Democracy, Work, and Wealth | Harold Jarche | LinkedIn

Old mental models will not help us much. If we do not address wealth distribution, then we won’t be able to deal with other issues, such as climate change or environmental degradation. We need people who have the time to think about these. This has traditionally been the middle class, but it is shrinking in most developed countries. The rich alone do not give us the necessary diversity of opinions. An aggressively engaged and intelligent citizenry, in significant numbers, is needed to deal with the wicked problems facing us. Addressing wealth inequality will give us the people and the space to do so.

via Democracy, Work, and Wealth | Harold Jarche | LinkedIn.

Because of its large vertical command force (maybe we could call it an “on demand” force) the consumer economy has a structure similar to that of an insurgency. The hierarchical structure that the consumer economy uses to get its “things” is still present, but busy.

The problem with a consumer economy seems to be that the gap between the wealthy and poor gets wider, as the economy fades. So likely what happens is that when the wealthy gain control, as the poorer consumer insurgency loses their ability to command, a new greater hierarchic structure comes into being, and built off the one that is still present. In other words, the “Mitt Romney” of the once powerful consumer economy takes command.

The problem, if I am understanding the post the above quote comes from correctly, in the US these large platform corporations such as Apple, Microsoft, and Google are mostly foreign. At least the majority of their workers are. So if this hierarchical structure gets too “American” and isolates much of the world, these “foreign workers” will not become a part of the “American” economy and there is no structure in the US that can replace them. These computer products are all hand built, and there are just not that many “hands” in the US worker base to replace them.

Of course this is all a bunch of crazy talk, but given the scenario of a consumer economy collapsing, the real problem with this new stronger form of a hierarchical structure taking hold in America will be that the once powerful insurgent consumer structure will change from a negative slope to a positive slope (from a -5/2 to a possible +5/2).

The problem being, a positive sloped economic structure most commonly supports a civil war instead of an insurgency.

Squatter is not a 4 letter word

It was probably a mistake, but I called my step-son’s friend  a squatter. My step-son’s response was to say, “a squatter is someone who can’t pay,” and noted that Sam can pay.

But I didn’t accuse Sam of being a renter. I based the label of “squatter” on Stephen’s history of having to help Sam move under derrest in the last few places Sam, and my step-son when he doesn’t live with us, lived.

It should be interesting to hear what Sam says. Labels shouldn’t be important, but, more likely than less, they are.

America’s Defense Amnesia

“blowing themselves up.”

By “blowing themselves up I mean, an insurgency is a sine wave. It has a magnitude of a magnum 9 earthquake when the structure of  its wave has a 6/2  slope.

That’s much like blowing oneself up when the insurgency reaches the bottom of the downward slope and there is only 1 event of the greatest magnitude.

On the other hand, civil war is a square wave. It has close and far, and deep and shollow, but the magnitude is only like a magnum 4 earthquake.

That’s not so bad. Given time and a high birth rate (where 72 virgins really come in handy) and you will hardly be able to tell that the explosion went off.

Not so with an insurgency. When it reaches its point of singularity (the bottom of its downward slope)… BANG!

That’s it.

I don’t think the US, because it is a Republic, has ever had an insurgency. China had one in Chairman Mao, and 60 million people died. The closest the US came to having an insurgency was when Nixon was POTUS.

But then the insurgency kinda fizzled out, when they started calling themselves Baby Boomers and the leaders Republicans  :)

via zenpundit.com » Blog Archive » America’s Defense Amnesia.

The Economics of the Indo-Pacific Pivot

As I have said before, all war is about economic considerations and fought by people with few economic consideration.

Much has been said, in our pivot towards the Asian Pacific, about the people with few economic considerations.

We have heard about the saber-rattling of China in the disputed South China Sea and elsewhere.  This saber-rattling doesn’t really seem to be much about economics. Perhaps now is the time we need to talk about the economic considerations in the Pivot.

Basically, economically we are going to do for those nations under our Indo-Pacific pivot what we did for the Middle East. We are going to use our military to uphold the relevancy of the US dollar.

Perhaps the quip used by one of the characters in the movie “Tinker, Tailor,  Soldier,  Spy” can be used to clarify what I mean by “doing” to the Indo-Pacific what we did for the Middle East.

In the movie there was a change of leadership in the “Circus”. The Circus is where  the odd performers of the British secret service get together and put on a show for everyone else in the Service to see. The new Ringleader, to show his knowledge of how things are in the world made the statement that, “you can rent an Arab, but never buy one.”

I don’t know if that statement is true or not, but by literally throwing billions of dollars into the environment of Iraq, after our invasion,  we “rented” thousands of Arabs. (I know the dollars in my wallet are mainly there for me to rent. They never stay in my wallet long enough to actually own.)

In other words, economics is not just about interest (which collecting interest is not popular in most areas of the Middle East) but a strong economy also depends a great deal on whose hard currency runs the show.

While there were many reason made for going to war in Iraq, strategically it was in the US’s interest to make sure “petrol dollars” also meant the US dollar.

As many experts have said, the Iraq war wasn’t about the US grabbing Iraq’s oil. The US doesn’t get its oil from the Middle East. The oil coming out of the Middle East is mostly going to China and other developing nations.

But what is important,economically for the US is that whoever buys oil in the Middle East uses US dollars. The US economy depends on the fact that they do.

With Turkey threatening to join the EU, France heavily into buying oil from Saddam, and rumors of Russia and China making gold the currency for oil, the relevancy of the US dollar was disappearing. I suggest that is no longer true.

While all strategy is flawed, and there is an on-going civil war throughout the Middle East, in the most part the US currency is still “the” currency of the world.

My guess is that the US dollar is the most relevant it has ever been in the Middle East, but the same cannot be said in the Asian Pacific.

http://www.ibtimes.com/sorry-mates-strictly-business-australia-wants-cut-out-us-dollar-trade-china-1161287#

A 1.6 billion infusion of US dollars and an occupation of US Marines may counteract that train of thought.

The Strategic Advantage in Fighting on Only One Front

“It is a concern to me, it’s a concern to any veteran, anybody in the military,” Hagel said during his first appearance on Capitol Hill since being confirmed as defense secretary.

I think it is significant that this is the only news I found coming out of Fox News, but maybe I just didn’t look hard enough. I guess Fox couldn’t find anything more important coming out of the House Armed Service’s committee than this one issue, who deserves a medal more, those with or without “skin” in battle.

Taking medals away from someone that actually might have earned them is not something I imagine Fox wants to be behind of. Fox better hope Hagel doesn’t come to the conclusion that someone fighting in a Nintendo environment needs to be reward with this medal, as someone in the Service that Hagel talks about in this quote did. If they do deserve it, then Fox should ask why.

As it is, anyone getting the “Nintendo Medal” with Hagel as the top administrator will deserve it. Fox should figure out why he/she would deserve such a medal, before they get on the wrong side of  the strategy behind the giving out of this medal.

But then Fox is owned by someone that wasn’t, if I understand correctly, born or raised  as a North America. Apparently their owner wants America to follow the Rightwing Conservative principles of another nation, in another hemisphere.

The nation he was or still is a citizen of has gone from calling China a totalitarian nation to aggressor nation, and now an assertive nation. It kinda makes me wonder what the Fox’s owner thinks of his own nation, as their Conservative principles change.

It doesn’t appear that China has changed all that much, at least in structure. The Right is a structure, not a culture, and China doesn’t appear to be changing its structure anytime soon.

It also appears that China’s culture is going to need more time for change. China is a very complex culture in which change doesn’t culturally seem to happen, unless there is a revolution. China’s structure is geared towards stopping revolutions.

But then, Fox’s owner is not a North American. He is Australia by culture, so what would he know about strategy anyway?

I think North American people’s advantage has always been that they think more strategic. After reading “Empire of the Summer Moon, I think strategy has always been the North’s advantage, as it presents itself to the world historically.

To that end, I never really understood the significance of Lincoln’s strategy, of using people from both sides of the aisle to fill some of the executive positions within his administration. That was until I watched this hearing on CSPAN yesterday.

The strategy that Lincoln used has the advantage of using an executive, such as Hagle, from the opposition  positioned as a handle to a lever that pushes against the force of the opposition and the POTUS forces as well. Kinda of a twofer.

In the House yesterday, Hagel not only tore into the Republican Chairman of the House Armed Service Committee, who wanted Hagle to take something like a 100 billion more dollars, but Hagle also tore into the smug Democrat who thought Hagel was a force pushing Democratic issues as well. The Republicans and Democrats both got their asses kicked.

In politics, the enemy isn’t in front of the POTUS, but positions themselves behind the leader. The people infront represent an image of change, as the image of Hagel in front of the POTUS.

Lincoln’s strategy handles those behind the POTUS (today they are called Democrats) as well as those in front of the POTUS (today they are called Republicans). Hagel with Dempsey at his side, tore up the House yesterday and made mincemeat out of all who were in front of him.

I would like to see him do the same in the Senate.

Really? The Republicans want to come out on the side of spending more money at the expense of our civilian society, while at the same time the Democrats want to come out on the side that says spending cut aren’t hurting our military, as our civil society takes a pass on having to make any sacrifices?

All Hagel and Dempsey are asking for is time to reposition our forces. I mean everyone realizes that Iran is in Asia, right?

When falling back to a defencive position, as our resources go bye-bye, there is some advantage to be had in having to defend only one front, and that front should be “pivoting” across the Pacific.

The Pacific is the position our debt is centered in. This center can be called a pivot point. While Boehner has come out in favor of paying our debt, I am not sure the Red States agree with him.

I mean, if they really want to secede from the US, aren’t they independent of the debt? If the Red States what to take advantage of our nukes and not pay back our debt, who’s to stop them, Obama?

Oh, right! If they did secede it wouldn’t be their decision, but that ain’t going to happen now, is it.

via Hagel Decision on ‘Nintendo Medal’ Expected Next Week – Fox News.

Enduring Values

I believe those were the words the guy in charge of Obama’s legacy used to describe the US military’s pivot towards, or what is now called, the “Indo-Pacific”.

The words used to describe the pivot was changed from “Asia-Pacific” to “Indo-Pacific”. The words were changed to highlight the most important partner in the area included in the pivot.

I believe the guy in charged used “enduring values” (if that was the correct quote) in his conversation about the  “pivot”,  because a “pivot” with “enduring values” in its narrative has no change in momentum nor values.

The US military representing the values of the U.S.A isn’t turning towards the Pacific, because it never really left. All the US military needs to know is whose with them in this pivot.

In other words, in order for the US to pivot towards the Pacific, we don’t have to fight the momentum of changing values to get there. Our values are in the pivot, and they are highlighted in India.

So I guess the guy was basically saying “stuff it”, we are pivoting towards an area of the globe in which our values are the same as India’s and everyone else within the area of the Indo-Pacific Pivot.

For a nation such as the US, who are supposed to be sons of Abraham,  this is quite a big deal. For an area that owns most of our debt, it is a reassurance of the repaying of that debt.

I think this repaying of debt is going to surprize a bunch of people in the US, who thought nukes countered debt (rock over paper).

North Korea first.

.

Historical Military Provocations Prove North and South Korea Tolerance

In 2010, a South Korean Island known as Yeonpyeong was struck by dozens of North Korean artillery shells. Two South Korean soldiers were killed and more than a dozen persons were injured. The atrocity raised international brows waiting for South Korea to retaliate.

Tolerance between each other, maybe, but I believe the North and South Korea have been gaming each other for years. So the tolerance is between players, but not in the situation each player finds themselves in. Each player has different relationship to the common environment.

China has always had a love for North Korea’s ability to control their people. But after 60 years of war, North Korea hasn’t changed much, but China has. It is this change in China that makes the “proof”  in provocations no longer valid.

China is moving the center of gravity of the Military Industrial Governmental Complex (MIGC), once centered in the US, to Asia. What a MIGC centered in Asia needs most is war.

In a Complex and to get rid of entropy that is inherited in the creation of the weapons of war, war is needed to simplify the environment the old Complex is moving towards and the environment the new Complex is moving away from.

So what China needs first and foremost is a war that will once and for all tranfer the center of gravity to Asia.

But China doesn’t need a war that involves the center gravity of old (USA and its allies).

A war that involves the US or its allies will not help in the new alignment. The alignment needs to be completed with precision and accuracy. War that involves the US or its allies will prove very sloppy.

In fact, because the outcome of war is an unknown,  what China needs now is a war that will not include the US, nor South Korea. What China needs now is a war with North Korea. I believe China is building up towards that goal.

In contrast, what North Korea needs now is help from South Korea to keep China from taking over the Korean peninsula, and creating another Hong Kong in the process.

South Korea is very nationalist and becoming another Hong Kong is something they will not take without a fight.

What North Korea needs now is the skills of a master gamer, and unite the peninsula under the Korean brand. It is yet to be seen if the Kim dynasty will be able to provide those skills.

If I am correct and things are heating up like they have never before, then it will be hard to see what is happening, unless you are a master gamer.

This is something the US military has not shown any skills in of late, and probably should just pass on.

via Kerry Patton: Historical Military Provocations Prove North and South Korea Tolerance.