Last Monday Lou Dobbs cited my "Homogeneous" paper, published in the journal Academic Questions of the National Association of Scholars. The whole episode is worth watching, but the reference to my paper is at 18:30.
Showing posts with label lou dobbs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lou dobbs. Show all posts
Friday, April 26, 2019
Thursday, June 4, 2009
De Jouvenal on the Public Loss Function
The notion of a loss function is the basis of total quality management. Quality losses appear when the realization of an output deviates from its target qualities. For instance, if a nail is supposed to be 6 inches long, and it comes off the conveyer belt measuring 6.0000001 inches, the .0000001 is a loss. Total quality management is a process of reducing the loss by investigating deviations that are more than three standard deviations from the target.
De Jouvenal argues that Power, the governing elite, derives historically from conquest. In European history this took the form of the conquest of the Roman territories and Rome itself by the Franks, Goths, Angles, and other Barbarians. In China this took the form of the unification of China by the Duke of Zhou and Qin Shi Huang's reunification following the warring states period. Qin, by the way, buried China's scholars alive, a fate I have dreaded after seeing the movie The Vanishing.
The monarch or leader of the conquering tribe exploits the conquered population rather than kill them. The invention of slavery reduced the amount of killing because the conquerers learned to make use of the conquered economically. The king realizes that the nobility, the leaders of his army, pose a threat to his power. Over time, perhaps multi-generationally, the king realizes that by taking the side of the conquered against the nobility he can reduce the power of the nobility and enhance his own power. This happened in England in the 1500s. The establishment of the Chinese Civil Service was within roughly two centuries of the Qin Shi Huang's reunification of China. In America, the Progressives, representatives of big business, realized that they could work with populist and socialist movements by saying that they were against the trusts, and in doing so bring regulations that attacked the rising entrepreneurs and benefited big business to bear. Thus, the king creates a bureaucracy or civil service that aims to provide social benefits in order to unite the people against the nobility. This occurred in modified form in the United States. Abraham Lincoln had enhanced federal power in the 1860s, and Progressivism appeared within 40 years.
Ultimately the people realize that the king can be replaced with the popular sovereignty or national will, which of course are non-existent imaginings. The king is deposed and democracy replaces the monarchy. The unlimited definition of democracy, in turn, leads to tyranny. Thus, the French Revolution led to killings by Jacobins, Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety; the democratic revolution of Sun Yat Sen led to the tyranny of Mao Tse Tung; and the overthrow of the Czar led to the Bolshevik Revolution.
In America De Jouvenal's model does not apply exactly because there was no monarch. Also, Rousseau's unlimited theory of democracy did not take hold. Rather, Lockean liberalism limits the power of democracy. Hence, the tyrannies and suffocating power of government that took hold in backward Europe and Asia did not occur here. However, America's elite, jealous of the wonderful triumphs in Europe, aimed to introduce Rousseauean unlimited democracy here. Just two decades before the ascension of both Hitler and Stalin, Herbert Croly, Walter Weyl and Theodore Roosevelt argued for Progressivism. Croly's book glorifies the state and is very much in the tradition of German historicism, as was Progressivism in general.
The notion of a loss function is that the action of a producer can be improved by reducing losses. Many will argue with the claim that unlimited democracy leads to tyranny. However, whether you believe that unlimited democracy leads to social justice and benefits society, or whether you believe that limited government is better at achieving those ends, the question needs to be asked what the method of achieving each citizen's best interests can be. In other words, even if unlimited democracy and the state apparatus can advantage society, the question needs to be asked what method of execution or production will work best. It is unlikely that the centralized state by which Progressives hoped to emulate European Christian Socialism and social democracy (and itself was but an extension of monarchy, according to De Juvenal) is best at meeting public needs even if the state is better at meeting public needs than are private firms. The reason is bounded rationality.
Bounded rationality was discussed by March and Simon with respect to organizations in their book Organizations. Walter Lippmann discussed the idea with respect to public opinion in his book Public Opinion. Ludwig von Mises discussed it with respect to centralized economic planning. And De Jouvenal discusses it with respect to the ability of the state to achieve the objective of the common good.
Naturally, he mocks the idea that Power (as he defines it, the elite that governs society) has the common good in mind. This is the assumption of all advocates of big government, socialism, Progressivism, social democracy and the like. The notion that people seek power out of altruistic ends is laughable. We see this today with the naive news broadcasters, like CNN's Jack Cafferty, who offer prayers to Saint Barack Obama and his colleague, Lou Dobbs, whose head touches the floor seven times whenever Saint Barack's name is mentioned. But De Jouvenal grants this assumption.
He notes:
"But as soon Power is conceived as being exclusively the agent of the common good, it must form a clear picture for itself of what this common good is. While Power was eogist, the vital necessity under which it lay of reaching every day a daily accommodation with society, itself sufficed to form in it pictures of public requirements which, though confused, were born of actual contacts. But as soon as Power, under the spur of altruism, has a vision of the entire community and what medicine it needs, the inadequacy of human intelligence to such a task appears in its fullness. What the judgment pronounces then shows itself a blinder guide than what the senses indicate--to put it another way, touch is superior to vision.
"It is a noteworthy fact that all the greatest political mistakes stem from defective appraisals of the common good--mistakes from which egoism, had it been called into consultation, would have warned Power off." (On Power, p. 137).
In organizational theory, it is well established that one of the cures for cognitive limits on rationality is decentralization or divisionalization of organizations. Thus, one way to address the problem of the social loss function that government creates is to reduce the scope of governance. In other words, to download responsibility to the states.
American government anticipated this idea in the form of Federalism. However, the tendency over the past two centuries has been to reduce the power of the states and increase the monarchical power of the federal government. The reason for this is, as De Jouvenal points out, the economic, political and egoistic interests of the ruling elite--the politicians in Washington, the Justices of the Supreme Court, the academics who cater to them and receive significant jobs and consulting contracts, and the military industrial complex.
The monarchical process thus results in one rather odd effect: that a key finding of the social sciences, that information is difficult to procure; that rationality is limited; and that experimentation is the best way to learn; is scoffed at by judges, economists and academicians, whose economic interests take precedence over their interest in pursuing justice or the truth.
De Jouvenal argues that Power, the governing elite, derives historically from conquest. In European history this took the form of the conquest of the Roman territories and Rome itself by the Franks, Goths, Angles, and other Barbarians. In China this took the form of the unification of China by the Duke of Zhou and Qin Shi Huang's reunification following the warring states period. Qin, by the way, buried China's scholars alive, a fate I have dreaded after seeing the movie The Vanishing.
The monarch or leader of the conquering tribe exploits the conquered population rather than kill them. The invention of slavery reduced the amount of killing because the conquerers learned to make use of the conquered economically. The king realizes that the nobility, the leaders of his army, pose a threat to his power. Over time, perhaps multi-generationally, the king realizes that by taking the side of the conquered against the nobility he can reduce the power of the nobility and enhance his own power. This happened in England in the 1500s. The establishment of the Chinese Civil Service was within roughly two centuries of the Qin Shi Huang's reunification of China. In America, the Progressives, representatives of big business, realized that they could work with populist and socialist movements by saying that they were against the trusts, and in doing so bring regulations that attacked the rising entrepreneurs and benefited big business to bear. Thus, the king creates a bureaucracy or civil service that aims to provide social benefits in order to unite the people against the nobility. This occurred in modified form in the United States. Abraham Lincoln had enhanced federal power in the 1860s, and Progressivism appeared within 40 years.
Ultimately the people realize that the king can be replaced with the popular sovereignty or national will, which of course are non-existent imaginings. The king is deposed and democracy replaces the monarchy. The unlimited definition of democracy, in turn, leads to tyranny. Thus, the French Revolution led to killings by Jacobins, Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety; the democratic revolution of Sun Yat Sen led to the tyranny of Mao Tse Tung; and the overthrow of the Czar led to the Bolshevik Revolution.
In America De Jouvenal's model does not apply exactly because there was no monarch. Also, Rousseau's unlimited theory of democracy did not take hold. Rather, Lockean liberalism limits the power of democracy. Hence, the tyrannies and suffocating power of government that took hold in backward Europe and Asia did not occur here. However, America's elite, jealous of the wonderful triumphs in Europe, aimed to introduce Rousseauean unlimited democracy here. Just two decades before the ascension of both Hitler and Stalin, Herbert Croly, Walter Weyl and Theodore Roosevelt argued for Progressivism. Croly's book glorifies the state and is very much in the tradition of German historicism, as was Progressivism in general.
The notion of a loss function is that the action of a producer can be improved by reducing losses. Many will argue with the claim that unlimited democracy leads to tyranny. However, whether you believe that unlimited democracy leads to social justice and benefits society, or whether you believe that limited government is better at achieving those ends, the question needs to be asked what the method of achieving each citizen's best interests can be. In other words, even if unlimited democracy and the state apparatus can advantage society, the question needs to be asked what method of execution or production will work best. It is unlikely that the centralized state by which Progressives hoped to emulate European Christian Socialism and social democracy (and itself was but an extension of monarchy, according to De Juvenal) is best at meeting public needs even if the state is better at meeting public needs than are private firms. The reason is bounded rationality.
Bounded rationality was discussed by March and Simon with respect to organizations in their book Organizations. Walter Lippmann discussed the idea with respect to public opinion in his book Public Opinion. Ludwig von Mises discussed it with respect to centralized economic planning. And De Jouvenal discusses it with respect to the ability of the state to achieve the objective of the common good.
Naturally, he mocks the idea that Power (as he defines it, the elite that governs society) has the common good in mind. This is the assumption of all advocates of big government, socialism, Progressivism, social democracy and the like. The notion that people seek power out of altruistic ends is laughable. We see this today with the naive news broadcasters, like CNN's Jack Cafferty, who offer prayers to Saint Barack Obama and his colleague, Lou Dobbs, whose head touches the floor seven times whenever Saint Barack's name is mentioned. But De Jouvenal grants this assumption.
He notes:
"But as soon Power is conceived as being exclusively the agent of the common good, it must form a clear picture for itself of what this common good is. While Power was eogist, the vital necessity under which it lay of reaching every day a daily accommodation with society, itself sufficed to form in it pictures of public requirements which, though confused, were born of actual contacts. But as soon as Power, under the spur of altruism, has a vision of the entire community and what medicine it needs, the inadequacy of human intelligence to such a task appears in its fullness. What the judgment pronounces then shows itself a blinder guide than what the senses indicate--to put it another way, touch is superior to vision.
"It is a noteworthy fact that all the greatest political mistakes stem from defective appraisals of the common good--mistakes from which egoism, had it been called into consultation, would have warned Power off." (On Power, p. 137).
In organizational theory, it is well established that one of the cures for cognitive limits on rationality is decentralization or divisionalization of organizations. Thus, one way to address the problem of the social loss function that government creates is to reduce the scope of governance. In other words, to download responsibility to the states.
American government anticipated this idea in the form of Federalism. However, the tendency over the past two centuries has been to reduce the power of the states and increase the monarchical power of the federal government. The reason for this is, as De Jouvenal points out, the economic, political and egoistic interests of the ruling elite--the politicians in Washington, the Justices of the Supreme Court, the academics who cater to them and receive significant jobs and consulting contracts, and the military industrial complex.
The monarchical process thus results in one rather odd effect: that a key finding of the social sciences, that information is difficult to procure; that rationality is limited; and that experimentation is the best way to learn; is scoffed at by judges, economists and academicians, whose economic interests take precedence over their interest in pursuing justice or the truth.
Monday, December 29, 2008
An Examination of the Employment Patterns of CNN Announcers
I was just at the gym and CNN was on. I was wondering how America's news announcers get their jobs. I did some research on the Internet and this video comes closest to explaining how people like Jack Cafferty, Wolf Blitzer and Lou Dobbs found work. Note: Dobbs= Moe, Cafferty = Larry, Blitzer = Curly. Only they're not as smart as the three in the video.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
The American Media Crisis--The One Who Pays Is You
The media's monotonous support for the Obama campaign ratchets my curiosity about its declining standards. Yellow journalism and bias go back to the Federalist period of American history and before, and Jefferson was not above planting friendly journalists in positions in order to maximally irritate his opponents. But there are several differences between the factionalism of today's media and that of only a few decades ago. In the 1960s, there was still a significant degree of variability in the opinions of the major New York newspapers. Today, television and newspaper outlets conform to a social democratic norm and are increasingly shrill.
Conservatives believe that there is a liberal bias in the media and this is in part true. The corporate and financial interests that control the television and newspaper outlets are corporatist and social democratic because social democracy supports their financial interests. Thus, to understand the reason for the media's liberal bias, it is necessary to fathom the corporate interests that control the major media outlets and the economic conditions that favor their health.
Social democracy has always been a method by which corporate power deceives and controls a naive public. The history of the Progressives and the New Deal as ensuing from the exercise of a broadened interpretation of corporate power, that is for instance, as opposed to small business power, is well documented. The increased stridency of the mass media not only in support of Barack Obama but in its shrill uniformity (examples are MSNBC's Chris Matthews and CNN's Jack Cafferty and Lou Dobbs) suggest a crisis of confidence on the part of American elites. The crisis is economic and it is in its early stages.
The Bush administration has intensified the inflation of the past 25 years to a point that will necessitate a recession. But American financial and business institutions have been considerably weakened due to mismanagement and may not withstand a recession. The media's advertisers and corporate owners are in for a rough ride.
Wealth has been reallocated away from the economy's productive sectors such as manufacturing and agriculture, and the manufacturing firms as in the automobile industry that might be able to produce value are frequently not globally competitive. For them to become competitive the dollar needs to depreciate to the point where their exports become so. This will attract talent back to productive areas of the economy but will reduce the wealth base and force many Americans to reduce their living standards. As well, the reduction in the purchasing power of the dollar will be associated with an influx of dollars from abroad, causing additional price inflation here. This will cause instability. The reason for the price inflation is of course Federal Reserve policy that has subsidized the same firms that advertise through the mass media and include the mass media firms themselves.
In response to the depreciating dollar the Fed will need to raise interest rates. This will cause difficulties and perhaps bankruptcy of major American firms.
The mass media adopts an increasingly lock step tone in order to prepare for a series of economic crises whose causes it aims to distort. The beneficiaries of the long inflation of the past 25 years have been top managers, Wall Street and hedge funds. Oil speculation is not really an important component of this, and the media's recent tap dance about oil speculation is evidence of how it will continue to lie about the economic problems in the next decade. Barack Obama has received more donations from Wall Street and the financial community than has John McCain. He will avoid, with media support, addressing the underlying sources of the need for adjustment.
The one who pays is you.
Conservatives believe that there is a liberal bias in the media and this is in part true. The corporate and financial interests that control the television and newspaper outlets are corporatist and social democratic because social democracy supports their financial interests. Thus, to understand the reason for the media's liberal bias, it is necessary to fathom the corporate interests that control the major media outlets and the economic conditions that favor their health.
Social democracy has always been a method by which corporate power deceives and controls a naive public. The history of the Progressives and the New Deal as ensuing from the exercise of a broadened interpretation of corporate power, that is for instance, as opposed to small business power, is well documented. The increased stridency of the mass media not only in support of Barack Obama but in its shrill uniformity (examples are MSNBC's Chris Matthews and CNN's Jack Cafferty and Lou Dobbs) suggest a crisis of confidence on the part of American elites. The crisis is economic and it is in its early stages.
The Bush administration has intensified the inflation of the past 25 years to a point that will necessitate a recession. But American financial and business institutions have been considerably weakened due to mismanagement and may not withstand a recession. The media's advertisers and corporate owners are in for a rough ride.
Wealth has been reallocated away from the economy's productive sectors such as manufacturing and agriculture, and the manufacturing firms as in the automobile industry that might be able to produce value are frequently not globally competitive. For them to become competitive the dollar needs to depreciate to the point where their exports become so. This will attract talent back to productive areas of the economy but will reduce the wealth base and force many Americans to reduce their living standards. As well, the reduction in the purchasing power of the dollar will be associated with an influx of dollars from abroad, causing additional price inflation here. This will cause instability. The reason for the price inflation is of course Federal Reserve policy that has subsidized the same firms that advertise through the mass media and include the mass media firms themselves.
In response to the depreciating dollar the Fed will need to raise interest rates. This will cause difficulties and perhaps bankruptcy of major American firms.
The mass media adopts an increasingly lock step tone in order to prepare for a series of economic crises whose causes it aims to distort. The beneficiaries of the long inflation of the past 25 years have been top managers, Wall Street and hedge funds. Oil speculation is not really an important component of this, and the media's recent tap dance about oil speculation is evidence of how it will continue to lie about the economic problems in the next decade. Barack Obama has received more donations from Wall Street and the financial community than has John McCain. He will avoid, with media support, addressing the underlying sources of the need for adjustment.
The one who pays is you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
