There’s more to economics than just simple supply and demand
This article is a book review of the late Mancur Olson’s outstanding work. His book is called, “Power and Prosperity” and it is available from fine book sellers like Amazon.com and other companies. The book is approximately 200 pages long. But I recommend reading the notes as well. Especially focus your eyes when you get to the notes on chapter four.
Power and Prosperity was a re-read for me. I originally read most of the book back when I was at San Francisco State University for an International Political Economy (IPE) class. Although I understood some of the key points for the first few chapters at the time…I didn’t get a chance to really absorb the last 80 pages of the book.
The end of the book discusses why prosperity is more likely to occur in a nation-state that protects individual property rights. It also brings together how there are several factors which can hinder a market economy from becoming a prosperous market economy.
This is not just Adam Smith regurgitation that we’re so used to reading in the economic analysis world. Mancur Olson went beyond thought experiment in his research and systematically breaks down the motivation behind economic systems thoroughly and thoughtfully. It is easy to follow along with his logic and even though there are some charts near the last quarter of the book, they don’t require a statistical mind to understand. You can simply skim the graphs and charts and still have a great experience reading the book.
Anyone who is a history buff of 20th century and wants to learn more about post WWII economics will love this book. It dives head first into the economic motivators for authoritarian corruption and diligence. Also, the way that Mancur Olson pulls apart the temptation on the part of despots to manipulate economies is absolutely entertaining. If you’re playing a simulation game that uses taxes you might learn a thing or two from Olson’s take on nationalization and taxation.
Overall, I definitely enjoyed, “Power and Prosperity” and although reading non-fiction is oftentimes draining for us in an “immediate access” world where we can just search for answers…sometimes taking the long route and enjoying a good book can allow the mind to easily generate conclusions of one’s own!
Have you ever heard the term, “Brain Foods?” This term is used for good study foods that get the mind and body in a state where one can absorb information.
The brain needs nutrients in order to make new neural connections and new folds in its lobes.
One of the most important nutrients the brain needs is fat. Without natural healthy fats, the brain doesn’t function very well. But that’s not all. The brain needs blood. Also salt is required for neural connection firing. Potassium is important as well. Also selenium is important for lots of body functions. Psychology Today says that selenium is a cellular antioxidant.
An easy way to get many of these nutrients at once is to eat more food. This may seem strange in our society today. We are often told to eat less and to watch our calories. But in fact most of us aren’t getting the right kinds of foods as often as we should. This is especially true if one is doing heavy studying in the hard sciences, art and/or mathematics.
When I say food, I’m talking primarily about vegetables, legumes, nuts and quality fruits. Many of us are disgusted by vegetables because they look strange, they aren’t sweet and they aren’t fun. But if you watch the video below, you’ll see that vegetables are actually very fun.
I’m not vegetarian at all. I just ate two hamburgers yesterday with bacon on them. That’s about as non-vegetarian as it gets.
But I definitely make sure to eat lots of vegetables, mushrooms, nuts, legumes and other good foods as well as what I call, “Fun foods.” If you’re studying strenuously, you really have little choice. Pill-Form-Vitamins are preached all the time by internet gurus. But these pills are no way near as good as eating what is called, “A wide spectrum diet” look it up. See what other people are saying about eating lots of natural foods in ADDITION to your already established diet.
So let’s talk about Heirloom tomatoes. In the video and the picture above, they look like candy. They’re shiny, colorful and beautiful on the inside. But on the outside they look irregular, kind of scary and downright amorphous at times. Many people see a heirloom tomato for the first time and they think it is some other kind of fruit or vegetable like a pepper or something. They just don’t look like what we’re used to seeing.
Heirloom tomatoes have a natural source of iron, the best kind of natural water and many other nutrients. Why is water important? Well how much do you pay for bottled water? It isn’t cheap right! Imagine if you could buy a little bottle of water that was purified over several months and it had tremendous amounts of trace rare nutrients in it. That’s exactly what heirloom tomatoes do. They are a system that is created by the tomato vine which has the function of making little baby tomato vines. That’s what tomatoes are actually, they are basically the “fruit” of the tomato vine. So the vine puts tremendous amounts of work and energy into each heirloom tomato to make it a perfect vessel for its creation process. It’s a contained system, the seeds in the tomato get all the water they need from the fruit of the tomato in order to grow for its initial stages. So the water inside an heirloom tomato is very good for a human being. This is because human beings and other animals are part of the ecosystem which perpetuates the life-cycle of the tomato. So don’t feel bad about eating vegetables. They want us to eat them.
Also, you’ll see there are mushrooms in this video. These are cremini mushrooms that you can get at any supermarket. They taste great if they are boiled with the tomatoes. Mushrooms are naturally high in selenium and if you cook them thoroughly they simply taste great!
Parasite Eve – A Survival RPG with some Action Elements
Parasite Eve is a Japanese novel and also a PS1 (PSX) console game. The game is extremely interesting and one of the most educational video games that I’ve ever played. I did not know half of what I know about mitochondria before playing Parasite Eve. Also, after beating the game, many players will have a deeper appreciation and understanding of biology…I sure did.
The story is based on the idea of how there are two critters for every cell in our bodies. First, the animal cell has its own nucleus, organelles and DNA within the nucleus. But inside that animal cell is a mitochondria which has its own DNA as well.
In the game, you find out that the mitochondria are sentient. A being called EVE has been directing evolution for eons and now is her time to strike against humanity. She also wants to create some sort of super-being as well.
All this mega-monster rhetoric may make the gamer think the story is campy. And it definitely can be fun and campy like a B-movie at times. But that just makes the game even better.
You play as a character named Aya Brea who is a New York cop with a thing for guns. No really. She does, in the game you have the option to customize firearms with wrenches and take apart old guns just to add a few points of increased ammo capacity to something like an M16. It’s as if you are upgrading a sword over and over again in a fantasy game. Except in Parasite Eve you can find a new weapon and salvage the upgrades you made to your old one…and then put those bonuses toward a weapon with better base stats.
You can even add awesome modifiers like extra automatic health bonuses to your armor which PROCS if enemies take you below a certain health threshold. The poison modifier is a nice addition early game to the guns because enemies will still take damage when you run around if they’ve been hit once with poison.
Running around and avoiding enemy ranged attacks is important in Parasite Eve because you will get extra, “EXP Bonus Points” which are different from normal EXP. If you get more than 100 bonus points these things can be directly allocated to Aya’s reflex time or (AT) or you can directly beef up your weapon stats or even increase your inventory carrying capacity.
When you play the game, you will see some wicked animations. I wish I didn’t wait till my 30’s to play this game. The creature transforms are absolutely amazing by any animation standards…even today’s. And if you’re an artist you will probably be blown away by how creative the art and 3D modeling was carried out. It’s an absolutely visual masterpiece.
I’ve been wanting to write about this game for a long time.
Since mitochondria control the aging process in real life, there’s no real reason to not learn about these creatures which are in our bodies. Mitochondria use oxygen as their primary source of fuel for creating energy for their host animal cells. But this process creates free radicals which damage animal cell DNA and creates the aging process. When combined with environmental factors, stress and other DNA damaging effects…it makes sense how some people might age faster than others.
What if one could commune with his or her mitochondria?
In the game, Aya Brea’s mitochondria are symbiotic and they don’t want to serve EVE. As a result, Aya Brea is immune to the “spontaneous combustion attack” of EVE.
Could this have any bearing on real life?
Maybe our mitochondria are both our best friends and possible destroyers at the same time. If our bodies create a situation of negativity or an action that goes against other mitochondria-bearing organism…perhaps that is where the concept of “burning” with rage comes from. Perhaps our mitochondria combined with our minds and animal cells have a group consciousness which we think is a singular consciousness. But maybe since there’s so many cellular organisms in our bodies at the same time…we think there is only one mind. But what if we are as individual humans…a hive mind in of ourselves. This in combination with the larger group structures like human communities of cities and nation-states may create an amplification of this hive mind.
Our mitochondria create more energy per cubic inch than equivalent volume in gasoline. That’s potent stuff. That is also more than enough energy to send signals wirelessly, power a GPS, and store information. So when one feels, “Low on energy” are we really? I think our cells are simply deciding that they have repair work to do and it is easier for our bodies to be laying down or resting for that work to be done.
The UN should verify the use of chemical weapons before unilateral action is considered and/or taken.
This article has several givens: First, the main document/source of information by which to judge the Syrian Chemical Weapons issue will be the August Rose Garden Speech given to the public by President Obama. This speech is available to be read at CNN.com by clicking HERE. Also, the video will be embedded below for your convenience. Why is the speech alone going to be the document by which to judge the situation? During his August 31st speech, President Obama wanted congressional and public support for US intervention in Syria, his arguments and evidence aloneshould be convincing enough for the US public and the legislative branch of our government to support his idea.
Second, any equivocation or political maneuverings made by the President and/or other political entities regarding this issue after the August 31st speech will be disregarded. This article is discussing the logic and rhetorical value of the August 31st speech singularly.
What is the primary goal of the speech?
During the August 31st speech, President Obama expressed that he wanted the US Military to intervene against the Assad regime in Syria. This intervention was brought up primarily but not singularly due to the highly-probable use of chemical weapons against the Syrian population.
What does he want?
President Obama wanted a military intervention without, “boots on the ground.”
Analysis:
The facts as presented by the Augusts 31st speech include but are not limited to:
1. Intelligence points to the fact that civilian casualties are mounting in Syria. These casualties include young children which are showing symptoms of chemical attacks.
2. Sources in the region point that a chemical attack did in fact take place.
To begin, President Obama’s primary argument revolves around the chemical weapon usage. He says that the use of chemical weapons is a violation of international law. He is completely correct in that analysis.
Also, by using the term, “boots on the ground,” the President is ruling out a ground invasion. So what is left? Our Navy has the ability to block ports…and our cruisers have the technology to launch airstrikes and also deploy drones. Drones, blockade of Mediterranean seaports and/or missile strikes are the most common Non-Boots-on-Ground forms of modern military actions.
What should we do? Is the President right in wanting to use US Military force against the Assad regime?
Since President Obama’s argument is pinned to the chemical weapons attack, we must dig further into the logic used to create this argument.
First and foremost, international law should be enforced, internationally. International laws are created to decrease the level of anarchy in the international system. For one country such as the United States to intervene in what is obviously a coup or a type of civil war and/or unrest….that is a contradiction to the purpose for the UN Security Council.
The UN Security Council is made up of the victors of WWII as well as secondary rotating countries. The primary purpose of the UN Security Council is to…make decisions regarding the enforcement of international law.
Quite conveniently, in the transcript, you will read that President Obama clearly points out the fact that the UN Security Council is too, “paralyzed” to do anything to stop the bloodshed in Syria.
But wait a minute, if the enforcement of International Law is the primary job of the UN Security Council, then shouldn’t the focus of the United States be on rectifying the paralysis in the UN Security Council?
Of course, Russia has interests with Syria and there is undoubtedly several layers of economic and political intrigue which justify this paralysis. Yet the inefficacy of the Security Council is not in of itself a justification for unilateral action. In fact, if the UN Security Council is not effectively diagnosing the chemical weapons situation in Syria, then this entire speech should have been about rectifying the problems with the UN Security Council through diplomatic and/or economic channels. This line of thinking is then quickly brushed aside by a sub-argument regarding the escalation of future threats which violate international law. Bioweapons in the hands of terrorists and other scenarios are brought up as methods to show the listener how we are on a slippery slope when International Law is ignored.
The problem with the argument that bioweapons can get into the hands of terrorists, that chemical weapons will be used more often in the future and genocide will be more prevalent as a result of US inaction against the Assad regime is this: President Obama provides at least some evidence that chemical weapons are being used in Syria. Yet in his August 31st speech, he provides absolutely no evidence that any terrorist group will become emboldened to use bioweapons by the outcome of events in Syria. He provides no evidence that chemical weapons are being considered in other civil unrest situations in the global scene today. And President Obama provides no evidence that any groups are contemplating changing their plans to either commit or not commit genocide as a result of what happens in Syria. Therefore, President Obama’s secondary argument regarding International Law Violation Proliferation is slippery-slope conjecture at best.
From an argument analysis standpoint, President Obama attempted to mix two arguments into one consolidated message. The quick and dirty is that first: Chemical Weapons are illegal and we should do something about it. And secondly, if we don’t do something about it now…it will come back to haunt us later.
Unfortunately, the first part of the argument is flawed. Chemical Weapons are illegal, but we shouldn’t do anything about it. The UN Security Council has the authority, and responsibility to create coalitions and interventions against violations of International Law. An example of a logical coalition against this kind of problem would be the first Iraq War: Desert Storm. The kind of intervention President Obama is recommending is more in line with the political logic of the Second Iraq War…with decisions being based on words like, “Our intelligence shows…”
Quite simply Mr. President, our intelligence shows lots of things. International Law shows another.
So if upholding international law isn’t the point of our intervention in Syria…then what is it about anyway?
To answer that, one must examine what the United States has to gain from intervention in Syria. As we already know, US Intervention in the Middle East rarely has a stabilizing effect on the region. So this probably doesn’t have to do with United States security.
As we revisit a key statement mentioned earlier, “boots on the ground.” It becomes apparent that President Obama wants the US population to know that not a single human soldier will be stationed in Syria. So what’s Obama going to do? Will we lob a few cruise missiles into Assad’s territory and hope he is deterred from future chemical attack ambitions? This is unlikely, besides, judging from history, if President Obama was going to simply launch cruise missiles, he would have done so already. From a historical perspective, President Clintion in the 1990’s launched cruise missiles as retribution for attacks against US Embassies. It’s doubtful that President Obama will simply replicate a fire-and-forget scenario. This is especially unlikely when we factor in all the pomp and rhetoric regarding upholding international law. So we can rule out missiles.
The idea of a blockade doesn’t make much sense either. Syria’s Mediterranean coastline is important but it isn’t nearly as important to the civil war effort as the land routes to the East. Also, the United States public got extremely shaky when words like, “Naval Blockade” were thrown around during the Iran tensions over a year ago. So a bootlessblockade is out.
That leaves us with one, final scenario.
Drones.
All this rhetoric, all this talk is most likely a way to test second-generation drones in an intense combat situation with “chemical weapon” environmental factors. Besides, drones don’t wear boots. That’s why this article argues the military is poised to intervene “at the President’s command” and there is no rush to make a hasty decision. A chemical weapon combat scenario for drone testing would yield invaluable statistical data. Also, a successful mission by drone technology against any targets deep within Syrian territory would justify billions of dollars of University drone research over the past 5 years…and would help to procure billions more.
Tyler Stansfield Jaggers is an amateur Actionscript 3.0 programmer and the owner of Overidon.com. He is a graduate of San Francisco State University with a B.A. in International Relations.
