Is it possible we could be running all the way back full-circle to feudalism (either through or bypassing mercantilism on the journey)? I can’t say I’m fully confident in the direction we’re heading.  It seems like there are too many people who have departed from smart game-playing who keep saying we’ll be able to fix the big problems via gimmicky (nuanced!) trick plays; as though one could get to and win the Super Bowl not with a West Coast offense but by making the fake field goal/punt or reverse handoff their standard tactic.  Sometimes I wonder if we aren’t headed toward some sort of feudal version of the information economy.  Some people, I’m sure, never doubted we’d left it (didn’t Marxists equate industrial capitalists with medieval robber barons? Why robber barons and why not the prior established aristocracy? I digress). 

     In the feudal era, those hardy souls who were mightier than the others of their tribe rose to prominence to become chieftains through the divine right of might.  These gave way over time to landowning aristocrats who swore fealty to those with the divine right of kings.  That age was largely overcome by industrialists wielding the divine right of capital backed by court-enforced contracts.  Not satisfied with material wealth, or not appreciating it, we seem at the dawn of the information age to be also entering the age of the divine right of intellect.  Who will be the gatekeepers and the power-wielders of this age? So far they seem to be folk so shrewd that they’re fooling no one but themselves.

     Good luck plowing the land with your high IQ, fellas!

     It’s hard to believe some folks want to ignore lessons learned over the past 80+ years of military aviation; whether out of misplaced pride in one service, general ignorance, or unreasonable disdain of my service.  The Air Force must be a separate service in order for aerial forces to perform effectively in battle.  Period. 

     The file I developed should be light reading (if you’re into economics)! Enjoy it if you can! I’ll post it in the Pages section.  Unfortunately I was unable to copy the figures (which had been screen shots from graphs generated by an Excel spreadsheet I seem to have left on another computer somewhere).  I’ll try to find them and get them updated. 

     It may sound insane, but think about it:  For the past 12 years, much of our "economic gain" has occurred using credit, or in other words money that wasn’t really ever there to begin with.  So perhaps to a large extent the newly minted reduced-value dollars will simply be replacing money that never existed in the first place.  Maybe we can afford to print a lot for a little while and suffer no net inflation?

     Thoughts?

     Could you imagine ESPN never going without mentioning the New York Yankees once per hour? That’s kind of what it’s gotten to be like over there at Motley Fool.  Foolishness with a small ‘f.’

     Thanks for stopping by!

            “The reason that Hobbes gives for supporting the State, namely that it is the only alternative to anarchy, is in the main a valid one.  A State may, however, be so bad that temporary anarchy seems preferable to its continuance, as in France in 1789 and in Russia in 1917.  Moreover the tendency of every government towards tyranny cannot be kept in check unless governments have some fear of rebellion.  Governments would be worse than they are if Hobbes’s submissive attitude were universally adopted by subjects.  This is true in the political sphere, where governments will try, if they can, to make themselves personally irremovable; it is true in the economic sphere, where they will try to enrich themselves and their friends at the public expense; it is true in the intellectual sphere, where they will suppress every new discovery or doctrine that seems to menace their power.  These are reasons for not thinking only of the risk of anarchy, but also of the danger of injustice and ossification that is bound up with omnipotence in government.”  (Russell, pg. 556)

            “As we saw, he [Spinoza] believes that hatred can be overcome by love:  “Hatred is increased by being reciprocated, and can on the other hand be destroyed by love.  Hatred which is completely vanquished by love, passes into love; and love is thereupon greater, than if hatred had not preceded it.”  I wish I could believe this, but I cannot, except in exceptional cases where the person hating is completely in the power of the person who refuses to hate in return.  In such cases, surprise at being not punished may have a reforming effect.  But so long as the wicked have power, it is not much use assuring them that you do not hate them, since they will attribute your words to the wrong motive.  And you cannot deprive them of power by non-resistance.”  (Russell, pg. 580)

     That said, I was pleased (and not a little astounded) to read this.  (H/T Uncle D)

     Great going, Capt Sullenberger! You handled a difficult emergency procedure well.  You know what they say, any landing you can walk away from. . . .

     Perhaps the new Sullenberger Corollary to that rule would be ". . . or the passengers and you can swim or boat away from. . ." is a good landing! The best part was walking up and down the aisles making certain everyone else was off safe. 

     Given the good outcome, I think it might actually have been fun to have been aboard (except I would have ended up losing my laptop as I egressed the plane).  Oh, well.  One can’t be everywhere.  I’ll have to settle for the one time I pointed out to some pilots that our small turboprop passenger plane’s cabin pressure wasn’t enabled. 

     Thanks to LifePundit for inspiring me to write this post!

20090119 Update:  I am remiss in not giving credit to the co-pilot, the flight attendants, and indeed to the passengers who by all accounts sounded like they remained pretty calm during the event.  The Captain may get most of the credit, but the Airbus is a crewed airplane, and whatever the crew did or did not do that helped the Captain land entitles them to an heroic part in this event as well.