New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has a little problem, and he doesn't have the answer ready to solve it. In his December 24, 2008 article, Friedman plaints, "If we’re so smart, why are other people living so much better than us? What has become of our infrastructure, which is so crucial to productivity?"
Well to begin with, Friedman, you might look in the mirror. Someone you know very well happened to write a couple of books - The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization and The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century - which touted avenues by which the American entrepreneur can cut loose from his blue collar labor neighbors and make a bundle through offshored outsourcing. You introduced the "Electronic Herd" - which you defined as "the faceless buyers and sellers of stocks, bonds, and currencies, and multinational corporations investing wherever and whenever the best opportunity presents itself" - to the "pitiless system" which richly rewards winners while harshly punishing the losers (as related by Kirkus Reviews on the Amazon book page). Do you not now see all around you the so-smart losers of your "pitiless system"?
I frankly doubt it, for you are too busy consoling your once-billionairess spouse, Ann Bucksbaum Friedman (Bucksbaum = German for money tree???), over her share of the now-collapsed family trusts which once were worth $3.6 billion and are now only worth about $25 million. General Growth Properties, which was owned largely by your in-law outlaws, is facing involuntary bankruptcy if it can't raise about $1 billion to settle some immediate creditor claims. The word is that General Growth Properties pled for leniency from the banks and begged for more time to settle accounts. Industry insiders remain unconvinced of the sincerity of the request due to allegations of fraudulent intent on the part of General Growth Properties. And they thought they were so smart that no one would catch on, right?
I'd advise you to re-mortgage that 11,400-square-foot mansion in Bethesda, Maryland you occupy with your sugar-free mama in an effort to show good faith, but you may not have heard that the real estate markets are a tad flat, like your globalized economy. One of the reasons would be that there are few potential takers for your note after that Mean Mr. Madoff made off with over $50 billion, and since no one currently has a clue where Madoff made off to with all of it, it is as likely as not that he made it into an investment in your Brave New Economic World rather than into your personal American world of mendicant former billionaires bailed out by bleating Congressmen.
Article comments
1 - Pablo
Friedman is just another new world order CFR globalist like his pal Fareed Zakaria. Birds of a feather always flock together.
2 - Roger Nowosielski
Excellent choice of quote from Bob Herbert.
I didn't know, by the way, that Friedman was that well to do. In light of that, some of his writings may well by hypocritical.
You might want to take a look at another book, by Walter Russell Mead from Foreign Affairs - "God and Gold." Mead espouses the Anglo-Saxon paradigm of liberating the world through free trade and Westernizing it, as part of the push toward through-and-through globalization - whether the underdeveloped nations and more primitive cultures want it or not.
Oddly enough, Mr. Mead had been conspicuously silent since our recent economic woes. Not a word had come out of his mouth concerning the possibility that the paradigm may be defective in the long run. (It seemed to work for 300 years.)
Of course, his excuse may be that his area of expertise is mainly foreign relations - not economics. One has to wonder, though, because the cited book deals more with the subject matter of economics than any other.
I'll have to re-read your article for more incisive analysis, this being the first stab.
3 - Jet
Is that Nalle's Herbert from Star Trek?
4 - Dave Nalle
Roger, you don't have to be rich to be in the CFR. The trick is getting invited to join. I figure if I keep exposing Pablo and his silliness long enough I'll have to get an invite. That may be my only route since the members I've known who could have recommended me have mostly passed on.
Friedman was from a middle-class background and althoughg he made a reasonable amount of money writing and lecturing he was by no means among the truly rich.
Dave
5 - Cindy D
I just love your writing Realist. It is so defiantly creative. It's like music. Beautiful alliteration. There is something that inspires me about that ownership in writing.
----------
The more of these creatures that come crawling out, the more promising things look to me. Because nobody's listening. People don't change unless they personally hurt. If the other guy hurts he must just be some kind of lazy loser.
Since the people on the bottom are going to hurt anyway, let turn up the heat up the ladder a bit. A lot more people need a wake up call.
Bring on the parade of the free market dickheads.
6 - Cindy D
In reference to Realist's link "still flourish"
Report links Wal-Mart's school uniforms to Bangladesh sweatshops
Beatings, 19-hour work days " for $20 a month
Pro Sweat Shop Dickheads
In 1997, [Chicago School] economist Jeffrey Sachs said, "My concern is not that there are too many sweatshops, but that there are too few."[3] Sachs and other proponents of sweatshops cite the economic theory of comparative advantage, which states that international trade will, in the long run, make some parties better off.
When asked about the working condition in sweatshops, proponents say that although wages and working conditions may appear inferior by the standards of developed nations, they are actually improvements over what the people in developing countries had before.
Definition of "before": before means the period beginning after the U.S. and its globalization buddies go in and undercut the poor's ability to, say, farm their own small plots and support themselves. Forcing them to seek work the the "free trade" zone.
So many countries are competing to attract business to their "free trade" zone, that in addition to making less money, these new victims of Capitalism have their rights whittled down further so that each country can compete.
7 - Doug Hunter
I think we should close all sweatshops and let all the brown people go back to starvation. Africa has alot of substistence farmers, perhaps you 'progressives' feel that is a better system.
Led by your misguided heart and not your brains. This country is idiocracy in action and Obama has nice abs.
8 - Cindy D
grrr
9 - Dave Nalle
Beatings, 19-hour work days -- for $20 a month
Wages in Bangladesh are actually more like $20 a week, and that's more than 20 times what the weekly wage was before foreign companies began operating there in the 1980s. Foreign companies have also dropped the unemployment rate there from over 50% to under 5%. All of this doesn't make Bangladesh a paradise, but conditions there have only improved because of western investment.
Dave
10 - Cindy D
Dave...
11 - Roger Nowosielski
I don't know much about CFR, Dave, but here is a comment by Catherine Austin Fitts, once a Wall Street insider, a Republican, and (at the time) President of The Hamilton Security Group, an investment banker and a consultant to HUD:
"After I started The Hamilton . . ., I was approached by Nick Brady, still Secretary of Treasury, to serve as a Governor of the Federal Reserve. When I declined, John Sunumu, then White House Chief of Staff, had appointed me to the board of Sallie Mae. . . . While on the board of Sallie Mae, I was taken aside by the Chairman who explained that it was essential for me to ask Nick to sponsor me for membership in the . . . CFR. When I said that this was not something I felt comfortable doing, he said, quite alarmed in a generous and caring manner, 'You don't understand, if you don't join the Council, you will be out for good.'
"I did not join the CFR and in retrospect - after watching how the CFR and its members operate - believe I made a sound decision. My dream was to find solutions. That required getting in the trenches to prototype money maps, tools and transactions. Prototyping of this type requires high degrees of trust with diverse networks - in communities and financial markets alike. Some of these networds would not welcome a central banker or members of organizations like CFR that provide the intellectual smokescreen for the centralization of financial data and flows and economic and political power.
"Over time I was increasingly shocked by the speed and ease with which many intelligent and seemingly competent members of the CFR appeared to eagerly justify policies and actions that supported growing corruption. The regularity with which many CFR members would protect insiders from accountability regarding another appalling fraud surprised even me. Many of them seemed delighted with the advantages of being an insider while being entirely indifferent to the extraordinary cost to all citizens of having our lives, health and resources drained to increase insider wealth in a manner that violated the most basic principles of fiduciary obligation and respect for the law. In short, the CFR was operating in a win-lose economic paradigm that centralized economic and political power. I was trying to find a way for us to shift to a win-win economic paradigm that was - by its nature - decentralizing."
It would seem thus that although our system on the face of it is a free market economy, it is run and manipulated by organizations and bureaucratic structures not that different from the Politbureau. Are you certain, now, that you'd want to be a part of something like that? What about integrity?
12 - pablo
Roger
Take a look at Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley, who also was an insider, and privy to the documents of the CFR going all the way back to the 1920's.
There is no question to anyone who has even a little bit of political aptitude that the CFR's main agenda is globalism, always has been, and not in the interests of the people but of Wall Street, and the Bank of England, to create a world wide feudalistic centralized one world state, and is in FACT to this day part of the Chatham House in the UK. I have also noticed that most of their main members whether of the MSM or the political arena, are smarmy, deceitful, and not to be trusted by anyone who believes in human liberty. Such notables as David Gergen, Alexander Haig, Henry (Dr. Strangelove Kissinger), Daniel Pipes,and James Woolsey immediately come to mind, with the word smarmy.
Deceitful, David Rockyfeller, Armitage, Ollie North, Bernanke, Greenspan, and Ed Meese.
There is absolutely nothing benevolent about this organization, and it has been striking at the core of freedom and liberty for decades.
What someone like Dave does which is the tool of his trade, is try to smear a person's (in this case mine) opinion with labels of hatred, such as saying that I am affiliated with the JBS (John Birch Society)or with an even cuter label such as crackpot or god no conpiracy freak. It is similar to how he will also smear people such as myself with the label of anti-semite if I happen to be critical of some of Israel's foreign policies, or talk about the Rothschild family, as if I could give a rat's ass about someones religion or ethnicity. It is very plain to see for anyone with an open mind how he does this on a continual basis instead of debate. He will denigrate and say that I am beneath debate and people should have only contempt for me. Quite silly actually, and very transparent.
There is no big secret about the CFR's globalist agenda as they have been openly discussing it for decades in their trashy magazine Foreign Affairs.
Yes I have contempt for them, and will openly display it until such time as they cease to exist, or legislate freedom of speech out of existence. In either case I will speak my mind as long as I have air to breathe.
13 - Roger Nowosielski
Pablo:
That's a heck of an indictment. As I said, I don't know much about them, but I'll make it a point to look into their history and policies.
I'm not certain, however, that Dave is that corrupt. I'll like to give him the benefit of the doubt or to keep an open mind. Try not to take what he says personally but as part of a heated debate. "Hitting below the belt," though a despicable tactic, is a common recourse by what I label as "conservative mind" - not one which is acquired as a result of one's life experiences and deliberation but kind of inborn, the product of one's upbringing and emotional makeup. These people (and I don't mean to include Dave here by any means, because I'm not privy to such information)are in essence fundamentalists. They're scared shitless!
14 - pablo
Roger,
I meant quite literally every thing that I said in the previous post. My opinion of Mr. Nalle has come from the past year and a half of trying to debate him on the issues of the day. In that time, I have been called by him personally a nazi, (I abhor National Socialism and totalitarianism in all of its forms the nazi one being one of the most virulent forms of) an anti-semite, a crackpot, a tin-foil hat dude, and any other of numerous names that he chooses to label me with, instead of debating in an honest and courteous fashion. I just dont happen to turn the other cheek, and return scorn with scorn. That may not be the most noble form of communication but frankly I don't care. At one point in our comments he even went so far as to say he would publicly apologize to me for calling me a nazi if I could show him where he did so. I obliged him, and got only more scorn.
The Council on Foreign Relations was in point of fact started by JP Morgan and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, it sprung out of what was called Milner's Kinderarten, and was part of Cecil Rhodes idea of a one world state run by Great Britain as set forth in his will. What makes Quigley's book so notable is that he was one of them, and wrote in depth about the CFR's agendas, their beginnings, and it is quite a fascinating read into this powerful cabal, that almost invariably has cabinet level positions in most of the executive branch and has had them for decades. The CFR has no allegiance to the US Constitution nor the sovereignty of the individual nor of the nation which represents the people. The CFR represents vested multi national corporate interests, with the ultimate goal of its dominion over the entire planet, without a bill of rights. Rights being unalienable as in born with,as set forth in the Bill of Rights and are the cornerstone of our guarantees of liberty.
This is why I oppose them so vehemently, and in my opinion the chief difference between a true libertarian such as myself and a corporate libertarian, with such notable corporate libertarians on this site as Nalle and Al Barger.
For one of the best resources on this group and their various globalist friends I suggest Alan Watt, he can easily be found on youtube.
15 - Baronius
Pablo - You have failed to demonstrate what the CFR's policies are, or how they undermine America. You haven't shown how the members represent the same beliefs. You just reiterate that different people are members, and list other secret and/or elite societies.
A person could describe my local pool in a way that sounds menacing. Behind closed doors, members of my pool interact cordially, even though they may have different political affiliations. Members of my pool have friends who swam in the Olympics: an international organization. There's even a pool member who writes capitalist screeds on the internet under the alias "Baronius".
If you haven't constructed a persuasive argument against the CFR, it might not be Dave's fault.
16 - Doug Hunter
"'Hitting below the belt,' though a despicable tactic, is a common recourse by what I label as 'conservative mind' - not one which is acquired as a result of one's life experiences and deliberation but kind of inborn, the product of one's upbringing and emotional makeup."
Isn't this sorta like the pot-kettle thing? Both sides engage in namecalling and personal attacks, most people assume attacks against the other side are 'true' or valid so they don't notice them as much. Trust me, your team is just as petty.
17 - Roger Nowosielski
I don't deny it that liberals - not my "team," by the way! - are not above dirty tactics. What they seem to suffer from is a kind of theologizing of politics. Since they banished God, it's up to them to bring the order into the Universe. So both sides have their hangups - a somewhat retarded personality on one side and aggrandizing of self on the other.
Personally, if I happen to lean to the left, it's only because it's a more humane kind of impulse. I think it's more noble and rewarding to be other-directed than self-centered. Other than that, I don't think that either side has a monopoly on how to solve our problems while here on earth. It ain't going to happen. We'll have to wait until the Kingdom of God cometh!
18 - Doug Hunter
So you view those who disagree with you as retarded, self centered, and prone to using despicable tactics while people who agree with you are humane, noble, and selfless if occasionally lacking in humility.
That's taking the easy way out. It's much harder to delve into and understand where someone is coming from, realizing that they probably are of sound mind and also want the best for future generations.
There are countless examples, useless analogies, and harsh putdowns to be had on both sides. The real world is not that simple, it's nature vs nurture, the yin and the yang. It takes both sides in balance to progress. When in harmony we have out greatest successes and when our joint flaws are exposed our greatest failures. (try looking at the current mortgage crisis through this lens for example.....greedily handing out mortgages to poor people)
19 - Dave Nalle
Pablo's repeated personal smears have become so ubiquitous that I now find them amusing rather than offensive. I'm starting to find his utter inability to understand the CFR amusing as well.
Yes, the CFR is a 'globalist' organization. It wants to make the world more like America and Britain. In other words it wants to spread the values of capitalism and representative government. What Pablo is unable to explain is why this is a bad thing.
Dave
20 - Roger Nowosielski
I believe I've already said that much, Doug, in between the lines for some, more overtly for keener minds. I have no sides and there definitely are examples of stupidity from all camps.
I was referring, mainly, to vulgar aspects/renditions of either position - i.e., positions which are rooted in personalities and upbringing, rather than those arising in the course of a person's life experiences and are product of his rational thought and deliberation.
I had said, and I'm saying it again: I have no sides, and that if I lean toward the left, it's for the reason I had already stated. You don't have to be on the defensive here, because I wasn't talking about you.
Ultimately, most "rational" positions, whether in politics or other matters of dispute, are an outgrowth of our emotional makeup - which is to say, they are rationalizations more or less. The conflict between the emotional in us and that which is rational is ever present, and the easiest way of resolving it is through making reason a mouthpiece for the emotion. (We all do it from time to time.) The trick is to get our feelings and emotions into a healthy state, to know where we're coming from. Only then our positions will reflect the highest kind of values possible, seeing the world through an ominipresent and omniconscious eye as it ware - as God might see it. The saints belong to that category, but for an average human being it's a long way to go. The self tends to get in the way.
21 - Roger Nowosielski
Dave,
The position "it [CFR] wants to make the world more like America and Britain . . ." - which which, I believe, you concur" - might (and it's a big "might") be justifiable years ago while we were still naive. Refer, for example, to Walter Russell Mead's book I made reference to in comment # 2. It seemed all along like a good paradigm of bringing "progress" to the world (and it had worked for 300 and some years). But even the author himself is aware of the natural resistance on the part of some "underdeveloped" nations and more primitive cultures to this push and spread of the West. Indeed, except for England, even the European countries (France, Germany, Italy, and perhaps even England itself)are not comfortable with the paradigm, though they realize the value of the paradigm. More and more are objecting now to America's "exceptionalism," and they have good reasons for doing so. In fact, it was the strength of Mr. Mead's book to account for this natural resistance to the spread of Western values and culture in a very convincing way - in spite of being the proponent.
You yourself would not recognize the world if the plan - of total globalization, the New World Order, etcetera and etcetera - would come to fruition. It would resemble a totalitarian state, I venture to say, or perhaps even a slice of life from science fiction. It would be nothing like we're experiencing right now, and I'm certain you wouldn't want any part of it, unless of course you were a member of the ruling elite.
We should all leave ideology behind. I hate to think of you as an apologist. There had been plenty of such voices in the past, and I'm certain there'll be plenty more. None had passed favorably through the crucible of history.
Roger
22 - Dave Nalle
Roger, there's more than one kind of globalism being promoted in the world today. My argument would be that the brand promoted by the CFR is far less dangerous than the transnational progressivism which is being promoted by some elements of the American left and by many in the world of international NGOs. There's also a movement of global corporatism which is non-governmental in nature, but which is having a profound influence around the world.
All of these movements have the potential to become imperialistic and oppressive. But America has a history of promoting international growth and development without demanding dominance and control in exchange for our support. From what I can tell the CFR generally does not support world dominance or world government. It just advocates the opening of markets and the establishment of governments which promote peace and trade rather than war and oppression. At least that was certainly the intent behind the organization.
Dave
23 - pablo
Always a pleasure to amuse you Nalle.
24 - Roger Nowosielski
Dave,
I don't know enough about CFR in order to be able to comment authoritatively. I am suspicious, however, of all organizations with so illustrious a membership [See Baronius's comment, for example (#15), where he points out what I believe is a logical fallacy: making conclusions from "individual" to "aggregate" level; it may be a valid objection in the strictly syllogistic sense, but still . . . ) I guess I'll have skim through their official journal.
Regardless of our preferred positions, however, and wishful thinking, some kind of globalism will take hold (if only temporarily) - whether in the form of free trade and commerce or by way of "transnational progressivism," as you had called it. To say that neither kind of transition is not a desirable one - in my opinion - is neither here nor there because, as I said, it's not in my or anybody's control: it'll just happen since history is always on the march. Why I think it undesirable is because centralization of political and/or economic power - though the fact of the world - is usually detrimental to local constituencies, diminishing the voice and scope of recourse on the part of the individual. I'd like to see more decentralization, not less.
I also agree with you as to the benevolent face we put on the Western expansion. We don't win our enemies through military conquest and the like but in the name of high sounding ideas like progress, democracy and spread of freedom; and that's in fact the strength and the attractiveness of the Anglo-Saxon paradigm - the tool of Western expansion - promoting liberalism abroad so as to open new markets, etc., (while the proponents lean to conservatism at home, a kind of contradiction in terms, don't you think so?) Indeed, we're much more subtle. We hide our imperialistic ambitions under the cloak of political liberalism, like a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Still, there's a price to be paid for "progress." Even in this country - which serves as a model - we have produced a nation of consumers first and foremost. They're consumers before they are citizens, responsible community leaders, etc. Availability of material goods is only one measure of the health of the society and the world. And when it becomes our only yardstick, I don't necessarily call it progress. Individual freedom and self-determination are far more important values to me.
It's all about power in the final analysis; how we get there is a matter of means. There's no changing human nature, so we'll just have to wait and see.
Roger
25 - pablo
Baronius 15
You obviously do not have an interest in the CFR, and are only trying to make hay by saying that I have not convinced you of anything. I assume you know what a bit torrent is and how to get one. Tragedy and Hope is easily available via torrent.
I only say this to you Baronius, because I freely admit to not being the best persuader, particularly when someones mind is already made up. However should you decide to open your mind a bit there is a plethora of excellent writing on the CFR, their beginnings, their agendas, and what they really represent. They are diabolical, smarmy, and represent the worst in human development, and their globalist agenda has nothing to do with freedom or liberty of human beings. Power, ruthlessness, and global dominion are what they have in mind, contrary to Dave's simplistic and untrue assertions.