No quarter. No respite. Time for the takeback.

The American System isn’t supposed to be about Crony Capitalism to reward the Elites and the political connected. The elites hate and disdain the rest of us. They need to come to fear us. Time for the takeback has come. It will take a while – years. Relentless small-steps must be taken over time on fronts to rollback the elites back bit my bit. No quarter, no respite.

 

Found via TDAXP.

(old found draft post)Historical 5GW Example: The Anti-Nixon 5GW-ish Coup

Dec 31, 2008 @ 15:53

I should still write this up more fully, if I have time to get into it. The revelation was pretty shocking and way under-reported.

http://amicablecollisions.blogspot.com/2008/12/all-fbis-men.html

http://committeeofpublicsafety.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/deep-throats-coup-detat/

http://committeeofpublicsafety.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/the-deep-throat-dilemma/

https://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-using-the-stenographer-as-their-agent-actively-spied-on-the-civilian-command-during-the-vietnam-war/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat_(Watergate)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Mark_Felt

(old found draft post) Ralph Peters: “the complexity of counterterror operations comes down to three essential requirements”

Dec 4, 2008 @ 10:17

I am not sure why I didn’t post it. I guess I didn’t feel like going to how to do a counter-terror/counter-4GW 5GW. I should come back to this idea.

In the NY Post:

All the complexity of counterterror operations comes down to three essential requirements: Superb intelligence, ruthless determination and tremendous patience.

Intelligence helps you find the enemies you need to kill; determination means you kill them – and patience means accepting that even a successful fight will take decades, if not generations.

Sounds right to me.

So, do we have “Superb intelligence”. I have no idea. It is at least “good” I would venture (and expect given the budget size).

Do we have “ruthless determination”? I don’t think – at least much of the political class doesn’t (or most the US  population).

Lastly, Does the US have “tremendous patience”. I would say no, for sure no way. The US did not have the patience in the Cold War. It took a 5GW to set much of the US cold war response on automatic.

I guess we need a Long War 5GW.

The PurpleStimulus or Let Banks Fail…but fast and other goodies (“On The Bailout” Series)

This started out as a comment at TDAXP [1].

Here is what the USAGOV should do (not what they plan to do [2]) – and it should be done quickly and without mercy:

1) Have Bank regulators set the appropriate capitalization level for the bank

2) Assuming level not met, declare bank insolvent.

3) Wipe the shareholders (common and preferred) equity out.

4) Wipe out a significant amount of the long term debt (at least 50%)

5) Convert the rest of the debt to “equity”.

6) Fire the Board. Fire the Executive Leadership team. Fire the Auditors.

7) Hold an Open Auction for Preferred Stock and Common Stock to get capital infusions.

8 ) If the appropriate capitalization level set by regulators is not reached, USAGOV also makes an investment as either as a secured loan or as a purchase of prefered stock (plus warrants) at an above market coupon rate (say 1.5 X market rate) to reach that level while also transferring all of the “toxic  assets” to a USAGOV fund that maybe the Taxpayers can get something back someday.

9) The executives, boards and auditors should be investigated for fiduciary misconduct and civil litigation undertaken by US Attorneys to recover cost and looted wealth on behalf of the old shareholders.

Primary End Result: A working publicly-tradeable bank with an appropriate level of capitalization that is without “toxic assets”.

Secondary End Result: Taxpayers/USGOV may collect some money eventually from the Toxic Assets.

Note 1: USGOV should create closed-end mutual funds to sell off pools of the Preferred Stock to recover USGOV upfront outlays [3] and lessen USGOV temptations to interfere with those banks.

Note 2: I don’t have any “rescue” for Mortgage holders. Let the mortgages fail, and don’t prop up housing prices. This needs to correct.

Note 3: I don’t have any “rescue” for long failing companies. Let them die. Let Creative Destruction take place. Don’t feed the zombies.
http://www.wisegeek.com/in-business-what-is-a-zombie.htm

Note 4: The only stimulus I am interested in [4] is something along the lines of:

(a) Create Incentives for Businesses to Make Capital Investments by allowing 100% immediate depreciation
(b) Cleanup and rebuild America’s National Parks – and the state and local parks too.
(c) Finish the Yakima Nuclear Waste project
(d) Clean Up the Brownfields and toxic dumping grounds
(e) Start planning and constructing a national network of Smart Power Grids
(f) Install Municpal Plasma Furnaces [5] [6] across the country to create energy and elimnate landfill trash dumps.
(g) Pick a single “Wow” project.

Note 5: I would be okay with just (a), (e) and (f) from above.

Note 6: On that too-big-to-fail crap. Any enterprise that is “too big to fail” should have anti-trust action taken against it by USGOV/DOJ to break it up rapidly. [7]

Note 7: The currently regulatory alphabet soup is a failure. SOX is a failure. They should be replaced with something. I will leave that something for now to Future Purpleslog.

If USGOV tries to lessen this, they will just stretch it out and make it worse. Nor will the Political class be able to avoid giving rewards, favors, and protection to allies. They just can’t help themselves.

Update – Note 8: USGOV should fast any regualtory red tape for those startup up brand new banks from scratch.

[1]
http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2009/02/11/what-is-the-difference-between-sirius-and-citi.html/comment-page-1#comment-239335

[2]
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/11/the-only-man-for-the-job-lays-an-egg-on-wall-street/

[3]
https://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/monetize-the-tarp-on-the-bailout-part-27

[4]
https://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/a-better-stimulus-plan-on-the-bailout-32/

[5]
https://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/a-tech-based-energy-idea-tha-i-like-municipal-plasma-furnaces/

[6]
https://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/energy-entrepreneurship-plasma-gasification-of-trash/

[7]
https://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/public-policy-guidance-on-too-big-to-fail-on-the-bailout-part-28/

Here is what my brain is screaming: How do we make the next version of the USA?

I am pretty pissed. This is all I can think of right now.

It is time to put this statist / Marxist / corrupt-elites crap behind us once and for all.

Update: Read this at Amicablecollisions

Is it going too far to conclude that our political class is a greater threat to America than Al Qaeda? Yeah, but it’s hard to see how whatever good they do outweighs the bad. I guess the only consolation is that as I read more political history I realize that this is not a unique problem of our time and that the US has done pretty well for itself despite our politicians.

The above is a great comment – despair and hope tied together – and just what I need to read about now..

Munzenberg Commented Promoted: “What leftists need is an example set for them where Islam attacks one of their precious tenets.”

Munzeberg wrote as a comment:

What leftists need is an example set for them where Islam attacks one of their precious tenets. Women’s rights is a classic one. This would have to happen on a long time scale and would be of their own doing i.e. letting Islam becoming a major force in a western country. I’m thinking a country in Western Europe would suffice.

Once the iron fist came down they’d be running around trying to start a “revolution” against Islam. Note that this is a historical pattern. In fact the recipe is:

(1) Hardcore cadre of leftists call for revolution against some idea/entity that doesn’t live up to their ideals.

(2) Quick, or gradualist, revolution occurs (or it doesn’t and they go back to point one).

(3) Society doesn’t turn out the way it should after the revolution (BUT THE PAMPHLETS SAID THERE WOULD BE A UTOPIAN PARADISE!).

(4) Hard core cadre return to point one and disclaim new society as not a “true” utopia (”aye, but he’s not a true scotsman!”).

The problem is, hard-core leftists are millenarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism), insofar as they believe they can enact a revolution to bring forth their glorious egalitarian utopia, so there really isn’t much you can do to change their minds, as they have a religious mindset. It is also no surprise that the original communist league was founded by christians and utopian socialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_Just).

So what can been done?

The best you could do is force ideological infighting between the various groups within the left, which there are plenty someone could exploit e.g. class activists versus identity activists, support for Islam versus women’s rights etc. etc.

I remember seeing a protest photo on some site ages ago where there were two older female Palestinian activists watching in shock as two unclothed male hippies with enlarged penises and body mods walked passed them.

That’s the type of ideological fault lines someone should be exploiting.

I’ve written too much, but I’ll bring up a point I’ve always thought … years ago there was that “corporation as a psychopath” metaphor that came from a documentary. If corporations as a group are psychopaths, then the left as a group are schizophrenics: too many ideological faultlines that at a fundamental outline just won’t get along with each other.

I think there may be a 4GW (more influence war her, I don’t mean guerrilla warfare) approach here, but that perhaps the left is too intertwined into US Institutions for a domestic 4GW to have a high probability of success. Also, would anti-Left domestic 4GWers has the patience to outlast the left? The American left has been going strong for century, they are not ready to give up yet.

So, that leaves a domestic 5GW approach. I have been building to a post on this for sometime, but it is still a bit into the future before I write it. I don’t want it sound naive, for me to sound like a crank, or for the plan to not be feasible.


Indeed, they do suck.

Promise: I will write a post on “How to Fix Milwaukee”…

…in the next few months. This is inspired by this comment which got me thinking.

Question Mark

The Beloit College Mindset list for the Class of 2012…

…has been released here (now with video).

Some of the previous years (2002 through 2011) can be found here.

I noticed there is no mindset list for my graduating year. I may have to make one and/or a personal mindset list. That might make a good “Meme” post.

“Dictatorial Capitalism”

I spotted this interesting comment at a TPMB post:

Not to argue, Matt, however, How many Chinese troops are trying to stabilize the situation in Sudan, or Myanmar? Any efforts by the Chinese to change any governments in Africa? Not really.

While I’m not particularily a fan of Communism, or “Dictatorial Capitalism” (I guess that’s what one would call it) that’s where the Chinese are. And where natural resources or income is involved, apparently, the Chinese are happy to “Live and Let live” . . As long as it serves China well . .

Just another form of “Globalization” . . [Link]

I like the phrase.

So, how does “Dictatorial Capitalism” fit into Bobbit’s market state model? Hmm.

Note to MySelf: 6GW as Post-Singularity Warfare?

While reading a new-ish Dreaming 5GW post, I followed this old link to Shloky’s blog where the idea of Sixth-Generation Warfare (6GW) came up.

I am posting it here as a reminder to myself to post on the issues.

It is too soon to be thinking 6GW. The post-singularity world can be glimpsed though.

Here is my comment:

I think what you are describing as 6GW and 7GW requires that the technological singularity has occurred. I don’t think I can look to well past that point. Human society would become very chaotic as it reorganizations into new organizational forms I think. Economics would be radically different. Hmmm…speculation on this post-singularity world (warfare, governing, economics, language, art, culture,) would be very interesting.

Here is Shloky’s reply:

Purpleslog – You’re right, this is a singularity based argument. And I’m on board for a post-singularity discussion.

Capitalism 3.0?

This isn’t it.

It might make an interesting post or series of posts on the characteristics and rule-sets for a Capitalism 3.0 (tying in globalization, PNM Theory, evolution of the nation-state into a post-nationalism state and the rise of global non-state actors and super-empowered individuals, information and information technology, etc.).

FuturePurpleslog has a big assignment.

Nobel Prize Winner Phelps on “Dynamic Capitalism”

Edmund Phelps writes in the opinion Journal on “Dynamic Capitalism:

There are two economic systems in
the West. Several nations–including the U.S., Canada and the
U.K.–have a private-ownership system marked by great openness to the
implementation of new commercial ideas coming from entrepreneurs, and
by a pluralism of views among the financiers who select the ideas to
nurture by providing the capital and incentives necessary for their
development.

The other system–in Western
Continental Europe–though also based on private ownership, has been
modified by the introduction of institutions aimed at protecting the
interests of “stakeholders” and “social partners.”

Let me use the word “dynamism” to
mean the fertility of the economy in coming up with innovative ideas
believed to be technologically feasible and profitable–in short, the
economy’s talent at commercially successful innovating. In this
terminology, the free enterprise system is structured in such a way
that it facilitates and stimulates dynamism while the Continental
system impedes and discourages it.

When building the massive
structures of corporatism in interwar Italy, theoreticians explained
that their new system would be more dynamic than capitalism–maybe not
more fertile in little ideas, such as might come to petit-bourgeois
entrepreneurs, but certainly in big ideas.

Friedrich Hayek, in the late 1930s and early ’40s, began the modern theory of how a capitalist
system, if pure enough, would possess the greatest dynamism–not
socialism and not corporatism. First, virtually everyone right down to
the humblest employees has “know-how,” some of what Michael Polanyi
called “personal knowledge” and some merely private knowledge, and out
of that an idea may come that few others would have. In its openness to
the ideas of all or most participants, the capitalist economy tends to
generate a plethora of new ideas.

Second, the pluralism of
experience that the financiers bring to bear in their decisions gives a
wide range of entrepreneurial ideas a chance of insightful evaluation.
And, importantly, the financier and the entrepreneur do not need the
approval of the state or of social partners. Nor are they accountable
later on to such social bodies if the project goes badly, not even to
the financier’s investors. So projects can be undertaken that would be
too opaque and uncertain for the state or social partners to endorse.
Lastly, the pluralism of knowledge and experience that managers and
consumers bring to bear in deciding which innovations to try, and which
to adopt, is crucial in giving a good chance to the most promising
innovations launched. Where the Continental system convenes experts to
set a product standard before any version is launched, capitalism gives
market access to all versions.

Globalization has diminished the importance of scale as well as distance.

Instituting a high level of
dynamism, so that the economy is fired by the new ideas of
entrepreneurs, serves to transform the workplace–in the firms
developing an innovation and also in the firms dealing with the
innovations. The challenges that arise in developing a new idea and in
gaining its acceptance in the marketplace provide the workforce with
high levels of mental stimulation, problem-solving, employee-engagement
and, thus, personal growth.

Dynamism does have its downside.
The same capitalist dynamism that adds to the desirability of jobs also
adds to their precariousness. The strong possibility of a general slump
can cause anxiety.

Why, then, if the “downside” is so
exaggerated, is capitalism so reviled in Western Continental Europe? It
may be that elements of capitalism are seen by some in Europe as
morally wrong in the same way that birth control or nuclear power or
sweatshops are seen by some as simply wrong in spite of the
consequences of barring them. And it appears that the recent street
protesters associate business with established wealth; in their
minds, giving greater latitude to businesses would increase the
privileges of old wealth. By an “entrepreneur” they appear to mean a
rich owner of a bank or factory, while for Schumpeter and Knight it
meant a newcomer, a parvenu who is an outsider. A tremendous
confusion is created by associating “capitalism” with entrenched wealth
and power. The textbook capitalism of Schumpeter and Hayek means
opening up the economy to new industries, opening industries to
start-up companies, and opening existing companies to new owners and
new managers. It is inseparable from an adequate degree of competition.
Monopolies like Microsoft are a deviation from the model.

I have been meaning to write an article on this, but I am backed up with stuff. So I am trying to clear my backlog (tossing stuff, or doing short posts for future reference).

Here are some thoughts:

  • “good” globalization (based on dynamic capitalism) vs “bad” or so-so globalization (based on stake-holder capitalism). What does this mean for PNM theory which relies partially on unfettered support for globalization to shrink the gap?
  • Entrepreneurial Capitalism = Dynamic Capitalism. “Good Globalization” = Entrepreneurial Peace Theory?
  • Reference Postal’s The Dynamist blog and book
  • Bobitt’s successor state forms need more work. His “market-state” is a post-nationalism dynamic-capitalism state. Another competing form could be the stakeholder-state (post-nationalism, stakeholder-capitalism). The other forms are…[heh for long simmering post.]


Essays I am Too Lazy to Write: Media Warfare, 4GW, Meme Wars

Thoughts:

  • The west is loosing
  • Must integrate media warfare into all operations (strategic, Operational, and Tactical)
  • Three targets: ones supports, the fence sitters (leaning either way), ones enemies
  • We Need Grunts with Blogs and Digital Cameras
  • 1get better at positive media warfare…getting sound and eye bytes out there for dissemination and re-packaging at all levels
  • counter-media warfare must be set up…the staging and media warfare of “them” must be exposed and ridiculed
  • Is there a possibility of 5GW Media Warfare? Not sure. I can’t visualize it yet.
  • Blah, Blah, Blah, etc.

Maybe I will write it someday.

References:

Continue reading

Battlespace Shaping, Chess, 5GW, and the Khrushchev Maneuver

Zenpunit has a short post on battlespace shaping using chess as an analogy. I think some very interesting posts could come from work out all sorts of examples for different games (American Football, Go, Bridge, Poker, etc.).

RevG brings in 5GW:

Now consider that your opponent is actually many opponents using your apparent opponent as a proxy; who, while remaining invisible, imports rule sets from other games they know better than you and use the board in ways you never imagined. That’s a battle space shaped by 5GW.

To which I added:

Chess effectors could also infiltrate the schools and universities and game clubs to discourage good chess learning, or alternatively promote go, bridge or sheepshead instead of chess. When it comes time to play chess for real, nobody is any good, or they don’t want to play at all.

This also made think back to high school when I chose “How to Cheat At Chess” as my topic for a demonstration speech.

I don’t remember very much about the speech except awesome ending.

For the entire speech I had been sitting on a chair with a chess table and set to my side. My Friend Brad (RIP) acted as my opponent/prop and gave it his all. I worked through example after example.

Then I slowly began to describe the “Khrushchev Maneuver” to a non-historically astute audience, while removing my show. I then proceeded to pound it on my chair making many sleepy students jump upright in their desks. Brad acted confused and irritated and made a move. I replied something like “Oops, bad move Brad, I take your queen…and that is check”. It was the most fun I ever had in speech class.

(Image originally uploaded to Flickr by theudric)