Nostalgia

For me, the first half of the semester brought to the forefront many broad themes that I had thought about at different points in the past. The two readings that really stuck with me were The Bottom Billion and The Power Elite. Both these topics are very personal to me, in part because I have migrated from the land of (a good number of) the bottom billion , who often survive based on the decisions and whims of the power elite. The bottom billion are dispersed in different parts of the world and far removed (both literally and figuratively) from the far more unified power elite. And these relatively tiny numbers of elite have the power to make almost earth-shaking decisions for the remaining billions.

I know of friends back in my hometown who are likely to lose jobs with Bear Stearns directly or indirectly, because of a few powerful people in the Fed, JPMorgan and Bear who made important decisions about the state of the banking system and the overall global economy in a matter of hours. Many of these people have had to leave their lives and families in smaller towns of India and migrate to bigger cities like my hometown to make a better living and be a part of the global economy, else they would be left out in the cold because the prosperity of capitalism wasn't progressing fast enough to their corner of the world.

It is for this reason, that I wonder, like Appadurai, if capitalism and globalization is all its cracked up to be. If globalization is supposed to bring people together and build free close-knit community, then why does it tear people apart from their homes and force them to live in conditions where they may not be in complete control of their lives and destinies?

Polanyi's discussion of the market regulating itself is an interesting one. Again, I go back to Bear for this one. Personally, while I can see the Fed being sensitive about sending the wrong message about the state of the economy, I wonder how much sense it makes to help one giant corporation help buy another, to help build an even bigger conglomerate. It seems like the Fed just promoted the exact opposite of a free market to me.

More thoughts after class.....

Benjamin

Some days ago, I happened to visit the National Gallery of Art in DC. Its a huge place, with multiple floors spread across two wings. I only managed to finish the first floor of one of the wings, but hope to go back to see the rest. The sculptures and paintings I saw were primarily from the 15th-19th century, spanning central and southern European artifacts as well as vases and other priceless items from old Chinese dynasties.

I suppose I felt a little privileged to be able to see these things (even though most of the museums in DC are free. Museums still have a certain elitist aura about them, mostly perceived by people who for whatever reason, refuse to enter one. (Not) Oddly enough, reproductions of many of the paintings I saw there were available in the gallery gift shop as posters and postcards. And I must admit, that while it was cool to see such beautiful and unique works of art in the gallery, that taking a piece of it home in the form of a (relatively) cheap reproduction seemed to trivialize the experience and the artifacts a little bit. (In full disclosure, I did buy a couple of postcards of Van Gogh paintings).

Pictures of all the things that I saw could be posted online to make some sort of online virtual reality or just somebody's photo gallery on Flickr, but does this way of looking at art or creating art, such that it is made available for the masses to see, reduce its value in some way? I suppose its the same feeling as three other guys on the train wearing the same (seemingly unique) t-shirt that I am.

I agree with Benjamin's point that how something is viewed, i.e. the medium, has a lot to do with how its perceived. The Internet, like television and newspapers, is open to anyone who wants to use it and be a part of it. Its become a mass medium where everything is reproducable and everyone has a voice of shared opinions that few are then willing to oppose. It therefore changes the perception and true value of artifacts.

The Power Elite

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Since Bill and I talked about this topic in class, I don't have much more to add. Its seems obvious to me that not much has changed in the 50 odd years since this article was written. Everything still centers around the military, economic and political bases of power in this country, and perhaps others. Eisenhower was perhaps the first, but the Bushes and Cheneys (and even Wesley Clarks?) of the world seem to play musical chairs between being central powers in one domain or another.

One difference remains. The leaders of 50 years ago may have held up the facade of being public servants, I wonder if that thought ever even crossed the minds of Cheney, Rumsfeld and company so seem so drunk on their own power. If anything, I'm more inclined to accept that Americans today and those yet to be born have become bonded labor at the hands of our leaders.

Generally speaking, power elite are a necessary evil (a word I use rather loosely), the driving force that move society forward, both with their vision and their wallets.

Does Bill Gates even carry a wallet?