The Finance minister of Japan apparently has other fans here in the West. This fine video celebrates Japan's inebriated exchequer, who gave this blog its name.
As if a terrible economy and out of control Minister of Finance were not bad enough, the people of Japan also have to deal with this.
They have crazy decals and a drunken Finance Minister and we have spinner rims and Tim Geithner, and we live in the First World. I can only what type of tacky crap has been appended to cars in the Third World.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Hobbes, Locke, Spontaneous Order And Making Sense of Ideology
As someone who sees political affiliations less on a spectrum of left and right and more so on a spectrum of libertarian and authoritarian, the apparently inconsistent opinions of mainstream Democrats on Republicans were puzzling. Democrats believe in the value of freedom in personal affairs but want to apply a great deal of control to businesses and the Economy in general. Republicans are the opposite and as least claim to want a frugal government, lower taxes, less regulations on businesses and approaches to monetary policy that are less interventionist. However, Republicans tend to like state control over one's personal life.
How on Earth can the two major parties have platforms that celebrate freedom in some parts of life but scorn it in others? I have tentative explanation for this inconsistency. It builds on many political compasses that use an x-axis and a y-axis. Most of them have stances on Economic issues on one axis and foreign policy and social policy on the other axis. This is a major improvement over the antiquated right and left spectrum. My political compass goes to even deeper and more fundamental assumptions about policy and politics.
My compass has one axis that measures if one sees history as formed largely as the result of millions of actors and an actions, the bottom up approach. At the other end of this first exist is the belief that much of history is shaped by a few powerful and/or dynamic individuals, whose actions and visions shaped the course of history.
The other measures one's views on why government exist and on human nature. One end of this axis has one who completely agrees with Thomas Hobbes. People are inherently bad and were willing to accept a powerful government that would protect them from themselves and from their neighbors. The other end of this axis has those who agree with John Locke. People are generally good and formed governments voluntarily in order to achieve common goals and desire authority only to satisfy those goals and no more than that.
This means that we have four general groups:
Bottom up-Hobbes: Republicans
Bottom up-Locke: Libertarians
Top Down-Hobbes: Totalitarians
Top Down-Locke: Democrats
This could explain the inconsistencies that exist in Republicans and Democrats. If you believe that people are generally good but are best when guided by top-down decision making, you are probably a Democrat and believe that we do need a huge military force, tough on crime laws and restrictions on drug use, abortion and marriage; however, free markets and families as autonomous decision making units are viewed with suspicion because they are a bottom-up formed entity that is not amenable to centralized decision making by elites.
Republicans are the opposite and tend to like entities that were formed in a bottom-up way and they like decentralized decision making in that regard. They are Hobbesian thought and believe that we need more military force, more police and more laws that ensure their definition of virtue.
Libertarians embrace freedom in the bedroom and in the market place and Totalitarians, as horrible as they may be, are pretty intellectually consistent. They want control over everything from the market place to the presses to one's own diet, entertainment and religion.
Looking at ideology along the lines of one's most basic assumptions can clarify apparent inconsistencies and explain how it is that so many people, given the same set of facts can reach so many differing and at times radical conclusions about how government should operate.
How on Earth can the two major parties have platforms that celebrate freedom in some parts of life but scorn it in others? I have tentative explanation for this inconsistency. It builds on many political compasses that use an x-axis and a y-axis. Most of them have stances on Economic issues on one axis and foreign policy and social policy on the other axis. This is a major improvement over the antiquated right and left spectrum. My political compass goes to even deeper and more fundamental assumptions about policy and politics.
My compass has one axis that measures if one sees history as formed largely as the result of millions of actors and an actions, the bottom up approach. At the other end of this first exist is the belief that much of history is shaped by a few powerful and/or dynamic individuals, whose actions and visions shaped the course of history.
The other measures one's views on why government exist and on human nature. One end of this axis has one who completely agrees with Thomas Hobbes. People are inherently bad and were willing to accept a powerful government that would protect them from themselves and from their neighbors. The other end of this axis has those who agree with John Locke. People are generally good and formed governments voluntarily in order to achieve common goals and desire authority only to satisfy those goals and no more than that.
This means that we have four general groups:
Bottom up-Hobbes: Republicans
Bottom up-Locke: Libertarians
Top Down-Hobbes: Totalitarians
Top Down-Locke: Democrats
This could explain the inconsistencies that exist in Republicans and Democrats. If you believe that people are generally good but are best when guided by top-down decision making, you are probably a Democrat and believe that we do need a huge military force, tough on crime laws and restrictions on drug use, abortion and marriage; however, free markets and families as autonomous decision making units are viewed with suspicion because they are a bottom-up formed entity that is not amenable to centralized decision making by elites.
Republicans are the opposite and tend to like entities that were formed in a bottom-up way and they like decentralized decision making in that regard. They are Hobbesian thought and believe that we need more military force, more police and more laws that ensure their definition of virtue.
Libertarians embrace freedom in the bedroom and in the market place and Totalitarians, as horrible as they may be, are pretty intellectually consistent. They want control over everything from the market place to the presses to one's own diet, entertainment and religion.
Looking at ideology along the lines of one's most basic assumptions can clarify apparent inconsistencies and explain how it is that so many people, given the same set of facts can reach so many differing and at times radical conclusions about how government should operate.
Friday, May 8, 2009
The Kenyocho's Theory On Political Affiliations
This blog was started as a place where ideas, that do not get that much attention yet can or potentially can explain and clarify and predict how the world has, does and will function, will receive more exposure than they currently do.
This particular idea and entry was not originally a product of my own mine. In fact, before proceeding, I will disclose that most of this entry owes its existence to Dr. Michael Huemer of The University of Colorado. This man of mild manners and radical ideas, explained, in far grander language than I am, that people often times choose their political positions based on the image it will create for that person.
In a good number of cases, when someone's own interest is at stake, then self interest can trump vanity. In the case of many political questions, the issue at hand does not or is not expected to affect the voter, who can than choose his stance based on the figure he hopes to strike. In addition, on a great deal of issue, voters are unaware of how a potential law will actually affect their quality of life, so they do not know how to vote based on self interest so they choose vanity once again.
A prime example of a political issue becoming less about its actual affects and more of a proxy and an avatar of one's overall world view and perceived image is gay marriage. The vast majority of people are heterosexual so this will not directly affect their ability to get a full, State sanctioned marriage. There are some heterosexual people who do feel empathy towards gays and there are some who feel a great deal of antipathy towards gays, or at least toward lifestyles that deviate from the Judeo-Christian ideal of a nuclear family. Despite real concerns over or empathy and support for homosexuals and homosexuality, almost everyone is aware that with ot without legal marriages attitudes towards morality, lifestyles and family structure will not change drastically. Society evolves in one way or another and the edicts of courts or State legislatures will not change hearts and minds, at least not drastically nor quickly.
So for most participants in the Gay Marriage debate are people who have very little stake in its outcome. Nonetheless, it is, in many quarters, a lightening rod of controversy and emotion and bitterness. One can understand why gay people would be so emotional and upset at anti-gay marriage laws and be delighted and thrilled when pro-marriage equality laws are passed. Much of the emotion on this issue has been owned by straight people, those who are for and those who are against gay marriage.
It is this blogger's opinion that insecurity drives the most emotionally laden pleas in support of in and in opposition to the practice. The insecurities that would drive someone to emphatic opposition to Gay marriage and to homosexuality in general are quite obvious. What is of great interest is the type of insecurity that drives a straight person to be emphatically pro gay marriage.
America has always been a country with a schizophrenic attitude towards intellectualism. At times ideas will be completely dismissed as "mere theory," the college student (let alone his professor) can be delegitmized as out of touch with the "real world" and Americans romanticize the manual labor that clearly does not require a great deal of "book learning." At the same time, the intellectual is celebrated. The thinker is a hero, the thinker brings about progress. The public intellectuals that we do embrace can become celebrities in their own right as well as playing the role of opinion shapers and even consensus builders. With the election of a former law school professor as President and the unpopularity of the last President who embodied the spirit of anti-intellectualism, being a thinker is currently in the ascendancy.
The surge of pro gay marriage sentiment has to owe at least a modest share of its success to intellectualism currently becoming more popular than it was few years ago. The reason for this is because being pro-gay marriage is a seen by many as the indicator and "litmus test" of one's cultural allegiance. If one is pro-gay marriage and emphatically so at that, than one is aligned culturally and politically with "Blue America," with New England, with Hollywood, with the Ivy league, with reason. Or so goes the thinking of the straight college student, the straight student who is the first in his family to be in college, the straight first generation student who is from a working class town in the South or the Midwest or somewhere far from ivy covered walls, Whole Foods shops and salt water.
This also applies to minorities, especially those who are first generation students. Many minorities are from the big city and while geographically close to the Hollywood Walk of Fame or Harvard Yard, grew up worlds apart from those spaces and what they represent. To be a first generation college student, regardless of skin color is generally a very real and material step away from the world of working class social conservatism. Future affluence is not enough for many. The world needs to know now that this particular student is very different from the Ghetto or the Town from whence this student or young professional came. The boy who has grown into an educated man, has already materially separated himself from his impecunious upbringing and in many cases has moved to the big city or the good side of the tracks and has physically separated himself from his working class childhood. That is not enough though, the world needs to know that he has arrived, that he is enlightened and smart and cosmopolitan and is a free and critical thinker.
This spectre of a blue collar, traditional and almost always religious past is what makes heterosexuals, with no real stake in the gay marriage debate, become so angry, so hateful and so dismissive of anyone who dissents from the correct bourgeois line, the uniform code of conduct that is meant to mark how intellectual and creative one is. Combine that with the spectre of a fear of being gay, deep down, on the part of the anti-gay marriage contingent and this issue, with virtually no material consequences for most of the participants in this debate, is becoming an increasingly intense and explosive issue.
Having been educated in the field of economics, we are taught that economic pressure does not always mean money. Money is one of many goods that one seeks to maximize, satisfying ones own vanity, social acceptance, affirmation of ones masculinity, affirmation of one's climb in social status and feeling like one is advancing an extremely just cause are all goods, they are all things that people will always want more and more of if it cost them nothing to get more. All of those valuable but intangible social goods also have their corresponding bads. Unpopularity, the appearance of being part of the wrong social group and fear of being something your family and faith have taught you to loath are all bads which one will try to avoid as much as possible.
With all of these facts taken into consideration and the fact that this debate has so little to do with gay people getting marriage licenses and almost everything to do with identity, real or perceived. It would not be surprising if one a radical, on either side of the issue, were to commit an act of terrorism or someone other highly visible violent crime.
Human beings are greedy creatures and when we are not fighting over money and other tangible, material objects, far too many of us fight for intangible social goods. It is said that a rich man, one who is materially wealthy, has less of a chance to get into heaven than does a camel of passing through the eye of a needle. Even what I have seen in the gay marriage debate, those who are poor intangible social goods have an even smaller chance of having a rational discussion about gay marriage than does an elephant of passing through that same needle's eye. Blatant self flattery and basing political decisions on the image one hopes to strike is something that has been allowed to pass as genuine conviction for far too long.
This particular idea and entry was not originally a product of my own mine. In fact, before proceeding, I will disclose that most of this entry owes its existence to Dr. Michael Huemer of The University of Colorado. This man of mild manners and radical ideas, explained, in far grander language than I am, that people often times choose their political positions based on the image it will create for that person.
In a good number of cases, when someone's own interest is at stake, then self interest can trump vanity. In the case of many political questions, the issue at hand does not or is not expected to affect the voter, who can than choose his stance based on the figure he hopes to strike. In addition, on a great deal of issue, voters are unaware of how a potential law will actually affect their quality of life, so they do not know how to vote based on self interest so they choose vanity once again.
A prime example of a political issue becoming less about its actual affects and more of a proxy and an avatar of one's overall world view and perceived image is gay marriage. The vast majority of people are heterosexual so this will not directly affect their ability to get a full, State sanctioned marriage. There are some heterosexual people who do feel empathy towards gays and there are some who feel a great deal of antipathy towards gays, or at least toward lifestyles that deviate from the Judeo-Christian ideal of a nuclear family. Despite real concerns over or empathy and support for homosexuals and homosexuality, almost everyone is aware that with ot without legal marriages attitudes towards morality, lifestyles and family structure will not change drastically. Society evolves in one way or another and the edicts of courts or State legislatures will not change hearts and minds, at least not drastically nor quickly.
So for most participants in the Gay Marriage debate are people who have very little stake in its outcome. Nonetheless, it is, in many quarters, a lightening rod of controversy and emotion and bitterness. One can understand why gay people would be so emotional and upset at anti-gay marriage laws and be delighted and thrilled when pro-marriage equality laws are passed. Much of the emotion on this issue has been owned by straight people, those who are for and those who are against gay marriage.
It is this blogger's opinion that insecurity drives the most emotionally laden pleas in support of in and in opposition to the practice. The insecurities that would drive someone to emphatic opposition to Gay marriage and to homosexuality in general are quite obvious. What is of great interest is the type of insecurity that drives a straight person to be emphatically pro gay marriage.
America has always been a country with a schizophrenic attitude towards intellectualism. At times ideas will be completely dismissed as "mere theory," the college student (let alone his professor) can be delegitmized as out of touch with the "real world" and Americans romanticize the manual labor that clearly does not require a great deal of "book learning." At the same time, the intellectual is celebrated. The thinker is a hero, the thinker brings about progress. The public intellectuals that we do embrace can become celebrities in their own right as well as playing the role of opinion shapers and even consensus builders. With the election of a former law school professor as President and the unpopularity of the last President who embodied the spirit of anti-intellectualism, being a thinker is currently in the ascendancy.
The surge of pro gay marriage sentiment has to owe at least a modest share of its success to intellectualism currently becoming more popular than it was few years ago. The reason for this is because being pro-gay marriage is a seen by many as the indicator and "litmus test" of one's cultural allegiance. If one is pro-gay marriage and emphatically so at that, than one is aligned culturally and politically with "Blue America," with New England, with Hollywood, with the Ivy league, with reason. Or so goes the thinking of the straight college student, the straight student who is the first in his family to be in college, the straight first generation student who is from a working class town in the South or the Midwest or somewhere far from ivy covered walls, Whole Foods shops and salt water.
This also applies to minorities, especially those who are first generation students. Many minorities are from the big city and while geographically close to the Hollywood Walk of Fame or Harvard Yard, grew up worlds apart from those spaces and what they represent. To be a first generation college student, regardless of skin color is generally a very real and material step away from the world of working class social conservatism. Future affluence is not enough for many. The world needs to know now that this particular student is very different from the Ghetto or the Town from whence this student or young professional came. The boy who has grown into an educated man, has already materially separated himself from his impecunious upbringing and in many cases has moved to the big city or the good side of the tracks and has physically separated himself from his working class childhood. That is not enough though, the world needs to know that he has arrived, that he is enlightened and smart and cosmopolitan and is a free and critical thinker.
This spectre of a blue collar, traditional and almost always religious past is what makes heterosexuals, with no real stake in the gay marriage debate, become so angry, so hateful and so dismissive of anyone who dissents from the correct bourgeois line, the uniform code of conduct that is meant to mark how intellectual and creative one is. Combine that with the spectre of a fear of being gay, deep down, on the part of the anti-gay marriage contingent and this issue, with virtually no material consequences for most of the participants in this debate, is becoming an increasingly intense and explosive issue.
Having been educated in the field of economics, we are taught that economic pressure does not always mean money. Money is one of many goods that one seeks to maximize, satisfying ones own vanity, social acceptance, affirmation of ones masculinity, affirmation of one's climb in social status and feeling like one is advancing an extremely just cause are all goods, they are all things that people will always want more and more of if it cost them nothing to get more. All of those valuable but intangible social goods also have their corresponding bads. Unpopularity, the appearance of being part of the wrong social group and fear of being something your family and faith have taught you to loath are all bads which one will try to avoid as much as possible.
With all of these facts taken into consideration and the fact that this debate has so little to do with gay people getting marriage licenses and almost everything to do with identity, real or perceived. It would not be surprising if one a radical, on either side of the issue, were to commit an act of terrorism or someone other highly visible violent crime.
Human beings are greedy creatures and when we are not fighting over money and other tangible, material objects, far too many of us fight for intangible social goods. It is said that a rich man, one who is materially wealthy, has less of a chance to get into heaven than does a camel of passing through the eye of a needle. Even what I have seen in the gay marriage debate, those who are poor intangible social goods have an even smaller chance of having a rational discussion about gay marriage than does an elephant of passing through that same needle's eye. Blatant self flattery and basing political decisions on the image one hopes to strike is something that has been allowed to pass as genuine conviction for far too long.
Welcome To the Kenyocho
This blog is dedicated to the Japanese Minister of Finance, who after learning that his Country's economy tumbled at a rate not seen in decades, showed up, quite possibly drunk and under the influence of too many cold pills, at a G7 meeting of finance ministers.
My friend and I joked that perhaps others might consider mixing beer and Nyquil in the same manner as a "sake bomb," by dropping a shot glass of nyquil into the beer and quickly drinking it. We were considering different names put had trouble finding one that was pithy and memorable. The names "G7" and "Finance Minister" were too generic and too length, respectively.
Luckily for us, my friend, Chris, and I were able to have dinner with two Japanese speakers. One of them was a friend of mine and Chris, who had learned Japanese in college, and the other Japanese speaker was someone who was from Japan. I asked our nippomophile friend, Tanisha as well as her new friend from Japan, how one said "Finance Minister" in Japanese. The best answer we got was the name of the Japanese National Treasury. The name for that was Kenyocho.
So Kenyocho is the name of this blog because every other good current events based, political, cultural, economic and financial blog name has already been taken. So tonight, I begin this undertaking, of trying to bring interesting and insightful commentary into a blogosphere, where all of those aforementioned subjects are so pleasantly saturated.
My friend and I joked that perhaps others might consider mixing beer and Nyquil in the same manner as a "sake bomb," by dropping a shot glass of nyquil into the beer and quickly drinking it. We were considering different names put had trouble finding one that was pithy and memorable. The names "G7" and "Finance Minister" were too generic and too length, respectively.
Luckily for us, my friend, Chris, and I were able to have dinner with two Japanese speakers. One of them was a friend of mine and Chris, who had learned Japanese in college, and the other Japanese speaker was someone who was from Japan. I asked our nippomophile friend, Tanisha as well as her new friend from Japan, how one said "Finance Minister" in Japanese. The best answer we got was the name of the Japanese National Treasury. The name for that was Kenyocho.
So Kenyocho is the name of this blog because every other good current events based, political, cultural, economic and financial blog name has already been taken. So tonight, I begin this undertaking, of trying to bring interesting and insightful commentary into a blogosphere, where all of those aforementioned subjects are so pleasantly saturated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)