Mike:
Seems to me that we've got to develop an equation
about the economy that actually looks at economics realistically.
 
 
The last great socially cohesive era in US history was the 1950s.
Reagan tried to reanimate that era and had some success at it
but everything fell apart with Bush-the-Elder, showing that
Reagan's approach, like Obama's, was dependent on a personality.
When the exemplar of the time period shuffles off the stage
the "play" is over, it cannot sustain itself.
 
The Eisenhower years continued the New Deal in a lot of ways.
Heck, in some ways it expanded on the New Deal, like the
Interstate highway system, a massive government program.
 
So, if the 50s can be seen as some kind of "model" to aim for,
what made it all "tick"?  This is to speak of a period of time
that began in 1933 and didn't really start to collapse until
the Viet Nam debacle  -along with an all-out rebellion
by the young in opposition to the social values consensus
of  -ironically-  the 1950s.
 
But the rebellion was not a roll-out of the values that came in
with Obama; BHO tried to set up a whole new values  paradigm
based on his love of  Islam, homosexuals, and black victimhood
as if the Civil Rights movement of the 60s had never happened.
The 60s were anything but an era of  Islam and homosexuality
even if there was some of  both. The point is that there wasn't  much
of either. In terms of importance at the time, on a 1-10 scale,
homosexuality would have rated maybe a 2 or 3, 
Islam barely a "1."
 
To be sure, BHO would have been impossible except for the ground work
that Wm Clinton did in the 1990s, but as far as Clinton got was a  series of
half measures. The "classic" values-set was still intact. Hence as  late
as 2004, every state that voted on homosexual marriage, think there
were 11 states that year, voted against it.
 
Like the 60s, though, a botched war upset all "normal" political  
calculations.
 
And why was Viet Nam botched, why was Iraq botched?
 
We need to come up with ideas for each of these factors.
And I haven't even said anything about the economy yet.
 
Marx said that the economy is the ship, culture is the  superstructure.
To me that is not quite 100% false. Some truth to it, but "some"
is the operative word. Also seems to me that the economy
is based on the "ship" that is our shared value system.
 
That is, and this is Max Weber, you need a certain amount of  willingness
to save, invest, plan for the future, and all of that,  BEFORE you can  have
a viable Capitalist economy.  This means, to Weber, the  Protestant 
consensus.
Actually, as later generations of thinkers have pointed out, northern 
Catholicism will do just as well, or Confucianism, or even something
about Hinduism or Buddhism. But you need that kind of foundation.
 
If you don't have it, you have extreme difficulty in setting up and
maintaining a Capitalist system. Southern Catholicism, as Fukuyama
has noted, isn't all that good, hence the major troubles that  continue
to plague Latin America. And Islam sure won't do it  -unless it  is
undergirded by massive oil wealth. Think of non-oil Muslim nations
like Afghanistan or Sudan or Yemen, they are all (or almost all)
gosh awful messes. And as for traditionalist sub-Saharan Africa,
with a religious system based on something along the lines of Voodoo,
what do you get but chaos?
 
What are the preconditions for economic success?  The answer
cannot be "the economy" because that is a circular argument.
What makes Capitalism possible?  
 
Its the values, stupid.
 
 
But, but , but, you are embarrassed by discussions of religion or  sexuality
or culture? Gee, that's too bad. Better get un-embarrassed quick.
Better do the necessary homework, too.
 
But, but, but, that won't make me any money?
 
You see the problem ?
 
And so the whole damned culture is won over by people with
a vested interest in overturning the culture because they
at least make the effort to understand the culture and are willing 
to put up with something less that making a lot of money 
in order to change the culture. And so we are on  the verge
of no longer being a "Christian nation" and the Christians
-who are fixated on making money-  are clueless about what
has hit them and nowadays cling to islands-of-security theology 
that protects them  -in their local sanctuaries at least-   
from even more social disaster.
 
What do you think "The Power of Popular Culture" is all about
and why the book has that title?
 
Economic determinism is a load of crap.
 
 
In my humble opinion
Billy
 
 
-----------------------------------------------------
 
 
5/14/2017 10:41:35 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]  
writes:
 
I think a lot of the general decrease in social cohesiveness could be  
addressed by giving people more of a stake in the general wellness of the  
economy. 401ks were supposed to do this, right? Apparently they weren't  
enough. 
Weren't we talking about an economy with some stakeholder/ 
ownership-sharing scheme a few weeks ago? May make  people think twice 
about walking off the job to protest flavor-of-the-month  social issues. It 
would hit their pocketbooks. We could transition to that  topic for week 3 and 
then work in the moral dimension?


At the end of the day, RC may be a manifestation of  Aristotle's organic 
state, and the flow of money is like the circulatory  system of the body. 
Important, yes, but just a process that helps keep the  organs going.

On May 13, 2017, at 8:41 PM, Chris Hahn <[email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected]) > wrote:



   
 
Great  posting Billy.   
I am the  product of a “liberal education”, at a small liberal arts 
college in the  Midwest.  This school produces the base for an inordinate of 
physicians  and Ph.D. chemists, yet all are required to take philosophy, 
religion,  languages, psychology, sociology, etc. 
Without  the broad spectrum of thought, a laser-focused person and society 
could make  major mistakes.  I greatly value your philosophical nature.  It  
makes us all richer. 
Chris   
 
 
From: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])  [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent:  Friday, May 12, 2017 12:18 PM
To: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) ; 
[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) ;  
[email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected]) 
Cc:  [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) 
Subject: [ RC ]  Statement emerging from Industrial Policy Discussion  
5/12/17

 
Chris:
 
Your  role as moderator was invaluable; much  appreciated.
 
Really  good job of it. You made the podcast "value  added"
 
in  ways impossible without you.
 

 
The  title, "Industrial Policy," did throw me off  somewhat.
 

 
There  is a joke that I like to tell, taken from a sitcom some years  ago.
 
It  was a family get-together and everyone was talking about   jobs
 
or  job prospects. One of the family  -a daughter-  said that she  was
 
majoring  in philosophy at so-and-so university. To which the  uncle
 
replied:  "You're in luck, they're opening a new philosophy  factory
 
in  Green Bay next year."
 

 
I  feel kinda like that, ie, how does philosophy fit into the category of  
economics?
 
It  is valuable, even necessary in some contexts, but how do you  calculate
 
its  economic  worth?
 

 
After  all, philosophy is about evaluating assumptions  -and  assumptions
 
can  be costly if they are wrong.
 

 
This  also has to do with my view that today's across-the-board focus  
 
on  STEM education is terribly flawed. There needs to be  balance.
 

 
For  example, take our differing views of high tech. I do get the point  
that
 
some  innovations are very important or, at a minimum, can  become
 
important  down the road. But there seems to be a set of built-in  
 
assumptions  that operate among tech types. To summarize,
 
"hey,  we don't need to worry about values or history or  religion
 
of  culture or any of that, because we already know all we need  to
 
about  these areas. We can take for granted the whole  collection
 
of  social issues as set in concrete. 
 

 
Well,  we just saw how that played out in politics last  November.
 
Nothing  was  etched in stone and the worst candidate for prez
 
in  US history won the election.  Which doesn't mean that  Hillary
 
was  much better; maybe she was overall but in some areas  
 
she  was even worse.
 

 
The  point is that if you ignore the culture you do so only at great  cost.
 
To  put it in such terms, maybe profit maximization gives you a  society
 
dominated  by criminals, by perverts who corrupt you kids, and  hedonist
 
entertainers  who poison religion, news, government, and  politics.
 
What  do you say then? "Yayy, we just sold $ 50 billion worth  
 
of  new iPhones or new XBoxes"?
 

 
So, I  take the view that values / history / religion / culture  are all  
permanently 
 
"unsettled"  and fluid and in need of constant monitoring and  evaluation.
 
For  me that has to be the priority.
 

 
But  this also reflects my skill set. Different skill set and maybe I'd  
have
 
different  priorities, too. Yet I still think I would argue for  balance
 
in  education, and not put STEM on a pedestal that is so high off the  
ground
 
that  it looks like Mt. Everest and everything else looks like a flood  
plain.
 
I  think that Mt Kilimanjaro is important and Pike's Peak and Denali  
 
and  the Matterhorn, not just Everest.
 

 

 
Billy
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
5/12/2017  10:38:07 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected])   writes:
 

 

 

 
This  is the beginning of a Radical Centrist statement relating to  
economic/industrial policy to ensure America's long-term prosperity (some  
possible 
edits are parenthetical):

All markets require governance  to ensure that the rules and prices that 
guide economic behavior better  (best) reflect (authentic product and service) 
costs and the (America's)  underlying values.  Moral markets require actors 
to act  morally.

The edited version would read like this:

All  markets require governance to ensure that the rules and prices that 
guide  economic behavior best reflect authentic product and service costs and  
America's underlying values.  Moral markets require actors to act  morally. 
  

... more to come after building thoughts in a  step-by-step manner.

That's it for now.  The discussion was  interesting and enjoyable!

Chris 

-----Original  Message-----
From: [email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected])   
[mailto:[email protected]]  On Behalf Of Chris Hahn
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 11:48 AM
To: 'Dr.  Ernie Prabhakar' <[email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected]) >;  [email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected]) 
Subject:  Industrial Policy Discussion on 5/12 at 9 AM Pacific

Radical  Centrist Weekly Forum

Topic/Question for May 12:  What  industrial policy should President Trump 
pursue to ensure America's  long-term economic prosperity?  

Goal:  to develop a  brief mutually-agreeable statement that summarizes our 
answer to the  topic/question.

Method:  
A.  Opening statements from  each participant in the forum B.  Moderated 
brainstorming directed to  identify areas of agreement and to explore 
underlying interests in areas  of disagreement C.  Write down 
mutually-agreeable 
ideas and develop  them into a statement D.  Debrief the session E.  Develop a  
topic for the following week.  

Chris  



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected])   
[mailto:[email protected]]  On Behalf Of Dr. Ernie 
Prabhakar
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 11:04  AM
To: [email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected]) 
Subject:  Constructive conversation

# Structure
1. Moderator
2. At  least three perspectives
3. Open-ended question
4. Ground  rules
5. Focus on interests rather than positions 

# Tribate  Format
1. Moderator statement
2. Participant share A and Q
3.  Discussions
4. Consensus building
5. Reflect
6. Next  steps


Sent from my iPhone

--
You received this  message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Mediating Trump"  group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from  it, send an 
email to [email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected]) .
To  post to this group, send email to [email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected]) .
To  view this discussion on the web visit 
_https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mediating-trump/E8B284CD-3584-4F53-AE52-99897043D324%40gmail.com_
 
(https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mediating-trump/E8B284CD-3584-4F53-AE52-99897043D3
[email protected]) .
For  more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  Groups 
"Mediating Trump" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop  receiving emails from it, send an 
email to [email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected]) .
To  post to this group, send email to [email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected]) .
To  view this discussion on the web visit 
_https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mediating-trump/005b01d2c5c7%24cd120640%24673612c0%24%402chahn.com_
 
(https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mediating-trump/005b01d2c5c7$cd120640$673612c0$@
2chahn.com) .
For  more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  Groups 
"Mediating Trump" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop  receiving emails from it, send an 
email to [email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected]) .
To  post to this group, send email to [email protected]_ 
(mailto:[email protected]) .
To  view this discussion on the web visit 
_https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mediating-trump/00f101d2cb46%2482bc1840%24883448c0%24%402chahn.com_
 
(https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mediating-trump/00f101d2cb46$82bc1840$883448c0$@
2chahn.com) .
For  more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




=

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to