Friedman on America

[bradleym]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/opinion/24friedman.html?em

 

This is why we're currently in trouble...

 

'In fact, we as a country have become General Motors — as a result of our national drift. Look in the mirror: G.M. is us'

 

This is why things _may_ get better

 

'We still have the most creative, diverse, innovative culture and open society'

 

its a good read.

 

 

[marc_leclerc]

A man was fried on America??? OMG!?!?!?!

[111]

hear-hear!

[STP]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/opinion/24friedman.html?em

 

This is why we're currently in trouble...

 

'In fact, we as a country have become General Motors — as a result of our national drift. Look in the mirror: G.M. is us'

 

This is why things _may_ get better

 

'We still have the most creative, diverse, innovative culture and open society'

 

its a good read.

 

 

Ok, here's my critique, albeit weakly developed:

 

Friedman’s worldview is dominated by ‘cornucopian’ ideas, that technology will be our saving grace, ideas exemplified by the late economist Julian Simon. However, there is a potential disconnect between this and the ideas he expresses in closing. The question is how does one prevent a type of technofascism from suppressing individualism? When does our savior become our oppressor?

 

With one eye on blind patriotism if we look at the contemporary situation, one asks whether Europe has a better grasp on a philosophy as guiding principle but more importantly if they will emerge sooner out of the present crisis positioned for dominance.

 

Here we have the ideas expressed in Schiller’s Ode to Joy (expanded by Beethoven), the spirit of which takes them into the future. The birth pangs were many and devastating in extent but each time resulting in a ‘creative destruction’ leading to a higher arrangement. So today, the fires in the East (Greece, Ukraine) threaten the union. Or perhaps someone from Iceland takes up the mantle of ‘William Tell’ and produces a crack in the ice that represents the veneer of European unity. If developments in Britain and to some extent Germany are any indicators then the application of technology, for instance, surveillance tools, will be used to locate the incipient tears in the social fabric. Then the application of force will be the glue that holds the social fabric together.

 

The problem essentially, as I see it, is one of translating knowledge into action (praxis). And to proceed we have to reexamine the table of values (Nietzsche). Should we really direct our motivation into space, for instance, space based solar arrays, because at the bottom of this exists a cold war struggle (the fear of technological superiority)? Or have we entered a new age, a new order, where endeavors such as the International Space Station, the HLC, are truly world entities, no longer national but representing a global ‘rhizome’ (Deleuze & Guattari)?

 

Maybe the focus does not necessarily rest contigent on spatial historical relations but should rather decouple from the material plane itself. The threat of systemic risk has presented itself as a special case of a ‘crisis in capitalism’. But is it actually a function of the size of the entity or is it rather a crisis of confidence, of trust, so that it raises the spector of moral hazard that lies at the heart of the problem? With globalization if the size of the entity is the issue then that is an argument against itself owing to its own inherent instabilty.

 

Addendum:

 

[video:youtube]vXuhvzbQ5EI

Europe is united now

United it may remain;

Our unity in diversity

May contribute to world peace.

 

May there forever reign in Europe

Faith and justice

And freedom for its people

In a greater motherland

 

Citizens, Europe shall flourish,

A great task calls on you.

Golden stars in the sky are

The symbols that shall unite us.

 

[video:youtube]_0v07InoFiU

 

So, what is our vision?

[prole]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/opinion/24friedman.html?em

 

This is why we're currently in trouble...

 

'In fact, we as a country have become General Motors — as a result of our national drift. Look in the mirror: G.M. is us'

 

This is why things _may_ get better

 

'We still have the most creative, diverse, innovative culture and open society'

 

its a good read.

 

 

This is the economic equivalent of holocaust denial.

[bradleym]

I think all Friedman is saying is that the experience of China's new infrastructure points up the need for us to upgrade our own, but that we still remain a more open and creative society, so we'll probably do just fine over time.

 

There are, of course, many ways one might question those assertions, identify and critique his assumptions or demand additional clarification. Faith in technology, for example, might be one place to start. Is the 'green economy' simply the latest whiz-bang myth propagated by our capitalist overlords to maintain control?

 

Is the new boss the same as the old boss, and friedman merely a mouthpiece?

[prole]

Thomas Friedman is the definition of a whiz-bang myth producer. "Globalization", "American Empire", "Green Capitalism": This bloated, egomaniacal gasbag would would try to convince Americans to consume their own excrement if he thought he could keep his NYT job and morons reading his books. Don't worry, just like his other "ideas", this one will be circling the memory-hole bowl in five years while he's convincing of his next great "discovery".

[bradleym]

Thomas Friedman is the definition of a whiz-bang myth producer. "Globalization", "American Empire", "Green Capitalism": This bloated, egomaniacal gasbag would would try to convince Americans to consume their own excrement if he thought he could keep his NYT job and morons reading his books. Don't worry, just like his other "ideas", this one will be circling the memory-hole bowl in five years while he's convincing of his next great "discovery".

 

prole, your logic is unstoppable.

[STP]

I think all Friedman is saying is that the experience of China's new infrastructure points up the need for us to upgrade our own, but that we still remain a more open and creative society, so we'll probably do just fine over time.

 

There are, of course, many ways one might question those assertions, identify and critique his assumptions or demand additional clarification. Faith in technology, for example, might be one place to start. Is the 'green economy' simply the latest whiz-bang myth propagated by our capitalist overlords to maintain control?

 

Is the new boss the same as the old boss, and friedman merely a mouthpiece?

 

Look I'm not an economist either. And although I'm not a journalist by trade, I fulfill a similar function as him, as propagandist. But I don’t feel as bound as he appears to be by ideology. I spend a lot of time trying on ideas since I frequently have more questions than answers.

 

So it comes down to this: even the expert economists are having a difficult time with explanatory models and their depictions of reality: Blindsided by crisis, economists rethink profession along with theories—The Boston Globe.

 

Personally, I think economists do interesting work, for instance: Estimating the Economic Value of Ice Climbing in Hyalite Canyon: An Application of Travel Cost Count Data Models that Account for Excess Zeros--Social Science Research Network (as referenced here: http://paul.kedrosky.com/).

 

But the work I find most interesting are those efforts that examine the intersection with the moral dimension. Maybe Friedman does that. But to some extent, it is about control, for instance, to increase consumption patterns by seeking to understand human behavior.

 

So, here’s the digg [sic], I have a hard time with justifying the fleecing of America by people who see that the larger goal of profit-making takes precedence at the expense of and over the welfare of the people. I don’t have specific qualms about the goal of the business model but about the ethics of means.

 

Once upon a time a man appeared in a village and announced to the villagers that he would buy monkeys for $10 each.

 

The villagers, seeing that there were many monkeys around, went out to the forest and started catching them. The man bought thousands at $10 and, as supply started to diminish, the villagers stopped their effort. He next announced that he would now buy monkeys at $20 each. This renewed the efforts of the villagers and they started catching monkeys again. Soon the supply diminished even further and people started going back to their farms. The offer increased to $25 each and the supply of monkeys became so scarce it was an effort to even find a monkey, let alone catch it! The man now announced that he would buy monkeys at $50 each! However, since he had to go to the city on some business, his assistant would buy on his behalf. In the absence of the man, the assistant told the villagers: ‘Look at all these monkeys in the big cage that the man has already collected. I will sell them to you at $35 and when the man returns from the city, you can sell them to him for $50 each.’ The villagers rounded up all their savings and bought all the monkeys for 700 billion dollars.

 

They never saw the man or his assistant again, only lots and lots of monkeys!

--source: Millions of monkeys

 

So, when a financier produces an exotic instrument whereby someone of lesser means can achieve the unthought-of, then that raises a red flag. It’s ok in a limited sense but when it balloons to the extent where it can produce the effects that we’re seeing, then something’s fucking rotten in the state of Denmark.

 

Here’s a graphic to ponder: http://voltagecreative.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/bailout-pie.png

 

[j_b]

Friedman is a warmonger who hasn't found a war of agression we conducted that he didn't like, a neoliberal who never saw the need for fairness in so-called 'free trade', an "environmentalist" who sings the virtues of oxymoronic "clean coal", etc ... To be succinct, he has no credibility because he has been on the wrong side of every single issue we had to contend with.

 

Yet, Friedman is widely regarded as a progressive whereas he is the epitomization of the corporate media that masquerades as 'librul media'.

[billcoe]

.....I'm not a journalist by trade, I fulfill a similar function as him, as propagandist. But I don’t feel as bound as he appears to be by ideology. I spend a lot of time trying on ideas since I frequently have more questions than answers.

 

So it comes down to this: even the expert economists are having a difficult time with explanatory models and their depictions of reality: Blindsided by crisis, economists rethink profession along with theories—The Boston Globe.

 

Personally, I think economists do interesting work, for instance: Estimating the Economic Value of Ice Climbing in Hyalite Canyon: An Application of Travel Cost Count Data Models that Account for Excess Zeros--Social Science Research Network (as referenced here: http://paul.kedrosky.com/).

 

But the work I find most interesting are those efforts that examine the intersection with the moral dimension. Maybe Friedman does that. But to some extent, it is about control, for instance, to increase consumption patterns by seeking to understand human behavior.

 

So, here’s the digg [sic], I have a hard time with justifying the fleecing of America by people who see that the larger goal of profit-making takes precedence at the expense of and over the welfare of the people. I don’t have specific qualms about the goal of the business model but about the ethics of means.

 

Once upon a time a man appeared in a village and announced to the villagers that he would buy monkeys for $10 each.

 

The villagers, seeing that there were many monkeys around, went out to the forest and started catching them. The man bought thousands at $10 and, as supply started to diminish, the villagers stopped their effort. He next announced that he would now buy monkeys at $20 each. This renewed the efforts of the villagers and they started catching monkeys again. Soon the supply diminished even further and people started going back to their farms. The offer increased to $25 each and the supply of monkeys became so scarce it was an effort to even find a monkey, let alone catch it! The man now announced that he would buy monkeys at $50 each! However, since he had to go to the city on some business, his assistant would buy on his behalf. In the absence of the man, the assistant told the villagers: ‘Look at all these monkeys in the big cage that the man has already collected. I will sell them to you at $35 and when the man returns from the city, you can sell them to him for $50 each.’ The villagers rounded up all their savings and bought all the monkeys for 700 billion dollars.

 

They never saw the man or his assistant again, only lots and lots of monkeys!

--source: Millions of monkeys

 

So, when a financier produces an exotic instrument whereby someone of lesser means can achieve the unthought-of, then that raises a red flag. It’s ok in a limited sense but when it balloons to the extent where it can produce the effects that we’re seeing, then something’s fucking rotten in the state of Denmark.

 

Here’s a graphic to ponder: http://voltagecreative.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/bailout-pie.png

 

You're a damn breath of fresh air STP. Someone who not only READS the link, but comments on it directly and also airs some interesting personal ideas as well that relate. You contribute a lot to the subject, unlike some (Prole and Jb), who would appear to not be bothered to read the link or the story but just attack the writer without bothering to add links or any extraneous supporting documentation on their weak-asses opinion and blowhard assertions. Somehow they expect us to either take them seriously and/or find their hot air and public flatulence interesting.

 

Although I don't know why. But thank you for those posts and the contributions.

 

ps, Monkeys at $35 seems like a fair price to me. Put me down for 3-4 and I'll have them out typing and out thinking both Prole and JB in the spray thread and save myself some work.

Edited December 27, 2008 by billcoe

[j_b]

You're a damn breath of fresh air STP. Someone who not only READS the link, but comments on it directly and also airs some interesting personal ideas as well that relate. You contribute a lot to the subject, unlike some (Prole and Jb), who would appear to not be bothered to read the link or the story but just attack the writer without bothering to add links or any extraneous supporting documentation on their weak-asses opinion and blowhard assertions. Somehow they expect us to either take them seriously and/or find their hot air and public flatulence interesting.

 

I am certainly not going to credibilize Friedman the opportunist by discussing his newest attempt at promoting his new book without mentionning he has been wrong on most counts in the past.

 

If Bill needs to be educated on how to find out what Friedman said about so-called 'free trade', the Iraq war, so-called 'clean coal', etc ... he should let us know and I'll be glad to give him a lesson.

 

 

[billcoe]

......see what I mean? All opinion all the time. No links or corroborating evidence. If it's anecdotal it's in! must be the theme there. Wheres my Monkeys?

[j_b]

......see what I mean? Wheres my Monkeys?

 

I see that you'd rather conduct ad-hominem attacks instead of countering anything I say. Before a moron says it: no, my comments on Friedman aren't ad-hominem but specific about his stance on issues. If anybody would like citations, let me know and I'll be glad to oblige.

[j_b]

Ok Bill, I'll take the time to give you citations and links that are wodely available on the internet but before I do so I want to make sure you won't run away without acknowledging you attacked my person without asking for corroborating evidence of my assertions. Are we clear on that?

[j_b]

Edit for error. My previous posts stand.

Edited December 27, 2008 by j_b

[j_b]

Here it goes Bill since you had to go Don't choke on it. Out of countless hits on Google, I choose wikipedia for you. You know that super secret site you probably never heard about. I suspect it also needs pointing out that the original sources for wiki are listed at the end of the article.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman#War_in_Iraq

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman#General_Criticisms

 

 

[bradleym]

Here it goes Bill since you had to go Don't choke on it. Out of countless hits on Google, I choose wikipedia for you. You know that super secret site you probably never heard about. I suspect it also needs pointing out that the original sources for wiki are listed at the end of the article.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman#War_in_Iraq

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman#General_Criticisms

 

 

why not just react, positively or negatively or indifferently, to what friedman said in this op-ed piece? i read lots of people with whom i disagree, often stridently, but i find they also often say things that get me thinking, even if i still disagree.

 

by responding with 'friedman is an idiot gasbag' you miss an opportunity to influence or educate those of us who do not share your experience.

[G-spotter]

Friedman is an idiot gasbag, sure. But even idiot gabags can be right (although it may be by accident rather than design).

 

To put down an idea because of the character of the person who espouses it is indeed one of the simplest logical fallacies.

[j_b]

Friedman is an idiot gasbag, sure. But even idiot gabags can be right (although it may be by accident rather than design).

 

or occasionally appears to be right by parroting the appropriate jargon yet advocates fixes that would mostly translate into business as usual. Example: Friedman says he want to promote "clean" energy but he puts solar and wind on the same footing as coal, nuclear and sugar cane ethanol. In particular, he wants to heavily subsidize nuclear.

 

To put down an idea because of the character of the person who espouses it is indeed one of the simplest logical fallacies.

 

I first said that he routinely advocated conservative ideas and was spectacularly wrong on most counts in the past, yet he was perceived as a liberal. Batting average matters and cannot be ignored for someone whose ideas get so much exposure. Granted, I later added that he was an opportunist, which can be perceived as an attack on his character, but it is also supported by significant evidence and is totally relevant to his newfound enthusisam for investing in infrastructure and "clean" energy. Anyone can reinvent themselves but doing so requires some kind of explication.

[G-spotter]

Nuclear is an option that should not be ruled out. Look at France.

 

Sugar cane ethanol is pretty good when you compare it to corn, or indeed, to most other current options. Especially Brazilian sugarcane. As a bridge to cellulosic or algal/microbial fuels it should definitely be pursued.

 

If someone radically changes their position you can usually count it as an admission that their previous position was wrong. What are you looking for, a visit to j_b's confession box for some "forgive me I have sinned" BS?

[j_b]

 

why not just react, positively or negatively or indifferently, to what friedman said in this op-ed piece? i read lots of people with whom i disagree, often stridently, but i find they also often say things that get me thinking, even if i still disagree.

 

I do too but Friedman has crossed my threshold too many times. The only thing that should matter is for him to lose his pulpit. Debating "his latest ideas" as if he was credible won't help in that respect. Note that I am not trying to prevent anyone from discussing his opinions, but I'll remind folks of his batting average.

 

by responding with 'friedman is an idiot gasbag' you miss an opportunity to influence or educate those of us who do not share your experience.

 

I didn't say that even though I think it is true but I pointed out some of his previous opinions. You do not give enough credit to people for recognizing that someone who has been wrong on most counts should barely be trusted.

[j_b]

Nuclear is an option that should not be ruled out. Look at France.

 

Nuclear has important unresolved issues (safety, waste, proliferation, ...) and is very expensive and will remain so no matter the economies of scale. It isn't renewable. None of these problems exist with true renewables like wind and solar.

 

Sugar cane ethanol is pretty good when you compare it to corn, or indeed, to most other current options. Especially Brazilian sugarcane. As a bridge to cellulosic or algal/microbial fuels it should definitely be pursued.

 

mass produced sugar cane ethanol results from intensive monoculture and raises the same kind of sustainability issues (soils, fertilizers, ..).

 

If someone radically changes their position you can usually count it as an admission that their previous position was wrong. What are you looking for, a visit to j_b's confession box for some "forgive me I have sinned" BS?

 

cheap shot. We don't even know if he thinks he changed opinion.

[G-spotter]

Nulear safety, waste and proliferation all combined look like not much of a hazard when stacked up against climate-related death and displacements. That said I'd still rather not have a nuke plant in my vicinity. But then again >90% of my power consumption comes from hydro.

[j_b]

We have limited funds so why bother with pushing for more dirty nuclear when we could use all of our money in cleaner, forever unlimited and ultimately cheaper sources of energy?