God's Middle Finger

The subtitle is Into the Lawless Heart of the Sierra Madre and the author is Richard Grant (2008).

The author developed a fascination with the Sierra Madre mountains in Mexico and decided to travel its lengths from north to south.  This travel narrative is the result, and it reads like a more dangerous version of an Anthony Bourdain television program.

The Sierra Madre is a part of the world isolated from law and order, run by cartels, bandits and native american tribes unique to the region, and where whatever stereotypes about Mexico you may have with respect to drugs and machismo are seemingly realized.  The final story on his adventure, and the moment when he decided that it was time to put an end to his journey, he spent the night being hunted for sport by some drug-fueled Mexican hillbillies that worked for the narcos.

A quick and enjoyable read.

Crypto vs. Gold

I thought this analysis by Raoul Pal in a recent Real Vision interview was interesting:

And also, if you think about the set of opportunities that baby boomers had when they were in their 20s, right, they had the whole demographic wave in front of them. And they had equities by 1982. Repeat of seven in the S&P. They had interest rates at 15, 16%. So, they had the best setup in history to accumulate wealth, right? Nobody's ever been given that before. You cut to the millennial now, they've got the most expensive stock market in all history. They've got bond market that yields nothing. They've got real estate that is incredibly expensive that they can't buy. They have the absolute inverse of what the baby boomers have then. They have one thing, and that is crypto. Right. If there's one thing on a [30-year] pension retirement horizon that has the probability of going to a huge number, it's this area. That's the way I think of it. Yes, there's a whole bunch of other investments and you could do VC and stuff like that. But if there's one option bet that could pay off a thousand x, it's this. And so, if you're a millennial, you forget gold, because yeah, sure, gold may double. It may double again. But it's not going to have the same performance over time that cryptocurrency could if you get the right bets. Yeah, that's how I'm thinking of it.

Maoism

The subtitle is A Global History and the author is Julia Lovell (2019).

The book strives to make two general points: (1) that Maoism had a global impact and was not merely a Chinese phenomenon, especially in countries at the center of the Cold War, and (2) that the Chinese actively tried to export the ideology around the world, such as to India, Vietnam, Peru and Africa.

The story of Maoism sounds familiar to other socialist tales.  It is about “mass democracy”, preaching equality of outcome not just opportunity, and the disparagement of capitalism, imperialism, and the West.  But Mao Zedong’s version also emphasized that “political power comes out of the barrel of a gun”.  His vision was of perpetual revolution, with an ability to use simple language to invoke his ideas.  And he ultimately prioritized radical revolution over economic growth, which led to a splintering between China and the other great communist power, the Soviet Union.  From that foundation, Mao and China handed out huge aid packages to countries that were coming out of colonialism.  Yet, what seemingly was done with a view of spreading the gospel, ultimately became a power play for Mao and China to spread its influence and power over greater swaths of the planet.  The Great Helmsman, indeed.

So, in looking at the various iterations of Maoism that appeared globally, what one finds is that it provided a reasonable strategy for battling incumbent powers, but did not demonstrate a track record of success once power had been attained.  The emphasis on violence, and seeking retribution against any semblance of opposition, led to brutalization of many civilian populations that were supposed to be the greatest beneficiary of socialist edicts, encouraging a “process of degeneration”.  The greatest apostles of Maoism often took the propaganda at face value, failing to confirm for themselves whether China was as great as advertised, or that life in the West was as oppressive as the CCP claimed.

Two final things that I found interesting.  First, where Maoism took hold, what you can see clearly is the elevation to leadership of people who commonly used brutality to get there and who could be deemed “political entrepreneurs”, where the greatest priority was securing political power.  In looking at China now, the misery of the Mao period (encapsulated by the mass starvation and deaths during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution) is obscured by the growth that came after Mao’s death and subsequent shift in priorities under the leadership of a more market-oriented premier in Deng Xiaoping.  With the rise of Xi Jinping, though, and the return of a more authoritarian leadership again, we see China’s economic growth beginning to stall out.

Second, the rift between China and the Soviet Union ultimately played an important role in the final collapse of the USSR.  The competition that existed between the two global leaders of communism, to gain influence around the globe, led to huge financial outlays that burdened their domestic economies significantly.  When Mao died in 1976, China prudently stepped back from its efforts to fund revolution globally.  The Soviet Union did not, and felt compelled to stay the course as the global leader, preventing any possible détente with the U.S.

Never Split the Difference

The subtitle is Negotiating as If Your Life Depended on It and the author is Chris Voss (2016).

Mr. Voss is a former FBI hostage negotiator who mastered his craft under the most intense of circumstances.  I have already incorporated some of his methodologies into my daily life at work and at home, with success.  That’s the best endorsement that I can offer.

The tools that he introduces include mirroring (followed by silence), labeling, calibrated questions that commonly start with “How” or “What”, being open to discovering new information, staying tonally relaxed (talk slowly) and keeping a smile on your face, the Rule of Three, and a recognition that no deal is always better than a bad deal.  Ideally, in using these techniques, if you can get to the point where your counterpart says “That’s right”, you have opened the door to changing thoughts and behaviors and potentially reaching a successful outcome.

A REALLY bad night...

As a Giants fan, last night was disheartening.  I probably spent more time than I ever have studying the different prospects, and so I came into the draft with stronger opinions than usual.  Maybe I was too smart for my own good.  In any event, the part of me that demurred on the idea that Dave Gettleman turned the team into a laughing-stock relented last night.  The GM is a joke and should be fired.  The team will be a dumpster fire until that point.

It’s not just who he picked, but when he picked them.  And the strategy implemented this year actually now confirms the notion that I have long denied and resisted – that drafting Saquon last year, instead of a QB, was the wrong choice.  As remarkable and transcendent as Saquon is, even that pick is now diminished because of how this draft was handled.

To wit, Gettleman explained last year that you don’t pick for need, you pick the best player available.  Saquon is a gold-jacket guy, and you don’t pass them up, even for a QB – unless that QB is a great talent in his own right and you need one.  To be clear, as Gettleman made that case, the Giants definitely needed a QB last year.  Well, after suggesting the same logic applies this year, and in a weak QB class (which it should be noted falls one year after a strong one, with another strong one likely to come in the 2020 draft), he overdrafts a sub-par prospect and passes over potential gold jacket defensive talent.  Incidentally, the Giants are not very good on defense either, and could very much use one of the guys that were available when they selected at 6.

To make matters exponentially worse, as the draft played out, it became clear that the team could have drafted the same underwhelming QB prospect, Daniel Jones, with their second first round pick.  Or, better yet, they probably could have gotten him on day 2 of the draft.

Now, add to this poisonous concoction, the Cardinals drafted Kyler Murray and suddenly devalued the other QB prospect on their roster who would have been a great fit in a Giants uniform – that guy being Josh Rosen, the 10^th pick in last year’s much stronger QB draft.  But, no, Dave Gettleman demurred on such a blatantly obvious and logical path.  Well, because Dave Gettleman.

So, to summarize, the Giants passed over a QB last year to pick a guy who I think is remarkably good, only to pick a really unimpressive QB prospect this year when there were oodles of defensive talent to pick from, with better QB options available through trade (Josh Rosen) or by simply waiting until next year (the Giants are likely to be a top-5 pick for the 2020 circus).

Remarkably, I root for more than one team where ownership and/or management have proven to be a major obstacle to success.  Maybe this bad news is a precursor to the Knicks getting Zion.  A boy can dream…

Whiteshift

The subtitle is Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities and the author is Eric Kaufmann (2019).

An interesting topic that the author covers.  His view is that white ethnicity, as a political topic, must be given air for discussion in polite company without accusations of racism automatically flying back.  The rise of Trump, Brexit, and populism generally, are the result of immigration and the discomfort that it causes for white majorities.  Without an ability to talk about the issues that it creates, without being allowed to express the concerns about losing some element of the national culture because of rapid demographic changes, the conversation gets couched in state interest terms and engenders movements and solutions which only exacerbate stress points.  In other words, discussion about economics and being left behind, or national security and increased crime due to the growth of out-groups, is really cover for the concern about immigration at a rapid pace.  That topic, in and of itself, does not have to be racist.  But, given social norms and growth of neoliberalism in elite circles, any allusion to the issue is immediately met with insults and claims of deviance.  Ergo, the growth of movements that are deemed xenophobic and parochial.

In Kaufmann’s estimation there is now a mandate for diversity without any reconciling for how it effects the majority stakeholders in western countries.  The inherent contradiction that Kaufmann points out is how minorities are allowed to take pride in their group and advocate under that banner.  The white majority cannot do the same and is besmirched as racist if any interest is couched in such terms.  And the irony is how the greatest defenders of that reality are the cosmopolitan members of the majority.  But, as the pendulum swings too far, a voice will emerge that cares not for political-correctness, thereby validating the unspoken belief of many citizens and the pushback against certain norms begins.  It is why Trump can say as many ridiculous things as he does, but still maintain his base of support.  His base is the group that endures the burden of rapid ethnic change without any say, and then gets accused of racism when it objects.

Kaufmann is big on statistical analysis and conducting surveys to assess viewpoints.  An interesting corollary that he speaks to is how diversity actually acts to “impede the sense of common fate to facilitate redistribution”.  So, again, ironically, the biggest proponents of unheeded immigration, who also commonly call for higher taxes and universal health care, ultimately are creating a cultural and demographic dynamic which prevents such policy changes from willingly taking hold.  The common refrain from liberals of how one-payer health care in the Scandinavian countries works, and should be the model for the US, clearly misses that places like Sweden have highly homogenous populations.  If they were more diverse, it is entirely plausible that they would not be the beacon to hold up any longer.

Ultimately, Kaufmann believes that a more moderated pace of change, through more controlled immigration, whereby assimilation, cultural adjustment, and inter-marriage can occur, in the face of calls for maximalism by positive liberals, is the answer.

A few final takeaways from the book:

-Kaufmann states the obvious which is often missed: equality of opportunity is important, while trying to mandate equality of outcome is a doomed mission.

-The definition of hate speech continues to be expanded as a way to silence debate.  That methodology is commonly utilized to stifle many areas of potential disagreement, and is the opposite of the scientific process, ensuring outcomes that will only makes problems worse.  It also prevents any real measurement of what is serious versus minimal harm.

-It is intuitive and accepted that minorities will vote for politicians who best represent the interests of their ethnic group – why should such considerations on the part of majority populations suffer greater agita?

-“Invoking the history of racism to justify harsher treatment of whites reflects a Hatfield-McCoy theory of justice that leans on pre-Hobbesian notions of intergenerational culpability, collective punishment, eternal sin and retributive justice.”

-“…it is a left-modernist conceit to think that because countries must treat citizens equally without regard to cultural characteristics they must extend this to non-citizens applying for citizenship.”

Can You Outsmart an Economist?

The subtitle is 100+ Puzzles to Train Your Brain and the author is Steven Landsburg (2018).

An interesting book of logic problems, with some math thrown in, to help keep the brain active.  It also does a good job of introducing some key economics principles.