Showing posts with label Globalization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Globalization. Show all posts
Friday, December 9
Tuesday, November 15
Wednesday, September 21
Saturday, August 13
Video: The Commanding Heights - the battle between government and the marketplace
No less relevant today than it was roughly ten years ago when it first premiered, below is Part 1 of the must watch video series The Commanding Heights. Globalization, Keynes vs. Hayek, the future capitalism -- it's all here. Especially recommended for those interested in intellectual history. You'll find the remainder of the episodes at PBS here.
Sunday, July 31
Evil on Display: Anders Brievik and Insane Acts Committed by Sane People
Perhaps it would be easier to understand the horrific Norwegian killings if they were committed by someone with a history of mental illness and/or violence.
Or perhaps we could more quickly file away this tragedy into a tidy, little mental compartment if the killing was conducted by someone with far less skill and fewer economic advantages.
And perhaps over time more details will emerge to reveal a picture of someone with a history of hate or unsound mind.
But early portraits painted by people who knew him suggest a rather disturbing alternative, which is that Anders Brievik was a seemingly 'normal' Norwegian.
From one of his classmate friends of four years:
If in fact he is a sane, even likeable person as some suggest, who also can kill without concern for those he slaughters, what are we to make of Anders Brievik?
Any student of history is well aware of the unfortunate reality that people like Brievik are nothing new. Many, particularly here in Europe, had hoped the ideologies which fuel Brievik-like personalities, capable of inflicting immense harm to a great number of people not personally known, had been buried decades ago. But the carefully orchestrated supernova of violence conducted by Brievik reminds us that this flame has not in fact gone out yet.
In the wretched corner of history occupied by the Brieviks of the world resides Nazism, which, for better or for worse, has received the lion's share of attention. I say for better or worse because the Nazi-like crimes committed under Stalin, Mao, and others often do not receive the same level of emphasis as those committed under Hitler.
Some who studied the Nazi leadership on trial at Nuremberg stated that the single most important personal quality which contributed to the ability of these humans to try and exterminate Jews (and others) was a lack of empathy. In place of a sense of caring about individuals and collective humanity, which exists in varying degrees in the vast majority of us, instead resided a bottomless black hole devoid of the ability to feel what others feel.
Harm-justifying venom can be easily poured into such minds. Rather than rejecting ideas which you and I would find unconscionable, harming others can seem logical. Seemingly sophisticated moral philosophies, justifications, and ends-means rationalizations enable such people to shoot kids "not just once, but twice, to be sure".
The Anti-Change
Brievik's bomb and gun shots were basically an attack on change. Put simply, Brievik didn't like the way things were going in Norway and decided to effectively sacrifice his freedom of movement for at least 20+ years-to-life (Norway doesn't have the death penalty) to let the world know about it.
For those who don't have the time or inclination to read his 1,000+ page 'manifesto', the change he lashed out against goes by the name of globalization. Brievik would probably prefer that we refer to it as multiculturalism, but globalization and multiculturalism are inextricably linked. Reductionist arguments which try and isolate multiculturalism from globalization are idiosyncratic and counter-productive.
The purpose of this post is not to debate the merits of globalization, but it was interesting to note the stark contrast between Brievik's hate for Norway's immigrants with a recent talk on the contribution of immigrants to Britain's intellectual history. One quarter of Britain's Nobel prize winners were born abroad, as were a large number of America's. Is freedom of movement what the Brieviks of the world would have end, or are they ok with allowing just the Albert Einsteins in?
What is Evil?
Norwegians are hurting badly from this heinous crime and asking how one of their own could commit such an act. Some would like to see the whole episode go away and also deny Brievik the publicity and attention he seeks. From the lack of headlines of late on the BBC and other respectable news agencies it would seem that some clearly understand the essential role of the media to his carefully calculated plan. Hats off to media leaders who recognize this and have taken appropriate action. But what about those who are still trying to gain more information and understand why this happened?
Outside of the religious world people often scoff at whether the imprecise, black-and-white concept of 'evil' is useful. But what other word comes close to giving this its proper name?
Leave it to the shrinks to classify and rationalize empathy-devoid personality types. For the rest of us 'normal' people the word evil will suffice.
Or perhaps we could more quickly file away this tragedy into a tidy, little mental compartment if the killing was conducted by someone with far less skill and fewer economic advantages.
And perhaps over time more details will emerge to reveal a picture of someone with a history of hate or unsound mind.
But early portraits painted by people who knew him suggest a rather disturbing alternative, which is that Anders Brievik was a seemingly 'normal' Norwegian.
From one of his classmate friends of four years:
I do not know what drove Anders. But, unfortunately, I do not think he is crazy. It would have created a comfortable distance between us if I thought he was. Nothing I know about him from our school days or what I have read in his so-called manifesto suggests that. Rather, he is cold, intelligent and calculating. The Anders I knew was not a monster.
And as the saying goes, he was not an island. He was product of our society. He was one of us.Sadly, There is Nothing New Here
If in fact he is a sane, even likeable person as some suggest, who also can kill without concern for those he slaughters, what are we to make of Anders Brievik?
Any student of history is well aware of the unfortunate reality that people like Brievik are nothing new. Many, particularly here in Europe, had hoped the ideologies which fuel Brievik-like personalities, capable of inflicting immense harm to a great number of people not personally known, had been buried decades ago. But the carefully orchestrated supernova of violence conducted by Brievik reminds us that this flame has not in fact gone out yet.
In the wretched corner of history occupied by the Brieviks of the world resides Nazism, which, for better or for worse, has received the lion's share of attention. I say for better or worse because the Nazi-like crimes committed under Stalin, Mao, and others often do not receive the same level of emphasis as those committed under Hitler.
Some who studied the Nazi leadership on trial at Nuremberg stated that the single most important personal quality which contributed to the ability of these humans to try and exterminate Jews (and others) was a lack of empathy. In place of a sense of caring about individuals and collective humanity, which exists in varying degrees in the vast majority of us, instead resided a bottomless black hole devoid of the ability to feel what others feel.
Harm-justifying venom can be easily poured into such minds. Rather than rejecting ideas which you and I would find unconscionable, harming others can seem logical. Seemingly sophisticated moral philosophies, justifications, and ends-means rationalizations enable such people to shoot kids "not just once, but twice, to be sure".
The Anti-Change
Brievik's bomb and gun shots were basically an attack on change. Put simply, Brievik didn't like the way things were going in Norway and decided to effectively sacrifice his freedom of movement for at least 20+ years-to-life (Norway doesn't have the death penalty) to let the world know about it.
For those who don't have the time or inclination to read his 1,000+ page 'manifesto', the change he lashed out against goes by the name of globalization. Brievik would probably prefer that we refer to it as multiculturalism, but globalization and multiculturalism are inextricably linked. Reductionist arguments which try and isolate multiculturalism from globalization are idiosyncratic and counter-productive.
The purpose of this post is not to debate the merits of globalization, but it was interesting to note the stark contrast between Brievik's hate for Norway's immigrants with a recent talk on the contribution of immigrants to Britain's intellectual history. One quarter of Britain's Nobel prize winners were born abroad, as were a large number of America's. Is freedom of movement what the Brieviks of the world would have end, or are they ok with allowing just the Albert Einsteins in?
What is Evil?
Norwegians are hurting badly from this heinous crime and asking how one of their own could commit such an act. Some would like to see the whole episode go away and also deny Brievik the publicity and attention he seeks. From the lack of headlines of late on the BBC and other respectable news agencies it would seem that some clearly understand the essential role of the media to his carefully calculated plan. Hats off to media leaders who recognize this and have taken appropriate action. But what about those who are still trying to gain more information and understand why this happened?
Outside of the religious world people often scoff at whether the imprecise, black-and-white concept of 'evil' is useful. But what other word comes close to giving this its proper name?
Leave it to the shrinks to classify and rationalize empathy-devoid personality types. For the rest of us 'normal' people the word evil will suffice.
Saturday, July 23
Worldwide Monthly Parking Rates
The City of London takes the cake. All figures are in U.S. dollars.
 |
| (click to enlarge) |
h/t Paul Kedrosky
Saturday, June 11
Fareed Zakaria Needs to Study More History
 |
| Fareed Zakaria |
Charlie asked him for his prescription for preventing conflict between the U.S. and China, and his response smacked of the same arguments and thinking which were prevalent prior to World War I.
Fareed stated that if the U.S. and China can increase their "dependencies" then this would prevent war from occurring. I was surprised to hear Fareed say this as he generally gives off the impression as someone who is well versed in history.
Fareed's thinking about what will prevent conflict is identical to what was said prior to World War I, the original era of globalization when arguably the world was even more interconnected by trade than it is today. Because everything was so interconnected, because nations like Britain and Germany traded as much as they did, war was considered impossible.
Many people are not aware of the fact that today's interconnected world is not our first experience with globalization. One of the better quotes on just how bound up the world was prior to WWI comes from John Maynard Keynes. Below he describes just how eerily similar life in early 20th century London was to today:
The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth, in such quantity as he might see fit, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep; he could at the same moment and by the same means adventure his wealth in the natural resources and new enterprises of any quarter of the world, and share, without exertion or even trouble, in their prospective fruits and advantages; or he could decide to couple the security of his fortunes with the good faith of the townspeople of any substantial municipality in any continent that fancy or information might recommend. He could secure forthwith, if he wished it, cheap and comfortable means of transit to any country or climate without passport or other formality, could despatch his servant to the neighboring office of a bank for such supply of the precious metals as might seem convenient, and could then proceed abroad to foreign quarters, without knowledge of their religion, language, or customs, bearing coined wealth upon his person, and would consider himself greatly aggrieved and much surprised at the least interference. But, most important of all, he regarded this state of affairs as normal, certain, and permanent, except in the direction of further improvement, and any deviation from it as aberrant, scandalous, and avoidable. The projects and politics of militarism and imperialism, of racial and cultural rivalries, of monopolies, restrictions, and exclusion, which were to play the serpent to this paradise, were little more than the amusements of his daily newspaper, and appeared to exercise almost no influence at all on the ordinary course of social and economic life, the internationalization of which was nearly complete in practice.Speaking of history, if you have a little extra time there was another excellent interview on Charlie Rose with the historian David McCullough about his new book, The Greater Journey: An American in Paris.
Video: Cowen's Great Stagnation vs. Kurzweil's Singularity
Ray Kurzweil vs. Tyler Cowen. The inventor vs. the economist. Which one is right about the speed of technological change and progress? It would be interesting to see these two on stage together ala Keynes vs. Hayek.
Upon closer inspection of the specifics of their respective arguments, the initially perceived differences may prove somewhat of a false dichotomy. But in terms of which narrative, or meta idea, is better supported, at this point I'd say Kurzweil's case is more compelling.
Upon closer inspection of the specifics of their respective arguments, the initially perceived differences may prove somewhat of a false dichotomy. But in terms of which narrative, or meta idea, is better supported, at this point I'd say Kurzweil's case is more compelling.
Friday, June 10
In Greece, Locals Rule
Harvard Professor Dani Rodrik clearly spells out the bottom line on Greece:
History suggests...when the demands of financial markets and foreign creditors clash with those of domestic workers, pensioners, and the middle class, it is usually the locals who have the last say.Rodrik's full post here, and video you won't see on most main stream media below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)