Depth Perception and the Economy: Obama's Binoculars

[TygrBright]

Evolution (or the Creator, if you wish) has given human beings binocular vision. This is important. It means that we can drive cars at speeds in excess of three or four miles per hour without smashing into things. It means that we can throw things with a reasonable hope of accuracy-- everything from a lifesaver to someone struggling in deep water, to a baseball across home plate. Binocular vision allowed our hunter-gatherer ancestors to survive and pass on their genes to produce the current apex of complex, allegedly reasoning, mammalian success: Us.

Binocular vision works very simply: It enables depth perception. Because we have two eyes, pupils separated by a distance of about 2-3 inches, our brain is able to simultaneously interpret two streams of visual input, compare them, and draw conclusions based on the differences-- a process so automatic we are not even aware of it when we start down a strange staircase. But the fact that we do it ensures that we mostly end up at the bottom of the stairs still vertical and undamaged.

A few centuries ago we clever tool-making apes began to extend our abilities to see things very far away, or very small, by creating lenses, and arranging them in ways that increase our perception of size-- magnifying lenses, primitive microscopes, spectacles, and monocular telescopes. These technologies in turn enabled generations of new discoveries and technologies, but as someone quickly noticed, the monocular telescope had its limitations. In any application that required swift, precise perception of actual distance, without ancillary calculations based on triangulation, light wavelength, or other factors-- a single-lens instrument was less than optimal.

So, if you want to get a feel for how big that bird really is, you look through binoculars because they give you some depth perception. You can judge distance and combine the information about distance with perceived size and realize that the bird looks small because it IS small-- it's not very far away at all, really, and thus your perception of it as tiny is an accurate one. You have depth perception.

All of this is to say that most of the economic "information" --mostly analyses and opinions by persons of varying competence and insight and biases-- is the equivalent of information from only one side of the binoculars. In order to get a more accurate perception, we need to look through both sides.

One side deals with the frameworks that we have used to shape and define our economic activity for many decades: These are the institutions that deal in the "conceptual" economy: intangible value, monetary policy, media of exchange, interest rates, the mechanics of moving value from holder to holder based on the exchange of intangibles such as contracts, shares, insurance policies, etc. This side enables large-scale commerce, the assignment and exchange of value. It's important, because it has become interlinked with, and supportive of, the other side: the "tangible" economy.

The tangible economy is the economy most of us do business with every day. It has to do with things like paychecks, and bills, and the ability to buy groceries, and the value of our real assets like houses and cars. It is so integrated into daily life that its existence is often forgotten or ignored in relation to the total concept of "the Economy." And yet it is the bedrock that enables the conceptual economy to exist and function, just as the conceptual economy enables the tangible economy.

The point of all this (finally!) is that if you can't SEE the total economy with depth perception, you can't FIX the total economy when it is rapidly devolving-- as it is today. Right now, a substantial majority of the attention is going to the conceptual economy. Bailouts of financial institutions, regulations, market oversight, etc., are all solutions for the conceptual economy. They are getting the lion's share of attention, and we are hearing, loudly, from many sources, that our efforts must focus THERE. Interestingly, most (but not all) of these loud voices come from corporate media controlled by individuals whose wealth derives largely through the conceptual economy. They believe that efforts focused on the tangible economy-- job creation, public spending programs, foreclosure moratoria, etc., are a wasted effort, because they do nothing to rescue wealth based in the conceptual economy. In fact, they may further, and negatively, impact conceptual-based wealth.

A few voices, also loud but often lost beneath the noise coming from the conceptual bleachers, are also demanding effort focused on the tangible economy, and stridently deriding the bailouts, market adjustments, regulatory proposals, and other tinkering with the conceptual economy as wasted effort, focused on further enabling the SOBs whose control of conceptual-based wealth and unrestrained greed unleashed the devolution in the first place. It is easy to sympathize.

But the voices from the bleachers, conceptual or tangible, represent monocular views, and monocular solutions.

President Obama (I still love writing that,) and his economic teams are attempting the trick of binocular vision. Of shoring up the crumbling economy from BOTH sides: Rescuing and repairing the conceptual framework that makes large-scale commerce and widespread prosperity feasible, and rescuing and repairing the tangible engines of jobs and consumer spending and real assets that keep the framework from collapsing.

Fortunately, the President has already demonstrated superlative skill in playing to the bleachers on each side, without being unnerved by the noise as he plots a delicate course to benefit both sides. He, at least, appears well aware that depth perception, and the multi-layered strategies it enables, are critical to arresting the devolution and redefining the nature of the conceptual economy and the relationship between the conceptual and the tangible. And that long-term recovery and future prosperity rely on a fundamental redesign of both, based on the changing realities and resources of a stressed planet and a globalizing human culture.

For those of us sitting in the tiny section of rickety folding chairs with our own binoculars, watching his battle with the looming tide of chaos, it is easy to get distracted by the howls of wrath or anguish from the bleachers on either side. It is easy to lose faith and confidence-- to assume that an effort on the conceptual side represents an abandonment of the tangible, a zero-sum approach that must ultimately fail. It's easy to gasp in concern, moan in anxiety-- the stakes are SO high.

And we have a right, even a duty to kibbitz, as much so as anyone in either sector of the bleachers-- if we see the balance swaying too far, if we perceive a way to better apply resources or effort with less risk of shifting the balance too far-- we must and should shout out. We can recommend team members to balance the roster, call for the sidelining of team members who threaten the depth perception of the whole.

But we know it is not a zero-sum game. We know that depth perception IS the key, that we cannot fix the tangible without fixing the conceptual, and vice-versa. We need structures that will allow the manipulation of intangible value and the accrual of conceptual wealth to enable the real, tangible prosperity of families paying bills and buying goods and depending on paychecks and home values. And we know that without the ability of those families to buy goods, to pay bills, to save for retirement and education, there can be no conceptual wealth, there will be nothing for the conceptual framework to support, and it must collapse.

I've noticed, recently, that the "binocular section" has added a couple more rows of folding chairs. And they're just a little sturdier. Maybe if there are enough of us here, the beer vendor will finally make it around...

wistfully,
Bright

[bigbrother05]

1. #5, useful conceptualization

need to have both streams of info/data to be able to interpret what is happening at large

[Career Prole]

2. K & R. Well done!

:applause:

[truedelphi]

3. What is curious about our current state is how much time Geithner and others advise that

We put into "building a Pair" of binoculars.

"How do we make sure that something like AIG doesn't happen again?" Congressman Wyden of Oregon asked Geithner.

For his answer, Geithner went off on a rambling explanation of how the structuring of any entity like AIG, and also AIG itself, would have to be done more carefully with "more structuring" than in the past.

But it's much simpler than that. We had a much more protected economy UNTIL Glass-Stengall was revoked. So bring it back!

We did much better economically until the 1999 Banking Reform Act, that allowed banks to become casinos, er, I mean, insurance investment firms and were allowed to exist as such without any oversight of insurance regulating agencies. SO undo the Banking Reform Act.

Hit "reset" on all the de-regulation of the banking and financial laws we had before things went nuts. Let's not spend time re-inventing something that already has existed. Let's simply clone the regulation of the past. It worked for us until we demolished it; it can work again.

If those are not the instructions that Geithner carries out to the people in the field, one has to wonder why he would ignore such simple methods of returning to a sound financial system. Or is it because, as one of Wall Street's darlings, he would just as soon have some cumbersome "structurings" continue to continue - structurings that have as many loop holes as possible, so his buddy buds in Wall Street can once again ream the taxpayers.

[GeorgeGist]

4. President Obama needs to remove the caps from his binoculars ...

because capitalism doesn't work for the economy; it steals from it. All in the name of profit (ie,greed).

[Two Americas]

5. the conceptual economy

The supposed conceptual economy is very tangible - for the few who profit from it. Couching it in vague and impersonal terms, as thought it were some benign force of nature or something, is a way to deceive us about it so that the few can continue their plunder. Seeing it as a component, co-equal with the economy the rest of us live in, and deserving of equal consideration, is a sure way to guarantee that the few continue their pillage and plunder while the rest of us lose.

This is a novel way to rationalize handing everything over to the few, and then hoping that it trickles down to the rest of us, but it is still the same old trickle down Reaganomics approach dressed up in fancy new "Democratic" clothing.

You don't put both the fox and the chickens in the same hen house, see them both as essential and to be included, and then claim that the resulting slaughter will do anything good for the chickens.

I guess if we call it a "conceptual" fox, then we can pretend that the chickens will be just fine.




....

[PATRICK]

6. I agree with Two Americas

(Though the post is simply a reiteration of where we stand with the crisis response to date and into the future.) The tangible economy- the one that actually bleeds real blood in great quantities has to lobby against the demanding "conceptual" elites(too nice a word). Nothing new is really said except to elicit the passion for compromise and get excited about Obama's wisdom. That irritates those whose total vision sees very well the gruesome interdependence of the wheat and the weeds in today's scenarios.

Obama is a great president in the sense that if you had to choose any past president to deal with this crisis you could hardly do better. In the great crises, usually involving great wars, most react the same to the ultimate preservation of the national interest. Most resulted in the advance and encroachment of corporate interests and national corruption after the crisis has been met and the compromises with big money and big industry have hardly even been questioned as to their role in perhaps creating these crises(from which they emerged as the leading profiteers) in the first place.

For a "small" example causing fury on these boards take the moderate binocular view on health care reform which has the onerous burden of using public funds to get everyone on private insurance. New rules may reign in abuse and save public expense overall. It may be like the Clinton or Edwards proposals a gateway to eventual single payer though in this case the voices for very popular advocacy have been stifled at the planning table. it may be that crushing another big money industry, one linked to the other middleman insurance and investment schemes would be Obama's personal blow to the markets that would more quickly endanger the situation before the awesome beneficial effects of single payer- if passing as is in HR 676- could be enacted. Grant for argument's sake those arguments are irrefutable, still it is nothing to cheer about. Nor can you be sanguine that single payer would progress right on in over the fading HMO's. Nor does the weight of history show that winning through crisis means real reform or the villains will not emerge from all this interact- most especially if a reactionary government enables the vultures who survive to thrive full force from the base of anti-progressive affirmation of their NEED to exist.

Realistically and fairly frank in its political presentation this is what the Obama campaign would have led one to expect minus the exciting hyperbole that it MUST translate into a more surprising progressive agenda. In this it certainly is more honest than the 2006 DNC exploitive pose that they might actually do something about the several crying crimes of the Bush era. Nor is there an alternative at present, another progressive absence form most scenarios. Had by some unforeseen scenario Kucinich won with a most likely slimmer majority and more intense daily scourging by the media and GOP AND gotten legislation passed to address the situations the most likely outcome would be a more spectacular economic and political collapse- globally.

There is no quick, one man or ideological solution to this mess or stopping the criminal elite from escaping OR profiting once more from disaster OR- horrors- winning out while billions starve. This is a grim long haul. If you enjoy mountain climbing in itself besides the attainment of the peak you can cheer the fact that finally we have started clawing our way up as avalanches from the "conceptual" money gods up there trickle on down. Most Dems of good will agree with the two-fold need of the present. The strongest message from people on DU would truly be to focus on the big picture toward the eventual tricky elimination of the weeds.

Obama is truly wonderful but who can imagine it is good enough for crushing times or more progressive and reforming than any past president could have been capable of(at least early on in a crisis laden administration)? The alarm is that no one on this world can now afford another oily victory by big money fantasists. Yet all their power keeps thme more than fully in the game preventing us from dealing
ANYTHING tangible.

[Two Americas]

7. we shouldn't blame Obama

Nor should we hide behind him.

He is a politician. He may turn out to be an exceptional one. Politicians live in a different world then we do, and we are in charge in a representative democracy, not the politicians. They work for us. They are under tremendous pressure from the big money people. We "save" them from that by demanding the opposite. They need that, the outside pressure, the critics and the dissenters, if they are to be great leaders.

Politicians are always conservative, because to be successful they need to hob nob with money and power. That is the nature of the beast and we shouldn't be surprised, or blame Obama for that. But it is cowardly, and harmful to the administration for us to then fall in line and take conservative positions. That makes no sense and is a grave threat to the potential success of the new administration.

The people here, under the charade of "loyalty" and "support," who are demanding that we not criticize the administration, that we not speak out, should go lecture the wealthy and powerful people who are already pressuring the politicians - relentlessly, night and day - and who are not "giving him a chance" or any of the rest of the nonsense people are telling us to do.

The reason we elect Democrats in in the hope that they might hear and respond to the grievances of the people. Saying that because we have elected Democrats therefore we should be silent about the grievances is illogical and counter-productive.

I think that people are getting these "loyalty" and "support" ideas from watching the MSM political shows, and embracing the dumbed down comic book version of politics presented and promoted there.



...