The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4191382246884244677&hl=en

I love Adam Curtis!

I love that he highlights, although it may be far from his intent, that America is not as particular and unique as we may think. In fact, many of our society's ails are replicated, with haunting similarity, throughout the United Kingdom. I love his critique of unbridled capitalism, and its confluence with social, political, and justice systems.

John Nash, and his Nobel Prize worthy exploits resulting in game theory, are reliant upon an econohominid who makes continuous cost-benefit calculations, and chooses to advance their own interests particularly when doing so comes at the expense of others. This "successful" strategy assumes that no one else will adopt a cooperative approach, or if they do that the best case scenario is them being cooperative and you being non-cooperative. Each person is out for themselves, so you too mush be out for yourself if you are to advance. This is the thinking of paranoia, but it is presented as though it is the thinking of "everyone around you" so of course you must adjust. Worse, it is the thinking of an economist or public manager who is called upon to stabilize or govern public systems and then train others on the most efficient and effective structures for organizing public resources.

I like how Curtis explores the use (or myth) of redemptive violence; particularly in a political context. Often we are taught that redemptive violence is a lie by the very powers who have secured and maintain their power through the use of overt violence.

I like they contextualization of game theory and arrow’s impossibility theorem (i.e. democracy is inefficient) within a paranoid context, given the schizophrenic beautiful mind that birthed them. (There is more time spent with Nash in episode 1.)

Are markets efficient? That depends on how you define efficiency, and what you intend the market to accomplish. Are open markets an effective tool to concentrate wealth in a single sector? Yup. Do they do it efficiently? Yup. Do they do it fairly? Well, that depends on what you mean by "fair". If through a set of agreed upon rules I can acquire all of your capital such that all you have left to support yourself is your labor, which you provide to me in exchange for goods to survive, is that fair? I haven't violated any of the agreed upon rules, but I know heading into the exercise that ultimately this will be the outcome. Deregulated markets exploit vulnerable communities even when they don't violate "the rules".

I love the way that Curtis lampoons the limitations of public sector efficiency measures! New Public Management is the salvation of public governance? Why? Efficiency measures, of course. These measures are so easily, and quite regularly gamed, that the confidence in this era of "cleaning up" government is laughable at times. The greater the consequences associated with performance "failures", the more we will see outright abuses and gaming of these measures. High-stakes aggressive enforcement leads to more egregious abuses.

I like the the context (albeit simplified) that Curtis sets for the rise of neo-conservativism in the US, and the market-driven solutions to public eduction, foreign policy, public health, class-erosion, etc.; including some of the similarities between Reagan, and Clinton, which set the stage for Frantz Fanon- who can trace his ideological ancestry back to Robespierre and beyond. I'm sure that governing bodies figured out that terror was an effective strategy for public control and manipulation, but the French Revolution turned it into a political art. Our government's use of terror is a blunt instrument that they just use to club us by comparison. It ultimately imploded on the French,

Liberation or Control? The same tools and tactics continue to be used in service to each, and depending on your perspective there are places where the two concepts are concentric. The same state of affairs can be described with either. It just depends on where you stand and who you talk to.

Check out some of Curtis’ other BBC documentaries. He explores similar themes throughout.

I will throw in that some of his stuff can be a bit alarmist, such as The Trap. I'm not really digging the way he understands the role of reporters, but I just attribute that to the distinct roles of the media in Britain and the US.

The Power of Nightmares though. I love that one.