Draw the line

Early in the last century, African traditions were formalized and documented.  By foreigners.  The colonial powers did their best to describe and preserve the history of the Africans.  They drew national boundaries and designated capital cities, gathering the varied communities and peoples into national identities they hadn't known, giving them laws and governance.

The problem, of course, is that it was externally imposed. Much of the formalized history was inaccurate, having been interpreted by outsiders. Much of the new legal system had in the past been just informal agreement; ways that were agreed to by communities with the understanding that things would continue only as long as everyone benefited. When an agreement no longer served, it was left behind. But no longer, as foreign rule imposed laws that the people couldn't change.

Thus the lament of everyone today; as soon as a law is enacted, the power players look for ways to work it to their advantage.  No longer the mutual agreement for mutual benefit, law and regulation became the constraint against change, against improvement.

The Maasai are a persistent exception.  They are nomadic herders who don't recognize the borders imposed on them.  They go where the weather gives them grazing lands for their herds, and they've little interest in the densely populated cities that have been imposed upon the lands.

To some degree, we're all from such roots.  Our predecessors settled where the land would serve them well. They spread out so there would be room between them and their neighbors, room for crops and herds, for fishing and hunting.  Fences to separate families came much, much later along with the laws to formalize the agreements that grew up among them.

The colonial powers saw Africa as a continent without civilization, ignorant, unproductive and stagnant. They presumed that they themselves were the embodiment of right thinking, of right living, and obliged to shape the continent after their own image.  In some ways, their efforts were perhaps well intended, but unfortunately, millions died as a result.  Wars over gold, trade, and slaves followed.  Racism and class distinctions rose to the forefront, and even yet today the poorest continue to be exploited.

As elsewhere in the world, poverty that persists in regions of Africa today is not from a lack of resources.  Much of the world economy comes from that region.  Oil, coal, diamonds, gold, iron, cobalt, uranium, copper, bauxite, silver, cocoa beans, and fine woods are all plentiful, but after centuries of growth, the wealth of the continent continues to benefit the few.  And the imposed law is used to squelch the outcry of the disenfranchised.

Nigeria's Bonny Peninsula is a classic case. Polluted beyond survivability, the land and waters now kill or drive out the residents, and their protests are met by government violence.  The Anglo-Dutch oil group Shell owns and operates the industry there.

Illegal over-fishing by developed nations has eroded the productivity of local fishermen.  The 90% reduction in marketable fish populations means the locals go much farther offshore at greater risk and return with less.

Interestingly, our densely populated cities are not the settled norm.  They are artificially maintained and progressively less sustainable.  They are at best 80% solutions supported by varying degrees of overburdening of people and resources. Things will change of necessity in the coming decades.

Life for about 80% of the world ...

In Africa as in the rest of the world, it's not the land that brings people to poverty.  It's the rich and influential who bring poverty. Poverty is a weapon by which the few profit from the deprivation of others.  We in the west who claim the moral high-ground of equality, of law and justice, will be required to face the reality that such a position is bent by self-interest and that what we have collectively become is in many ways extraordinarily harmful.

How often do we think we know what's best for others?  Do we presume our success and position place us somehow above and with a better perspective?  Such thinking is always inaccurate; no exceptions. As individuals, what options are available to us for a meaningful way forward?

Too big ...

Strong statements by governments and the media say that the failure of this or that financial giant could be a tipover point for the world economy.  The failure of AIG, for example, would cascade throughout the world down to the last person.  None would be left unscathed.

OK, that's an interesting perspective.

From a Wikipedia article:

The "too big to fail" theory asserts that certain financial institutions are so large and so interconnected that their failure would be disastrous to the economy, and they therefore must be supported by government when they face difficulty.^[1] ... popularized by U.S. Congressman Stewart McKinney in a 1984 Congressional hearing, discussing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's intervention with Continental Illinois.^[2] ... Proponents of this theory believe that some institutions are so important that they should become recipients of beneficial financial and economic policies from governments or central banks.^[4] ... The global economic system must also deal with sovereign states being too big to fail.^[5][6][7][8] Opponents believe that one of the problems that arises is moral hazard whereby a company that benefits from these protective policies will seek to profit by it, deliberately taking positions ... that are high-risk high-return....^[9] The term has emerged as prominent in public discourse since the 2007–2010 global financial crisis.^[10] Critics see the policy as counterproductive and that large banks or other institutions should be left to fail if their risk management is not effective.^[11][12] 

Some critics, such as Alan Greenspan, believe that such large organisations should be deliberately broken up: “If they're too big to fail, they're too big”.^[13] More than fifty prominent economists, financial experts, bankers, finance industry groups, and banks themselves have called for breaking up large banks into smaller institutions.^[14]

So, most agree that the characterization is correct, but not all agree on what we should do about it.  If the corporation is a threat to the nation, are there reasons to NOT regulate that threat?  That's been the response so far.

Is it just these financial business behemoths that pose the risk?  Or is there more to the underlying causes?

From our history ... of communities, of cities, of civilizations.  The progressive complexity of their interrelationships over the years shows breakdown points where some or all suffer.  Competition for resources, for room to live, for power, all have affected the masses detrimentally.  In each case, the first trigger point for difficulty seems to be population density.

Not every location is viable; population concentrates in favorable regions rather than being spread out evenly.

Where communities were small and separated by distance, there was no inevitable conflict.  Where resources were sufficient, there was no destructive competition.  Communities along the Niger River lived in cooperative peace for more than a thousand years.

In regions of dense population however, demands of consumption overtasked the local carrying capacity. Class systems exploited the masses. Power players would compete to come out on top. Consumption would strip the land of trees, aggressive farming would exhaust the land, and overfishing would decimate the sea life.  Trying to make more out of less brings intense competition, risk, and eventual collapse.  Or war.

That's the history we see with population density being the underlying and perhaps first enabling factor.

2011

World population rose to three, four, five, six and now seven billion just in my lifetime, and it's concentrated, not spread out. In 2008, we crossed a threshold; half the global population now live in urban areas. Fifty years ago it was 30%. A century ago it was 10%.

Following population density, in every case of failed civilization, it appears that there were two identifiable players; government and big business (or their contemporary equivalent).

We note the acceleration of destructive play in those two realms today. Increasingly, governments serve national business interests, ignoring the broader impact. This is perhaps the second trigger point. And now, the reality of globalization means the risks affect us all.

We face challenges today with population, climate change, water availability, and overfishing of the oceans. Globalizing processes change cultures, economies, national priorities, and the natural environment. The whole world is in play, and it's unprotected from either big business or government.

The immediate future holds challenges for us individually and collectively.  What long term and rational plan we might embrace?

Everything we've got

“When we find a way to save millions of lives, to give hundreds of millions of families the ability to make a healthy, productive future, we should give everything we've got.” ~Melinda Gates

Melinda Gates, Co-Founder and Co-Chair of the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation makes remarks at the launch
of a Global Partnership on Maternal and Child Health on
March 9, 2011 at the Ronald Reagan Building in
Washington, DC.  They introduced a new partnership
between the US Agency for International Development,
the Government of Norway, The Bill and Melinda Gates
 Foundation, Grand Challenges Canada and The World Bank
 that will seek innovative solutions to reduce maternal and
 child mortality in developing countries. AFP PHOTO

So as Jesus walked out into the street, this fellow came running up and asked, “... how can I get eternal life? What do I need to do?”

Jesus said, “... You know the rules: Don't murder, don't commit adultery, don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat, honor your father and mother.”
He said, “Teacher, I've got that.  I've done all that since I was a child!”

Jesus looked him hard in the eye and loved him! He said, “There’s this one thing left: go sell everything you own and give it to the poor. Then come follow me.”

The man’s face clouded over. This was the last thing he expected to hear, and he walked away with a heavy heart. He was holding on tight to a lot of things and wouldn't let go.

To his friends, Jesus said, “Do you have any idea just how hard it is for people who ‘have it all’ to find God’s kingdom?” The disciples didn't get it, but Jesus kept on: “You can’t imagine how difficult. I'd say it’s easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for the rich to walk that particular path.”

Watching someone walk that particular pathway is such a stunning joy.

Tick

In an interesting departure from what we were taught in high school about America, government can be bought. 

 
Corporations have an overriding voice when it comes to decision-making by government.

My letter to a congressman gets at best a form-letter reply. Corporations spend hundreds of millions on their issues totaling billions every year, not including campaign contributions .... and the reply they get is favorable legislation.

That's not news, of course.  It's been going on for years, creeping up under the covers like a tick looking for blood.

I've not been able to find even one news report or academic article suggesting that corporate lobbying was largely good for the nation or the people. Not one. Disappointing.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it isn't detrimental.  The influence of the banking industry, for example.  Their ensuing crash pushed millions around the world across the line to starvation.

In defense of the process, there is a need for knowledgeable discussion on the issues, but that necessary debate can be overwhelmed by paid talking heads.  In the regulatory abandonment of banking constraints, congress was persuaded that not a single dollar could be lost in the derivatives exchange process ....  it wasn't a single dollar, of course; it was trillions.  We lost jobs and income, value in our homes, in our savings, and we went further into debt; the cost - around $104,000 for each US household. And we haven't yet recovered.

Greenspan, echoing the lobbyists before the crash, testified that there was no need for government oversight, because the derivatives market involved Wall Street “professionals” who could patrol themselves. That's what they told him, of course.

Top lobbying sectors 1998-2010^[61][62]

	Client	Amount Spent	%
1	Finance, Insurance & Real Estate	$4,274,060,331	15%
2	Health	$4,222,427,808	15%
3	Misc Business	$4,149,842,571	14%
4	Communications/Electronics	$3,497,881,399	12%
5	Energy & Natural Resources	$3,104,104,518	11%
6	Transportation	$2,245,118,222	8%
7	Other	$2,207,772,363	7%
8	Ideological/Single-Issue	$1,477,294,241	5%
9	Agribusiness	$1,280,824,983	4%
10	Defense	$1,216,469,173	4%
11	Construction	$480,363,108	2%
12	Labor	$427,355,408	1%
13	Lawyers & Lobbyists themselves	$336,170,306	1%
	Total	$28,919,684,431	99%[63]
	Note: Amounts do not include campaign contributions.[64][65]

  

The last stage of capitalizm

"Even if the whole planet were offered as collateral, it could not cover Wall Street’s play."

"Never in the history of the world has finance capital so dominated the real economy, and only in the past two decades have derivatives been so central to finance capitalism.  The meltdown of 2008 was caused primarily by derivatives, requiring a bailout in the tens of trillions of dollars that is still ongoing, with the Federal Reserve buying up securities that no one would purchase – that is, bet on – otherwise. Yet, the universe of derivatives deals has grown much larger than in 2008, effectively untouched by President Obama’s attempts at financial reform.

"Derivatives are the ultimate expression of financial capitalism: they are primarily bets on transactions, rather than investments in production. ...."

From BAR executive editor Glen Ford at BlackAgendaReport.com.

True?  Perhaps generally, yes, though the issues are a bit more complex.  Watching these things, though, we're perhaps concerned about the runaway nature of our governments and economy. We hope for the best, but our concerns aren't new; they've been the subject of writings across the world's religions. You wonder if those prophetic writers might have been given a brief look at the current world.  They've described it as best they could, it seems.

Try an objective review of things we've been told that will accompany the end of the age:

- wars and rumors of wars around the world, but don't worry; the end isn't yet.

- an emerging collapse of the world ecosystem.  Clean water becomes scarce causing a significant population decline. (declining aquifers, polluted ground water?)  Forests and grasslands will be burned up.  (drought, climate change?)

- precious metals will lose their value. Currency will become ambiguous, falling in value, perhaps through inflation or the hyperinflation some countries have already experienced.  (ok, that's weird.)

- wealth will change.  Trade will require participation in a government approved financial system. A mark or number in our head or hand (ha! .. electronic transactions rather than physical currency?) will be the required transaction credential.

- a consolidation of nations into a world government will finally succeed, but only for awhile.  It will perhaps be like current hubristic governments, and it will eventually collapse in a world-wide war.  In the aftermath, a new world order?

- and apparently, those who have died will live again somehow.  Ok, enough, enough.

So we sit and watch as the oceans have lost much of their large fish populations, the glaciers melt, and the weather changes.
Wall Street bets on an EU collapse, and developing countries suffer the most.  Either nothing makes sense, or it's all a little too clear.

Today's exaggerated speculations aside, are there facts we can objectively evaluate?   Early writings on the subject were often obscure, but you have to wonder what the prophets saw that provoked such a commentary.  Can we be realistic rather than religious/superstitious? Is there an appropriate response in our life choices?

Lead the way

If alarm bells don't ring when you check the chart, move on to something more interesting. For the rest of us, ....

Management vs. leadership:  Decades in the military and civilian workforce have provided only a little clarity, and perhaps it's not a truly fair comparison.  The two positions may represent opposite ends of a spectrum along which we might find ourselves.  None claim it's an easy journey; few have done it gently.  All make many mistakes along the way.  Theoretically, it can all be done with dignity and poise.

That said, note the style of the leader:  Equips others to perform without being told.  Cheerfully rocks the boat and presses for decisions.  Recognizes that rules aren't perfect; they can be rewritten.  Deals directly and serves well to the very end.

Executive Summary:  One way passes the time.  The other changes things.  Are both required?  Is it really that clear cut?