Scorched Earth

19 Responses to “Scorched Earth”

1. RBM says:

   February 15, 2009 at 8:03 pm

   I have a hard time keeping up with the terminology, but came across this:

   The ideology in which Geithner and Summers are steeped can be encapsulated in a saying that became popular some years back, which is this: “Greed is good.” If we accept that slogan and the philosophy that underpins it, then it follows that the things that Dick Fuld, Angelo Mazilo, Stan O’Neil, Jimmy Cayne and other titans of finance did over the past few years really weren’t that bad. After all, they were merely doing what the philosophy they embrace dictates—maximizing their own self-interest while casting all moral considerations to the wind.

   So where did this ideology come from? What does it entail?

   In the conference of scholars and scientists I referred to the other day was another presenter, an economist who teaches at UC Davis by the name of Gregory Clark. Clark gives a lecture in which he does a wonderfully thorough job of setting out the origins of classical and neoclassical economics, and what the key elements of those ideologies are:

   http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-enlightenment-2-0/gr...

   And, as he shows, they clearly have some validity. After all, it was in northern England where the astronomical productivity increases began and not some other place or cultural setting. So it seems clear that the embrace of classical economic ideology played a significant role in bringing about the huge increases in productivity output that have been experienced over the past two centuries.

   But neoclassical theory is now undeniably showing signs of failure. Why is this so? I attribute it to two principle deficiencies of the ideology.

   First, it lacks morality. As David Sloan Wilson pointed out at that same conference, classical economics did not totally eschew morality. But neoclassical economics does. He makes the argument that this is not only morally reprehensible to many people, but bad science as well.

   For additional discussion and background on some of the points Wilson raises, Darwininan provided a link the other day with a superb explanation of why the extreme individualism–the “me-only”, “screw the community or group and everything else” mentality espoused by neoclassical economics, is bad science. See the discussion beginning on page 130 entitled “The Problems of Altruism and Cooperation:”

   So-called altruistic acts, such as sharing food or putting oneself at risk by crying out to warn others of an approaching predator, would appear to reduce the ultimate reproductive success of the altruistic donor while increasing that of its recipients and genetic competitors. Yet these and other apparently altruistic behaviors are commonly observed among animals.

   http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/twd/pdf/twd07.pdf

   The other major deficiency of neoclassical economics is that it is completely devoid of any element or acknowledgement of providence. This is what is alluded to here by the theologian Reinhold Neibuhr:

   For, from the late Puritans to the present day we have variously attributed American prosperity to our superior diligence, our greater skill of (more recently) to our more fervent devotion to the ideals of freedom. We thereby have complicated our spiritual problem for the days of adversity which we are bound to experience. We have forgotten to what degree the wealth of our natural resources and the fortuitous circumstance that we conquered a continent just when the advancemnt of technics made it possible to oranize that continent into a single political and economic unit, lay at the foundation of our prosperity.

   –Reinhold Neibuhr, The Irony of American History

   Note that while Neibuhr stresses “the wealth of our natural resources,” he doesn’t make the mistake of omitting the role played by “advancement of technics.”

   Contrast this to Clark’s lecture, where he makes absolutely no mention of “the welath of our natural resources” (including any mention of energy resources) , as if these played no role whatsoever in our phenomenal increase in economic output. The subtext here of course is this: “We are so rich because we are so good.” Our opulence is a product of our own will and our own actions, and had nothing to do with our lavish inheritance of natural resources.

   So if we look at the arguments that currently emanate from the finance industry, from its apologists and defenders such as Geithner and Summers, I think we will see that they fall into two broad categories:

   1) The exculpation and perpetuation of a credo that holds that the individual and the maximization of immediate, personal self-interest trumps all, including community, group, the environment or anything else, and;

   2) A belief that they did it all, that their individual success is attributable to their own efforts and their efforts alone, and that a lavish inheritance of natural or human resources had nothing to do with it.

   These, after all, are the cornerstones of our regnant economic paradigm: neoclassical economics.
2. Fec the Apostate says:

   February 15, 2009 at 8:35 pm

   I hereby recognize brave RBM of Kansas and appoint him a Knight of the Realm. Arise, Sir RBM. And thanks for the excellent comment.

   Kevin Phillips in American Dynasty also referred to neoclassical liberalism as Texanomics, a particularly nasty bastardization of the concept, relying on the churches to see to the needs of the populace – of course, without requisite funding. The criminal, GHWB, termed it “a thousand points of light.” I think W. the Torturer referred to it as “compassionate conservatism.”

   Locally, Perkins the Paver uses a less prosaic term, “fuckem.”
3. RBM says:

   February 15, 2009 at 8:50 pm

   The guy who wrote that has been a virtual library since he started posting at TOD. He has also quoted at length from that Kevin Phillips work.
4. Beelzebubba says:

   February 16, 2009 at 1:18 am

   fexcoriator and your RBMness: having grown weary of the jew on jew, black on black, white on white, poor on poor, rich on rich and the most common, gentile on gentile crime, i welcome the change proposed by you to emphasize polarity in pitting opposed ideologies and egos against each other until a time which you deem appropriate to cease such regency. let us prey
5. Dr. Mary Johnson says:

   February 16, 2009 at 7:19 am

   You really do need to change the name again.

   OBTW, I’m digging some of the pics on the header – crusdades, pirates and the like.
6. Beelzebubba says:

   February 16, 2009 at 8:28 am

   i concur with Dr Mary..the pictures are off the chain.
7. Fec the Apostate says:

   February 16, 2009 at 9:57 am

   I hereby recognize brave Mary and Beelzebubba, appointing the former as Physician and the latter as Patriarch of the Realm.

   Re changing the name. Julian the Apostate was the second emperor of Byzantium and one of the better ones. BTW, I finally finished the book.

   However, as you are one of my most trusted advisers, I throw open the floor to suggestions.

   And the Queen wants to know if she is entitled to free health care? I informed her that you were, at the moment, far away seeing to the needs of urchins in squalor. I think that best describes the conditions in Eastern NC.
8. Dr. Mary Johnson says:

   February 16, 2009 at 12:11 pm

   I’m Surgeon General of the realm?

   How cool. I would like to thank the Aconedy . . .

   I will ponder this name business. Your point is well taken. But how was the Emperor Julian in terms of dispatching his enemies? You need something that strikes fear. “Apostate” is just not doing that for me.

   Alas, your description of my current crusade is not very far off from the truth. My warm regards to your fair and lovely Queen.
9. Fec the Terrible says:

   February 16, 2009 at 12:16 pm

   Indeed, SG is yours. Perhaps you’ll like my new handle better.
10. Dr. Mary Johnson says:

    February 16, 2009 at 12:35 pm

    Not bad. Although “Enfant Terrible” might be even better (on the other hand, it’s French).

    I do love the new subtitle. I laughed and laughed and laughed out loud.

    The news reports say it’s an empty realm these days;)
11. Fec the Terrible says:

    February 16, 2009 at 12:41 pm

    I do in fact have a Drupal site available on my sidebar called Les Enfants Terribles.
12. Beelzebubba says:

    February 16, 2009 at 1:27 pm

    fec the terrible:
13. Beelzebubba says:

    February 16, 2009 at 1:29 pm

    that suits you, your unpleasantness
14. Dr. Mary Johnson says:

    February 16, 2009 at 1:51 pm

    Say that with capitals, man! Show some respect to our fearless ruler.
15. Fec the Terrible says:

    February 16, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    Foolish ruler’s more like it. And with that Beelzebubba, Patriach of Greensboro, places the diadem upon my crown. The coronation has been achieved.
16. The Great Con says:

    February 16, 2009 at 5:03 pm

    As Supreme Ruler of the Universe! I hereby forbid any promotion of local rulers to known titles of importance in Ed Cone world. Cease or I will lock all of you in a closet with Ed Cone who really believes that Fec is not prepare for the year of Doom at Disney World….Ask yourself one question? As the economic system continues to fail, who do put faith in as the Supreme adviser? Ed Cone in Thunder Dome as a Moses slave from a Greensboro Blog with less than person who has a IQ over 95, Or Doctor Ron Paul
17. Fec the Terrible says:

    February 16, 2009 at 5:14 pm

    We all gotta work for somebody.
18. Joel Gillespie says:

    February 16, 2009 at 8:12 pm

    Can I be something, please, please?
19. Fec the Terrible says:

    February 16, 2009 at 8:15 pm

    In a perfect world, you’d be Patriarch, but that was then and this is now. I hereby appoint you as ambassador to the Christians. But be careful. They’ve been mean as snakes for two millennia.