Plutocrats: The Rise Of The New Global Super-Rich And The Fall Of Everyone Else

This book is an interesting look into the lives of the uber wealthy, not just the 1% but the 0.01%. Instead of just hating on them, the author (Chrystia Freeland) offers a look into their lives and why they think the way they do. She also offers some compelling evidence on how great the divide truly is.

She starts off by explaining how economists thought that fully industrialized or post-industrial societies would see income inequality decrease as education became more widespread and the state played a bigger, more redistributive role. What they discovered was that equality is prevalent only at the historical poles of a civilization. “Savages are equal because they are equally weak and ignorant. Very civilized men can all become equal because they all have at their disposal similar means of attaining comfort and happiness. Between these two extremes is found inequality of condition, wealth and knowledge - the power of the few, the poverty, ignorance and weakness of the rest” – Alexis De Tocqueville.

She talks about how political decisions helped to create the super elite in the first place and as the economic might of the super elite class grows, so does its political muscle, which creates an endless loop. A stark example of this is that income inequality in communist China is now higher than in the U.S., and is on the rise in India & Russia. This has created a new ‘virtual nation’ of mammon (worshipping wealth/greed), where the rich have more in common with each other than with their countrymen. The business example she gives of this is Citigroup, a global bank, which has a devised a ‘consumer hourglass theory’ where they invest in super-luxury goods producers and deep discounters. They are working under the assumption that as the middle class is hollowed out, the companies that sell products to them will disappear.

In the U.S., the first income inequality gap was created by the industrial revolution and the 1% were called robber barons. Between the 1940s and the 1970s, this gap shrank, largely due to the government compromising with the 99% due to the rise of communism in Europe. In 1980, the average U.S. CEO made 42 times as much as the average worker, while in 2012, that number was 380 times as much. This change was largely due to the fact that in the early 80’s Ronald Reagan (President at the time), slashed the highest marginal tax rate from 70% to 28%, reined in trade unions, cut social welfare spending and deregulated the economy. The U.S. was emboldened by the fall of communism – it no longer had a strong ideological competitor to Freidman’s free market ideas. They underwent 3 major transformations in this time: a technology revolution, globalization and the rise of the Washington consensus (the World Bank’s decision on how best to pull a country out of poverty). The rules of the game again favour those who are winning it.

The author then talks about how we aren’t reliving the ‘Gilded Age’ – we are living through 2 simultaneous Gilded Ages. The West is experiencing its second, while emerging markets are experiencing their first. She argues that with time, the creative destruction of capitalism inevitably brings an overall improvement in everyone’s standard of living, and that this twin Gilded Age is positive. However, the costs and benefits of trade are unevenly shared. “As individuals we aren’t getting smarter, but society as a whole is accumulating more and more knowledge” –Joe Mokyr. We have the ‘unhappy growth paradox’ due to the uncertainty and inequality of periods of rapid economic change.

She then discusses the current group of plutocrats. She says that the defining quality of the current crop of plutocrats is that they are the ‘working rich’. They are not aristocrats but rather economic meritocrats, preoccupied not only with consuming wealth, but also with creating it. We are in the age of alpha geeks, where education is key. They are seen as the ‘heroes’, trying to battle for the collective good. They move in circles that are defined by ‘interests’ rather than geography. Essentially, they are global citizens. For these super rich, ideas conferences are a big thing (ie. TED talks), as is philanthropy. They want to bestow their fortunes the same way they made them – entrepreneurially. All their wealth allows them to test new ways to solve big problems. They are trying to apply the secret behind their money making success to their giving. The biggest question becomes, where to give when you’re a global citizen? She talks about how Bill Gates and Warren Buffett made it important, not only to give away a lot of your money, but also to be actively engaged in how it is spent. They want to transform how charity works and change how the state operates. The plutocrat as politician is becoming an important member of the world’s governing elite. America’s super elite has been particularly effective at using the tools of a political democracy – where in theory, the majority should rule – to protect its minority privilege. She mentions how they corner the market for positional goods, which are products and services whose value is derived in part from their scarcity and how much everyone else wants them (ie. A place in the Harvard first year class). If you have them, I don’t.

She then begins to explain the gender gap within the 0.1%. Of the 1226 billionaires, only 104 are women and most of them are wives, daughters and widows. Within the 99%, women are earning more money, getting more educated and gaining more power, but the top 1% has remained an all-boys club. In 2009, it was the first time women outnumbered men on the country’s pay rolls (in America) and in 2010, 4 in 10 working wives were the chief bread winners for their families. She guesses that this hasn’t translated into the same percentage of women at the top because women aren’t as cutthroat, they are missing that killer instinct. She also says that the skill biased technical change has brought the technocrats to class power, with technical change being the main driver of income polarization. We live in a world where being the most successful in your field delivers huge rewards, but coming in second place has much less economic value (winner takes all mentality). “The relative fall in the incomes to be earned by moderate ability is accentuated by the rise in those that are obtained by men of extraordinary ability” –Alfred Marshall. This environment of superstar economics takes meritocracy to the next level, only rewarding those who are at the very top, and rewarding them with insane amounts of money.

Technology has allowed superstars to export their skills to the masses. It’s has always been a battle between capital (the people who have the money) and talent (the people who have the skills), and previously capital was winning. But now, it’s possible for the talented to practice their profession independently, cutting out the ‘capital’. Superstars are able to be better paid for the value they create - thanks to richer clients, more clients and better terms of trade with their financial backers. The superstar phenomenon also feeds on itself because the world tends to give credit to people who are already famous. CEO’s and executives at the very top are rewarded for corporate success but almost no one else is. CEO’s are a special type of superstar; the one who is in charge of the company that pays his salary. The reason this system has lasted so long is because we all like to think we are superstars in waiting and will get our big break any day now.

However, the rich tend to get richer by buying to get rich. Many people have become richer by using their influence to bend the rules of the economic game in their own favour, benefiting greatly from things like Russia’s super sale of public assets which helped create arguably the greatest number of billionaires. The world’s richest man at the moment is Carlos Slim, who hugely benefited from the privatization of Mexican assets. Financial deregulation has been crucial to the emergence of the plutocracy, leading to the pre-eminence of the financiers within the global super elite. One telltale sign the state is deciding who gets rich is how much time and money plutocrats spend on selecting their government and influencing decisions. ‘Legal corruption’ is increasing the gap between the rich and everyone else. The threat that business, particularly finance, might move to another country, was one of the most powerful arguments in favour of deregulation. The rich argue that the common good is better served when the wealthy ‘self-tax’ by supporting charities of their own selection, rather than paying taxes to fund government spending. Most lobbying is pro-business, in the sense that it promotes the interests of existing businesses, not pro market in the sense of fostering truly free and open competition.

Nearly half of all members of congress were millionaires in 2010 and their median net worth was $913,000, which just shows that the people are not truly represented in their democracy. “We may have democracy, or me may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both” – Louis Brandeis. What separates successful states from failed ones is whether their governing institutions are inclusive or extractive. Extractive means controlled by ruling elites whose objective is to extract as much wealth as they can from the rest of society and to maintain their own hold on power; inclusive means everyone has a say in how their society is ruled and has access to economic opportunity. Greater inclusiveness leads to more prosperity. As the people at the very top become every richer, they have an every greater ability to tilt the rules of the game in their favour. She finishes by saying that the next big threat posed by income inequality is the transfer of privilege from one generation to the next, those who are ‘born rich’ and how that will affect our society.

Crazy fact from the book: It now costs less than $600 to buy a disk drive with the capacity to store all of the world’s recorded music. 

Jony Ive: The Genius Behind Apple's Greatest Products

This book was an interesting look at Apple from a design side and did a good job of explaining how the culture and decisions they have made, have led to huge successes and to some of their failures. It’s important to keep in mind that the author, Leander Kahney, is also the editor and publisher of a blog titled ‘Cult of Mac’, and therefore is very informed, but also biased, when it comes to all things Apple.

He starts off by talking about Jony Ive, and how his childhood and education has brought him to such a place of prominence today. Ive was born in England, and he learned a lot from his father, who loved design and constantly encouraged him. At a young age his talent was obvious and he would build scores of models and prototypes. Ive had a talent for adding tactile elements to his designs, and often used the colour white, which would eventually become significant for Apple. He also focused on simplicity and minimalism, and was very interested in humanizing technology. His starting point for designs was always what something SHOULD be. Ive also understood that style had a corrosive effect, aging a product before it’s time if it’s design went out of style. He often got upset when his work was ruined by the people he was working for, and he disliked consulting because he couldn’t see projects through to completion.

His interest in Apple grew when he noticed that they gave personality and meaning to technology that was still being treated as though it were anonymous. A man named Robert Brunner tried 3 times to get Ive to join Apple, and he finally succeeded. He was the man who set up the design studio at Apple, hired the talent, and when he left, he recommended that they promote Ive, which they did. When Jobs was gone, Apple tried licensing out the Mac operating system because they saw Microsoft successfully doing it, but it failed for Apple. When Jobs returned he said that the goal was not just to make money, but to make great products. That’s what convinced Ive to stay with the company.

Jobs had a new strategy. Apple was going to make 4 products: a desktop computer for a consumer, a desktop computer for a professional, a portable computer for a consumer and a portable computer for a professional. When he first came back, he laid off 4200 people. He decided he didn’t want to compete in the broader market for PCs because they competed on price, not features or ease of use, which Jobs viewed as a race to the bottom. He believed that well designed, well made computers could command the same market share and margins as a luxury automobile. With Ive’s help, industrial design would be the centerpiece of Apple’s comeback. Design was not just about how a product looked, but also about how it worked.

“As industrial designers we no longer design objects. We design the user’s perceptions of what those objects are, as well as the meaning that accrues from their physical existence, their function and the sense of possibility they offer” – Jony Ive. The computer industry had become about product attributes that you could measure empirically (very inhuman and cold), but Ive wanted to design objects that dispensed positive emotions.

The author then begins to talk about each of the Apple products under Jobs and how they led to the Apple products we see today. First is the iMac, which they decided would be the first all in one PC, built with focus and simplicity. During the summer leading up to the release of the iMac, Apple spent $100 million on advertising. The iMac launched ‘translucence’ as a product trend. Apple then focused on the PowerBook, which was a laptop designed for professionals. They were the first to recognize the potential of USB and Wi-Fi, and also incorporated a magnetic latch (buttons and latches that make a design pop are called jewelry), which would become very standard for Apple. Then there was the Power Mac Cube, which represented breakthroughs in manufacturing techniques and miniaturization, eventually leading to the Mac Mini. The design team challenged every preconceived notion about every material. Toshiba then came up with a 1.8” hard drive that could hold 5GB (1000 cds), which allowed the iPod to be possible. The iPod was the first product where they thought about packaging.

“If there was ever a product that catalyzed Apple’s reason for being, it’s this (iPod), because it combines Apple’s incredible technology base with Apple’s legendary ease of use with Apple’s awesome design. Those 3 things come together in this, and it’s like, that’s what we do. So if anybody was ever wondering why Apple is on the earth, I would hold this up as a good example” – Jony Ive.

The author then talks about where Tim Cook fits into the picture. He originally worked on an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system and reduced inventory on hand to 2 days. He sold off Apple factories to increase profit margins, and his team figured out how to produce the products in their millions and deliver them all over the world, on time and in utmost secrecy. This allowed Apple’s designers to do more. They started to work on a unibody process, where products could be made out of one piece of metal. Machining is the way to make the best parts possible, the pinnacle of refinement and precision, but it takes time and money.

The author then delves into how Ive and the design team started to be involved in designing the software side of things too. It’s presumed that Scott Forstall lost a power struggle with Ive in 2012 and was fired, allowing Ive to become the head of hardware and software (the creative side). The biggest disagreement he had with Forstall was about skeuomorphic design, which basically means graphic interfaces that resemble real world objects. The user interface conventions looked like their real life counterparts (ie. Bookshelves for ebooks). It allowed neophytes (beginners, newcomers) to be immediately familiar with an unfamiliar device. Problems started because Jony didn’t like skeuomorphism, and because Apple started to get criticisms that it was ‘tacky’, which put Forstall in the line of fire. This is why iOS 7 is drastically different than previous operating systems. It had Jony’s minimalism, stripping away anything that was unnecessary. It was also infused with a deep appreciation for print graphic design (ex: typography=Helvetica Neue). Ive believed that hardware changes could only be incremental, not fundamental, at this point. Software was the new design frontier and Ive wanted to be a part of that.

Ive believes that Apple’s goal is not to make money, but to make great products, and that if you do that, everything will follow. Jobs always said that focus isn’t a question of saying yes to projects, it’s saying no. Under Ive’s guidance, Apple has remained highly disciplined in saying no to products that are competent as opposed to great. However, Apple no longer takes risks, generational leaps grow more incremental and the continuity Ive has brought means the ‘shock of new is gone’. Apple has gone from being the alternative to the mainstream and that brings with it more challenges. Ive and his design style are seen as the establishment, as the status quo, and Apple has to find a new design language if they want to survive. Jony Ive’s new challenge is to find a new design style for Apple, and essentially, for himself.

Thoughts: I thought this book was a great look at how Apple’s products came to be the way they are, building a story around how each design element came to be. Things that users take for granted like magnetic latches, white products, touch screens, all came to life in Apple’s design studio. I also learned a lot about design and various terms used when designing. The book would perhaps be a bit more balanced if it talked about how this shift to a design focus hurt Apple in some ways. The most recent example of this would be the iPhone 6 bending, which I would guess is due to engineering having to give up some things to make the design teams designs come to life. 

Part 2; America: Imagine A World Without Her

(This is a continuation of the previous post because there was too much valuable information to share it all in one post!)

He then moves into the topic of capitalism. He says that America is based on the invention of wealth creation, on the understanding that wealth can be created through innovation and enterprise, not just conquest. The old frontier was new land, now its new wealth and new technology (unending). Many argue that we aren’t entirely responsible for our own success because the roads were built by the people, workers are educated by the people, firefighters are paid by the people, etc. However, everyone has access to these things, and the people who make the most of them will succeed. It does not follow that achievement is unearned. They are trying to argue that the capitalist wealth – all of it – belongs to the community.

He then talks about Adam Smith and how his theories are based on the paradox that individual selfishness can be channeled to the collective benefit of society. This thought is echoed by Rand who says that it is ethical for people to do what is good for themselves. Actual societies must be built on human nature as it is, not as we wish it to be (which is why communism doesn’t work in society, only in families). Successful entrepreneurs (ie. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg) have already made their money and don’t need to come into work every day, however they continue to work because they have the gift of creativity and want to share it with society. They are not primarily motivated by money, they are primarily motivated by the love of what they do. He puts forth the idea that capitalism is based on altruism. This is because success comes from attending to the wants and needs of others. Capitalists who make good profits do so because they are especially good at empathizing with and serving other people. “Extreme sympathy” is when entrepreneurs are providing for the wants of consumers before consumers even know what they want. Profit is simply a measure of how well they have served the wants and needs of their customers. He argues that capitalism civilizes greed in the same way marriage civilizes lust. Labour gets paid ‘wages’, entrepreneurs get paid ‘profits’.

He continues by saying that the monetary value of a person’s contribution is determined by the consumer. The beauty of free markets is that the ‘value’ of each provider is decided precisely by the guy who is going to pay for that provider. The morality of capitalism (and democracy) is rooted in consent. Consent is confirmation on the part of all parties that they are better off; if they weren’t, they wouldn’t make the deal. He also argues that unequal prosperity is better than shared poverty. Are the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? No. The richer are getting richer and the poor are getting richer, just not at the same pace. In America today there is virtually no absolute poverty, only relative poverty (ie. You feel poor compared to Bill Gates). American capitalism has helped to create the first mass affluent class in world history, and in the long term, technological capitalism creates deep and abiding equality among citizens. The broad spread of technology and medicine, far from representing a theft by the rich, represents a subsidy on their part that has greatly benefited the larger society. The rich pay the initial high prices that lead to more research and development, and a way to bring the product to the masses.

He then says that overpopulation was considered the main reason China and India were so poor, but then they started to use this to their advantage (“cheap labour”). Technological capitalism has proven to be the greatest anti-poverty scheme ever invented. There is no significant anti-globalization movement in countries like China and India because they know better than American progressives what is good for them. Globalization helps to reduce immigration from poor countries to rich countries. It’s also a force for peace among nations because countries that trade with each other become mutually dependent. Globalization penalizes inefficient American workers but benefits cost conscious American consumers.

Next he talks about American foreign policy. He says that it is based on two simple concepts. (1) Don’t bomb us, (2) trade with us. He argues that, that’s all Americans want from the rest of the world (I’m not sure if I truly believe this, seems idealistic). He says that America has helped other countries and could have colonized but hasn’t. America does not oppose the rise of other powers, as long as they are peaceful trading powers and not violent conquering powers (I think he means as long as they don’t disagree with America’s ideals and give them all their resources….but anyway). He says that we feel inferior to others when we realize we are not as good as they are and that envy is an invisible vice which leads to resentment and frustration.

He then says that the government is inefficient. They waste money because it’s not their money and they are not subject to market forces (ie. They have no bottom line). They don’t have access to the kind of information needed to make good decisions and that people typically have access to at the local level. A centralized government is ill-equipped to make innumerable decisions that are best left to local people, businesses, government, etc. The government purports to be fostering moral action among citizens while in reality, its policies have nothing to do with morality. Coercive government policies strip the virtue out of every transaction.

One of the key features of the common good is that it benefits all citizens, but the author argues that the redistribution of wealth by government is theft. The top 1% of people pay 1/3 of federal income tax, the next 9% pay another 1/3, and the bottom 50% of people pay nothing. In this scenario, surveillance has the benefit of letting the government collect information for its heist (for taking/stealing from citizens).  The information collected through government spying can also be used to achieve social compliance. The benefit of having extensive reams of personal data is that almost anyone can be found to have fallen afoul of the rules sometime or other (not sure how accurate this is). He argues that the government is becoming a vehicle of terror and an instrument of theft because it is spying on it’s own people, and has the power and discretion to decide whom it wants to prosecute. It’s very common for guilty pleas to be the product of risk avoidance at the expense of truth.

He ends off by talking about what the world would be like without America in charge. “We are so used to the world being western, even American, that we have little idea what it would be like if it was not”. The decline could be gradual or sudden (collapse), and will most likely correspond with the rise of Asia. It will be a return to when China and India used to rule the world (5^th century-1750). America’s military, political and cultural power is all derived from its affluence. The key is economic strength. He wants to see countries succeed not through conquest but through wealth creation. The mantra in Asia, Africa and South America is “modernization without westernization”.

His last point is that Chinese hegemony will look different from American hegemony (who would have guessed eh?). He explains that the Chinese have a deeply hierarchical view of the world based on culture and race, and that they are shrewdly exploiting anti-American sentiments to make themselves look like the better alternative. He argues that the Chinese will have no interest in shared global leadership (goal=singular hegemony) and that they have no intention of actually fighting a war with America. Their objective is to show that such a war would be suicidal for America.

Overall this was a really interesting and eye opening book. It provides a good counter argument to a lot of the things we hear in the media. I do think he goes a little too far at times with his “America is amazing” attitude, acting like they are super nice and innocent and have no bad intentions behind anything they do. They definitely have various goals and intentions when they interact with other countries, and I think we won’t know what the best approach is until we have something else to compare it to. If you don't want to read the book (although you should), he also released a documentary by the same name. I haven't watched it yet so i can't promise that it's as good as the book.

Part 1; America: Imagine A World Without Her

I was browsing through a list of recently released books, and this title caught my eye. My immediate thought was “oh boy, this should be good (sarcasm). A book that’s going to talk about how amazing the U.S. is, and how we can’t survive without it. Because we needed more of those…”. I was unprepared for what it actually turned out to be – a very eye opening book that provided a different point of view on many events in the history of the U.S.

I want to start off by saying that the author, Dinesh D’Souza, is a man who was born in India, came to the U.S. as an exchange student, has a strong conservative political background and is a Christian. I think all of these things lend context to his argument. For one, it’s hard to argue that he is brainwashed to be pro-American considering he didn’t grow up there. However, he does have reason to discredit Obama, which he does often. Both these things are important to keep in mind.

He starts off by explaining that the decline of America has become a policy objective. The American dream is shrinking because some of our leaders want it to shrink. They plan to rebuild a different type of country. And the result of this is a powerful, moral critique of America by many people, who point to three obvious indicators of decline. (1) The American economy is stagnant and shrinking relative to the growing economies of China, Russia, India and Brazil. China will be the world’s largest economy by 2016. And historically, once nations lose their position at the top of the world they never get it back (I would argue that China is doing exactly that). (2) America is drowning in debt. China is the world’s largest creditor nation, while the U.S. is the world’s largest debtor nation. U.S. national debt is bigger than annual GDP ($17 trillion debt), and the majority of this debt is owed to foreign nations, leading to a transfer of wealth away from America. (3) America is losing its position in the world. It is downsizing its nuclear arsenal which leads to less military dominance, and a loss of hegemony around the world.

While countries are often founded by accident and force, America was an opportunity to found a nation by reflection and choice. However all of the above indicators will lead to a sharp drop in America’s standard of living. At home, Obama has been expanding the power of the state and reducing the scope of the private sector, while internationally he has been reducing the footprint of America in the world. The author argues that he does this because he is an anti-colonialist, and that he got this from his father. The key idea of anti-colonialism is that the wealth of the west has been obtained by theft. This is in the similar vein of progressivism, which is a moral critique of capitalism. He mentions how Obama is influenced by radicals such as Bill Ayers, who bombed the pentagon and then became a teacher at the University of Illinois, and others whose basic ideas were to conform and attack from within (act like a square so they think you are).

He says that America is divided into 2 groups: makers and takers. If the takers outnumber makers, progressives will continue to win elections. And if the facts proposed by the progressives are true, then that means America is founded on theft and plunder, and it continues to sustain its wealth through these things, which makes America as a nation, morally indefensible. The extreme progressive view is that America should be destroyed, while the mainstream progressive remedy is guilt and atonement, which would mean returning wealth to its rightful owners. They are essentially attempting to undo America’s crimes, and if necessary, undo America in the process. This is the progressive case for American suicide, the suicide of a national identity and a dissolution of the American era. This is anti-Americanism (strong antagonism to American ideas and institutions) from Americans who know their country well.

The author lays out this progressive viewpoint and then begins to refute each of the progressive claims. He begins with the idea that America ‘stole’ the land it is encompasses. How can one claim to own something in perpetuity simply by occupying and claiming it? “Owning a piece of land or property is like occupying a seat in a public theatre. It’s your seat, but only while you are sitting in it. You don’t own it and even it’s possession comes with certain duties and obligations” (Cicero’s analogy on the ancient view of property). “The white man who displaced the Indians also brought with him that doctrine of property rights – not to mention the courts of law to enforce it – which ultimately enabled the Indian to challenge the white man’s occupation on the basis of the white man’s own doctrine” (I think this is incredibly ironic, the point being that the Indians didn’t have their own property laws and fought each other all the time for territory). “Human effort converts unowned and largely useless land into owned and useful property”. This argument explains that labour is what adds value to land, and we have a right to acquire as much land as we can ourselves cultivate and develop. The example the author uses is that of Manhattan. The Indians sold it to the Dutch for $24, but they were not robbed. ‘Manhattan’ as we know it, is the creation of the new people who built it, not the original inhabitants who occupied it.

Next he moves on to the idea that America stole part of Mexico. There are many who argue that America acquired half of Mexico and doesn’t let Mexicans work their land. Many American latinos want to create a country made up of northern Mexico and the southwestern U.S., called Aztlan. Others think that the U.S. and Mexico will become one nation through immigration and higher Hispanic birth, and that eventually the border will disappear. The author argues that if America cannot claim title to land by conquest, then neither can the people from whom is was taken (Hispanics), who themselves took it from someone else (Indians). From one perspective, the U.S. took half of Mexico; from another, the U.S. returned half of Mexico which it could have kept for itself (Mexico started the Mexican war, which the U.S. won after they captured Mexico city and held it for 9 months). Mexicans who lived in places now part of the U.S. immediately became U.S. citizens and very few people left to return to Mexico.

He then talks about the history of Texas which I found very interesting and also ironic. Apparently Texas separated itself from Mexico because they were mostly anglos and the government was a tyrant. They asked if they could join the U.S. as a state but the U.S. said no to admitting them largely because of northern concerns that the admission of Texas would strengthen the slave power of the American south. Texas remained an independent republic for 10 years. They were finally admitted in 1845, settling the border between Texas and Mexico, which started the Mexican war (ironic because there is currently a large movement in Texas trying to get it to separate from the U.S.).

The next idea he tackles is that of slavery. “What is uniquely western is not slavery, but the abolition of slavery”. No civilization once dependent on slavery has ever been able to eradicate it, except the western (J.M. Roberts). He explains that slavery is bad for master and slaves – it degrades work, so less work is done. There were also black slave owners – free blacks who owned black slaves (around 3500 in 1830 who collectively owned more than 10000 black slaves). He also explains that many African countries were more than happy to trade with slaves, their own people. “One African chief memorably stated that he wanted 3 things – foodstuffs, alcohol and weapons - and he had 3 things to exchange for them – men, women and children”. The author argues that the only reason slavery became controversial in America was because of the influence of Christianity. The constitution helped work toward abolition of slavery and thousands of white men died in the civil war to try and free slaves.

He then discusses segregation. Private companies were concerned about the higher cost of doing business under segregation. Conservative segregation was designed to preserve and encourage the self esteem of black people, to protect them from radicals and the KKK, and many believed it preferable to lynchings and flaming crosses. “In a perverse way, segregation created economic opportunity because is kept whites out of businesses and professions that served the black community”. They had to adapt and they did. However, at least some of them could have established even more productive enterprises that served both blacks and whites (the author uses this to explain why there is the idea of white man ‘taking’ from blacks, because of the opportunities they missed out on).

The author then dives in the idea of racism, saying racism is the theory and discrimination is the practice. He says racial discrimination can be private or state sanctioned (voluntary vs. involuntary). In regards to private discrimination, he argues that when people enter into contracts the parties do so because of their mutual benefit, and that private employers should no more be forced to hire employees than employees should be forced to work for employers against their will. Stealing, by its very definition, means making someone worse off, and not hiring someone does not make them worse off. We are not entitled to a job or deal or benefit. In regards to state discrimination, it does constitute a ‘taking’ because the state is a monopoly and if the state doesn’t do business with you, you don’t have any alternatives short of leaving the state or country. As citizens, everyone is entitled to be treated equally, and if they aren’t then their rights are being infringed upon, which constitutes ‘taking’ something they are entitled to.

(There is too much interesting information to include in one post so I will continue this in Part 2).

Blood Feud

I’ve always found American politics very interesting, probably because of how polarizing they are. I find it hard to fathom that Americans are okay with a political system that makes them choose between two extremes. With a population of 300+ million people there are bound to be some people who fall in the middle? What if you wanted more relaxed gun laws and better health care? Same sex marriages and a bigger military? But that’s a topic for another day. The book I’m going to talk about, Blood Feud, was particularly interesting to me because it talks about a divide within a party. Both groups are within the same party but on opposite ends of the spectrum, which makes me think, why not start another party? Instead, their answer appears to try and destroy/undermine the other group. And so, Blood Feud focuses on two families: The Clintons and the Obamas.

When Obama was getting ready to run for re-election, his team realized that he had low ratings and couldn’t do it alone. So they told him to make a deal with Bill Clinton. Bill, who still has high approval ratings and a significant amount of power, would help Obama get re-elected if Obama would back Hillary’s run for presidency in 2016. Bill is set on Hillary becoming president, and the Clintons being back in the White House. So he helped Obama campaign and gave a great rallying speech for him at the Democratic convention. But since then Obama has reneged on the deal, which has caused a lot of animosity between the families. Apparently, the idea of turning back on the deal came from Obama’s #1 advisor, Valerie Jarrett. She is best friends with Michelle Obama, she lives in the residence and Obama passes everything by her. She has more power than any presidential aid in a long time and was a key part of getting Obama elected.

According to many sources, Obama was unprepared and too inexperienced to be president. He is a great campaigner but poor at governing. His 2^nd term plan was to be a bully, be rude, and demand things from congress but that didn’t work. The Republicans turned down one thing after another. Plan B was to go on a charm offensive and engage with Republicans, but they are very cynical because he didn’t do this in the first 4 years. The Republicans aren’t the only ones who Obama ignored in the first four years. He did the same to Oprah, ignoring her after all the work she did for him in his first presidential campaign (supposedly getting him around 1 million votes), and now it looks like she may support Hillary in a presidential election.

Bill hasn’t taken well to Obama ignoring their deal, and started to steal away some of Obama’s staff to work on Hillary’s campaign. Obama called Hillary and asked her to reign Bill in – she said she can’t and she won’t. Throughout his post presidential years, Bill has worked hard to reinvent himself, focusing on charity, politics and education. Hillary has high approval ratings, even after she was blamed for the incident in Benghazi (where the CIA was supposed to defend the embassy), and made to lie by the President. It’s also likely that they will have the backing of Caroline Kennedy. However both Hillary and Bill have anger issues and health issues. There are questions about Hillary’s age, health and her over familiarity.

There are also worries that Bill’s heart will give out on him. What would Hillary do without him? Would she retire from politics? Apparently Bill has planned out how his death would help Hillary, saying “It should be worth a couple million votes.” I think this is quite funny, and shows just how much politics is embedded in who they are. There is also their daughter Chelsea to consider. She has started to run the Clinton foundation and will most likely run the day to day details of Hillary’s campaign. She may also run for office someday, considering Hillary has appointed her as her heir apparent.

This book offered a very insightful look into two very political families who are fighting for control of the Democratic Party, and perhaps for control of America. It’s strange to think that in a democracy we would have dynasties or legacies such as the Bush’s and the Clinton’s. Perhaps time to consider that we are being ruled by an elite? Lots of food for thought in this one!

The Square

This documentary is an on the ground look at the uprisings that have happened in Egypt over the last couple of years, starting in 2011. Someone clearly had the foresight to film everything – which allows them to tell their side of the story. They talk about a number of things including how the protests started and how the Muslim Brotherhood was dividing the people and making deals with the army. It shows how the protestors got Mubarek to step down but the regime continued with army in control. The protestors were looking for a voice/option other than the Brotherhood or the old regime.

It’s incredible to see the courage of the people as they protest and unite using song and dance. They are forced to fight as the army starts to use force and bullets to deter them. One person says that it’s crazy that the regime has convinced “Egyptians to kill Egyptians”. The army is supposed to protect the people, not kill them. Interestingly the makers of the documentary realize that they need to win the media war, and that public perception is key because currently the world is against them.

The revolutionaries talk about how politics require compromise, and that they aren’t so good at that. The Muslim Brotherhood is organized and were able to take advantage of the situation to win parliament and the presidency. They end up in an arguably worse situation when Morsi, the newly elected president, gives himself unchecked powers. They continue to protest and fight until he too steps down.

They summarize the situation by saying that first they fought off Mubarek, next they fought off the army, and then they fought off the Brotherhood. They are not looking for a leader, they are looking for a conscience and they will continue to fight until they find an alternative to military or Brotherhood rule.

This documentary made me think about how our method of documenting historical events has changed. History was originally passed along by word of mouth. Then, humans began to record history in writing. The problem with both of these methods is that the history was being recorded by the winners, which could lead to the marginalization of people and biased accounts of events. Now, we have shifted to a photo/video based recording of events. However, this still allows for bias because most news agencies have very specific views or agendas and are very rarely unbiased. The real game changer is the internet, which allows anyone and everyone to post things in real time. This means we can post anything we want, without it being filtered, or altered or having it taken out of context. Everyone can offer their opinion, and everyone can provide proof. This allows us to see a more complete picture of events, with the possibility of seeing the story from all sides. I’m not saying there aren’t downsides or risks – hackers can delete things, the government could control the internet, we could find ourselves without electricity permanently – but as a real time tool, the internet allows everyone the opportunity to make informed opinions about events that are happening in far away places.

Overall, this was a very eye opening and inspiring documentary, showing what people can do when they work together for a common cause. 

Page One: Behind the NY Times

This documentary follows arguably one of the best newspapers in the world and how it – and the rest of the industry – has been affected by the rise of technology. Many people say that newspapers are dying, and there are two main reasons for this. The first is the decline in ad revenues. Many companies are turning to the internet, which allows more specific targeting of viewers, a higher level of interactivity and the ability to better track metrics (how many people saw an ad, clicked on it, shared it, etc.). The second reason is that everyone now has the ability to write and publish things, which means newspapers are no longer the authority, or the only voice. Oftentimes social media can provide up to the minute updates on news, making a daily newspaper seem slow.

They depict this shift by comparing the release of the Pentagon papers, which were a series of Vietnam war papers released in the NY times, to the modern day release of video of the U.S. military in the Middle East, which was released on Youtube by Wikileaks. They argue that Julian Assange is not unbiased, that he edited the video to show a certain point of view and that his goal is justice. When asked, Assange says he relates more to the values of activism than to journalism. Their argument is that newspapers provide unbiased reporting.

They also talk about the fact that having less money means they have to cut back on coverage in certain areas. One of these areas is covering the president. Where in the past, every newspaper had someone covering the White House, now days there are often no members of the media on the charter planes following Obama to events, which results in less accountability. They argue that someone has to actually find and make news, whereas a lot of these websites simply aggregate news. They talk about the NY Times effect, where they set the agenda for the day or week, and their stories are often replicated around the world.

The documentary then shifts to those who believe the Times is going out of business. They say that there is a disconnect between “shouldn’t fail” and “can’t fail”. Newspapers are given automatic credibility – why is that? People have lost faith in media because they have proven to be wrong and to be biased. For example, NY Times journalist Judy Miller helped to provoke the Iraq war by pushing the idea of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) even though she had no proof.

The documentary then offers another solution. They discuss the idea that journalism is a public good, maintaining the balance between the people’s need for information and the government’s need for secrecy. One such way to do this is with non profit investigative journalism, which is a model being tried by Propublica.

Lastly, the documentary looks into the immediate future of the newspaper (the documentary was made in 2011). It discusses how the newspaper recently laid off 100 people, and how they have implemented a paywall on their website where readers have to pay after reading so many free articles. It also mentions how a lot of people think the iPad will be the savior for newspapers, but others are cynical. I’m not sure whether iPads have helped or hurt the industry.

“The function of reporting and the press is the best attainable version of the truth” – Carl Bernstein. This really captures the argument for keeping newspapers. They conclude by saying that we need media as long as it is unbiased and not working for the government. We also need them to tell us stories we don’t want to hear, otherwise all the news will be kittens and famous people. I think this is a good point – there is no way for us to know what we don’t know or what is being kept from us, without people willing to investigate and share those stories.