on rentable floorspace.<BR/><BR/>So if you want the ultimate answer why the twin towers collapsed in the fire when no other skyscraper ever has, the answer is simple: greed. <BR/><BR/>In an effort to maximize rentable floorspace, the WTC used a design that turned out to be fine for normal conditions...but disastrous if a 757 fully loaded with fuel slammed into it.<BR/><BR/>It's worth mentioning that at the time the WTC was designed, commercial jet planes loaded with fuel did not yet exist. So it's unfair to condemn the WTC twin towers architect for not foreseeing that a 757 would slam into the building loaded with 50,000 gallons of jet fuel, because 757's didn't exist in 1962. In fact, the first commercial U.S. jetliner, the 707, had not yet gone into service in 1962, when the WTC twin towers were designed.<BR/><BR/>So the next time someone tries to spin a conspiracy theory about the 9/11 twin towers collapse, just point 'em to those debunking pages and remind 'em of the unique construction of the WTC. No other skyscraper has ever pancaked like that in a fire because no other skyscraper has ever used the unique and peculiar double-tube construction of the WTC.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10994509912655287453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25856642352461939622008-09-19T17:49:00.000-07:002008-09-19T17:49:00.000-07:00A few points to chime in on, if I may:Zorgon:Do yo...A few points to chime in on, if I may:<BR/><BR/>Zorgon:<BR/><BR/>Do you have your own blog? If you don't, you should. We'll come visit.<BR/><BR/>In your post, however, you murdered von Hayek, and you did it because of the first error that people make when having discussions about political economy- they define terms incorrectly, and argue without understanding the definition that their opponent uses. I once had a roommate who was a red-diaper baby communist (mom had pictures of Lenin on the wall!) from Santa Monica. She was a great girl, in many ways, and we had the same taste in about everything (food, music, movies, clothing, books)... except politics. We would argue with each other until we were blue in the face, and part of it was that we mis-understood the way we used terminology.<BR/><BR/>When I'd say Capitalism, I was thinking "free market". Entrepreneurism, small business, lassiez-faire, the whole bit- everything that Ayn Rand supported. When she said "Capitalism", she was thinking "corruption and cronyism"- huge corporations sucking at the government teat, manipulating politicians, monopolizing industries, and driving people out of business using the strong arm of the law- basically, everything that Ayn Rand hated (most of the villains of Atlas Shrugged were just "capitalists" of this variety). The day that I realized this, however, was the day that I stopped engaging in deeply partisan political battles- you can't win an argument unless you can agree on the meanings of words.<BR/><BR/>This brings us to Hayek. I'm not as stridently libertarian as I used to be- I've gone from a bit of a Randroid to being more of a Hayek/Rawls ("Rawlsekian" as Will Wilkinson put it) liberal. But I take umbrage when people misunderstand what Hayek meant by socialism. The Road to Serfdom was an argument against two phenomena which were popular in the early 20th century-<BR/><BR/>-Central Economic Planning<BR/>-State Ownership of Property and the Means of Production<BR/><BR/>That's "socialism".<BR/><BR/>Can you think of any socialists today? You mention Blair, Brown, and Merkel... BZZZZZ! Wrong! Blair and Brown's Labour Party, while it's still a member of the Socialist International, is socialist in name only- they're a center-right neoliberal party these days, little different from their Tory opponents. Merkel? Merkel is a Christian Democrat- the German conservative party. Definitely no socialist.<BR/><BR/>Real socialism, by Hayek's definition, never came to Western Europe. Or America, or Canada. <BR/><BR/>The "safety net" welfare state is NOT socialism. Public works projects done for building necessary infrastructure- NOT socialism. Keynesian monetary policy? Not socialism.<BR/><BR/>In the fifteen years that I've been observing politics, I've only seen two major acts that would constitute socialism in America- and they've happened in the last two weeks.<BR/><BR/>And which party was responsible?<BR/><BR/>Yes, take a guess.<BR/><BR/>As far as socialism in other countries, and psychopaths rising to the top- yes, that has happened, on a very frequent basis. Mao? Stalin? Pol Pot? Saddam Hussein? The Kims? The Assads? The ruling juntas of much of Latin America throughout the mid-20th century?<BR/>(You could argue those are communists, but not by my definition- "state control of the economy" means socialism. Communism is an illusion that has never really been put into practice- the USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; China's "Communist" Party was- and still claims to be- dedicated to building "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics". Communism is seen as an end point that would happen AFTER the economies of the world were brought to a stage of total development, either by capitalism or socialism. We've never been there- and, since I have a feeling Marx was wrong- we never will be.)<BR/><BR/>Where it hasn't happened is in developed, welfare-capitalist countries. Countries with socialist, state-controlled economies on the other hand always seem to give way to ruthless dictators... with a few exceptions.<BR/><BR/>Those few exceptions were countries previously controlled by the British Empire, which had strong British common-law legal systems and a leadership dedicated to their principles. While Pandit Nehru was no economist, he was a wise, liberal leader who held together a huge, fragile democracy through it's early years- and India is the better for it today. Likewise, Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew, while ruthless in acquiring power and keeping it, has been equally ruthless in stopping the corruption that plagues every other autocratic economy.<BR/><BR/>NoOne:<BR/><BR/>You raised a very, very important point, that I last heard several candidates bring up after the 2004 election. This (post)modern world, with it's extreme autonomy and alienation, is off-putting to most people. Hell, I feel it very, very frequently. Obama and McCain both appeal to "community" in different ways. Here's an example, a passage from Obama's "Dreams of my Father":<BR/><BR/>"... As we walked back to the car, we passed a small clothing store full of cheap dresses and brightly colored sweaters, two aging white mannequins now painted black in the window. The store was poorly lit, but toward the back I could make out the figure of a young Korean woman sewing by hand as a child slept beside her.<BR/><BR/>The scene took me back to my childhood, back to the markets of Indonesia: the hawkers, the leather workers, the old women chewing betel nut and swatting flies off their fruit with whisk brooms ... I saw those Djakarta markets for what they were: fragile, precious things. The people who sold their goods there might have been poor, poorer even than folks out in Altgeld [the Chicago housing project where Obama engaged in community organizing]. They hauled fifty pounds of firewood on their backs every day, they ate little, they died young. And yet for all that poverty, there remained in their lives a discernible order, a tapestry of trading routes and middlemen, bribes to pay and customs to observe, the habits of a generation played out every day beneath the bargaining and the noise and the swirling dust. It was the absence of such coherence that made a place like Altgeld so desperate, I thought to myself."<BR/><BR/>People stripped of this comfort seek it out through politics- especially suburban white "nuclear families". Contrary to what I often hear asserted by the pro-family wing of the conservative movement, I think the nuclear family is extremely weak and fragile, and has never been a survivable entity. The real "social safety net" isn't the nuclear family, it's the large, tight-knit extended family. Mom fails? You have redundancies- grandma and aunts. Dad fails? You have redundancies- grandpa and uncles. We're so mobile today that we lose that. Rather than taking advantage of our extended families, we often see them once a year; and pack our parents off into the retirement home in their old age. I'm happy that I got to grow up in a large extended family, next door to my grandparents, at a house where my aunts and uncles would congregate for lunch every day. That I grew up going to a small community church, not an impersonal megachurch. A community where my teachers had time for me, I wasn't just a statistic. I had a very "conservative" upbringing- yet, at the same time, my whole family is, in their political orientation, liberal!<BR/><BR/>Why is this?<BR/><BR/>Because liberals aren't afraid of the threats to their family and institutions that conservatives usually play upon, because their institutions and family are strong enough to face them without difficulty. This is the same reason East Asians in America, despite having very conservative personal values, tend to vote Democrat- they have their own communities and institutions. These are the only way to get through turbulent times- and all times are turbulent. We're coming out of a brief "vacation from history", and, when the going gets rough, it's time to turn to community. <BR/><BR/>But you don't look to the voting booth for that.<BR/><BR/>Okay, sorry about this very long-winded post. I didn't want to pull a Zorgon, but it happens... I hope Dr. Brin will forgive me. ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-61459318026530605072008-09-19T17:16:00.000-07:002008-09-19T17:16:00.000-07:00Fascism, yup.Nazi= National Socialist Worker's Par...Fascism, yup.<BR/><BR/>Nazi= National Socialist Worker's Party. But in fact, socialism in which the prussian aristocracy was allowed to keep most of the money, so long as they surrendered all the power to the fanatics.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48439277250703912742008-09-19T17:06:00.000-07:002008-09-19T17:06:00.000-07:00One thing I would like to see is using the Governm...One thing I would like to see is using the Government actuary's assessment of the value of a life(<A HREF="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/10/national/a110546D37.DTL" REL="nofollow">6.9 million</A>) as a basis to convict directors of firms involved in these collapses of murder on the basis that 6.9 mil = 1 human life.<BR/><BR/>That would mean that the Lehman collapse with it's loss of <A HREF="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/lehman_brothers_holdings_inc/index.html?excamp=GGBUlehman&WT.srch=1&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=BI-S-E-GG-NA-S-lehman" REL="nofollow">3.9 bil</A> would result in directors being charged with the death of 565 people.<BR/><BR/>Of course we could be really mean and charge the based on the Stanford value of <A HREF="http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1808049,00.html" REL="nofollow">$129,000</A>. Or perhaps that is just what they deserve?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48645076356528006002008-09-19T16:46:00.000-07:002008-09-19T16:46:00.000-07:00David, looks like your Ostrich campaign might be c...David, looks like your Ostrich campaign might be catching on:<BR/><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein19-2008sep19,0,6091394.column" REL="nofollow">The Great Schlep: Jewish grandkids get an earful in Florida as they try to woo relatives toward Obama.</A>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15030764857062052822noreply@blogger.com