Link to live stream of pending Wall Street Demonstration tomorrow.
http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution
But you are right, we often confuse the two. An armed populace is no risk to a nation, but is indeed a tremendous risk to governments who lose their focus on what is truly important. Most of the most drawn out messes we have gotten ourselves into (Vietnam and now Afghanistan to name but two) are where we come to mistake the preservation of a government for the preservation of the Nation.
Often the government we are working with is the problem and must either evolve or be replaced by legal or illegal means by the populace of that land (the land and the people and the heritage being the greatest components of a "nation," with government being perhaps the least imporant component of any equation that adds up to equaling "nation.")
Trees are to Forest as Government is to Nation. Sometimes you have to burn some trees to make the forest healthy again.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Link to live stream of pending Wall Street Demonstration tomorrow.
http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution
I agree in principle, but two things concern me. The simple concern is that those who seem most enthusiastic about that sort of thing--the burning down of the old order to make way for the new, etcetera--are not, by and large, people whose rule I want to be under. Nothing against them personally, I just don't trust them to offer me the freedom to live my life the way I see fit. Social conservatism seems, to me, to be as large or larger a factor in those sorts of movements as political conservatism.
The more complex concern is that it just doesn't seem like we're on a path that ends in burning things down. It seems more like we're on a path to burning out. There are lots of angry people, but very few of them agree on much. So if widespread fighting does break out, it's not going to be a revolution, it's going to be pretty standard-issue sectarian violence. The best case scenario there is that everyone who believes in something enough to die for it actually does so, leaving everyone else to rebuild.
Please explain the difference? Most conservative politicians focus on conservative social issues (anti-abortion, religion, state's rights, protecting big business, and so forth), and liberal politicians focus on gay rights, equal rights for illegal immigrants, social programs run by the gov, and so forth. Even the economic debates largely center over social/cultural values, not fixing the problem.Social conservatism seems, to me, to be as large or larger a factor in those sorts of movements as political conservatism.
I agree, and I certainly do not endorse insurgency as a first resort for any populace, but equally, I recognize (as our US founding fathers did) that is the right and duty of last resort for EVERY populace.
We need to move past our Western bias born of hundreds of years of setting up and defending Colonial and Containment-based governments; designing or allowing them to grow to treat their own populaces with impunity under the protection of some Western power; and then coming to see the protection of such governments against their own populace as "COIN." That thinking is at the root of our current challenges around the globe, and the days of "friendly despots" as a tool of foreign policy is as outdated today as slavery was in 1860. Time to move on.
Governments have always been the primary source of "radicalization" of insurgent populaces. We need to accept that and stop blaming the "malign actors" who will always emerge to exploit such situations for their own gain; or on the ideologies applied by "good" and "bad" insurgents alike to advance their movements. Once we shift our thinking we can begin to shift our focus.
Afghanistan, for example, should not be a debate about "COIN" vs CT; or Nation-Building vs Counterguerrilla focused operations. It should be a debate about do we put the screws to the Karzai/Northern Alliance government to evolve to offer equitable governance to ALL Afghans, or do we step aside and let the chips fall as they might with an open invitation to work with whatever government emerges so long as they are willing to engage the entire populace equitably. As you notice, far too often the insurgent who prevails often is very quick to exact revenge on the losers and adopt an equally bad system of governance as the last guys.
This is unfortunate, but not our job to police around the world either. We are best served in our own interests by being true to our own professed values. I think we can work with governments who are radically different than us in that regard. We just shouldn't protect them from their own populace when the inevitable occurs. Listen to the advice of guys like Washington and Jefferson; and not the CEOs of Exxon, Chevron, etc, etc, etc....
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Californian initiative to create a State Bank to defend from the Wall Street Tali-Bankster Empire. Several States are doing this by the way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLDjl...&feature=feedu
Last edited by slapout9; 09-18-2011 at 04:11 PM. Reason: stuff
State banks in Germany fared especially poorly in the crisis (and before).
The real reason for their existence is that they give governments a para-budget that's not under parliamentary control. You want to push a prestige construction project? Arrange for a way too cheap credit to the private company that orders its construction.
These banks were also staffed with party top level people who had been chased away from power, into a lucrative 'private sector' job as a kind of retirement. The incompetence trickled down.
These banks lacked the competence to understand that CDS and other financial 'products' are a ####ty racket, became greedy at the sight of the promised interest rates and bought a lot of that crap.
The real way to go is different.
LOCAL savings & loan cooperatives
REGIONAL savings & loan backing companies (that also handle the really big credits for multi-billion € projects and medium-sized companies as customers)
Corporations issuing their own bonds or shares at exchanges
NATIONAL central bank
Nothing more is necessary.
Bank of North Dakota (Wiki and webpage) founded in 1919. I supported this concept for Michigan back in the 1970s, as well as a state-owned and -run insurance company similar to Saskatchewan Government Insurance (Wiki). The ideas ran pretty well in Northern Michigan, but foundered in downstate party politics.
And, for motorfirebox (from a very vociferous gun-owner and 2nd Amendment person ), I give thee from Mother Jones, How the Nation’s Only State-Owned Bank Became the Envy of Wall Street (Josh Harkinson, 27 Mar 2009).
Regards
Mike
Last edited by jmm99; 09-18-2011 at 06:34 PM.
Slapout, Mike, Dayuhan, Fuchs, Motorfirebox, Bill, et. al
"All happy (societies) resemble one another, each unhappy (society) is unhappy in its own way." - Leo Tolstoy
One might argue that a sustainable economy is a key component of a society. Rule of Law, Safe & Secure Environment, Stable Governance, and Social Well-Being are other components worth considering when comparatively examining healthy (happy) and unhealthy (unhappy) societies.
Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction - USIP
Fiscal Management and Monetary Stability can be seen as subsets of Macroeconomic Stability - something of concern to all who partake of the global financial system - context is everything as they say..."A sustainable economy is one in which people can pursue opportunities for livelihoods within a predictable system of economic governance bound by law. Such an end state is characterized by market-based macroeconomic stability, control over the illicit economy and economic-based threats to peace, development of a market economy, and employment generation. Economic governance refers to the collection of policies, laws, regulations, institutions, practices, and individuals that shape the context in which a (society's) economic activity takes place."
Fighting for its life, The euro zone is in intensive care, The Economist: Sep 17th 2011
WHAT’S the French for “this sucker could go down”? Echoes of 2008, when the global financial system wobbled and George Bush gave his pithy view of the American economy, now resound on the other side of the Atlantic. Credit-default-swap spreads for European banks, a measure of how costly it is to buy insurance against their default, are at record highs (see chart 1).The pressure on European banks will keep increasing unless something else is done. Rumours that China will ride to the rescue of struggling countries are fanciful. Again, the real last resort is the ECB, which could relieve the pressures on the system by being prepared to buy without limit the bonds of solvent euro-zone countries. But the ECB is itself riven by disagreement.Lehman Brothers and the crisis, A year on, Two books make a case for looking back before forging ahead, The Economist, Sep 10th 2009The German government moved swiftly to fill the hole left by Mr Stark. Jörg Asmussen, chief secretary at the finance ministry, will move to the ECB, assuming the formalities go without a hitch. Both Mr Asmussen and Jens Weidmann, Mr Weber’s successor at the Bundesbank, appear more flexible personalities than their predecessors. But persuading them, and the German public, to sign up to what amounts to a policy of massive quantitative easing (creating money to buy bonds) will be extremely difficult. In 2008 free-market Americans swallowed their misgivings to rescue Wall Street. Inflation-phobic Germans now face a similar choice.
Mrs Reinhart and Mr Rogoff do not expect a quick recovery this time. Nor do they expect their proposed reforms—which include creating a new global financial regulator and beefing up the IMF, where Mr Rogoff was once chief economist—to prevent future crises, though they could make them less frequent. As they say, “The persistent and recurrent nature of the ‘this-time-is-different’ syndrome is itself suggestive that we are not dealing with a challenge that can be overcome in a straightforward way.”
The problem lies in the human tendency to be optimistic and forget the lessons of the past. There will be other banking crises, so the world must learn what it can from this one. Lehman Brothers is dead; long live Lehman Brothers.
Last edited by Surferbeetle; 09-18-2011 at 09:13 PM.
Sapere Aude
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Steve, I digress, but couldn't help but focus on this quote. I don't have a clue how the social scientists measure national happiness, but according to their studies some of the happiest people in the world are in Mexico, the corrupt and largely dirt Filipinos are as happy as we, etc. I think a lot of that can be traced to culture, valued family relationships, a slower pace of life, less expectations, etc.. However, what I started thinking about deeply is what does America have to offer the world? Is our system really that great now? Our schools on average suck, and it isn't just the teachers, but the kids are undisciplined due to family issues that is the real underlying factor. We have more people in jail than any other country besides China. Our media is a mix of a few great programs and a lot of so called reality trash that exposes a society with shallow or no values (although no one does a reality program focused on strong families, and people dedicating their lives to worthwhile causes). Our economic system is currently in crisis not because of government, but due to unethical decisions made by bankers (and some in Congress who supported this) and the like simply based on personal greed. CEOs that push for layoffs to maximize profits (no loyality to their people at all) and personal year end bonuses is another problem. As a society we may value money and the things it can buy (apparently not happiness) too much, our value system centers around commericialism (obvioulsy with lots of exceptions, but our government pushes this to sustain our businesses, what was President Bush's advice after 9/11? Go shopping!). I could on and on with inner city rap music, the pervasive drug culture, gang violence, etc., because we're largely a nation of drifters looking for the next short pleasurable experience."All happy (societies) resemble one another, each unhappy (society) is unhappy in its own way." - Leo Tolstoy
I really think we need to take a step back and watch ourselves as others see us, and then think about why they may not want to adopt our form of government and economic models. If we observe how others think about us, we may learn some unpleasant truthes about ourselves that we rather not be aware of but need to be aware of. At that point we may decide to be a lot less arrogant about spouting off who is and who isn't on the right side of history, and modify our foreign policy appropriately. The so called metric of success if how many around the world still desire to come to America to experience the dream. When a large number believe in it, then you have a population that can be mobilized in that country to transform their system, but not before then.
Our economy is in deep trouble, and there is little the politicians could do to speed the recovery up other than creating temporary illusions of progress with incentive programs. If we continue to focus only the economic issues, then it will be easier to mobilize people to act violently, but if we have a leader that focuses on values, what makes us great, and encourages cooperation at the private level.
Hey Bill,
Good to hear from you.
Like you, I am of the opinion that the western world is in trouble at the moment. The current western political class, as a whole, does not appear to have the capacity or incentive to keep up with pace of change that is occurring. However, unlike the folks involved with the Arab Spring, I look forward to the opportunity to vote out all of the non-performing members of the political class in my country (i.e. all of them)...
Thinking about happiness as a general concept brings couple of thoughts to mind. In school I was exposed to the idea that in times of turmoil, societies chase simplicity; examples that I am aware of include German Romanticism, the Amish, the Quakers, and Biedermeier Furniture. 'Happiness' metrics taught in business school included the Gini Coefficient as well as a look at President Sarkozy's attempt to define a Happiness Coefficient.
Don't know if it matters, but, part of the enjoyment I get from the Army is the repeated opportunity to live 'on the economy'/'close to the earth' with just a few duffle bags and an opportunity to partake of societal rhythms/ways of doing things that we are not exposed to at home.
Soldiering shows us the human animal in ourselves and others. Our trust in others is reduced, maybe permanently.
Perhaps it's simplistic at best, but I imagine a continually morphing quilt when thinking about the amazing diversity of the world. Some squares are great and some are rotten, but they all change out over time. Biological, business, engineering, and social/political models/systems that I have studied generally follow this pattern of change.
If I remember correctly, you have an amazing university close to you. When I sit in university classes I am always struck by the hope, optimism, energy, and inventiveness that I find there.
Bill, with respect, perhaps the only ones that we can count on are our ourselves, our families, and our friends?
Perhaps it was my ringside seat at the arena of Iraqi politics, followed by what I now observe here at home, but for my money it's not a good idea to place too much trust in elected officials from whatever party.
The current 'empowerment' of the hard political right across the western world during this turbulent economic and political time is concerning. The spectrum that I am aware of includes Geert Wilders, Jorg Haider, Jean-Marie le Pen, Marine Le Pen, Thilo Sarrazin, Valdimir Putin, NPD, True Finns, and our own Tea Party. Past world history on the rise of the hard political right during uncertain times may be something that is worth considering.
Unfortunately economics is not a silver bullet either, but I have more hope for it's ability to positively change the world than I do for politics. Nonetheless, my quite cloudy economic crystal ball says that the chances of a depression are much higher than I would like them to be... so, as they say the situation is normal, FUBAR as usual
Sapere Aude
Just remember, unless you're a member of Acorn, you can't vote them all out, only the ones in your district, but isn't that simply "thinking nationally and acting locally?"However, unlike the folks involved with the Arab Spring, I look forward to the opportunity to vote out all of the non-performing members of the political class in my country (i.e. all of them)...
Rather than "controllers" you mean to say "dictators," don't you. And quasi-dictators, kind of like some of the people currently in national office.
On this same front, it is impossible to control government if you have no idea about what government in a constitutional republic (as America was originally formed) is supposed to be.
Our nation's lawful (de jure) government is vacant. It has been vacant since 1861. We haven't had a lawfully seated government since that time extending forward until today. Our government remains vacant today largely because people have forgotten (been dumbed down) who they are and what lawful government actually is.
What is needed in this country is a quiet revolution of education on the history of how we got to the place we're in today. It's unfortunate that while some people may listen and learn, the vast majority are likely to let this knowledge slip quietly over their heads and continue to rouse the rabble.
A few of those original founders had some brilliant insights that we seem to have forgotten. It's long over due time we began paying more attention to them:
- Thomas JeffersonI believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.
and
- Samuel AdamsIf you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
Last edited by davidbfpo; 09-19-2011 at 07:21 AM. Reason: Place citations in quotes
Educate me. What happened in 1861 that made the Government (like, all three branches?) unlawful?
The U.S. Congress adjourned sine die which means the following: Adjournment sine die (from the Latin "without day") means "without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing."
President Lincoln then proceeded to unLAWFULLY adjourned a portion of Congress (that portion that hadn't seceded from the Union) in order to attempt to bring the other portion back into the Union by force, which turned into the Civil War. The trouble is, Lincoln had no lawful authorization to do what he did in his attempt to preserve the Union. The Union of States had been lawfully dissolved, its Congress lawfully adjourned sine die in April of 1861. And Lincoln was acting outside of the law.
If you want to learn more, you're going to have to get off your butt and do some due diligence research of your own about this in order to get the whole story.
I can give you a link to an overview explanation of what happened, but it leaves out a lot of the historical evidence for making the points that it makes. Yet, even so, it presents a compelling picture of what actually occurred.
http://www.ci.corvallis.or.us/counci...B35gEw7WKM.doc
Link to video of protest at 55 Wall Street. Bankers with Champagne protesters with signs. Looks like Darth Vader won.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=8rfuvDr2wJQ#!
Ok. I dug around. I am not sure what it means to me, today. That I don't have to obey the laws of a government that was dissolved in the prelude to the civil war? I think my local police will come slap some sense into me if I decide I am my own law. Now I have to look up what was done immediately after the civil war. I would imagine something would have been done to address the issue. I still, as an American citizen, have to follow executive orders. I think. Although EO 12333 states " No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in,". I wouldn't know who to ask about EO's powers over regular ol' citizenry. My education failed me, then I failed to educate myself.
Bookmarks