Hey Kids: This Explains Our Insane Stock Market Irregularities

From Fortune Magazine's cover of Barelypolitical undertakings. Full article: http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0810/gallery.cendrowski_bear.fortune/index.html Full Post

i'm mad

Full Post

Presidential Debate 2008: As the Currents of Common Sense Stir

During the presidential debate, I found myself less captivated by the rivalry than by the audience. Today’s political climate is arguably more thoughtful than that of the previous 20 years of politics. Why? For the most part, I believe many of us engage more adamantly because we have no choice but to consider our less-than-glamorous future. As I looked around at the characters at the bar, I thought about the many shades of opinion I had heard during this campaign- about the thinking and re-thinking of the political process, and the shifting Left-Right dichotomies. The new phrases, the new temperaments, were all present:

A young man- lean, well-dressed, with a closely cropped haircut drank a large quantity of beer and made his comments frequently public with self-congratulatory laughter. Though exuding the confidence of a seasoned political pundit, he revealed his lack of general thoughtfulness by laughing uproariously at lines that had been used many times before in the campaign process (“I looked into Putin’s eyes and saw three things: KGB”, and so forth). His particular aim seemed to be to emasculate his friends while simultaneously carousing them into feats of similarly anti-social decibels. Suddenly, he spilled an entire pitcher of beer on the floor. There was a sullen flinching of shame over his left brow. Then, in order to overcome his brief gaffe, he smiled broadly. He swiftly pointed out his stunning accuracy: “how the hell is it possible that I didn’t hit any of you! That’s amazing!” Then, so as not to look conspicuous, he casually allowed the beer to pool in accusatory, increasingly malodorous puddles at his feet.

This is the neoconservative audience. Bravado, self-righteousness, and opulence. Nationalism and simultaneous disavowal of consequences to unfettered nationalism. Fear, pride, and a certain admirable resolve. A certain passion for truth when favorable, a certain passion for fiction when unfavorable. A boyish nonchalance. A certain sadness at the loss of the American Dream. A young Bush growing quiet, graying in office.

An older man, a little out of place, walked into the assembly (who were quietly listening to the candidates) and began yelling slogans. “Americans are brainwashed! The election is rigged! The media controls everything! The election sucks!” The distraction is effective, and some more seasoned, disinterested members of the union nod in apathetic agreement. A security guard addresses the man, who sites his rights of free speech, the idiocy of the audience, and the stature and position of the guard: “You F*#$ing as#$(!@, you’re just a f#*%@*$ mother f#%(^&*. What, you’re going to take me out with your f#%)&*% flashlight?”. His barrage is unmitigated and peppered with a royal sludge of obscenity. He feels alienated beyond reprieve or assuagement. Meanwhile, members of the audience are unable to focus on the issues at hand.

This is often Ron Paul’s, often John McCain’s, and occasionally Obama’s audience: a group of individuals so menaced by the sudden, stupefying awareness that their personal interests will never be cogently represented, that they choose to “break away” from the political process to maintain their sense of moral indignation. The positive outcome of this is that it creates outcroppings of new possibilities and approaches (some more feasible than others). In what other election could we have witnessed the libertarian party receive so much attention? Unfortunately, the result of this form of re-evaluation is often the conclusion that we are not responsible- the system- the vast and deplorably mismanaged system- is responsible for the fall of the Republic. Americans are good, they are merely misrepresented. This particular contingency tends to have a social justice issue or two that bothers them deeply, or a particular political ideology that, at least in the abstract, “solves” the problems at hand, and the many problematic realities of our current circumstances fall by the wayside. They refuse to surrender, and reiterate that their honor that has been invalidated, that the media is biased (a long-held criticism that has recently gained surprising clout in the older generations) and that everything is corrupt beyond repair. They resort, often, to conspiracy theories. Their arms flail in broad sweeping terms, searching for ideological refuge. They oscillate between depression and righteous indignation. They vote, with a sense of wounded pride, for a candidate that might just represent a small seedling of their most singularly true convictions: someone who could “reverse” roe-v-wade, someone who stands firmly for national pride, for strength, for unity, for whatever- someone who is for or against capital punishment- someone who thinks English should be the Official Language of the USA. In fact, this contingent is too rampant in all parties.

The consequent failures of the Republic, this character often argues, is the other- the terrorist, the immigrant- the democrat, the neo-conservative- San Francisco. They vote for ideals that will never be met, they squander their vote selfishly, if valiantly, in the hope of a dying breed of cultural chauvinism. They want one thing or two things only- they want representational democracy, as long as the representation singularly represents their own interests- they crave the moral days of yore.

The third characterization, and I hope the growing majority, I witnessed in the periphery of my vision. The group is perhaps still only fictional (I often fantasize about an ideal citizenry, even while I am aware that a Kantian heaven is in no way possible). A tired, disgruntled group watched with leaden brains propped up by thin, trembling arms. Their dark eyes were slower to react that in previous years.

This represents Obama’s, and the pre-campaign McCain audience- young, war-tired, self-ironic, but hopeful. While the older conservative generation (those who bought a singular story hook, line, sinker, and slice) tastes its’ first fumes of cynicism, the younger undeclared voters- a previously cynical and sidelined collective, begins to see America’s reckoning as a refreshing, long-time-coming scenario. Finally, they feel, our colonial zeal is faced with limitations. Finally, after years of shameless sloganeering, America is forced into the necessary embrace pragmatism. And pragmatism: kindness, self-control, realistic goals flavored and fueled by numerous romantic ideals converging, has always been an irreplaceable form of strength.

Perhaps in this election there will be a majority of voters who vote with a conscience, not simply out of fear or self-interest. This can only be healthy. If we suffer, we suffer at our own hand. If we manage to collectively rise above our circumstances, it will yield a kindness and thankfulness- a human decency similar to that found in post- 9-11 New York- an ability to recognize that, once again, the Republic must be reformed and reclaimed. The responsibility of American voters is not a small one, but the daily responsibility and interest of the citizen is even greater.

Finally, there were those who fell asleep- those who stopped watching- who left early and drank beyond coherence. But there were less of these than in previous debates. The stakes are too high.

The multifaceted crisis, it seems, has had a positive impact on the arena of civil engagement, if nowhere else. I could not help but feel thankful for this. Finally, we are affected- we are not immune to our political choices. We have to think- and think hard- about what kind of country we want to be. As a union, we are misrepresented- all of us- to some degree or another. But as a country of ideas- a testing ground for humanist agency- we are still capable of responsible thought and action. It is not too late to return to decent policies, to be careful with our rhetoric and resources, and to create a semblance of moral example. Scaling down and playing a quieter, less personality-based role in international politics could be a powerful weapon against the dizzying, unsustainable growth and power of previous years. Finally, I felt (perhaps romantically), I was witnessing a generation of politics that requires policy and diplomacy to justify principle, rather than a generation that exploited commonly held principles to justify political action. Full Post

NEWPOLITY.COM

For the newest posts go to NewPolity.com... Full Post

New Polity has a new home!!!!

Dear New Polity readers,

We're moving house. My brother Jacob (see picture) is part of that gnostic inner circle of cultists that know how to speak directly to computers. Through his mysterious ways and inscrutable wisdom he has brought newpolity.com into existence.

How? I don't know.

Why? Are you serious? I'm not going to ask why! Look at him!!!!

All future post and comments will be showing up on newpolity.com rather than on thenewpolity.blogspot.com.

Thanks,

Ezra Full Post

politix meets comix

In honor of Sunday night, and in recognition of Monday’s pending arrival, some political comics unabashedly stolen from pbfcomics.com:



Full Post

He's a sub-sonic Ashkenazi Barry White

Now, Kissinger is one of those guys that's almost impossible to hate on a really visceral level. Yeah, you have the folks that want him to stand trial for war crimes. Fair enough. But how could you really hate that face... seriously. Try it. I dare you. Still hatin'? Okay, now the voice... Yeah. You're feelin' it now. You're liberal and you hate him, but face it, he's a sub-sonic Ashkenazi Barry White.

and...


In last weeks International Herald Tribune - that ubiquitous comfort blanket for Americans that have wondered of into the wider world - the inimitable Henry Kissinger gave his take on the contradictions of the modern global economy.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/29/opinion/edkissinger.php
It's like this: Speculative capital turns the normal business cycle into an unending series of economic/humanitarian crises. These crises damage nationalist economic interests - that Kissingerian for labor and industries that can't compete under a free trade regime. The threatened interests lash back and attempt to restrict trade. "The debate over trade policy in the U.S. presidential campaign is a case in point."

With each financial crisis, governments have to decrease their social legislation because of budget constraints and the imperative to stay competitive in the global market (capital doesn't like paying taxes to support layabouts). "In periods of economic distress, these trends are magnified."

This cycle of crises and race to the bottom on social legislation further deepens the divide between those who get the boon of global capitalism and those that are left in its dust. And...

"If there are perennial losers, they will turn to their familiar political institutions for relief. They will not be mollified by the valid proposition that the benefits of global growth far outstrip its costs."

This sets up and interesting pair of problems: (1) We have a world economic system that has delivered unprecidented levels of per capita growth, but somehow manages to lower the overall quality of life for many. (2) The real business cycle - though high growth - is increasingly downed out and disrupted by speculative bubbles

Bottomline: The world economy is producing more stuff (that's the technical term), but, paradoxically, the economic lives of the majority of the world population are less stable and, in many cases, less affluent. So what's going on?

To a reader of Marx, which I think it's safe to say Kissinger is, this is a familiar story. Increasing wealth and competition in the global economy are accompanied (paradoxically) with greater and greater levels of economic distress. "Capitalist production seeks continually to overcome these immanent barriers, but overcomes them only by means which again place these barriers in its way and on a more formidable scale." (Capital V3, P3, Ch15.2)

Kissinger is dead right when it come to what's gone wrong - it's speculative capital. "While each crisis had a different trigger, their common features have been profligate speculation and systemic under-appreciation of risk." He also identifies part of the more fundamental problem; an absense of leaders willing to take a long-term perspective on the political effect of our global economic order. "The next administration should establish a bipartisan commission at the highest level to study what constitutes an indispensable strategic U.S. industrial and technological base and the measures to preserve it."

I was going to write a straight forward analysis of Kissingers article - which I broadly agree with - but everytime I sit down to write that hardcore analysis I end up with 1000 words on speculative capital or North-South global relations. So I've given up the fight, and I am now planning to write the first in a series of 4 succiquent articles onf the global economy:

(1) Speculative Capital: "Speculative capital is the inversion of capital, rather than aiding production it undermines it. Thus, it is against human flourishing, which comes through real capital and real work, not bets."
(2) Long-term Capital: "Roads, fiber-optics, education, civic virtue, research centers..."
(3) Inequality National and Global: "Why do poor countries remain poor and rich countries get richer?"
(4) Democracy and Economics: "Not by force of arms are civilizations held together, but by subtle threads of moral and intellectual principle."

I hope you'll come back to read more...
Full Post