Hippocrates, “Life is short, art long, opportunity fleeting, experience treacherous, judgment difficult.”

This scholarly work has our tasks cut out for us, if we hope to leave a liberal democracy to our progeny.  

_________

The article''s power is reduced by he likelihood or certainty that the World will reach a tipping point after which a global warming will be our bequest; will spare no one or country or part of the globe; will make a discussion of the relative benefits of one form of government or another irrelevant.

_________

I like this article; it points to some weakness in the US system of governance that are fixable if we have the will to fix them, and it is the sort of thing I might have written when I as younger; and still I am struck by the irony of such a effort, published in such a responsible publication, in a world with no future if we don't quickly change global focus onto the environment. What is required is all of us working together, in the time remaining. Otherwise, the likely future lies with the Extremophiles, the next dominant life form on earth.

_________


"Liberal democracy" is kinder to those who support its major facets than to those who don't.  See  Liberal democracy - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy.  A caveat: The Wikipedia article is biased in favor of liberal democrats. For example, talk with any person who isn't an Anglo-Saxon Breeder.  Still, the article is useful for discussion.

_________

Ah well. Hippocrates, “Life is short, art long, opportunity fleeting, experience treacherous, judgment difficult.”

And, on Oahu, Spring has sprung and I have a song in may heart.
       

The End of the Democratic Century

At the height of World War II, Henry Luce, the founder of Time magazine, argued that the United States had amassed such wealth and power that the twentieth century would come to be known simply as “the American…

FOREIGNAFFAIRS.COM

Krugman, egregious misuse of lots of money: Yes, but. . . and. . . .

Thanks, Rik!

Dr. Krugman, well- and deservedly-respected economist, doesn't mention., in his editorial republished here  . .

• the many wealthy men who have donated millions to Hillary Clinton's campaign to be nominated as the Democratic candidate for president;
• nor that the United States' revolution from the mad English king was headed by oligarchs; 
• nor that most of the presidents of the United States -- including some of the most respected --   have been millionaires;
• nor that most of the peoples of the world from the beginning of recoded history have been ruled by oligarchs.

Krugman's focus in this article is domestic.  If it were global, it would be investing to read his thoughts on the extent to which the World's billionaires have become a self-aware organization.

And Dr. Krugman's pointing out Sheldon Adelson and DonaldTrump as especially
egregious examples of open and notorious misuse of wealth is useful.  Misuse of wealth is usually quiet, unpublicized.  We approach a time not unlike the time that preceded the French Revolution, when the Heads of the Great were lopped off.

The New York Times

The Opinion Pages | OP-ED COLUMNIST

Privilege, Pathology and Power

Paul Krugman JAN. 1, 2016

 

Wealth can be bad for your soul. That’s not just a hoary piece of folk wisdom; it’s a conclusion from serious social science, confirmed by statistical analysis and experiment. The affluent are, on average, less likely to exhibit empathy, less likely to respect norms and even laws, more likely to cheat, than those occupying lower rungs on the economic ladder.

And it’s obvious, even if we don’t have statistical confirmation, that extreme wealth can do extreme spiritual damage. Take someone whose personality might have been merely disagreeable under normal circumstances, and give him the kind of wealth that lets him surround himself with sycophants and usually get whatever he wants. It’s not hard to see how he could become almost pathologically self-regarding and unconcerned with others.

So what happens to a nation that gives ever-growing political power to the superrich?

 Modern America is a society in which a growing share of income and wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of people, and these people have huge political influence — in the early stages of the 2016 presidential campaign, around half the contributions came from fewer than 200 wealthy families. The usual concern about this march toward oligarchy is that the interests and policy preferences of the very rich are quite different from those of the population at large, and that is surely the biggest problem.

But it’s also true that those empowered by money-driven politics include a disproportionate number of spoiled egomaniacs. Which brings me to the current election cycle.

The most obvious illustration of the point I’ve been making is the man now leading the Republican field. Donald Trump would probably have been a blowhard and a bully whatever his social station. But his billions have insulated him from the external checks that limit most people’s ability to act out their narcissistic tendencies; nobody has ever been in a position to tell him, “You’re fired!” And the result is the face you keep seeing on your TV.

But Mr. Trump isn’t the only awesomely self-centered billionaire playing an outsized role in the 2016 campaign.

There have been some interesting news reports lately about Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas gambling magnate. Mr. Adelson has been involved in some fairly complex court proceedings, which revolve around claims of misconduct in his operations in Macau, including links to organized crime and prostitution. Given his business, this may not be all that surprising. What was surprising was his behavior in court, where he refused to answer routine questions and argued with the judge, Elizabeth Gonzales. That, as she rightly pointed out, isn’t something witnesses get to do.

Then Mr. Adelson bought Nevada’s largest newspaper. As the sale was being finalized, reporters at the paper were told to drop everything and start monitoring all activity of three judges, including Ms. Gonzales. And while the paper never published any results from that investigation, an attack on Judge Gonzales, with what looks like a fictitious byline, did appear in a small Connecticut newspaper owned by one of Mr. Adelson’s associates.

O.K., but why do we care? Because Mr. Adelson’s political spending has made him a huge player in Republican politics — so much so that reporters routinely talk about the “Adelson primary,” in which candidates trek to Las Vegas to pay obeisance.

Are there other cases? Yes indeed, even if the egomania doesn’t rise to Adelson levels. I find myself thinking, for example, of the hedge-fund billionaire Paul Singer, another big power in the G.O.P., who published an investor’s letter declaring that inflation was running rampant — he could tell from the prices of Hamptons real estate and high-end art. Economists got some laughs out of the incident, but think of the self-absorption required to write something like that without realizing how it would sound to non-billionaires.

Or think of the various billionaires who, a few years ago, were declaring with straight faces, and no sign of self-awareness, that President Obama was holding back the economy by suggesting that some businesspeople had misbehaved. You see, he was hurting their feelings.

Just to be clear, the biggest reason to oppose the power of money in politics is the way it lets the wealthy rig the system and distort policy priorities. And the biggest reason billionaires hate Mr. Obama is what he did to their taxes, not their feelings. The fact that some of those buying influence are also horrible people is secondary.

But it’s not trivial. Oligarchy, rule by the few, also tends to become rule by the monstrously self-centered. Narcisstocracy? Jerkigarchy? Anyway, it’s an ugly spectacle, and it’s probably going to get even uglier over the course of the year ahead.

       Paul Krugman

Macroeconomics, trade, health care, social policy and politics

∼∼∼∼∼∼∼∼∼∼

The millionaires I met during my 40 years practicing divorce law were naturally stressed by the divorce and so aren't representative.  I was struck by one woman's unusual agitation that she, with all inherited millions, as unable to afford a horse good enough to compete in the Olympics.  

A way to avoid a worldwide bloody revolution

There but for the grace of God, go I.

Allegedly from a mid-sixteenth-century 

statement by John Bradford, 

"There but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford",

 in reference to a group of prisoners 

being led to execution.
From Wikipedia.

z1330832211 | Iconic Photo 

Tom Stoddart. Sudan. 1998  

Highly recommended

There because of the  malicious cruelty 

of  Omnipotent, Nonexistent god, 

goes this young man.

There because of the merciless indifference of 

the Universe, 

goes this young man

There is plenty of food in the world 

to feed all. 

 There because of the selfishness of the masters of the world's food distribution systems and the deliberate cruelty of men who murder

those who try to feed the starving . . .

 (Tens of thousands of civilians have been killed, the country's economy destroyed and several regions pushed to the brink of famine.  Khaleej Times)

goes this young man.

Because of the 

unconscionable failure 

of the world's richest men 

gathering annually at the World Economic Forum in the remote safety of Davos, Switzerland . . .

to heed the demands 

of the many who urge a more equitable distribution of wealth . . . 

 (and see New Oxfam report says half of global wealth held by the 1%)

billions of us live with hunger, pain, death.

Each one of the suffering billions 

 is kin to each one of us, 

separated by no more than 

six degrees of separation.

Bill Gates, the world's richest man, . . .

 in an address to the Harvard faculty and students:

 I remember going to Davos some years back and sitting on a global health panel that was discussing ways to save millions of lives. Millions! Think of the thrill of saving just one person's life – then multiply that by millions. … Yet this was the most boring panel I've ever been on – ever. So boring even I couldn't bear it. . . .  

Members of the Harvard Family: Here in the Yard is one of the great collections of intellectual talent in the world. 

What for? There is no question that the faculty, the alumni, the students, and the benefactors of Harvard have used their power to improve the lives of people here and around the world. But can we do more? Can Harvard dedicate its intellect to improving the lives of people who will never even hear its name? Let me make a request of the deans and the professors – the intellectual leaders here at Harvard: As you hire new faculty, award tenure, review curriculum, and determine degree requirements, please ask yourselves: Should our best minds be dedicated to solving our biggest problems? Should Harvard encourage its faculty to take on the world's worst inequities? Should Harvard students learn about the depth of global poverty … the prevalence of world hunger … the scarcity of clean water …the girls kept out of school … the children who die from diseases we can cure? Should the world's most privileged people learn about the lives of the world's least privileged? These are not rhetorical questions – you will answer with your policies. My mother, who was filled with pride the day I was admitted here – never stopped pressing me to do more for others. A few days before my wedding, she hosted a bridal event, at which she read aloud a letter about marriage that she had written to Melinda. My mother was very ill with cancer at the time, but she saw one more opportunity to deliver her message, and at the close of the letter she said: "From those to whom much is given, much is expected." When you consider what those of us here in this Yard have been given – in talent, privilege, and opportunity – there is almost no limit to what the world has a right to expect from us. In line with the promise of this age, I want to exhort each of the graduates here to take on an issue – a complex problem, a deep inequity, and become a specialist on it. If you make it the focus of your career, that would be phenomenal. But you don't have to do that to make an impact. For a few hours every week, you can use the growing power of the Internet to get informed, find others with the same interests, see the barriers, and find ways to cut through them. Don't let complexity stop you. Be activists. Take on the big inequities. It will be one of the great experiences of your lives.You graduates are coming of age in an amazing time. As you leave Harvard, you have technology that members of my class never had. You have awareness of global inequity, which we did not have. And with that awareness, you likely also have an informed conscience that will torment you if you abandon these people whose lives you could change with very little effort.You have more than we had; you must start sooner, and carry on longer. Knowing what you know, how could you not? And I hope you will come back here to Harvard 30 years from now and reflect on what you have done with your talent and your energy. I hope you will judge yourselves not on your professional accomplishments alone, but also on how well you have addressed the world's deepest inequities … on how well you treated people a world away who have nothing in common with you but their humanity. 

This is the result of the present failure of the folks at Davos 

to heed Gates' wise words:

——————————

The overdevelopment of condos for the very rich on my home Island in the middle of thePacific Ocean has driven housing prices absurdly high.  

I have failed over time to do more to halt excessive development on Oahu. 

Many to whom Hawaii has been home for untold generations, where the bones of the Ancestors are buried, now go homeless in their own homeland.

Many of the homeless men and women are bright, capable persons who work at the best jobs available to them, and they cannot afford a place to live.  Many are depressed, suicidal, enraged, desperate; many are determined to retake their homeland.

  

There, because of my inattention and failure to work with more vigor to stop excessive development, go these:

Timor mortis, conturbat me.

The fear of death may confound you, too, as you approach the time to 

 "enter again the round Zion of the water bead  /And the synagogue of the ear of corn".

Dylan Thomas, Refusal to Mourn 

Especially confounding may be knowing that you could have done more to ease the suffering of  kith and kin.  It is so for me.

Do what is in your power to do to end wealth inequality.  Do it for your own sake.  Do it for those you love.

Wealth is now more unevenly distributed than it was before the bloody French Revolution, which saw the wealthiest beheaded.  

Help to change the was wealth is distributed,

 to avoid the gathering storm of bloody revolution.

Or become the 

Worldwide Revolution.

The alternative -- a static, unchanging, brutal worldwide bureaucracy serving the uncaring few, is not to be tolerated.

Thanks!