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

PELOSI & REID FOLLOWING A PATH TO IRRELEVANCY

By Michael Linn Jones

Ever heard of Al Smith? He was once governor of New York, and the first Roman Catholic in a major party to run for the presidency. This was in 1928, and he was nominated by Franklin Roosevelt. That year Roosevelt won election as governor of New York himself.

Smith lost the election to Herbert Hoover. Some might say the nation lost the election, too, considering what followed. In 1932 Smith was one of Roosevelt's rivals for the Democratic nomination for the presidency. In the years that followed Smith was a strong opponent of Roosevelt's New Deal. For all of his progressive attitudes of that time, Smith was a firm believer in government action needing the close cooperation of business.

FDR was born rich. Al Smith was a classic rags-to-riches story. One of the problems with rags-to-riches is that many forget all about the rags as soon as they see the riches. Al Smith was far from being a bad man; in fact, a good one really but not in step with the realities facing the nation at that time. As President of the Empire State Building, Smith found himself in the circle of the wealthy. And, according to historian William Manchester, he liked it. (THE GLORY & THE DREAM, VOL.1)

Brevity requires an injustice to the memory of Governor Smith, but certain aspects of his career remind me of the current Democratic leadership in the House and Senate. It can be very difficult to articulate some thoughts; to put them into words that capture both the meaning and emotion. Here is my best shot:

The election results of 2006 was a message of sorts. A lot of people were fed up. Yes, Iraq was a big topic but not the only one. Voters weren't exactly on the war path yet were also beyond patience. After six years of a presidency that was somewhat short of competence and honesty, along with a Republican Congress that was more cooperative than Hitler's Reichstag, people wanted a strong gulp of Jack Daniels.

What they've gotten is near-beer. The highly-touted Democratic victory in 2006 is a Roman Candle that is sputtering. And with very few sparks. House Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid have a big problem. The majority of the people who allowed them to gain the positions they now hold are not represented. That is, the voters.

No, there will be no talk of impeachment; no talk of de-funding the Iraq War (which is the ONLY recourse of Congress, really) nor anything else that might rock the boat. For that boat floats upon the invisible sea of campaign cash. In order for their nets to continue to haul in a harvest, that boat must be stable. The rules of life in America (which they write) must remain essentially the same.

When something needs to be done, there is something worse than doing nothing. And that is to APPEAR to be doing something when in fact doing little more than nothing. And THAT is the story of the Lilliputian Legistature in 2007. The boat remains steady, the nets keep hauling in the silent harvest, and a holding pattern is established that awaits the self-destruction of the Republicans.

In times past, there were convergence points; economic and social forces removed the status quo from the stage. It usually is unpleasant but somehow inevitable. In Europe, 1848 was such a time, not to mention the French Revolution.

Here, there is the Civil War, the Great Depression, and 1968. That particular year is relevant because that is when the Democratic Party started to dissolve from being a voice of millions to a thousand voices of narrow-minded interest groups. The glue that held the party together was diluted on purpose.

The years the Democrats spent out of power were not so much because of the effectiveness of the Republicans (which was considerable nonetheless) so much as their own slide to irrelevancy. What mattered to the party didn't matter to the people. Or vice versa.

Despite all the political science and election specialists, there are forces that build, much like along a geological fault line. They can be ignored (and usually are) for a very long time. But sooner or later those in power discover that their usual remedies no longer work. When the balance is lost no one knows what will happen.

But like Al Smith, Pelosi and Reid and all those they truly represent (and they are NOT "little people") have climbed to the heights and find they like it there. The rarified air of power not only corrupts, but blinds.

In the end, misused power has no power at all. It just creates a vacuum that will be filled by radical change. That does not always equate with wisdom or good.

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

Cross posted at Michael Linn Jones.com & The Van Der Galien Gazette