Update no.681

Update from the Heartland

No.681

29.12.14 – 4.1.15

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

My friend and fellow author Kevin Earl Ready offered the following New Year’s message on his Facebook page. 

“Ringing in the New Year, I have to say that I am concerned that we, in America, are disconnected with our brethren and sistren around the world.  Yes, I invented the word "Sistren" because I found no appropriate word to serve its purpose.  We, in America, view world events in a vacuous perception, disconnected from the realities of our fellow human beings around the world.  I hope that the new year allows us to perceive the inequities and inconsistencies that our brethren and sistren around the world perceive when viewing human events.  ISIS is evil. Ebola must be stopped. Putin is acting like Hitler.  Ukraine is Sudetenland revisited.  We are just a smidgeon away from cataclysm from MERS or some other virus, yet we cannot see the commonality of our need to co-exist with the fellow members of our species.  PLEASE, look beyond the simple local view and start acting like the world around us matters.”

 . . .words to heed.  Happy New Year.

For those readers who may be interested, I submitted the manuscript for the third book in my To So Few series of historical novels.  Book III is provisionally titled “Explosion.”  I do not have a projected publication date, as yet, but springtime seems reasonable.  Also, for those who have asked, my publisher has decided to produce the books in print versions as well as all electronic book formats.  The first book “In the Beginning” is currently available by special order through any book retailer, and the second book “The Prelude” should be available shortly.  I have begun work to prepare the fourth book for submittal.

The follow-up news items:

-- President Obama authorized additional sanctions against the DPRK in the wake of the malicious hacking of Sony Pictures Entertainment [679], aimed primarily at 10 North Korean field agents of the Korea Mining Development Trading Corporation – the principal arms export agency of the DPRK – in countries like Iran, Syria and Sudan.  The ratchet turns.

Comments and contributions from Update no.680:

Comment to the Blog:

“‘Conspiracist’ is more name calling. Speaking for and of myself, I alleged no conspiracy in either the legal or the dramatic sense, and I never saw any such conspiracy. I still do not.

“We can only understand business decisions from outside by the "follow the money" method. I stated that Sony had likely decided to provoke Kim Jong Un. The politicians and the media tools had no part in that decision. Again, this is not a conspiracy theory. I made an observation based on a business education. Kim Jong Un has shown no signs of maturity, and his wild rhetoric could be predicted by virtually anyone who watches newscasts. If North Korea had merely blustered and threatened as expected, that decision paid off. Any marketer knows the cash value of the patriotism such rhetoric provokes, and we are seeing it. All the "defend freedom of speech" stuff on newscasts is free marketing. Those same news outlets interviewed people who saw the movie in question at the 300 theaters following the high-drama news reports. Most customers expected a lesser product but felt that it was a patriotic duty to see (buy) it because of the news reports. Many other such patriots may be expected to pay to download the same movie in the safety and comfort of their homes. So a poor picture escapes most of the reproduction and venue costs and it still brings in money. Bottom line: Sony adeptly made money on a turkey. I suspect that Sony created the initial controversy to salvage a project that they foresaw would not pay off otherwise, even with big names starring. On top of that, they gain a long-term lead in direct-to-Internet releasing. That leadership ultimately will make them more money than any given movie. As a communications major, I admire their chutzpah and strategic thinking; as a person living by moral values, I detest their corporate ethics.

“If the fullness of time shows us that the hackers were not the government of North Korea, the hackers saw their plan backfire because it got caught up in the other drama. I suppose some chance exists that Sony itself is behind the hacking, although it seems unlikely. If the hacking was North Korean, we have seen the very first sign of real tactical thinking by Kim Jong Un. Sony might not have expected that, but it doesn't cost anyone anything except the taxpayers who finance the investigation and whatever costs the hackers bear.  Sony makes money in all cases. Everywhere the money leads, we find Sony.

“I give Mr. Sorkin a partial pass. He is an individual, not a corporation. As such, he has feelings and responds to motivations other than money. I agree that he feels the moral outrage he expresses, but I still see it as hypocritical.

“I refrain from commenting on the current airline disaster because no conclusions are yet available. I made that mistake a few weeks ago with the movie issue.

“I know not whether you have studied Congress' end-of-session history. ‘A flurry of last-minute bills’ is the usual description. Of course, people use the confusion inherent in a high volume of complex work to slip through less-popular items from their personal agendas. I have no idea why someone inserted an attempt to regulate the spy community, but it would take a great deal more than a statute to get the spies' attention. Spies ignore laws. The recent report on torture made that plain once again.

“The economy may indeed be reviving at last. I noted in passing a TV report that wages have finally begun to rise a little.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: ‘conspiracist.’  My oh my, we are a bit sensitive today.  I made no accusation or even inference.  I was simply making an observation from several news sources.

            Re: Kim Jung Un.  Interesting observations.  If he had just said the words, this would be just another humorous demonstrations of his immaturity.  He crossed the line when he directed Bureau 121 to inflict damage on Sony Pictures Entertainment.

            Re: patriotic duty.  You may well be correct, but I think not.  While neither hypothesis may ever be proven.  It is just as likely the DPRK did exactly as it appears.  If the genius marketing project hypothesis is correct, then the DPRK played its part masterfully.  If your hypothesis is correct, Sony executed a most impressive false-flag operation for financial gain.  While that hypothesis is plausible, I still believe the DPRK as culprit is the most likely, and thus, I save my condemnation for the DPRK rather than Sony.

            Re: Sorkin.  OK, we shall hold different perspectives.

            Re: Congress.  OK, as you say.

            Re: economy.  A rising tide raises all boats.

 . . . Round two:

“Your response to my ‘conspiracist’ comment is worthy of Fox News. (Yes, I know that's insult for insult, but I couldn't resist.) ‘We’ are not sensitive today, but perhaps you are. My participation in this forum operates by fact and logic, as any serious debate ought to do. I do not respect ad hominem attacks and I will continue to point them out. The condescending tone of your replies when you are ‘sensitive’ is familiar but unbecoming.

“The FBI continues its investigation of the hacking attacks and will report at some time. Whether that report will ever be made public I cannot say. In the meantime, your assumption that Kim Jong Un was responsible for the hacking is over-reaching.

“Please re-read my last comment. I stated that it's unlikely Sony Pictures did the hacking, and I have not changed my mind. They would not need to do that to boost revenues, and it would be too risky for most executives' taste. I do, however, see a real possibility that a hacker or group of hackers somewhere in the world would see Sony as a juicy target for blackmail. I have seen a story from a news source (but not one I can document) that Sony received a money demand before the political story broke. Such a blackmail attempt could come from almost any skilled hacker. Regardless of that, Sony would know that they could withstand the release of those emails without serious financial loss, and the emails were in fact released. Sony lost nothing on them. They will make money by releasing the movie. Follow the money.

 “The notion that people saw the movie Interview from patriotic motives is no ‘hypothesis.’ A hypothesis, as you use that term, comes primarily from the imagination of the person making it. (Science uses it differently.) My statement is the direct result of interviews and reporting by CBS News and other reputable news outlets. The majority of people who saw the movie and were interviewed stated a patriotic motive clearly. Far fewer said the movie was worth seeing for itself. Those news stories clearly stated that those were the views of all the interviewees, not only those shown. That is supported by every marketing course I ever took. Appeals to patriotism are a cliché in marketing. They are considered safe but not creative.

“A rising tide does not float all boats in economics. We have been disproving that one since Reagan's Presidency as the income gap has widened. Replacing lost manufacturing jobs that paid $20 an hour in 1980 and carried multiple benefits with retail or other jobs that pay minimum wage today and offer no benefits does not support that saying. It's a false analogy. Were it true, we would have far fewer full-time workers receiving government benefits. It might help to remember that not all Americans participate in the stock market.”

 . . . my response to round two:

Calvin,

Re: ‘conspiracist.’  I shall take the criticism in the spirit in which it was given.  As Sir Winston so eloquently observed, “Criticism is like pain in the human body, it brings attention to an otherwise unhealthy state of things.”  I have been accused of being a ‘conspiracist’ for even suggesting the hypothesis we presented in our book “TWA 800 – Accident or Incident?”, so I shall leave it there.

Re: hacking.  I must confess I failed to glean that perspective from your words.  Regardless, I accept your explanation.  Whether the DPRK Bureau 121 actually carried out the hacking of Sony Pictures or instigated their brethren in the PRC may never be known; but, clearly, the motive belongs squarely with the DPRK.  I have not heard the extortion hypothesis or claim. 

Re: patriotic motive.  I suppose I am not so patriotic, as I have no interest or even a curiosity about that movie.

Re: floating all boats.  There are always exceptions.  So, I suppose the debate of this topic depends directly upon our perspective of the individual exceptions or the broader, general perspective.   Part of the dynamic involved here (and in other topics) is the change and adaptation to changing conditions.  To expect a US$20/hour, simple, manual labor job to remain in perpetuity is not realistic or substantiated by history.  We change with the changing times, or we fall by the wayside.

            “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

Cheers,

Cap

 . . . Round three:

“Regarding economics: dismissing the drop in wages as ‘exceptions’ is false. I assume that you have resources to study economics simply because you mention the subject in every posting. Look at the numbers for ‘real wages’ (after inflation) from about 1980 to the present. Falling wages are no exception. That has been the fate of workers in every sector with the possible exception of high tech. On top of that, your statement that higher pay is ‘not realistic’ does not square with the fact of higher wages across most of Europe. I will note the highest minimum wages tend to be in more prosperous places, such as Scandinavia and Germany.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            For the record and to my knowledge, I have never claimed to be an expert of anything (even though there may be a few areas where such a claim might be appropriate).  I am a citizen, concerned about his community, this society, the human race, and God’s little green Earth; as such, I try to absorb as much information as I am able with which to form an opinion.  Even with topics that I do offer opinions, I rarely claim to be correct, even when the facts may support such a claim.  That said . . .

            It is my humble opinion that market forces and capitalism drive wages.  Where labor supply exceeds demand for that particular skill, wages must fall.  I imagine wages for skilled buggy whip craftsmen or wagon wheel producers were fairly good in the day, but as there is no demand for such products, wages were inevitably driven to zero, as they should have been.

            My argument breaks down in the arena of low-skill labor, where demand remains but artificial forces distort the wage scale.  An automobile assembly worker who was getting paid more than an educated, accomplished engineer is hardly a balanced wage scale.  Minimum wage laws are and will distort the wage scale.

            We have discussed for quite some time now the question of what is reasonable for wages, standard of living, within a societal economic structure.  I am certain we will continue to debate this topic.  Regardless, let there be no doubt, I do not offer my opinion(s) as an expert.  I am only an observant citizen, who happens to be willing to present my opinions in a quasi-public forum to foster constructive debate on issues of our time.

 . . . Round four:

“I will note that one may not authentically claim lack of knowledge in the Information Age, at least not on the Internet.

“Your faith in markets and capitalism is touching but dramatically misplaced. Those free market assumptions derive from the work of Adam Smith, who lived at roughly the time of the American Revolution. (Often Smith's ideas are filtered through the rantings of Ayn Rand, but we'll let that rest for now.) Smith completely opposed limited liability, which makes corporations possible. Smith expressed mistrust of capitalists in his best-known work, Wealth of Nations, and his ideas cover only the small businesses and local consumers of his time. Applying those ideas to multi-national corporations and combining them with the assumption that corporations have motivations other than making money have produced no coherent results but remains very popular with the few people who benefit from those distortions. Those people are few but are powerful because of their wealth. You may plead ignorance or lack of expertise all you like, but every bit of this information is readily available from respectable online sources.”

 . . . my response to round four:

            Wow!  To be frank, I did not quite know how to take your reply.  You may accuse me of a lack of knowledge.  That is your choice.  I made no such claim or statement.  I strive to be as informed as I am able.  My humility should not be interpreted as ignorance.

            Also, to continue my frankness, I am a bit taken-aback by your comments.  We have discussed Adam Smith, capitalism, Ayn Rand, et al, more than a few times.  I can only say, I urge you to recall those conversations.  I have NEVER advocated for a true free market, as such environments are often overwhelmed or succumb to nefarious elements of human nature who use that freedom for the most shameful and greedy purposes . . . just as the Wild West bent to the fastest gun.  I have always advocated for appropriate and reasonable regulation to draw order from chaos.  There must be law & order.  I appreciate your statement, and we are far more in agreement than your comments would suggest . . . just not to the extent.

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)