You are fired, Adam Smith!

The essay of Trump’s trade representative, Ambassador Jamieson Greer, published recently in The New York Times (link below), is quite revealing. Here comes someone to refute Adam Smith with the same mercantilistic arguments that this senior economist had to deal with in his time. The ambassador shows an impressive career; it’s understandable that he may not have had the time to read and ponder The Wealth of Nations.

By the author with AI assistance

It’s important to note that Ambassador Greer is a lawyer, not an economist. As a lawyer, he worked for the US steel industry. The lack of economic theory knowledge, coupled with his allegiance to former business friends, likely contributed to his biased commentary. (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/07/opinion/trump-trade-tariffs.html)

Throughout my life, I’ve encountered similar opinions. Whenever these ideas have been employed in government policy, the result has been a debilitation of the economy, benefiting a privileged few while hurting the majority of the population.

For instance, my grandfather worked for ECLAC, the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. During the 1950s and 1960s, Raúl Prebisch, who led ECLAC at the time, advocated for protecting local industries with strong tariffs, sometimes even prohibiting imports of some products altogether.

The Prebisch idea of local industry protection was based on the assumption that eventually an evolution would happen and the country could compete internationally. But this never happened. Local producers had no incentive to do better; there was no competition or pressure to change things. The producers rather preferred to lobby the politicians and maintain things as they were.

The consequences of this approach in the American countries that followed suit were mediocre industrial products at high prices, for years and years. I vividly remember, as a teenager, when we all craved jeans from the USA. Our jeans in Chile were expensive, ill-fitting, and stiff, as if made of wood. Despite their higher price, they were no match for the jeans available in Miami.

Venezuela, a country that still adheres to the Prebisch ideas, aims to establish its own industry for everything and make imports extremely costly or impossible, to protect its domestic production. During my career, I led a car company that assembled US cars in Venezuela. These cars required a certain amount of local content, prompting local and foreign companies to invest in Venezuela to produce these parts. The rest of the cars arrived in boxes unassembled, and we employed 2,000 workers to put them together.

The peculiar aspect of this process is that the cars were initially produced entirely in the US assembly line before being transported to a separate warehouse where they were disassembled and packaged without the parts that should have been sourced from Venezuelan production. This was the most economical approach, but is it efficient? It resulted in significant costs, which were ultimately passed on to the Venezuelan consumer.

Look where Venezuela is now. It is a country with tremendous resources — oil, gas, metals, agriculture — but the majority of its people are extremely poor and see no perspective for them or their children, to the point that many have emigrated. Venezuelans would be much better off importing the whole cars and exporting, besides oil and its derivatives, for instance coffee and cacao, because the Venezuelan variants are considered to be among the best in the world. But their leaders and the established industry prefer to let things as they are. Coffee and cacao have high prices in the world markets. Venezuela does not take advantage of this and prefers to assemble cars, which have already been assembled before at their factory of origin, for a second time.

In Spain, where I worked when the protectionist Franco regime disappeared and the open policy of the European Union was step by step introduced, the car technology of the fifties still was the basis for the local production until the middle of the eighties, when the import prohibition was lifted. It had been good for producers. But bad for consumers.

Chile, on the other hand, underwent a profound transformation. Sadly, it was a brutal military junta that committed numerous atrocities against human rights that finally did the job. It was one of the few things it did right: to abolish the mercantilistic system, leading to the immediate cancellation of tariffs and all import impediments. Many industries failed to survive this upheaval. My father’s car manufacturing company in Arica, which produced a few hundred cars annually in a rather artisanal manner, ceased operations. Consequently, no cars were produced in Chile anymore; all vehicles became imports.

Despite this setback for some industries that had been artificially maintained, Chile emerged economically prosperous. It has since become a leading economy in South America. This transformation was catalyzed by the emergence of entrepreneurs who sought opportunities in areas where Chile possessed genuine expertise or had a competitive advantage over other nations. For instance, Chile quickly became the second producer of salmon, a fish that had previously not existed in the Southern Hemisphere.

The revenue generated from salmon exports alone was sufficient to pay for the import of all the complete cars the Chileans desired, sourced from various countries, such as Korea, the US, Japan, and Europe. The salmon-car trade had even a positive balance: Enough money was left to import huge amounts of whisky, my grandfather’s preferred beverage. He was retired when the new policy came, but the results changed his view on how countries can prosper with free trade.

An important factor in the Chilean export boom was made possible by their diplomats’ exceptional trade deals, which they reached with almost every country. These trade officers didn’t close markets; instead, they welcomed foreign products. This approach gave them leverage to secure fair conditions for the Chilean products in the foreign markets, a strong contrast to Trump and his trade negotiators’ policies, based on the believe that a big tariff stick is more effective.

Adam Smith started from a universal premise: First of all, we humans are consumers. Not the other way around, that we primarily are producers and everything has to give protection and room for profit to the producers of goods. That is nonsense. It only benefits the owners of the production facilities and, maybe, the people working for them. We produce because we have or wish to consume. And we consume cheapest and with the best quality, if we purchase from the best experts in their field, wherever they are.

Undoubtedly, there are national and security interests of a nation that are more important than a total free trade. Strategic industries should exist in a country, avoiding the trouble we all had during the Covid crisis. The defense production should also remain in the country or in the hands of trustful partners. Nevertheless, humanity would do well to remove as many trade barriers as possible. Because it is nothing else than a win/win situation.

But what the US is doing now is not an economically sound policy; it’s an aberration. It will not solve the problem of the deficit — which is mainly the deficit of a government that spends more than it gets, while at the same time reducing taxes for the ones that could afford to pay them.

Tariffs, on the other hand, are taxes consumers of imported goods pay. A significant portion of these consumers are not wealthy and will be hurt by the higher prices they will face.

Attempting to re-industrialize the USA in this manner is a misguided endeavor. It won’t succeed. While Adam Smith’s economic principles, formulated two and a half centuries ago, may be challenging for some to comprehend, they possess greater influence and power to shape reality than any presidential executive order.

The New World Order has no order. 

You are confused, I am confused. But hope remains.

Source: Generated by GPT-4

You might be too young to have watched the Western movies I enjoyed as a teenager. You could join the movie halfway through and still understand the plot perfectly. The good guys were kind and heroic, while the bad guys were cruel and despicable. The good guys wore white hats, while the bad guys wore black ones. The good guys endured the movie until they finally emerged victorious, while the bad guys reveled in their power before getting their just punishment in a satisfyingly happy ending.

Beware of black hats in old cowboy movies

During the Cold War, I resided in a South American country perpetually ensnared in a third-world paradigm. Poverty and misery characterized the lives of a substantial portion of the population. Intellectuals, young students, certain priests, and social workers perceived the United States as an exploitative force, deliberately maintaining our impoverished and subservient status. This perception justified our backwardness. They envisioned a benevolent socialism and aligned themselves with any opposition to the »Imperium.« Che Guevara and Fidel Castro became revered heroes. Conversely, the more elderly and traditional individuals held the opposing viewpoint.

Upon commencing my studies in Germany, I encountered a similar dichotomy. A stark distinction existed between two opposing factions. Individuals aligned themselves with the perspective that resonated with their personal beliefs and preferences, thereby establishing a clear framework for distinguishing between right and wrong. At that time, Iran embarked on a tumultuous struggle against the autocratic regime of the Shah. The United States viewed Iran as a strategic ally that facilitated its dominance in the region, yet it disregarded the aspirations and needs of the Iranian people. When the Shah dared to visit West Germany, substantial street protests erupted. Ultimately, his overthrow led to the establishment of the Islamic Republic, applauded by the segment of the German population that identified as progressives. However, they were largely unaware of the calamitous trajectory the country was on.

It was so easy to choose between the good and the bad guys…

This unequivocal division between two opposing forces, one led by the United States and the other by the Soviet Union, provided a simplistic framework for comprehending the global landscape. It presented a binary opposition, with individuals compelled to choose between the two sides. This dichotomy offered a semblance of order and predictability in an otherwise complex world.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the subsequent liberation of Eastern European nations from its oppressive influence demonstrated that the purportedly orderly alignment of countries into two opposing camps was merely superficial. In reality, nations pursued diverse interests and objectives. This became evident, for example, within the dissolution of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.

Previously, once an allegiance had been chosen, it was relatively straightforward to construct a worldview based on the principle that the allies of one’s adversaries were one’s enemies, and the adversaries of one’s adversaries were one’s allies.

… but things got complicated

However, the current situation presents a paradox. Many of my left-leaning acquaintances defend Russia’s aggression against Ukraine as a self-defense measure against NATO’s perceived expansionist tendencies. Consequently, they resort to negative stereotypes about Ukrainians, portraying them as corrupt, claim that Ukrainians are actually Russians, asserting that Russia requires security, and so on. Out of older habits, they see Moscow still as kind of driving force behind progressiveness and accuse the self-preservation of Ukraine’s armed defense of being provoked by evil warmongers.

Now, the situation becomes more confusing for them as the United States becomes friendly with a still-KGB-led Russian Federation while being unfriendly with other democratic Western nations. Consequently, my former lefty friends are talking now like those extremely right positions — the enemy and the friends joining.

Habits are strong: many keep using the old templates

For some, this is overwhelming, leading to emotional outbursts. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is viewed as a proxy war orchestrated by bribed and corrupt Ukrainian elites who endanger their own people.

But who is the proxy of? Of the US administration, as usual? Didn’t it shift its stance? Of NATO? Isn’t it a merely defense body? Looks like these are just projections of people who have lost their bearings. Now, good people, bad people, black and white cowboy hats seem to be mingling on any side, confusing rational but simplistic thinking.

Consequently, the traditional binary opposition of »us« and »them« no longer holds validity. Surprisingly, the left-wingers who still maintain that aligning with the United States is inherently negative and the right-wingers who advocate for ending Western military aid to Ukraine are finding common ground. This stance suggests a willingness to consider Ukraine’s surrender or, at the very least, a temporary ceasefire, albeit one that may result in a decisive defeat.

NATO is aggressive. Is it?

Fact is, NATO is not attempting to provoke or attack Russia. I have never heard any NATO country leader express a desire to annex Russian territory. What NATO members and their citizens genuinely seek is security and peace. They even considered collaborating with Russia through trade and establishing robust connections. However, they neglected their defense spending, relying on the United States to safeguard them and address global issues. Consequently, with the commencement of the Russian invasion in February 2023, Western leaders invoked the term »Zeitenwende«, signifying a profound turning point. Regrettably, the day-to-day political landscape has eroded this sentiment, replacing it with a return to business-as-usual practices.

Similar contradictions, as philosophers often call it when really happening issues do not fit with their theories, occur with the events in the Middle East. There, defenders of an allegedly genocidally attacked group have aligned themselves with individuals who mistreat women, conceal them in dark clothing, murder homosexuals, and stone adulterers, including those who have been raped. Is this consistent with a progressive step forward for humanity? I am inclined to believe that it is not. This situation is reminiscent of my generation’s protests against the Shah while a far more oppressive regime was gaining power. In Iran today, those who fail there to adhere to the ancestral rulings of the ones in power are publicly executed on cranes. Israel, on the other hand, is not doing any good in following extreme positions, going much too far in an initially understandable intent to end the terrorist attacks from Gaza, or by colonizing forcefully portions of West Bank in detriment to the people who already live there.

The Middle East and other conflict zones present an even more confusing picture

It doesn’t help that with the internet and its social media, anything can be published. Something happens, and within minutes, you’ll find there mostly instinctively and unreflected explanations, opinions, and comments of all kinds. You’ll also have posts that follow a stringed path to force a position on someone or a group for more power or to defame those with different opinions.

Is there a way out of this conundrum?

Sure, there is. It has been proposed for generations. During the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and in the U.S. Constitution, the 30 United Nations Human Rights, and the core ideas of our world’s religions, this was underway. All these have something in common: unify mankind and dilute the poisonous effects of any extrem power concentration.

The first step toward overcoming hatred in the world can best be taken within ourselves

It begins with each and every one of us. By accepting different viewpoints without hatred, violence, discrimination, or fear that it would destroy our civilization, we can embrace a diverse range of perspectives and find joy and enrichment in the process.

Why don’t we start with this simple receipt? To have many different hats around us could be a funny and enriching experience for all of us, and it would serve as a promise of improvement for our children, whom we all love so much.

The magic tricks used to rob us without us noticing.

Do we humans differ very much from other animals? Our DNA says no, it's mostly the same. Our behavior doesn't either.

An experiment with monkeys locked in neighboring cages showed how jealous these animals are. Terrible!

Created by ChatGPT

One monkey was given cucumbers, well, not so tasty for a monkey's palate, while its neighbor was given the extremely delicious grapes. When the cucumber recipient noticed this, he became terribly angry, and when he was given one of the tasteless vegetables while his neighbor was given grapes again, he angrily threw the cucumber out of his cage and behaved inappropriately, even for a monkey.

Even though, as far as I know, this experiment was not later repeated with humans by locking them in neighboring cages and feeding them different grapes and cucumbers, it can be assumed from other observations that humans are also envious. 

Have you ever tried to take the bone that your neighbor's dog is currently biting? Probably not. Dogs and other animals have a very clear idea of ownership. If it is not respected, they can quickly become confrontational.

Humans are no exception, even if it's not so much about bones to nibble on. For this species, one's own car or cell phone is a sacred thing that another person had better not touch or even take possession of. Experiments with communal property, in which everyone owns everything and no one owns almost nothing, have regularly failed.

What is special about chimpanzees is their group affiliation. If you have no or only belong to a small group, you are pretty much screwed: You'll be bullied and the bulls won't let you near the feeding places. When another horde approaches a well-populated group's feeding place, the alpha animals decide to take on the fight, mainly encouraging the upcoming generation of beta animals to give the others a good beating and chase them far away – provided that the enemies are still able to walk. For the leaders, this has clear advantages: the foreign horde is gone, several of the contenders who wanted to join or even replace the alpha animals themselves have died for the good cause, and for the time being there is peace both externally and internally.

Created by ChatGPT

I have to make a small incision here before I return to the territorial claims of today's humans. 

In the animal kingdom, there are other forms of territorial defense. Birds, for example, chirp and sing. A peaceful and very civilized way of marking your living space. Birds are descendants of the dinosaurs. And the dinosaurs appeared on our planet more than 245 million years ago. But mammals only 45 million years later. Somehow they are more developed than we are, the dinosaurs or what is left of them. So we still have some time to catch up in our behavior. At least there are signs of progress: in football, for example, the referee can already assert himself with a whistle in front of 22 players and a crowd of angry spectators. And many people in Europe are blowing the whistle on any cucumber king of the Kremlin, and his claim to bring us all under his thumb.

Created by ChatGPT

In the long periods of time I am describing here, the few millennia since humans have settled are, of course, ridiculously short. Therefore, it is basically unfair for me to express criticism or sarcasm about it now. But I dare to do so anyway, in the vague hope of shortening the time for the conditions to improve.

So the humans, a previously wandering mob, have settled, built houses, erected fences. Invented rules about who should own which land. Sowed seeds, kept animals. Land became culture land. And culture developed in other ways, too, only a little differently everywhere. Language too.

For example, I have observed how Germans and Romanians eat bananas. The Germans pull the peel off at the stem. Romanians peel the peel on the other side of the stem and then pull it off. What is interesting in this context is that monkeys usually simply bite into the fruit and spit out the bitter peel on the floor.

Two centuries ago, territorial claims and cultural customs led to the formation of nations. But this division is not yet fully established. Actually, you can only call your nation secure if you have nuclear weapons or a good friend who will use them for you in the event of an attack, and if you don't let anyone into the country who eats bananas differently or speaks an incomprehensible language and could thus fundamentally question your own cultural superiority.

Well, to make a long story short: as with most vertebrates, territory, group and ownership are extremely important to us in relation to third parties. And since goods, except for air (still, but we will see), are scarce, envy of the grapes of others - and also among ourselves - plays a not insignificant role in our attitudes and views.

And that is exactly what our alpha animals have been exploiting over and over again since we became sedentary, to keep us ordinary citizens in line and thus consolidate their power over us. Like the trick of the magician who shows us something with one hand and thus distracts us from the fact that he is hiding the rabbit behind the other hand, which he supposedly conjures out of a hat – so we are made to ignore, with battle cries of national and tribal pride, ownership and envy, that the alpha animals are only concerned with power and a lot of money – and that these things, which we defend for them doggedly, are basically completely meaningless to them. Because they don't need them anyway in their dominant position.

You can watch the amusing video of the envy experiment with the capuchin monkeys at here. And the delightful children's novel by Christine Nöstlinger, “The Cucumber King”, whose text is even understandable to adults, can only be recommended time and again - see here.

Nature gave us a big brain to be able to walk on two feet

I read that the reason why our brain is so big and marvelously structured derives from the fact that at some point during our evolution we decided to move on using only two of our four extremities. Balance gets difficult and requires a lot of calculation for the right muscle commands, and therefore the brain asked for more operating power. The advantage of this unstable procedure was that we freed the remaining two extremities for other purposes, like for holding a smartphone and texting.

Initially, humans walked a lot to find food, and ran a lot not be eaten by predators. There was not much mental capability left for anything else. Since the invention of the chair, our species walks and runs less and less, and it is no wonder that idle brain capacity showed up to produce things as intricate as the airplane or any country’s tax system.

But should we really presume that everybody can fully cope with the increasing complexity of the intellectual and moral demands our high growing civilization is putting on us?

We should remember that if somebody uses brain’s occasional free neurons for something else than maintaining the balance on only two feet, discovering for example during that lapse the special theory of relativity, this is a miracle and was not foreseen by the selection process that led to our species. It is a great gift for humanity and nice to have. No question about it. But you cannot expect that from everybody, especially not from people that still are standing and walking a lot. They do not want to be deceived by gravity and fall on the floor, and this endeavor requires their full attention.

Sabine Rückert's Career Advices for Young Women

Career Advices for Young Women

By Sabine Rückert

[Sabine Rückert, a German journalist, is now one of the leading editors of Die Zeit, a highly influential and traditional newspaper, still basically dominated by males. For the 75th anniversary of Die Zeit, she was asked to give some hints to young women for their careers in this man's world. As I think her advice is really interesting, I did my best to translate her exquisite German text [ http://www.zeit.de/2016/06/junge-frauen-karriere-familie-sabine-rueckert/komplettansicht ] into English, having in mind several young woman I know that may enjoy reading this. - Jorge Leuschner]

1. Plato is lying

Some 2,500 years ago, the Greek philosopher Plato has set mankind a silly idea into the head: He claimed that the human being is an incomplete half. Originally it was made as a ball - with four arms and four legs. But because it was very strong and had a perfectly round self-confidence in this condition - and therefore very nasty to the gods -, the envious gods cut the ball and threw the halves back to earth.

What a desperate tumult started!

People, millions, in search of the only possible half - true love. The divide of man was for Plato the cause of all erotic longing.

Well - unfortunately we still believe it.

Especially for women, I am afraid, this is a wrong track to follow. Dear reader, you are looking for something in vain! Your second half is not there. You are all alone the ball: round and beautiful. No one has to complete you, defend you or give you even meaning. Of course, you can get together with other balls for any period of time. But you do not have to. If each ball rolls in its own direction, this is just as well.

2. The happy ending is a myth

Why love is so important for women? I do not know, and it annoys me a bit. I have a now 19-year-old daughter, and therefore insight into much of what is generally portrayed as desirable for today's female teenagers. Consuming books and movies that are tailored to this group, you might feel that the goal of the 21st century women is to get a man. In former times, it should be the a noble; today, he should be well looking, with a gloomy mystery, and a noble mind. Fairy tales, literature, girls series, advertising, college movies - everything aims to trim young women on the delusion of eternal love. This is called conditioning. At the end they fall into each other's arms, guaranteed, at least in fiction. Makes me warm in my heart - but cold down the spine.

On January 18, 2016 the Bild newspaper stated in a title: "Wedding Preparations - for men a nightmare, for women the meaning of life".

Ayatollah Khomeini could not have said it better.

3. He does not carry you in his arms

Men are a wonderful thing - if one does not allow them everything. And with this "not allowing" I do not only mean mere inattentiveness or recklessness, but also all the niceties. Of course it's nice when the manager (most are still male) invites the young starting female professional to a meal, or offers to be her mentor (we care for women, they say). This is friendly. Why should you not accept that? Secretly you are even proud.

But remember: The grant does not mean basically you. Something like this is happening thousands of times. And next year begins a much more lovely colleague. Therefore remember: You are replaceable. It is better, your boss is proud of your performance than of your company. And much better even: You yourself are proud of your performance and not about going out with him. You are the benchmark for yourself.

Eventually, you will have to overtake your kind mentor and leave him behind. So make sure that you then owe him nothing.

A man who has money or power gets women pretty cheap. As it cost him not much, he does not have to care so much. Do not get into any deal - even if it may look tempting at first.

You, only you, are the author of your life. Your approach must endure, even in crises, and surely when you can not score with youthfulness anymore. And that day comes. This is why you should not deal for preferences, you should not submit, not become dependent on praise. Prepare and train yourself properly, work hard, do not stop learning, and look to the money. You do not need a protector. It is nice when people like you, but is more important that they respect you.

4. Thinking is better than feeling

Here is a requiem to the prop. Fall in love with whom you want, but be sure that you do not fall by the wayside and become an accessory. Strangely enough, women tend to this until today. There exist still these couples where the male is 100 percent, and she is the rest. I can not imagine that living as a cheerleader will make me happy. We belong to a gender that, until recently, would be referred to in the same breath with brandy and cigars. Something to enjoy, a status symbol. It is not a fulfilling life purpose anymore to merely look up the herd leader and be to service to the great man. Or is there a little coward anger in you regarding the "live your own life", the "do it yourself", which includes also a possible "fail for yourself" or "win for yourself"? Fair enough, also this may be a part of female freedom. Although it not the one I mean.

5. Better beautifully divorced than badly married

In past times not only everything was better, but also the men were still faithful, and the marriages lasted. Yes, earlier in the good old days, because women would die in childbirth, and the man survived three wives - each time inconsolable.

Today we women survive childbirth. But everything has its price. The husband may not remain until the bitter end with you, sometimes he leaves even when you believe that time has come he could not walk away at all anymore.

However, this applies vice versa for you. You also do not owe him anything. Make what you want. You have the agony of choice. Neither morality nor finances, nor the fear of the Last Judgment can keep you captive. Maybe a good friendship will remain(perhaps on a even more relaxed mood). The monasteries have known this for centuries: The one that can be alone is in the best company. When you are old, better have loyal friends than a whining husband.

6. Ignore the wrong demands of others on you

We do not live in a catalog, although the power of pictures the media throws permanently at us might make us believe this. I think of the two singers Adele and Amy Winehouse; both daughters of single mothers. And yet one is the opposite of the other. Adele is the one that will not allow that anything interferes with what she has herself set up to do. This applies to her music, but equally to her bulky appearance. And compare this to the delicate Amy, who wanted to please everyone, who was not exploited only by the music industry, but also by the greedy father and the worthless lover. She even inflated her breasts. She has become an icon for all women that despair on others' demands on them.

My job implies to study every day the media, and I find there a seemingly endless parade of women who have reached the final stage of coquetry. Exhausted from hunger, operated beyond recognition. And always the shiny rays of jacket crowns on their faces. Victims of an internalized capitalism. Or are they victims of themselves, because they ignore any alternative? The sight of those women hurts my heart.

I believe you can lead a full life and build a wonderful home for the family by escaping perfection. You do not need to live the life that others want. You may be slanted and crooked, thick and not sporty, and life is beautiful anyway.

Personal responsibility is part of self-determination

7. The trap of feminism

Now I may be walking on ice, because I also owe my self-determined life to strong female role models. Above all, my mother (1917-2013), who was a real leader, and an incorruptible, unassuming and very direct character. She was not a feminist. She succeeded by the force of her personality.

No question, feminism is a good thing. It has revolutionized society in favor of women, a merit nobody can take away.

Nevertheless, the current feminism can become a trap for women. It does not necessarily lead to freedom and increased confidence, but rather too often to a permanent victim status. You cannot always make the others (in case of the feminists that would be the men) responsible for everything bad that happens to you, for every rejection or project that fails. I would rather wish the feminist debates would now start to look for the answer of the question: For what do I still have to blame myself?

To achieve true self-determination, you should start with self-responsibility. But the later is not much talked about, I am afraid.

Of course, I am not to be blamed if I am approached by a "sex mob". But it is my fault if I remain silent and I do not inform the police about the attack. Of course, I am not to be blamed if the partner thrashes me; but I am to blame if I stay with him, because he cares for me and I am sweetening my humiliating life with convenience. (Children are not an excuse either, but an pretext! A child lives better without a violent father, having instead a proud mother.)

Women are not always right. Many of them are too easily impressed, some buzz around the men as wrasses the shark. Women screw up and submit. Too many women believe it is important to have a man, and hoped he would stay if they got a child by him (and the next and the next man also). All this is not a "women's fate", but the result of simplicity and poor self-esteem. Sometimes feminism obstruct this hard, liberating look at the woman.

8. There is no alternative to children

I never wanted a child, children were annoying. All kids were afraid of me. When I was 35, my friends called me "mentally barren" and extolled the happiness of my unborn children. However, I eventually had a baby, because my husband wanted one so badly. And I've lost my heart. Today I am so grateful my husband demanded our daughter with a stubborn desire to have children. Who has a child must take leave of herself, raise her eyes from the own navel and set off into the distance. This is painful, but liberating. To assume responsibility for others - that is a world changing difference of perspective. It could be also named:  growing up.

Of course you can win this new insight without a biological parenthood. But with your own child it will happen easily and naturally. Career or children? Do not fear or even ask this question, it is pure ideology. A male or female boss that makes it hard for you to have children is, at least in long term, producing huge damage to his organization.

In my case, the career really went off only after the birth of my daughter. My lyrics were of a different quality, my language of a different temperature, my thoughts of a another dimension.

A male or female boss owe you to have both, children and a career. Society have to set up a frame for family life, so that they are protected from permanent ordeals. I think it would be good for any boss to have a child; for a female one even more. When, during the talk about the career perspective, a young female staff member says "I'm pregnant", the answer should be: "Wonderful! Congratulations! How do you imagine your future with us?"

To build up expectation is a female sickness

9. Disappointments are the best medicine

After each disappointment, one becomes smarter. Don’t bury yourself up the grief over some failures. This costs you a lot of energy, and you better invest that in a new start. But do not design a air-built castle that in a distant future should be your life. From rigid ideas and expectations about how one's own biography should run, only more misfortune will result. To build up high expectations is a female sickness. Too often life and plans are at odds. I usually cannot chose the really important things of life; they may be given or may not. Sometimes I will even get my wish fulfilled, only to have it taken away again. Then the best medicine to master the accompanying frustrations is humor. The receipt consists in a dose of serenity from morning to evening, one foamy mug of laughter per day, and 30 hours of good mood per week.

As the poet Hilde Domin wrote: "I put a foot on the air - and it hold."

10. No panic!

As a young woman, I was unhappy with my gender. For men, I thought, all the world is open, but not for me. I see this different today. I realize that in the meanwhile women do have as great a scope for decisions as men have.

Life consists, of course, basically of great emotions. However, your rational decisions are also involved, they will give to the emotions their rightful place in your mind. Trust your decisions more than your feelings. When you surrender to your feelings, you steer into a smokescreen.

Among the decisions that really matter is this one: Take your time. Not everything has to happen when you are between 25 and 40 years old. In today's modern societies, young woman have a life expectancy of 100 years now, and have with 50 the biological condition that formerly had a 35 years old. They can even freeze their eggs until they need them. Therefore, no panic. You can re-start with 60. Statistics are on your side.

Little Minds

Now I finally understood it. After almost 64 years on this earth and the reading of several non-fiction books on the subject. 

Only the cerebellum decides. Cerebellum is Latin for “little brain”. It is located in the middle of the brain and has the size of a nut. A big one apparently is not needed for this. All happens in nanoseconds, so fast we do not realize what is going on at all. Feelings and a few loose accumulated experiences are crucial. There is no place for longer trains of thought, after all it is a cerebellum, a small mind. Quick! So we think.

Afterwards and if required, the rest of the brain - the cerebrum - produces only arguments for this decision. Some say it is the cerebellum's press secretary. From the decision itself it is completely excluded. Here the cerebellum tricks a little: It lets the big brother in the belief that he himself, after much pros and cons, came to a conclusion and made the decision. This is the reason, the cerebrum will never be persuaded to change his mind, because nobody gives up on his idea.

Therefore you will never change anybody’s mind. It is a loss of time to try to convince someone with facts. The cerebellum has behind the scenes already pressed all the necessary keys and written the script. Whatever support its decisions is accepted by consciousness and will be joyfully retweeted. Anything that will not, will be ignored; it will not be registered, it does not exist. Or, if the din of a possible cognitive dissonance becomes too big and the wall of ignoring cannot withstand, then the brain gets full steam and produces torrents of arguments that support the little sister's opinion. Should there possibly be a lack of factual arguments, it gets personal and insulting. Or attacked another sore of the opponent, which is totally unrelated to the point in question.

Spouses know that from their partner. Parents from their teens and teens from their parents.

The popular Bavarian humorist Karl Valentin once told a story of a brave deceased from Munich, who persuaded the celestial powers to send him back to earth to give to the Kings some divine hints how to govern more effectively, in order to improve a little the mess we have down here. Regretfully, the divine messenger included a stop in one of Munich’s famous beer houses, and there still he remains. But Valentin's theory how our rulers were cut off from the divine inspiration is now revoked by modern science: It is the cerebellum that has hijacked the command center of the authorities and of anybody else; including me.

But what is happening here? Why and how do I write this?

Looks like if my cortex, my conscious mind, is emancipating from the yoke of the small cerebellum. Otherwise I could not write this rebellious text, could I? Is there a chance that we are able to free ourselves from the infinite stupidity in which we have been condemned by the cerebella of the world?

No, no worries. As always, the cerebellum is still in full control. It is just tricking again. It only pretends to make the big cerebrum believe it would have any right for participation. It should not notice it is so totally dependent. Therefore, it treats him with occasional open spaces, but completely safe for its actual preservation of power.

Just like in these new democracies in east and west, in which actually a strongman alone holds all the threads in his hand, allowing gracefully a playground for dissenters. In it you may do what you want. However, you will not achieve much. The actual decision making power remains with the chief and his gang. And I suspect that many of them have no cerebrum, but two cerebellums. Two little minds. More they do not need.

Il Principe, overhauled

You want to make the big political career?

You have some choices to make, right? Or left?

Boies Penrose, Republican Senate boss of bosses in the years after the World War 1, gave to the business community the following pretty clear advice: “I believe in the division of labor. You send us to Congress; we pass laws under which you make money … and out of your profits you further contribute to our campaign funds to send us back again to pass more laws to enable you to make more money.”

Completely outdated: Too transparent, too risky.

We are in the age everybody can tweet and almost everybody blogs, and things go viral in a minute and everybody knows. And, by the way, nobody likes big business. We only like their products, we like those like addicts. And we hate the rich, who usually are the owners of the businesses that sell us the products we like. You will not get my vote if you link yourself with those guys the way Penrose proposed. And you may not get anybody else’s vote either, I am afraid.

Of course, a political career is expensive, you will need a lot of money. This is, still, something the rich do have plenty of. So here are the good news: You can get their money anyway. Maybe even more than what they would volunteer to give you!

Take the latest trend. Start a loud outcry on the inequality of this world. How rich the rich are, how much richer they are becoming. And that you are the one to do now something just. You announce you will tax their incomes. Or, even better, tax their fortunes. People love to hear this. I mean most of the people do, the rich may not. People in general suffer this acute just-world cognitive bias, social scientist will tell you. Their brains want order, want everything under control. Injustice is anything but order. It is a sign that things are going out of control.

If you first make those little brains afraid, telling them there is something they are losing, and then, giving them as remedy some nice-sounding promises of a future just world, they will follow you. And not only on Twitter.

French professors are really good at equality recipes. Some decades ago, an Asian young man came to study to Paris, took good notes of what was taught there, and went back to his country to apply it. His name was Pol Pot. He achieved equality to its utmost: Bones is all that is left of two million people in Cambodia's killing fields. 

These days a new smart French professor appears at the equality front, making good money by selling a bestseller on the subject. Not that he comes with anything new. In Venezuela I learned a good saying for this kind of repeated findings: To discover the lukewarm water. Since the beginning of our civilization the rich get the bigger part. Almost 2000 years ago Jesus commented it [Matthew 13:12]. Even I dared, a year or so ago, to address the phenomenon with some memory fragments in my blog here [http://leuschner-en.blogspot.ro/2013/04/money-clumps.html].

This French professor did not look at the Fortune’s 500 list, with top richest of this world and updated regularly. He had a good reason for not doing so. On this list people get up and down, some out altogether, and that certainly is not any point he planned to make. Also, on the list are names you would not like to see there. I remember the last time I looked at it, appeared this ultra-old-and-marxist Caribbean caudillo in the higher rankings. Maybe under the not so wrong assumption that who controls the fortunes, owns them more or less personally. (See? This is the point you have to understand!) However, no no, monsieur le professeur did something else. He went to analyze decades of percentages. These are very revealing: A smaller getting percentage of rich people are owners of a higher percentage of the total wealth; time after time. With the obvious exception of this smaller getting percentage, nobody likes that. And exactly here, in the bigger getting percentage of the ones not liking that, is where the votes for your harvest are, Ms. or Mr. would be politician.

In a nutshell, this is what the professor tells you to do: tax the higher incomes with 80%; tax their fortunes annually with 10%.

If every government does this worldwide, he says, inequality is gone. Right he is. And clever also. Nobody, including himself I guess, believes a worldwide tax policy is possible. There will always be some islands or Alp valleys with special treatment for those that bring them money. So, should his theory not work out as predicted, he already build in a good excuse.

Our French friend went one step further, maybe too far. He put the inequality story into a pretty dramatic setting. Which of course is good for your political campaign, but not so for his academic success in the long run. Out of his data and stomach feeling, he cooked the apocalyptic and final demise of capitalism sometime to come. He is also not the first on this one. And, as all his predecessors did, he most probably will also fail with his prophecy, I am afraid. However, many love to hear the story again and again, so his book sells well.

For you, as politician, the set up is perfect. You now garnish your campaign with a few somethings and you will win the elections easily. Mainly, stress the point that you fight for equality. But also promise education, jobs, housing and health care for everybody. You finance that with the money you will take from the rich. And blame the rich for all imaginable evil. Call them agents of imperialism, capitalistic drones, or savage neoliberals.

After the campaign comes the implementation. This is the easy part. If you follow my advice, you may stay in power for over fifty years, or how long you live or like to govern. This is what you should do: Take everything from the rich and make everybody equal and happy. The exception could be you, your family, and some close friends. Don’t misunderstand me. You all may become happy too, and stay so. However, there is no reason you should become equal. You are the leader, leave this to the people.

You don’t need to do much social stuff, really. Put some kids before a school to sing something for the shots of the press cameras. However, never stop talking about your incredible social achievements.

Something strange will happen. At least, it did so far wherever this kind of recipes were applied.

You might really get some valuables from the rich. The total may look impressive, but be aware that you cannot run a country for long with this money. You basically killed the cow. So do not expect further milk. Eat the meat and have a good party. The economy very soon will start to struggle and eventually collapse. Business will go elsewhere, investments will not happen. There will only remain some money for marketing and publicity of your social promises, but not enough to realize them. You most probably will not even be able to maintain the social welfare you inherited from your right wing predecessors. This should not matter at all. People will love you. They will love your struggle for equality. They will love that you eliminated the rich. The international intellectuals will love you also. And, as nobody wants to see anything sad or bad in what he loves, you have no problem and will probably, without too much tricks, win the following elections also. If you do not believe me, ask Maduro.

However, I have to warn you: Do not get it wrong. Be radical. Should you be too prudent, the whole thing may turn sour. Example for this comes again from France. The actual president increased taxes for the rich. Some of them even said, “I depart, adieu” and moved eastward. So, apparently everything was done according to the book. However, the president quickly became tremendously unpopular. What happened?

Well, he was too cautious and too decent. He did not increase the taxes enough; far from it. He did not made enough noise about his social programs. And, instead of hiring all the jobless for any kind of overcrowded state institution, he did not know what to do with them.

And our French professor, what may he say about his president's mis-achievements? Well, there is always this build in pre-condition for success in his recipe, that the tax measures should be applied worldwide and not only punctually in a small Gallic place. So, I guess, the theory has a pretty good explanation for its failure in La Grande Nation.