Back To The Future: The Economic World Of Hunter-Gatherers

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

The story of human social evolution goes roughly as follows: for eons people were hunter-gatherers, collecting food while moving from place to place. Such a life was VERY in tune with nature, resulting in very short life spans. Nature, after all, is not that friendly.

Then people discovered they could grow their food in one place. This was called farming. This method lasted to modern times, although in a very mechanical and corporate form.

The industrial revolution, starting in the 19th century, led more and more people to forsake farming for an urban existence. This also created a complex co-dependency between industry and those who worked in them.

Today in Bloomberg.com, Rich Karlgaard has this piece, THE DEEPER ROOTS OF ECONOMIC ANXIETY. I highly recommend the article, as well as the comments left by readers. They are quite revealing.

The U.S. economy is in better shape than the pundits, polls and press say it is. I don’t believe America is in a recession now. I don’t think one is coming. After eight months of anxiety and stock market turbulence, if the bad event hasn’t happened by now, I doubt it will happen at all.

The Fed is on the case. Bargain hunters like Warren Buffett are moving in, signaling a bottom. Small business is curiously robust despite the credit crunch. Employment is strong. Every commercial flight I’ve taken this year has been oversold.

Much as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would like us to believe 2008 is a trap door to the 1930s, they’re wrong.

So, there IS no recession, there is not GOING to be a recession, and all it takes is one man...Warren Buffet...to signal the bottom of something that isn't happening. Unless, of course, one considers Wall Street as the American economy. With all due respect, rather than Senators Clinton and Obama wanting us to believe 2008 is a trapdoor to the 1930's, it could also be said that Mr. Karlgaard's words could have been written by Calvin Coolidge or Herbert Hoover. In the economic funhouse that set up its tent in the 1970's, lip service is paid to the vast pool of unwashed consumers. The REAL decisions; the true engine of the economy, are those of the "investing class" who are better-educated, and therefore wiser, than a bunch of chocolate cherry-chomping chumps watching TV.

Cheap production technology combined with vast pools of talent, capital and consumers around the world guarantee a world of “extreme competition” (to borrow a McKinsey phrase) and ever-accelerating business-model evolution. What could slow it down? Nothing I see. Not even war.

What goes for companies goes for careers. Your career and mine can be disrupted more easily than before. The best personal career strategy is to assume that our jobs will be disrupted. Everyone needs a Plan B.

If you and I face up to these facts and trends and likelihoods, the world will look scary but thrilling, and full of opportunity, too. If we cover our eyes or imagine that politicians can protect us from change, the world will look scary, period.

As my MIT Sloan School host on Wednesday, Howard Anderson, likes to say: Welcome to a world where you will eat well or sleep well, but not both.

Question for the day: Economic populists such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton call for "change," yet ironically claim they can protect Americans from change. In a world where ideas and capital can move anywhere in the world at the speed of light and flock to cheap production technology and talent, what protections against the future can politicians give us?

If one is to accept the premise that this "new" economic mold is to be unquestionably adapted to, there lies a problem right on the surface. Hunter-gatherer mentality requires cooperation, whereas capitalism requires competition. As Herbert Hoover liked to say, "A man who builds a factory builds a temple. And the man who works there, worships there." Certain forms of capitalism require slavish devotion from labor. And slavish devotion TO the concept that all taxation is evil; that spending is good as long as it's not paid for, and acknowledgment that certain well-educated experts know all the pitfalls of capitalism. Of which there are none, of course.

It is amusing to hear the phrase "creative destruction" in the context of economic activity. If such were applied equally across the board it might make sense. The problem is, some destruction and creativity is more equal than others.

As regards Mr. Karlgaard's Question of The Day, economic populist is synomous with communisim to the investing class. There is great offense taken at "class warfare," even if it's been going on forever and it doesn't take an Einstein to know who has been winning. Senators Clinton and Obama offer some form of change....their policies do not differ all that much. However, they DO differ from the status quo, which as we all know is Latin for "the mess we're in." The protections that government can give us against rampant unchecked corporate supremacy is the only hope the 95% of the population have for a future that MIGHT be brighter.

Welcome to a world where you will eat well or sleep well, but not both. This is a credo for hunter-gatherers. There is no stability, only uncertainty. In a Sim-City economic theory bubble it sounds so exciting, so dashing. It prompts me to ask why some people get so incensed at "big government" (which they should) but bow to illusory "market forces" when it comes to big corporations. At least with big government you have SOME rights as a human being.

I believe that this nation cannot withstand another four years of Bush economics (a contradiction in terms anyway). Should a Democrat sit in the Oval Office with the same fealty to large corporate donors then we're confronted with the choice this November between a moderate Republican and a moderate Republican.

In 1942 a Japanese general warned that they were suffering from "victory disease." Everything was going too smoothly; every goal was met and all opposition crushed. Such can be said for dedicated adherents to the status quo.

As regards making a choice between eating or sleeping, it's best to be reminded of an old saying, "The castle is safe as long as the cottage is happy."
*************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com
*************************
This post kindly featured at MemeOrandum

AHMADINEJAD DISPLAYS HIS IGNORANCE ONCE AGAIN

By MICHAEL LINN JONES

OPEC comment drives oil close to $95 is the headline for this AP story by Pablo Gorondi.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, called the dollar a "worthless piece of paper," and said the cartel's members have expressed interest in converting cash reserves into a currency other than the U.S. dollar — a sentiment echoed by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who called the euro a better option.

This is the best president a theocracy can come up with? What a putz. Referring to the dollar as a "worthless piece of paper" shows how ignorant this guy really is. Yeah, yeah, I know Ahmadinejad has it in for the U.S. We're the great satan, blah, blah, blah.

At least he could get his facts straight. Everyone knows that it's the U.S. CONSTITUTION that is a worthless piece of paper. Our own President Bush said so, and he should know since he's the Decider and all that.

His quote did not use the word "worthless" but the meaning was the same, I think. "It's nothing but a goddamned piece of paper" translates pretty close to "worthless" but then I'm no linguistic expert.

On top of that, President Ahmadinejad needs to do some polling of President Bush's "base," that is the "haves" and "have-mores" (as Bush refers to them). There ain't a one of them going to tell you that a dollar (or the puruit of them) is less valuable than a constitution, human rights, national security, or much of anything else.

So if the president of Iran has plans to wreck the U.S. economy, I have news for him. Someone's already way ahead of you on that score.

So you're wasting your time. Being Americans, we can destroy an economy better than anybody else.

We're # 1, after all.
************************
Cross-posted at Michael Linn Jones.com

THE COCOONING OF AMERICA

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

In a recent post at THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL, Buffalo Brown put forth some thoughts in this piece, ALMOST A RANT. Mr. Brown laments the type of thinking that results in an employer deciding employees' lifestyles off the job.

When employees lose their right to have a personal life away from work, the Age of Feudalism returns. When you combine Feudalism with the Nannyism of the government, we become a nation of slaves.

As in all of his writings, I find Buffalo Brown's thinking provocative. As a blogger that's what he's supposed to do; make one think about something a little more deeply instead of just passing by and assuming that lump in your life is normal and should not be disturbed.

This morning I was listening to a radio interview of Eric Burns, in which he came forth with the opinion that in post-Revolutionary America, the Founding Fathers were just as anxious to achieve fame as anyone. But...and it's a very big but....the definition of "fame" was radically different. Burns said that "fame" meant that someone had done something that made the nation better. Even if the technology had existed, a Paris Hilton wouldn't have been famous. Personally speaking, I STILL don't see why that individual is famous even considering the times we live in.

I got to thinking about those "times we live in." And truthfully I am not that secure in the opinion that we are better than generations that preceded us. Something has happened over time...we all know that change is one constant...but still, there is something amiss.

We accept too much. We accept things because we have handed over the reins of individual life to entities that in the end cannot tolerate the individual. It is quite an un-American approach to life, but then the question arises as to what "American" really means.

Priorities change; standards change, and people change. Using rough figures, the U.S. lost 400,000 in World War II, 35,000 in Korea, 60,000 in Vietnam, and now approaching 4,000 in Iraq/Afghanistan. At a glance the 400,000 lost in World War II seems an easier number to accept than 4,000 lost in Iraq/Afghanistan because the larger number died during a struggle for something easisly definable.

But I think it goes beyond that, however. As a nation; as a people we have become less tolerant of combat deaths. In fact we have become less tolerant of sacrifice in general. Any serious notion of relating 299 million Americans to the other 1 million involved in the military would be greeted with derision. For example, why not impose upon ourselves a 50 m.p.h. speed limit nationwide (it was 35 m.p.h. in World War II)? Or slap a large tax on people AND corporations to pay for this war?

Because that is...ridiculous. The war belongs to...someone else. Those involved in the fighting and dying belong to a very small minority. Our children are too precious to sacrifice for anything. It's almost like.."let me get my kid accepted at Duke and I'll put a yellow ribbon magnet on my car, ok?"

Cynical, but accurate enough. For while other things are going on in the world, the populace has wrapped itself in a grandiose cocoon. Said cocoons are wrapped in a brightly colored insulation of indifference.

In the 19th century Karl Marx said that religion was the opiate of the masses. We have come a long way from that notion; the commonality of purpose has been cast aside for individual interests.

We have a government official telling us that Americans are going to have to redefine personal privacy; that we must trust the government and corporations to safeguard that information. But to claim that personal information is just that? No. But that generates a very small discussion....a much greater wind blows about Paris Hilton saving drunk elephants or Britney Spears running red lights with her kids in the car.

We demand what has always been referred to as "personal freedom" but actually mean personal indulgence. If an employer decrees that his/her employees shall live, think, breathe, worship, marry, etc. in the manner prescribed by said employer, then we have, as Mr. Brown says, a resurgence of feudalism.

Many years ago I read a marvelous autobiography by David Niven entitled "The Moon's A Balloon." To borrow from that, a cocoon is a balloon, too. And like a balloon it can burst.

And maybe, when it does, we all might start talking to each other again, like a modern family during a power outage. If we're lucky some person, movement, or thing will pull the plug on what we haughtily consider a reality.

In the meantime, enjoy the fruits of submission. While in our cocoons we have no idea that those sweet grapes we're being fed are actually the droppings from the south end of a horse.
************************
Cross-posted at Michael Linn Jones.com
************************
This post kindly featured at MemeOrandum

BUSH ADMINISTRATION HELPS ROLL UP "WELCOME BACK" MAT FOR RETURNING VETERANS

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES



Back in the 1980's comedian Richard Belzer had a routine poking fun at President Reagan. Sarcastically referring to Reagan as "the most sensitive man in America," Belzer would voice words that his target never used. It was comedy, the warping of reality to get a laugh.

In one segment, he remarks on unwed mothers, welfare recipients....and veterans. I cannot recall the exact wording, but it was something like, "Unemployed vets.....just keep on marching fellas." It indicated either an insensitivity to veterans in trouble or suffering from a tin ear when it comes to recognizing a simple decency. It was, perhaps, unfair. But comedy is unfair, even if making a point; that point being....what do "we" owe veterans?

So here we are two decades later. In Belzer's America, Ronald Reagan was addressing Vietnam veterans. However, unlike that time, we have a full-blown conflict on our hands. The president who started it is still in the White House. He's the decider. He's the man in charge. Et cetera & ad nauseum.

And, of course, he CARES about veterans. So why am I seeing a story like this from AP's Hope Yen: RETURNING TO WORK A PROBLEM FOR RESERVISTS?

WASHINGTON - Strained by extended tours in Iraq, growing numbers of military reservists say the government is providing little help to soldiers who are denied their old jobs when they return home, Defense Department data shows.

The Pentagon survey of reservists in 2005-2006, obtained by The Associated Press, details increasing discontent among returning troops in protecting their legal rights after taking leave from work to fight for their country.

It found that 44 percent of the reservists polled said they were dissatisfied with how the Labor Department handled their complaint of employment discrimination based on their military status, up from 27 percent from 2004.

SNIP,

"Most of the government investigators are too willing to accept the employer's explanation for a worker's dismissal," said Sam Wright, a former Labor Department attorney who helped write the 1994 discrimination law protecting reservists.

"Some of it is indifference, some of them don't understand the laws involved," Wright said. "But the investigators establish for themselves this impossibly hard standard to win a case. As a result, reservists lose out."

Under the law, military personnel are protected from job discrimination based on their service and are generally entitled to a five-year cumulative leave with rights to their old jobs upon their return. Reservists typically file a complaint first with a Pentagon office, the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR), which seeks to resolve the dispute informally.

If that effort fails, a person typically can go to the Labor Department to pursue a formal complaint and possible litigation by the Justice Department.

A report by the American Bar Association as early as 2004 noted problems in which the government was "not seen as an aggressive advocate for the returning veteran." A presidential task force chaired by former Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson earlier this year found that agencies could do a better job of educating troops and veterans. The report did not address government enforcement of the law.

I know what the explanation is for this: watch the film "Airplane!" and wait for the segment where two political pundits are discussing what to do about the passengers stuck on a crippled airliner that might not make it. One commenter says, "They bought their tickets; they knew the risks....I say LET 'EM crash!"

Of course it will not be spoken thusly in public, but many companies will mouth patriotism. Many will flap their yaps about "supporting the troops" which has become as damaged a cliche as the "war on drugs" or the "war on terror." No one can adequately define them because.....well, they just aren't there to be defined.

I look upon the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts as a national football game. We're all for cheering the guys and gals out on the field. But if dead, injured, or finished with their duty the powerful step over them to keep sending replacement players into the fray.

It's shameful, but then "shame" is a word to describe a condition or attitude that requires contrition. And there is the rub: many have no ability to be contrite about anything. Serving your country is all fine and dandy, but geez louise....don't think for a moment that doing so is going to interfere with COMMERCE.

If there is a federal law that requires employers to take back returning veterans then it should be obeyed. It's a damned shame we even NEED such a law in the first place, but sometimes the legislature recognizes that the excesses of greed and expediency interfere with national security, whatever about common decency.

And that law needs enforcement by the executive. It requires the chief executive of the nation to step on a few toes to ensure that these returning reservists are granted the full extent of that law. But President Bush himself has declared the "haves" and "have-mores" as his base. If this story gets the attention it deserves, like Katrina and Walter Reed, expect photo ops of the president solemnly declaring that he will do something. Yeah. Sure. Almost seven years in office and NOW he might find a problem?

I hark back to the first year of the Kennedy administration. The major steel companies had announced that they were raising the prices of their products. Not because of any inflationary pressure; no, they just wanted more money. The executives were invited to the White House. During a break of the jaw-boning session, Kennedy was seen to exit the conference room in a state of deep anger.

Turning to an aide he said, "My father was right; they're all just sons of bitches." He was referring to the attitude of men whose greed was impaired neither by decency or the thought of the common good.

Anybody who turns their back on a returning soldier/airman/sailor/marine is a son of a bitch, too.

And so are those who allow them to get away with it. What a lousy way to approach Veterans' Day.
***********************
Cross-posted at Michael Linn Jones.com

ECONOMIC VORTEX FORMING IN GULF OF STUPIDITY (WHY IT AIN'T LOOKIN' A LOT LIKE CHRISTMAS)

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Recently I wrote about the possibility that an economic Nathan Bedford Forrest would come charging in on some economic experts and badly upset their applecarts. And cause a stampede.

This morning I am scanning the business section of news.yahoo.com and three stories are lined up one after the other. The Federal Reserve dropped interest rates another 1/4 point yesterday, despite the fact that the GDP grew at a rate of 3.9%. Ordinarily a cut would be strongly resisted....but...but...there are those issues to deal with involving the collapse of the subprime mortgage market and its spreading effects.

This AP article by Alex Veiga, FORECLOSURE FILINGS SOAR IN 3RD QUARTER, is one part of the equation.

LOS ANGELES - A soaring number of U.S. homeowners struggled to make mortgage payments in the third quarter, with properties in some stage of foreclosure more than doubling from the same time last year, a mortgage data company said Thursday.

A total of 446,726 homes nationwide were targeted by some sort of foreclosure activity from July to September, up 100.1 percent from 223,233 properties in the year-ago period, according to Irvine-based RealtyTrac Inc.

The current figure was 33.9 percent higher than the 333,731 properties in foreclosure in the second quarter of this year.

There was one foreclosure filing for every 196 households in the nation during the most recent quarter, RealtyTrac said.

Next, Oil above $96 on drop in US supplies by John Wilen, AP Business Writer:

SINGAPORE - The price of oil rose to a new record above $96 a barrel Thursday after a surprise drop in U.S. crude stockpiles raised concerns about supplies for coming winter demand. Other energy futures also gained.

It was the second week in a row the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported a sharp and unexpected drop in oil inventories.

"The decline in U.S. crude oil inventories has been a key driver of oil prices," said David Moore, commodity strategist at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Sydney.

SNIP,

Much of that decline was due to a big drop in crude supplies at a closely watched oil terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma.

Cushing supplies have been under pressure in recent months due to differences in the price between front-month oil contracts and those for delivery in future months. This price difference, or spread, has given storage tank owners a financial incentive to sell their oil, rather than hold it in inventory. Analysts have also blamed falling Cushing supplies, in part, for the rally in which oil prices have jumped 35 percent since August

Finally, Stock Investors Fear End To Rate Cuts, again an AP story by Joe Bel Bruno.

Mindful of a warning from the Federal Reserve Wednesday about inflation, the market nervously watched the price of oil, which passed $96 a barrel overnight for the first time before dipping on profit-taking. The Fed, which cut interest rates a quarter point, said in a statement that inflation remained a concern, and oil's ascent to another record raised the possibility not only that the Fed might stop cutting rates, but that it might even consider raising them if inflation accelerates.

These, of course, are just snippets from the articles. I strongly recommend reading each in full. After reading what I've done so far I thought of renaming this "That 70's Show (Again)." If one were to take into account the three stories listed above...and Jimmy Carter was President instead of George W. Bush, there would be hell to pay. We would be talking in terms of a "malaise" or some such. But we're not, because we are being reassured (again) that everything is A-okay.

Am I crazy? Okay, don't answer that...but even if that's been established it doesn't take away the sense of wrongness when I read that oil prices go up because stocks are down because oil price "spreads" caused by the commodities markets give an incentive to keep oil storage tanks dry. Which information is used to further increase the price of oil, etc., etc. It's a nasty circular logic that does three things: makes some people a lot of money, costs many more to spend what they don't have, and screws the pooch on retail sales.

The other day I heard George Will say a couple of things. Bear in mind I admire Mr. Will's logic and prose even when I don't agree with him. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that even if crude oil reaches inflation-adjusted levels of the early 80's it doesn't matter that much since the influence of oil as a part of the economy has shrunk since then.

Oh yeah? Well what is the minimum wage when inflation-adjusted? I'm not arguing for the minimum wage, but rather using it as a standard of sorts since many jobs offer compensation that is compared to the minimum wage. Besides, gasoline at $3 or $4 a gallon is still that....money that would otherwise go elsewhere.

He also made the point that a lot of the subprime mortgage failures were by people speculating in 2nd or 3rd homes. Again, what difference does that make? Whether for a 1st, 2nd, or 5th mortgage, those subprime deals were sold as securities that have evaporated in value. The end effect is the same no matter WHO held the paper.

I'm a capitalist. I once lived in what once euphemistically called a "semi-state" environment and it was terrible. Capitalism is indeed the only form of economic activity that works. But, it is quite caustic in nature and also self-destructive if left unregulated. I live in a fairly stable neighborhood. I never ordinarily have contact with law enforcement. But I know that if a wildman was trying to walk off the property with everything I own I would call the police. They would intervene between stability and chaos. I think they call it the "Thin Blue Line."

For the last twenty years or so we've had one politician after another cutting that thin blue line of economic regulation like a local mayor with oversize scissors opening a county fair. Our nation has changed, as all things change, but not all change is necessarily good.

And the result is that our economic neighborhood is overrun with wildmen gleefully filling their stockings because the police are now forbidden to even look for crime. It is a sad fact that the first Chairman of the Securities & Exchange Commission, Joseph P. Kennedy (himself a notorious Wall St. speculator) had to have bodyguards while on the floor of the stock exchange.

Kennedy's job was to pour some unpalatable liquid into many bowls of cornflakes, and the consumers of said cornflakes did not like it a bit. They still don't and that's why they pay out a lot of money to ensure their meals taste sweeter every year.

So if the bottom falls out of the bucket we all can rest assured that in the long run things will straighten out. But like Harry Hopkins once told a Senate committee, " the problem is, people have to eat in the SHORT RUN."

And they have to drive cars to work so as to keep the economy going. And they have to heat their homes (those who still have them).

And they have to hold their noses next November to elect people who like the taste of their cereal and aren't about to allow any cops in THEIR neighborhood.
*********************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

WHY I AM NOT AN ECONOMIST

Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

On the surface, the answer is simple: I don't have a degree in economics. It's a fascinating subject, though, with many differing opinions influencing how we all live. And how healthy a republic we have, also.

Having been denied by fate the intellectual capacity to understand the myriad of details tossed about by economists, I can only rely upon the "big picture" to a certain degree. And the great thing about economics is that, like psychology, it is a profession of opinion. Despite many learned prognostications, economists are constantly stuck with explaining why the opinion expressed several years ago was found invalid by events.

There is that old saying, "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing." Nathan Bedford Forrest understood that. No, not as an economist but as a soldier. Despite the fact that he never received any formal military training, and despite being looked down upon as a lucky rube by West Point-educated soldiers, it is HIS tactics used in the Civil War that are studied to this day.

Forrest was not an economist, of course. But he is illustrative of the fact that there are times when a lack of formal training does not detract from someone's ability to think, and think quite well. It might never occur (and would be refuted heatedly) that common folk might actually have a grasp on the essentials, particularly when they are self-evident.

One of the problems associated with reading is that one can quite inconveniently remember things. One example is during the 1960's....Lyndon Johnson was bemoaning the fact that he wanted low taxes, the Great Society, and the Vietnam War, all at once. LBJ always liked everything all at once. When an aide suggested approaching Wilbur Mills (then chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee) LBJ balked. He said that Mills would give him all the money he wanted for war, but the Great Society would be de-funded. So Johnson did what he was very good at: he lied.

The stagflationary pressures LBJ started were passed on to Nixon, Ford, and Carter. Economically they were interesting times.....for everyone, including the very wealthy.

We have another Texan in the White House, who also wants it all....and all at once. Unlike LBJ however, George W. Bush hasn't much regard for the powers of Congress, or the Constitution, or common sense for that matter.

A nation can no more live beyond its means than an individual can. Borrowing money to invest in an enterprise that will generate a profit makes sense. Anything else is asking for trouble. One weird thing about economics is, analigous to a pond, sometimes a tossed pebble can create a tsunami.

For years the practice of subprime mortages made a lot of money in a speculative manner. It's all right, though, said the experts. Other experts with similar degrees said otherwise. Events have borne out the naysayers. But with a house of cards collapsing, what is the remedy? Save the speculators, of course....our economy is held hostage by the notion that to let (otherwise) sacred "market forces" correct the stupidity of some would hurt us all. It goes back to that old saying that pigs get fed and hogs get slaughtered.

Except in some cases the hogs just keep getting fatter. The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates in order to shore up the mortgage market...to protect the stupid. This resulted in a lower dollar, which encouraged a lot of money to flow into the oil commodities market, which is resulting in higher oil/gas/heating oil prices.

It's fair to say that when we now fill up our cars or heating oil tanks we are in essence paying a tax. Or more accurately, a penalty for others' screw-ups. Many bemoan the fact that such things hurt the middle class. Well, you have to wonder sometimes what the middle class is. I've known people who are millionaires who wear scuffed shoes and torn jeans and claim they are middle class. That doesn't jibe with the fact that such people have the OPTION of donning far more expensive clothing. Many others do not.

So if one starts contemplating the wisdom of reining in the excesses of the hogs, the first cry of "class warfare" is heard. It sounds good; we don't want any of that envy or Bolshevik stuff in our country. No, in America we're all in this together, right? With grim humor I listen to statistics being poured forth about how the top 1% pays more than the bottom 50% in taxes; how the so-called "rich" (no one in America is rich, you know, just middle class) are being burdened with the greater cost of ensuring our government works.

Okay, the government works, but for whom? And is it rude to ask what percentage of the top 1% of income earners in the U.S. are represented in Afghanistan or Iraq? An economist can explain, in cold economic terms, that those less well-off who perish in military ventures are quickly replaced by a constantly expanding population. Not so with the rich; they are of a magic world where sacrifice is only financial and isn't money all that matters in the end?

That's why I wouldn't make a good economist: financial matters affect everyone, but not equally. I'd have to make a living justifying the ever-increasing appetites of the hogs. The institutions that require cold justification for their existence depend upon constantly concurring opinions.

In any complex interaction between humans, there is always a keystone; that one thing that holds everything else in place. From time to time that keystone is nudged, and sometimes it's knocked out completely. It's happened before and will happen again because in the blind and self-justified pursuit of wealth accumulation the whole damned thing collapses.

There is not one economist alive today who could truly understand the old French saying, "The castle is safe as long as the cottage is happy." Right now the cottages have cable, they have baubles to distract from the boring yet critical decisions being made without their knowledge or consent.

There is an economic Bedford Forrest out there, unrecognized by the elite. Whatever form that phenomenon takes, it will perform the same function of that brilliant soldier. "Keep the skeer on 'em" was one of his tactics. Once the "skeer" starts it is amazing how a group of financiers convert themselves into a herd of panicked cattle.

No economist will stop the stampede; they can only explain it (again). It will require a political personage, one able to command the attention and respect of everyone.

We haven't had anyone like that in a long time, and we certainly don't have anyone like that right now.

*************************

Cross-posted at Michael Linn Jones.com

Technorati Tags:
Alan Greenspan, Federal Bank, Economy, Economist, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, MSN, Economy News, Economy Opinion, Harvard Economist, Think Tank Economist, Bush, Cheney, Election 08, Politicians, Promised Economy, Iraq, Iran, Biden, Mcaine, Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, Romney, Richardson, Gasoline Prices, Oil Prices, Home Heating, Iraq War, Bush War, Wall Street, American Economy, Federal Reserve, Fed Rates, Interest Rate Changes, Corporate America