Sneakey Eating

An evolutionary perspective on overeating syndromes.

Most animals have a simple problem in life- find enough food to live and survive. But social animals, if they are even slightly advanced, share food, and thus alter this basic equation. They have to find ways to store and share food in a way that sustains the group, whether that is starving the old, or feeding the helpless larvae that can not feed themselves. Humans have always faced this dilemma, but don't have the rigid programming that insects do.

Humans can lie, and steal, and then lie some more. It isn't pretty, but sometimes it gets the job done. Humans can regard rules as optional, a flexibility that is a perpetual threat to institutions, norms, cultural patterns, and ultimately to group success. We recently went through an administration that regarded norms as suggestions, laws as annoyances, and then wondered why their behavior attracted so much hatred, and such low historical esteem.

This dynamic comes to mind more concretely in the case of overeating syndromes, which exemplify the conflict between the individual and the group. In a prehistoric setting, food was almost always scarce and precious. In all native cultures there are elaborate practices of public food sharing and eating, which contribute to surveillance by the community of what everyone is eating. Anyone who violates such social structures must have been severely penalized.

Public, communal eating is a fundamental human practice.

Imagine then that someone feels a compulsion to eat more than their share. Such a compulsion would be highly advantageous- if successful- to enable survival when the others in the group might be starving or malnourished. Some extra weight might well mean the difference of making it through the next winter or not. But being caught could dramatically alter the calculus. Primitive societies had harsh punishments for violating critical norms, including ostracism or execution. What then? 

I would suggest that this background sets the stage for overeating syndromes that commonly combine secret eating, often at night, stealth, and stealing. In a world of plenty like today, it is stigmatized and medicalized, and due to the abundance of food, relatively easy to navigate and thus easy to gain weight from. But pre-historically, it would have been far more fraught, and challenging, probably less likely to result in easily observable weight gains. Like other issues in social life, this conflict would take the form of an arms race between cheaters and rule-enforcers. It would be a cognitive battle between effective surveillance and punishment, vs stealth and the intelligence required to not get caught. So one can view it as one impetus among many other evolutionary forces that shaped human intelligence, and in light of its considerable incidence in modern populations, an arms race that was never resolved. Indeed, it is the type of trait that comes under balancing selection, where a high incidence in a population would be self-defeating, while a low incidence yields a much more successful outcome.

• Satire- not so funny when you are the target.
• Making every home a part of the energy solution.
• Constitution? Who ever heard of enforcing it?

They Thought They Were James Bond

Review of Legacy of Ashes, a history of the CIA.

Why do we still have the CIA? Its track record is atrocious on both operational and moral grounds, and much of its role has been assumed by the NSA and by military intelligence. It is fundamentally contrary in principle to everything the US stands for, making its reputation, such as it is, damaging abroad, and making recruitment at home excruciatingly difficult. It is a testament, in the end, to bureaucratic inertia and its own skills in backroom politics and public relations that it survives at all.

Headquarters of a bloated bureaucracy

Tim Weiner tells a totally biased history of the CIA, proving a truism of intelligence that everything bad ends up on the front page and everything good remains under wraps. This book covers every disastrous escapade from the exploding cigars sent to Fidel Castro to the torture of prisoners in a farflung network of black prisons and those of our "allies" during the "war on terror". What is even worse, however, is how its sterling successes, like its fomented coup against Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, or the arming of Pakistani proxies in the Soviet-Afghan war, turned out, in the end, even more disastrous than its front-page disasters. The Bay of Pigs made the US a laughing stock. But the melt-down of Iranian democracy haunts us and the rest of the Middle East, even the world, to this day.

The CIA has routinely lied to congress and to the president. It has, at other times, lied to the entire nation and world on behalf of the president, such as during the runup to the Iraq war. Its daily brief is notoriously bereft of deep analysis, and its ranks notoriously short of foreign language and cultural skills. 

Towards the end of the book, even while recounting a rising tide of mediocrity and error, Weiner oddly throws in repeated denunciations, evidently drawn from his stable of CIA veteran interviewees, of the underfunding and underappreciation of the CIA over recent decades. All in all, it is a difficult book (and situation) to make sense of. Yet it is clear that the CIA is a disaster zone, and we need to think carefully about how America's intelligence community should operate on a restructured basis.

One thing to note is that the US is simply not adapted, culturally, to run a great intelligence apparatus, as, say, Russia is with its KGB/FSB/SVR/GU. We are an open society with a well-founded dislike of deceit, and are not skilled at it. We also are a lawful society, unwilling to instill the kind of fear / terror that it takes to staff and run such shady operations. Aldrich Ames, for example, is enjoying a pleasant retirement at a medium-security prison in Terre Haute. Jonathan Pollard is now living a heroic retirement in Israel.

So, maybe we need some of the functions of the current CIA. But they should be made as compact as possible, not subsumed in the current bureaucratic dinosaur. The main function it does not need is the gathering of mundane foreign news via newspapers, low-level contacts, and fake visa officers, to create master "intelligence estimates". All that can and should be done by the State Department. Indeed, such functions should be increased with the addition of open person-on-the street contacts all over the world. We are frequently blind-sided by developments that intelligence agencies fail to see based on their derring-do, tradecraft, and focus in the highest echelons, and which normal people in that other society can easily see coming. These functions may even be replicated into red-team/blue-team competitions, with retrospective evaluations carried out to grow successful teams. The understanding of foreign cultures is a difficult task, and putting it into the hands of a white-bread secretive bureaucracy has not been fruitful. 

What would then happen to all the under-cover intelligence that we gather, mostly via the NSA and the satellite services of the NRO? These have been independent of the CIA for a long time. The CIA has not been "central" for decades. So we should dispense with the charade of special knowledge and integrated deep analysis, leaving that to the State department and perhaps the Director of National Intelligence. The CIA should be confined to espionage and covert operation in a focused way on current and future crises. It should not be meddling in Central American countries, running its own private foreign policy. It should not be trying to span the world with agents all over the place. It should not be trying to carve out bureaucratic slices from the NSA and other agencies with better track records.

Whether the CIA can even be successful in such a truncated remit is highly questionable, given its history. But at least it can then be judged more accurately, without all the distractions of routine newspaper reading, world-wide reporting, etc. It should stand or fall in whether it can supply high-level intelligence from our major adversaries- China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, and North Korea, in any way beyond our technical resources. And naturally, it goes without saying that its covert operations need to be kept on a tighter leash, run not only by the president, but put on specific timelines of reporting to the NSC (cleared in advance) and select congressional oversight bodies (reported within thirty days). Malfeasance, either in reporting or in execution, would result in consequences such that the CIA fires poorly performing personnel, and keeps only a select and small cadre, perhaps in competing teams.

• Ministry of Love, in Eastasia.
• Let's go solar!
• Big soda- lethal and corrupt.
• The joy of piano.

Competition

Balancing collaboration and competition for a healthy society.

The ongoing discussions about race and caste in America are plumbing the depths of who we want to be as a society, and of the human psychology of hierarchy and competition. As Darwin taught, competition is inherent to life. Winners don't just feel good, they live to fight another day and reproduce another generation. Competition is naturally at the core of human psychology and development as well. We only learn to know our selves against a backdrop of challenges overcome, and people to compare ourselves with. We celebrate the winners in art, music, politics, sports, business. Excellence only exists in comparison.

America was conceived from the first as a winners versus losers project. White Europeans, already sailing all parts of the known world in search of treasure and plunder in competition with each other and the other great Asian cultures, found a virgin land. At least virgin in that it hardly offered any competition, with peoples who were summarily exterminated or enslaved. That this domination was transferred to Africa as a convenient source of losers to be utterly dominated, and ultimately branded as an inferior caste in perpetuity, is at once spiritually shameful and also a natural consequence of the competive drive that inheres in all people.

Idealists then came up with a competing dream of socialism and communism, which was to be a sweeping antidote to all these racial, economic, and social injustices. But competition inexorably reared its ugly head, moving the field of play from its traditional moorings to the political and existential levels, even to the very nature of reality and truth, as seen in the Stalinist systems, and the numerous appalling dictatorial systems that copied it. There was no getting around the need to prove that some are more equal than others.

However we run our formal systems of government and economics, we live in countless competitive settings- socially, economically, sexually, in families and outside. No one loves unconditionally, or serves without reward. So the genius of civilization has been to tame and channel competitive structures and impulses to positive ends. Fairly rewarding work, or setting a standard of one sexual partner in marriage, are examples of rough attempts to forge stable, just, and positive social outcomes out of competitive instincts that if given freer license would destroy us. 

Slavery was a system that, while mostly stable and marginally productive, was also profoundly unjust. One tribe simply declared itself dominant, and used every insidious tool of indoctrination, oppression, and violence to maintain that position. Over time, the original source of the competitive superiority, (whether that was just or not), became irrelevant, and the disparity became as unearned by the oppressors as it was undeserved by the oppressed. It served in no way to expose the natural talents of either in a fair environment of self-expression and actualization through competitive effort. 

So over the history of our country, we have fitfully been waking up to this injustice and expression of erstwhile competitive success, and fighting over how to forge a new social contract. That is perhaps the main reason our political system is so bitterly divided right now. "Freedom" rings from the mouths of both sides. But for one it is typically the freedom to continue enforcing their inherited inequities and privileges. For the other, it is the quest to escape exactly those inequities, which have reified, (as they have similarly in India's caste system, over centuries), into a vast network of debilities, social dysfunctions, ingrained or instinctive attitudes, artistic modes and motifs, economic and geographic patterns.

The new social contract is obviously modeled on modern meritocracy, where all are educated as far as possible, all participate freely in the many markets that pervade our lives, from mating to consuming to job-finding and politics, and all benefit in proportion to their contributions as regulated by those markets. Historical inequities would have little influence in this world, while individual talent and character count for all. This assumes that such a meritocracy is a fair ideal, which many dispute, as the fate of the losers remains uncertain, and in our current version, unbelievably harsh.

But there is no ridding ourselves of competition, however blessed we are with countervailing instincts of empathy and cooperation. It is a rock of human nature, and of our personal development. The best we can do is to regulate it to be fair and moderate. That is, expressing the competitive success of the individual, not her forebears or tribe. And allowing enough benefits to winning to provide motivation towards excellence and success, without destroying the portion of society that necessarily will be losers in various markets. This is the perennial conflict (and competition) between right and left, Republican vs Democrat.

• What happens when the poor are concentrated on one place- East Lake Meadows.
• How long Taiwan?
• Fond memories of the Trumpers.
• What will become of our empire?
• Ten days of quarantine is plenty. Even eight would be OK.
• FOX- another reason to cut the cable cord.

Domineering Freeloader Decides Communism is the Answer

General, executioner, economic development czar, and head of the national bank of the Cuban revolution: the biography of Che Guevara, by John Lee Anderson.

Ernesto Guevara began life as a reckless, adventurous, and very intelligent kid. His first inspiration was medicine, indeed medical research on leprosy and other diseases common in South America, and he got a medical degree. But toiling away on small problems in the lab didn't fit his temperament, and he decided to bum around South America instead, living off the generosity of others, running up debts, fast-talking his way out of jams, and building up an implacable hatred of the US. A common thread through his travels from Argentina through Chile, Bolivia, Peru, and points north was the overwhelming influence of the US, usually corrupting the local political system for the benefit of mining interests in the south, and for the benefit of agricultural interests in Central America. Eventually he got caught up in the liberal quasi-socialist reforms of Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala, later fleeing to Mexico after a US-supported right wing coup.

It was there that he fell under the spell of Fidel Castro, eventually becoming, despite his evident non-Cuban origins, Castro's right-hand man at the head of the communist revolution in Cuba. Not that it started as communist. No, Fidel was a master politician, and started as an anti-communist, currying favor with the Cuban population and the US. But both his brother Raul and Che were dedicated communists by that point, in thrall to Stalin and Mao, and their influence, combined with the logic of perpetual, one-party / one-person power, brought Fidel around to a gradual process of revealing, after the revolution had already gained power and Che had executed resistent elements of the army and police, their new (red) colors. Then came feelers to Moscow and the rest of the eastern bloc, the Cuban missile crisis, and that is pretty much where things stand still today.

Che and Fidel, when times were good.

Anderson's biography is definitive- fully researched, well written, and judiciously argued. He portrays Che as a seeker- a youth on the prowl for good times, but also for a purpose, which he ultimately found in full-on socialism. He found himself most fully during the early fight in the hills of Cuba- a trial by privation, exhaustion, and blood- where he put revolutionary principles to work organizing his men, making alliances with the local peasants, and executing deserters and traitors. Che's socialism was a pan Latin-American Bolivaran ideal, where all the countries of Central and South America would band together- possibly even unite- under state socialism as inspired by the peasant revolutions of Russia and especially China. It was both austere and visionary- a whole continent escaping from under the yoke of the great oppressor- the US.

It is clearly a religious conversion- the epiphany of a wholly captivating ideal. Che became Castro's second in command by his great intellectual and leadership talents, but even more by his absolute dedication to the cause- the cause of liberation from oppression. Unfortunately, after cleansing the army and securing Fidel's rule, Che was assigned to make the economy run, and here he came up against the immovable obstacle- reality. Socialism is healthy in small doses, but communism has not, in Cuba as elsewhere, been able to run an economy. Motivation to work needs to be supplied somehow, and if it is not by the lash of money and its lack, then terror will have to do the job, and poorly at that. Che did what he could, but the system he had fought so hard to establish was impossible to operate, and his thoughts turned back to his first love- revolution.

It is here that we see mostly clearly the religious nature of Che's motivations and of communism generally. If he were a rational researcher in the template of medical or other research, he would have sat back and realized that communism was not working in economic and social terms, let alone in terms of personal individual liberation. And then he would have adapted intellectually and tried to figure out a middle way to preserve Cuba's independence while running a realistic economic system. Possibly even elections. Unfortunately, by this time, Cuba had settled into a dependent relationship with Russia, which bought its sugar and gave aid, preventing either economic or political independence. Cuba is today still relatively poor, in the middle to lower ranks of GDP. Not as poor as Haiti, however, (or North Korea), and therein lies a message, which is that the Cuban revolution remains relatively humane, despite its many debilities and lack of political, social, and economic freedom. The collapse of the Soviet Union shocked the communist government into slight openings for private business and a heavy dose of tourism from Europe, which sustain it today.

But instead of recognizing the errors and failures of his dream, Che fomented more revolutionary cells all over Latin America and Africa, paying special attention to one sent to infiltrate Argentina, one that he was to join himself and die serving in 1965. One can not fault his dedication or consistency, but one can question the intellect that took him and so many other idealistic freedom fighters over the twentieth century into communism only to author monumental disasters of political and economic mismanagement. To think that dictatorship would resolve the class struggle, and produce washing machines and military might ... it had to be a religious movement, which unfortunately, once in power, became incredibly difficult to dislodge.

The motive force obviously was the US. We, through our callous and greedy treatment of our backyard over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and our betrayal of the paternalistic impulse of the Monroe Doctrine, not to mention similar failures of principle in the Middle East and Vietnam, motivated the intense anti-Yankee hatred of idealistic men such as Che Guevara, and the peasant resistance that, at least in Cuba, gave him and Castro support. It is a fascinating history of what the US has wrought, and how our failure to hold to our own ideals has come back to haunt us over and over again.

• It has been abusive, unnecessary, toxic, and we will need some time to work it out of our system.

Atheism, or Archetype?

Religion is built on a series of inborn archetypes and intuitions. Does that mean it is inevitable?

Religion is natural, but is it right? Increasing numbers of people in the US are giving up the practice and belief, if polls are to be believed. Hellfire and damnation is sure to follow, according to those left in the pews, at least those of the farthest evangelical congregations. As a student of Carl Jung, I appreciate the psychology of religion, seeing its processes as deeply reflective of our individual and communal psychologies, as well as the consequence of a complex evolutionary process whose aim has been as much social solidarity and reproduction as much, or more than, philosophical truth. At base, we are not rational beings, and follow a variety of themes and images, termed archetypes in the Jungian system, which persistently guide our dreams,  motivations, and cultures. We are not just economic units driven by profit and loss, but have richer dramatic lives and needs.

Father

What could be more obvious? We grow up in households with father figures who are unimaginably powerful. Food just appears, housing, furniture, love, care, and power and discipline. It is no wonder that, once we grow up, there is a father-shaped hole in our view of the world. In the usual patriarchial culture, the father stands alone, at the top, as both creator and moral disciplinarian, in an archetype that is expressed over and over again in cultures throughout the world, from Zeus to Allah, as it is in our political systems naturally as well. But the mother archetype is also in play, especially in Catholic and Hindu cultures, in the Marys and various powerful devas. Is it possible to see the world without using these instinctive lenses? That is what the scientific revolution and enlightenment attempted, in a cognitive revolution that remains, evidently, incomplete. Take prayer. In the form of requesting something from the father in the sky, it is pathetically immature and retrograde, however understandable in primitive conditions of complete existential mystery. On the other hand, some meditation, joy, and gratitude for the wonders of existence are surely healthy and consistent with mature knowledge of where we stand in the universe. Involvement with this archetype reflects quite directly how far one has gotten along the developmental road from childhood to maturity.

Heaven

The afterlife used to be a rather drab, depressing affair, in the classical Greek and Jewish systems. Then it was progressively gussied up into a lottery jackpot, in the Islamic and Christian systems. Buddhists and Hindus also find life after death, in the form of reincarnation, to be absolutely central to their philosophies. The magic of consciousness is incredibly hard to give up, and hard to get rational perspective on. It takes stringent dedication to naturalism and the evident facts of the world to accept, deep down, that death is really going to be the end- of everything. One need only think about animals- they are obviously conscious, and there are levels of consciousness all the way down the scale of evolution, to infinitesimal, then finally to nothing at all. How does that work, other than in direct proportion to their physical, brain-based endowments? What could be more clear, and in stark contravention of our intuitive and (weirdly) hopeful dream of life after death?

Tribe

We are not just endowed with intellect, but with a social nature, which focuses our striving and loyalty on the tribe. Our tribe is right and good, theirs is bad and wrong. Tribalism founds and plagues every new religious sect or philosophical school, which strains to show how it is right and its predecessors wrong. Jung vs Freud, Analytical vs Continental, Shiite vs Sunni, in endless profusion. Religions lack even the veneer of factual basis which characterize other divides like political polarizations or academic disputes. Doctrine, orthodoxy, and heresy are freely defined by whoever has social power. If one's village is Evangelical, woe to Catholics. If one's family is Seventh-Day Adventist, mere contact with outsiders is forbidden. Tribes have totemic symbols and artistic traditions as part of their identification / bonding apparatus, tokens of the archetypal processes at work.

Magical or zodiacal symbols in an Islamic Book of Wonders, circa 1400. 

Magic

Living in an enchanted word is natural, and wonderful. We all start there in childhood and treasure the dramatic, humanistic power of seeing the world through archetypal lenses- in animals with special totemic powers, crystals that heal, trees that listen. This is truly where traffic with archetypes is most fluid and explicit- bringing dreams to narrative life. Religious superstition raises this drama to existential levels, putting the magic on a celestial level of god(s), all-powerful father figures, and alternatives of eternal hell-fire or bliss. The chances of all this actually describing any kind of reality is nil- we are talking total fantasy. But its evident grip on billions of people shows just how powerful magical thinking is and how far we are from being rational.

Truth

All claim truth, but few prove it. Religions are notorious for splitting into sects, each possessing the final truth, the real story. Interestingly, atheists do not splinter in this way. There is plenty of bickering, about what humanism entails or is, how liberal humanists should be, etc., but there are no Seventh-Day atheists, or Twelver atheists, or other miscelleneous schools. Communism was atheistic, but was in truth a quasi-religious, authoritarian cult all its own. Once one has discarded attachment to these archetypes and the theologies they underpin, and to the need for truth as a matter of self-identification, why then it is easier to agree on what is actually true, as well as on the many areas where we just don't know, without the need to make up stories. This need, a dire need, for answers, especially to "big" questions, is a tipoff that we are dealing with archetypal energies, not with a rational level of thought.

One could compare atheism to the concept of nirvana in Buddhism and Hinduism- the release from the cycle of rebirth, from attachment to the archetypes, and escape to a level of intellectual / emotional freedom. Escape from rebirth is implicit, since the atheist doesn't believe in rebirth, heaven or afterlife at all. It focuses attention on this life, this moment, and compassion here rather than later. But to escape the causes of suffering, (especially the infliction of suffering upon others!), by regarding the archetypes intellectually and skeptically, and by distancing one's self from them, is far more important. To leave behind the seductive entanglements of archetypal belief and the often-abusive social relations they entail is personally momentous, and a healing balm for a planet full to the brim with faithful dogmatists.

• One moving, harrowing, story of escape.
• Viral data dump from a skeptic.
• Administration cut funding for surveillance before outbreak.
• Graph for New York.
• Unemployment-ocolypse.

The Extermination of Tibet

China is culturally cleansing Tibet. "Seven Years in Tibet", by Heinrich Harrer, and "My Land and My People", by the Dalai Lama.

It may be falling off the world's radar screen, but Tibet remains a tragically oppressed land, well worth our remembrance and sympathy. Two books, "Seven Years in Tibet", and "My Land and My People" describe the heartbreaking slide from a happy, innocent, and isolated region to the Orwellian horrors that succeeded and continue today. One of the first significant acts of the new communist government of China, fresh from its civil war against the government that actually faught the Japanese, was to fulfill not any orthodox communist aims or development for its people, but the most rapacious and ancient ambition of Chinese governments, to subjugate its neighbor to the West, Tibet. Amid a blizzard of lies, China invaded the virtually defenseless state, oppressing Tibetans from the start in an ever-escalating war of cultural extermination. After almost ten years of trying to get along with the overlords and calm the waters, amid general rioting, the Dalai Lama fled in a dramatic escape from occupation, to welcome refuge in India, where he and the Tibetan exile community remain today.

Tibet was, frankly, a medieval culture, with economic relations ranging from nomadic to feudal. But medieval in the best sense, of a people thoroughly engaged in a set of archetypes that yielded a richly nourishing, dramatic life experience as well as a durable social structure. Tibetan Buddhism is very demanding, taking a fair fraction of men and resources into monasteries where they live off the rest of population and devote themselves to philo/theological hairsplitting. But they also devote themselves to various traditional arts, and most of all to the cultivation of peace and compassion- the touchstones of Buddha's solution to the suffering of this world. After a long and martial history, Tibet eventually put itself under the control of its most respected leaders, the Lamas, creating a system that was peaceful and benevolent, if also hidebound and conservative.

Take the story of how the current Dalai Lama was found and put in power. It is a veritable fairy tale of portents, dreams, signs and wonders. It has a sort of Wizard of Oz quality, which obviously resonanates, not only with us as a romantic tale, but with Tibetans as a great origin myth. And one can make a case on a practical level that choosing a humble and obviously bright peasant child to rule one's land may be a superior method to one which relies on the most ambitious people to sell themselves in some way to various institutions of power, and to the populace every four years. How often do we fantasize that any halfway intelligent person could do as good a job as the current office holder? Especially if that person were from early on steadfastly dedicated to the cultivation of peace and compassion in him or herself and others?

Likewise, the Dalai Lama's secret and arduous escape from Tibet was again the stuff of legend, binding him to his own people, and endearing him to people around the world. The Tibetan system values spiritual attainment, expressed in the extremely pacifist ideology of Buddhism, combined with a great deal of pre-buddhist folk religion and symbology. The culture was thus temperate and peaceful, perhaps too peaceful for its own good, but surely a model to emulate in our spiritually unbalanced times. The Chinese, in contrast, brought rapacious domination, racism, and cruelty. They were and remain atheist. But it seems that their compassionless spiritual vacuity (which is quite a different thing) was more important, leading them (especially through the cultural revolution) to despoil the cultural treasures, institutions, and people of Tibet.

We may wonder whether China is more culpable in all this than the US was in its virtual extermination of Native Americans and their many cultures. The answer is clearly yes. The gulf between the American cultures was far wider, and the state of historical consciousness lower. Native Americans had no continent-wide governments of centuries standing, no meticulously recorded written histories and philosophical traditions, and little basis for common ground or negotiation with the colonists and their successors. We have belatedly granted Native Americans limited sovereignity in their institutions and barren territories, while China keeps pouring more Han Chinese into Tibet and keeps 100% social control. The world had just fought a war to end all wars, and to liberate peoples from totalitarian military oppression, including those of South Korea. But Tibet was a bridge too far- we could not lift a finger in China's back yard, and now hardly say a peep.

• Some numbers.
• Expert talk.
• This, as most other times, would be a good time for a job guarantee.
• Who is in charge here?
• How dare she?
• Poor people deserve less.
• Buddhist action thriller of the week- Milarepa.

Russia and its Sphere of Influence

What happens if no one wants to be in your club? Review of "Putin's World: Russia against the West and with the rest", by Angela Stent.

History plods on, despite our pride in having achieved "modernity", so that everything can now stop and rest at our state of perfection. Nowhere is that more apparent than in Russia, where the past weighs heavily, affecting attitudes and policy in substantial contrast to interests and current conditions. Russia has been an imperial power for centuries, gradually beating most of its neighbors into submission and incorporating them into a multi-ethnic but hardly socially equal empire. This process was capped by the Great Patriotic War, aka World War 2, which ended with the USSR in control of new territories inside Europe, and others inside Japan, and with ideological friends in many other lands. It was not a happy empire, but it was a huge one, and the Russians were and remain proud of its achievement.

Then everything fell apart, and since the end of the Cold War, Russia has been trying to get it back. That would be a brief synopsis of Stent's book, which goes in very professional fashion through Russia's history, current relations, conflicts, and friendships all over the world. On the whole, Russia has over the last couple of decades managed its relations quite well, leveraging what little strength it has (lots of oil and gas, a ruthless attitude towards politics near and far, and a prodigious ability to suffer) into substantial strides back to relevance on the world stage.

But what should the West think and do about it? We came in for a great deal of criticism for our cavalier attitude during the breakup of the USSR. We advocated "shock therapy", and boy were they shocked! Without effective state control or cultural traditions of capitalism, what was a rotten system of communism turned into a laissez-faire wild west of rampant economic and political corruption. State control has now been re-asserted, but the patterns that formed in those days, which frankly reflect a long history of "informal" political relations throughout the region, persist to this day, despite verying formalities of democracy and rule of law. There remains a fundamental misunderstanding (and mistrust) of what political and economic liberalism means and how the West has gotten to its dominant position, despite centuries of study, copying, inferiority complexes, and deep economic and political relations. Russia remains instinctively authoritarian, not only due to the cleverness of Vladimir Putin, but apparently as a general cultural default. Maybe this did not have to be, maybe there was an opening in the early days of Yeltsin's rule, but our thoughtless and disastrous prescriptions at the time helped sow a bitter harvest. Now Russia equates democracy with weakness, and has decided to demonstrate that principle by deploying its most expert propaganda into our free media spaces.

It is generally realized now that China, in contrast, did things correctly, becoming a booming capitalist state while keeping absolute political control. That is how an properly authoritarian state manages things, (as previously modeled by various Asian tigers, particularly Singapore), and is now a model for Russia among many others. Unlike the Russian breakdown, China's ability to change its spots from communism to capitalism raises deep questions of whether liberalism and democracy are the best system, not only in human rights terms, but in their ability to manage capitalism. For it is clear, from both the Russian debacle and from the Chinese success, that capitalism is not self-perpetuating or self-managing. It relies inextricably on a strong state and legal system that sets rules by which competition among oligarchs, firms, workers, and other actors remains on the economic level, not on the military, political, or criminal levels. Democracy can be responsive to these issues, but we are, in the US, currently in the grip of a very destructive ideology that denigrates the state, is restoring corruption at all levels, and appears heedless of the future in economic, political, and planetary terms. The outcomes of this ideology became frighteningly apparent in our chaotic occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, yet the lesson may still not have been learned.

But getting back to Russia ... The nations of the former USSR have developed in almost linear relation to how closely they are positioned to Europe, geographically and culturally. The Baltic states turned relatively easily and completely to the European model. The middle area of Romania and Bulgaria, among others, have turned more slowly, but are also firmly in the pro-Europe camp. But those bordering Russia, like Belarus out east to Kazakstan, remain authoritarian and mired in "informal relations". Ukraine has tried to buck this trend and is deeply divided. Partly this is due to the large number of expatriate Russians living in these areas. But in any case, each has its own nationalism, and no one wants to re-unite with Russia to remake the old empire. Recent news stories show that even Belarus, Russia's most reliable and sycophantic ally, draws a line.

"Ultimately, Russia, China, and the states of Central Asia share fundamental ideas of what stability in the region looks like and how to maintain it. They are a group of authoritarian states dedicated to maintaining themselves in power and ensuring no Islamist or color revolutions threaten their rule. Whereas they view with great suspicion any Western attempts to open up their societies, Central Asian elites welcome Russian and Chinese support of the status quo."

So Russia is determined to have a club that few want to join. The ex-Soviet republics may share many cultural, political, and economic patterns, and cooperate to some extent in organizations like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, but Russia's dreams of expansion and re-integration are generally rebuffed. It has turned to invasions like the takeover of Crimea, South Ossetia, and the creeping war in Eastern Ukraine, treating its neighbors like piñatas to be whacked at will and bullied with fossil fuel subsidies and threats. It is reminiscent of the spoiler role Pakistan maintains in its region, fomenting unrest in Afghanistan lest that country ever have peace and positive economic development.

And then Russia demands that we all respect its "sphere of influence", as though we were still in Victorian times, playing some sort of great game on a map of the world, and heading in to World War 1. But this supposed sphere is entirely composed of unwilling and oppressed neighbors- not quite as badly treated as in Soviet times, but uniformly uninterested in recreating those glory days. Russia has no intrinsic or deserved "rights" in this respect, despite its vaunting desires- we need to keep offering self-determination and choice to its neighbors, as we do to all other countries around the world. Russia is armed to the teeth, and really needs no defensive buffer of this kind, nor is its cultural influence so positive that its bullying should be regarded as a family matter. Quite the opposite.

NATO countries of Europe, in blue.

Which brings us to NATO. We did not think through its fate very carefully when the cold war ended. NATO stood during the cold war as a defense against the USSR, pure and simple, plus a way to keep Germany pacified and integrated in Europe. When the USSR collapsed (foremost because its captive nationalities and "republics" wanted out), and the Warsaw pact dissolved, we half-heartedly offered coordination to Russia. But never really thought through what our military posture should be towards this new friend, or offered a comprehensive and durable peace. We were, however, eager to integrate as many of the newly ex-Soviet states as wanted to join, such as Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, the Baltic states, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia, not to mention various members of the former Yugoslavia. That makes it look like a rather offensive affair, from Russia's perspective. And then Ukraine wanted to join as well. Integrating all these countries into a modern mutual defence organization was certainly positive for them, as one more element of their cultural headlong run away from Russia and communism.

But what is it really defending? One gets the distinct sense that, like in the post-WW2 era, NATO's purpose has become keeping the principal adversary of the latest war at bay. But whereas Germany was integrated into NATO, subject to continued occupation, though of a relatively friendly sort, now the enemy, i.e. Russia, is outside, and is not being killed with kindness, but rather being provoked by encirclement. All this is relatively obvious and not terribly objectionable now, now that Russia has become increasingly anti-Western, but that did not have to be the outcome. (Though Stent is dubious- she maintains that Russia's historical attitude strongly re-asserted itself after the breakup, and it would be chimerical to think that Russia would ever align fully with the West, such as joining NATO and allowing extensive occupation / collaboration by foreign forces- see the quote below) We drifted into it by inertia- by lazy thinking in our foreign policy and military establishments, not to say simple gloating. Would Russia have responded more positively if we had given them a better deal? Only if we had matched it with more effective economic reconstruction assistance as well. But neither of these things happened, and attitudes in Russia quickly hardened and became, understandably, rather bitter. Nevertheless, this does not justify an undeserved sphere of influence or renascent empire on Russia's part. Does Britain demand a sphere over France? Does Germany over Denmark? No. Did we invade Cuba when it turned to communism? Well, sort of and half-heartedly(!)

"As Putin consolidated his rule, it became clear to much of the world that a main reason for Russian's rejection of Western-style economic and political programs was because they are Russians, not because they were communists. Seventy years ago, George Kennan understood that communist ideology reinforced and exacerbated, but did not contradict, the characteristics of traditional tsarist rule. Communism had been superimposed on centuries of Russian autocracy and personalistic rule, and had, if anything, strengthened those traditions. The ideology was a means to consolidate the Bolsheviks' rule, mobilize society, and, with great pain, drag Russian peasants into modernity. ... The minority who supported Gorbachev and Yeltsin and believed that Russia should become more like the West both politically and economically, were outnumbered from the outset."

Reading this book reinforces that it is the US and the West in general that is the revolutionary agent afoot in the world. We are the ones fomenting color revolutions. We are the ones planting thoughts of human rights, rule of law, justice, and prosperity around the world. We think that all this is obvious, progressive, and unexceptional, but democracies are still the minority, and the other countries, notably including Russia and China, have developed a countervailing authoritarian bloc who studiously refrain from criticizing each other's miserable internal politics, and complain ceaselessly about those who do.

Democracy Index, with darker green denoting greater democracy. Note how China rates slightly higher than Russia, due to its better governance and more functional political culture, despite lacking any electoral process.

Are we right to do so? The issue of self-determination is perhaps the thorniest area where this ideology hits the real world- not everyone can or should have their own country. The USSR broke up over the failure of the center to, in the face of countless failures, justify holding on to its huge empire, and has now turned into 15 successor states, most with an ethnic character. Several of those successor states have experienced civil wars and separatist movements of their own. The fact is that few large countries have ever become large by voluntary means. Given generally peaceful conditions, most peoples with any kind of distinct culture want their own country, as is being expressed in such places as Catalonia, Scotland, Quebec, Kurdistan, and even 150 years ago in our own Confederate South. As Stent acidly points out, separatism is Russia's (and China's) bête noir, leading to its brutal repression of Chechnya, among many other places ... until it comes to Ukraine and Georgia, where Russia uses separatism in the most cynical way.

"Russia will push to jettison the post-Cold War, liberal, rules-based international order driven by the US and Europe in favor of a post-West order. For Russia, this order would resemble the nineteenth-century concert of powers, with China, Russia, and the United States dividing the worlds into spheres of influence."

But there was one place that had a "velvet divorce". Slovakia and the Czech Republic parted ways without bloodshed, because they were oriented to the European model, and negotiated their differences. As a foreign policy stance, we should not encourage separatism generally, but should always support peaceful resolutions and reasonable accommodations. One might add in passing that, if one holds an election to validate a minority breaking away, referendums of this sort should have a high bar, such as 75% , rather than the typical 50%. At any rate, this episode illustrates a key point- that the Western model is good, and tends to lead to peaceful and durable outcomes, because it is not repressive and takes people's interests and rights seriously. Repression can keep the peace for a while, but durable, prosperous peace (and good governance) is best kept with respect, moderation, and truthful communication.

So the order of preference, from all these historical lessons, is as follows. The worst government is none, representing chaos and unleashing the worst forms of power- criminal and informal military. The next best is authoritarian, which can range from brutally repressive, like Stalinist Russia, to repressive and even quite functional, if not benevolent, like China, Turkey, and Russia today. And the best is liberal (and functional!) democracy, which respects its citizens while maintaining a strong state. Unfortunately, democracies are difficult to run, have various inefficiencies, and are perpetually at risk of turning to authoritarianism, particularly when new technologies of propaganda arise that can hypnotize and misinform the populace, as happened during the fascist era, and is happening again today.

Does this mean that we should agitate for democracy everywhere and all the time? Yes, in short, it does. We can and must work with all governments as they exist, to manage what interests we have in common. But we should never mistake our instrumental relations with countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China for true friendship and ideological compatibility. We need to keep our eyes on the interests of people across the world now and into the future, which are uniformly best served by freedom and democracy, with strong and effective states founded on the active participation and decisive decision-making by their citizens. Authoritarianism can be an effective form of government, and sometimes a stepping stone to better conditions. But it is not a desirable end-point, and nor is its correlate, a spheres-of-influence world. And who knows? Maybe one of the democracies that we encourage will someday be in a position to save us in turn.

• One view of Russia's tangles with the West.
• Russia's "productive" role in Syria.
• What are the prospects for democracy in poor countries? Dim, but possible.
• Will Russia save the world?
• The toxic legacy of gerrymandering. And of Citizens United.
• Our tax law becomes even more corrupted.
• War has been declared.

Meritocracy

Is meritocracy intrinsically bad, or good for some things, not so good for others?

A recent book review in the New Yorker ruminated on the progress and defects of the meritocracy, a word born in sarcasm, now become an ideology and platitude. I am not sure that the review really touched on the deeper issues involved, so am motivated to offer a followup. The term was coined by a British sociologist, which is significant, as it describes a fundamental shift from the preceding system, the class system, as a way of allocating educational opportunity, professional work, military grades, and social status in general. It would be natural for someone of the British upper class to decry such a change, though the coiner, Michael Young, was generally a socialist and egalitarian, though eventually made into a Baron for his services ... ironically.

The book review focused mostly on the educational establishment, where the greatest sea change has occurred. Where elite schools used to lazily accept their students from elite prep academies, from certain rich families and class backgrounds, now they make a science of student selection, searching far and wide, high and low, for the most meritorious candidates. Are SAT scores useful? Not very, the new consensus has it, especially as such tests unconsciously reproduce various cultural biases, instead of rendering the true grail- a score of merit, whatever that really might be. But anyhow the slicing is done, higher education is now an intense, mostly meritocratic sorting process, granting opportunities and education on the basis of qualifications, intent on funneling the most capable people into the higher rungs of the ladder of professional activities and status.

One question is whether all this laborious sorting of students has been a good thing, overall. Do we get better staffed hospitals, better filled jobs throughout the economic system by virtue of this exquisitely and remorselessly selective weeding system? Yes we do, perhaps at the cost of some social serendipity, of finding CEO material in the mailroom, and the like.

But the deeper question is whether all this selection has been good for our society at large. There is answer has to be more guarded. If economic efficiency is the only goal, then sure. But it isn't, and some of our social atomization, and creeping class-ism and despair in the lower rungs of society comes from the intensification of meritocratic selection, which spills over to many other areas of society, directly through income and wealth, and indirectly through many other mechanisms of status, particularly politics. Much of Trump's support comes from people sick of the "elites"- those selected by SAT scores, course grades, and the like to rule over the working class. It is not clear that grubbing for grades and mastering standardized exams have done such a good job at selecting a ruling political class. That class has not done a very good job, and that poor performance has sapped our social solidarity. The crisis is most glaring in the stark cost of losing out- homelessness and destitution- the appalling conditions that are the mirror of billionaires also produced by this Darwinian system.

The problem is that we need areas of our lives that are not plugged into the rat race, for both psychological and sociological reasons. Such areas are increasingly scarce as this new gilded age gobbles up all our social relations under the rubric of the market, paticularly with its newly internet-extended capabilities. Religion has traditionally been a social locus where every one is worth the same- many classes come together to share some profound feelings, and occasionally explicit anti-establishment messages, (though also often a message of exalted status vs some other sect, faith, or unbelievers). But religion is dying, for good reason.

A town meeting

Civic associations and volunteer life have in the US been a frequent antidote to class-ism, with people of all classes coming together to make each others' lives better. But modern transportation has enabled the definitive sorting of classes by socioeconomic level, rendering civic activity, even when it occurs, poor at social mixing. No longer does a geographic community have to include those of all professions and walks of life to be viable. We can have lilly-white suburbs and gated communities, and have any tradespeople and retail employees commute in from far away. That is a problem, one caused ultimately by fossil fuels and the freedom that they bring. The civic sector has also been invaded by an army of vanity foundations sponsored by the rich- a patronizing and typically futile approach to social betterment. Volunteerism has also been sapped by lack of time and money, as employees throughout the economic system are lashed ever more tightly to their jobs, stores kept open at all hours, and wages for most stagnate. Unions are another form of civic association that have withered.

All this has frayed the local civic and social connections, which are the ultimate safety net and source of civic solidarity. While Republicans bray about how terrible government is at replacing these services with top-down programs, (with some justification), they have at the same time carried out a decades-long battle to weaken both government and civic life, leaving a smoldering ruin in the name of a new feudal overlordship of the "job-creators"- the business class. That is the ultimate problem with meritocracy, and while appreciating its role in spreading social justice in the distribution of educational and professional opportunity, (a promise that is far from fully realized), we need to realize its cost in other areas of our national culture, and work to restore community diversity, community institutions, and community solidarity.

• Are corporations amoral and evil?
• Is market manipulation part of the story?
• Don't go to the hospital.
• Japan vs MMT.
• Amazing Chopin.
• Quote of the week:

Where love rules, there is no will to power; where power predominates, there love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other. – Carl Jung

Investing in the Future

People's Capitalism- the economics of James Albus.

A curious thing happened on the way to a recent post about the cerebellum. One of its primary theorists was not a neurobiologist, but an engineer, roboticist, and control system designer. It turned out that James Albus, mild-mannered government employee all of his career, had several side projects, another one of which was an odd blend of libertarian and communist economics, which he called peoples' capitalism. It incorporates some unconventional monetary theory, and throws in a proposal for oceanic algae harvesting as a bonus. All in all, Albus is clearly a fellow crank.

This book "Path to a Better World" is not easy to find, probably for good reason. Putting aside its lengthy self-encomiums and visions for a peaceful and problem-free future, the basic proposition is that the government should issue credit to everyone for the purpose of setting up a personal investment fund, which over time would then generate on everyone's behalf a steady and growing stream of income that will replace that lost from the automation revolution to come (and pay back the original loan). He estimates that if the annual increment is $5,000, the portfolio would be worth $1.5 million after 50 years, generating $55,000 of income. This would all be invested in government-approved vehicles like mutual funds, thereby increasing total capital investment. And lastly, to offset inflation, he proposes a payroll deduction-style system whereby some proportion of each person's income could be forcibly diverted to savings when inflation threatens.

One of the core justifications of these schemes is gaining a higher rate of overall capital investment. Albus recounts some of the interesting literature in economics that shows that productivity growth, overall growth, and an increased living standard all come mostly from capital investment. It is capital (as opposed to straight consumption of short-lived items like food and services) that funds the machinery, education, and training that continues to give back, year after year, productive services like roads, new inventions, manufacturing plants, and housing. We all know that the US has had a low rate of capital investment, which Albus contrasts with China's extraordinarily high rate, and thus high growth which is overtaking us.

Albus shows fanciful graphs going far into the future of the US maintaining a 9% economic growth rate, which would enable us to stay ahead of the Chinese indefinitely. The problem is that not all investment is productive. We learned from Japan that the dizzying rates of capital formation and investment in a developing economy that is committed to catching up with the first world do not last forever. As long as one is behind the technological frontier, productive investments are easy to find- just steal them from more advanced cultures. But once one reaches the technological frontier, the search is far more difficult. Much more investment is wasted in exploratory research, and it is less attractive to rip out current sunk investments to keep up with every tiny increment on the slowly advancing frontier. This explains why China's growth will inevitably slow, as did Japan's and ours.

This is not to say that we should not raise our capital investment rate, but that we need to be more judicious than simply shovelling more money into mutual funds. Since the value of the stock market is based on a relatively coherent estimation of future income flows to corporations, pouring in more money on behalf of passive small investors will mostly just nudge out other, more liquid, investors, keeping the overall level of investment stable (with the caveat that price/earnings ratios have indeed risen (perhaps doubled) over the last few decades as a larger pool of investors has flooded the market). This would be a good thing from an economic justice standpoint. One of the points of Albus's plans is to distribute capital ownership more widely, in preparation for the time when none have jobs, but all need income. But it is unlikely to raise net capital investment much or raise economic growth rates.

The ironic thing (given Albus's government career in the highest levels of its research enterprise) is that he is so focused, perhaps due to libertarian leanings, on pumping money into the private capital markets, that he neglects the real capital shortfall- that of public investment. It is now a common mantra that our infrastructure is crumbling, and that education is too expensive. Both are areas where government investment is the most productive way we have to build for future economic and social returns.

Otherwise, there are some positive aspects to these ideas. What goes unmentioned is that the personal investment scheme will have to be heavily controlled by the government, since most people getting that kind of money are going to spend it. That is why so many poor people exist, after all, and so few capitalists. And the inflation control scheme is also rather heavy-handed, if effective, though one has to ask where this savings would go so as to not be inflationary. Putting it into mutual funds would put it into the markets again, and thus be ultimately inflationary. It would probably have to go into newly issued government bonds, which is to say, into a money black hole.

But the idea of spreading around capital and its income stream is very interesting. It is a far better idea than a simple UBI, which is structured as a sort of pittance handed out to keep the jobless from gathering into mobs with pitchforks. As we enter an economic era where capital is ever more dominant, through its comprehensive ability to generate economic value with ever fewer workers, the whole economic system needs to be rethought, with an eye to the middle class, not just the homeless and jobless. We already have vast pension funds and mutual funds, which have spread around the income flows from capital, if not taken effective control of the system from capitalists of the traditional variety. We already tax income and capital gains and inheritances to divert some of those gains to the common good. More of that kind of redistribution, of both capital and its proceeds, needs to happen in order to achieve the economic justice and stable future that Albus seeks.

• A criminologist takes a look at our president ... the dark triad.
• Who are the oligarchs?
• MAGA movie.
• Steps to fascism.
• Oligarchy in business isn't so good either.
• What does a financial risk manager say about climate change? $120 per ton of carbon.
• Economic democracy.

Breaking Secrets

A small way to increase labor power.

Why is inflation so persistently low? Even when the government is on a spending and tax-forgiveness binge, and interest rates have been rock-bottom for a decade? I have been spending some time with a left-inflected economics textbook from the 80's by Samuel Bowles et al., which gives a view of our situation that contrasts significantly from the mainstream free-market, neoliberal economics we have been fed for the last few decades. Perhaps its basic point is that capitalism only works when labor is exploited, yielding a surplus product. No profits = no capitalism. Thus the overarching aim of capitalists is to extract excess value from labor, over what is being paid out.

This extraction process has many dimensions, but a few of the salient ones deal with a odd role of markets in capitalism. Most people working in the capitalist system are not working in markets. They are employees, whose work is not bid on an hourly basis, who do not personally sell what they personally make, in a market. They exist in a command economy, quite divorced from this fantasm called "the free market". If they do not get along with their boss, they are fired. They are evaluated, not by market outcomes, but by subjective opinions of others around them, and are subject to a complex bureaucracy of control by the firm they are employed by. While the firm has market interactions with the outside, on the inside it is hardly different from a communist enterprise, indeed a good deal more heartless. Much of what corporations and the capitalist class lobbies for is not freer markets (heaven forbid!), but more ways to control workers, whether that is by right-to-work, weakening unions, keeping disputes out of open court, colluding with each other to not poach workers, staging "team-building" activities, stealing worker pay, reducing safety net programs, etc. So, contrary to the right-wing ideology of freedom, one of the main tasks of capitalists and their political servants is to reduce the freedom of workers.

The principal sword dangling over the employee is unemployment. That is the ultimate sanction, and is essential to the functioning of the whole system. Unlike other markets for goods, the labor market never clears, or settles on the stable demand/supply point. As the book comments, employers do not need to have a line of unemployed machines standing outside the gates to encourage the machines inside the factory to work harder. But they do need unemployement, both to support the command economy inside the firm, and also to keep the wages paid below the actual value given by labor. This connects additionally to one of the reasons for the business cycle- to raise unemployment and thereby "discipline" worker demands, in addition to moderating input prices and clearing out inefficient firms. It turns out that the full business cycle, including recessions, is as central to capitalism as capital itself. We can not have only good times, if corporations are going to clear profits by exploiting workers.

Which ultimately brings us back to inflation. We had a "great" recession in 2008, which led to very high unemployment and durably reduced output. Workers were very well disciplined, to the point that large numbers left the work force entirely. One consequence of all this discipline and lowered expectation has been that employers could get away with not raising pay. The trend of economic growth/benefits going entirely to the capitalists and rich, and none to workers, has continued at an accelerated pace through the period. A side effect of all this low pay is low inflation. This is in dramatic contrast to the late 1960's and 1970's, when worker power was high, unionization was high, and demands for pay were high. Workers expected not just cost of living raises, but seniority and productivity raises as well. Incidentally, the public sector, which is highly unionized and in a special position with political power over its employers, is a relic of that outdated world, resulting in bloated pay and pensions, which are now unheard of in the trenches of the real economy.

Workers have not gained from productivity increases for forty years.

So things are, from a long-term perspective, unbalanced. And what did voters in their wisdom do about it in 2016? They elected a hypercapitalist, who conned them into thinking that he wanted to do something for workers. Ha! Obviously, the progressive agenda is far more pertinent to workers, seeking to reduce instead of increase capitalist power. Progressives seek to increase worker power in a myriad of ways- regulation, a higher minimum wage, better safety net, more public services, higher wealth and income taxes. The strongest proposals so far aim at the lowest end of the scale- setting a living minimum wage, and also establishing the principle of jobs for all- a job guarantee that would set an even more robust floor for the job market and seriously impair the fear that unemployment inspires. Will capitalism survive? I think so- the Scandinavian countries have far more civilized regimes of public goods and worker protection, and seem to do OK.

But what about the bulk of workers in the middle rungs of the economy? Some additional thinking needs to be done to bolster their prospects in the fight with capitalists. While unions are highly beneficial for their members, their benefits are intrinsically balkanized and can be highly damaging to their industries- think of the car industry. A better way is to institutionalize broadly some of the benefits that unions have pioneered, such as the weekend, regulatory worker protections, and rights of political and economic organization.

One idea that I think would be very useful would be to break the secrecy on salary. One of the principal benefits of union membership is the transparency that it provides to workers- knowlege of what everyone is being paid, as a step to negotiating contracts. One of the greatest powers that corporations have, to steal pay and discriminate against classes of employees, is to keep pay secret, as though it were some kind of sacred trust. But many workplaces have transparent pay structures, such as union shops, boardrooms, and professional sports teams, and the sky has not fallen. What average workers need is government mandated transparency on pay in every workplace, so that everyone can see how they and others are being treated. Few measures would as effectively show injustice, generate fairer treatment, and give workers a more realistic picture of their prospects at a current or a future employer.

Would we get more inflation? Perhaps. But there are many ways to skin that cat, with credit, monetary and fiscal policy, rather than worker suppression. It is time for a little capitalist suppression- to right an economy, and a society, far out of kilter.

• How best to raise taxes?
• Stiglitz on the thorough-going corruption of the Trump administration.
• Lying without shame.. will it win the next election too?

UBI: Creeping Communism or Libertarian Liberation?

Review of "Give People Money", advocating for Universal Basic Income, by Annie Lowrey. Subititled "How a universal basic income would end poverty, revolutionize work, and remake the world".

This is a good book if one wants to read a litany of complaints about late capitalism- inequality, crummy work, appalling poverty in the midst of plenty, gender inequality and unpaid work, misdirected foreign aid. One might indeed say that never have so many reasons been adduced for a policy with which they are so tenuously connected. To put the argument briefly, if we were to give everyone in the US a monthly income of, say, $1,000, no questions asked, it would by definition end poverty, set an effective minimum wage of roughly $6.25 (full time), and cost about $3.8 trillion, roughly doubling the federal budget.

What are the various problems that the UBI is thought to address? First is of course poverty. While $6.25 is even below the current minimum wage, it is enough for a bare existence. Lowrey cites several experiments in poor third world countries that show that this kind of income is generally put to good use- much better use than aid that comes in the form of second-hand clothes, bed nets, shoes, or any of the other myriad do-good schemes that first world donors cook up. But there is a crucial difference- these experiments are conducted among a functional population generally at par for their society, whose only problem is that they, as are everyone else around them, poor, relative to more developed economies, whose goods and technologies are available for a price.

The poverty-stricken in the US are, by contrast and almost definition, dysfunctional, with health problems, drug problems, intellectual problems, and other issues that money alone is unlikely to fix, and may well make worse. San Francisco has had, for example, a long-term program to switch from money to in-kind and supportive care. If the problem is merely lack of money, then yes, cash assistance is an ideal solution. But UBI is, for this problem, a nuclear bomb, spewing money to everyone regardless of need, and possibly to the detriment of those in the most need of more structured help. There are better policies, as there are for virtually every problem that UBI putatively addresses.

Day laborers wait for work. Would UBI help?

Another problem dwelt on in the book is crummy jobs and inequality in its many dimensions, from a slipping middle class to persistent gender and racial discrimination and lack of wealth accumulation. Needless to say, the pittance represented by UBI is going to address none of these issues. The best that might be said is that it gives something, which is more than nothing, to those out of the workforce who are caring for children, the elderly, on a love-instead-of-money basis. And since the poor are disproportionately female and minority, they would also benefit the most from UBI, at least in subjective / relative terms. But again, it is a pittance, and since everyone gets the UBI, it does a poor job addressing inequality, particularly if its funding comes from a regressive source like a carbon tax, though better if it comes from an income or financial transaction tax. It does not even raise the minimum wage, given its extremely low level.

The more convincing, and libertarian, argument for a UBI is its simplicity and possible role in replacing other poverty programs. Aid like food stamps, housing assistance, and work training are all rather paternalistic and ridden with absurd paperwork, dehumanizing conditions, and arcane regulations. While some of these burdens come from simple bureaucratic evolution, most come from intentional policy built up to discourage people from becoming poor by penalizing and controlling them in various ways, resulting usually from right-wing and Southern racist politics. Replacing much of this with cash is very attractive, even if much of the new income will be wasted or if its amount fails to cover actual needs like housing in expensive areas. However, as mentioned above, many of the poor are dysfunctional, and got to where they are due precisely to their inability to handle money. To make cash assistance work, the responsible sheep would need to be separated from the goats who will end up on the street even with a UBI. This would inevitably bring back the caseworkers, rules, and other periphernalia of the welfare state.

The next level of the libertarian argument is that robots are going to take all our jobs, to which UBI is a solution. It pains me to have to say this, but this makes little sense. First, automation has been with us since the invention of the spear. Lowrey herself quotes Bill Gates: "What the world wants is to take this opportunity to make all the goods and services we have today, and free up labor let us do a better job of reaching out to the elderly, having smaller class sizes, helping kids with special needs. You know, all of those are things where human empathy and understanding are still very, very unique. And we still deal with an immense shortage of people to help out there." Clumsily put, but you get the idea- taking care of each other is the core of what we as people want to do, and should be doing. Making widgets is only one baroque byway on the true path of our life's work. Lowrey closes by mentioning the Star Trek economy- where no one needs money, all fundamantal needs are fulfilled, yet there are still jobs and ambition- a competition for status directly, not via the accumulation of money, but through the medium of work and service.

But this is probably not what libertarians have in mind. Their idea is more that the eggheads and Hank Reardons of Silicon Valley can keep on working their interesting, highly paid jobs, and not worry about stepping over homeless people, or being responsible employers in the new app-disintermediated gig economy, or facing the pitchforks of a vast and growing proletariat, all by feeding them crumbs of UBI. It is hardly an attractive future. On the other hand, one can view UBI as the first phase of future communism, where everyone shares in a basic level of decency, regardless of contribution. The UBI might be programmed to increase with time, in proportion to economic productivity or technological displacement. I can not regard this as an attractive future either, really, given the fundmantal importance of work in our personal and communal lives, and the impossibility of seeing an end to work, or having some principle to tell us what the best level of UBI should really be. Having ever-growing numbers of parasites living off the fat of the robots is reminiscent of ancient Rome, where maybe one fifth of the city population was on the dole, supported by the vast resources of the empire and armies of slaves. While this system was durable, lasting over five centuries, it does not look to me like one worthy of emulation.

Lastly, there are the children. Lowrey does not go into in detail since its ramifications may be so perverse, but supposing that UBI is granted from birth, the accumulation of children would likewise accumulate a sizeable income. Such an excessively pro-child policy would encourage more children among those most poor and most dependent on UBI, a social and plantery disaster.

---

What is an alternative to all this? A job guarantee has many positive characteristics, which I have mentioned previously.

• It gives money to those in need, not to everyone.
• It provides a decent standard of living, not a pittance, perhaps $25,000 per year, plus benefits.
• It automatically sets a substantial floor for wages, working conditions, and benefits for the private economy.
• It is automatically and strongly counter-cyclical, increasing when the private economy goes into recession.
• It naturally replaces much of the current poverty infrastructure.
• It provides services, insofar as the job holders are doing something productive.
• One could imagine a central job board, used internally by government projects and prospective employees, but also by private employers to make better offers to those employed in the program.

I would envision the job guarantee system as offering a full range of government-run work, from NASA engineering to street sweeping. Employees could be fired at will, demoted from better jobs to worse jobs, (or promoted), as their talents, behavior, and willingness to move merit. If they crash out of the simplest jobs, like litter pickup and invasive plant clearing, they could be offered a basic income for no work (at the UBI level of $12,000 per year- plus health insurance, which would be universal anyway). The conditions would be that they stay out of jail, off the streets, and out of drug and mental facilities. If they crash out of that, they would be faced with more paternalistic options of case worker intervention, food vouchers, group home living, having their finances handled by a trustee, etc. At this level, work requirements would not exist anymore, or lifetime caps, etc.

One of the most positive aspects of communism was its guarantee of work. The work may not have been efficient, but it gave everyone a place in society, and a paycheck, and benefits. It is one of the few aspects of communism worth emulating, if it can be made to work alongside a higher-paying, innovative, and well-regulated private economy.

Combining a job guarantee, cash benefits, and more controlled programs, a spectrum of appropriate options would be available at all levels of society to lift everyone out of poverty, to intervene where needed, to provide maximal freedom, and to use public money efficiently. Whether job guarantee holders actually accomplish anything is secondary- the major benefits occur regardless. Yet as noted above, there is a great, indeed infinite need, for work. For example, child care up to school age, and elder care (given some certification of disability and need for care) could qualify for one job guarantee position, regardless of the status of other people in the household. This would help families cope with services that are so important to society at large.

• Bitcoin is absurd and wasteful.
• Could gerrymandering get even worse?
• Fixing refrigeration is the top climate change solution.
• Reich on paying the rich to "fund" the government. (Which is quite unnecessary.)
• A recession is on the way.
• Collusion.
• The real crisis is climate change. And a fascist president.

Not a crisis

Not a crisis