Reading C.K. Prahalad's "Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid"

I met him at a Highlands Forum and he said he really loved PNM, claiming we spoke the same language.

I saw his presentation and ordered his book over my phone immediately. Later he sent me one inscribed.

We do speak the same language.

My transparency is his "transaction governance capacity."

He has corresponding definitions of Gap, New Core and Old Core:

Consider the spectrum:

1) Countries that are arbitrary and authoritarian. Laws do not exist and the laws that do exist are not enforced. Congo is an example of this situation. Private-sector development, in the Western sense, is very unlikely here. The only FDI that is likely is focused on the extraction of mineral wealth.

2) Countries where laws and institutions of a market economy exist. The private sector is vibrant. Still, the country does not reach its potential. India is a case in point. Alternatively, the GDP growth is great, but the underlying legal systems are not fully developed. China is an example.

3) Countries with well-developed laws, regulations, institutions, and enforcement systems. The United States is an example.

Another amazingly simple but dead-on insight:

That is the reason that most MNCs continue to prefer China over India: a clear preference for enforcement capacity over the legal system on the books. In China, corrupt as they are, the bureaucrats can enforce a contract. However, the corrupt in India cannot necessarily enforce contracts consistently.

More on Transaction Governance Capacity:

Corruption is about providing privileged access to resources and recognizing the time value of money. Corruption is a market mechanism for privileged access. Bureaucrats use microregulations to control access, transparency, and therefore time. TGC is about eliminating the opaqueness in the system and providing ease of access.

E-governance, then, is Anti-Corruption-in-a-Box. I get that and thus understand better Steve DeAngelis' excitement at what Enterra can bring to development inside the Gap through dynamic management of rules. Imagine the transparency that comes with that! Imagine the opportunity to reduce corruption.

We suffer the U.S. tax code (which is why TurboTax and Quicken are so liberating to so many), but those in the Gap tend to suffer such opaqueness across the board, especially in any attempts at entrepreneurship and ownership.

Which is easier to fill in, then, is the big question on India v. China: Is it easier to write the laws (China imports many--next week's column) or develop the enforcement capacity (India needs a long and pervasive Progressive-style movement and numerous T.R.'s and Upton Sinclairs.

Overall a brilliant book, like "Why Globalization Works."

Also a brilliant guy, like a Hernando DeSoto.

Very sweet man too. Joy to be around.

Want to profile him some in Vol. III.

Iran's inside our OODA-loop

ARTICLE: Iran courts the US at Russia's expense, By Kaveh L Afrasiabi , Asia Times Online, May 16, 2007

This is at once a sophisticated and rather naive analysis from Asia Times.

Asia, in general, is so desirous of stability in the Middle East, because of their huge and growing energy dependence on the region, that it tends to obsessively look on the brightest side of any new development, often attributing super-human powers to America, its outsourced military protector.

It's sort of sad and pathetic, this Greek chorus-like role that only emphasizes Asia's impotence on the subject.

Our goal needs to be ending that sense of strategic helplessness, by drawing out India, China, Korea and Japan. Where the neocon primacy argument fails us is in its arrogant assumption that having the world's biggest gun is sufficient to establishing global stability. Necessary, I would argue, but nowhere near sufficient.

Iran's moves simply prove it's playing the entire board, our fantasy of OODA-loop penetration notwithstanding (i.e., getting inside their decision cycle).

Clearly, Iran's gotten inside ours on Iraq, picking the time and place for discussions of our predicament, one whose fuse for our politics is far shorter than the one it presents Iran domestically. We are reduced to bargaining with great power-wannabes like Iran--at Baghdad's logical insistence, as they made yesterday's announcement happen--instead of the real great powers we've alienated to date.

Not optimal, but as I wrote in Esquire two years ago, as good as it gets in Bush's second term.

Don't expect it to be fun, because it won't. Necessary things rarely are.

Thanks to Kilngoddess for sending this.

Japan will and must un-pacify

ARTICLE: Japan Closer to Changing Constitution, NewsMax.com, May 14, 2007

Japan will and must do, otherwise it gets left behind not just in West but in rising Asia too.

Can't be a player when your last combat casualty was in 1945.

Thanks to Rob Johnson for sending this.

Dance of self-delusion

ARTICLE: "Top GOP Hopefuls Keep Distance on Immigration: Bipartisan Plan in Danger as McCain Pulls Away, Romney Shifts Stance and Giuliani Is Silent," By Michael D. Shear, Washington Post, May 15, 2007; Page A04

Big surprise. They all want to be president more than they want to do the right thing on immigration. Let the dance of self-delusion begin!

My non-lesson in fatherhood.

ARTICLE: Modern Love: My First Lesson in Motherhood, By ELIZABETH FITZSIMONS, New York Times, May 13, 2007

Compelling story, but I'm made a bit uncomfortable about her "test" reference, because--of course--she both "passes" and won. Not everyone gets to pass much less win.

I'm not judging her. Vonne and I discussed such possibilities too re: Vonne Mei. We had already gone through Em's cancer, which provided us with as many or more death sentences, incredible scares and near-death experiences than this lady endured, so we knew in advance how incredibly draining--and yet amazingly fulfilling--that journey can be--if you win.

I'll offer no pretended wisdom on losing.

Naturally, we had no choice with Em--at least none we could discuss openly with anyone or even ourselves.

But, of course, there were more choices than you can imagine. There were countless moments when we could have gracefully given up, saying it was in the doctor's hands (secular version) or God's hands (the no more holy religious one), and no one would have been wiser. You just don't make that extra effort. Maybe you stay calm the one time you felt the instinct to freak out and fight like hell. Maybe you follow orders in that instance when you know damn well the established procedure is flawed and you can work out something better yourself. Maybe you keep your mouth shut and let the doc or nurse guess wrong when you know the patient better. Maybe you just don't get out of bed that one time. Maybe you just don't have anything left and want her dead and gone because she's ruining your dreams, or killing your marriage, or your second baby--since born--is healthy, so you don't need her in quite the same way--given all your pain. Maybe you just survive at that last moment, jettisoning her instinctively so you can live. Maybe you grow to hate her intensely, resenting everything she's made you become. Maybe you're just not everything everyone thought you could be at just that moment. You come up short and you're humiliated beyond belief to discover that.

Maybe all such things happen and you carry that pain with you forever, and maybe you're just a little peeved with this woman's profound sense of self-congratulation because she got a golden ticket and it simply took her a while to unwrap it.

Or maybe she just reminds you of what you could have been, or what you contemplated in your worst moments, and where you fear--beyond reason--returning again.

Vonne and I have been in all those hospital corridors, watching surgeons and radiologists round corners and hoping they'll look you in the eye immediately versus averting your gaze. We listened to verdicts that both freed us and imprisoned us further.

And we've been in that very same banquet room in Nanchang, where we received Vonne Mei, and we got a luckier break there.

And in both instances, the choices we made or could have made had nothing to do with nobility or the quality of our character.

They had to do with our ego and sense of greed. We refused to lose. We couldn't face the prospect of shame or failure. We were amazingly arrogant and sure of ourselves. We simply couldn't stand being told no.

We were empathetic to ourselves long before connecting any of our decisions to anyone or anything else, and there was nothing noble about it. We didn't pass any test. We just found out who we are: amazingly selfish people who don't know when to give up.

That's why we dominate this planet--our capacity for imagining a way out of the worst circumstances.

And when that stubbornness turned into success, and we too won our battles, it got dressed up as nobility and our character and our grace and grit as people and parents.

And sometimes we too soak up the admiration of others on the subject, as well as their complimentary words regarding our decision to adopt.

But I will tell you, having been there, there's no nobility to be found. There's simply what you want and what you cannot stand, and everyone's got different thresholds on those scores, so there's no test to be passed, no life to be distilled, no "victory" to be won.

There's just a person you have to live with for the rest of your life, and it all comes down to how well you care to know--as Billy Joel once wrote--that stranger.

Thanks to Bill Millan for sending this.

Building with a view

View from a tall building in Jacksonville FLA. Spoke to local club of leading biz people last night. Met owner of Jags and followed mayor in program. Beautiful view of St. John river (if I heard correctly) that links port to Atlantic.

The gray wave will swamp cities everywhere!

ARTICLE: "Cities gird for getting grayer: Changes make way for surge in those 65, older," by Haya El Nasser, USA Today, 14 May 2007, p. 1A.

My wife, the urban planner/elder affairs veteran (prior to family consuming us and suspending that career), has been preaching this to me for almost a quarter-century (Vonne is this long-term strategist's long-term strategist).

It will be a long and slow evolution for most cities, but evolve they must.

What drives this most is sellability of houses: if people won't buy your houses, your city has a huge problem.

One of the fixes mentioned here: change zoning and encourage designs that accommodate "granny flats" (what most call "mother-in-law" apartments).

Vonne had our builder set up a basement trio of bedroom, bath and kit with separate entrance for exactly such sellability down the road (Vonne's already decided which state we'll live in next waaaay down the road).

Hard to keep up with her. Whenever I plan ahead I typically bump into her well-researched decision, already made.

Then again, she allows me to focus on saving the world before I get too old.

Times the blog bit back

Mark quoted from a post at Kent's Imperative on the subject of bosses reading weblogs and asked if that wasn't how Tom parted ways with NWC.

Tom says:

That happened to me twice:

1) I am told in 1998 that I can't waste NWC site space to post all interim products of my Y2K project (only final). So I build own project site at geocities.com and post everything. Tens of thousands of visits later, word gets around that best DOD site on Y2K contigency planning sits at geocities. People start writing online that it must be a CIA hoax.

Presto! I get an NWC project site.

Because I start posting every day--almost hourly on certain days--I bug the official webmasters of the NWC site so much they give up and make me the first prof who's his own webmaster with final approval.

I did all that to avoid giving anyone in the press a sense of "secret plans" being hatched at the college.

It didn't work: Jack Anderson wrote that column anyway.

2) At Xmas, 2004, I am investigated by the college after appearing on C-SPAN and having my personal website displayed, to include a reference to my just established LLC (I had previously gotten JAG approval for every consulting/speaking gig over the past 7 years, but hadn't sought approval on the LLC because I was told not to until we actually had a contract to approve). I am pulled before the provost at 4pm, Christmas Eve (Jim Giblin, still there) and threatened by my dean, now-departed Ken Watman, with severe professional charges of using my office for professional gain. His big evidence? First, a David Ignatius WAPO column noting my book sales (Watman: "I'm beginning to wonder if you haven't planned your entire time here at the college to produce a bestselling book!" My reply: "If I could predict the future that accurately, I wouldn't be working here, and certainly not under you!").

Second example? I am accused by Watman of hiding my negotiations with Putnam (no contract yet to submit) regarding a sequel to my NYT-bestseller "Pentagon's New Map.".

How did Watman know I was conducting my secret negotiations?

My dean followed it obsessively on my blog after numerous professors told him they were fans of it and he became concerned I was growing beyond his control.

When I was confronted by charges of this conspiracy, I replied, "Yes, we were all in it together, me and my tens of thousands of readers."

Clearly, I would have made a terrible spy.

Will comparing Obama to Reagan?!

POST: Sunday Show Wrap-Up

George Will on This Week:

[Obama] has perfect pitch, I think, for the mood of the country, which is a flinch from the rhetorical vitriol for the mood that is consuming this town. He's a little like Ronald Reagan in this regard: Reagan used to drive people crazy, in the Democratic party, because they'd say "The public doesn't agree with him on this or this or this or this, and they vote for him." They voted for him because they said we like him, he's not off putting, he's not frightening, and I think this is another 1980.

Hmmmmm.

That Will makes this point pushes Obama up a couple of notches on the plausibility scale.

I do like the 1980 analogy. Bush seems as disastrously out of touch as Carter was, and as equally consumed by current events in the Mideast.

Pope: Neither markets nor Marxism!

ARTICLE: Pope condemns globalisation, The Press Association, May 14 2007

Talk about having it both ways: condemning markets and Marxism!

But, of course, the thesis and antithesis are linked throughout history. Problem for the Pope is, globalization is the synthesis, so calls to fence off Latin America from nefarious external influences comes off a lot like a mirror-image of Osama's call for civilizational apartheid--as in, too much too late.

Thanks to Dan Hare for sending this.

Tom around the web

The most linked post this week is In guerrillas we trust, Tom's review of John Robb's new book, 'Brave New War'.
+ Beginning with John himself
+ Hot soup in my eye
+ ZenPundit
+ Draconian Observations
+ Soob

+ Outside the Beltway linked The far-too-successful nation-building that is Kurdistan.
+ And referenced Tom in his article for the The New Individualist (Ayn Rand alert! ;-)
+ MountainRunner linked Give Mia some credit.
+ Say Anything linked The far-too-successful nation-building that is Kurdistan.
+ Falsafa, Njaro, Mawazo, na Vako Zangu (how's your Swahili?) linked My prediction on Africa Command coming true a bit faster than I expected.
+ ShrinkWrapped linked More on Robb.
+ Pacific Empire linked Connectivity at the price of content control.
+ Siberian.Ws reviewed (?) PNM.
+ Baudrillard's Bastard linked The future of politics is all about who gets access to technology.
+ Face Journal-Picayune reviewed 'The State of the World' article.
+ Ethan Zuckerman of WorldChanging linked the Pop!Tech talk.
+ Our 21st Century Challenge mentioned PNM.

Iraq will play Poland to Iran's Russia

ARTICLE: Shi'ite cleric gains sway across border, By Anne Barnard, Boston Globe, May 14, 2007

Brilliant piece I've been waiting for someone qualified to write, supporting my long-held and oft-stated notion that Shiia Iraq will change Shiia Iran far more than the latter can control the former. As I've said more than once, Shiia Iraq can play Poland to Iran's Russia: the conduit for change and innovation and new ideas from outside.

The more Iraq opens up, the scarier it gets to Iran, and yet Iran wants Iraq stable and reasonably whole too (see Kurdistan as well), so it sits between a rock and a ... Sorry, that one's been beaten to death.

No matter how Iraq goes down, Iran expects and demands a big seat at the table. Bush won't provide because of a prior commitment (the whole Axis-of-Evil telegraphing of strategic intent from the talk-but-don't-do school of bully diplomacy), so we sit in stalemate.

But my point remains: Iran's got more to fear than we do, so the sooner we lock them into an Iraq solution, the sooner we get our changed regime in Iran.

Can't start that journey sitting on our asses.

Thanks to Tyler Durden for sending this.

"Licensed to Kill"

Just finished Robert Young Pelton's "Licensed to Kill," recommended by Robb.

It is a great book, the kind Warren would have forced me to write if I had taken on the subject: a certain amount of geostrategic analysis (but not nearly enough--just great observations stitched together) but loads of narrative storytelling, to include a long bit on touring Blackwater's Moyock, NC headquarters, before the new HQ was built and the 6k-foot landing strip poured (Prince flew Steve and I down and back on the same day in his plane last year after I got the invite following a speaking gig on Development-in-a-Box to a foreign aid conference, and Blackwater's sole owner gave us a long tour of the huge facility and his famous PPT pitch).

Young goes on about how hard it is for any outsiders to get into the place, making me think it was quite the privilege. But frankly, Prince and Blackwater aren't all that secret. It's just a classic start-up that's booming in a new marketplace (Robb's bazaar of violence being matched by a bazaar of security innovation and companies), so it combines a certain paranoia with a certain bravado. As a pioneer in an uncertain rule-set environment, Blackwater is naturally a target for both lawsuits and regulators. That's what you get for aspiring to be the Pinkertons of the 21st century (the description that got me the invite, methinks).

I keep thinking of a story to pitch Esquire on Blackwater that would be different. I have one in mind, but am unsure on the timing.

I am committed to a first draft of my next book this summer, whether it comes out next spring or fall '08 (I suspect the latter, since I see this book as less of a first draft-heavy effort and more one that gets rewritten a lot because, as Mark and I both discuss recently, we see this book as my timeless distillation, so less topical and current as PNM and BFA, though it will inevitably have some).

Still, a story or two lurks in the back of my brain. Might just have to call Blackwater and see what they're up for.

But again, great book. Beats the left hack job on Prince and Blackwater just out, and lacks the academic distance and hostility of Singer's work. Based on my 18 years working with the military, I found Young's descriptions very compelling.

DoEE: the Drucker way [updated]

WASHINGTON AT WAR: Defense Skirts State in Reviving Iraqi Industry, By Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Washington Post, May 14, 2007; Page A01

This WAPO article (from the great Rajiv C.) describes Paul Brinkley's work in trying to revive Iraqi state-run factories. Steve DeAngelis, my CEO and partner, accompanied him on his last trip, wrapping up any day now in Kurdistan. Brinkley asked Enterra to pilot our Development-in-a-Box "flexible framework" approach in Kurdistan, in effect scoping out an SEZ (special economic zone), which fits within the DiB mindset. (DiB, BTW, is now a trademarked product of Enterra Solutions, duly registered). No wheel reinventing for us, just an updating on technology and a holistic approach to connectivity and security in a long war conducted in a flat world.

[Editor's note: Check out Steve's latest post from Kurdistan, 3 days in Iraq from the Syrian/Turkish border to the Iranian border.]

Perused "The Essential Drucker" at a Charlotte airport Simply Books just now, signing two paper PNMs, which the salesperson said they keep selling because people keep buying. One of the many quotes that catches the eye:

The best way to predict the future is to create it.

Well, Steve's a perfect partner for me, in this regard. As visionary as he is, he's got an implementation streak a mile wide. He would be the perfect Secretary of Everything Else (me, I'm ready to study my fifth foreign language--Chinese--to begin my dream post).

This story also great for exploring--yet again--the huge divide between DOD and State on postwar reconstruction and stability ops.

State, as always, wants the perfectible, reflecting their mindset on negotiations and treaties and creating new rule regimes for international affairs. I believe State has it's own brilliance in this regard, and that's what I told the "State 2025" task force a while back in their interview. I think it's a huge source of American rule-set export.

But the perfectible naturally crashes with the sufficing mindset of the military, which, according to Rajiv, was unfortunately short-circuited by the neocons (yet again!) at a point early in the postwar when State was on board for Brinkley's approach (they have now reversed themselves in a strategy of limited regret--or do no long-term harm).

It's sad to see this cultural divide remaining so wide, but it's why the realist in me seeks a practical-yet-visionary outcome in the standing up of both the SysAdmin force (slowly rising within Army and the RC (Reserve Component)) and the DoEE.

I want DoD to stay focused on war and State to stay focused on growing the Core's rule sets. And I want both to continue doing what each does best while paying somebody else to do the everything else--just like Drucker always argues.

Update: Steve just posted on this article, too: Interagency Feuding Over Iraq Reconstruction.

So wrong and so right

ARTICLE: China launches Nigerian satellite, BBC News, May 14, 2007

This is both so wrong and so right.

You say, what's Nigeria doing buying satellites?

What's China doing selling satellites to them?

And yet, why can't Nigeria buy one? And why isn't China exactly the country to sell?

Selling to the bottom of the pyramid, no questions asked.

No way to run an empire but it's how we built our own, fifty-state version of one across the first 150 years of our existence.

China's doing little different, just in a different time and place.

Their model is, Economics finds a way.

Ours is, Politics rule.

In a flat world, which sells better? Who's selling connectivity and who's selling disconnectedness?

Thanks to Troy White and Rob Johnson for sending this.

Bremer's big mistake

NO MORE MR. PUNCHING BAG: What We Got Right in Iraq, By L. Paul Bremer, May 13, 2007; Page B01

On the de-Baathification, not a bad counter-argument by Bremer.

On the disbanding of the military, that's one weak counter-argument by Bremer.

Of the two great mistakes, the former was always minor in my mind, the latter huge. So record set a bit straighter for me with this op-ed, but the judgment on Bremer shifts negligibly.

America's insufficient SysAdmin

ARTICLE: African Union Force Low on Money, Supplies and Morale, By Colum Lynch, Washington Post, May 13, 2007; Page A17

Good example that when there's no Americans, there's no real SysAdmin capacity possible.

But as Iraq shows, America alone can't get it done either.

So it's America: necessary but insufficient on SysAdmin.

The “change” Republican versus the “hawk” Democrat

ARTICLE: “Giuliani, Speaking at the Citadel, Calls for a Bigger Army,” by Chris Dixon and Marc Santora, New York Times, 6 May 2007, p. A20.

OP-ED: “The Democrats’ Foreign Policy Primary,” by E.J. Dionne, Jr., Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 7-13 May 2007, p. 30.

COMMENTARY: “The 2008 Formula: To get elected, the next President will have to both represent change and be hawkish on the war,” by William Kristol, Time, 14 May 2007, p. 33.

THE GURUS: “The PowerPointer: Armed with data and slides, he guides campaign strategy,” by Anne E. Kornblut, Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 7-13 May 2007, p. 6.

To be honest, I don’t hope for a Democrat win in terms of our military’s evolution, because I expect it to suffer under any Democrat. Yes, they’ll be all sorts of tough talk, but once in power, the deference begins. No Dem wants to look soft on defense, so they give the military what they want, and across Clinton’s eight years, that meant lots of stuff that doesn’t work particularly well in the world we live in, because, left to their own devices, the military will focus solely on the war and avoid the postwar as much as possible.

A tough Dem who comes in now is likely to let the military “heal” after Iraq, or buy lots of stuff it wants to buy and avoid making the changes it needs to do the next one, which will come inevitably. That stance will be cast as “tough realism,” but it will really be escapism of the worst sort, simply delaying solutions instead of dealing with problems. We’ll be told we’re getting ready to win America’s “real” wars, but kicking ass during war nowadays, as we’ve proven in Iraq and Afghanistan, really doesn’t add up to much. You either master the postwar or schedule the next drive-by regime change for seven years hence.

I honestly think Kristol’s got it right: the winner will combine the “change” quotient with an acceptance that we’re at war and need to improve our military on the basis of the wars we’re stuck with, not the fantastic conventional ones we’d rather wage.

To me, the person who most likely delivers that package is Giuliani. That he’s a social liberal and fiscal conservative is not a problem to me. In fact, it makes him all the more attractive.

In contrast, I really expect Clinton’s defense to be much like her husband’s. Where Hillary would be clearly better than Rudy, I think, is in the diplomacy, which would render the lack of change in military evolution less worrisome.

With Obama, when I hear him talking about doubling foreign aid to $50 billion, I can’t help but wonder where he calculates the $25 billion we spend today, because I just can’t find enough money in our current budget to justify that number, even when I throw in the military stuff.

McCain? He sees damn near everything as war and conflict, so him I just plain find scary. Got no idea with Edwards or Thompson, so that really only leaves Rudy leaving me feeling optimistic on military reform.

And yeah, I am surprised to say that.

The rule-sets are constantly under revision in the New Core

POLITICS & ECONOMICS: “China Toils Over New Labor Law: Rare Public Debate Pits Growth vs. Worker Rights,” by Andrew Batson and Mei Fong, Wall Street Journal. 7 May 2007, p. A7.

“Rare” is the wrong term here, as this debate’s becoming the heart of many economic discussions in China, along with growth v. environment and growth v. property rights, etc.

The Labor Contract Law has triggered a tortuous debate all right, dragging on for a good year and a half, “but the process shows how China’s government is increasingly seeking to involve various interest groups and the public at large in the formation of laws.”

To me, that’s an obvious example of pluralism rising--getting feedback before laws are set.

Such pluralism is pursued by necessity:

The cautious steps toward greater transparency reflect both the state’s desire to retain popular support of its rule and its need to tap a wider base of expertise to ensure laws are suited to the ever-more-complex economy and society.”

Can anyone say, “China’s economic advance triggers pluralism?”

Everyone wants to define democracy solely as free elections and multiparty states, but there’s a whole lot more involved than that, with the key thing being, does the government increasingly enlist the public’s voice in how they’re being governed?

Remember what I said in PNM: direction, not degree of change. Yes, the Party’s still firmly in charge and the selection of leadership is elite-driven by consensus, but it’s also clear that the Party is slowly opening up the process of creating the most important laws to the influence of the people.

Funny how it took markets to finally empower the workers in the socialist state.

Ah, but of course, this is the same capitalism that “enslaves” everyone over here and ruins societies the world over through globalization.

Funny how that works in people’s minds, too.

Immigrants, as throughout history, remain our economic salvation

THE OUTLOOK: “Boomers’ Good Life Tied to Better Life for Immigrants,” by Miriam Jordan, Wall Street Journal, 7 May 2007, p. A2.

Despite white America’s natural tendency for racism regarding immigrants, which I find hilarious given the past history we all share in this regard, as every European American comes from some immigrant group that snuck in here decades ago to the huge dismay of almost everyone already inside who naturally considered them filthy, incomprehensible, full of dangerous religion, tending toward way too many babies, and--of course--lazy as shit.

All those things were said about every group that came in, the trashiest of which--also throughout history--are the first to decry anyone who comes after them, organizing themselves into all sorts of groups and unions designed to “save” the “real” America, when America doesn’t get any more real than immigrants.

I’ve been waiting on this article for a while, because it only makes sense. As all those Boomers retire, they’ll become incredibly dependent on the economic performance of those who follow, especially that big chunk of immigrants who came in during the last bulge (since 1990). As the caption reads here: “bearing the burden: In the next decades, the nation’s young and growing Hispanic population is likely to play a bigger role in supporting the aging white population.”

Naturally, it’s inside those Red states, the net-Fed welfare states, where you find the most resistance and the hate groups, and that won’t change as these people get older and more dependent on Hispanics for their payments. They’ll just resent them all the more.

Thank God the Echo Boomers don’t have the same racial hang-ups. It always takes the next generation to move beyond the prejudices of the past ones.

But still, as one Kentucky demographer put it bluntly, “If I’m an old white person, I better be interested in how these young, Hispanic kids are doing.”

Since 1990, 80 percent of population growth in this country comes in the form of black and Hispanic kids, yet they’re not getting the same schooling as their white counterparts.

So the choice really is, Either there’s no one to support you in your old age or it’ll be minorities whom you better supply with an education that will maintain your desired lifestyle--by buying your house, having high enough incomes to attract the doctors you want in your community, and the like.

In short, your good life depends on theirs--simple as that.