brandonrobison.com

I just finished reading Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, written by Chalmers Johnson (read his bio section on Wikipedia, he seems pretty legit) and originally published in 2000, about a year and a half before the terrorist attacks of September 11. He makes a fairly decent account of American foreign policy in Asia during the Cold War, arguing that while Russia was setting up “satellites” in Eastern Europe, the United States was setting up satellites in East Asia, most notably in Japan and South Korea.

He predicted that our foreign policy would eventually result in negative blowback; however, he predicted it would come primarily from East Asian countries. In some ways, it has (via “economic blowback”), but the form of blowback which stands out the most to most Americans has come from Islamic extremists.

I want to share one paragraph from the book that seemed, to me, fairly accurate:

“Blowback” is shorthand for saying that a nation reaps what it sows, even if it does not fully know or understand what it has sown. Given its wealth and power, the United States will be a prime recipient in the foreseeable future of all of the more expectable forms of blowback, particularly terrorist attacks against Americans in and out of the armed forces anywhere on earth, including within the United States. But it is blowback in its larger aspect — the tangible costs of empire — that truly threatens it. Empires are costly operations, and they become more costly by the year. The hollowing out of American industry, for instance, is a form of blowback — an unintended negative consequence of American policy — even though it is seldom recognized as such. The growth of militarism in a once democratic society is another example of blowback. Empire is the problem. Even thou the United States has a strong sense of invulnerability and substantial military and economic tools to make such a feeling credible, the fact of its imperial pretensions means that a crisis is inevitable. More imperialist projects simply generate more blowback. If we do not begin to solve problems in more prudent and modest ways, blowback will only become more intense.

I think every American should read this book. Even with its faults (it has some), it is full of wisdom and warning.

The term “invisible hand” is often used pejoratively by pundits, and my guess is that it’s because they have no idea what they’re talking about. Adam Smith used the term twice in his book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, and I’ll quote one of the times below:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Later, he explains further,

[The individual] generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it… By directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.

Smith is really circling around the creation of wealth here. The intent and purpose of the butcher, brewer, or baker, is to increase their own personal wealth. But by the very nature of what trade accomplishes, wealth is created for the person purchasing from the butcher, brewer, or baker.

The invisible hand isn’t a metaphor for the rich exploiting the poor or some other such nonsense, as people mistakenly make it out to be, but a metaphor for the way people pursue their own personal wealth, and through the beauty of trade, end up making others wealthy as well.

I’ve heard people say about rich people, “They couldn’t have gotten where they are without the masses buying their products — if we hadn’t bought what they were selling, they wouldn’t be rich.” This is followed by some assertion that the rich person owes society something in return.

But here’s the problem with that. That rich person already gave us something — they made us wealthier by providing a great product or service. Millions of people have been made wealthier by using Amazon. Millions have been made wealthier by using Apple and Microsoft and Google and Facebook products. Millions have been made wealthier by shopping at Walmart. The list goes on and on.

In the end, if you added up all the wealth that’s been created on the consumer side of the equation by companies who have multimillionaire or multibillionaire CEOs, you’d probably find that “wealth inequality” is a total misnomer. These individuals society so readily vilifies have not only made themselves incredibly wealthy, but they’ve made us wealthy as well.

I can’t decide who is crazier, conservatives or liberals. To demonstrate, here are some caricatures of both.

Conservative: The welfare system is broken. Social Security is broken. These systems are too complex for the government to manage them; they should be left up to the market. But I support the military — I even think it should get more money, because it keeps us safe and defends our freedom!

Liberal: Oh the injustice!– we lock up millions of drug users and deport innocent “illegal” immigrants every year, not to mention we are waging several unjust wars* and the CIA spies on us! But the government should manage the health care system, because corporations are corrupt.

* I hardly ever hear this particular complaint anymore, now that a Nobel Peace Prize winner is the Commander-in-Chief.