It is good to hear a critique from the left, even if I do not agree with much of what he said.
Fundamentally, he misses something. Everyone needs to be subject to checks and balances. Everyone needs to have limits to thier power. Everyone needs to have thier ideas tested against reality. This is true for the TECH Bro's south of the boarder, but it is also true for the TEACHERS Union. Anyone can be corrupt. Anyone can abuse power. Anyone can believe things that are not true.
This is a systems problem, and in creating systems it needs to be understood that we can expect people to try to weaponize the system to thier advantage. Anyone can grab onto bad ideas and not let go. The key is in having ways to dicipline these individuals before it becomes too late. (So, the key to the abusive police chief is to have ways to dicipline the police chief before he becomes abusive, and to be able to dicipline the abusive officer before they get out of control)
As a someone who has liberaterian leanings, I think everyone has to suffer the consequences of thier behavior. So the community that does not build affordable housing, has no affordable housing. That means that grandma needs to leave the community in her old age. That means that the young adult has to leave thier community when they leave home. That means that they have no services in thier community, because the people who provide the services can't afford to live there. It also means that in the end, they can't afford to live there, because everything becomes too expensive for even them. (When the guy who fixes thier tap has to drive 40 miles he is going to charge mega $$$) The issue is that people on the left want to rescue people from the consequences of thier actions.
I also believe that power needs to be decentralized, because given the choice, people will leave places that are corrupt, and do not work. The big issue today, is that there is no where to go, because almost everywhere is having the same problems, and is being administered by people who believe the same things, because they attended the same Universities, go to the same conferences, and taught by teachers who believe the same ideas that don't work.
Thank you. This was a fascinating, well reasoned discussion. It takes considerable thoughtfulness to examine one's own beliefs in the search for a solution to the problems we face, as has this author. That is always more productive than simply blaming everyone else. If everyone assumed that intellectual posture, we all would benefit. Thank you again. Sincerely, Frederick
I have not read the book but just ordered it and queued in on my Kindle.
However, I have my own theory for why nothing works. That theory is based on my long career as a corporate executive. I am now CEO of two companies. The reason I am CEO is that I have DNA and have developed leadership capability to get things done... to solve complex organizational problems, to pursue difficult opportunities... to visualize a new future state, set goals and objectives... to create a robust project plan and to execute on the project plan. To be bold... to take risks... and to rid myself of the people that don't have these capabilities but for some reason insert themselves in a perpetual blocking and criticism role to undermine progress.
This latter type of person tends to have a left-leaning political orientation. They are more likely NIMBY's... change adverse....risk adverse... more likely to talk about problems but rarely take action to solve the problems at the root. They are terrible at seeing opportunities and going for them. Dynamism makes them nervous and they crave complete control of the change power. I think they are also afraid of being left behind... being kept away... of not being included... and thus this is why they are so intent to insert themselves as meddling stakeholders that are more a nuance than a help.
This is why things do not get done. We have a flaw in our collective human capability matrix where the wrong type of people end up in power and control of system governance. In the private economy those things get worked out because without the leaders having the right stuff, the company fails. However, in the public sector... the business of government... we don't have competition that motivates a getting-things-done meritocracy.
The design of Western style democracies was always that regular productive people take time from their regular productive lives to serve in government and then return to their regular productive lives at some point. But we have created an industry of the professional politicians and professional administrator. And too often these people with power lack the right stuff to get things done. They are forever exploiting the problems to promote themselves, but really don't have any intent or capability to solve the problems... and since they promote themselves in relation to the problem, they are motivated to see the problems continue.
We keep electing these actors... inauthentic and low-capability people that can speak well, but lack the right stuff to get things done.
Trump is one with the right stuff to get things done, and they are ripping him apart for actually doing things. They want to get back to the ineffective government that just talks about the problems but never takes any bold moves to fix them.
Frank, you have a good understanding of the dynamics of the problem. I understand that it is not considered proper to identify that some people are smarter than others, and am reminded of the adage: "Lead, follow or get out of the way". Too many of lower skills have been empowered by the leftist, "inclusive" education system to be in the way.
Thank you for identifying the problem that progressives have with Trump. Mr. Dunkelman falls back on the "Trump is a trainwreck and needs to be stopped" chorus without seeing that Trump is a centrist force that is getting things done and blowing up the logjam to let others get things done.
I agree with much of what you say, with a caveat. When monopolies are formed, they no longer have to care what other people do or think because they are in a position to dictate to everyone. James Galbraith in his latest book make the statement that in a "monopoly the price goes to infinity."
Government is a monopoly, the Teachers Union is a monopoly, and the Tech Bro's are close to a monopoly. (I really have little choice about what cell phone to buy as it is either an android or an I-phone and they are all in the same club) The logical thing for any organization to do is to seek to become a monopoly, because then they are in a position to dictate to everyone else.
We are not complying with our existing antitrust laws because big government loves big business, but yest, the massive corporate consolidation is a problem. Wall Street consolidated ownership of major corporations is also a problem.... as it is concentrated in 3-4 massive asset management firms. So, if Bill Gates wants to invest in synthetic meat these firms that manage his billions will pull strings in the media corporations they own a large interest in and have board members in place, to push the "real meat is bad for the environment" propaganda... and also the government monopoly goes after all the small ranchers and the supply chain for meat.
We have more a global corporatocracy than we do a capitalist democracy.
His statement that “progressives have also been very fearful of patriarchal, coercive bureaucracies that hover above them and take away their individual liberties, freedoms, and opportunities” is not grounded in reality. Progressives are not principled in the way that libertarians are. As we saw in the pandemic, progressives were VERY comfortable with government taking away individual liberties, freedoms and opportunities, including bodily autonomy and freedom of speech. He is blind to this because he considers himself a progressive. He’s essentially making the case for government to run roughshod over individual rights and freedoms in order to do the things that progressives support. It’s really not that fascinating of an argument.
It is brilliant to lay the problems of today at the feet of progressivism: e.g. create welfare, institutionalize it then distrust the authority of the institution so that it is staggered by bloat and corruption. I don't see a way out of the liberal paradox. Perhaps just encouraging people to be self-reliant would be more productive, which is, in a word, conservatism.
I also found the final idea that solutions to housing, energy, etc. lie with better government to miss the mark. The consumer has all the power needed to change these things through spending. Why is no-one trying to coordinate consumers?
Interesting point - China is ruled by engineers, the West by lawyers. Also, all of China weakness are from a Corp stand point, but pretty good from a consumer. Too much housing means cheap housing. Big Corp tax on profits and no Corp take overs means more investment and jobs and consumer choice. Corruption is a priblem, but just look at Canada Oligopolistic landscape...
It is good to hear a critique from the left, even if I do not agree with much of what he said.
Fundamentally, he misses something. Everyone needs to be subject to checks and balances. Everyone needs to have limits to thier power. Everyone needs to have thier ideas tested against reality. This is true for the TECH Bro's south of the boarder, but it is also true for the TEACHERS Union. Anyone can be corrupt. Anyone can abuse power. Anyone can believe things that are not true.
This is a systems problem, and in creating systems it needs to be understood that we can expect people to try to weaponize the system to thier advantage. Anyone can grab onto bad ideas and not let go. The key is in having ways to dicipline these individuals before it becomes too late. (So, the key to the abusive police chief is to have ways to dicipline the police chief before he becomes abusive, and to be able to dicipline the abusive officer before they get out of control)
As a someone who has liberaterian leanings, I think everyone has to suffer the consequences of thier behavior. So the community that does not build affordable housing, has no affordable housing. That means that grandma needs to leave the community in her old age. That means that the young adult has to leave thier community when they leave home. That means that they have no services in thier community, because the people who provide the services can't afford to live there. It also means that in the end, they can't afford to live there, because everything becomes too expensive for even them. (When the guy who fixes thier tap has to drive 40 miles he is going to charge mega $$$) The issue is that people on the left want to rescue people from the consequences of thier actions.
I also believe that power needs to be decentralized, because given the choice, people will leave places that are corrupt, and do not work. The big issue today, is that there is no where to go, because almost everywhere is having the same problems, and is being administered by people who believe the same things, because they attended the same Universities, go to the same conferences, and taught by teachers who believe the same ideas that don't work.
Thank you. This was a fascinating, well reasoned discussion. It takes considerable thoughtfulness to examine one's own beliefs in the search for a solution to the problems we face, as has this author. That is always more productive than simply blaming everyone else. If everyone assumed that intellectual posture, we all would benefit. Thank you again. Sincerely, Frederick
I have not read the book but just ordered it and queued in on my Kindle.
However, I have my own theory for why nothing works. That theory is based on my long career as a corporate executive. I am now CEO of two companies. The reason I am CEO is that I have DNA and have developed leadership capability to get things done... to solve complex organizational problems, to pursue difficult opportunities... to visualize a new future state, set goals and objectives... to create a robust project plan and to execute on the project plan. To be bold... to take risks... and to rid myself of the people that don't have these capabilities but for some reason insert themselves in a perpetual blocking and criticism role to undermine progress.
This latter type of person tends to have a left-leaning political orientation. They are more likely NIMBY's... change adverse....risk adverse... more likely to talk about problems but rarely take action to solve the problems at the root. They are terrible at seeing opportunities and going for them. Dynamism makes them nervous and they crave complete control of the change power. I think they are also afraid of being left behind... being kept away... of not being included... and thus this is why they are so intent to insert themselves as meddling stakeholders that are more a nuance than a help.
This is why things do not get done. We have a flaw in our collective human capability matrix where the wrong type of people end up in power and control of system governance. In the private economy those things get worked out because without the leaders having the right stuff, the company fails. However, in the public sector... the business of government... we don't have competition that motivates a getting-things-done meritocracy.
The design of Western style democracies was always that regular productive people take time from their regular productive lives to serve in government and then return to their regular productive lives at some point. But we have created an industry of the professional politicians and professional administrator. And too often these people with power lack the right stuff to get things done. They are forever exploiting the problems to promote themselves, but really don't have any intent or capability to solve the problems... and since they promote themselves in relation to the problem, they are motivated to see the problems continue.
We keep electing these actors... inauthentic and low-capability people that can speak well, but lack the right stuff to get things done.
Trump is one with the right stuff to get things done, and they are ripping him apart for actually doing things. They want to get back to the ineffective government that just talks about the problems but never takes any bold moves to fix them.
Frank, you have a good understanding of the dynamics of the problem. I understand that it is not considered proper to identify that some people are smarter than others, and am reminded of the adage: "Lead, follow or get out of the way". Too many of lower skills have been empowered by the leftist, "inclusive" education system to be in the way.
Thank you for identifying the problem that progressives have with Trump. Mr. Dunkelman falls back on the "Trump is a trainwreck and needs to be stopped" chorus without seeing that Trump is a centrist force that is getting things done and blowing up the logjam to let others get things done.
I agree with much of what you say, with a caveat. When monopolies are formed, they no longer have to care what other people do or think because they are in a position to dictate to everyone. James Galbraith in his latest book make the statement that in a "monopoly the price goes to infinity."
Government is a monopoly, the Teachers Union is a monopoly, and the Tech Bro's are close to a monopoly. (I really have little choice about what cell phone to buy as it is either an android or an I-phone and they are all in the same club) The logical thing for any organization to do is to seek to become a monopoly, because then they are in a position to dictate to everyone else.
We are not complying with our existing antitrust laws because big government loves big business, but yest, the massive corporate consolidation is a problem. Wall Street consolidated ownership of major corporations is also a problem.... as it is concentrated in 3-4 massive asset management firms. So, if Bill Gates wants to invest in synthetic meat these firms that manage his billions will pull strings in the media corporations they own a large interest in and have board members in place, to push the "real meat is bad for the environment" propaganda... and also the government monopoly goes after all the small ranchers and the supply chain for meat.
We have more a global corporatocracy than we do a capitalist democracy.
His statement that “progressives have also been very fearful of patriarchal, coercive bureaucracies that hover above them and take away their individual liberties, freedoms, and opportunities” is not grounded in reality. Progressives are not principled in the way that libertarians are. As we saw in the pandemic, progressives were VERY comfortable with government taking away individual liberties, freedoms and opportunities, including bodily autonomy and freedom of speech. He is blind to this because he considers himself a progressive. He’s essentially making the case for government to run roughshod over individual rights and freedoms in order to do the things that progressives support. It’s really not that fascinating of an argument.
It is brilliant to lay the problems of today at the feet of progressivism: e.g. create welfare, institutionalize it then distrust the authority of the institution so that it is staggered by bloat and corruption. I don't see a way out of the liberal paradox. Perhaps just encouraging people to be self-reliant would be more productive, which is, in a word, conservatism.
I also found the final idea that solutions to housing, energy, etc. lie with better government to miss the mark. The consumer has all the power needed to change these things through spending. Why is no-one trying to coordinate consumers?
Interesting point - China is ruled by engineers, the West by lawyers. Also, all of China weakness are from a Corp stand point, but pretty good from a consumer. Too much housing means cheap housing. Big Corp tax on profits and no Corp take overs means more investment and jobs and consumer choice. Corruption is a priblem, but just look at Canada Oligopolistic landscape...