Book Review: 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

Two years ago I came across this book. I almost passed on reading the book except for the reviews on the Internet. I decided I would give it a try. I read half of the pages in the book a year ago and recently picked back up where I left off. A well written book that I found engaging. The book’s author is well research in matters of economics and his insights go deep.

I was convinced by his arguments regarding capitalism. He is pro-capitalism but only certain forms of capitalism. I think he favors a more “nationalistic” form of capitalism and makes a good argument against “free-trade” style capitalism. With all the details he’s shared, I agree with his assessment.

Based on the details he has shared, “free-trade” style capitalism, the way it has been practiced over the last 100 or so years is ruinous for jobs, economies, and cultures. It is a gateway to destroying a society. A device for undermining the intrinsic growth possibilities of a nation.

Anyway, the author articulates this far better than I can summarize. I definitely encourage others to study his work. The details are eye-opening.

Futuristic Electric Mercedes

The Mercedes All Electric Concept is truly right out of Sci-fi, but with style. Their car looks good. Best design implementation I’ve seen so far. Clean, smooth, but not clinical. Comfortable with the right balance of space and visual variation.

Cars are on course to become more sophisticated. They are leading technology in general as an indicator that the physical mechanisms of living will soon exit the ability of homegrown techs to address. The tools of the near future are about to become far more complicated. Nonetheless, they will look good while embodying a higher quality virtue. Mercedes and Tesla are leading the way.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/29/luxury/mercedes-eq-electric/index.html?iid=ob_homepage_showcase_pool-test

Broader Ecumenical Co-Existence

President Obama made a great point about religious identification. His words brought to mind belief and tolerance. Even if two people beliefs differ, as long as they yet exercise a natural willingness to be at peace with one another, it is okay. People can live and work together, affiliate and recreate despite different views on eternity, existence, and religious expression.
True, some do believe in a single path, but it not for us to judge. The problem then is forming a conclusion about others when, after all, it is their life to live. We can advocate for a different way but all people have intrinsic worth that is to be recognized. Even when viewpoints differ.

Accept those who are different, but who strive in peace. Civil debate is okay. Difference of view is acceptable. Embrace others with goodwill. When that proves challenging, at least do no harm. Striving in peace with wisdom and prudence begets further peace and goodwill.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/politics/obama-radical-islamic-terrorism-cnn-town-hall/?iid=ob_homepage_10-test_featured_pool

2016 Presidential Debate Week of 9/25/2016

I absolutely did not intend to watch the debate this year. Yet, as occasion would have it, I viewed it on the Web. I found the experience of watching it on the Web far better. Anyway, as the debate unfolded I came away with a few impressions. I saw a good, civil debate. Sure, there were low points, but overall, it seems to stay on a balanced track.

  • I thought the Republican candidate did well. Better than the general media portrayals.
  • The Republican candidate has a steady, strong, intelligent, and very insightful response to many questions.
  • The leadership profile and overall introspective nature of the Republican candidate is very solid.
  • The Democrat candidate was polished, relaxed, and demonstrated a strong aptitude for the more sophisticated dimensions of the discussions.
  • I thought the Democrat candidate’s strongest moments was in championing the views of the traditionally under-privileged.
  • What I saw in the Democrat candidate is someone who will probably be more diligent in the relationship between people and government.

I saw and do see some strong negatives as well, but I want to emphasize the positive. The negatives I think can be worked out. They will have to be worked out.

It will be a tough decision as to with whom to vie. Decisive will be characteristics of inclusion, genuine generosity, and respect. Evidence of real leadership and an influence that will be less harmful and corrosive to the daily comings and goings of people in local communities. With whom will that be more likely? I guess we all have to tune in more to find out.