• I like short, opinionated books—when they’re smart. John Silber’s Architecture of the Absurd: How “Genius” Disfigured a Practical Art is all these things, and it’s also stimulatingly grumpy. The subtitle gives the game away, for Architecture of the Absurd is a slashing attack on those “starchitects” whom Silber believes to be indifferent to the needs of their clients, preferring instead to build interesting-looking structures that are impossible to live or work in: “Architects are now to consider themselves descendants of Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, ‘geniuses’ who by right break all laws and conventions . . . . they behave as if they owe nothing to their clients or the public beyond the gift of their genius.”
Before reading Silber’s book, I wondered whether his dislike of the buildings of Frank Gehry and Daniel Libeskind would slop over into a broad-gauge attack on all modern art. The answer is that it does—and it doesn’t. On the one hand, Silber is identically dismissive of John Cage’s 4’33” and Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, writing off both works as nonsensical exercises in aesthetic absurdity. (He’s half right.) Yet he is highly responsive to a fair amount of modern architecture, praising Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater and Mies van der Rohe’s Seagram Building as “stunning masterpieces.” It is postmodernism, not modernism, that draws most of his fire:
The basic problem is that Libeskind asserted the fallacy of the “iconic architects:” that a building is fundamentally like a book or sculpture or piece of music. By means of this conflation the architect is permitted to create like an author, painter, or sculptor without regard for the fact that, unlike books, sculpture, and music, which may be ignored or visited at one’s pleasure, a building is lived and worked in and must meet the needs of its users.
What gives Architecture of the Absurd its sharp edge is that Silber, who worked in his father’s architectural practice as a young man, later spent much of his adult life supervising the building program at Boston University, of which he was president from 1971 to 1996 and chancellor from 1996 to 2003. Thus he knows more than most laymen about the practical consequences of theory-driven architecture, and his indictment of its practitioners’ failings is both specific and damning. Even those who disagree with his jaundiced view of modern art will find it hard to ignore passages such as these:
Most absurdist architecture . . . has been built at the bidding of 501(c)3 corporations. CEOs and trustees of museums, symphony orchestras, and especially universities yearn to house their institutions in iconic buildings that Genius has wrought. In such institutions, decisions are made by persons who are not spending their own money, who take no personal financial risk, and who often lack the knowledge and experience in building necessary to ensure that the needs of the institution are met. They are thus often intimidated by smooth-talking, imperious architects and vulnerable to the pretentious jargon that is now the vernacular among both architects and critics.
Amen, brother.
Just think, every job bought for the public sector, is like buying a vote for the left.
Jennifer, pulling out charts or any other gimmicks to explain the enormity of the expenditures and deficits will be an instant cure for insomnia. Obama and the Democrats will not be judged on these matters and the Republicans will make a mistake emphasizing them. Translating them into real consequences, however, will work. That’s what Reagan did so well. Until we conservatives can find another Gipper(which I’m not optimistic about), we’ll have to depend upon the second factor that will cause opposition to the policies: long-term high unemployment, inflation, or both(stagflation). Regrettably by then, today may seem like the good old days.
http://voltagecreative.com/blog/2008/11/scary-bailout-money-info-graphic/
Sleep well!
Yeah, Bush was such a penny pincher that the U.S. now has a $1 trillion deficit. And all Republicans offer is opposition. What strategy do you offer to combat the recession? Wait it out? Cut corporate taxes? You seem to have supported the Bush wartime tax cuts– those worked out pretty well, it seems, seeing where we are now. You and the Republicans have found religion about fiscal discipline just in time for the Democrats coming to power, but you were mum the last 8 years. That’s why you should be marginalized for the forseeable future– you have no credibility whatsoever, and others have been given a chance to govern.
1) Jennifer Rubin was for ginormous bailouts before she was against them. At the time it was proposed, she would not even entertain the notion that the first $700 Billion was anti-conservative.
2) There is a near consensus among economists, conservative and liberal, that massive spending is now necessary to keep the economy from collapsing. Other than partisan hacks like Larry Kudlow, you won’t find many economists on the balance-the-budget bandwagon right now.
3) Obama is attempting to find a solution to a problem caused on Bush’s watch and by Bush’s failed policies. Obama will only pay a price if he is seen as doing too little, whatever the outcome.
Franglo’s tu quoque may be emotionally satisfying, but it hardly addresses Jennifer Rubin’s point. Does Franglo, in fact, have a meaningful response? “Nah, nah, you’re one too” could easily carry us back to the beginning of the republic, but as Ms. Rubin says, we may be hitting the wall in that childish game.
Stan:
I have news for you. You’re the one who is going to pay the price.
Obama has already fulfilled one-half of his life’s ambitions — he’s been elected President. The second half is his re-election in 2012. You are quite right that he will spend and spend without limit, but only because that is the best way to delay paying the piper and, of course, getting re-elected.
By the end of Obama’s terms, he will have thrown everyone in America off the bus.
The most important reason that banks won’t loan money is that they don’t believe in their own financial statements,much less other banks financial reports. This has happened because of “off balance sheet” financing,and confusion about the market value of their assets,this is like Enron on steroids. There’s plenty of money for the economy,but until the toilet gets unplugged,its sitting there. More money into the financial system,will make the clog bigger. However, after the clog is broken up,massive inflation is heading our way. The deepest problem of our economy is that no one knows the “new”rules of this new game yet,and there’s no referee. Madeoff understood the old game had gone bad a while ago;his role models were Medicare & Social Security.
Lets see, giving an unelected bureaucrat $700B of other peoples’ money to spend at his discretion, no questions asked, was not just OK, it was necessary for the future of the Republic, at least per this blog. But giving the new Admin 1000B to throw around, that’s a terrible idea! What’s missing here?
An admission that the 700B bailout bonanza was indeed a huge mistake…could that be it? Credibility.
Hmmm.
@ frangelo
1. “Yeah, Bush was such a penny pincher that the U.S. now has a $1 trillion deficit.”
The US deficit is actually around $50+ trillion if you include entitlements. You know. The stuff Democrats like. As for Bush. *shrug* so what? I’d rather he didn’t spend the money either but nobody has ever asked what I wanted.
So what are you going to do now? The money has been spent, Bush is almost out of office and you’re sitting there chewing over this like a mouthful of stale vomit.
2. “And all Republicans offer is opposition.”
To $1.2 TRILLION dollars of pork? You bet your ass!
Let’s take a look at Obama’s “plan”. He asked every politician in America what pet projects they’d like to have -someone else pay for-. What? You think he got suggestions for?
Tennis courts.
3. “What strategy do you offer to combat the recession?”
A. tax cuts
B. endure it
Sometimes you can’t do anything about a recession, they simply happen. Why do they happen at all? Because economic growth is inefficient and that inefficiency piles up until it is no longer supportable. Then those companies and institutions that have the greatest inefficiency are destroyed allowing the most efficient companies to recover.
It’s like the silly fallacy of conserving energy. You cannot really conserve energy if you’re growing economically because economic growth itself is inefficient. Efficiency can only come -after- economic growth has ended when funds and manpower is then available for reviewing inefficient processes in order to streamline them and make them more profitable.
Another point is on tax cuts. All companies operate on a profit margin that is dictated by an innate desire for income, government regulations, competitive market forces and the willingness of consumers to spend money. Sometimes you can set your own prices, a la Microsoft, and sometimes the government does as in the regional Milk Boards which set minimum prices for retail milk.
In other cases the profit margins depend on consumers and competitors. If you -must- set your prices too high for consumers then you will go out of business. If you cannot set your prices higher because of competitors then you’d better hope your profit margin is sufficient or that it exists at all.
What does this have to do with taxes? Because taxes are an expense that offers nothing to the company’s products or services but must be deducted from income and will be reflected in the profit margin. So if you’re running a company that is barely squeaking by and your taxes get raised then it’s very likely that you will either have to cut staff, cut quality, cut production, cut advertising … or go out of business.
On the other hand if your taxes are -reduced- then your operating margin has increased without any action on your part so now you have the margin to increase staff, increase quality, increase production, increase advertising and, more importantly, continue employing people.
Another alternative use for reduced taxes is to … cut prices. Which generally helps competitiveness -and- consumers.
4. “Wait it out?”
Sometimes that’s the better option then spending a huge amount of money for tennis courts.
5. “Cut corporate taxes?”
The only people who don’t like cutting corporate taxes are people who don’t understand what corporate taxes are about. It’s really rather amusing. I’ve talked to people who -hate- energy companies and yet don’t realize that most energy companies are largely owned by pension funds.
6. ” You seem to have supported the Bush wartime tax cuts– those worked out pretty well, it seems, seeing where we are now.”
Only someone completely ignorant would think -tax cuts- would have anything to do with a credit and mortgage crisis. If you’d like to explain that in excruciating detail I’d love to read it. I need a good -laugh-.
The real architects of this are Democrats who thought the banking system could be used like their private little piggy banks to fund idiotic idea that crossed their minds.
And this is the result.
7. “You and the Republicans have found religion about fiscal discipline just in time for the Democrats coming to power, but you were mum the last 8 years.”
Incorrect. Conservatives have always shouted about fiscal responsibility. The problem has been that nobody wants to listen because it’s always more enjoyable to spend money.
Particularly on social issues where the people spending the money can pat themselves on the back for being so socially aware.
8. “That’s why you should be marginalized for the forseeable future– you have no credibility whatsoever, and others have been given a chance to govern.”
We’ll be back in power by 2010. 2012 at the latest.
Democrats simply cannot govern. They don’t know how.
The Journal was absolutely correct in distinguishing between long term debt and short term debt. Short term debt caused by tax cuts, defense spending, etc., will not bankrupt the country, it’s the long term debt such as universal health care, Medicare, etc., that’s the problem. They’re also correct in saying that running short term deficits in a recession is preferable to raising taxes in a recession. If we get the growth side of the ledger correct, then we can grow ourselves out of a short term debt. We’ve done it many times before.
Many conflicting and confusing opinions being offered on this thread. I want to focus upon one very narrow one. First of all, since 2005 many conservative Republicans have been criticizing Bush and Congressional Republicans for their high levels of support for spending. Conservatives were screaming at him to veto something. Remember, one analysis for the Republican defeat in 2006 is the fall-off in the Republican vote due to the aforementioned. Many analysts also note the fall-off in the Republican vote for McCain; though not considered a big spender, but not considered a true conservative on economic issues.
Stan, many conservative economists have argued against the bailouts and the huge fiscal stimulus that’s being considered. To be sure, there was less agreement among them over the initial proposals and policies to raise banks’ capital, but even those policies encountered a great deal of conservative opposition. Recall sometime in September I think it was, a published petition listing opposition from academic economists, most of whom are considered right of center. What should also be underscored is that many of these conservatives, contrary to what some of the above contributors are saying, offered very concrete proposals and still are doing so. In other words, you are just incorrect to argue there is a consensus for what, in may opinion, is the beginning of a disasterous economic policy.
#10,I’m a fiscal conservative too,all the way,Gold Standard,balanced budgets,the whole enchilada. What I see is a puppet show between one group of socialists headed by the democrats and another group of socialists headed by the Republicans. Both groups claim other values,but neither trusts the laws of economics to decide things. However, the laws of economics always trumps politics(IN THE LONG RUN),even here in the US.
Hmmm.
@ RCAR, #13
I too am a hardline fiscal conservative. Which means we’re sharing a long long walk in the wilderness.
Frankly I can only see a couple bright spots on the horizon that could possibly save our country. One would be a technological breakthrough in either cheap fusion or solar power satellites which could give us energy independence across partisan lines. Another would be a breakthrough in stem cell research that would allow us to -heal- people rather than -treat- people. The former being more expensive, perhaps, but a one time charge while the latter is a continuing expense.
To me this proposed $1.2 trillion dollar boondoggle is meaningless swill. A number of pet projects will be built at enormous and excessive expense for no particular gain. Republicans in Congress will be drawn in by the proposed “tax cuts” into owning at least a portion of this cruditude and thus giving Obama and the Democrats political cover for it.
At the end the jobs created will disappear because there’s no permanence built into it. Once a construction project is done then the jobs are done. So either construction becomes an endless boondoggle or it will be dragged out for as long as the workers can possibly make it. I’m certain we’ll see quite a few projects with “problems” that require a few more years of work to fix. And then more “problems” will appear requiring yet a couple more years of work. Repeat as necessary.
Frankly it’s strange to me that so many people don’t seem to understand how an economy works. How could anyone compare a private sector job to a public sector job? They are not equal in any way, shape or form. Simply put a private sector job is created from -profit-. A public sector job is created from -an expense-.
That this seems to be so hard to understand I simply cannot relate.
Hmmm.
@ RCAR
Honestly. If Obama had proposed building 100 2.7gigawatt nuclear powerplants on federal military bases, at an overall cost of $300 billion, then I could get behind that. Cheap energy always has fringe benefits.
A $300 billion in tax cuts would be very effective in offsettting this financial mess.
Or perhaps relaxing the rules regarding banks having to have $1 in assets for every $10 loaned out. Particularly with the asset writedowns that are happening now because corporate stocks and bonds are tanking so badly that bank’s capital reserves are declining in correlation.
Or perhaps a new $300 billion plan to create orbital solar power satellites that would use a high-energy microwave directed beam to transmit energy to power stations in America. There we would get solar power, idiotic to me but the darling child of the left, -and- practical experience in creating useful orbital structures. The ISS I disregard as being utterly useless as anything other than an orbiting hotel.
For which the Russians are handsomely paid by wandering millionaires who deign to use the $120+ billion dollar pointless exercise as a Howard Johnsons in space.
#15,Two points,
There are no longer liberals and conservatives on the economy:there are those who respect the Laws of Economics and those who seek to avoid them.
Regarding the asset loan ratio,this is meaningless because the currency itself has no assets behind it.(In other words,if the currency had actual value,backed by an asset,lenders wouldn’t need artificial guidelines to curb or encourage their lending:they would only lend to those they know could repay). That also means that out Central bank can try to run around the laws of economics by creating currency without responsibility. We went off the international gold standard in 1971. What are the inflation effects from 1971 compared to 2009? Those are the Law of economics at work. No different than gravity.
The best thing the American people can do is bring a GOP majority that is committed to fiscal sanity into power in 2010. The Democrats are incapable of putting the brakes on more government. These deficit numbers are staggering, especially when you think of how the fiscal year 2007 budget deficit came in at just over $150 billion. Now we are looking at close to a $2 trillion dollar budget deficit in one year 2009. Remember the national debt, the accumulation of budget deficits for our entire history is $10 trillion. So I say let’s do what’s best for the economy and what was done in the 1990s, elect a GOP majority commited to fiscal conservatism. The only problem is where is the GOP leadership able to take advantage of this fiscal mess and come up with workable solutions like private auditing of the federal budget, an end to earmarks, an end to states borrowing over their annual budgets, mandatory emergency funds for state and local governments, and a cap on annual spending growth on the federal budget. How about a BRAC like process to finally tackle the entitlement mess and an end to the alternative minimum tax. Because if the American people do not elect a GOP majority in 2010, there will be massive tax increases coming in 2010. The only way Democrats know how to fill a fiscal hole is by generating more revenue.
Additionally, what an opportunity for a potential GOP presidential candidate to engage the American people like Ross Perot did in the early 1990s about this fiscal situation and contrast a vision of growth and fiscal austerity to the Democrats budget chicanery and tax increases. Mitt Romney? Sarah Palin? Mark Sanford? Bobby Jindal (Huckabee and Pawlenty are not worth putting in the conversation)? Here’s your shot.
Hard to take too much issue RCAR – money always does win in the end, even against politics, as it did with the affirmative action housing initiative which the dems created and just exploded on us. Of course the GOP was also willing to get into this game with the Medicare Drug game so that we can create even greater long term liabilities we cannot pay for.
I have been thinking long and hard about the gold standard – “something that backs up the money” – and i don’t think it is an appropriate standard. Gold has value because it is deemed scarce. But in reality what is it good for. Gold was an old definition of wealth and essentially corresponded to the concept of bartering something for something else. The widespread use of cash is really a pretty new phenomenon. Money is really now just a marker for productivity and output, which can be translated to a value that can then be used to place a value on something else. Money is a tool – it is not wealth in and of itself. It is a measure of one’s productivity, which is real wealth. Since we really no longer work on a barter system, what is gold worth? Its jewelry. Going back to it would just reduce the impact that productivity has on the advancement of civilization and make us all miners again, looking for gold.
Now can central banks destroy the ability of the “tool” to properly measure the value?Absolutely with you there on that one. The tool still needs to be constructed properly, but gold isn’t it. Gold and silver were the demise of Spain and helped fuel Britain’s rise to prominance in the 1700s. I know England also wanted gold – but they also wanted trade.
#18, JEM,I really don’t care at this point what will be behind the $,as long as something is there to penalize the Central Banks from a printing spree. We’ve had a spree since 1971,and we are feeling the results of the spree along with everybody else that used to have an economy. By the way,currency without backing is not just a tool,a marker etc. Fiat $s are a debt,and witout asset backing,what do we do to pay our debts,we create more currency or other kinds of paper to pay those debts/there’s the world wide ponzi scheme. If we don’t get real with our currency, it doesn’t matter who’s in charge. The Ponzi game continues until it stops.
Hmmm.
*shrug* I got nothing right now. Gold standard? Sure, but I don’t think it’ll ever happen. Economies are simply too large to base on a metal standard. Having currency based on gold would be useful to combat people who muck with currency values. But I think it would be difficult to implement today.
It would be nice to have a fiscally conservative government but that’s a fantasy land too. Simply put conservatives were more powerful in the 1980′s than they are now. And I point directly to those conservatives who put the emphasis on electing -Republicans- rather than electing -Conservatives- as the culprits.
“Let’s get a majority in Congress and then we can enact what we want!”
Yeah. That worked out great didn’t it?
I hate being a doom & gloom kind of person. But I’m starting to wonder about all these prophecies about the next 20 years. Doesn’t look too good to me.
Hey, far be it for me to point out that under 6 YEARS OF GOP DOMINANCE OF EVERY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, the government and its deficit grew by huge leaps and bounds, and again, the trillion dollar deficit is sitting there like a ripe turd to greet the incoming administration.
I’m sure the solution is to work hard to bring the GOP back to power.
Memo,
Unfortunately, unless there is something very close to divine intervention, the only folks who are going to accomplish much with solar or fusion energy in the foreseeable future are the solar folks who will get rich accepting the money the democrats are certain to throw that way. Nuclear makes eminent sense, as just about every technologically literate country in the world, but this one, recognizes. But it sure looks like the blinders will stay on here.
Particularly given Obama’s key appointments in science – Chu and Holdren, both bright guys, but hopeless ideological warmists, all we are likely to get from this administration’s science policy is an anvil drag on economic growth. Look elsewhere for hope.
RCAR – we are probably saying the exact same thing from a different angle. I agree, you cannot just print the stuff for fun.
The last line of the WSJ opinion article says it all:
“Taxpayers need some new champions in Washington — and fast.”
Know that both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the mess that we are in. This goes all the way back to Herbert Hoover who sought to manage the economy, down to George W. Bush who had to “abandon free market principles to save the free market system” (if there is a Bushism that will stand the test of time it is that one). I have absolutely ZERO faith that Obama will control himself and the Democrats in their zeal to increase the role of government, and then when it all comes crashing down (AGAIN), blame the free market system and call for more expansion of government. There is another article on WSJ Editorial that has a quote from the orator Cato that is quite apt for this:
“there must be a vast fund of stupidity in human nature, or else men would not be caught as they are, a thousand times over, by the same snares . . . while they yet remember their past misfortunes, they go on to court and encourage the causes to what they were owing, and which will again produce them.”
Indeed, men are fools whose only solutions to problems is to bang their heads into the wall, each time expecting a different result, when the only result they get is pain and then, eventually, death.
Oh, and franglo – I would take the GOP of the 90′s way before the GOP of the 00′s. The GOP of the 00′s was trying to act like the dems have since the beginning of the 20th century. So maybe we are just screwed regardless.
Speaking of zeroes, how many zeroes in 50 billion? Commentary has been curiously silent about Bernie Madoff. I (don’t) wonder why.
#26, if you’ve visited this site long enough, you would know that Contentions has been highly critical of Bernie Madoff. Do a search.
By the by, how do you feel about the legalized Ponzi scheme of Social Security? People who are outraged by Bernie’s actions would no doubt be outraged that the federal government is doing this that is several degrees worse. However, I bet you probably endorse that scheme, indeed protect it, but probably don’t understand how you are a hypocrite at the same time.
#26, if you’ve visited this site long enough, you would know that Contentions has been highly critical of Bernie Madoff. Do a search.
There might be some individual commenters here who’ve mentioned Bernie, but a search of the archives of both Commentary Magazine and of Contentions for January and December shows nothing at all from the staff. Hmm. I wonder where the Podhoretz millions are resting, anyway.
God Bless Obama….