Violent Saviors: The West's Conquest of the Rest

Violent Saviors: The West's Conquest of the Rest by William Easterly

A common antebellum argument in favor of slavery was that the slaves were much better off than they would be had they not been slaves. Materially, this is likely true. Despite this, many slaves would go through great efforts to escape slavery. People value their freedom even more than their material comforts. The book provides many examples that come down to this same point. These stretch from colonial periods up through the cold war and modern times. Western leaders still have trouble grasping the importance of self-determination, even if something else seems "better". This is a problem both at home and abroad. Many programs seem to make people better off, but they fail if the people don't want them. Sometimes this "progress" ends up being fleeting (such as neighborhoods destroyed for freeways). Other times it could be something they would adopt - as long as they had control.

A Brief History of Equality

A Brief History of Equality by Thomas Piketty, translated by Steven Rendall

Piketty sees the world as moving towards a state of more equality, using the definition he gives. The argument is filled with contradictions and redefinitions. There are various ideas that make sense, but are not carried out well. Including negative externalities in calculation of wealth seems like a smart move, but it becomes challenging in practice. Equality across different groups seems like a noble goal, but how far do you go in defining groups. Is equality a good thing? There is conflict between equality and freedom. People are richer with more material possessions, but are they happier? If what matters is relative difference, wouldn't equality just make everyone feel "blah"? The author is an advocate of reparations. Would these benefit the people paying or the people receiving? He gives the example of "reversing" the suffering of Haiti by returning payments made to France. Would you also make Russia pay back payments made by Finland? What about Germany's payments after World War I? Making payments can encourage thrift and hard work. Receiving payments can end up causing harm and hurting the economy. (Even in rich economies, natural resource abundance can have negative impacts. Would loads of cash in previously disadvantaged groups result in short term boost of "others" and along term negative for the community impacted? You don't often hear of dynasties started with lottery winnings.) 

The author also criticizes the conservatism and slow change of current institutions. A drastic change would be a preferred way to launch communism. Alas, the track record of this has not been good. If we enable more dramatic changes, what is to say it would happen to the left? Trump is an example of taking power to change in the opposite direction.

Cause and effect are also uncertain. Does equality lead to economic growth? Or does growth provide the ability to provide more societal benefits for all? What is the end goal for growth and equality? 

The Machine That Changed the World

The Machine That Changed the World by James P. Womack, Daniel T. Jones, Daniel Roos

Ford pioneered "mass production". Workers did menial tasks over and over again. They were expected to be replaceable cogs. Ford ended up doing it fully integrated. GM later used suppliers pitted against each other. The attempt was to maximize GMs profit. However, it ended up being a race to the bottom with little trust involved. In the process, each entity is responsible for their own small part. There are QA processes at the end, with expectation of rework. There are great expenses at setting up production and little change involved.

Toyota pioneered "lean manufacturing". This involves collaboration with suppliers. All are encouraged to improve quality and reduce costs. The suppliers get to benefit from savings that they achieve. Inventories are kept very low. Parts are expected to be produced as they are needed. Everyone is responsible for quality and there is minimal rework. Production may be stopped any time there is a problem involved. 

"Collaborative" may be a better descriptor than "lean". Just in time production feels like a minor subset of it, but not the key part. As long as everyone is working together for improvement, things can get better.

The book does stress that there is a difference between "talking" and "walking". Some places have described lean principles in their production but failed to implement the details. 

The book is presented as its 1990 version with a new 2007 afterward and forward. This was before some of the big economic downturns. How has this turned out now? How can this new style adapt?

Hawaii: A Novel

Hawaii: A Novel by James A. Michener

Michener novels go very long. Each chapter could easily be a standalone novel. Hawaii explores the history of Hawaii as a work of historical fiction. It starts with the early formation of the South Pacific islands and the plants and animals that arrive there. Then it goes onto the life on Bora Bora. This first part is perhaps the most "fiction" part of it. A difficult life is described on the island, with a group wanting to escape the difficulties and human sacrifice to find a new location. They set off blindly and eventually establish life in Hawaii.

The next section describes early missionaries. They came from New England and had to make a months-long trip around South America to arrive. They worked hard on civilizing and converting the natives. They did have success in eliminating some of the more negative parts of the culture and getting converts to Christianity. However, the converts were somewhat loose. While some did integrate with the Hawaiians, the primary preacher kept his family apart. They would go to church with the people, but would not generally associate with them.

The book then focusses more on the business and politics. At first it was often white mariners or missionaries that would settle and work on business ventures. Eventually, an irrigation system was set up (bringing rain from wet to dry side of islands.) This opened up the need for plantation labor. There was a wave of Chinese immigrants. This group worked hard and set up their own commerce. They also freely intermarried with Hawaiians, while still maintaining Chinese ties. Next came the Japanese. They tended to be more tightly intertwined with their group. They were more likely to become involved in government offices. There were also European (especially Portuguese) and other immigrants. These get mentioned in passing, but not with the detail of the Chinese or Japanese.

Hawaii became a true multi-ethnic area, with many groups intermingling, while still maintaining their identity. The people had various foibles. In the narrative, the narrative tends to follow the more flawed characters, while there is often another character that will try to convince them of the "better" way to do things. There are various bits of subterfuge needed to accomplish goals (such as making Hawaii part of the US). Though eventually, there is a reckoning. The book finally ends with Hawaii becoming a US state.

This is the second Michener book I've read, and it feels a lot like the previous one. The people seem to be quite similar to those in the other book, even though they occupy a very different time and place. Is this a statement on the universality of humanity or is it an unintentional flaw?

Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn

This "concise" history is a 16 hour audiobook. It isn't exactly "concise", but is a good length for what it covers. The book doesn't try to discuss the early history of Israel, instead focussing on modern Israel and the background that caused it to arise. 

A century ago, Jews were facing escalating persecution. A dedicated homeland seemed the ideal solution. There were still debates as to whether it should be a Jewish state, or a Jewish population in an existing state. The location was also up for grabs. Argentina and the historic Israel (which was part of the of the Ottoman empire) were the leaders. Theodor Herzl was an intellectual leader of Zionism. 

Jewish immigration started to take place under the Ottomans and later the British mandates. However, even these groups were limited. Many immigrant ships were turned away during the rise of fascism in Europe. Jews fleeing persecution were turned away from both American and Middle Eastern locations. This further demonstrated the need for a Jewish homeland. (Israel would later adopt a policy that any Jew could freely settle in Israel - and they used the same "blood" test that the Nazi's used for identifying Jews.)

Israel had a diverse population of Jews from all over the world. The European Jews has thought of themselves as superior. However, Jews from everywhere were permitted. This policy encouraged many of the most persecuted or least well to do Jews to immigrate. Often, even the well-to-do immigrants would have difficulty coming in with their assets. This did result in some issues as some non-European Jews felt like they were second class citizens. The most significant Jewish group that is missing is American Jews - they tend to be most comfortable staying in the US.

 Israel took some time to adopt an identity. Many initial immigrants were "back to the earth" communal farmers. Later immigrants changed the character. The boundaries, population and even religious character of the country were continually evolving. Politically, there are many parties and a degree of coalition building is required. The policies have changed as different leaders assumed the mantle. There was significant criticism when Israel accepted German reparations. (Though these reparations arrived at a time of great need for Isreal.)

Israel had conflicts from the get-go. The Arab community didn't like the idea of Israel's existence. There were divisions in Jewish leadership as to whether freedom should be gained on the battlefield or diplomacy. The battlefield hand was forced. Israel had some unexpected success in repelling the initial Arab attacks. This led to some cockiness that nearly led to the defeat in the Yom Kippur war.

Jews have a significant degree of self reflection. They analyze the mistakes and attempt to grown from them.  The Palestinian situation is difficult. As a democracy, Israel wants to make sure there are not too many Arabs to outvote the Jewish population. The status of Arabs are accidents of the past. A family may be split between Israeli Arabs and Palestinian refugees. Many Arab countries in the region would like to have Israel out of the picture. However, they don't want to take responsibility for Palestine and the refugees. They find it more valuable to use Palestinians as propaganda tools than to actually try to improve the condition of the Palestinians. Anti-semitism can easily be disguised as "Palestinian rights".  

The author notes that Israel is the one place where people speak the same language and practice the same location that they did 3000 years ago. It is a significant "restoration". Israel has grown and had a great success. However, there remains significant danger and volatility.  This book is a good history of the the last century from a moderate pro-Israel perspective. 

Bubble in the Sun: The Florida Boom of the 1920s and How It Brought on the Great Depression

One hundred years ago, the Florida land bubble seemed to be a source of endless wealth. Things started before World War I. During the war, there were expectations that the rush would subside. However, people wanted to vacation locally rather than travel abroad. This lead to increased demand in Florida. In the 1920s things really picked up. There were hotels, houses and vacant lots constantly changing hands. While many people did go to Florida to live or vacation, many others just wanted to get rich trading properties. Purchases were made with installment mortgages rather than cash.

There were a number of factors that lead to the popping of the Florida bubble. Natural disasters played a big role. Hurricanes wiped out a lot of property and killed many people. (One may have been among the strongest winds in the country - however, it destroyed the weather equipment before it could be measured.) Much was built on drained swampland. It seemed mother nature would take revenge on the damage done to the natural habitat. There was some corruption and self-dealing among promoters. When the positive publicity was replaced by negative publicity, the house of cards began to fall. The rapid gains for speculators made it less appealing. Many people simply stopped making payments, leading to the drying up of capital, and many promised amenities were left incomplete. 

The book presents much of the history of the land boom with details of the many characters involved. The author proposes that Florida more than the stock market crash contributed to the great depression. More people were involved in speculation down south than with stocks. This seems plausible, though is only somewhat brought out in this book that focuses more on the history.

Forget the Alamo: The Rise and Fall of an American Myth

The Alamo has always been a curious place. It is a famous tourist attraction. The details of the events that happened there have always been a bit fuzzy. Davy Crockett and a bunch of Texans died there and then somehow Texas became independent. There has always seemed to be more "legend" around the Alamo than actual facts. Forget the Alamo does a great job of documenting all sides of the story, from the actual events to the history and legend that we understand.

Texas was once a fairly disregarded backwater of Spanish America. Once Mexico had achieved independence, they desired to have more people there to help "protect" against the native tribes. Americans were eager to fill the void. They discovered that it was a great place to grow cotton. However, cotton was labor intensive and needed to complete with slave-labor plantations in the deep south. Mexico had few slaves and had outlawed the practice. The Texans did some workarounds to appease the authorities, but they really wanted to have their slaves there. Eventually, more and more Anglo-Americans settled in Texas. They came regardless of legal restrictions and paid little heed to Mexican law. They soon declared their independence and took over the land for themselves. (Perhaps they do know their history well and thus want to prevent the Mexicans from doing what they did to Mexico.)

The Alamo was one of the skirmishes during the process. A number of Texans were bunkered up. Most of them were killed. A lot of Mexicans were killed also. The legend states that they all fought to the death. (Many may have attempted to surrender - and been killed.) As a battle at the start of a war, it was advantageous to use it as a rallying cry. This is how the legend of the Alamo first came into being.

The legend continued to grow over time. It gained more strength after world war 2. Movies and television shows used the Alamo as a rallying cry. Many of the key events that we "know" from the history are from these fictionalized narratives. These also emphasize the "white" vs. other. (In spite of there being non-anglo Texans defending the Alamo.) 

The story of the Alamo as a historic has also had its ups and downs. It was a Catholic mission at one time. It was used for military and religious purposes and a tourist draw. There have been many attempts to revitalize the area, some have succeeded in varry degrees. Ownership has passed from church to state and back a few times. The Daughters of Republic of Texas have controlled it for a while until the state took over. Various ethnicities can take claim to some parts of the Alamo history, including Native Americans, Mexicans. A nearby lunch counter is also important in the history of black desegregation. There are "understood" histories and "revisionist" histories. The real events and the legend share some parts, but also have plenty of differences.

Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World

Adam Grant explores how people are "Original" and make key contributions to society. These Originals would be like the people in an Apple "Think Different" ad. They are willing to go against the grain and make change in society. The counterintuitive conclusions are among the most interesting. Those that are most successful breaking out of one area, are usually quite grounded in others. Successful entrepreneurs are likely to stick with another job as they are kicking the tires on their new enterprise. They keep the base to allow them to go out in other areas. 

The first mover does not often have the advantage. Intead, waiting on the sidelines until ready to pounce with the best solution is often the hallmark of greater success. (Even in places like social networks where there is a huge first mover advantage, companies like Facebook have succeeded where Friendster and Myspace have floundered.)

Encouraging descent and open conversation are also valuable for better decisions. People prefer to agree with those around them. This can lead to a chorus of yes men. Even requiring somebody to play a devil's advocate does not work as well as having somebody that really disagrees.

Praising people for their actions also has a different result than praising them for a behavior. Somebody that is a "Good person" will try to get that praise in other scenarios, where a good deed will not necessarily build that character. (This approach can also backfire in discouraging people from doing hard work.)

The meat of the book are up front with some meandering business approaches toward the end.

Shakespeare in a Divided America: What His Plays Tell Us About Our Past and Future

Shakespeare has stood the test of time. In early America, some religious traditions were against the Bard and performance of plays. However, by the 19th century, he was greatly admired. (This could have a religious as the language of Shakespeare was very similar to the language of the King James Bible.) Shakespeare in a Divided America explores some instances where Shakespeare has helped to bridge or exacerbate the political divide. 

Lincoln was well read and would often quote some of his favorite passages. However, he rarely included Shakespeare's quotes in his speeches. Lincoln was also an avid theater-goer. That was one of the common sources of entertainment in his day. (Alas, his assassin was also an actor.)

A few decades later, theater was one of the true egalitarian forms of entertainment. In New York City, the rich and poor would all attend a show together. The millionaire set was a little upset with this and tried to enforce standards to keep the riff-raff out of a new upper-crust theater. This did not go over very well and led to riots.

Recently, the staging of Julius Caesar in New York City created controversy. The production attempted to portray the moral conflicts on all sides. It was obvious that Caesar was a Trump figure. (He was even made to look similar.) When he was assassinated, many of the theater-goers saw it as the elimination of an impediment to democracy. However, some were also upset that the production appeared to encourage the assassination of the president. This created great controversy. Alas, lost in the commotion was the conflict that the production was attempting to portray. The death of Caesar did not produce the change that the conspirators hoped for. Instead, it ushered in the future empire and cemented the end of the Republic. Those hoping for the end of Trump would be caught with similar issues.

Many  Shakespeare movies have been made, yet have only had limited success. (Perhaps the most popular were those set in the modern day.) Yet in spite of this, the influence of Shakespeare remains strong.   

Resetting the Table: Straight Talk About the Food We Grow and Eat

Resetting the Table takes a very science-based approach to looking at the pros and cons of the current food production system. It provides an objective look at the food chain without being excessively biased towards one point of view. The general conclusion is that our farming system is extremely efficient, but still has room for improvement. 

Farmers want to use as few inputs as possible. They want to continue to farm in a sustainable manner. However, they also want to maximize their yield. Large farms can take advantage of new technology that small farms do not have the scale to use. Drones, computers and satellites can all be used to help target water, fertilizer and pesticides where it is precisely needed. No till farming has proving to be a valuable "old school" way of improving farming productivity.

The science behind GMO crops is interesting. Scientific studies have overwhelmingly shown GMO crops to be safe. Activists, however, have continued to use fear an uncertainty to fight against GMOs. (The same activists will often be on the opposite side of the debate when it comes to climate change.) This anti-GMO work has led to developing companies refusing GMO crops that could be beneficial.

The author comes across as somewhat ambivalent when it comes to organic agriculture. The arbitrary nature of the rules is not necessarily best for the environment. (For example, non-biodegradable plastic is used due to restriction on other products.) For animal products, it gets even more hazy. Producers can often meet the "letter of the law" for animal welfare, without providing significant benefit. The biggest concern with organic farming is the scale. It is predominantly niche right now. Organic farming also tends to produce lower yields per acre and require more labor. There is probably not enough land available to feed the world with fully organic farming.

Eating local can also have issues. Shipping produce across the world is done in bulk and requires relatively little fuel. A farmer trucking his produce 60 miles from the farm to the farmer's market uses much more fuel per unit. The consumer, driving 5 miles to buy a few pounds of produce uses even more fuel per unit. The "local" produce can often burn more fossil fuel in transit than the long-distance produce, and this doesn't even touch the production. The distant area may be a much better location for growing certain crops. Our global supply chain has allowed us to consume more healthy foods that would not be otherwise available.

The greatest criticism is leveled at the food processors. They focus on getting people to buy more. This can be detrimental to health as well as the environment. Farmers can often receive a bad rap as they align with these processors in fighting against regulation. However, many of these regulations (such as nutrition standards) could be either neutral or positive for farmers.

What does the future hold? The green revolution has improved productivity. However, everything is not perfect. The increased productivity has enabled our current urbanized society. There have been some cases of widespread "turning back", such as Cuba after the loss of USSR support. The country was able to move towards "local organic farming" out of necessity. However, this was accompanied by a loss of productivity. At the present, it would be near impossible to "go back" to classical agriculture. However, there are still areas for improvement. We should focus on improving without throwing out the benefits.

The Emperor of All Maladies

Cancer is the modern killer that seems to fit our society perfectly. It is not a single disease, but a related group of many different conditions, all of which involve cells growing out of control. Reports of cancer have occurred back in ancient times. However, it has become much more prevalent today. Most cancers require multiple mutations to occur before cells start growing "out of control". People born with a mutation will often have a head start, however, getting cancer is not a given. It occurs more often in older people because they have had a greater chance to have a mutation occur. Carcinogens help aid the mutation process, but are no guarantee of contracting cancer. Some cancers (such as prostate cancer) occur frequently in old age, yet are often not the cause of death. Others may be extremely genetically related and occur at younger ages.
The medical profession has gone through many phases in the attempt to cure cancer. The many different types of cancer have differing biologies and treatments. The understanding of cancer has changed over time. Researchers had thought they had found strong indicators and causes, but the "easy" ones were often isolated to a few small types of cancers. Initial treatment used the "all out war" approach. A cancer and any nearby tissue were removed. Toxins and radiation were used to eradicate any cells. (Alas, this would often cause harm to the person and other parts of their body.) Modern research has helped uncover gene pathways and enable more targeted approaches that only impact unique aspects of the cancer cells. Cancer, however, grows and mutates rapidly, requiring targeted approaches to adapt to the changes. Some cancers have high rates of cure success, while others are still a death sentence.
Politics often becomes involved in treatments. If a potential cure is available, why limit it to a few people in chemical trials? Why not let everyone benefit? The quest to find a great cure has lead to some not-so-great experiences. For breast cancer, a South African doctor was showing extremely high remission rates for his procedure. People demanded it and forced insurance companies to cover it. Alas, it turns out the results were fraudulent, and not independently confirmed. It did not lead to long-term success and the insurance companies were actually right to be hesitant. Even good cures more only prolong life a few months or years. Is it worth it? For some people individually, the extra time may be a great benefit. For society, however, we are still looking for the long term cure.

Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy

The book was based on a paper written for a think tank. The start feels like filler. It takes a long time to really get going. The initial "problem description" tends to over generalize. It also contradicts some of the arguments given later on. (He mentions that financiers manage to manipulate regulation to their benefit - then he later proposes new regulations to curb their excesses.)

His general thesis is that the difference between the richest and poorest should be minimized primarily through structural changes. Some of the rules that currently favor the rich should be curtailed, while others that benefit lower income workers should be added. He would raise the income tax on capital gains while added a surcharge for assets held for a short time. The step-up basis for inherited assets would also be eliminated. (This would be a fun one to implement - what happens if you don't have the initial purchase records?) To benefit everyone, we would have national sick and family leave policies along with universal healthcare and preschool. If done right, these programs could be beneficial. If done right, these would all be great. However, if done with the hair-brained compromises that come out of our political system, they would be a disaster. The benefits need to be universal, not something that is subsidized or restricted based on income levels. (You see some of the craziness with Obamacare where earning more can cause your insurance costs to increase or availability to change.)

Many of his points appear to be geared at returning the US to a past "glory" of New Deal and post-war industrial worker relations, while adding in modern "equality" for women and minorities. However, what is really needed is new ways of thinking about new ways of working. Giving workers more rights and greater say in unionization is helpful when their is a big company involved. But when people are working directly with each other, the additional overhead stifles the ability to productively contribute. With a service like Uber, there are many people that do spend a few hours of their free time working. The flexibility to work when and where they want without hindrance is a huge benefit. There are also a small number of people that treat it as a full time job, working long periods of time. Conventional unionization would result in everybody becoming Uber employees. This would be fine for the full time workers, but would likely be a huge burden for the "occasional" workers. Adding more regulations would not help these workers. Instead it would just push more people towards a full-time employee-employer relationship. A key advantage of a true "sharing" economy is that it gives labor the mobility that capital currently has. Workers can choose to work or not work when they choose. The key to maximum worker freedom is, paradoxically, to limit the employer benefits. If health care, retirement and other benefits are separate from the employer, workers have the freedom to do the most productive way to work. They may chose the regularity of a 9-5 job. Or, they may chose the freedom of a "sharing" job. The regulation regime needs to allow innovation to take place. (Instead what we often have is regulations to counteract past problems. The slew of regulations are easy for the organizations that previously committed the problems to deal with, but more difficult for new innovators to implement.)

While there are some good points in this book, from a practical perspective, it is useless. The implementation of many of the features of the plan would likely make things worse. (Embedded special interests would use their power to have things implemented in such a way that benefits their position while appearing to help everyone.) Even ideas like improving infrastructure and public transportation have their way of being corrupted. (Will we get the train that is really needed or simply the pork-barrel highway?) Focusing too much on the progressiveness of the tax system can also distort the big picture. Even with a "regressive" tax like sales tax, the wealthy pay more than the poor. Attempts at limiting this create things such as AMT that have managed to impact the middle class more than the wealthy. The rules do need rewriting, but they need to be done right.