Reflection on Cribsheet: A Data-Driven Guide to Better, More Relaxed Patenting, from Birth to Preschool by Emily Oster

               In this book, author Emily Oster, an economist, analyzes studies on the major dilemmas of parenting and synthesizes the results into reasonable, well-researched advice. Even as someone who is not a parent or planning to be a parent any time soon, Oster’s book was interesting and engaging, as the issues she talks about may primarily affect parents, but also affect all of society. I learned a few interesting things, like that almost all infants lose weight after birth (and that those that are breastfed lose even more), that most couples resume intercourse about 8 weeks post-partum (though frequency does not often rebound fully), that breastfeeding women can safely drink basically as much alcohol as they want, and that children who are exposed to peanuts at a young age are much less likely to develop an allergy later on. It was a good book and I would recommend to others.

Reflection on The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals That Protect Us from Violence by Gavin de Becker

               The Gift of Fear is a really cool book that provides you with realistic tips and strategies to improve your own safety, which generally revolve around using your intuition and responding to the cues that your body sends you. Basically, live your life as you normally would and take precautions, but when you feel a pang of fear, don’t ignore it or repress it. It is usually very valuable and may save your life. He debunks a lot of myths and while many strategies are common sense, some are surprising. The most valuable thing he writes, I think, is that “trusting intuition is the exact opposite of living in fear.” Fear is a survival signal, not a state of mind. If you are constantly anxious, then you have so much “noise” going on in your head that you may not ever recognize the alarm bells of fear.

Reflection on American Carnage: On the Front Lines of the Republican Civil War and the Rise of President Trump by Tim Alberta

               American Carnage takes the reader from the 2008 primaries until the end of 2018, going in depth into the changes in the Republican party over that decade. The “civil war” begins as a battle between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment, with the revolution that occurred initially appearing to be based on outrage in the Republican base over profligate spending by republicans including the bank bailout and the Iraq War. In 2010, Republicans all over the country faced primary challenges from far-right candidates who had extremely libertarian ideologies. However, not all was as it appeared. While many initially saw that this was an anti-spending revolution, why did it not come earlier? Why did it not affect the Bush presidency? In reality, as observed Eric Cantor when quoted in the book, “I’m not so sure the people who were voting for us as Republicans were, on the whole, as ideological as we thought they were.” It seems to me that it was not based on one issue, as Alberta writes of 2016 that immigration was ranked last in importance among other issues such as government spending, the economy and terrorism. That said, Republican voters were not thinking the same was as the elites about the economy. While party elites focused on free trade, the base wanted protectionism. I think this can be understood as Republican voters wanting somebody to be a wrecking ball in Washington, and that explains both 2010 and 2016.

               A tremendously important trend that has been occurring at least since the Carter presidency is the movement of blue-collar workers and rural workers to the Republican party and college graduate suburbanites to the Democratic party. This is not a reflection of economic interests. Rather, it is a reflection of the economic partition of the country that has been in force for over 50 years, the result of the 1960’s, the Vietnam War, the death of Elvis, and the Watergate scandal. Since then, the separation and polarization of the culture has been driven further by a conscious decision among Democratic and Republican party leaders to embrace the social issues pushed by their party bases and by the Democrats abandoning the economic values of the New Deal. Democrats had completely capitulated by 1996, when Democratic President Bill Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over.” The movement of blue-collar workers to the Republicans continued. As Democrats adopted social stances and issues they did not support while abandoning their economic interests, they moved to Republicans, who had never supported their economic interests, but would stoke division within the working class by fomenting racism and opposing social equality for all groups. But mainly, working class whites just stopped voting. Since Democrats were more focused on social issues that didn’t apply to them and Republicans gave no support to their economic needs, they just voted less. Those who did vote, however, turned out for Trump and Republicans in way bigger percentages than ever since they were on that side of the “culture war.” But the apathy is an even bigger phenomenon.

Another very important dynamic I noticed that came up in the book was the effect of the incumbency advantage in the House. There are lots of reasons that politics is the way it is, but one that seems very strong from a readthrough of American Carnage is that because 9 in 10 House seats are safe in a general election, House members fear primary threats more than general election threats, forcing them to become more extreme. This is a major problem in the political system since it makes compromise very difficult in the House, compounded by the fact that they face election every two years. Since House Republicans face no general election threat, they will of course stick with Trump, since he is popular among their base and they don’t need to win any new votes.

               Obama made some key mistakes early on in his term when dealing with the Republicans and I think that they are useful to know. I have wondered for a long time why the Obama presidency went off the rails so soon and American Carnage does some explaining from the Republican perspective. Right off the bat, Obama failed to split the legislative arm of the Republican party, which is key to any Democratic president. In politics, you don’t want to face a united block against you. It is good to divide your enemies and conquer them while uniting your own people and leading them. However, in negotiations for the stimulus, Obama told congressional Republican leaders Cantor and Kyl, “Elections have consequences, and I won.” Boehner and Cantor, the Republican leaders, made a huge deal of that to their caucus. They also made a huge deal out of how the stimulus bill was loaded with pet projects and not any major infrastructure investments. As a result, the bill would pass without a single Republican vote. That is a policy success but a political failure because it creates unity among your opponents. From at least the Republican perspective (the book focuses only on Republicans and doesn’t provide the Democratic perspective) the Obama administration did not foster any bipartisanship. Boehner said that, “That was the beginning of the end for Obama [speaking of his first week in office]. If he had reached across the aisle in a meaningful way, he would have found a lot of Republicans willing to work with him—whether Eric [Cantor] and I liked it or not. He could have annihilated us for a generation.” The same thing occurred with Obamacare according to Alberta (the author). He gives an account from Tennessee senator Bob Corker explaining that it was very difficult to keep all the Republicans in line but that at the end Obama had to pass it without a single Republican vote. Now I think what’s interesting is that Republicans have obviously not learned this lesson. Mitch McConnel, the Senate Majority leader even said his own version of the Obama quote, “Elections have consequences.” Are Republicans making a mistake in the Trump administration by not reaching across the aisle? Or are they bullshitting when they blame Obama for not doing so? Only time will tell which strategy is better. In the Obama and Trump administrations both chose the policy gains over political gains and that has probably led to more partisanship, and therefore less policy gains in the long term. It will be interesting to see if anyone tries for real bipartisanship in the future; since one can divide their enemies by doing so, it would seem like the smart thing to do.

By 2010, civil war had broken out among Republicans with the Tea Party movement and had weakened the party establishment significantly (guys like Boehner, Cantor, McConnel, Ryan). This I what created the opening for Trump to come in and win the nomination. It is a pretty classic situation- two people or groups fight each other, and then, weakened, a third comes in and beats them both. Trump was stronger because he had no baggage from previous experience in politics, he worked very hard on a personal level even if he didn’t have much staff or ground game, and because all of his scandals only helped him because the media would give him millions if not billions in free advertising and because the Republican base loved seeing someone who was unapologetic and tough (and Trump never made a sincere apology). On the topic of Trump’s work ethic, I think there are good lessons to learn about waking up early and getting the day going. Look at this excerpt:

What Trump also did was out-hustle Cruz. The senator was a demon on the campaign trail, frequently making five or six stops on a bus each day, shaking hundreds of hands and taking more questions—from voters and reporters—than any other candidate. But those long days often turned into late nights. To wind down his brain, Cruz would ask a staffer to go buy a bottle of pinot noir and host the traveling team in his hotel suite, sipping wine and debriefing on the day’s activities. This meant, at the instruction of Cruz himself, no campaign events before ten in the morning and, sometimes, no morning events at all.

By contrast, Trump (who does not drink) was always up before six, and typically dictating the day’s news cycle with his Twitter feed. He met a fraction of the voters Cruz did, but knew, somehow, that it didn’t matter. For a first-time candidate with no real consultants guiding him, Trump’s instincts as a campaigner were phenomenal. And for a septuagenarian who would subsist on fast food and as many as twelve Diet Cokes a day, Trump’s stamina was almost supernatural. He was game to go anywhere, engage anyone, and stay on offense at all hours of the day—an insurgency-style campaign that proved impossible to keep up with.

In conclusion, American Carnage is a really good book, much better than I expected it to be, and I would recommend it to anyone who follows politics closely or liked the book Game Change. The book is all about power and influence and how the key plyers in the Republican party made their moves in the last decade. It also makes one reflect on how our politics have gotten to where they are today. I feel like neither political party is truly supporting working-class people in America and I like this quote from the book by Elissa Slotkin, a new Democratic Congresswoman from Michigan:

“In Michigan, I know a lot of people who voted for Barack Obama and then voted for Donald Trump. And they tell me, ‘You know, my life hasn’t gotten better from Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama. I’m like a stage-four cancer patient, and Donald Trump is my experimental chemo,” Slotkin says. “We need to hear that as Democrats. A lot of people felt like, last cycle, that Donald Trump was the only one talking about the issues that dominate their lives: their job, how much money they make. . . . If we can’t address those things, we’re not going to win. We don’t deserve the Midwest vote if we can’t talk about those things.”

The economy is a key issue for people and most folks are not interested in ideological solutions that pledge fealty to some dead economist. Our governance needs to be pragmatic in supporting prosperity for all Americans regardless of their race, where they live, or who their parents are.

Miscellaneous Facts:

• When Congressman Joe Wilson screamed, “You lie!” at Obama’s 2010 State of the Union, he was lectured to by Boehner, but his fundraising exploded the next day.
• John Boehner assured Alberta that Roger Ailes (the CEO of Fox News) really did believe that Obama was a Muslim born in Kenya. Apparently, Ailes had safe rooms in his house and combat-trained security personnel.
• This is not a fact, but the absolute worst quote of the book is this: “I loved watching Michael Jordan play basketball, because he could do things with the basketball that were not teachable. Marco Rubio is the Michael Jordan of politics.” LOL. I cannot get over how dumb that is to say. That is Whit Ayres, two weeks before Rubio announced for president. Did not age well.
• With less than a week before the Florida primary, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio almost teamed up on a Cruz-Rubio ticket.

Reflection on A History of Ancient Israel and Judah 2nd Edition by J. Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes

               In this book, meant as a textbook for a college-level course, Miller and Hayes, professors at Emory University’s School of Theology, guide the reader through archaeological and biblical evidence and history of the two Yahwist kingdoms of Israel and Judah. I found the analysis in the book really interesting, and I especially like the convergences and differences within the biblical and archaeological records. I think that it gives us a much better understanding of both the bible and the history of the region.

               One very cool aspect of the book and the history it describes is the analysis of the ethnic group that would become the Hebrews of Israel and Judah. Hayes and Miller suggest that the people that would eventually make up those kingdoms were not likely to have come in a huge exodus with a pre-established culture. More likely, they argue, is that they were nomadic Aramaeans who settled in the Levant and mostly adopted Canaanite culture. This is because there is no significant break in architectural or artistic styles in the time when Hebrews emerged as a people. Something interesting in the biblical record that may support this is that in the table of nations (Genesis 10), Israelites are identified as closely related to the peoples of the Transjordan, such as they Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites. The Edomites are supposedly descended from Esau, Isaac’s first son. The Israelites were not, in the table of nations, identified closely with the peoples of the coastal zone, the Philistines and the Phoenicians. This is an interesting sort of cultural/historical memory that may have existed, informing ideas about who is related to who. Similarly, within the tribes of Israel, it’s interesting to think about how the bible must have been written looking backwards for explanations about why the tribes are where they are and why certain tribes are related with others. For example, the Levites were the only tribe with no land. They were, in the bible, commanded by God to live off of the other tribes and serve as their priests. Hayes and Miller argue that this explanation was developed afterwards to explain what archaeological evidence suggests- which is that Levites were a priestly line first and subsumed into the “tribes of Israel” second.

               Hayes and Miller assert that Saul, David, and Solomon, the three kings of the united Jewish state based in Jerusalem, were likely real people or based on real people who were local kings. The Late Bronze Age, when they would have lived, is largely thought of as a dark age, as most written sources disappear, At that time, it was easier for a small state like David’s to survive, as empires receded. However, after the splitting of the kingdom into Israel and Judah, both kingdoms would face more and more pressure from renascent empires: Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon. Power had probably declined somewhat by the time of Solomon. Saul and David had been moderately powerful warlords, but under Solomon, the kingdom settled down and he forced Israelites to labor on major projects. When his son, Rehoboam, told the tribes of Israel (mainly Ephraim) that he would continue this, they seceded, leaving Judah in control of Jerusalem and the south and Israel in control of the north. It didn’t help that five years after Solomon’s death, an Egyptian pharaoh invaded Israel. In the bible, he is called Shishak and is believed to be known to Egyptians as Sheshonk I, which causes the biblical timeline some problems. This was probably occurring in the 10^th-9^th centuries BC.

               Much of the Old Testament can be described as a work by Judean priests consolidating power in Jerusalem. For example, the story of the golden calf is likely inspired by the fact that non-Levite priests made golden calves in Bethel. The bible was written from the perspective of Levite priests in Jerusalem, so it often condemns idols, worship outside of Jerusalem, and sacrifices not made with Levite priests, all things that they opposed. As such, it is ironic that the bible portrays the northern kingdom of Israel as the weaker and less important of the two when archaeological evidence suggests that it was far more powerful than Judah, controlling better land and trade routes. Rather, it is that the bible was finished after the destruction of Israel by Assyria and seeks to rationalize this and settle scores with the Israelites by condemning their religious practices. While the bible says little of Israelite kings and generally has bad things to say when it does say much, Israel hit its zenith under Omri and Ahab, making Judah its vassal state for most of their history. The Israelites, being that their capital (Samaria) was on major trade routes, built temples in their cities to other gods, as more foreigners passed through. The bible condemns Ahab specifically for building a temple to Ba’al, a Phoenician god. Interestingly, Ba’al and “El,” a term for god used in Judaism today, are likely derived from the same, much earlier religious belief. Apparently it had not bothered the king of Judea much at the time, as King Jehoshaphat brought Judea closer to Israel under Ahab, just a few generations after the schism. There is an interesting theory that the two kingdoms briefly united again, as Jehoshaphat’s son, Jehoram shares a name with his contemporary in Israel, suggesting that they may have been the same person. Even if the two did not unite, intermarriage between the royal houses was common.

               The Omride line ended in Israel with a palace coup by someone named Jehu. He and his son Jehoahaz would rule an Israeli kingdom under Assyrian domination. Jehoahaz’s son Joash was challenged by the Judahite king Amaziah, who must have resented Jerusalem’s subservience to Samaria. He would lose, and Joash’s response in Second Kings 14:9-10 is amazing. He said, “A thorn bush on Lebanon sent to a cedar on Lebanon, saying, ‘Give your daughter to my son for a wife’; but a wild animal of Lebanon passed by and trampled down the thorn bush. You have indeed defeated Edom, and your heart has lifted you up. Be content with your glory, and stay at home; for why should you provoke trouble so that you fall, you and Judah with you?” Basically, “you think you’re tough, but you’re not.” Israel was definitely on the up-and-up during the reign of Joash (804-789) and his son Jeroboam II (788-748). But by the time Tiglath-Pileser III came to the throne of Assyria in 745, that national restoration was already fading.

               There were coups and a failed invasion of Judah, and Israel was weakened. It paid tribute to Assyria under Ahaz in 733, but Hoshea rebelled in 722, and Assyria destroyed Samaria, the Israelite capital, and annexed the kingdom, a tremendous trauma for Israel. Judea survived under Assyrian domination despite a failed rebellion under Hezekiah in 701. During the lengthy reign of Manasseh (689-644), Judea was a vassal of Assyria. The reign of Josiah (641-610) is particularly interesting. This is not only because Assyria collapsed during his reign, giving Judah more room to breathe (though they really just traded Assyria for Egypt as a master), but because the bible has a lot to say about him. It is during his reign that Deuteronomy is “discovered” while repairing the temple, although most scholars believe it was just written during his reign. He also purged the religious institutions and centralized religion in Jerusalem, something that would be codified in the bible. There is also a prediction found in 1 Kings 13:1-2 of Josiah’s birth, something that modern-day scholars believe was a piece of propaganda by Josiah himself. Josiah ended up not turning out to be such a great king, as he was killed by Pharoah Neco II in 610 (2 Kings 23:29) for unknown reasons. The kingly line of Jerusalem would continue until King Zedekiah, against the advice of Jeremiah, rebelled against the new player on the scene: Babylon. You know the rest of the story. Babylon captures Jerusalem and destroys the Temple in 586 and the Babylonian captivity begins.

               Something that really made me think while I read this book is that the authors almost never mention “Judaism,” which comes from the same word as Judah. Rather, they call it Yahwism, the worship of Yahweh. It is interesting to think about how seemingly random and lucky is that this one primitive religion survived all these wars and competing peoples at the time. There must have been a million little kingdoms like Israel and Judah all over the world throughout history that worshipped and maintained independence for a time that were eventually swallowed up and forgotten. It is incredible to me that the Jewish people have survived all of this and even returned to the land of our ancestors. That, to me, is miraculous. The book is certainly academic but is very clear and offers great information about the time period. I want to read something next about the period of time under Persia, then Greece, and then Rome until the Second Temple was destroyed.

Miscellaneous Facts:

• The name “Crimea” comes from the nomadic tribe “Cimmeria”
• Most Old Testament names that end in “iah,” like Jeremiah, Nehemiah, and Azamiah, are derived from the same root as “Yahweh,” which is clearer when you see the Hebrew.
• Scythians from Siberia raided as far as Egypt during the time of Jeremiah

Reflection on Reconsidering the American Way of War: US Military Practice from The Revolution to Afghanistan by Antulio J. Echeverria II

               Echeverria’s book is an analysis of American military history in two parts, one that is theoretical and another that is based on the practice of American warfare throughout history. To be completely honest the first section went over my head. It contained many referenced I couldn’t keep straight about who agreed and disagreed with who about various military theories. The second part, on the other hand, I was much more comfortable with, as it goes chronologically through American martial history.

               What is cool is that Echeverria uses each war to discuss the theories of war and how different approaches can result in different advantages or drawbacks. For example, the “indirect approach,” in which an army attacks weak points first, working their way up to the stronger points, was tried by President James Polk in the Mexican American War. Echeverria points out three vulnerabilities: first is that it is difficult to measure an enemy’s will to resist, second is that applying pressure in stages will give one’s opponent the ability to buy time, and third is that if your opponent is internally divided/dysfunctional, they will not be able to agree to peace or ceasefire. I think that the indirect approach is superior, as it is always better to attack a weak point than a strong one, but it is not nearly as decisive. A military can only afford to take the indirect approach when they have a lot of time. Another example of the indirect approach was the Anaconda Plan, developed by Mexican American War hero Winfield Scott for the Civil War, in which the Union surrounded the South navally and went down the Mississippi. It was amended by Lincoln to balance it with a direct attack on Richmond, which ended up not happening due to General McClellan’s choices in the theater.

               In the Civil War, the South followed the same defensive strategy as that of the Continental Army against the British in the Revolutionary War, which is exhaustion. They attempted to “break the North’s will to fight by making any incursion as costly as possible.” The North chose attrition against the South, also going for a longer war by trying to out-produce the South over a long period. After the indecisive First Battle of Bull Run, both sides had adjusted to fight a long war. The South, however, was not prepared logistically to do so and underestimated Northern will to continue. An additional logistical issue the South faced besides the usually discussed ones (which for me are the lack of rail lines, textile mills, armories, and other industrial centers) was the geography of the South, especially the Appalachian Mountains. Being surrounded by the Northern “Anaconda Plan,” the typical response for a defender would be to make use of the shorter internal lines of transport and communication. However, the Appalachians cut off the coast from the interior, and without many railroads (many of which that did exist having non-standardized gauges) the South was doomed to failure.

               By WWII, the United States had developed maneuver warfare, “placing a premium on mobility,” but often leaving gaps or flanks open to attack. In the Korean War, this strategy placed the Americans in danger against Chinese and North Korean envelopment tactics that led to attacks in the American rear. Part of this is due to the hilly geography of Korea, making it more difficult to move around. Maneuver warfare remains the Marine Corps guiding strategy. I find it interesting that there is a really long trend of indirect approaches in the history of American warfare. I am not seeing a lot of examples of the USA going all out in a quick attack except for the Second Gulf War in 1991.

               From Vietnam onwards the United States has tried to toe the line between doing enough and not doing too much. The goal in Vietnam and up to modern day has been to deliver force in a “measured, limited, controlled, an deliberate way,” to quote Robert MacNamara, LBJ’s Secretary of Defense. While the United States has largely been successful in doing this, it now relies on coalitions of allies due to the shrunken size of its forces. While the USA could increase the size of its military, it is unlikely to do so without a massive outside threat. For now, the USA prefers to fight limited wars of protection of US assets and power projection on the borders of its sphere of influence.

               I’ll conclude with three more observations. The first is a criticism of the book, I guess, in that the author thinks that it is really important to call war either an art or a science or some combination of both. I don’t understand why that is important. It seems like the significant majority of scholars and veterans call it and art but that there are many who emphasize the scientific aspects of it. Who cares? To me, it’s a competition between two or more forces, and I think that the art/science dilemma does not help us to understand it and better. The other observation is that I totally agree with a point made in the conclusion of the book which is that the major center of gravity for warfighting in the USA is the president. I think that this is true for all of US history but more now, when the president has massive powers to execute war. The personalities and decisions of US presidents are definitely a key aspect in how America chooses to execute its wars, so while we can say that American war practice may be mostly indirect and attritional, those may just be the bounds within which presidents can move and push against. Finally, the author points out that “In practice, American military personnel have been intimately involved in achieving policy aims. American military theory and doctrine would do well to catch up to American military practice.” This brings up an interesting dilemma. One of the most sacred distinctions in American politics is the civil control of the military and military absence from politics. However, with our military being used as a tool of politics and policy, should we not involve generals more in decision-making processes? To be successful in war, it helps for the generals to have greater power, as Julius Caesar, Napoleon, and Alexander were all not just generals but heads of government and state as well. I think that combining the military know-how of a general and the authority of a head of government/state is a potent combination, but in America we have to ask if we are willing to trade out political norms for the greater military might, and I don’t think so.

Reflexión sobre Como Agua para Chocolate por Laura Esquivel

               Como Agua para Chocolate cuenta la historia de una familia en México durante su revolución en el comienzo del siglo XX. Es un libro muy lindo del amor y de la familia. Lo que me gustó más del estilo de escritura que tiene Esquivel es su poder descriptivo. Ella crea escenas extremamente lindas y poderosas cuando describe sensaciones, comida, y emoción. El libro es muy bien escrito y enseñna lecciones sobre el poder de la comida, la familia y la memoria.

Reflection on Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country by William Greider

               Now here’s a five-star book. I know that I say good things about almost every book I read, but this one really stood out as an excellent book, written in a way that gives you not only a really detailed look at the Federal Reserve during Paul Volcker’s term (1979-1987) but the whole history of the institution and a deep analysis of its effects on average Americans.

               When President Jimmy Carter appointed Paul Volcker to be the new Fed Chairman in 1979, the country was dealing with high inflation that had not really abated since World War Two. Volcker was determined to end inflation. The inflation had a few different effects on the American economy. Inflation caused prices to continue to increase, which generally has a negative psychological effect on consumers. It also resulted in higher interest rates, because if a creditor charged 5% interest on a loan in an economy with 7% inflation, they would lose money on their loan. It had positive effects, however, because with more inflation, people’s salaries went up and their house values also went up. It also means that debtors/borrowers are favored over creditors since the real value of loans decreases.

               It happened that by the end of the 1970’s, the Democrats were abandoning the liberalism that they had embraced since FDR’s time, largely in reaction to the high inflation that government spending had helped create. They repealed usury laws, allowed interest to be gathered on checking accounts, and abolished interest rate ceilings, all things that helped the financial sector. It was likely because of the shame they felt over the high inflation, and they were trying to “apologize” to creditors. Greider compares the repeal of usury prohibition to the end of sexual and moral taboos that had begun to become more permissive in the 1960’s and 70’s. Usury, however, unlike sexual and moral taboos such as drugs, homosexuality, and the role of women, was allowed with no controversy at all. Creditors would now charge exorbitant rates to their lenders.

               Volcker was concerned in 1979 that the economy was running on borrowed money and wanted to put an end to inflation for fear that it could “heat up” enough to cause a crisis in which the dollar lost its value. There was a big controversy about ending inflation. It had been tried before but had failed, often because the cost was so high. To end inflation would likely mean a recession, as people who had taken out loans will find they can’t pay them back at interest rates that have effectively increased, being that they expected to pay their interest based on a higher inflation rate. The Fed, however, represented large banks, who were major creditors, and wanted higher returns on their loans. In Mach 1980, the Fed announced credit controls meant to reduce borrowing and lower the amount of money moving around the economy. It had a sharp impact. Unlike measures that had been announced the past October, the Fed announcement in March was made in blunt, easy-to-understand language. The nation needed to borrow less and stop using their credit cards so much. Unlike October, the mostly aesthetic changes in March caused Gross National Product to drop 10% in just three months. For the first time in history, a Democrat (Jimmy Carter) put the nation’s economy into recession.

               However, the recession didn’t last. Scared by the effects of what they did, the Fed backed off and allowed inflation to return to 11%, letting the economy grow once again. As I learned in this book, inflation tells you the maximum amount that an economy can grow by. So in 1980, there was a sharp dip and a return to normal growth. However, that same year they would return to the hard-money politics that caused the recession as they tried to beat inflation again. Part of the motivation was political, being that it was an election year. Volcker didn’t want to be seen as helping the president who nominated him. Instead of heling Carter, he would end up crushing him in the second recession of the year.

               In Part 2 of the book, we go back in time and study the history of the Federal Reserve. I really enjoyed learning about the Populist movement and all the lawmaking in the 1910’s that developed the Fed. I also want to know more about the “great contraction” that happened in 1937, that Greider attributes to a reduction in government spending, as well as post WWII Fed actions that kept inflation high. I understand now that JFK and LBJ overheated the economy in the 1960’s and that the Fed needs to “lean against the wind,” meaning higher taxes and lower spending in good times, lower taxes and higher spending in bad times. It’s just like how the Egyptians prepared for a famine by storing grain in the good times to be ready for the bad times. One problem, however, comes up again and again. No one wanted to turn off the proverbial faucet of high spending and low taxes. It was just too tempting and caused huge inflation from the 1940s through 70s. When Reagan came into office in 1981, tried to hit a perfect (and impossible) trifecta: increasing growth, decreasing inflation, and having no deficit. This cannot happen (especially when they also proposed increased military spending) because with less money circulating, growth could only be maintained by people spending that money faster. The numbers didn’t add up, and with the help of tax cuts, the deficit grew. They raised taxes later, but the plan was fundamentally political, not economic.

               Early in Reagan’s administration, the Fed, against Reagan’s wishes, caused another recession to reduce inflation. In retrospect, however, this was probably better for Reagan since it meant that it would not come when he was up for reelection. Reagan would manage to pass tax cuts through congress by putting out fake projections, although Reagan himself was not notified, reflecting the distance he had from his own administration. The tax cut would largely benefit the rich, as would the increase in interest rates from 1979 onward. By 1982, those interest rate hikes would generate 148 billion dollars in additional income for the owners of financial assets. That huge increase brought American income from interest payments to $366 billion, almost as much as the $374 billion spent on veterans pensions, Social Security, and welfare combined. It was a redistribution of wealth! However, while people are always talking about whether welfare is worth the cost, you probably haven’t heard as much about interest payments to the wealthy.

               This is all very politically bad. You would think that people would be up in arms about this sort of thing, but they were not. This was largely because they could not understand it. Even the men and women in Congress couldn’t understand it. The Fed had always been mysterious to most, but Volcker purposely obfuscated what he was doing. Following the advice of “monetarists” like Milton Friedman, he decided to stop using interest rates and rather use the money supply to affect interest rates. This further muddled the situation as Volcker claimed that the abnormally high interest rates that plunged the country into a recession were not really his doing, even though they were. The problem with the money supply, however, is that it does not create the stable, non-inflationary currency that monetarists thought it would. It fails to take into account the velocity of money, which is to say how fast it changes hands. This meant that the Fed had to intervene just as much anyway. When Volcker finally let up and allowed reasonable inflation again, the markets responded the opposite of how he thought they would. Inflation did not skyrocket back up. The policy had its effect and interest rates went down even with inflation.

A good metaphor Greider uses is that Congress cannot control the economic brakes—money and interest rates, and the Federal Reserve can’t control the accelerator—federal spending and taxes. This creates what Greider calls a car with two drivers, a problem that continues to exist today as the nation struggles to achieve a coherent national economic plan. Something else fundamental at the Fed that seems wrong is the ideology that banks must be saved. The Fed consolidates banks by bailing out the largest ones who are “too big to fail.” This is because any rational investor would rather put their money in a giant bank that the government will not allow to fail rather than a small bank that can fail.

Something really critical that helped shape the 80’s was the fact that while both interest rates and inflation fell, inflation fell more than interest rates, leaving people with higher real interest rates. This meant huge earnings for the financial sector while normal people suffered, especially all across what would become known soon after as the “rust belt” of the United States as major manufacturing companies failed due to pricey capital. It was also hit with a second punch- the appreciation of the dollar by 50% in just four years (!), meaning a big reduction in the ability to export goods. In the 1980’s, interest rates exceeded growth rates, meaning that loaning money was more profitable that actually making something, a huge reversal of the way things need to be for an economy to work.The “misery index,” conceived of by economist Arthur Okun, who added the unemployment rate to the inflation rate, hit 19 percent in 1980, but managed to decline to just 11 percent by 1984. However, the “hardship index,” invented by David Eastburn, former President of the Philadelphia Fed, may have been a better descriptor. The hardship index combined the real interest rate on home mortgages to the inflation and unemployment rates. That revealed two years, 1980 and 84, that were essentially identical at 21 percent. So even if people had jobs and inflation was low, it was still very hard to settle down and buy a home (or a car). During the Reagan Presidency, for the first time in history, home ownership went down. Climbing steadily from 40% in 1940 to 66% in 1981, homeownership fell to 63.9% by 1986. Car ownership also declined, and young people couldn’t settle down as easily as the generation before them.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the book. The book was long and I want to move on to other ones, so this blog post is not particularly “organized” and is really just whatever I thought of as I went through my notes. The main takeaways for me are that the Fed is dangerously undemocratic and views its constituency as big banks. The 1980’s were not good times for America. We need to get the Fed under control and get it to stop triggering recessions.

Reflection on The Reason I Jump by Naoki Higashida

               The author of this book is a thirteen-year-old Japanese autistic boy, and the book is him basically answering questions about himself and autism. I am really glad I read it, as it is an awesome introduction to how autistic people see the world and even though it’s really short, I feel a lot more able to treat autistic people well in my interactions with them and understand them after reading this book. I hope that I will be able to use this understanding for good!

               One really important point that Higashida makes is that the people with autism are usually the ones suffering the most in any given situation. So even if somebody is annoying you or acting weird, you have to remember that they are the ones going through the worst of it, since they’re usually embarrassed. I managed to understand that autistic people have trouble dealing with lots of stimuli. It seems like all the colors, noises, smells, and other sensations that hit us all every day are harder to deal with for autistic people. They also really like repetition, since it makes them feel more secure, knowing what comes next. For example, commercials on TV can be reassuring because, as Higashida writes, they’re like “old friends.” You can also help autistic people by giving them little “prompts” like cues to do things. Higashida writes, “For example, even after we ask for a glass of juice and are given it, we won’t actually start drinking until someone’s said ‘Enjoy’ or ‘Go ahead and drink, then.’” He compares it to going at an intersection. You need to see a green light.

               In conclusion, this is a good book to better understand people (especially children) with autism. I aspire to be more kind, understanding, and accomodating in my future interactions with autistic people, and hopefully I can do so with the help of this book.

Reflection on A History of Women in the World Part 1: From Eve to Dawn by Marilyn French

               This book is the first in a series detailing the history of women and I found it to be pretty much average. I wanted to read it because I want to read more feminist literature and female authors, and while I will probably continue the series because I’m interested in the history of women, I found this first volume a little shallow and all-over-the-place. I learned some interesting things. For example, the “mothering instinct” is not instinctual at all- women learn the caretaking ability. While this isn’t really a fact, I liked her observation about democracy and the state, stating that, “Democracy developed in an attempt to curb the worst characteristics of the state.” I also learned that the celibacy of priests is not in the bible and only dates from the 10^th century. On the other hand, I found the book to be a little bit too “pop-history” for me and I think that the author is definitely implying scientific consensus on certain issues where there is actually much debate. She sometimes makes very big assertions without any citations and uses anecdotes at points in place of hard data.

Reflection on The Last Battle by C.S. Lewis

              The final book in the Chronicles of Narnia series any way you read it, The Last Battle, like many of the books in the series has a slow start and a great finish. I think that that’s because Lewis likes to write beginnings in an obscure and small little way and finish with huge, beautiful endings. He writes beauty and pure bliss extremely well. This book is no exception to the others and I feel like the universe he created is absolutely wonderful. I won’t give away any spoilers, but I’ll just rank the books, which I know is pointless, but right now I would say they are:

1. The Magician’s Nephew
2. The Voyage of The Dawn Treader
3. The Last Battle
4. The Horse and His Boy
5. The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
6. The Silver Chair
7. Prince Caspian

They’re all pretty close, though I would say that there is a clear upper tier for me, being the top four, as all of them have really cool characters and all but one have truly epic endings.

Reflection on The Magician’s Nephew by C.S. Lewis

               I loved this book! I think it’s the best of the series so far and is a true page turner, especially in the second half, which I read all the way through in one sitting. It’s a prequel that goes back in time before Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy and does such a good job of expanding the lore. There is also a really cool passage where Lewis talks about (I think) the world wars, writing that

“Not yet, Daughter of Eve,” he said. “Not yet. But you are growing more like it. It is not certain that some wicked one of your race will not find out a secret as evil as the Deplorable Word and use it to destroy all living things. And soon, very soon, before you are an old man and an old woman, great nations in your world will be ruled by tyrants who care no more for joy and justice and mercy than the Empress Jadis. Let your world beware. That is the warning. Now for the command. As soon as you can, take from this Uncle of yours his magic rings and bury them so that no one can use them again.”

I thought this book was great if that wasn’t obvious and I can’t recommend this series highly enough.

Reflection on The Dollar Trap: How the U.S. Dollar Tightened Its Grip on Global Finance by Eswar S. Prasad

               This book made me think more than almost any other book I’ve read in the last year or two. I felt like I constantly had to stop and ponder what I was reading, which I feel like is the mark of a really good one. The book analyzes the rush to the dollar in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and why central bankers and investors would rush to the US dollar when the crisis originated in the United States itself. He argues that whether you analyze security or liquidity, the US dollar is the best currency around right now and will continue to be the world’s reserve currency for the foreseeable future. In this book I learned more about what it means to be a reserve currency. I learned that being a reserve currency isn’t just based on being the most valuable currency (I think the Euro and Pound are worth more than the Dollar), but also based on economic strength and public/political institutions.

People rushed to the dollar in 2008 because it was a safe bet in a scary world due to the fact that the USA always pays its debts, a strong pull factor, but also due to certain push factors. The two that Prasad points out are that poor policies in emerging markets have caused too much saving, giving them surpluses of capital that need to go somewhere, and that underdeveloped financial markets have prevented those savings from being absorbed domestically into investment in those same economies. They have no safe alternatives to the dollar. It is very ironic, then that capital flows since 2000 have been “uphill,” meaning that net capital is moving from poor countries to rich ones, the opposite of what one would expect, considering how much less capital there is in total in those poor countries. To be more nuanced, though, private capital is flowing downhill but public capital (central banks) is flowing uphill, with the amounts invested by poor countries’ central banks in rich countries’ currencies overtaking the private capital flows. This is because central banks’ primary goal is not to earn money for their country, their goal is the safety of the national wealth, meaning they will seek low-yield investments, AKA the US dollar. This means that they will take the low returns or even losses as an acceptable cost to pay for the safety of their investments.  

The big issue is that at some point the dollar’s value must fall. The US wants this so that it will depreciate the value of its massive debt and increase US exports, China wants it to make the renminbi the global reserve currency, and most other countries want it so that they won’t have to depend so much on the dollar. However, this would mean that all those dollars held by countries all over the world would be worth less, meaning that they would essentially be taking a loss on their loans. This has been very difficult to accept and it is hard to imagine when the move away from the dollar will happen. It will likely be very sudden when it does come. Imagine, for example, China’s perspective- to become the global reserve currency, their currency will have to appreciate relative to the dollar. That would mean taking losses in the hundreds of billions on the more than trillion dollars of US Treasury assets they hold. It is a “dollar trap.” You’re screwed either way. From the US perspective, it is also difficult to change the current situation. To inflate its way out of the dollar trap, the United States would have to face its domestic debtholders, the largest portion of those who hold US Treasuries (at 4 trillion dollars) and the biggest portion of them are households, mutual funds, and pensions, AKA people’s life savings at 75% of the debt. That means inflation would make a lot of Americans much poorer.

               Prasad identifies only one serious competitor to the Dollar as a global reserve currency. It is the Chinese renminbi, and he argues that it will not become the global reserve currency anytime soon, though it is certainly going to cut into the dollar’s margin of dominance. This is not, however, because investors will find it to be more liquid or safe than the dollar. Rather, it is because they will seek to diversify their portfolios and befriend the rising power. China also lacks much incentive to try to overtake the dollar anytime soon. Prasad summarizes the Chinese Minister of Commerce Chen Deming in 2009, stating that “China ‘must’ buy U.S. Treasuries because insufficient depth exists in Japanese yen- and Euro-denominated debt. If China were to make larger purchases in these markets, it might raise their prices dramatically.” There is also not enough gold produced worldwide for China to use as an alternative.

               The major threat of the debt the US owes to China is not some hypothetical situation where China decides to “call it in” and break our kneecaps if we don’t pay. That situation is illegal and unenforceable by China. The real issue would be a large sell-off by China of US debt, let’s say 10%. However, while that would drive up the interest on future US debt and make it very expensive for us to borrow, it would also drive down the value of the trillion dollars that China holds, meaning massive losses for the Chinese government. China faces the same problem all US debtholders face: do you want to take your loss on the dollar now or later? Inflation keeps coming and those dollars will keep losing value over the long term. For these reasons, Prasad expects the renminbi to become a competitive reserve currency in the next decade, “eroding but not displacing the dollar’s dominance.”

               If the dollar crisis does ever come (and one must assume that it will since the dollar cannot reign supreme forever) it will potentially have many positive impacts for the United States, including an increase in exports and a profit on the currencies of other countries that it holds. However, the US would face higher borrowing costs, making new debt more expensive and higher inflation since new dollars would not find homes outside the United States so easily.

               I came away from this book tentatively thinking that the USA should try an inflationary monetary policy and try to push the rest of the world some more since that would decrease the real value of our national debt and increase our exports. It would also decrease the values of most people’s private debts, helping average Americans. It would further benefit the poor since social security and Medicare are pegged to inflation. However, it is important to consider what Prasad says at the end of the book, which is that a country stays a reserve currency so long as it is seen as trustworthy due to its strong institutions. If the USA is seen as abusing its role as the global reserve currency, it may not hold that role much longer.

Miscellaneous Facts:

• Here’s some good vocabulary: “government bonds” is a generic term for government debt securities of all maturities. In the USA, they are divided into “Treasury bills,” which mature in a year or less, “Treasury notes,” which range from 2-10 years, and “Treasury bonds,” which go over ten years.
• The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 to make the money supply more elastic and generated reason to expand the international use of the dollar.
• Recent uphill flows of capital are visible in the fact that in 2007, emerging markets were 25 percent of global GDP and just 17 percent of debt. By 2017, they were expected to be 40 percent of GDP and only 16 percent of debt. Therefore, the emerging markets are adding to global GDP while the developed countries are adding to global debt.
• Increasing dollar hegemony is the fact that the number of nonfinancial companies in the US with AAA credit has decreased from 32 in 1983 to just 4 today.
• Prasad lays out a few important aspects of a currency’s role in international finance that serve as a good guide when analyzing currency:
• Capital account convertibility: the level of restrictions on a country’s inflows and outflows of financial capital. An open capital account has minimal restrictions on cross-border capital flows, implying that the domestic currency can be freely converted into foreign currencies (or vice versa) at market exchange rates.
• Internationalization: a currency’s use in denominating and settling cross-border trade and financial transactions, that is, its use as an international unit of account and medium of exchange.
• Reserve currency: whether assets denominated in the currency are held by foreign central banks as protection against balance of payments crises.”
• About 2/3 of dollars are held outside the US totaling $750 billion. That means that with inflation at 2 percent, the world pays the US $15 billion per year.

Reflection on A History of South Africa by Leonard Thompson

               So I could definitely write a better reflection on this one but I’m just not feeling it. It took me a long time to read this book and I’m just ready to be done with it. I only have one thought to share on it in that South Africa kind of looks like what North America would have been if large numbers of Native Americans had survived. In South Africa, they used “reserves” AKA reservations, to control them and limit their land and access to markets. In North America, this happened as well, though by the 20^th century, the population of Africans in South Africa was probably already higher than in all of the continental United States. Reading slowed down while I was in the United States, I expect it to pick up again.