recentpopularlog in

robertogreco : inertia   5

The Rebel Alliance: Extinction Rebellion and a Green New Deal - YouTube
"Extinction Rebellion and AOC’s Green New Deal have made global headlines. Can their aims be aligned to prevent climate catastrophe?

Guest host Aaron Bastani will be joined by journalist and environmentalist George Monbiot and economist Ann Pettifor."
extinctionrebellion  georgemonbiot  gdp  economics  capitalism  growth  worldbank  2019  greennewdeal  humanwelfare  fossilfuels  aaronbastani  climate  climatechange  globalwarming  mainstreammedia  media  action  bbc  critique  politics  policy  currentaffairs  comedy  environment  environmentalism  journalism  change  systemschange  left  right  thinktanks  power  influence  libertarianism  taxation  taxes  ideology  gretathunberg  protest  davidattenborough  statusquo  consumerism  consumption  wants  needs  autonomy  education  health  donaldtrump  nancypelosi  us  southafrica  sovietunion  democrats  centrism  republicans  money  narrative  corruption  diannefeinstein  opposition  oppositionism  emissions  socialdemocracy  greatrecession  elitism  debt  financialcrisis  collapse  annpettifor  socialism  globalization  agriculture  local  production  nationalism  self-sufficiency  inertia  despair  doom  optimism  inequality  exploitation  imperialism  colonialism  history  costarica  uk  nihilism  china  apathy  inaction 
april 2019 by robertogreco
Let's face it. Americans suck at Bureaucracy. | HomeFree AmericaHomeFree America
"We Americans don’t like the idea of making rules to solve every possible problem. If there are too many rules, it chafes our spirit.

We’d rather use our own judgement to make our own decisions and allow others to do the same. Rules in that context are minimal safeguards against egregious behavior, instead of a way to protect against every possible bad decision people may make.

We simply don’t want all of our decisions handed to us, because in most cases, we can do a better job than the bureaucrat or politician that made them. We do this also because we know that when rules replace individual decision making, people end up without the judgement necessary to make good decisions on their own. They become malformed adults, unable to act unless someone tells them what to do or authorizes them to do it.

We don’t like using rules to solve all of our problems because they lock in the present, when we are focused on the future. We don’t like rules because they stop change when we are on a path of constant improvement. We don’t like rules because they assume a pessimism about the future we don’t share.

Of course, attitudes regarding rules are different in other places. There are lots of other countries that actually excel at rulemaking and bureaucracy. The Germans, for example, make rules for their rules. The Chinese invented the bureaucracy that makes and enforces rules. In fact, these countries are so good at making and enforcing rules, they routinely use it to gain economic advantage in the global marketplace.

So, if that’s the case, why are we running most of our economy based on the false assumption that we actually like bureaucratic rules? Why are we investing so much of our time and effort building and paying for the HUGE government and corporate bureaucracies we suck at?

Inertia. Most of the bureaucracy we see today in America is a legacy of the wars of the 20th Century. Bureaucracies got big during the 20th Century because they are so amazingly good at mobilizing a country’s economy for massive destruction of total war they destroyed all of their competition. As a result of this efficacy in waging total war, our bureaucracy grew almost non-stop across the entire 20th century.

However, with the end of the cold war, the need for bureaucracy as a means of waging war faded too. In fact, in today’s world fewer people dying from war than across all of history. We simply aren’t required, out of a need for self-preservation, to have a big bureaucracy in standby mode for the destruction of the world.

This means that bureaucracy is once again, an economic choice: does it help a country become more prosperous or not?

In the case of the United States, that answer should be pretty clear. We aren’t better off with an overarching focus on bureaucracy and the excessive rule-making that goes with it. We aren’t better off with 20 million people in college chasing a credential instead of an education. We aren’t better off with entire segments of the economy, as is the case with healthcare and education, protected from improvement by bureaucratic rules that lock in what we have today.

We should just admit that we suck at bureaucracy and the rules that go with it and try something better.

How? We need an economic focus that plays to what Americans are better at doing than everyone else: creating the future.

Sincerely,
John Robb

PS: The extreme carnage of WW1 came as a complete surprise to the Europeans because their new bureaucracies were so unexpectedly good at waging total war."
2014  johnrobb  bureaucracy  us  germany  rules  rulemaking  judgement  politics  policy  china  inertia  economics  war  change  adaptability  credentials  credentialism 
may 2014 by robertogreco
An Administrator's Lament — Casey's Notes and Links
"A businessman approached with the idea of a sporadic institution might be see it as something on the brink of collapse or failure. That’s because the ephemeral institution’s default state is not growing, profitable, comfortable, boring, tense inertia…but: potential energy. A resting network of individuals, resources, and ideas awaiting the charter of its next constellation.

There’s a weight to having resources and a freedom in forcing yourself to shut down and start over early and often. You can tell you’re thinking in terms of Return On Investment if that sounds backwards to you.

Starting something is hard enough, so it’s scary to consider building a framework in which you intentionally shut yourself down like clockwork to rehustle as if you’re just starting out. Self-sabotage?! Self-inflicted trauma!? (The warnings of smart and kind but still capitalists.)

Again, this sounds crazy, but: if you’re liked well enough, you won’t be able to run fast enough to outpace support. The gradual decline into comfortable, boring, tense, rich, ignorant, trapped — at some point forever imposed on you.

The-most-fucked-up-thing-of-all: time accrues. No matter how small you try to stay fiscally, bureaucratically — time grows you up. Simply by virtue of having existed for consecutive minutes, months, years you’re expected to legitimize (as if you didn’t start off running from its logical conclusion): a storage unit, taxes, insurance, payroll, audits, correspondence. Whole industries around not letting experiments stay young forever.

Maybe in a year there’ll be a staff of 25 and franchises from Shanghai to Dubai. I can only see that kind of future when I squint beyond the horizon of some twisted alternate universe. But I’ve lived it before, so when I meet with our accountant it literally hurts to think I’ll live it again."
caseygollan  2014  ephemeral  ephemeralinstitutions  pop-ups  inertia  potential  sfpc  schools  openstudioproject  lcproject  time  bureaucracy  capitalism  nonprofits  freedom  returnoninvestment  roi  ephemerality  nonprofit  schoolforpoeticcomputation 
april 2014 by robertogreco
When Brian Eno met Ha-Joon Chang | Music | The Guardian
"Brian Eno: There's an issue we're both interested in – this middle ground between control and chaos. Some economists say you can only have a control model or a chaos model, that you're either a socialist or it's all about the free market. Whereas you say: "Let's find a place in between."

This happens to be an issue with the music I make. It's made for a place somewhere between architecture and gardening. It's not a situation where I'm finessing every tiny detail. I basically set a process in motion and then watch it happen. A lot of the design work is prior to the thing starting, rather than trying to keep control of it once it has started. You try to design the process carefully enough so you get the results you want and don't have to intervene. …

Ha-Joon Chang:… Central planners thought they could control everything, but there are always elements of uncertainty and surprise… The illusion that this rule-less system can organise itself has been proven completely mistaken – but we still have people wanting to believe in these extremes. …

…our black and white, dichotomous way of thinking…has really been harmful…

BE: … It turns out that anything that is called free anything isn't really. It's just constraints that you don't recognise. …

This turns out to be something that happens a lot. Once you've grown to accept something and it becomes part of the system you've inherited, you don't even notice it any longer. We don't even think that not employing children is anti-free market.



HJC: … if you try to create a world in which everything is driven by money and the market, the world will be a much poorer place.

… Human beings' capacity to "waste time" is a miracle – but that's exactly what art is for. …"

BE: It's not only money, it's also other forms of accountability. Look at education in this country. I've just had two daughters go through the system here, and nothing mattered at all, as long as they could get through their A-levels. It doesn't matter if you don't actually understand a word. I could see some of their friends who were good at remembering things, but had no clue at all about what they were talking about, who got A stars.

HJC: In that system, curiosity is actually a great disadvantage. Which means that any creativity gets lost

BE: It's to do with the act of quantification. It's part of the money thing: something that you can put a figure to immediately assumes a sort of authority, even if it doesn't deserve it.

… Quantification is a big temptation for society because it looks like control. …

BE: … Tom Wolfe says something in his book The Painted Word about how four curators, 12 collectors and six critics determine an artist's career. Something like that.

This is why the art world has such incredible inertia, because once those people have invested their highly important opinion in something, they're very unwilling to change it. Whereas if you've bought an album by a band but then you don't like their second one, you just say, fuck it, the second one isn't any good. …

HJC: … we used to call them tempura shop records – it sounded as if someone was deep-frying them.

BE: Nearly everything good starts from imitation.

HJC: It's actually a good illustration of how art can be done in a very non-hierarchical way. The success of this guy, Psy, is because he didn't try to protect his work too much: he let everyone copy and create their own versions. So you have versions with Voldemort from Harry Potter ... my children are hooked on finding Matrix versions. Some are actually brilliant!

BE: It's a brilliant idea to make something that, like a module, can be plugged into any part of the culture.

Culture does change the way we think, just not in the propagandistic way. Art can be a model of how otherwise something could be done. How else it could be? When you see a piece of art, and you think, "Wow, that's wonderful", part of you wants to know, "And how did it get to be that way? Ah, it got to be that way by that mechanism. This is how it's done."

[…]

And very often a work of art is a way of looking at the outcomes of an idea. It's very clear in novels – in fact, the most clear example is in science fiction: you describe a world, and you try to describe how if things were like that, they would turn out. That "what if?" question is a central question that makes human beings successful creatures. We are capable of saying what if this, and what if that, and comparing those outcomes. We love that question, and art is one of the ways we keep rehearsing our ability to answer it.

HJC: It's a great point. The problem is more with the way people think and not the content of it. Human beings are very prone to this black-and-white dichotomous thinking, so if you're a socialist country you allow no market and squash any dissent, if you're a capitalist country you're supposed to – although in fact, many countries don't – you're supposed to put profit and economic growth before any human values. But paradoxically, these two ways of thinking are the same, in the sense that they have this one grand principle to which they are willing to sacrifice everything. This is why when many communists give up communism, they become ardent free-market supporters.

BE: It's a cliche: the ex-Trot.

HJC: I know quite a few ex-Trots who work in the IMF. So if you understand art in the same way Brian does, it gives you the ability to think about alternatives, think about possibilities.

BE: It allows you to think about uncertainty. One of the characteristics of people, whether on the left or the right, is that they can't tolerate uncertainty. They don't want a system with any leaks in it. They want to think they're capable of battening everything down – and if only people would fucking stick to the rules, it would work. When those systems don't work, it's always because, in their opinion, somebody didn't play the game correctly.

HJC: Yes, it's never their principles that are wrong, it's the people who are the problem."

[So much more…]
creativity  tomwolfe  capitalism  socialism  dichotomy  values  pussyriot  games  rules  jacksonpollock  ex-trots  imf  modular  modularity  imitation  gangnamstyle  k-pop  artworld  inertia  culture  us  uk  a-levels  testing  quantification  time-wasting  wastedtime  inbetweeness  ambiguity  gray  grayarea  psy  interviews  conversations  2012  surprise  paradox  architecture  economics  ha-joonchang  politics  philosophy  music  uncertainty  brianeno  art  terryriley 
november 2012 by robertogreco
Academic Evolution: Dear Students: Don't Let College Unplug Your Future ["Your college experience is likely to set back your education, your career, and your creative potential…]
"The credentialing system of college will ultimately prove less important than whether you use your college years to generate a body of visible and durable online work, openly accessible to the world, shouting who you are louder than any "graduated with honors" certification on a transcript one must pay to see…You must consciously and conscientiously build your online presence…the biggest danger of the Internet in your generation is that people are keeping themselves from taking advantage of it…So much oversight and review has been worked into the hierarchy and politics of higher education that it has made itself incapable of valuing or accommodating the very media and methods that could accelerate your learning…Feel the energy of living knowledge sustained by the new media. Don't sit in the voluntary detention of self-censorship, kept from more involved participation online by worries over whether you will get a good grade in college."
education  highereducation  highered  advice  identity  socialmedia  social  learning  digitalfootprint  newmedia  pedagogy  teaching  media  academia  unstructured  technology  internet  web  online  unschooling  deschooling  institutionalinertia  inertia 
november 2010 by robertogreco

Copy this bookmark:





to read