Skip navigation

Tag Archives: america

Capitalism in the USA Today

Is Obama a socialist?

Has he already ruined America?

To choose a single quintessential that characterizes the esprit de corp of the United States, that quality that defines it uniquely, I think I would nominate Capitalism.  [I also considered "freedom", "the US Constitution", "democracy" (American-style), "college football", ...]

Regardless of political stripe, Americans believe that the American vision is the product of hard work, ingenuity and free enterprise, largely unfettered by government interference.

Indeed recently, when a clear majority of Americans wanted the deplorable situation with health insurance fixed, the efforts to do so were easily thwarted simply by raising the spectre of Socialism.

Even with a Democratic President and Congress and a large mandate for change, no change has been able to overcome this charge of socialism.

But as the Republican division desperately accuses Obama of being the Anti-Capitalist and having ruined the country in just one short year, its bewilderment and disarray is most palpable.

The grand failure of Ponzi Capitalism, embodied in the current financial crisis besetting the USA (and the world), has shocked Americans, and particularly Republicans, to the core.  "How did this go so badly wrong?".  "Where is The Invisible Hand of Adam Smith?", to discipline the market.  Even the Maestro, Alan Greenspan, claims to be shocked…

The Corporation
The Corporation

Now we come to what I believe is a fundamental disconnect in the political discourse: the capitalists themselves do not believe in free enterprise [freedom for their competitors and consumers].

The free market makes the best decisions and gets the job done, so people believe.  Competition not only weeds out the bad ideas and managers, but it holds prices down to cost plus a reasonable profit, as well as stimulating the search for continuous improvement.  Thus, free enterprise is good for consumers (the public) and provides incentive to companies to be responsive to and satisfy their customers.  And companies provide jobs as well as goods.  It is thus a win-win situation and everyone prospers.  This is the theory.

Capitalists, however, believe in only three principles: 1) profit, 2) lots of profit, and 3) unregulated, unlimited and unreasonable profit.

Competition and the free market are a brake and a limit on the amount of profit that can be made, benefiting the numerous customers, and only hardly the companies.  But corporations are driven to make profit and nothing else drives them.

(Here I want to express a novel thought.  Inasmuch as Americans define their country in terms of free enterprise, competition and freedom, then the wealthiest, monopolistic capitalists who work against those principles should be considered to be saboteurs and traitors.  Indeed, David Rockefeller candidly admitted in his 2002 auto-biography, Memoirs, to having spent a lifetime "working against the best interests of the United States" (and in favor of globalization).)

Now let's consider a corollary of the notion that capitalism does not actually favor free enterprise.

People view Big Business and Big Government as adversaries; incompatible; mortal enemies even.  That they are believed to be at odds with each other is precisely why the charge of socialism works so effectively in American politics.  In the simplistic view, governmental control runs counter to free enterprise.  (It does, but the deep question is, "whose side is Business on?": freedom or regulation…)

What if Big Business is no friend at all of Freedom and if instead favors techniques of coercion?  Then government becomes seen as a powerful tool for control. And since it so evidently may be bought with large enough sacks of gold, the situation suddenly hearkens back to the entrepreneur who liked the product so much that he bought the company!  For enforcing its monopolies, Big Business is so fond of Big Government that it might have invented it.  (And indeed: I think it did.)

Now one may consider anew why it is that corporations donate to candidates of both parties simultaneously.  They don't care whether a candidate is Republican or Democrat, as long as he or she is going to be successfully elected and — with their backing — beholden.

Obama is not a socialist.  He is a pawn.  Carefully chosen and groomed.  Just like Bush before him.

And the drive to ruin the United States (for the majority of its inhabitants) was started before Obama.  Before Bush.  Before Clinton.

These Presidential Commandos-in-Chief are just agents of the one enemy, the Plutocracy, its fifth column; no change, no change, no change.

From: The Monday Morning Quarterback

The Shopping Mall of Government

Earlier this month, on Independence Day, a VOX neighbor posted the text of the American Declaration of Independence. Thank you, Cap’n Stephel.

The 56 signatories signed the Declaration as a rejection of the Old World Order, based as it was upon an absolute, remote and central seat of power held in very tight hands, (King George III of Britain and his cronies). In doing so, they committed treason and thereby put themselves in serious peril.

Tip: it is actually quite fun to read the Declaration today and try to imagine that it had been addressed, not to George III but instead, to King George XLIII… (You know: “Dubya”.)

So that post got me wondering about just what it is that makes the American Constitution special. What, in particular, is its genius? I’d be interested to hear what people think, especially Americans.

For me, the most striking aspect of the spirited debates that stirred the early colonialists was the controversy between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Both factions were very much against a powerful, federal government and held the common goal of strongly restricting it from mischief. With perhaps the exception of the execrable Alexander Hamilton, they all understood that “[small] government is a necessary evil; [large government is an intolerable abomination]”.)

The Federalists carried the day and so wrote the constitution restricting the federal government by specifying only those powers the federal government was to wield. The objections of the Anti-Federalists were later partially assuaged in the Bill of Rights, a series of amendments, (1-10).

So I want to venture here the notion that the genius of what the Framers of the Constitution conceived is what I call, “the shopping mall of government”.

The Union was to be a loose collection of democracies, united by some common principles, but allowing the states to determine local laws according to the wishes of their electorates. The Founders rejected the kind of centralized, remote, absolute government that they, and Europeans, had long suffered under. In the Constitution, they sought to promote local determination with citizens free to choose how they would live, work and trade. In the realm of government, small is beautiful. (Or at least, less “evil”. ;) )

So imagine 50 states, each free to determine the majority of issues for themselves, with the union ensuring only the freedom for people to move and trade between states and securing the common defence against external threats. Imagine how this might work with 50 states, some “red” and some “blue”. Imagine the interesting comparisons that would inevitably arise.

The following benefits might accrue:

  1. citizens unhappy with the status quo and unable to change it by any other democratic means are able to simply “vote with their feet” by moving to a different state, (the story of my life and much more effective and satisfying than occasionally pulling something in a voting booth);
  2. more importantly, states that abuse their citizens soon lose some number of them – enough that the loss subjects those states to a kind of “free market dynamics” that impels them to compete harder to satisfy their constituents, (libertarians should appreciate this point as it puts the power of ultimate decision back with each and every individual); conversely, states that serve their constituents well soon prosper;
  3. simple comparison of outcomes across states reveals much about the wisdom (or folly) of certain, political ideas, prompting voluntary correction; the concentration of political power is distributed, limiting the opportunity and incentive for, and damage by, a major attack from would-be tyrants; thus, no single point of failure/corruption.

The following objections might be raised:

  1. “I don’t want to spend a lot of effort on politics and I certainly don’t want to have to move to another state to get what I want — someone should just hand my happiness to me along with an iron-clad guarantee;” [uninformed electorate]
  2. “I have a lot of strong, political opinions and I need a way to impose them on other people, whether they like it or not — it makes me feel good about myself;” [tyranny of the majority]
  3. “well, gee, these ideas of decentralized power and local determination are so far off the way we do things in our country today: it can’t be right.” [complacency, myopia]
  4. “without a dictatorial, federal government, there’d still be slaves in the South…” [think so?  misplaced faith; read "Civil War", by Bruce Catton]

(To be even-handed about this last, I must say that I think the greatest flaw in the Constitution, (which sought to protect life and liberty), was that it did not explicitly forbid slavery and that slavery was tolerated for nearly one hundred more years under the operation of the US government.)

Well, food for further thought.

Thanks again to Cap’n Stephel.

From: The Monday Morning Quarterback

Next: Exodus 2

Exodus 1

In my very first blog post, Leaving Japan, I referred to the culmination of a long odyssey.  I knew then that I should have to write about how that odyssey commenced.

In November, 1981, at the tender age of 26, I quit my job, assigned power of attorney to a friend, packed a suitcase, pulled the front door shut for the last time and rode to the airport of my home-town, Adelaide, Australia, to board a flight toward a country I had heard a lot about, but never before visited.  My intention was emigration.  My first destination was San Francisco.

Arriving in San Francisco, I rented a car, checked into an airport hotel and then placed a call to Harvey Poenack, in Bethesda, MD.  No answer.

The business of Harvey Poenack International was three-fold: 1) immigration specialist, 2) head-hunter, 3) tax accountant.  Harvey brought foreigners into the USA to work.  I had entered the USA in possession of an H-1 visa, authorizing me to work for Harvey.  But I was now unable to make contact with my agent.

To kill time, I drove into downtown San Francisco, milled around awhile and then proceeded to circumnavigate the Bay via bridge and freeway.  It was the first time I had driven on the opposite side of the road.  I marveled at six-lane freeways, (per side!).  I observed drivers turning right on red lights and, after building up my own nerve (was it legal?), pulled the same stunt.  I found a diner nearby the airport and the quantity, quality and price of the food, along with the endless coffee refills, was remarkable to me.  Plus the service was as cheery as it was snappy.  Tipping was new to me.  So was putting down a fiver for something marked 4.95$, but then finding one needed some extra change as the register rang up the total with the sales tax added on top.  (Taxes are generally well-hidden in Australia.)

The plan was to interview for a week on the west coast; then fly to the east coast for another week of interviews.  Harvey answered the phone.  The economy was in deep recession ('81/82).  All he had for me was a lone interview in Washington.  State.  I booked a flight one-way, planning to rent a car and drive back down Route 1 by the Pacific, if the interview failed.

As the 727 banked right to turn 180 southbound for Sea-Tac airport, I was presented with a magnificent view of the Seattle skyline, Space Needle and Lakes Aurora and Washington.  All the wooden houses connoted a shanty town to an untraveled Australian, but I think I fell in love with Seattle right there and then.  I had been quite disappointed to think that I was coming to, (for me), the most exciting country in the world and was looking at being marooned in the furthest corner of the Forty-Eight.  But the natural beauty of Puget Sound, Lake Washington, the Olympics, Cascades and Mount Rainier was too overwhelming to resist.

The rental car company in the airport did not want to rent me a car without a credit card.  I showed them the contract I had for the rental from their San Francisco branch and so they happily relented.  Man, this was so long ago!  Credit cards optional.  Service.  Trust.  How things have changed!

I checked into the Thunderbird Lodge in Bellevue, just in time for Thanksgiving lunch.  (Americans are almost all surprised to learn that other countries don't celebrate Thanksgiving.  Makes you wonder how much American history they really know, doesn't it?  ;)   )

The interview was with an American affiliate of a German database company.  HQ in Reston, VA, and an engineering team of about 50 people in Bellevue, Washington.  (Just a couple of miles away from Bellevue a small but malignantly cancerous company was metastasizing in adjacent Redmond, WA.)  I got hired.  By the database company.

I theorize that I am just slightly agoraphobic.  Thus, I prefer an overcast sky.  I know that is weird.  There are two kinds of people: those who can hack constant drizzle and those who can't.  Seattle is no place for those who have no affinity for the rain gods and the locals accept this philosophically as a gift (to keep away the Californian sun-worshippers who wouldst resettle there).  Perhaps Seattle is the Valhalla of people who, like the Douglas Adams character, are unknowingly rain gods, attracting precipitation in all its dreary forms, unbidden? In any case, they also believe that there is no finer place on the earth — not in August and September, anyway, the only months during which the drizzle abates.  However, I was not to experience those months in Seattle…

For the first six weeks, I stayed with very distant relatives, Henry and Jenny and their 18-month old son, in Kirkland on the NE shore of Lake Washington.  That was a great introduction to restaurants, shops and friends.  We became great friends and I think Henry and Jenny particularly appreciated the in-house, baby-sitting services!

I have very fond memories of Seattle.  My first time seeing snow falling: those large, whirling flakes that create the mental illusion of a whirring sound even though the snow fall is actually deadening most noise.  Driving down I-405 with crisp views of the snow-caps on the Cascades on one side and the Olympics on the other.  The giant, snowy apex of Mt Rainier to the south, magnified by wood smoke and suspended above the haze, as if floating.  Watching ducks show off, flaring for a water-landing in the moat around the office park, feet extended forward for splash-down and wings cupped, braking.  Seeing the same ducks attempting the same maneuvre the morning after an overnight snap freeze, falling backward on their rumps onto the ice, coming gradually to a halt after a gently cork-screwing slide, embarrassed and furtively looking around for now-unwanted spectators.

Seattle people staying home from work and school after a single inch of snow-fall.  Avoiding the very few out on the roads like the plague, due to their inexperience with snow.  I discovered Saturday Night Live and it was in the John Belushi era.  I was invited to Christmas parties and found people very hospitable and friendly.  I saw a very early flight simulator operating on a very early PC.  And I remember one conversation in which I was told earnestly that, if the Russkies ever did decide to invade the US of A, they would quickly become surprised and consternated by the level of gun ownership in America: "go ahead, pry our weapons from our cold, dead fingers!!"; much like Afghanistan, I suppose.  :)   People walking on their right-hand side of the sidewalk (they don't any more) and arranging their shopping carts accordion-style in supermarket check-out queues so as not to block other shoppers.  Receiving pleasant greetings from strangers.

Finally I moved to Bellevue, renting an apartment.  I had settled in at work and it had ramped up.  I wasn't technically so busy but the rest of the team were working about 90 hours a week.  I gritted my teeth and put in about 70, just for solidarity.  I still seemed to be spending all my time at work.  A very difficult adjustment for an Australian of that era, even one that liked to work.

In addition, at work, I felt like I was "hitting the wall".  I think every engineer goes through this and must learn to adapt.  It was the first time I had worked with so much code, written by so many other people with different coding styles, so many of them long departed, but with just the usual amount of documentation.  Next to none.  I was getting frustrated and not enjoying the work.  I started looking around for other possibilities.  The recession had deepened.  Nothing doing.

I called United Airlines to book a flight to the east coast to go meet Harvey.  The sales representative told me over the phone that only "coach" was available on the day I wanted to travel.  I didn't have time to cross the country by bus, so I politely declined and hung up.  (We call the back of the airplane, "economy class", in Australia.)  I never did get to meet Harvey.  :(

(Speaking of which is a good time to mention a lesson learned: when you have the opportunity to do something, seize it.  All the while in Seattle, I heard good things about Vancouver, the only outside place Washingtonians will say good things about.  I deferred making a day trip there because I was renting a car on a miles-limited, monthly basis.  It wasn't until 2006 that I again had a good chance to finally visit Vancouver.  Washingtonians say "Vancouver, B.C." to distinguish it from plain "Vancouver", meaning Vancouver, WA.  Like "Paris, France", as opposed to just Paris.  Texas.  :) )

I called a colleague in Australia.  One I had dealt with in Australia only by phone, inter-company.  I asked for a reference, but he refused.  Rather, he offered me a job in Sydney.  Working for a computer company, in a telephone support centre.  (Which is how I had made his acquaintance: over the phone.)  But it was a large, American, multi-national, computer company and I conceived the idea of working for this company in Australia and then transferring back to the USA.  (This would turn out to be a crazy idea.)

I was by now quite despondent and so I buckled and surrendered the dream.  I phoned Sydney and accepted the job offer.  I felt then that it was weak of me and I still do to this day.  My chattels had only just arrived at the docks in Tacoma — just in time to be turned around and sent back.

I left the USA at the end of March, 1982, after only a little over four months.  Just enough to have a tantalizing taste of American life and truly whet my appetite.  The experience had been exhilarating, albeit bitter-sweet.

I returned to Australia, discouraged and with my tail between my legs.

[I was to learn several months later that the Bellevue development center had been closed down for relocation to Reston and all but three of the Bellevue engineers had left the company.  My office-mate, Floyd, had joined the Redmond company then in 1982 and had gone to work on becoming an early-retiring millionaire.]

If you've read this far, congratulations and thank you.  :)

I am intentionally going to avoid writing any kind of comparison of the two countries, (and am not at all confident I could do a competent and objective job of such a comparison, anyway).

This next part is the one I have been dreading to write.  What made me want to move from Australia to the USA?  To try to explain, I need to interpret the motivation of my former self, 28 years ago.  It's painfully introspective for me to do and will no doubt seem trite.  I recognize that self and recall some of what he was thinking, but it now seems implausible and, frankly, somewhat risible to me today.

There were three, main factors.

The first factor is the most easily defensible.  In those days, for a computer engineer, the USA was very definitely the centre of gravity of the computing world. That's changed a lot now with globalization and particularly the internet, but it was certainly true then.  I've had a most rewarding career and it is impossible to imagine having done all the things I have done if I had not been in the United States to do them.  I learned very much during my career working with all of my colleagues in the United States (and a considerable number of those had also emigrated from elsewhere).

The principal factor must just be blurted out and suffer its natural judgement.  I loved the United States of America and did so with all my heart.

America was, for me, the land of liberty and I yearned above all to be free.  Call that young man an idealist, naive and a fool — and there was very much I did not know then — but I can see no reason for shame on his behalf.

The most momentous day in my childhood / teenage had been Monday, July 21st, 1969.  I arrived at school that morning to learn that the Eagle had landed at 5:47 am (my time).  The whole school spent the morning watching live transmissions beamed from Houston (and ultimately the moon) and at 12:26pm I watched an American set foot on the lunar surface.  The whole history of the world had changed: ante Mare Tranquillitatis had transitioned to post Mare Tranquillitatis.  How could one not marvel and be inspired?

The third factor was that I know that I had a number of blind-spots in those days that prevented me from fully appreciating the appeal of living in the "Lucky Country".  I.e. Australia.  If I had, it would likely not have prevented me from making the move, but it may have dampened my zeal and shortened my odyssey.  Who knows?

I said I would not compare the two countries, but there is one over-arching observation to be made that I think is helpful.  When my odyssey began, I believed that America was the place "to do".  Now, at the end of it, I believe that Australia is the place "to live".

Possibly this reflects, more than anything else, something of the metamorphosis that I underwent during my journey.

(continued in Exodus 2)

From: The Monday Morning Quarterback

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The Division (and Defeat) of Democracy in America

As I continue to happily explore Vox, I am still intrigued by the robust, often rancorous debate between liberals and conservatives.  My most striking sense is one of the seeming futility of the debate.

Both sides are convinced that it alone holds the truth — and that the other side is wrong, harmful and even evil.  Both sides believe that what the USA needs is its government, (Democrat or Republican), in perpetuity.  Both are saved from the reality of their claims by a system that ensures that government flip-flops moodily and inconclusively between one side and the other.

Put bluntly, the Democrats seem to believe that America is being ruined because the Republicans occasionally get a turn to govern.  The Republicans believe the flip-side.  How can either ever hold any hope for the welfare of the country?

Yet I doubt that either side is at all contented with the current condition or prognosis of the United States.  Can the two sides even continue to co-exist?  Or are they doomed to be mortal enemies?

To be charitable — and to eschew strict, political definitions — I think of liberals as idealists who are dedicated to "fixing the future".  And of conservatives as realists who wish society to "learn from the past".  We know that "the devil is in the details" but why should these two impulses be contrary or mutually exclusive?

By these (admittedly loose) definitions, I view myself as both the realist and the idealist!  Surely, to make a better future, the two sides should be able to work together?

Again being charitable, I think of Americans as people made great by the desire to "live free or die", (as it used to say on my car's license plate).  Is there left no common ideal nor palatable future for Americans?

I have long had the sense that liberals and conservatives "talk past each other" and, hence, no traction is gained.  Let me explain the reason for my opinion, if I can.

(Not all political contention is about issues of money, but there are very few issues that are not; even some of those that, on the face, seem purely a matter of morality.)

The key disagreement between liberals and conservatives seems to me to be principally over government: revenue and expenditure.

Liberals see the defects and ills of our society and wish government to spend more money to combat these problems.

Conservatives refuse — and again, I will be charitable — not because, in the hardness of their hearts, they don't care about those suffering, but, let's say, because they distrust government and believe that government money is already being wasted, diverted and/or stolen.

The left-versus-right debate might be more productive if each side could somehow bridge this gap in addressing its opponent.  Specifically, the key issue is trust in government.

I don't think I can say much to aid any better understanding, but I should like to opine that, not only is government in the USA broken, corrupt and untrustworthy but, the current economic crisis is proving that that other, latter-day, unreformed anachronism — capitalism — is equally broken, corrupt and untrustworthy.  Nowhere in sight is The Invisible Hand of Adam Smith to magically correct the market-place.

(The top five holders of derivatives in the world — Citicorp, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Wells Fargo/Wachovia — are technically insolvent.  Congress is required by the Prompt Corrective Action Law to take these companies into receivership.  But Congress considers them to be "too big to fail".  Actually, I'd prefer to see them fail rather than the American people be looted and bankrupted by these companies and the likes of AIG…)

So I believe that both democracy and capitalism in America have proven themselves anachronistic and corrupt.  And that both are, in fact, co-dependent.  The corruption of one serves the evil of the other.  Therefore, reform of both is urgent and mandatory; else there will be no change people can enjoy.

Needless to say, this reform is going to require the concerted efforts of both sides of the political spectrum.

[Footnote: in this post, I have intentionally been simplistic, utilizing the conventional, uni-dimensional, left-versus-right spectrum used to classify political thought in the US.  This should not at all detract from the thrust of this post.]

From: The Monday Morning Quarterback

Next: Exodus 1

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.