|
For better or for worse, Barack Obama has become synonymous with a category of the memetic soup that bisects and trisects us.
Who believes? Well, consider the following set of sub-beliefs:
1) You believe that in your own ability to do good for the world
2) You believe in a centralized authority's ability to do good for the world
3) You believe that agglomerating resources and abilities in a centralized authority does more good for the world than disparate actions
4) You implicitly believe that you ought to be a part of that centralized authority
5) You believe in Barack Obama (yourself), because yes, we (led by you) can.
If this sounds like you, please keep reading.
Rising above the usual Washingtonian discourse and the discourse that has pervaded since, even the Clinton administration, is this idea that the centralized authority of the United States ought to set down an overall direction, to lead. The U.S. wasn't always like this. The United States of Lincoln would not tell third-world protestors that they should tone it down to preserve regional stability. But we don't live in the United States of Lincoln anymore, we live in the United States of Brezhnev.
Ever notice how the US reaction to the protests seems kind of like the Soviet reaction prior to 1956 and 1968? I don't mean the public platitudes calling for democracy. I mean things like putting the U.S.S. Enterprise off the coast of Egypt and readying assault carriers with helicopters and 11,000 marines to deal with any potential change of government a la Call of Duty 4. The Russians did it to Sofia in 1956 with tanks, and I think the U.S. would do it to Cairo in 2011 with helicopters and cruise missiles if shit doesn't go their way.
But peel the onion a bit further. These actions are clumsy and the only reason they're being taken is because finesse has already failed.
The phenomena to notice is the expansion of global institutions that aggregate young talent, and their subsequent alignment with this power structure. Greenpeace and Goldman Sachs are merely two faces of the same coin--no matter which you join, you end up playing on the stage of global politics. If talent is the new hot commodity, then command of that now rests squarely in the hands of those who hold the levers of this centralized authority. Who calls the shots on this stage? Guess.
And yet, talent is mobile, and smart--but it likes to play on the winning side. If you're smart and ambitious nowadays, it makes no sense to oppose centralized authority, because it has so thoroughly integrated all channels for advancement into itself that the only way to properly utilize your talent is to subscribe to that authority.
There's really no problem with this, because it makes life choices a lot simpler. You, Mr. and Mrs. Talent, no longer have to pick a side--or the side you pick no longer matters. You can simply stand for any of these things--order, freedom, change, stability, GDP growth, community outreach, sustainable profits, corporate social responsibility--and you will win. It doesn't matter that they're opposites. They still all fit into the same coin.
Except for one--once such a system is created, then any collapse is bound to be total. It's like stretching a rubber band or leveraging up a firm--you decrease systemic diversity and idiosyncracy (in things from biodiversity to the increase in correlation of stocks in the stock market) for efficiency, and eventually that means bad shit will inevitably result in really, really bad shit.
This doesn't mean that we ought to slow down--there is no point to opposing a "US dominated system" (I would say this a mischaracterization more than anything else--the system borrows American strength to project upon the world). This is because things seem spun up to a point where any slowdown might collapse the system. Instead, it means we ought to create backups of our society as a whole--fallback points from which civilization might not be utterly wiped out should things go wrong. Space colonies are one, but I'm open to other ideas the moment. We've got a golden chance here to be remembered as the not only the greatest civilization in history for all the great culture, GDP, tech, etc.--but for the first one to consciously plan for its own demise. Be great. Be prepared.
 
|
Greenpeace and Goldman Sachs are merely two faces of the same coin--no matter which you join, you end up playing on the stage of global politics
I don't get it, what coin? global politics? thats a pretty uselessly general coin....seems like you're saying the equivalent of "squirrels and a peanut butter factory are merely two faces of the same coin--they both deal with nuts."
|
Interesting outlook. I do happen to fit the profile you've lined out, but I think an X factor you haven't really mentioned is the VCs and technocrats of Silicon Valley and co. The uber-rich who arise from this path aren't really the same people as the financial powerhouses of NY and co. And in general, a unifying profile of the rich is that they seem to be intent on milking the government for all it's worth (with earmarks and tax cuts) while focusing their philanthropy more abroad, because our middle class and poor aren't nearly as pitiable as the poor of the third world.
Have you read this article? I'd like to hear how it fits into your narrative.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-rise-of-the-new-global-elite/8343/
EDIT: Actually on reread I, like sob3k above me, think you're generalizing "central authority" to fit too much. Are you calling attention to the fact that the US Government is being run more like a corporation now than like a traditional government? I think the article I linked touches on that as well.
|
On February 10 2011 16:23 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Interesting outlook. I do happen to fit the profile you've lined out, but I think an X factor you haven't really mentioned is the VCs and technocrats of Silicon Valley and co. The uber-rich who arise from this path aren't really the same people as the financial powerhouses of NY and co. And in general, a unifying profile of the rich is that they seem to be intent on milking the government for all it's worth (with earmarks and tax cuts) while focusing their philanthropy more abroad, because our middle class and poor aren't nearly as pitiable as the poor of the third world. Have you read this article? I'd like to hear how it fits into your narrative. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-rise-of-the-new-global-elite/8343/EDIT: Actually on reread I, like sob3k above me, think you're generalizing "central authority" to fit too much. Are you calling attention to the fact that the US Government is being run more like a corporation now than like a traditional government? I think the article I linked touches on that as well.
You're kind of right here--I think I do generalize the centralization a bit too much, but only because IMO it encompasses military, political, and economic axes of command. I'm not saying the US Government is run more like a corporation; it is more run like a business unit within a larger conglomerate. This is the symptom of a nefarious scheme or anything; it's simply the logical endstate of increased globalization.
The funny thing about the elite today is that they view themselves as the managers and representatives not of a nation but of the entire world. This implies that there is no more "outside", no more tribes, except within the lower classes.
|
I propose we create two Foundations at opposite ends of the continent, one in Alaska, and one in Washington DC.
|
You can't use logic to reach definite conclusions from uncertain premisses. Actually, it's perfectly possible to reach completely false conclusions from mostly true premisses, if you abuse them enough.
So yes, there has been a tendency towards integration in human affairs and values. And yes, systems with less diversity are more vulnerable to external shocks in general. But to take these two premisses and argue that we're probably heading toward a wide scale collapse is far fetched.
+ Show Spoiler +Also, 1956 wasn't Sofia 
|
On February 11 2011 03:49 l0st_romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 16:23 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Interesting outlook. I do happen to fit the profile you've lined out, but I think an X factor you haven't really mentioned is the VCs and technocrats of Silicon Valley and co. The uber-rich who arise from this path aren't really the same people as the financial powerhouses of NY and co. And in general, a unifying profile of the rich is that they seem to be intent on milking the government for all it's worth (with earmarks and tax cuts) while focusing their philanthropy more abroad, because our middle class and poor aren't nearly as pitiable as the poor of the third world. Have you read this article? I'd like to hear how it fits into your narrative. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-rise-of-the-new-global-elite/8343/EDIT: Actually on reread I, like sob3k above me, think you're generalizing "central authority" to fit too much. Are you calling attention to the fact that the US Government is being run more like a corporation now than like a traditional government? I think the article I linked touches on that as well. You're kind of right here--I think I do generalize the centralization a bit too much, but only because IMO it encompasses military, political, and economic axes of command. I'm not saying the US Government is run more like a corporation; it is more run like a business unit within a larger conglomerate. This is the symptom of a nefarious scheme or anything; it's simply the logical endstate of increased globalization. The funny thing about the elite today is that they view themselves as the managers and representatives not of a nation but of the entire world. This implies that there is no more "outside", no more tribes, except within the lower classes.
The way you think is unique, but I still think you're stuck in too much theory without backing evidence. I've been waving this book around a lot in economic-related threads, and I'd encourage you to read it, it's a pretty good history (from an "American liberal" standpoint) of the last 50 years of US Gov. policy towards the economy.
http://www.amazon.com/Predator-State-Conservatives-Abandoned-Liberals/dp/141656683X
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
