From the Web

It’s not surprising that there has been a resurgence of interest in the economics of the Great Depression–and not just because of the economic meltdown we’ve experienced over the past months. So much of what happened back then shaped economic policy, financial markets and even the way we thought about the economy for decades to come. Equally important, however, and much less discussed, is the decade prior to the Great Depression….The 1920s were a period of dramatic technological change that transformed the fundamental structure of the economy, altered the nature of the family and challenged the social norms of the 19th century. I stress technology, because it was technological change that improved the economic welfare of many. So it is a mistake, a hyperbolical gesture, to view the 20s as one of those regular episodes of excess that seem to mark American economic life. When the Depression hit, a lot of the policy responses were aimed at trying to turn back the clock–not on excess, but on the changes brought by technology. Those attempts failed because it was all but impossible to do.–“The Soaring Twenties,” Thomas F. Cooley, Forbes Magazine

Our forebears expected the future to be pretty much like their present, which had been pretty much like their past. Although exponential trends did exist a thousand years ago, they were at that very early stage where an exponential trend is so flat that it looks like no trend at all. So their lack of expectations was largely fulfilled. Today, in accordance with the common wisdom, everyone expects continuous technological progress and the social repercussions that follow. But the future will be far more surprising than most observers realize: few have truly internalized the implications of the fact that the rate of change itself is accelerating.–“The Law of Accelerating Returns,” Ray Kurzweil, KurzweilAI.net

Two minutes and ten seconds into Born in the U.S.A., the first of the album’s many female characters appears. She is given no physical or character traits; just two lines detailing her relationship with a fallen male hero. “He had a woman he loved in Saigon / I got a picture of him in her arms,” Bruce Springsteen proclaims….It is a telling image, and properly foreshadows the role of women in the U.S.A. where Springsteen and his characters were born….His ouevre is teeming with vaginal metaphors (“The River”, “Candy’s Room”, “Tunnel of Love”, “Pink Cadillac”) where the female anatomy provides some sort of sanctuary from a dark, spirit-crushing world where innocent, hard-working men are denied their entitlement. Like rock and roll itself, women are a surrogate release, pillars of stability and tokens of success. In women, both Springsteen and his characters (as much as they can be objectively separated) often find the promise that has been denied them elsewhere, but they just as often get denied here as well. Sex, like the other aspects of the American Dream, offers a lot of seductive promises, but no inalienable guarantees.–“Sex in the U.S.A.: Male Sexuality in Springsteen’s American Dream,” Charles Hohman, Popmatters