Its Time to Merge Business and Politics

Before economics became a separate branch of study, scholars like Adam Smith used to write as political economists, examining the nature of production and its relationship to government. The fields have since split, and while there are those who specialize in political economy, there's a basic divide between political scientists, who study politics, and economists, who study ecologies of production. We see that in our newspapers too--a section on politics, a section on business, and while the twain meet from time to time, they are generally treated as distinct.

This divide is dangerous today--even as fewer and fewer people read newspapers in its section form--because it has reinforced in the culture a sense that economics, and business, is a separate expertise, somehow removed from questions of politics. Of the dozens of panels I've watched on the financial crisis, almost all are populated entirely by people with a financial services background and economists. As Simon Johnson regularly points out, there's a missing element here--this is a political crisis as much as an economic one.

This category choices: the financial crisis nomenclature, the choice of panelists, the choice of experts--it itself reinforces the idea that economics can be understood separately from politics, and that, as so many have suggested implicitly or directly, it would be far better if we could keep this roudy Congress out of it.

Instead, I think we ought be pressing to encourage Congress to be more involved in responding to the crisis. I am heartened by proposals for a new Pecora Commission, and I'm hopeful that Congress will start to use more of its muscle to bring forward new proposals, countering the administrations. Why? Because business and politics are already merged, but if we want people to feel more competent, to feel the power that they actually have (but aren't always sure how to use) over the future of how we live, how we produce, and what we produce, we need to get over this artificial divide between economics and politics.

I'd like to see the business writers doing more political writing, and vice versa. I'd like to see much more economic education in schools. I'd like to see clear, simple, five minute explanations of PPIP and TARP that I can find on youtube.

And the questions of production, of what we want to treat as "too big to fail," of what companies we want to bail out, are deeply political questions, not questions for experts, but choices for citizens. Informed citizens, yes, but citizens.

Comments (62)

1. Lets see if I got this: 1) people treat politics and economics as seperate topics. 2)This is dangerous 3)Because politics and economics are intertwined. 4)congress needs to be more involved in the crisis 5)because this will empower the people to be more involved. 6) the writer does not understand TARP or PPIP, and thinks that the notion of too big to fail is a political question.

   Ok...

   Posted by Extraneous at 05/01/2009 @ 2:23pm

2. And the questions of production, of what we want to treat as "too big to fail," of what companies we want to bail out, are deeply political questions, not questions for experts, but choices for citizens. Informed citizens, yes, but citizens

   Outside of Washington where both Republicans and Democrats tend to support bailouts, there is agreement between both the left and the right that bailouts are bad for America.

   While we do so for different reasons, it is important to note that politicians (conservative and liberal) are almost always led to vote for their own interests rather than what the constitution directs them to do. There are exceptions, but they are few.

   If we ever want to see true representative govt again, it is not campaign finance reform, but term limits that would have a greater impact. Since both solutions have constitutional questions, it will probably require some kind of constitutional amendment to see this kind of change. And since all such amendments are normally initiated by Congress, we have an alternative but harder avenue to proceed.

   Article V

   "Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States"

   Posted by antisocialist at 05/01/2009 @ 2:28pm

3. The motivations of businesspeople are predictable and obvious.

   The motivations of politicians are unpredictable and often hidden.

   To mix business people and politicians is a roadmap for disaster.

   If you put two businesspeople in a room together they will soon talk about how they want to eliminate competition and secure their markets. The easiest way to do that is to recruit politicians and leverage the FORCE of government to that end. That explains the banking cartel we know as the Federal Reserve.

   Consumers have ultimate power over corporations until politicians get in the way.

   There is an important necessary and appropriate, non-partisan regulatory role for government.

   But to suggest a greater role for Congress in our economy and business sector is pure folly.

   Read Sowell's "Basic Economics".

   Posted by freiheit1 at 05/01/2009 @ 2:41pm

4. Happy May Day. Every academic discipline has gotten more specialized as society has gotten more complicated. However, economists have tried present their discipline as a mathematically driven analog to the natural sciences, which of course it isn't. GIGO, as they say. This presentation of economics as "objective" has been complementary to the idolatry of the "invisible hand" of the marketplace. Under the neocon scenario, government's only role is to quash any attempt by the working class to set up the kind of economy that would benefit the most people. Most people realize that Congress makes policy every day that affects the economy, business and the distribution of resources (our entire ridiculously complicated tax code, for instance). If you read any of the popular writing by Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz or Naomi Klein, you get a full dose of the relationship between politics and economics. You are right that in school they do not teach enough about the actual decisions about the economy that were made by the American public (through their politicians)from the get-go. Neo-con propaganda has left alot of people confused about the historical relationship of the government and business. That said, I think that although your point comes off as one of mere multidisciplinarity, the debate you are proposing really is about who controls the distribution of resources, wealth and opportunity. So could we please not tiptoe around the word socialism and in so doing toss out the work of many brilliant thinkers and the sacrifices of many determined workers who gave us our relatively humane world.

   Posted by cdlepthien at 05/01/2009 @ 3:13pm

5. As I recall, the last major writer to invoke the language of "political economy" was Karl Marx. (The subtitle of CAPITAL is A CRITIQUE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, making it the last of several critiques on that subject that Marx had published.) Do you really think that ours is a culture that would accept terminology previously embraced by Marx?

   Posted by smoliar at 05/01/2009 @ 3:46pm

6. How disheartening to see so many comments who so completely fail to understand what the article is trying to communicate. Lets keep it simple. 1) Government is of the people, by the people, for the people. In our form of government, government is the people. 2) Free market capitalism is a choice we make. We choose all its manifestations. We can have all of it, parts of it, or none of it. 3) When enormous wealth combines with government to write the rules, democracy changes. Increasing the power and wealth of the wealthy class becomes paramount to the interests of the vast underclasses. 4) Thus the situation we're currently in. Until the economic meltdown, Wall Street was absorbing 41% of total corporate profits. Government was complicit in this enormous transfer of wealth because it instituted a legal framework which allowed investment banks to create, own (at enormous leverage) or sell financial products which were little more than gambling bets. 5) Basically, the largest financial firms on Wallstreet, through the magic of leveraging (sometimes up to 40 to 1), became little more than casinos that could not pay if they lost their bets. 5) They lost their bets and the taxpayer had to step in to cover their losses because they were so big, their failure meant a meltdown of the financial structure of the world. 6) Government had and has the power to decrease their leverage and also to break them up so they are forced to gamble with more of their own money, and if they fail, they alone suffer. 7) Because government is engaged in the endeavor of politics and it sets the rules on Wall Street, politics and economics have combined to create this mess. Ergo: economics and politics should be viewed together to solve the current economic problems.

   Posted by ErrolCarlsen at 05/01/2009 @ 5:00pm

7. How disheartening to see so many comments who so completely fail to understand what the article is trying to communicate. Lets keep it simple.

   Posted by ErrolCarlsen at 05/01/2009 @ 5:00pm

   While I agree with your interpretation of what the article COULD have been about, how ecomomy and politics are intertwined. The failure is not by the commenters, but by the writer of the article to articulate. Which was my initial point.

   Posted by Extraneous at 05/01/2009 @ 5:17pm

8. Consumers have ultimate power over corporations until politicians get in the way.

   There is an important necessary and appropriate, non-partisan regulatory role for government.

   But to suggest a greater role for Congress in our economy and business sector is pure folly.

   Posted by freiheit1 at 05/01/2009 @ 2:41pm

   I am not sure I am following your argument. Theoretically consumers have power over corporations. But we need government constraints to keep businesses from running rough shod over the public. We need the labor laws, that insure fair and humane practices, we need the environmental regulations to protect resources for future generations and for economic sustainability. What I see as a major problem is the amount of control that corporations and business interests have over our government. What we need is not less goverment control of the economic sector, but less economic control over the government. I would suggest we get rid of the influence of lobbyists, both those representing Monsanto or big oil and those from the Sierra Club and unions.

   Posted by Extraneous at 05/01/2009 @ 5:30pm

9. More fuel on the fire fully demonstrating that leftist have NO reguard for the constitution of the U.S.A. or the tenants of the "rule of law". It's only a question of when will they completely shread what is left of it and the bill of rights.

   Posted by comancheamerican at 05/01/2009 @ 6:22pm

10. Unfettered capitalist and business interests have clearly failed. There must be a happy medium of reasonable government regulation that keeps the darker impulses of the market at bay without unduly hampering commerce.

    The right clearly is irrelevant because it doesn't recognize any need for the government in this area. Our best hope is that congress can stand up to monied interests. Today's rejection of senator Levin's amendment on mortgages is not encouraging.

    Posted by erazma at 05/01/2009 @ 8:35pm

11. Posted by erazma at 05/01/2009 @ 8:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You favor government dictating the economics of business? What is that called, and how is it constitutional according to the laws of the land?

    Posted by comancheamerican at 05/01/2009 @ 9:10pm

12. Posted by antisocialist at 05/01/2009 @ 2:28pm

    As much as I agree with you, term limits ARE needed, I don't see Article V ever happening sadly and we all know Congress will never give themselves term limits.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/01/2009 @ 9:26pm

13. "The motivations of politicians are unpredictable and often hidden.

    To mix business people and politicians is a roadmap for disaster. "

    They are already mixed. Business people deal with politicians constantly. Lobbyists are who they use for it. Every major business has some sort of political division.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/01/2009 @ 9:27pm

14. It's simple. Despise bailouts all you want, but what was the alternative?

    The "too big to fail" status is the problem. If these firms are too big to fail and require a Govt. insurance program like TARP or FDIC, then they need regulation.

    Posted by koroviev at 05/01/2009 @ 10:31pm

15. screw all this nonsense.

    it's time to watch snowball!

    to whit:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOZp2ZftCw&feature=channel&fmt=18

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/01/2009 @ 11:13pm

16. "Unfettered capitalist and business interests ..."

    Posted by erazma at 05/01/2009 @ 8:35pm

    Unfettered capitalism? Where has that happened? Not in this country, that's for sure.

    Posted by twillie at 05/01/2009 @ 11:27pm

17. Posted by comancheamerican at 05/01/2009 @ 6:22pm

    So....what's your escape plan?

    Posted by Mask at 05/02/2009 @ 06:49am

18. Posted by twillie at 05/01/2009 @ 11:27pm

    True, during most of the 20th Century...and what was it like when it was unfettered back in the 19th Century?

    Posted by Mask at 05/02/2009 @ 06:50am

19. my point about 'unfettered' capitalism and regulation was simply that some middle ground needs to be reached between the two. Business must accept regulations designed to protect american workers without unduly hampering growth.

    I believe this is possible. It seems that the conservatism/libertarianism of many don't...so we disagree.

    Posted by erazma at 05/02/2009 @ 06:55am

20. 'Before economics became a separate branch of study, scholars like Adam Smith used to write as political economists, examining the nature of production and its relationship to government. The fields have since split, and while there are those who specialize in political economy, there's a basic divide between political scientists, who study politics, and economists, who study ecologies of production.'

    If this statement by ZT is true, and if "smoliar" is right that 'the last major writer to invoke the language of "political economy" was Karl Marx,' then it seems that in one respect at least, Marx was the last truly classical economist.

    In some respects, every science is political, and I can agree with ZT that we should be aware of this fact rather than try to ignore it. However, I would not go so far as to suggest that the political aspect of any science is actually a virtue. On the contrary, it is a vice, albeit one that is unavoidable.

    What I can say with confidence about Marx is that he absolutely did not want to "politicize" economics. He wanted so "scientize" it, but he knew that much of his commentary would have to address the political misconceptions of the capitalist apologists of his day.

    I will say one other thing about all of the sciences. All scientists need to recognize that their view of the world is partial. This is true even of ecologists, whose discipline is by nature more holistic than any other. Economics is much less holistic than ecology, but because economics promises wealth, it enjoys prestige that is far in excess of its actual truth value.

    So here's the "political" solution that I suggest: (1) Dethrone economics and elevate ecology to equal status. (2) Then seek interdisciplinary solutions to our most daunting problems.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 05/02/2009 @ 07:23am

21. I would like to add that many of our seemingly "economic" problems are actually ecological. They result from the limits to economic growth on a finite planet, which we are presently approaching.

    The "too big to fail" problem illustrates my point well. If the economy were truly perpetually expandable rather than finite, it would never be a problem for any corporation, or government for that matter, to get big, because this would not limit any other competing institution's ability to get big as well. It is the limits to growth that make it a problem.

    What we are discovering is that capitalism really does work like the MONOPOLY game, after all. The earth is a much bigger playing field than the MONOPOLY game board, but it, too, is finite in size and has limits. If the biggest corporations are permitted to grow without limits, they eventually come to own the board, and when they do, the rest of us become poor and powerless.

    The purpose of government is not simply to sit there and let the biggest corporations win the game - at everybody else's expense. Nor is it the government's purpose to accelerate monopolization by dishing out rewards to those corporations that are "too big to fail," while letting others go bankrupt. The purpose of government is to keep the game going, so that our economy does not end up like a MONOPOLY game. This requires regulation and occasional intervention (and the more effective the former becomes, the less frequent the latter will be). It also requires a concept of what the proper scale of a corporation should be - as ZT has wisely suggested before.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 05/02/2009 @ 07:47am

22. Let's see an ethics investigation into Ben Nelson's disgusting marriage of economics and politics!

    Posted by jkfields at 05/02/2009 @ 09:13am

23. Posted by erazma at 05/01/2009 @ 8:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You favor government dictating the economics of business? What is that called, and how is it constitutional according to the laws of the land?

    Posted by comancheamerican at 05/01/2009 @ 6:22pm

    So....what's your escape plan?

    Posted by Mask at 05/02/2009 @ 06:49am | ignore this person | warn this person

    -----------

    An answer wasn't expected, only disassociate ramblings from leftist as usual, or idiocy from Mask. Few on the side of anti-American hatred are morally honest enough to admit they would rather live under socialist or marxist dictatorships they so admire, but only from afar since in reality they would otherwise be the first executed or cowardly colaborrators!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 05/02/2009 @ 10:14am

24. The simple reality, for individuals as well as our larger institutions is that we're all spending our lives working for banks. Keep that credit score high enough to satisfy that bank! Let our nation pour our money into those banks that have failed in the hopes that they'll lend us money (at the conditions the banks proscribe). The term "democracy" becomes a sick ugly joke in an environment in which money holds the only real power. The terms "economy" and "politics" both describe choices, on individual and community levels. Politics exists only as window dressing if choices are available only to those with money. My dream is that we will finally realize that playing by the rules we so desperately adhere to will only provide us enough money to keep working for the people who have enough money to make the real choices.

    Posted by amd at 05/02/2009 @ 10:34am

25. Posted by comancheamerican at 05/01/2009 @ 6:22pm So....what's your escape plan? Posted by Mask at 05/02/2009 @ 06:49am

    It involves a lot of marbles. Find the lost marbles and he can safely roll out of the country. I sent him some.

    And as to the article: When HASN'T business and government been deeply intertwined? Kind of a silly point with a bunch of wishful thinking in hot pursuit. We are now at the point where the dangers and disasters are making themselves abundantly clear. We are a selfish nation; only the most selfish survive. It's pretty clear that capitalism leads to an endgame where the strong get stronger, the weak are completely marginalized... then the rich eat each other. Mmmm.

    Posted by ficheye at 05/02/2009 @ 11:47am

26. We are a selfish nation; only the most selfish survive. It's pretty clear that capitalism leads to an endgame where the strong get stronger, the weak are completely marginalized... then the rich eat each other. Mmmm. Posted by ficheye at 05/02/2009 @ 11:47am

    Whereas, socialism leads to an endgame like that of East Germany and the Soviet Union, circa 1980s.

    Posted by twillie at 05/02/2009 @ 12:20pm

27. posted by Zephyr Teachout on 05/01/2009 @ 1:59pm - in part:

    "As Simon Johnson regularly points out, there's a missing element here--this is a political crisis as much as an economic one."

    Correct, but not for the reasons I suspect Mr. Johnson agrees with. The political component of the current economic crisis is the arrogance politicians possessed that they felt the imposition of their ideology on economic reality would have only their intended results. Good intentions do not justify ignoring history, reality and common sense. But apparently they are an excuse for being held responsible for those actions.

    Posted by Incoming at 05/02/2009 @ 12:21pm

28. When our forefathers insisted on the separation of church and state, they had had a great deal of experience with the 'problems' that can arise when church and state are intertwined.

    Today... the national stage looks very different. What was once a conglomeration of small businesses loosely tied together within an artisan/mercantile framework with very little government/business collusion... has become an oligarchical obsession with centralization, manipulation and control.

    By my way of thinking... a Democracy ought to be directed by the general welfare of it's people... rather than the impersonal monopolistic tendencies of it's businesses.

    This was not an issue at the time of the Constitution's ratification... and neither was the environment.

    I have long been a proponent of the separation of business and state... because government is a system of checks and balances... with it's final arbiter being the welfare of the American people.

    Big business has proven it's incapacity to do this... since the dawning of the first day of the 'industrial revolution'.

    We've got to get our priorities right... and the American people need to get their act together... no matter how strong our affection is for our 'corporate welfare state'.

    Business lobbies need strict accountable regulation... if indeed they can be allowed at all. Congress has largely forgotten who they are working for.

    Posted by ttr at 05/02/2009 @ 1:33pm

29. Posted by ttr at 05/02/2009 @ 1:33pm - in part:

    "Congress has largely forgotten who they are working for."

    No, they haven't. Once elected, they have one job and one job only, to get re-elected. They work for themselves.

    Posted by Incoming at 05/02/2009 @ 2:00pm

30. Whereas, socialism leads to an endgame like that of East Germany and the Soviet Union, circa 1980s. Posted by twillie at 05/02/2009 @ 12:20pm

    To assume that socialism is the only alternative to capitalism isn't much of a rejoinder.

    We're Americans. We can reinvent ourselves. A system that is a combination of socialism and capitalism is probably what's called for, since pure capitalism doesn't take into account the little guy very often, or at all. Idealistic, I admit. But this system got broke long before Obama came to the helm, much to the chagrin of many conservatives

    And let's not forget that the whole system is supposed to be shaped by the basic concepts of democracy, not the other way around.

    Posted by ficheye at 05/02/2009 @ 2:51pm

31. Just a brief comment before I go back to the enjoyment of a beautiful afternoon.

    Fabian is on target with the need to elevate the importance of ecology --always enjoy your thoughtful posts, by the way. I would add that science generally needs to be brought more to bear in our politics, and our educational system needs to better prepare its students to think critically and analytically with an emphasis on humanitarianism and our place in the larger context of a mind-blowingly complex and interlinked system of living organisms/ecosystems. Personal finance would make a fine capstone for high school seniors in the context of written expository skills and an understanding of limited resources, and the (now almost self-evident) wisdom of frugality.

    Peace o' cake --pun intended.

    I'm certain our capitalist system is all about my ideas just exposited!

    In reference to socialism, we should understand that much of the guiding "principle" for American foreign policy has been geared toward a stark overreaction to anything smacking of the faintest whiff of socialism. Tim Wiener's recent masterwork, "Legacy of Ashes" on the 60 year debacle that is our CIA, won a pulitzer prize for detailing the men (mostly) and events.

    William Blum's "Killing Hope" has been around since 1986 and does an even better job of putting the "American Holocaust" into perspective --sounds a bit shrill until you read the magnificently documented book.

    What we have here people, is not just a failure to communicate, but evolution at the level of human activity.

    What we need is a greatly increased ability to cooperate --before it's too late, quite frankly.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/02/2009 @ 4:19pm

32. Posted by "Incoming" at 2:00pm

    I nominate you for best handle I've ever seen on a blog page.

    On target, over.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/02/2009 @ 4:23pm

33. Clarification.....

    Referring specifically to the handle, not necessarily to the opinions posted.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/02/2009 @ 4:59pm

34. Hey, a 50-1 shot, "Mine that Bird", just won the derby. The jockey just flaunted his horse in front of the crowd --the horse cost $9500 by the way. Pretty funny.

    Hmmmm.

    I wonder who cashed in on that victory?

    Let the investigations begin.

    :D

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/02/2009 @ 5:47pm

35. Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/02/2009 @ 4:59pm - in part:

    " not necessarily to the opinions posted."

    I don't want you to agree with my opinions, I want you to question yours, as I question mine on a daily basis. That is where the strength of conviction is born. By evaluating an alternative position instead of childishly dismissing it, you can challenge its weaknesses and embrace its strengths. Now I am not implying that you are guilty of the aforementioned lack of honest assessment, but too many are. If we aren't willing to hold our leaders and ideals to the same scrutiny we hold the opposition, how are we different?

    Posted by Incoming at 05/02/2009 @ 5:50pm

36. My clarification was only in light of the fact that I'm not familiar with you as a poster here so I wanted to distinguish that point.

    You haven't said anything that strikes me as off key, and you sound like you're probably on my general wavelength.

    Peace, dude.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/02/2009 @ 6:01pm

37. Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/02/2009 @ 6:01pm

    I come and go here and at a wide range of ideological opinion sites. As I mentioned, I believe you strengthen your ideals through honest assessment of alternatives. I try not to convert anyone to a different way thinking, I simply want people to think. As far as posting, I don't need to be heard, but am heard when there is a need.

    Be Good Brother

    Posted by Incoming at 05/02/2009 @ 6:32pm

38. That was some pretty fly moves for a white guy.

    Great vid, dude.

    Your blog posts are even more impressive to me now as well.

    You are truly the Archimedes of the Macaws*.

    *Archimedes of the Macaques is a very cool chapter in a very cool book, "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors".

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/02/2009 @ 7:46pm

39. May be a little off topic but we have been further down what some people here call "socialism". The most successful "welfare states" are not socialistic. Those that work very well, like mine, get their funds from the taxes that 21st C "capitalism" generates through company profits and tax on wages paid to employees. The company untaxed portion goes to keeping employment levels at the historically low levels we have seen in recent years. (Even ten percent is pretty modest by "great depression standards).

    Our centre left government's first move in this financial crisis was to guarantee all private bank (there are no government owned banks) deposits for three years.

    That move is surely saying as is the Obama administration, by its actions, that the "free enterprise" system, or whatever one likes to call it, is considered by them ( ours and your government) to be the best system to generate wealth, employment opportunities and optimize income to fund a state's expenditures.

    Incidentally back a few decades ago an alternative approach to business was all the go here and in Europe. It was to have worker representation on boards, if not control of the business. This "revolutionary" idea lost favour here when a few large businesses in retailing and petrol (gas) distribution, bought by union money and controlled by the worker's representatives went broke, in next to no time under their control.

    Workers (blue collar) it seems are best kept out of the boardroom and left on the work bench. It's probably about diversity of skills and horses for courses.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 05/02/2009 @ 11:01pm

40. ...further (down the road of) what...

    Posted by lrjones4 at 05/02/2009 @ 11:09pm

41. Jonesy,

    Speaking of "horses for courses".......

    Here's a fine blast from the past:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCKaTkxDSWs

    THE POWERS THAT BE They like a tough game No rules Some you win, some you lose Competition's good for you They're dying to be free They're the powers that be They like a bomb proof cadillac Air conditioned, gold taps, Back seat gun rack, platinum hub caps They pick horses for courses They're the market forces Nice car Jack They like order, make-up, lime light power Game shows, rodeos, star wars, TV They're the powers that be If you see them come, You better run - run You better run on home

    Sisters of mercy better join your brothers Put a stop to the soap opera right now They say the toothless get ruthless You better run on home

    You better run - run You better run on home

    The powers that be They like treats, tricks, carrots and sticks They like fear and loathing, they like sheep's clothing And blacked-out vans

    Blacked-out vans, contingency plans They like death or glory, they love a good story They love a good story

    Sisters of mercy better join with your brothers Put a stop to the soap opera state They say the toothless get ruthless Run home before its too late You better run - run You better run on home

    ~Roger Waters from the "Radio KAOS" record

    Here's a video for the next track on the record after Powers That Be:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHWszLC8CNE&NR=1

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/02/2009 @ 11:34pm

42. Mr. Linguist,

    If you're not particularly interested in the above I have something perhaps more stimulating here:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOQ3LnA2lSU&feature=featured

    She's a cunning linguist herself, I'm quite sure.

    Now, which post was more to your liking Jonesy? It's a free market choice. Just let your free will do the talking, er.....let your fingers do the walking --or whatever the marketing slogan was.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/02/2009 @ 11:42pm

43. Posted by JakobFabian at 05/02/2009 @ 07:23am

    Very rational and well thought out and who could disagree with your identification of the malaise.

    None except the developing nations. Both China's and India's approach to the ecology equation is their peoples are entitled to the same per capita GHG emissions as say, Americans. The below is more likely to be the way real world deals ecology and Monopoly for some time yet:

    Jamie Walker and Michael Owen

    May 02, 2009

    Article from: The Australian

    BHP Billiton has shrugged off the global economic blues to press ahead with plans to turn its Olympic Dam mine in South Australia into the largest open cut on earth and help kick the economy back into prosperity.

    But the company will stick to its controversial plan to send uranium-infused copper concentrate to China for processing, if it moves ahead with the multi-billion-dollar expansion.

    A 4600-page environmental impact statement, released by the company yesterday, set out an ambitious timetable for the conversion of the copper, gold, silver and uranium mine from underground to pit operations. Preparatory work would start as early as April next year, with excavation scheduled for July.

    Under the plan, the mine's workforce would double from 4000 to 8000 when it reached full capacity next decade.

    The open cut envisaged by BHP Billiton at Olympic Dam would become the biggest man-made hole on the planet and yield $1 trillion worth of ore over its century-long life, more than $100 million of which would be paid in royalties to the South Australian Government. Production would lift sixfold from 12million tonnes of ore a year to 72 million tonnes after 2020.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 05/03/2009 @ 01:16am

44. Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/02/2009 @ 11:42pm

    Liked the Welsh dragon but couldn't get into the spirit of things until the sheilas started gyrating in the background. That's the beauty of the market driven economy.

    Liked the Derby (Darby in English) one. Always had a weakness for dumb blondes.

    Gotta say you're a classy lot over there.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 05/03/2009 @ 01:47am

45. Now this is real class.

    http://tinyurl.com/c4tf6l

    Posted by lrjones4 at 05/03/2009 @ 02:14am

46. I must beg to differ, Mr. Jones.

    "The Yes Men" are a better class in terms of humour and frankly, usefulness.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men

    But each to his own I suppose --although I suspect you'd enjoy the film of the same name quite immensely actually.

    Pun fully intended.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/03/2009 @ 02:40am

47. "...Production would lift sixfold from 12million tonnes of ore a year to 72 million tonnes after 2020."

    ~compliments of Mr. LR Jones at 1:16am

    By way of somewhat useless information, being myself a rather enthusiastic star gazer and sometime daydreamer did you know that the Sun "burns" 657 million tons of hydrogen every second, fusing it into 653 million tons of helium?

    The 4 million lost tons per second are of course converted into energy.

    That rather staggering little nugget has stuck with me ever since I read it in "365 Starry Nights" by Chet Raymo.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/03/2009 @ 02:50am

48. Jones,

    Here's more "useless" information:

    Radio K.A.O.S. is a 1987 concept album/rock opera by former Pink Floyd bassist and songwriter Roger Waters. It is his second solo album.

    The concept is based around a 23-year-old disabled man from Wales named Billy.

    Billy is confined to a wheelchair and is thought to be mentally a vegetable. However, Billy is highly intelligent but has no way of expressing himself. Billy has a twin brother Benny who is a coal miner. Billy lives with Benny, Molly his wife, and their children. Unfortunately, Benny has lost his job in the mines due to the "market forces". One night, Benny and Billy are out on a pub crawl when they pass a shop full of TV screens broadcasting Margaret Thatcher's "mocking condescension". Benny vents his anger on this shop and steals a cordless phone. Next, in theatrical fashion, Benny poses on a footbridge in protest to the closures; the same night, a taxi driver is killed by a concrete block dropped from a similar bridge. The police question Benny, who hides the phone in Billy's wheelchair. Benny is taken to prison, and Molly, unable to cope, sends Billy to live with his uncle David in L.A.. Billy is gifted and can hear radio waves in his head ("Radio Waves" track 1), so he begins to explore the cordless phone, recognising its similarity to a radio.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/03/2009 @ 03:05am

49. He experiments with the phone and is able to access computers and speech synthesisers, he learns to speak through them. He calls a radio station in L.A. named Radio KAOS (hence the album title) and tells them of his life story about his brother being in jail ("Me or Him" track 3), about his sister-in-law not being able to cope and sending him to L.A. to live with his uncle Dave ("Sunset Strip" track 5), and about the closures of the mines ("Powers that Be" track 4).

    Billy eventually hacks in to a military satellite and fools the world in to thinking nuclear ICBMs are about to be detonated at major cities all over the world whilst deactivating the military's power to retaliate ("Home" track 6 and "Four Minutes" track 7). The album concludes with a song about how everyone, in thinking they were about to die, realises that the fear and competitiveness peddled by the mass media is much less important than their love for family and the larger community. ("The Tide is Turning" track 8).

    The album is dedicated "to all those who find themselves at the violent end of monetarism." This and other moments in the album--such as a segment juxtaposing a Ronald Reagan campaign slogan with clips from an old western TV show and an apparent recorded plea from American hostages not to engage in "heroics" to free them--make Waters' political point of view quite clear.

    --from Wiki

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/03/2009 @ 03:05am

50. Whatever one thinks of Roger Waters, it should be admitted that he is at the very least a highly intelligent and novel thinker who's worthy of our consideration.

    I think it's quite evident that we are living in a strange moment of history. A moment where our (sense of) reality is being "stretched out" as it were. Not very easy to see where this is all going, but the indications are not particularly positive --for Homo sapiens in any case-- presently. That is, if one's eyes are wide open.

    Here's a Waters/Floyd masterpiece fer ya' --if you can manage to "get into the spirit of things".....

    Well, here's "Dogs" Part One anyway:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=KheDjhFck94

    Lyrics

    You gotta be crazy, you gotta have a real need. You gotta sleep on your toes, and when you're on the street, You gotta be able to pick out the easy meat with your eyes closed. And then moving in silently, down wind and out of sight, You gotta strike when the moment is right without thinking.

    And after a while, you can work on points for style. Like the club tie, and the firm handshake, A certain look in the eye and an easy smile. You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to, So that when they turn their backs on you, You'll get the chance to put the knife in.

    You gotta keep one eye looking over your shoulder. You know it's going to get harder, and harder, and harder as you get older. And in the end you'll pack up and fly down south, Hide your head in the sand, Just another sad old man, All alone and dying of cancer.

    And when you loose control, you'll reap the harvest you have sown. And as the fear grows, the bad blood slows and turns to stone. And it's too late to lose the weight you used to need to throw around. So have a good drown, as you go down, all alone, Dragged down by the stone....

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/03/2009 @ 03:21am

51. Workers (blue collar) it seems are best kept out of the boardroom and left on the work bench. It's probably about diversity of skills and horses for courses. Posted by lrjones4 at 05/02/2009 @ 11:01pm

    Yassuh, Missuh Jones... now whea you wan' me put dat big ol' boulder? Ahm blinded by the skintillatin' light o' yo' hahtless and mean ol' intelleck... Yessuh, ahm movin' back to the bench... when you wants dem crackers brought up to the boardroom you jes give a call... dat's my speciality... crackers...

    Posted by ficheye at 05/03/2009 @ 03:45am

52. when you wants dem crackers brought up to the boardroom you jes give a call... dat's my speciality... crackers...

    Posted by ficheye at 05/03/2009 @ 03:45am

    Do you wear a short skirt F? Any formal qualifications for serving crackers?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 05/03/2009 @ 03:54am

53. By way of somewhat useless information, being myself a rather enthusiastic star gazer and sometime daydreamer did you know that the Sun "burns" 657 million tons of hydrogen every second, fusing it into 653 million tons of helium?

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/03/2009 @ 02:50am

    Amazing. Knew it's a pretty powerful, variable heat source but that's a fair mass of hydrogen.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 05/03/2009 @ 04:02am

54. Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/03/2009 @ 03:21am

    Thanks for all that BK. I guess there is a hidden message somewhere there, which I for the life of me cannot discern but then I tend to be a bit of a literalist.

    One day you'll have to explain the significance of all that anger to a cultural philistine like me.

    I get my rocks off on a bit of Bach. Here's a great exponent of the master. Sorry no lyrics.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtD8BW5P1ts&feature=related

    Posted by lrjones4 at 05/03/2009 @ 04:43am

55. "One day you'll have to explain the significance of all that anger to a cultural philistine like me."

    ~Jonesy

    No anger.

    Just play.

    Peace out, mate.

    ;-)

    P.S. So long, and thanks for all the Bach.....I actually prefer Beck --although Bach hath it's charms (see Godel, Escher, Bach).

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp1KdA-97vs

    And please, no offense.

    P.P.S. Yo' Ficheye..... 'sup bro?!

    Catch yoose all on the flip.

    :D

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/03/2009 @ 05:03am

56. Do you wear a short skirt F? Any formal qualifications for serving crackers? Posted by lrjones4 at 05/03/2009 @ 03:54am

    Yassuh, I use to be on da boahd o' di-rectors, but aftuh da fi-nancial deebacle I hadda give up mah white collar for a blue collar cos o' dat Bernie Made Off.

    By sheer number alone I'd say blue collar workers actually make your life possible. One can't do without the other, and it's only fair that the lower caste gets to comment on what is happening to them, in contrast to just 'shut up and work, we do the thinking around here'.

    In light of the recent financial shit storm I'd say there is more and more evidence that the white collar intellect has failed us in the credibility department. Sorry if I found that statement somewhat humorous. It's all apples. Have a good Sunday.

    Posted by ficheye at 05/03/2009 @ 11:16am

57. by ficheye at 05/03/2009 @ 11:16am...

    This goads me too.

    All this talk of needing more education... yet most of the guys (yes, most of them are guys) who who set the stage for the financial services collapse were extensively educated in our best schools... and were considered 'the smartest guys in the room' by most of the rest of the 'well educated' establishment until about a year ago...

    Conversely... many of the average Joe 'don't mind workin' for a living' people like myself... who saw this coming... were being systematically ignored.

    Our educational system encourages a 'go along to get along' intelligentsia to neglect common sense values and experience... in favor of position and advancement.

    Liberal or conservative... its all the same.

    Sophistry is rampant.

    Posted by ttr at 05/03/2009 @ 11:55am

58. blue collar cos o' dat Bernie Made Off.

    By sheer number alone I'd say blue collar workers actually make your life possible. One can't do without the other, and it's only fair that the lower caste gets to comment on what is happening to them, in contrast to just 'shut up and work, we do the thinking around here'.

    In light of the recent financial shit storm I'd say there is more and more evidence that the white collar intellect has failed us in the credibility department. Sorry if I found that statement somewhat humorous. It's all apples. Have a good Sunday.

    Posted by ficheye at 05/03/2009 @ 11:16am

    Yeah well Bernie Made Off (with the funds) is in prison where even your misappropriated fortune won't help him. I don't think it would be too hard to show that, relatively, you American blue and white collar workers came out of this stuff up in far better personal financial shape than most of the incompetents more directly involved.

    It seems there were quite a few BC workers who took on loans they had no hope of servicing so that group also must bear some responsibility. Unless of course the "lower castes" are so intellectually challenged that they bear no responsibility. Which may be the best reason to keep them out of boardrooms. (In my world the boardroom tea lady, who wears fishnet stockings, is certainly not a blue-collar worker. Not the ones I know anyway).

    That of course leads us to that other great boardroom on Capitol Hill, to which, common wisdom tells us, can be sheeted home the blame for laying the foundations on which this lovely mess was constructed.

    BTW what sort of education does one need to qualify for a seat on that board? Please don't tell me in finance.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 05/03/2009 @ 1:14pm

59. Posted by snowball666 at 05/03/2009 @ 1:47pm

    Though it's merely semantics I prefer to think in terms of the welfare state rather than socialism. In Britain the welfare state was born out of Fabian socialism, in which gradualism replaced revolution as the means of achieving the goals of socialism.

    However it seems that because Thatcher's form of "capitalism" was so successful in producing prosperity for so many Brits, the basket case that a Democratic Socialist party, Third Wave or not, seems to have produced under Blair and now even more so under Brown has taken the shine off that democratic socialist party's ability to produce the goods for all classes of Brits.

    Further that "socialist" Britain is in deeper trouble than nominally capitalist America, in this financial crisis, indicates either that "socialism" is less effective than "capitalism" in protecting the conditions of workers at the present time or that we are all now basically "capitalist" nations with varying degrees of welfarism . I'm beholden to the latter view.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 05/03/2009 @ 9:45pm

60. Hey thanks for letting me go on a bit lr and snowy. You guys are smart. No sarcasm.

    As for the 'serving crackers' thing lr, 'crackers' are lowbrow southern rednecks with a desire to keep people in their place, sort of a racist thing, but not exclusively. I wasn't sure you got that bit of slang.

    So when I said "serving crackers is my speciality", I meant that I understand what it's all about when having to acquiesce to those who think they are better than others when in actuality they are as dumb as a stump.

    For instance, my boss spells fuel 'fule'. Almost a commentary about him personally which he has yet to understand. I digress.

    Posted by ficheye at 05/03/2009 @ 11:59pm

61. Posted by ficheye at 05/03/2009 @ 11:59pm

    No worries F, I like giving a bit of cheek myself and like a bit of bullshit too. BTW we call crackers biscuits. Hey and no sucking up please.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 05/04/2009 @ 01:08am

62. Hey and no sucking up please. Posted by lrjones4 at 05/04/2009 @ 01:08am

    No, I wouldn't think of it. If I thought you were stupid I would just say it. I should have said " I appreciate the intelligent exchange".

    Posted by ficheye at 05/04/2009 @ 09:35am