|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B01BRFN67K
| 4.29
| 146
| 2017
| Jan 24, 2017
|
it was amazing
|
Originally Mann thought he was going to write a book that deconstructed and eviscerated Keynes. As he researched and wrote he shifted more towards an
Originally Mann thought he was going to write a book that deconstructed and eviscerated Keynes. As he researched and wrote he shifted more towards an agnostic position (even bit more sympathetic view) on Keynes, although he is certainly still torn in his positioning. There is a lot to this book and I could write an endless review but I'll try and keep it to the very basics as I understood it. It is wide in scope with an examination that stretches from philosophical, historical, political, economic realms. Densely thicketed at times, but worth the effort and in my view the material is generally quite accessible. Book is framed in 3 parts, with a focus on the precursors to Keynesianism -Pre-Keynesian-, then Keynes, then Post-Keynesianism. The main analysis of the book is the focus on the crisis of modern day capitalism and the efforts and intellectual frameworks of the liberal reformist Keynes who wished to save it. What crisis-management policy tools should be implemented to avoid potential economic collapse and revolution? There is a lot of discussion on the dynamics between capitalism, the state, the bourgeoisie, the masses, civilization, revolution, and the role of Keynesianism in all this. There is philosophical exploration involving a lot of Hegel which I thought was really fascinating, especially the concept of necessity and the tensions in democracy and capitalism and the role of the state. The concept of how to provide pathways to honor and dignity for those who live in poverty is richly explored. The book features Keynes as critic of the system and yet ultimate believer in the system, desperately wanting to reform it so that it can keep surviving and allowing civilization to thrive. Keynes was a believer in a technocratic elite, according to him it was this elite that kept the engine of civilization and culture going, the thin veneer of civilization was a crust laying on top of a teeming darkness, and this crust could easily be destroyed by the "rabble." And this isn't to say Keynes did not have sympathy for the masses but he certainly distrusted them and thought they were the potential destroyers of civilization. That's part of the reason he felt society (but most specifically the technocratic elite) needed to find a way to create a framework to make capitalism work for the masses, or at least provide pathways (like decent jobs) so that the necessities and basics of life could be met, otherwise teeming resentment could destroy everything. Misery breeds hate. And then destruction if unchecked. For Keynes one of the main avenues for the technocratic elite to walk tightrope in managing policy was figuring out how to expertly handle the policy levers via the state. Keynes was a capitalist but recognized dangers of this mode if it was unfettered and rentiers and oligarchy hijacked the system. Without sensible policy/guardrails (implemented via the only entity powerful enough to enact counterbalance, the state) he thought capitalism would/could implode and take everything else down with it. The tension with democracy/capitalism that Keynes seemed to struggle with was fear of tyranny of the masses and fear of tyranny of a rapacious oligarchy whose singular pursuit of profit could spin things out of control and warp the system. And a 3rd fear he recognized was tyranny of the state (he was no fan of the Soviet state which was a good example of this!). So there was potential danger in each element. A lot of the discussion on Robespierre and the French Revolution revolves around the problem of how to maintain honor/dignity of those in poverty, philosophical analysis of necessity, and also the dynamic of the struggle between the masses and the professional bourgeoisie (and technocrats). Robespierre does provide an example of how dark and off the rails things can go with a revolution, even one founded upon liberal principles (many more examples since then of course), and there is interesting discussion on the two major groups who were the engines behind the French revolution, the masses and the bourgeoisie (each had different goals and vied for power and control of the revolution). The various interpretations of Keynes are explored. Keynesianism means different things to different people and there are splits and Mann meticulously documents post-WWII Keynesianism and its various branches. I still don’t have a proper enough handle on this to deliver a good summary, so I will need to read more on it. The discussions on the classical economists was also great, especially on Adam Smith, Say, Ricardo, and Malthus. I really should read some of those original texts at some point... Discussion of capital, capital scarcity, and how too much capital can flatten yields and drive down investment was something I'd never thought about. I don't know too much about this issue but in the text there is mention that there needs to be some capital scarcity to maintain marginal capital yields that are sufficiently strong especially in relation to interest rates. If interest rates are high especially in relation to marginal capital returns there will be less capital investment. This part of the discussion focuses a lot on Piketty and Keynes who had similar interpretations on this issue. I haven't read Piketty but probably will at some point. Overall this book is a great discussion, interwoven with analysis of political economy, philosophy, tensions in society and the interplay between these various elements. It's one of those books that I think could be enjoyed by those who don't agree with Mann or his ideas, his presentation is interesting and thought-provoking. I could always be wrong about that but given the breadth of analysis I think there is enough here to provide appeal for a diverse audience, although if one is a fan of unfettered laissez-faire capitalism then this book will be a harder pill to swallow and I can imagine this is the one group who will have a harder time appreciating Mann's analysis and will likely contest large portions of it. Even though I’m far from that positioning I'd certainly be interested to hear that critique and how they would interpret this book. I wish there were more reviews of this book, especially outlets like the Financial Times (Martin Wolf for instance) and WSJ, it’d be fascinating to see how they parse this thing. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jun 21, 2017
|
Jul 12, 2017
|
Jun 13, 2017
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||||
| 1849351260
| 9781849351263
| 1849351260
| 4.04
| 138
| Mar 19, 2013
| Apr 23, 2013
|
it was amazing
|
“Privatize the gains, socialize the losses.” Mantra of the neoliberal era. First off, excellent excellent book. It does an impeccable job in explainin “Privatize the gains, socialize the losses.” Mantra of the neoliberal era. First off, excellent excellent book. It does an impeccable job in explaining contemporary financialized and globalized capitalism - the analysis is measured, lucid, incisive, smart, exhibits strong fundamentals and understanding of systems and their historical evolutions. I learned a lot, Mann is very adept in his presentation and makes complex issues accessible and understandable (explanation of subprime implosion is topnotch). I def recommend this one even if you disagree with certain political economic viewpoints in this text because Mann has great analytical ability and knowledge base when it comes to economics. One thing that must be understood about Mann, and this may turn some people off: he comes at things from an anti-capitalist perspective. He doesn’t smother the text with this (although he does allude to it), but he does explain his position at the end of the book. In spite of his positioning, I do respect that regardless of how he feels about capitalism, he makes efforts to give credit to its power, its ability to innovate and inherent vitality allowing it to ascend as a hegemonic power throughout the globe. He also explains it is not monolithic, it has various iterations, and like any system it has strengths and weaknesses and he is pretty fair in this overall assessment I think. Personally I'm not anti-capitalist, I'm more a believer in reformed and properly regulated capitalism (some will argue this is impossible), coupled with a certain level of redistribution and socialized aspects like education, healthcare, safety net with a vision of spreading out opportunity to empower the citizenry. I also think there will have to be an exploration and experimentation with the concept of universal basic income - which may be critical depending on how the nature of labor shifts due to the evolution of technology. Many of these things I think are necessary in order to counteract capitalism’s most pernicious tendencies which naturally creates and stokes vast inequalities. I also think we need to find ways to strike balance between labor and capital, things are totally out of whack with financiers and mega-wealthy and mega-corporations dominating power, hijacking policy, dictating and manipulating the rules of the game. At the end of the book Mann makes the pitch for anticapitalism, and potential visions for what this might entail. This part? Huh, wha? He kind of demands a sort of magical thinking, leaping of logic that defies my abilities. I respect the reasons he feels we need to transcend capitalism, the hegemony of money and markets in our lives, hyperconsumerism, privatizing every last atom to kingdom come, commodification of every aspect of our lives, these things are problematic and erode us spiritually and culturally (not to mention economic aspects this all entails!). And in fact I agree if capitalism keeps being practiced in the current incarnation it might very well implode by destroying earth systems it relies upon to generate wealth and buttress economies. That is a prospect I have a deep fear of. And capitalism is inherently very volatile, and now that it has pursued and developed financialization of the economy to such extraordinary levels - which I think is incredibly risky to system stability - we face a much more amplified (and dangerous) volatility. Capitalism naturally lends itself to vast inequalities and without guardrails cannibalizes resources and earth systems if they can be monetized in any way. That’s why we need guardrails, otherwise capitalism will destroy itself, imho. But I have an inability to buy into the anticapitalist vision, maybe it is a lack of imagination on my part, or maybe I’m too enmeshed in the current system and status quo worldviews, and maybe I have too much personal stake in this current system. All legit questions which I can’t adequately answer, but I think the inherent problem is that no coherent vision is being offered (at least in this book)! I also think a transition to any other system involves the potential for great suffering, and this is not really touched upon too much, or only at a glance. Far as I can tell capitalism is the least ugly dog in the line-up. Mann’s knowledge and critique are impressive, but as he stretches his vision he loses me. In my thinking you always have to be careful to not trade tyranny of one system for tyranny of another haha (or plain anarchy)! And you know, to be fair, he cites as warning some of the catastrophic failures of other modes of production and ideological systems that were not capitalist. I do hold hope for a form, and reformed form, of capitalism surviving, just not the current form suffocating humanity and cannibalizing the environment. Capitalism is not monolithic, and if it is to survive it will need to morph into various iterations that find greater harmony with the world and we will need to counterbalance the inherent excesses of this mode with smart policy. Ultimately, my view is that the great existential test for late capitalism will be the environmental crisis and inequality crisis we are facing (not necessarily completely separate problems). Both of these things could turbocharge instability leading to implosion. I have to say, in regards to inequality, I have a worry we may keep seeing the top 20% (full disclosure I'm part of this class, or at least it is my background and this critique can fully apply to me) walling themselves off, further consolidating resources, opportunities, and power, further distancing themselves from collective problems humanity faces (even though they are better resourced and positioned to tackle some of the major issues). This prospect, of elites purposefully walling themselves off, is a great fear I have (and a theme consistently explored in various dystopias, I’m a bit of a moth to flame with that stuff haha). It would represent a great abdication in my mind. Hopefully those in power will assume some responsibility and agency, but as things stand I am not confident the turn can be made before it is too late, if it's not already too late (which isn't an excuse for all of us to give up or do nothing of course!). When you are rich, you can buffer yourself from problems and avoid, ignore, deny them (people can be incredibly creative with the mental somersaults they do to maintain illusions!) for longer than the rest of people who are more exposed, but eventually they catch up to you and by this moment the opportunity for effective action may have passed. I believe Keynesianism saved capitalism from its worst tailspin (a tailspin caused by its worst qualities), and it will take deep and various experimentation to figure out how to make capitalism work if it is to survive. Various ideas will need to be explored, maybe need to inbuild mechanisms that counteract capitalism’s very nature which is to create inequality and consolidation of economic power in the hands of the few, and find ways to counteract the sometimes extreme volatility of its cycles. Maybe this involves inbuilding adjustable tax rates, higher tax rates when economy heats up and lower tax rates as economy cools down, pegging tax rates to the economic cycle and including tailored progressive tax policies to recapture some of the wealth that consolidates at the top. Hegemony of markets, corporations, oligarchs, and financiers will have to be tackled. Is that doable who knows, but Teddy Roosevelt provided a blueprint that some form of curtailment was possible via government power. As it stands the power of mega-corporations and oligopolies is still waxing, fully captured gov, and is gaining greater and greater control over our lives in the process (highly recommend this read: https://cryptome.org/2015/07/big-othe...). I also think missions of corporations will need to broadened with a dedication to multiple stakeholders, expanding beyond the domination of the shareholder to include community, workers, management, consumer, environment. As I said, in my eyes the big tests for capitalism will be how it confronts the environmental and inequality crises, the seeds of its destruction or salvation are planted in those things. If there is implosion, who knows what comes after, it might just be a more fragmented and fractionalized form of current systems or it could be something different (the black box, who knows what you’re going to get, devil you know vs devil you don’t). But we will be left to pick up the pieces, and clean up the mess, which could be beyond our capacity, depending on what the outcome is for environment and its systems. Random note: Mann’s comparison between Chicago school and Austrian school was interesting and insightful for me, there is important variance in their view of the free market (I mistakenly lumped them together). He has a lot of wonderful analysis of economic history, economists, various economic schools of thought. This was a real highlight of the book for me. Regardless of how I feel about anticapitalism and Mann’s position on this, I feel he treated the material with an even-handedness that I really respect. He has a humility and honesty about his own views and analysis that I found refreshing, in spite of the subject matter he wasn't moralizing, preaching, self-congratulating. The text helped me think about economic issues and systems more deeply, it helped broaden my thinking but also helped me bone up on some economic and historical fundamentals. I’d be interested to hear what others think on this one. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jun 10, 2017
|
Jun 12, 2017
|
Jun 04, 2017
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0374715823
| 9780374715823
| 3.64
| 2,659
| Jan 26, 2017
| Feb 07, 2017
|
really liked it
|
This was a fascinating discussion. Very meandering, maybe organization and presentation could've been streamlined so that knocks it down a bit for me.
This was a fascinating discussion. Very meandering, maybe organization and presentation could've been streamlined so that knocks it down a bit for me. To be fair, given the breadth of the material and ambitious nature of this book it is probably an impossible task. But overall I enjoyed the author's exploration of the intellectual history of "ressentiment" (anger, resentment). His exploration stretches as far back as the French Revolution. I guess if I had to distill things the main focus here is about anti-systems intellectuals; intellectuals who rebel against the power of the state/power elite, the insipid and empty nature of bourgeois life (as some see it!), the hollowing out of spirit and agency due to the cult of modern materialism/consumerism, inequality and asymmetry of power in society, the sterilized secularized nature of the liberal Enlightenment era. What is the fall-out from these ideas? this kind of thinking can be warped into burn the system down philosophy with a focus on extreme nationalism and xenophobia, a mode of thought that is willing to destroy any and everything (with everything permitted, all crimes permitted so long as ends justify means). Of course for such ideas to take hold the ground amongst the public must be fertile, there must already be wide discontent, anger, economic pain/inequality, cultural revanchist sentiment, the view that society is spiritually dead, anger against entrenched elites who seem to monopolize power (politically, culturally, economically)... The book goes beyond the intellectual realm and explores individuals and groups who acted on some of these ideas (including terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, elements of Al Qaeda. Symmetry between some of their thinking was surprising to me but in a way makes sense). I really enjoyed his examination of Rousseau and Voltaire, along with various other contemporaries like de Maistre (I know very little about him, but de Maistre critiqued them both, I've made a note to read more on him). As I understand it, and forgive the flattening of nuance into simple caricatures, but Rousseau struck me as a pretty harsh anti-system, anti-elitist, anti-bourgeois, anti-materialist guy (most of which wasn't really new to me, but my depth of understanding his philosophy is low). What was new to me was Voltaire, I had no idea he was so wealthy and entrepreneurial. So while he was a rationalist, skeptic, etc, based on Mishra's presentation he comes across as an old school neoliberal elitist who looked down upon the masses in his own ways (even though he was locked out from the power elite that had political power, he made up for it with financial and cultural/intellectual power). That was fascinating, given those facts it makes sense why he and Rousseau absolutely hated each other. I guess when it comes down to it I think both figures are interesting, would love to read more about them and their relationship as well. But to me a guy like Rousseau is more dangerous than a guy like Voltaire, even though both have flaws. And yet I'm firmly of the belief that thinkers like Rousseau are important, guys like him shake things up, inject a bit of passion and excitement back into the intellectual and public realms, challenge the holders of power... but excesses from this kind of character can be incredibly dangerous, can unleash an uncontrollable monster within the public realm. Then again, such ideas only get hold of the public imagination when the public is ripe and angry enough to embrace them, and some of these guys like Rousseau have a real bloodlust that is frightening and can help give frameworks for people to execute campaigns of violence. Although I'm sure when people are motivated/angry enough they can find a reason to destroy regardless of if a guy like Rousseau exists or not. (these are merely my impressions) There were also major explorations of Russian intellectual thought, especially mid-19th to early 20th century, certainly not a lack of bomb-throwing burn the system type guys in that era! But given that the vast majority were locked out and completely disenfranchised from any shred of power it makes sense that this would be the perfect grounds for such anger. Dostoevsky is endlessly fascinating (read a lot of him when I was younger, want to get back to reading his work, more familiar with his explorations on suffering than his political philosophy). Also exploration of quite a few German thinkers like Nietszche. Nice analysis of the dynamic between France and Germany, both intellectually, politically and the interplay between those who adopted certain French cultural intellectual ideas and those who rebelled against it. And the tension that occurs when there is a dominant hegemonic foreign culture/ideology and the need to define oneself against it and form a counter/counter-vision. Mishra also points out this interesting dynamic in India. There was a section on Hindu nationalism and the development of modern ressentiment in India. The book gets into some pretty nuanced psychological analysis with both Germany and India, how the dynamics worked between those who adopted certain intellectual ideas from abroad and how it warped them in different ways (not really in ways you'd necessarily expect). Learned quite a bit in this section, that history is somewhat non-linear and multi-factional which was interesting, some of it is somewhat speculative but makes you think. Basically lots of good stuff. This is a very ambitious book and sure it falls short in a few sections, it is hard to tie everything together. The author has a lot of knowledge, has read a lot, has some very interesting insights. I imagine some people might take issue with some of his analysis, for me it works quite well overall, but even if you don't agree with his analysis the discussion and explorations are fabulous and make it well worth the read. PS. I thought this was a solid op-ed recently written by Mishra on US situation: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/op... ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 02, 2017
|
May 06, 2017
|
Apr 30, 2017
|
ebook
| |||||||||||||||
| 1608467236
| 9781608467235
| 1608467236
| 4.02
| 174
| 2017
| Apr 11, 2017
|
it was amazing
|
Excellent critique of post WWII US military foreign policy. The collection of essays is slight, but the critique is presented in a clear, concise, inc
Excellent critique of post WWII US military foreign policy. The collection of essays is slight, but the critique is presented in a clear, concise, incisive manner with a well-executed economy of style; every sentence adds to the overall argument. First off, when I critique US military policy (and I am very critical in a general sense) I think there are a few things to note about arguments on its (potential) benefits. One, it provides a massive amount of jobs and an avenue for people who may have few opportunities to climb the economic ladder. But in a way this can be critiqued, because if military is the only avenue for some to climb the economic ladder then I see that as an indictment of the rest of the system/economy and the lack of opportunities it is presenting for wide swathes of the populace. Secondly, investment in military generates tons of spin-off technologies/innovations. Sadly, war and threat of war are great incentives for innovation. You could argue that we could still make massive investments in science and technology at the (non-military) government level and reap major benefits (in fact we do, but are actually underinvesting in this arena imo). But there is no getting around the spin-off tech benefits of military science/tech investment. One can question efficiency of use of resources though, that is a major problem with our special-interests captured war machine. Thirdly, yes there is benefit to be derived from projecting hard power and trying to contain what are considered security threats. But there is also blowback in various ways as well. You conduct yourself like an imperial empire you will extract certain benefits, but also end up stoking certain negative consequences as well; the underlying resentment, hate, anger can manifest and explode in variety of ways. Anyways, with that out of the way, here is the crux of John Dower's argument: US military policy in the post-world war II era has been a source of great pain and instability in the world. We have misused our power, often chasing ghosts and fighting ideologies with the most despicable of techniques and in the process manifested a staggering level of hypocrisy. There have been massive violations in terms of human rights, egregious wastage and inefficiency with the war machine/military industrial complex growing and growing and always needing more and more resources, and the growth of the surveillance state has involved massive infringements upon civil society. And for a country not involved in a major conflict (although this point is debatable, we are in perpetual war mode and conducting armed operations to one degree or another in sooo many theaters) we are pouring trillions of dollars into the perpetual, inefficient, bloated, special-interests captured Keynesian funded operation that is our imperial war machine. Is this sustainable? Not to me it isn't, not in the long term. There are some great essays, including ones that examine how the military-industrial complex derives funding, namely through the exploitation of fear in the public realm (back in the day invoking "communism," and now the new forever war that gets the dollars flowing is the Great War on Terror). This line sums it up: "Fear of ominous existential enemies primed the political pump to maintain support for a massive military machine." I tend to think that some military interventions can be warranted, but when you are overly focused on using military as spearhead against ideologies you are probably going to metastasize the original cancers if you aren't smart about things (this too often includes having basically zippo understanding of regional history/nuances, but rushing like a bull into the china shop anyways because hubris). In too many cases we've poured gasoline onto the original fires. Another important note that Dower documents and critiques: be careful of the bedfellows you choose and support. Dower's examination of CIA history is particularly damning. You can preach freedom, liberty, democracy, human rights as much as you want, but as one often sees these terms are weaponized and used to camouflage the dark underbelly of our actions and belie a serious double standard/hypocrisy. Actions speak louder than words, and the record is appalling. There were several essays on nuclear weapons and nuclear policy. Very highly critical of the "delicate balance of terror" thinking that dominated policy circles, including cavalier attitudes of nuclear brinksmanship and provocation. Here are a few excerpts: "Predicatably absent from the most of these alarming prognostications was the fact that US nuclear policy itself was and remains a major provocation in the atomic arc of instability... The ceaseless US quest to maintain massive "technological asymmetry" militarily is guaranteed to keep arms races of every sort going." What is interesting are the sources and policy experts that did a 180 from the old school nuclear brinksmanship/delicate balance of terror policy. My god this even includes Kissinger! I'm not a fan of Kissinger but it was interesting to see him, the hardest coldest cruelist realist in the game, embrace the "Global Zero" concept for nuclear weapons. One final note on the concept of American exceptionalism: "The mystique of exceptional virtue does not accommodate serious consideration of irresponsibility, provocation, intoxication with brute force, paranoia, hubris, reckless and criminal activities, or even criminal negligence." This quote is important for me because it encompasses the main problems with the concept of American exceptionalism. Such a concept allows a double standard whereby we sidestep accountability and responsibility because we are supposedly operating in a framework of higher virtue; we cannot be held to the common international standards and rules because of our very exceptionalism. It is sneaky and dangerous, and ends up being a slippery-slope into permitting ourselves anything. We do not abide critique and analysis of our actions because of our very exceptionalism, such critique is often not tolerated and thus precludes serious honest dialogue about our policies. We invoke liberty, democracy, freedom, wrapped into the concept of American exceptionalism, but as so often happens this invocation gives us carte-blanche and permits us anything, even the most extraordinary actions/crimes that literally go against these basic concepts which we supposedly champion. It is disingenuous and the deep hypocrisy seriously damages our credibility. Ultimately it is very counter-productive, hurts a lot of people, and provides ammunition (ideological propaganda) to our enemies. PS. This is a good article by military historian Andrew Bacevich that asks hard-hitting questions of the military establishment and political leaders. Takes contemporary media establishment to ask, fully justified imo. Mirrors much of Dower's critique: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176277/ ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 05, 2017
|
May 08, 2017
|
Mar 29, 2017
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1627795391
| 9781627795395
| 1627795391
| 4.18
| 5,010
| Mar 15, 2016
| Mar 15, 2016
|
it was amazing
|
Damning critique of the neoliberal wing of the Democratic party. I pretty much agree with most (heck all!) of Franks’ analysis, although he veers into
Damning critique of the neoliberal wing of the Democratic party. I pretty much agree with most (heck all!) of Franks’ analysis, although he veers into a full blown sarcastic polemic. Which is ok I guess, I mean, I agree with his points and his arguments but sometimes the anger is so seething that it distracts from the argument. I guess the more emotional someone gets with their arguments the more leery I get… and I do have to say I often have trouble myself in avoiding this trap! It’s not always easy to decouple emotion from one’s arguments!!! easier said than done. But that said Franks’ presents a strong point by point critique throughout his book and I generally agree with his assessments. Ever since the election of that man who shall not be named there’s been a lot of writings out there mirroring Franks’ critique of the neoliberal wing of the Democratic party and how this powerful elite has turned its back on the working class, and even large segments of the middle class. This has provided an opening for the Republicans to use cultural and identity issues as trojan horses to capture large segments of the working class, these issues providing cover for their less popular economically regressive agenda (that’s my interpretation of their general economic positioning). It’s been a brilliant strategy, and ever since the 70s when Democrats started turning their back on the working class Republicans seized this opportunity to drive a wedge into this demographic, peeling off large segments and assimilating them into their base. In many respects Democrats sowed the seeds of their own destruction, and have yet to fully learn the lessons. Franks’ provides a nice analysis and overview of this history. Over the last 40 years there is an entitled smug arrogant educated professional elite that has gained power in the Democratic party (Clintons are emblematic), and their economic philosophy runs counter in many respects to core progressive economic principles. They are anti-New Dealers, anti-progressives, banking elites, captains of industry (specially Silicon Valley), and they don’t want to hear about inequality. They have fully bought into the narrative that we live in a pure meritocracy, therefore those who succeed do so on their own merit, intelligence, perseverance, hard work, etc, while those who don’t succeed, don’t get educations (regardless of access), who suffer are 100% accountable for their lots in life. I’m all for personal accountability, but imo like most things it is a mix. There are systematic barriers and entrenched wealth that tilts the field in favor of certain people while putting up barriers for others. It’s sneaky to ignore this disparity in opportunities, ignoring the system barriers, system rules, power dynamics in the system, and trying to pin everything on the individual. Opportunities are hoarded by elite segments of our society, there is more margin for error when one has wealth and power. Of course there are people who can transcend their lack of opportunities, economic disadvantages, and these cases are always seized upon and highlighted by the elite to showcase how the system has fluidity and fairness. As far as I can tell though, from the data I’ve seen, fluidity between social classes, the actuality of the American dream, at least currently, is largely in retreat and in many respects illusory. And this Democratic elite has largely championed progressive cultural and identity issues, which I do think are important, but often at the cost of focusing or championing progressive economic issues (largely because it doesn’t fit their agenda and narrative). The idea of meritocracy is often used to justify one’s wealth and justify the poverty of others, to me it often warps into a self-serving narrative meant to mythologize one’s own success and reinforce the status quo. That’s not to say that people who have succeeded haven’t worked hard, aren’t smart and awesome, but as too often happens many in this group discount their access to opportunities while ignoring the lack of access to opportunities that many others face. Personally, I’m a believer in aspiring towards meritocracy, while counterbalancing the effects of meritocratic winners taking all by enacting greater redistribution, fairer more equal distribution of educational resources, universal healthcare, solid safety net, exploration of universal basic income, establishing more balanced relationships between capital and labor, etc etc. Too often meritocracy is used in this sneaky cynical way to deny people respect of their human dignity, it is used as an excuse to let people die in the street, it is used as an excuse to judge others. Meritocracy without humanism is dangerous, callous, and frankly soulless. That's how I see it. It's a slippery slope when applied in too extreme a manner, it is a way of denying compassion and destroying man's humanity. I think the most important point that Franks hit upon was the necessity for the liberal professional cosmopolitan elites to engage in a bit more humility (and yes one can argue other side could engage a bit more in this as well ha!). We (consider myself part of this group) need to avoid moral and intellectual grandstanding, our smug cultural arrogance often leads us to look down upon the non-educated, the rural populace, conservatives. By automatically and unequivocally viewing them as morally-backward idiotic rubes we push people away, we antagonize, we disrespect, and we preclude effective dialogue. Not only does it not serve our interests, but it is rather disrespectful and inhumane as well! Plus, if the packaging is done right, and the messenger plays it smart, I think large segments of the working class would be open to the progressive economic agenda. Maybe I’m naive, maybe I underestimate the average American’s distrust of government (although in its current incarnation distrust is justified!), fear and leeriness of bureaucracy, and their lionization of the individual and the ethos of surviving on one’s own and refusing hand-outs no matter how badly one is getting hammered… but I suspect that if people see this is a policy path to open opportunities that could give greater/fairer chances for individual success then maybe it can be sold effectively. But as so often happens, the suffering has to hit catastrophic levels before critical mass of people will push for major political system changes. As always, please feel free to jump in and critique any of my thinking. It’s helpful to hear from others. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Feb 06, 2017
|
Feb 10, 2017
|
Jan 19, 2017
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0674654617
| 9780674654617
| 0674654617
| 4.16
| 1,360
| Nov 1964
| 1996
|
it was amazing
|
Great read. Written close to over 60 years ago, many of the essays are still relevant to our current times. Hofstadter is a skilled writer, meticulous
Great read. Written close to over 60 years ago, many of the essays are still relevant to our current times. Hofstadter is a skilled writer, meticulous researcher, and surgically perceptive. I enjoyed most of the essays, although my favorites were the title essay, the Anti-Trust essay, and the Barry Goldwater essay. The least interesting essay was the one on the Spanish-American War, but even that one had some interesting insights into the American psyche (and contradictions) regarding foreign policy and imperialism. In the Goldwater essay, Goldwater certainly comes across as an intransigent ideologue (big surprise!). And I got an education on the whole silver movement which was a nice example of trying to solve a complex (and very real) problem with an overly simple solution. The irony is that the silver people weren’t wrong, but the means of successfully expanding the money supply was a route many from the gold camp and silver camp didn’t see coming: credit creation. The Anti-Trust essay was interesting because many of the same challenges face us today regarding massive oligopolies that subvert democracy by controlling our politics and legislation. How these problems get solved is interesting. Going to share a few quotes: Here’s one from the Goldwater essay that speaks to our times, what I consider an extremely dangerous tool/tactic:: “When (Goldwater/the pseudo-conservative) argues that we are governed largely by means of near-hypnotic manipulation (brainwashing), wholesale corruption, and betrayal, it is indulging in something more significant than the fantasies of indignant patriots: it is questioning the legitimacy of the political order itself. The two-party system, as it has developed in the United States, hangs on the common recognition of loyal opposition: each side accepts the ultimate good intentions of the other… But an essential point in the pseudo-conservative world view is that our recent Presidents, being men of wholly evil intent, have conspired against the public good. This does more than discredit them: it calls into question the validity of the political system that keeps putting such men into office.” And this was a passage (from the Anti-Trust essay) that made me laugh: “The left, if it can be called that, rebels in the name of nonconformity and opts out of the whole bourgeois world in the manner of the beatnik and the hipster. The right (in the manner of Barry Goldwater and his enthusiasts) rebels in the name of the older individualism, which believed that economic life should inculcate discipline and character. Though they would hate to admit it, they are both bedeviled in different ways by the same problem; each of them is trying to make its variety of nonconformism into a mass creed - which is a contradiction in terms. The beats opt out of corporate uniformity in their own uniforms and erect themselves into a stereotype. The right-wingers sing their praises of individualism in dreary, regimented choruses and applaud vigilantes who would kill every vestige of genuine dissent." Here’s one final long quote that I really like, sums up a lot of things. I’m especially thinking of the 5G/Bill Gates hornet’s nest of conspiracies I’m seeing all over social media: "The distinguishing thing about the paranoid style is not that its exponents see conspiracies or plots here and there in history, but that they regard a 'vast' or 'gigantic' conspiracy as the motive force in historical events. History is a conspiracy, set in motion by demonic forces of almost transcendent power... The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of this conspiracy in apocalyptic terms... He constantly lives at a turning point: it is now or never in organizing resistance to conspiracy. Time is forever just running out... Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated - if not from the world, at least from the theater of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention... This enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman: sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He is a free, active, demonic agent. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history himself, or deflects the normal course of history in an evil way... The paranoid's interpretation of history is in this sense distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as consequences of someone's will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional); he is gaining a stranglehold on the educational system.” Recommended for anyone interested in US history and examination of US national identity and psyche. I’m consistently surprised at how well Hofstadter’s writing and analyses hold-up (also highly recommend his book Anti-Intellectualism In American Life). ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Jan 19, 2017
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 193149858X
| 9781931498586
| 193149858X
| 4.22
| 1,607
| unknown
| Jun 01, 2004
|
it was amazing
|
The book Limits to Growth views the world through a systems analysis prism. It looks at where we are at in terms of current and potential future earth
The book Limits to Growth views the world through a systems analysis prism. It looks at where we are at in terms of current and potential future earth resource use and waste creation and what the earth can sustain in these arenas. We are in overshoot mode according to the book (we entered this zone back in the 80s according to their data). This is a dangerous mode to be in especially for long periods of time as it increases probability of a collapse occurring. How solid are the models and science of the book I can't really say, but the overarching themes and arguments seem logical. Given the vast degree to which we are terraforming the earth (for living space, transportation, food, industry), rates of resource extraction, amounts of waste creation, rate of transitioning (too slow) to more sustainable modes of energy, production, consumption, and how we are affecting the climate one has to suspect we are courting disaster by playing with fire, pushing earth systems to their limits, tempting collapse of broad macro-ecosystems which would be catastrophic for global human civilization in all aspects (social, economic, political). The debate around the book and concept is interesting. There are various critiques of the book worth reading as well to get a sense of what the debate looks like, but the fundamental concepts and problems advanced by the book work well imo, and I'm fairly aligned with the assessments and conclusions the authors of this book make. There are three authors: Dana Meadows, Dennis Meadows, and Jorgen Randers. The quotes, see below, are from the authors' preface. And I hate to say this, I'm normally quite an optimistic person but when it comes to this stuff I come down more on the side of Jorgen and Dennis. Doesn't mean I think we are screwed and can't do anything, in fact there is much we can do. But I think if we don't make monumental changes and shifts in policy the major environmental pressures will keep growing eventually forcing a significant downward shift of global civilization, the irretrievable damage we cause to the planet will fundamentally lower and cap what this planet is capable of providing us in terms of potential average human welfare. Technology can provide buffers, but without proper policy and management of resources and earth systems it will not save us. Imo the idea of tech saving us is just an excuse for us to continue as is, heedless of future consequences that may be irrevocable regardless of what future tech might accomplish. Of course I do think technology will be part of the answer in helping us create and maintain more sustainable systems and mitigating problems we have caused, but I just don't like the blind techno-utopianism that is willing to give us an excuse to continue in a heedless irresponsible manner. Such belief in future tech as the deus ex machina that solves all the problems we caused today gives us carte-blanche to do whatever, blindly continue the status quo, because we think future tech is our ace in the hole that will pull us back from disaster. It's a very risky assumption, such thinking means one is willing to bet on such an unknown future thing when the stakes are so high, the risks of continuing status quo are massive. It's seductive because it shifts all onus and responsibility to the future and the magic of the future generations to solve the problems we caused and perpetuated today. But some (much?) of the damage we cause today will likely prove irrevocable, so that's a bit of an issue with that argument for me. Sure it's impossible to predict the potential damage of our current status quo, especially in regards to things like climate change which are such wildcards, it is hard to super accurately predict how damaging climate change will ultimately prove. How much will it change broad macro-ecosystems and climate patterns? what will be the degree and magnitude of shifts? everything is so interconnected that these shifts are quite frightening to imagine, the potential cascades... but I think it's safe to assume that continuing our status quo is incredibly risky and we have embarked on a broad and dangerous experiment. I do try and feed my optimism while hoping to stay grounded in some sort of realistic assessment of actual circumstances and contingencies. We should try and keep building awareness, pushing solutions, living the change we believe in, and explain the vision of what may be possible: "We promised Dana Meadows before she died in early 2001 that we would complete the “30-year update” of the book she loved so much. But in the process we were once more reminded of the great differences among the hopes and expectations of the three authors. Dana was the unceasing optimist. She was a caring, compassionate believer in humanity. She predicated her entire life’s work on the assumption that if she put enough of the right information in people’s hands, they would ultimately go for the wise, the farsighted, the humane solution- in this case, adopting the global policies that would avert overshoot (or, failing that, would ease the world back from the brink). Dana spent her life working for this ideal. Jorgen is the cynic. He believes that humanity will pursue short-term goals of increased consumption, employment, and financial security to the bitter end, ignoring the increasingly clear and strong signals until it is too late. He is sad to think that society will voluntarily forsake the wonderful world that could have been. Dennis sits in between. He believes actions will ultimately be taken to avoid the worst possibilities for global collapse. He expects that the world will eventually choose a relatively sustainable future, but only after severe global crises force belated action. And the results secured after long delay will be much less attractive than those that could have been attained through earlier action. Many of the planet's wonderful ecological treasures will be destroyed in the process; many attractive political and economic options will be lost; there will be great and persisting inequalities, increasing militarization of society, and widespread conflict." What do you guys think? where do you guys stand? ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 27, 2017
|
Apr 10, 2017
|
Dec 29, 2016
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0394703170
| 9780394703176
| 0394703170
| 4.12
| 3,256
| Feb 12, 1963
| 1964
|
it was amazing
|
Finished this a while back been meaning to write the review. It is excellent and in depth and sadly much of it is still perfectly relevant. Also great Finished this a while back been meaning to write the review. It is excellent and in depth and sadly much of it is still perfectly relevant. Also great for anyone interested in US history. Hofstadter's examination of religion and its role in American society is fascinating. It is by no means simple, there have been multiple factions in the religious sphere here, some were forces for enlightenment/reason/knowledge and others were anti-intellectual forces that cudgeled people with blind dogmatism and preached constant and full submission to authority. These forces waxed and waned, sometimes one gaining the upperhand over the other in the political sphere, each exerting different levels of power in various regions. There is also an interesting class angle that is intermixed within all this, the main one that comes to mind is the elite New England uppercrust religious intellectuals who held a lot of power and sway in that region and often times at the federal level. They helped establish many of the original higher level education institutions. Some fascinating dynamics between them and anti-establishment anti-elitist populist dogmatists who preached against reason and science because it didn't conform to their world-views. But they also hated the elitist New England brahmins because of their outsized power and their monopolization of the educational resources in this country. One particularly interesting fact that Hofstadter hits: sometimes the greatest anti-intellectuals emanate from the intellectual sphere, reactionary intellectuals who might be perfectly intellectual within a broad array of subjects but in certain arenas are completely blind and retrograde. It was an interesting point and I think very true, I consider them the most pernicious because they leverage their credentials and operate from a larger platform from which they push their wacky anti-intellectual arguments. They are insiders who (sometimes) revel in torpedoing the knowledge establishment (and colleagues) from the inside. I imagine this is generally done in good faith, but sometimes I have to imagine there is jealousy or anger towards colleagues or the intellectual establishment that prompts this sort of thing. I don't know. We can all be blind to our biases, even the highest level experts and intellectuals... but these people can end up doing a lot of damage, the public seizes upon their arguments to confirm their conspiracies or push their anti-intellectual agenda. Highly recommend this book. Hofstader is a great writer and historian imo. The scope of this book is broad but there is a lot of nuance and in depth examination. It is not a book you read in one sitting though, best to read in slow morsels, digest, think about... Maybe it will be a grinding read for some but I found it completely spell-binding as it really got me thinking and I think helped me learn quite a bit of US history as well. Also a great examination on the philosophy of education, the US education system, attitudes towards education and knowledge, and how these have all evolved. Education and knowledge are not not very high up on the totem pole (as compared to sports and entertainment and worship of power and money). The fact that the word intellectual is still a dirty word here in this country is very telling. We face many of the same problems now that we did 50 years ago when this was written, which is really a mind-bogglingly sad fact. Maybe we face a new dark age? I have no idea. The paradox is that we have access to more information than ever before but it seems like we only consume and accept what will reinforce narratives we already believe in (in pointing this out I'm not saying I'm immune to this myself haha! but I try to recognize and fight my tendencies but it is certainly not easy). That's why a proper approach to education and instilling critical thinking and curiosity via the education system (but also via family and community) is so important imo, it takes resources and a lot of trial and error, but we are going down the wrong path that is for sure. Anti-intellectualism is not only an American thing. But we have a rich history of it, and its influence in our culture matters a lot given our power and influence in the world. But if we can't invest in our education system and instill curiosity, love of learning, valuing of knowledge, and an ability to appreciate and practice a certain level of critical thinking within our populace we will gradually lose power in the world. That's how I see it. We've managed to stay on top for a long time, even when our education system wasn't the best because we had a nice brain-drain going for us (along with a lot of fantastic fundamentals like a wealth of natural resources). With current policies we might end up reversing the brain-drain which we have relied upon for so long, it has masked the flaws in our education system and its classist fundamentals. If this happens the flaws of our education system will likely be magnified beyond belief, and we will all bear the economic repercussions (which are already being felt but will only get worse). ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 16, 2017
|
Mar 16, 2017
|
Dec 24, 2016
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0374227357
| 9780374227357
| 0374227357
| 4.35
| 4,516
| Sep 25, 2014
| Sep 30, 2014
|
it was amazing
|
state formation - rule of law - accountability of political institutions. These are the 3 key themes that Fukuyama explores. Traversing a wide range o state formation - rule of law - accountability of political institutions. These are the 3 key themes that Fukuyama explores. Traversing a wide range of societies, in this book he examines how political orders evolved and also decay since the industrial revolution. Any time there is a large shift in the economic/labor landscape the political system must catch up, reform, and craft new policy visions to deal with the new contemporary landscape. Yesterday's institutions are not always up to today's problems (see USA). Like its predecessor, this book contains a ton of information. Personally I love it, but it is going to warrant a reread from me. Just so much good stuff here. I do have to mention that I am not well-versed in political science, political systems, political theory, etc. As far as I can tell Fukuyama's analysis and critiques are valid and compelling. I haven't explored any counter-critiques of his political order series, but I'd be interested in seeing what other political scientists make of his work. It strikes me as incisive and nuanced. But hey, I've been wildly wrong and misguided in judgment before, so who knows! The thing that sticks with me is his analysis of the formation and reasons behind why many states in Europe (with exceptions) have powerful central governments while the US has often had a much weaker federal state. One aspect Fukuyama delves into is the role of war in helping develop political systems, state power/organization, and efficiency, this was rather fascinating analysis and did make some sense to me. In regards to the US political system, it has evolved over time, especially once industrialization was taking place, and with the country much more integrated and unified (rail systems, telecommunication innovations), many of the contemporary problems of that time required reforms towards a stronger federal state to legislate, control, and enact policy at a national level. That said the US central state has always been much weaker than many of the European states, it is part of our cultural-DNA and we as a society have great leeriness towards centralized governmental power. I appreciate that Fukuyama does talk about geographic conditions playing a role in political system development. But he does not view it as the only factor. I get really sick of pure geographic determinism, I feel it is too simplistic of an answer and it ignores various other factors like human agency. His explanations of why certain countries failed to incorporate more liberal democracies was fascinating, especially when he analyzed colonialism and its aftermath. And yet while the legacy of colonialism has sometimes turbocharged political disasters after it was dismantled, the countries that fared best were countries that had better centralized governments in the pre-colonial era. It was interesting to see how the colonized countries' political traditions in pre-colonial times were important factors in how the countries developed in their post-colonial eras. His analysis of contemporary US political issues is very interesting. I tend to agree with a lot of his views on this. We have a bloated federal government that is completely dysfunctional. We have regulations but they are inefficient, duplicative, and cumbersome. Don't misconstrue that statement though. I am all for regulation. My example is this, Dodd-Frank is a ridiculous travesty, billions of pages long, overly complicated, and in the end ineffective because it was watered down by special interests (banking lobbyists). Imo we could have solved that problem by reinstituting Glass-Steagall and legislated increased capital requirements on the banks. End of story. Don't bail out those idiots either, and if you do, force some reforms down their throats. Of course this never happened because the corporate banking interests have too much power in the system, controlling gov legislation and capturing regulators... our system is way too tilted towards the lenders and securing and bailing them out while letting the little guys, the borrowers, pay through the nose and have their lives destroyed. We should apply a more even standard of accountability towards both lenders and borrowers. Anyways, I digress... The point is, I agree with Fukuyama, we need proper regulation that isn't hijacked by special interests. Our political system is awash in special interest money, and in many respects this is subverting the will of the people. Special interests, especially large corporations, are dictating policy and regulation. That's why so few people approve of our government, our trust has been decimated because we feel large interests control the system to a higher degree than they ever have... it's fine for special interests to have a say, but right now it is tilted way too far towards powerful corporate entities. Fukuyama harps on the issue of trust, peoples' trust of the government. It is a key factor in a government's ability to rule and legislate, if the people have no trust or lose trust then things usually trend towards disaster... ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 09, 2016
|
Dec 28, 2016
|
Dec 08, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0691147728
| 9780691147727
| 0691147728
| 4.19
| 1,953
| Jan 26, 2016
| Jan 12, 2016
|
it was amazing
|
I was a bit worried in starting this that it might prove boring given this book is the size of a fat brick and has a title that hints at content so po
I was a bit worried in starting this that it might prove boring given this book is the size of a fat brick and has a title that hints at content so potentially boring that it could put a person hopped up on boatload of amphetamines running around the house worried about the murderer at their doorstep to sleep. But nope. I thought this was totally excellent. A great and informative read, well-crafted, beautifully argued. The exploration of history, documentation of technological and economic evolution and analysis was topnotch. Most of the book is documentation of technology and connection to economic growth/standard of living/productivity in the US from 1870 to current times. Told in an accessible historical narrative fashion. I'll reduce Gordon's argument to the bare-bones but this does no justice to his analysis: basically we have nailed a lot of the low-hanging technological fruit and are reaching a point of diminishing returns - ie we are investing higher and higher rates into research and are getting smaller and smaller returns on this investment. You could say he is a bit of a techno-pessimist. I don't 100% agree with it but I think there is a lot of substance there, the counter is that we are pretty early in the digital revolution and it is hard to know how much it will potentially increase productivity. I find myself trending towards Gordon's position but I can't really say, only time will tell. Betting against innovation is usually a losing bet, at least in the last 200 years, but the transformational technologies like electricity, combustion engine, things like that can only be discovered once. And once they are discovered you can refine them and increase efficiencies but after a certain amount of time you can only improve/refine existing technologies so much. Hence the question is how many more paradigm-shifting technological innovations are out there on the impact-level of electricity? and another question is how much resource investment will it take to unlock them? The end part of the book was very good. It showcased Gordon's analysis of contemporary US situation and policy ideas to help improve productivity and standard of living, or at least temper the headwinds our society faces. I align with most of his policy ideas, they strike me as sensible and would likely be tools that would help do damage control. I was very happy that he hit hard on the subject of inequality and how this threatens social fabric and long-term strength of our economy. Not much talk on environmental crisis although it is mentioned. Recognized as a potential huge drain, and instead of pouring resources into building things up we will be pouring resources into containing this problem and damage we are causing. I've said it before but I think if you break the environment, at a large enough scale, you break economies and stoke instability. Maybe that's too simple but that's how I see it. In the end I jibe with a lot of what he has to say and I share a large part of his pessimism in regards to long-term economic outlook. We are facing huge crises but I think we are going to have our hands tied in terms of tackling the problems given that we are in very bad fiscal positions and totally overleveraged at federal, (many, not all) state, city levels coupled with individual debt. Not a good recipe. We would need a lot of productivity increases to be able to grow our way out of these fiscal problems and I do not think this will happen and even if it could be done it would likely prove even more devastating for the environment (which would manifest in its own varying economic costs). Gordon considers the strong economic growth rate in the period of 45-72 an aberration, I'm right there with him. So I think we are locked into a bit of a tricky situation. Plus our government is not thinking long-term, avoiding all hard decisions, and shunning most of the policies (many suggested by Gordon) that I think would help put us in a better position to contain damage and improve the situation. Anyways. A+ book. Regardless of whether you agree with Gordon's conclusions it is worth the read. He makes a strong argument and he is well-grounded in the research and has impressive depth and breadth in knowledge of economy and history. Time will tell if his predictions prove ballpark correct. I'd like to read the work of Gordon's Northwestern econ colleague Joel Mokyr. He is more of a techno-optimist and his position runs counter to Gordon's assessments. But I think reading Mokyr will give me a better sense of the opposing side's argument even if I'm not really on board (who knows maybe I will change my thinking!). ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jun 07, 2017
|
Jun 28, 2017
|
Oct 15, 2016
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0385350570
| 9780385350570
| 0385350570
| 4.19
| 5,088
| 2004
| Sep 29, 2015
|
it was amazing
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Aug 2016
|
Aug 09, 2016
|
Aug 01, 2016
|
Hardcover
|
Loading...
11 of 11 loaded
