What are the lesser journies? Shorter in duration or perhaps more pedestrian in description. Food for thought…

It may not be of as much interest to those not holding US passports or green cards.

by janissary

Fascinating blog post from George Packer about the inability of modern professionals to deal with human beings.

by robokow

Contrarian-du-jour Nassim Nicholas Taleb has published Ten Principles for a Black-Swan Free World in the FT. My favorites:

3. People who were driving a school bus blindfolded (and crashed it) should never be given a new bus. The economics establishment (universities, regulators, central bankers, government officials, various organisations staffed with economists) lost its legitimacy with the failure of the system. It is irresponsible and foolish to put our trust in the ability of such experts to get us out of this mess. Instead, find the smart people whose hands are clean.

….

5. Counter-balance complexity with simplicity. Complexity from globalisation and highly networked economic life needs to be countered by simplicity in financial products. The complex economy is already a form of leverage: the leverage of efficiency. Such systems survive thanks to slack and redundancy; adding debt produces wild and dangerous gyrations and leaves no room for error. Capitalism cannot avoid fads and bubbles: equity bubbles (as in 2000) have proved to be mild; debt bubbles are vicious.

He’s an amazing egotist. It might be the romantic in me talking … but I like the principles behind his arguments.

by dalylab

(per Infectious Greed)

Normally I don’t think too much of Time Magazine, but Kurt Andersen’s article “The End of Excess” really caught my eye. It takes a view as to how the current crisis can result in an improved version of America. The whole thing is worth reading, but this blockquote is particularly good:

“History doesn’t repeat itself,” Mark Twain is supposed to have said, “but it rhymes.” Does America in 2009 rhyme with the Britain of 1909? Back then, the British were finishing a proud century as the most important nation on earth — economically, politically, militarily, culturally. But the U.S. was coming on fast, having already overtaken the Brits economically. Between the beginning of World War I and the end of World War II, as America turned into the unequivocal global leader, Britain became an admirable also-ran, radically diminished as a global player. If the 21st century rhymed, China would be the new us — feverish with individual and national drive, manufacturer to the world, growing like crazy, bigger and much more populous than the reigning superpower. And our next half-century would, according to the analogy, unfold like Britain’s in the first half of the 20th century, requiring a downsizing of our national ambitions and self-conception.

In fact, we surely will have to adjust the ways we think of ourselves. Still an exceptional country, absolutely, but not a magical one exempt from the laws of economic and geopolitical gravity. A nation with plenty of mojo left, sure, but in our 3rd century, informed by the wisdom of middle age a little more than the pedal-to-the-metal madness of youth.

The same goes for our individual senses of lifestyle entitlement. During the perma-’80s, way too many of us were operating, consciously or not, with a dreamy gold-rush vision of getting rich the day after tomorrow and then cruising along as members of an impossibly large leisure class. (That was always the yuppie dream: an aristocratic life achieved meritocratically.) Now that our age of self-enchantment has ended, however, each of us, gobsmacked and reality-checked by the new circumstances, is recalibrating expectations for the timing and scale of our particular version of the Good Life. Which, of course, fuels the ferocious anger at the Wall Street rich even now getting richer with subsidized eight-figure bonuses.

However, if most of our hypothetical individual futures don’t look quite so lavish, as a nation we have two not-so-secret weapons that, managed correctly and given a little luck, could allow us to remain at the top of the heap for a long time to come: technological innovation and immigration.

For our past two centuries, a key to national prosperity and power was the extraordinary physical scale of our land, our population, our natural resources. China has similar advantages today, and partly because we have already been there and done that, paving the way, it has been able to develop in fast motion, cramming 100 years of development into 30. But I’m reminded of Philip Johnson’s apt, bitchy description of Frank Lloyd Wright during the forward looking 1930s “as the greatest architect of the 19th century.” Twenty-first century China is the greatest country of the 20th century. Muscular industrialism gets you only so far. Further increases in productivity and prosperity require ingenuity and enterprise applied at the micro scale — digital devices and networked systems, biotechnology, subatomic nanotechnology. As China and other developing countries finally achieve the industrial plenty that we enjoyed 50 years ago, the U.S. can stay ahead once again by pioneering the next-generation technologies that the increasingly industrialized world will require.

Fascinating stuff. Is China the greatest nation of the 20th Century? Quite thought-provoking.

by Muffet

David Brooks, in a recent column, contrasted two perspectives on the root cause of the financial crisis. The first, put forth by Simon Johnson of MIT, posits that the root cause is no different from financial crises in developing countries. The second, put forth by Jerry Muller of Catholic University, argues that epistemological failures led to unwitting risk-taking. Both make for great reading and are greatly thought-provoking.

Brooks comes down on the side of Muller, arguing that stupidity, rather than greed, was the root cause of today’s crisis. Broadly speaking I agree. The failures of LTCM seem not to have been learned by those who followed. However, Johnson’s evidence of the intertwining of finance and government has some merit. Certainly the prevalence of Goldman executives in government works in his favor.

Whatever your view, all three articles are certainly worth reading.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.