Death is a fact of life. We all die at some point. Yet we as a society seem incapable of viewing death as a fact of life we can manage, except to spend enormous resources to keep people alive, even if they are ready for death.
My mother is currently in a skilled nursing facility where she has been for many months. She has Alzheimer's so no longer can recognize her family, her attention span is non-existent, her life is spent in bed unless they bring in a machine to lift her up to sit her in a wheelchair so can be in a different position. She is largely oblivious to what is going on around her, except to be fearful of loud noises. She cannot eat without someone working patiently at spooning food into her mouth. What she has lost in life is irrevocably gone. She will never be able to converse with her children, or walk outside, or even sit on the sidelines at a family gathering and have any idea who the people are or what is going on.
About 20 years ago I was helping her set up legal paperwork to manage her life as she moved into old age. In my conversations with her she was clearly comfortable with the fact she was going to die at some point and wanted no extraordinary measures to keep her alive - she did not want to be a burden on others, and in particular her children and grandchildren. There is no doubt in my mind if at that time she could have viewed what she has become now she would be very unhappy with her current situation and if given the option would have chosen assisted death at some predetermined point in the deterioration without hesitation. But there was not then, nor is there now, any legal way for someone to chose to die at a point in the future where their options in life deteriorate to a point they find intolerable.
Another person I was close to just passed at 96 years old. Her life was pleasant enough in the assisted living place in which she lived her last years. But her life was shrinking as her capabilities declined. She expressed the desire to just die a number of times. Finally she just stopped eating and drinking. It is not a pretty decline. Hospitals and Hospice services do wonderful work making it as comfortable as possible but one has to ask - with all the wonders of modern technology why does someone have to starve and dehydrate themselves to death if they are done with life?
We as a society make it astonishingly difficult for ill or elderly people to choose to leave life. The worst case scenario folks, maybe in part because they haven't come to terms with the fact they will die someday, come up with all sorts of reasons why the law must rigidly control death. Most the reasons are rooted in the notion kids will be knocking off their parents over money or property, .
As medicine continues to develop techniques to prolong life we need to do more to help folks who are done with life. It is nuts to be telling folks in their 80's or 90's they cannot chose to end their life.
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Monday, December 7, 2015
Religion and Altruism
An recent study looked at altruism among religious and non religious folks. The study found the children of folks that identified themselves as non religious demonstrated more spontaneous altruism than the children of folks who identified themselves as religious.
The study looked at 1170 families and focused on one child in each family between the age of 5 and 10. Using a series of forms asking questions about beliefs they broke the participants up into groups according to how religious each family reported itself to be.
They then had the child from each family play a game whereby each child was given 30 attractive stickers and told they could keep 10, but that the child could give away some of his 10 stickers to schoolmates who were not able to take part. They were given a few minutes to decide whether to give some of their 10 stickers away.
The non-religious children gave away an average of 4.1 stickers. The children from families reporting themselves as religious gave away 3.3 stickers on average. Muslims and Christians were by far the largest religious beliefs reported, there was little statistical difference between the Muslim and Christian children, Muslims gave away 3.2 on average, Christians 3.3. Further the researchers found statistically the more religious a family reported themselves to be, the fewer stickers children were willing to give away.
The religious / non religious relationship held regardless of wealth and status (although rich children generally gave more stickers away than poor children). The results were also contradictory with the parents reported perceptions of their child's sensitivity to injustice. Religious parents generally evaluated their children as more sensitive than the non-religious parents evaluated their children.
Query - Is this a function of religious training effecting children's judgement? Or is this self selection - parents who are less altruistic are more likely to feel a need fulfilled by religion?
Relying on report in the Economist (11.7.15 - p.77). The study was authored by a University of Chicago developmental nueroscientist in collaboration with researchers in Canada, China, Jordon, South Africa and Turkey, was published in "Current Biology".
The study looked at 1170 families and focused on one child in each family between the age of 5 and 10. Using a series of forms asking questions about beliefs they broke the participants up into groups according to how religious each family reported itself to be.
They then had the child from each family play a game whereby each child was given 30 attractive stickers and told they could keep 10, but that the child could give away some of his 10 stickers to schoolmates who were not able to take part. They were given a few minutes to decide whether to give some of their 10 stickers away.
The non-religious children gave away an average of 4.1 stickers. The children from families reporting themselves as religious gave away 3.3 stickers on average. Muslims and Christians were by far the largest religious beliefs reported, there was little statistical difference between the Muslim and Christian children, Muslims gave away 3.2 on average, Christians 3.3. Further the researchers found statistically the more religious a family reported themselves to be, the fewer stickers children were willing to give away.
The religious / non religious relationship held regardless of wealth and status (although rich children generally gave more stickers away than poor children). The results were also contradictory with the parents reported perceptions of their child's sensitivity to injustice. Religious parents generally evaluated their children as more sensitive than the non-religious parents evaluated their children.
Query - Is this a function of religious training effecting children's judgement? Or is this self selection - parents who are less altruistic are more likely to feel a need fulfilled by religion?
Relying on report in the Economist (11.7.15 - p.77). The study was authored by a University of Chicago developmental nueroscientist in collaboration with researchers in Canada, China, Jordon, South Africa and Turkey, was published in "Current Biology".
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Markets Need Governing
Lots of politicians still make decisions based on the the ideological position government should stay out of markets. It is a view that celebrates ideology over reality. Governments are far from perfect, they are composed of people after all, but markets are also composed of people and are equally imperfect.
Markets push individual companies seeking competitive advantage to pay as little wages as possible, even though when all companies are doing the same thing it is shrinking the consumer base that supports the economy. It's in everyone's interest to insure that markets spread the wealth through the population to insure maximum circulation of money but more often than not market mechanisms do the opposite.
It is in the nature of sellers in markets to seek a monopoly. If we allow monopolies even the companies that gain a monopoly lose. They may in the long run have more wealth in comparison to others but their wealth will be as a percentage of a smaller economy. Government needs to preclude monopolies.
Corporations and financial markets love mergers even though they defeat the competitive nature of markets that make them work. Much of the time the main purpose of a mergers is to try to skate as close to a monopoly as you can. A competitive market requires government oversight of business mergers to control the market efforts to achieve monopoly.
In a true free market there would be no such thing as a corporation. Corporations are fictions invented by government which grant collections of individuals special powers and protections. Maintaining a vibrant democracy and a strong economy requires that we recognize that corporations are not people, they are organizations created by government and can and should be regulated by government.
Markets push individual companies seeking competitive advantage to pay as little wages as possible, even though when all companies are doing the same thing it is shrinking the consumer base that supports the economy. It's in everyone's interest to insure that markets spread the wealth through the population to insure maximum circulation of money but more often than not market mechanisms do the opposite.
It is in the nature of sellers in markets to seek a monopoly. If we allow monopolies even the companies that gain a monopoly lose. They may in the long run have more wealth in comparison to others but their wealth will be as a percentage of a smaller economy. Government needs to preclude monopolies.
Corporations and financial markets love mergers even though they defeat the competitive nature of markets that make them work. Much of the time the main purpose of a mergers is to try to skate as close to a monopoly as you can. A competitive market requires government oversight of business mergers to control the market efforts to achieve monopoly.
In a true free market there would be no such thing as a corporation. Corporations are fictions invented by government which grant collections of individuals special powers and protections. Maintaining a vibrant democracy and a strong economy requires that we recognize that corporations are not people, they are organizations created by government and can and should be regulated by government.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Voters should boycott Presidential Debates
The Presidential debates are not about policy, they are entertainment that suits the purposes of the campaigns and the media hosts. The format is about performance and entertainment not critical examination of ideas and issues.
Most of the time the candidates are smothering us in platitudes and glittering generalities rather than real substantive facts and analysis. The rest of the time they are pandering to the prejudices of voting blocks they are trying to capture. They are a beauty contest, where the winner is going to be determined by appearances and mannerisms - or who is having a bad day.
For the media they are an opportunity to have 50 million listeners and make a bundle from advertising. The moderators generally may try once or twice to ask a halfway probing question, but even when they do the candidate talks around difficult issues and then the moderator moves on.
Presidential debates focus our attention on superficial aspects of the campaign. If you aspire to more serious policy understanding, I suggest you don't pollute your mind with the debates. If enough folks boycott perhaps we will get a format that is meaningful.
Thursday, August 27, 2015
The Crime of Illegal Immigration
There are laws that are intended to protect people from one another. Murder, robbery, assault, theft, rape, for example. This type of law needs to be taken very seriously to maintain a civil society. We need to do all that we can to prevent their occurrence and punish the wrongdoer.
Then there are laws that are about organizing society. Telling us where we can or can't park. How fast we can go on the freeway. When we can cross the street and when we can't. They second type of law is not so serious. Sure we need to enforce them to prevent anarchy. But in fact if we are honest with ourselves almost all of us break these types of laws from time to time. We speed so we won't be late to an appointment. We park illegally because we need to do some quick errand. Maybe we exaggerate the value of a deduction on our tax return.
Here in the San Francisco Bay area if I go out and run errands I am mixing with immigrants from many countries, some legal, some illegal. They are just people, trying to live their life, raise a family, build a better life for their kids. Someone speeding is much more of threat. Someone double parked on a busy street while they run an errand is more irritating and inconvenient.
Economists who have studied immigration seem to have no doubt immigrants pay far more in taxes than we spend on social benefits they receive from the government. Immigrants usually do jobs none of us will do because they are hard work and they pay little. The damage caused by illegal immigration seems to be largely rooted in speculative generalizations.
It's hard for me to imagine Donald Trump never drives faster than the speed limit, never exaggerates a deduction, never breaks any law whatsoever.
Brings to mind Jesus's admonition. Lot of stones are being cast in the immigration debate.
Then there are laws that are about organizing society. Telling us where we can or can't park. How fast we can go on the freeway. When we can cross the street and when we can't. They second type of law is not so serious. Sure we need to enforce them to prevent anarchy. But in fact if we are honest with ourselves almost all of us break these types of laws from time to time. We speed so we won't be late to an appointment. We park illegally because we need to do some quick errand. Maybe we exaggerate the value of a deduction on our tax return.
Here in the San Francisco Bay area if I go out and run errands I am mixing with immigrants from many countries, some legal, some illegal. They are just people, trying to live their life, raise a family, build a better life for their kids. Someone speeding is much more of threat. Someone double parked on a busy street while they run an errand is more irritating and inconvenient.
Economists who have studied immigration seem to have no doubt immigrants pay far more in taxes than we spend on social benefits they receive from the government. Immigrants usually do jobs none of us will do because they are hard work and they pay little. The damage caused by illegal immigration seems to be largely rooted in speculative generalizations.
It's hard for me to imagine Donald Trump never drives faster than the speed limit, never exaggerates a deduction, never breaks any law whatsoever.
Brings to mind Jesus's admonition. Lot of stones are being cast in the immigration debate.
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
The Donald - The Republican Reward
Oh, the delicious irony. For decades Republicans have played the us against them game,using illegal immigrants and Gays to stir up resentment and harvest votes. Along with abortion they use these issues to stir up lots of anger and get themselves elected, despite the fact that when they controlled all the levers of elected government from 2000 to 2006 they invaded Iraq and then blew up the economy.
So they have pounded on the table about illegal immigrants, even as, year after year, they stymied any congressional efforts to reform the immigration system. Immigration was evidently too valuable as a problem to allow a solution to happen.
But you can't get many people angry about gays any longer. So for stirring up emotions it's down to abortion and immigration. But after the last election, it is apparent to the Republican party bigwigs that continuing to rely on stirring up anti-immigration anger will lead them off a demographic cliff. National Republicans could become just as irrelevant as California Republicans became after alienating California Hispanics. So the Republican party is trying to pivot slowly away from disparaging immigrants while still keeping those anti-immigrant voters angry enough to get out and vote for Republicans.
Then along comes the Donald, heating the pot back to boiling, stealing the anti-immigrant base the party has cultivated for so long and hoped to fool into voting for the party as the lesser of two evils.
It is enormously entertaining political theatre. If it causes the Republicans to implode and get pounded at the next election all the better. Then maybe some Republicans could start getting elected who realize that compromise isn't a sin, it's what makes democracy work, and that solving problems is better than exploiting them.
So they have pounded on the table about illegal immigrants, even as, year after year, they stymied any congressional efforts to reform the immigration system. Immigration was evidently too valuable as a problem to allow a solution to happen.
But you can't get many people angry about gays any longer. So for stirring up emotions it's down to abortion and immigration. But after the last election, it is apparent to the Republican party bigwigs that continuing to rely on stirring up anti-immigration anger will lead them off a demographic cliff. National Republicans could become just as irrelevant as California Republicans became after alienating California Hispanics. So the Republican party is trying to pivot slowly away from disparaging immigrants while still keeping those anti-immigrant voters angry enough to get out and vote for Republicans.
Then along comes the Donald, heating the pot back to boiling, stealing the anti-immigrant base the party has cultivated for so long and hoped to fool into voting for the party as the lesser of two evils.
It is enormously entertaining political theatre. If it causes the Republicans to implode and get pounded at the next election all the better. Then maybe some Republicans could start getting elected who realize that compromise isn't a sin, it's what makes democracy work, and that solving problems is better than exploiting them.
Friday, August 21, 2015
Mass Shootings and Guns
The Economist took a look at the increase in mass shootings in the United States (August 1 edition, page 26) As always they focus on data and produce some statistics to raise ones eyebrows.
Mass shootings have occurred at an average of one per day this year (citing data from http://shootingtracker.com).
A recent FBI study looked at 160 mass shootings between 2000 and 2013. Most ended when the assailant killed himself or fled, only one was ended by a civilian armed with a gun. On the other hand the Violence Policy Center says that Americans who legally carry concealed weapons are far more likely to perpetrate mass shootings than to prevent them, it counts 29 such events since 2007.
Broadly speaking Republicans think the path to stopping gun violence is to have everyone packing heat (even in church according to some Republican candidates). Democrats think the answer is to get rid of guns. I'm a pretty middle of the road guy so I look at data.
Statistically although in some cases having a gun saves a persons life or stops a crime, for every positive outcome there are many more cases where the guns people own kill a curious child, or go off accidently and injure someone, or are used against the owner, or where a disturbed gun owner shots someone else. Statistically it is a bad idea to own a gun.
Some gun owners are wise and careful about their weapons. For those individuals the statistics perhaps don't reflect the likelihood of actual outcomes. However from the statistics one has to conclude there are many people who are neither wise nor careful with their weapons. So how do we know who is who? If you are a wise and careful gun owner does having the right to own guns make you safer? Or are you and your family more at risk from the neighbor you don't even know has guns who is neither wise nor careful than you are from remote possibility of an actual armed intruder?
The data I really can't get past is the fact the United States has much higher levels of violent crime and gun violence than any other mature democracy in the world. Our levels of gun violence per 100,000 persons are about the same as Mexico and Argentina, 2 to 5 times higher than any European Country or Japan and 10 times higher than Australia. If we have gun policy right why are we so much less safe from gun violence than folks in Australia? Or Bulgaria? Sure we come from a relatively recent frontier past where a gun was necessary for survival for many. But we seem to be getting more violent, not less. The wild west really came to an end when people stopped packing a six-shooter - largely because towns began regulating guns in public. Is our goal now to go back to the wild west?
I can't help but conclude the notion that greater peace will be won by having more people carrying guns is ideological nonsense that ignores data and history, and is driven in large part by lobbying groups representing folks who make lots of money off guns.
Mass shootings have occurred at an average of one per day this year (citing data from http://shootingtracker.com).
A recent FBI study looked at 160 mass shootings between 2000 and 2013. Most ended when the assailant killed himself or fled, only one was ended by a civilian armed with a gun. On the other hand the Violence Policy Center says that Americans who legally carry concealed weapons are far more likely to perpetrate mass shootings than to prevent them, it counts 29 such events since 2007.
Broadly speaking Republicans think the path to stopping gun violence is to have everyone packing heat (even in church according to some Republican candidates). Democrats think the answer is to get rid of guns. I'm a pretty middle of the road guy so I look at data.
Statistically although in some cases having a gun saves a persons life or stops a crime, for every positive outcome there are many more cases where the guns people own kill a curious child, or go off accidently and injure someone, or are used against the owner, or where a disturbed gun owner shots someone else. Statistically it is a bad idea to own a gun.
Some gun owners are wise and careful about their weapons. For those individuals the statistics perhaps don't reflect the likelihood of actual outcomes. However from the statistics one has to conclude there are many people who are neither wise nor careful with their weapons. So how do we know who is who? If you are a wise and careful gun owner does having the right to own guns make you safer? Or are you and your family more at risk from the neighbor you don't even know has guns who is neither wise nor careful than you are from remote possibility of an actual armed intruder?
The data I really can't get past is the fact the United States has much higher levels of violent crime and gun violence than any other mature democracy in the world. Our levels of gun violence per 100,000 persons are about the same as Mexico and Argentina, 2 to 5 times higher than any European Country or Japan and 10 times higher than Australia. If we have gun policy right why are we so much less safe from gun violence than folks in Australia? Or Bulgaria? Sure we come from a relatively recent frontier past where a gun was necessary for survival for many. But we seem to be getting more violent, not less. The wild west really came to an end when people stopped packing a six-shooter - largely because towns began regulating guns in public. Is our goal now to go back to the wild west?
I can't help but conclude the notion that greater peace will be won by having more people carrying guns is ideological nonsense that ignores data and history, and is driven in large part by lobbying groups representing folks who make lots of money off guns.
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Repubs or Dems - Who is best for the Economy
The conventional wisdom, at least according to polling data, is that most voters give the edge to the Republicans on building the economy.
This is curious when one looks back in history. The two biggest economic collapses in the last 100 years occurred after a decade long period of Republican control of Congress. (Republicans controlled both houses of Congress from 1919 to 1932 and from 1995 to 2006). Equally as curious, these were the only two long periods of Republican dominance of Congress in the last 100 years. It's hard to swallow the notion it was just an accident of fate these periods of Republican control correlate so exactly with the two worst economic collapses in the last 100 years.
I believe voters mistakenly believe if folks are good at making themselves rich they must know how to make everyone else rich. In fact history suggests the opposite is true.
Republican economic theory is all about getting government out of the way so the selfish can pursue their self interest on the assumption everyone will benefit. But, as we saw in the great depression, and in the recent great recession, that's not what happens. The rich get proportionately richer as they suck up more and more, but the people who actually buy things to drive the economy have less and less money.
There are many ways to become rich, but few that I am aware of involve dedicating yourself to the good of others. The factory owner who pays his employees a generous salary is not going to get near as rich and may get put out of business by a competitor that pays his employees as little as possible and thereby drives his costs of doing business down. In a business negotiation, the person most willing to take advantage of the other person in any possible way is probably going to be the most successful.
Good government is absolutely essential to building a good economy. A good economy is built on trust and stability, and that stability is rooted in everyone being along for the ride. Good government allows those with drive and ambition the freedom to build businesses, but sets up rules that make sure they bring the rest of society along with them, rather than climbing over others to achieve their goals.
This is curious when one looks back in history. The two biggest economic collapses in the last 100 years occurred after a decade long period of Republican control of Congress. (Republicans controlled both houses of Congress from 1919 to 1932 and from 1995 to 2006). Equally as curious, these were the only two long periods of Republican dominance of Congress in the last 100 years. It's hard to swallow the notion it was just an accident of fate these periods of Republican control correlate so exactly with the two worst economic collapses in the last 100 years.
I believe voters mistakenly believe if folks are good at making themselves rich they must know how to make everyone else rich. In fact history suggests the opposite is true.
Republican economic theory is all about getting government out of the way so the selfish can pursue their self interest on the assumption everyone will benefit. But, as we saw in the great depression, and in the recent great recession, that's not what happens. The rich get proportionately richer as they suck up more and more, but the people who actually buy things to drive the economy have less and less money.
There are many ways to become rich, but few that I am aware of involve dedicating yourself to the good of others. The factory owner who pays his employees a generous salary is not going to get near as rich and may get put out of business by a competitor that pays his employees as little as possible and thereby drives his costs of doing business down. In a business negotiation, the person most willing to take advantage of the other person in any possible way is probably going to be the most successful.
Good government is absolutely essential to building a good economy. A good economy is built on trust and stability, and that stability is rooted in everyone being along for the ride. Good government allows those with drive and ambition the freedom to build businesses, but sets up rules that make sure they bring the rest of society along with them, rather than climbing over others to achieve their goals.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Income Inequality and War
The statistics say that there was a big surge in income inequality in the early 20th Century that culminated in WW II. After WW II income inequality fell for 40 years or so, and during that 40 years the world was relatively peaceful, other than proxy wars between the US and the Soviet Union. Income inequality then began to rise again and now we are back in a time where income inequality is high and conflict is bursting out all over the globe.
Common sense supports the notion that income inequality would feed into rising conflict. Money left in the hands of rich people is more likely to buy an existing asset than take a chance on creating something new that needs to be grown or manufactured (and thus creates jobs). So as more money accumulates in fewer hands less money is available to support jobs. Young people are normally disproportionately hurt by a lack of jobs and young people with no future are more open to the notions of the angry and ambitious - from Hitler in the1930's to ISIS today.
Is the World drifting toward some version of WW III because of our inability to consider income inequality as a real problem? The people that have a lot of wealth see the whole notion of considering income inequality to be a threat - a ploy for the less wealthy to nibble away at the wealth of the most successful. The reality is the extremely wealthy are relatively unaffected by war. In fact it may be a tool they can use to become wealthier.
The impact of war falls disproportionately on those of us who are not wealthy. Our children fight the war, and in countries surrounded by other countries (not surrounded by oceans) its often the homes of the regular folks that form the battleground.
Many wealthy people will spend lots of money and work really hard to make sure income inequality is not even a discussion item on a political agenda. We shouldn't let that happen.
Common sense supports the notion that income inequality would feed into rising conflict. Money left in the hands of rich people is more likely to buy an existing asset than take a chance on creating something new that needs to be grown or manufactured (and thus creates jobs). So as more money accumulates in fewer hands less money is available to support jobs. Young people are normally disproportionately hurt by a lack of jobs and young people with no future are more open to the notions of the angry and ambitious - from Hitler in the1930's to ISIS today.
Is the World drifting toward some version of WW III because of our inability to consider income inequality as a real problem? The people that have a lot of wealth see the whole notion of considering income inequality to be a threat - a ploy for the less wealthy to nibble away at the wealth of the most successful. The reality is the extremely wealthy are relatively unaffected by war. In fact it may be a tool they can use to become wealthier.
The impact of war falls disproportionately on those of us who are not wealthy. Our children fight the war, and in countries surrounded by other countries (not surrounded by oceans) its often the homes of the regular folks that form the battleground.
Many wealthy people will spend lots of money and work really hard to make sure income inequality is not even a discussion item on a political agenda. We shouldn't let that happen.
Sunday, June 21, 2015
Traditional Belief? Or Observational Data?
One on the enduring sources of conflict in the world is between people who view the world through the prism of traditional beliefs (religious or cultural) handed down from generation to generation, and those who build a world view from observation and evidence.
Although the above paragraph suggests a clear dichotomy between belief and evidence, reality is messy. Traditional belief is usually derived from observations made by ancestors, from which they drew conclusions, then passed on the conclusions to the next generation. As long as the conclusions seem to provide a useful framework for navigating decision making in the world, some of those members of later generations will put more faith in their ancestors beliefs than in their own observation.
That approach can be useful when the decision to be made relates to those aspects of life that are unchanging - relationships, how we interact with others. Many of us who reach a certain point in life can look back at conclusions we reached that led us to reject a more traditional view of the world that later turned out be not the wisest choice.
But the down side of belief rooted in tradition is it is very poor at adapting to changing circumstances. Persons who rely exclusively on traditions can be manipulated by clever folks who can make the tradition a tool to advance their personal agenda. They can also be misled by folks who just lack the ability to respond to changing conditions but are very vehement in their defense of tradition.
I would put myself in the Observational Data category, but observational data is also not always reliable. Even Science - the holy grail of the observational data folks - makes mistakes - constantly. Yesterday's scientific certainty becomes todays ooops. Or the logic of current observation is constructed on recent experience that does not take into account the fact recent observation may just be one phase of a cycle of different outcomes.
"Moderation in all things" Aristotle is reputed to have said. It seems to me that is the ultimate definition of what our basic test should be when we construct our view of reality.
Although the above paragraph suggests a clear dichotomy between belief and evidence, reality is messy. Traditional belief is usually derived from observations made by ancestors, from which they drew conclusions, then passed on the conclusions to the next generation. As long as the conclusions seem to provide a useful framework for navigating decision making in the world, some of those members of later generations will put more faith in their ancestors beliefs than in their own observation.
That approach can be useful when the decision to be made relates to those aspects of life that are unchanging - relationships, how we interact with others. Many of us who reach a certain point in life can look back at conclusions we reached that led us to reject a more traditional view of the world that later turned out be not the wisest choice.
But the down side of belief rooted in tradition is it is very poor at adapting to changing circumstances. Persons who rely exclusively on traditions can be manipulated by clever folks who can make the tradition a tool to advance their personal agenda. They can also be misled by folks who just lack the ability to respond to changing conditions but are very vehement in their defense of tradition.
I would put myself in the Observational Data category, but observational data is also not always reliable. Even Science - the holy grail of the observational data folks - makes mistakes - constantly. Yesterday's scientific certainty becomes todays ooops. Or the logic of current observation is constructed on recent experience that does not take into account the fact recent observation may just be one phase of a cycle of different outcomes.
"Moderation in all things" Aristotle is reputed to have said. It seems to me that is the ultimate definition of what our basic test should be when we construct our view of reality.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Why Are Economists So Clueless?
Over the course of my lifetime I have deduced that the economics profession has wonderful hindsight, but virtually no foresight. They can tell you what happened but are clueless about what is going to happen.
The profession in general viewed the frothy housing market of the mid-2000's as benign, and they saw the complex derivatives fashioned by Wall Street as wonderful innovations that were going to bring great benefit to the world's economy. Virtually the entire profession was clueless about the pending financial collapse, and largely in denial as the collapse was occurring.
Each year since this most recent financial collapse economists have said
the US was now turning the corner, getting back to the average 3% per year growth they expect from the United States.
Each year they have been wrong.
Earlier this year they were at it again. The economy is picking up steam, they said. The Fed will need to increase interest rates soon. Then the data comes in. Opps, negative growth in the first quarter.
There is an old joke about using statistics the way a drunk uses a light post - for support, not illumination. I believe that is often very descriptive of the economics profession. Economics is rooted in group think. It's a problem that plagues all professions, but seems to particularly cripple social sciences.
Who becomes an economist? It takes a certain peculiar mix of personal attributes and aspirations to lead one to pursue economics as a career. So all economists share some ways of viewing the world that are quite different from most other folks. But the biggest part of understanding economics is understanding the behavior of the entire gamut of human personality variability.
So the only frame of reference an economist has, when seeking to interpret data and project what that means to the larger economy, is his/her own personal perceptions, and those like-minded colleagues.
Their predictive failures have become so glaring it was a fashion a year or so ago in the profession to pontificate that the economic concept of the "rational person" was a fiction that did not reflect the reality of how most people in the world behave. But economists still don't have any notion of how understand the world without the "rational person". They have no other options to try to figure out how to predict economic consequences.
What does that means for the rest of us trying to plan our economic future? The media run to economists constantly to predict the future for the rest of us, despite the fact history demonstrates they are pretty clueless.
Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes once said a page of history is worth of volume of logic. That seems to me a good guide to evaluating the opinions of economists.
The profession in general viewed the frothy housing market of the mid-2000's as benign, and they saw the complex derivatives fashioned by Wall Street as wonderful innovations that were going to bring great benefit to the world's economy. Virtually the entire profession was clueless about the pending financial collapse, and largely in denial as the collapse was occurring.
Each year since this most recent financial collapse economists have said
the US was now turning the corner, getting back to the average 3% per year growth they expect from the United States.
Each year they have been wrong.
Earlier this year they were at it again. The economy is picking up steam, they said. The Fed will need to increase interest rates soon. Then the data comes in. Opps, negative growth in the first quarter.
There is an old joke about using statistics the way a drunk uses a light post - for support, not illumination. I believe that is often very descriptive of the economics profession. Economics is rooted in group think. It's a problem that plagues all professions, but seems to particularly cripple social sciences.
Who becomes an economist? It takes a certain peculiar mix of personal attributes and aspirations to lead one to pursue economics as a career. So all economists share some ways of viewing the world that are quite different from most other folks. But the biggest part of understanding economics is understanding the behavior of the entire gamut of human personality variability.
So the only frame of reference an economist has, when seeking to interpret data and project what that means to the larger economy, is his/her own personal perceptions, and those like-minded colleagues.
Their predictive failures have become so glaring it was a fashion a year or so ago in the profession to pontificate that the economic concept of the "rational person" was a fiction that did not reflect the reality of how most people in the world behave. But economists still don't have any notion of how understand the world without the "rational person". They have no other options to try to figure out how to predict economic consequences.
What does that means for the rest of us trying to plan our economic future? The media run to economists constantly to predict the future for the rest of us, despite the fact history demonstrates they are pretty clueless.
Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes once said a page of history is worth of volume of logic. That seems to me a good guide to evaluating the opinions of economists.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Offspring of Abraham
Historically the differences between the three major branches of religion that all trace their roots to Abraham through the Old Testament have been a continuing source of major conflict. From the Crusades of the middle ages, through Hitlers blaming all of Germany's problems on Jews to the current ever expanding madness in the middle east, no one seems to have a more difficult time avoiding conflict than Jews, Christians and Muslims.
One of the factors that make these views of God descended from Abraham so popular is the promise we can beat death if we believe. Some are more invested in this belief than others. I suspect many Christians and Jews don't believe a Muslim fighter who dies in battle is going to go to heaven where he will have 70 virgins at his disposal (I wonder what the reward is for the female suicide bombers?).
Where exactly is Heaven? Clearly not in the clouds, to dangerous up there with airplanes, or at higher elevations satellite? Is Heaven on the Moon? Mars? What do they do in Heaven to fight off the boredom of having no responsibilities?
Just saying.
Ambitious people convinced what they personally feel emotionally is the true reflection of God's will extrapolate from their own emotions and believe their thoughts are the voice of God.
So one is left with the conclusion either God encourages this on-going battle for the supremacy of one view of the nature of God over all others, or the adherents of the various views have a significant lack of understanding about some of the basic underpinnings of their religious certainty. Like exactly what is the nature of God?
So one is left with the conclusion either God encourages this on-going battle for the supremacy of one view of the nature of God over all others, or the adherents of the various views have a significant lack of understanding about some of the basic underpinnings of their religious certainty. Like exactly what is the nature of God?
Does God really think like humans, or more specifically male humans? (Brain science has now pretty clearly established that our balance of sex hormones shapes the way our brain is organized and functions and the differences in the sexes are reflected in differences in the way men and women see and perceive the world). More specifically, does God have a brain like ours, that shapes our thinking through the peculiar organizational structure whereby old brain parts that are similar to the brains of rats or lizards are overlain with layer upon layer to new systems to modify the rat/lizard instincts?
Does God have emotions? Does God feel rage (and thereby lose his ability to be fair and dispassionate)? Does God feel jealousy? Of whom? Is God sexual? Does he experience lust? Does God have sex hormones and organs? Sex hormones drive so much of our emotional behavior, but what would be the point of sex hormones for a power that is eternal?
One of the factors that make these views of God descended from Abraham so popular is the promise we can beat death if we believe. Some are more invested in this belief than others. I suspect many Christians and Jews don't believe a Muslim fighter who dies in battle is going to go to heaven where he will have 70 virgins at his disposal (I wonder what the reward is for the female suicide bombers?).
Where exactly is Heaven? Clearly not in the clouds, to dangerous up there with airplanes, or at higher elevations satellite? Is Heaven on the Moon? Mars? What do they do in Heaven to fight off the boredom of having no responsibilities?
Just saying.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Democracy as America's Religious Ideology
Democracy is really a problem for most religions and some ideologies. For a democracy to function everyone must be entitled to believe as they chose in so far as how they live their own lives (within the constraint of limitations on how their choices impact others).
Most religions or ideologies are, or evolve to, top down organizations where the leaders dictate reality to the followers. If the leadership acknowledges that other realities are anything other than wrong they undermine their position as leaders.
So combining Democracy and Religion or ideology is tricky. It will inevitably produce periods of tension where particular religions or ideologies cannot accept ideas that do not fit their beliefs. We have particularly seen that happen in the "Arab Spring" in the middle east the last few years as fledgling democracies stumble over problems with religion.
The lesson we should keep in mind is democracy can't just be grafted onto a society. The majority of the society must not only want it, they must be able to allow others to hold different religious or political views. It has to develop from within, it can't be imposed from without.
Most religions or ideologies are, or evolve to, top down organizations where the leaders dictate reality to the followers. If the leadership acknowledges that other realities are anything other than wrong they undermine their position as leaders.
So combining Democracy and Religion or ideology is tricky. It will inevitably produce periods of tension where particular religions or ideologies cannot accept ideas that do not fit their beliefs. We have particularly seen that happen in the "Arab Spring" in the middle east the last few years as fledgling democracies stumble over problems with religion.
The lesson we should keep in mind is democracy can't just be grafted onto a society. The majority of the society must not only want it, they must be able to allow others to hold different religious or political views. It has to develop from within, it can't be imposed from without.
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Videos of Police Beating Suspects
Seems like every couple days now we see some video of police apprehending a suspect where one or two officers have the suspect on the ground, face down, arms behind his back - pretty clearly under their control, while other officers come rushing up and start kicking the suspect, or trying to find room between all the police bodies to reach in and throw a punch at the suspect.
Is this official police policy? To inflict as much physical pain on a suspect as they can get away with - presumably on the theory it will discourage the suspect from running from them next time?
Or is it a reflection of poor training - perhaps a lack of emotional maturity and self restraint by some officers, coupled with a culture of unwillingness to criticize other officers who are out of control?
If it is official policy is it based on some research that shows this is an effective deterrent? Or is it just because some guys in management feel in their gut this is the way to go. I'd be surprised if there was any actual research. It seems to me this may deter a few suspects from future bad behavior, but it is really bad community relations, and for many suspects, and their associates it is just going to make them more angry and defiant, and probably more likely to pull out a weapon the next time they encounter a police officer.
As a taxpayer I have to say it makes me concerned. I know being a police officer can be a difficult job. Long periods of boring patrols, or investigating silly stuff punctuated by occasional moments of potential danger. But from what I understand here in much of urban Northern California police salaries are over $100,000 a year. Are we ending up paying people for policies that are stirring up resentment and anger instead of quelling it?
Is this official police policy? To inflict as much physical pain on a suspect as they can get away with - presumably on the theory it will discourage the suspect from running from them next time?
Or is it a reflection of poor training - perhaps a lack of emotional maturity and self restraint by some officers, coupled with a culture of unwillingness to criticize other officers who are out of control?
If it is official policy is it based on some research that shows this is an effective deterrent? Or is it just because some guys in management feel in their gut this is the way to go. I'd be surprised if there was any actual research. It seems to me this may deter a few suspects from future bad behavior, but it is really bad community relations, and for many suspects, and their associates it is just going to make them more angry and defiant, and probably more likely to pull out a weapon the next time they encounter a police officer.
As a taxpayer I have to say it makes me concerned. I know being a police officer can be a difficult job. Long periods of boring patrols, or investigating silly stuff punctuated by occasional moments of potential danger. But from what I understand here in much of urban Northern California police salaries are over $100,000 a year. Are we ending up paying people for policies that are stirring up resentment and anger instead of quelling it?
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Hypotheticals - The Impact of Raising the Minimum Wage
Here are a couple of hypotheticals to illustrate how the current fashion for across the board increases in the minimum wage will often do more harm than good.
X company has revenues of $1,000,000 a year, a line of credit with the bank and a well established business. After all other business costs have been paid the company has $400,000 left to divide up between owners and workers. The owner pays himself $200,000 and pays his top manager $80,000 a year (pay, payroll taxes and workers compensation) leaving $120,000 a year for other employees. He has four other employees, he pays them at minimum wage, $10 an hour, with mandatory other payments such as payroll taxes, sick leave and workers compensation that takes up the last $120,000.
Y company has revenues of $250,000 a year. After other business costs have been paid Y company has $170,000 to divide up between the owner and workers. Y company also has 4 employees paid the minimum wage, $10 an hour. As with X company that takes up $120,000 leaving $60,000 for the owner.
The city enacts a minimum wage ordinance bumping the minimum wage up to $15 an hour. For each company their new cost for their 4 employees will now be $160,000 a year.
X company will grumble, but will be able to adapt. It has the cash flow and the bank connections to deal with the disruption. Perhaps the owner reduces his annual take to $160,000 to cover the new costs. The increase in the minimum wage as to this company will probably be good for the city wide economy, more money will be in circulation from people who spend most of what they earn, and less money will be driving up asset prices.
Y company, on the other hand, will be in severe financial straights. If the owner absorbs the cost of the additional wages he will now be making $20,000 a year, less than the old minimum wage, much less the new one and less than any of his employee's make. His only other options are to fire someone, or make substantial cuts in employees hours, or close the business. It is a lose / lose situation for everyone, including the economy of the city.
In any given city it is hard to know how many companies are more like X company, and how many are more like Y company. If 95% of the companies are like X company, the minimum wage hike will certainly be a net plus (although hard on the Y companies and their employees). If 95% of the companies are like Y company the minimum wage hike is going to cripple the cities economy.
A relatively simple solution is to create an exception to the minimum wage hike. Any company that can demonstrate that owners and management are not making more than, say 300% of the average earnings for full time workers in the company is exempt from the new minimum wage (although still subject to the old minimum wage).
X company has revenues of $1,000,000 a year, a line of credit with the bank and a well established business. After all other business costs have been paid the company has $400,000 left to divide up between owners and workers. The owner pays himself $200,000 and pays his top manager $80,000 a year (pay, payroll taxes and workers compensation) leaving $120,000 a year for other employees. He has four other employees, he pays them at minimum wage, $10 an hour, with mandatory other payments such as payroll taxes, sick leave and workers compensation that takes up the last $120,000.
Y company has revenues of $250,000 a year. After other business costs have been paid Y company has $170,000 to divide up between the owner and workers. Y company also has 4 employees paid the minimum wage, $10 an hour. As with X company that takes up $120,000 leaving $60,000 for the owner.
The city enacts a minimum wage ordinance bumping the minimum wage up to $15 an hour. For each company their new cost for their 4 employees will now be $160,000 a year.
X company will grumble, but will be able to adapt. It has the cash flow and the bank connections to deal with the disruption. Perhaps the owner reduces his annual take to $160,000 to cover the new costs. The increase in the minimum wage as to this company will probably be good for the city wide economy, more money will be in circulation from people who spend most of what they earn, and less money will be driving up asset prices.
Y company, on the other hand, will be in severe financial straights. If the owner absorbs the cost of the additional wages he will now be making $20,000 a year, less than the old minimum wage, much less the new one and less than any of his employee's make. His only other options are to fire someone, or make substantial cuts in employees hours, or close the business. It is a lose / lose situation for everyone, including the economy of the city.
In any given city it is hard to know how many companies are more like X company, and how many are more like Y company. If 95% of the companies are like X company, the minimum wage hike will certainly be a net plus (although hard on the Y companies and their employees). If 95% of the companies are like Y company the minimum wage hike is going to cripple the cities economy.
A relatively simple solution is to create an exception to the minimum wage hike. Any company that can demonstrate that owners and management are not making more than, say 300% of the average earnings for full time workers in the company is exempt from the new minimum wage (although still subject to the old minimum wage).
Sunday, April 19, 2015
The NY Times Magazine and Child Porn
In the New York Times Magazine for April 19, 2015 there is an article by Sally Mann, a photographer, about pictures she took of her naked children and published in a book in 1992. To me this article and the surrounding circumstances seem to be utilizing borderline child porn to promote book sales, under the guise of Art.
I'm not much in favor of government censorship, but I do believe citizens in a free country need to exercise some self censorship to protect core values.
This current NY Times article is promoting a book to come out in May. The excuse for the new book (besides making more money) seems to be to allow the author to make her case that, in publishing the 1992 book, she was innocent and naive.
The 1992 book, the current article, and evidently the new book appear to me to simply exploiting photo's, that would probably be of greatest interest to pedophiles, to generate controversy and sell books.
The Times Article is illustrated by a picture promoting the article on the Table of Contents page of the magazine. The picture is titled "The Perfect Tomato" and the picture's focus is on a naked girl of perhaps 8 to 10, standing sideways to the camera on a picnic table in a dancers pose, with what are apparently a few barely visible tomatoes at her feet.
The article itself contains a number of small pictures and three large pictures. Some of the small pictures are innocuous but some, and all the bigger pictures seem to me to be featured for their implicit sexual suggestiveness.
The first is of a young girl, maybe 5 to 10 years old, naked face down, although her head is turned sideways so a profile of her face is visible, laying in the grass with grass cuttings scattered over her body.
The second of a young girl, again maybe 8 to 10 years old, standing in front of the camera wearing nothing but roller skates, but looking away from the camera towards activities on the deck behind her, with her hand down blocking the view of her crotch, with the hand curling in toward her crotch.
The third photo I have no problem with, it is not of a child, it is a self portrait of the photographers upper torso, and head, head turned away from the camera so the face is not visible but one breast and an erect nipple are prominent. But it does seem to confirm the underlying use of sex for artistic and commercial advantage.
The article is long and Ms. Mann is eloquent (or glib?), essentially trying to make the case she was simply recording innocent pictures of her family and didn't expect to generate so much publicity when she published the book in 1992. However, I find the photo's chosen for publication, particularly the larger ones, seem to be chosen explicitly for their implicit sexual suggestiveness.
Certainly a child can strike any of the poses inadvertently and innocently, because children can be innocent about how they might be perceived. But Ms. Mann and her husband are adults. I am left with the sense they are either incredibly oblivious to the risk of sexual abuse many children face or they is scarily dishonest and glib. Given the new publication of these pictures it is hard to avoid concluding they chose provocative pictures to create controversy and sell copies of her book, and are perfectly aware of what they were doing.
A bigger concern is why the New York Times is promoting this book. The Times not only choose to publish an article about a person that, to me, is using photo's that could be viewed as child porn to promote her book and career, but featured the article in the Table of Contents of the magazine.
The brutal truth is the buzz generated by this controversy will probably sell lots of books, both the author and the NY Times will make a lot of money of it.
But I for one want to express my displeasure. I urge everyone to not buy the book and let the NY Times know you we find it disturbing they are promoting a book that seems to be trying to build a following by skirting the line between childhood innocence and child porn.
If you share my concerns spread the word.
I'm not much in favor of government censorship, but I do believe citizens in a free country need to exercise some self censorship to protect core values.
This current NY Times article is promoting a book to come out in May. The excuse for the new book (besides making more money) seems to be to allow the author to make her case that, in publishing the 1992 book, she was innocent and naive.
The 1992 book, the current article, and evidently the new book appear to me to simply exploiting photo's, that would probably be of greatest interest to pedophiles, to generate controversy and sell books.
The Times Article is illustrated by a picture promoting the article on the Table of Contents page of the magazine. The picture is titled "The Perfect Tomato" and the picture's focus is on a naked girl of perhaps 8 to 10, standing sideways to the camera on a picnic table in a dancers pose, with what are apparently a few barely visible tomatoes at her feet.
The article itself contains a number of small pictures and three large pictures. Some of the small pictures are innocuous but some, and all the bigger pictures seem to me to be featured for their implicit sexual suggestiveness.
The first is of a young girl, maybe 5 to 10 years old, naked face down, although her head is turned sideways so a profile of her face is visible, laying in the grass with grass cuttings scattered over her body.
The second of a young girl, again maybe 8 to 10 years old, standing in front of the camera wearing nothing but roller skates, but looking away from the camera towards activities on the deck behind her, with her hand down blocking the view of her crotch, with the hand curling in toward her crotch.
The third photo I have no problem with, it is not of a child, it is a self portrait of the photographers upper torso, and head, head turned away from the camera so the face is not visible but one breast and an erect nipple are prominent. But it does seem to confirm the underlying use of sex for artistic and commercial advantage.
The article is long and Ms. Mann is eloquent (or glib?), essentially trying to make the case she was simply recording innocent pictures of her family and didn't expect to generate so much publicity when she published the book in 1992. However, I find the photo's chosen for publication, particularly the larger ones, seem to be chosen explicitly for their implicit sexual suggestiveness.
Certainly a child can strike any of the poses inadvertently and innocently, because children can be innocent about how they might be perceived. But Ms. Mann and her husband are adults. I am left with the sense they are either incredibly oblivious to the risk of sexual abuse many children face or they is scarily dishonest and glib. Given the new publication of these pictures it is hard to avoid concluding they chose provocative pictures to create controversy and sell copies of her book, and are perfectly aware of what they were doing.
A bigger concern is why the New York Times is promoting this book. The Times not only choose to publish an article about a person that, to me, is using photo's that could be viewed as child porn to promote her book and career, but featured the article in the Table of Contents of the magazine.
The brutal truth is the buzz generated by this controversy will probably sell lots of books, both the author and the NY Times will make a lot of money of it.
But I for one want to express my displeasure. I urge everyone to not buy the book and let the NY Times know you we find it disturbing they are promoting a book that seems to be trying to build a following by skirting the line between childhood innocence and child porn.
If you share my concerns spread the word.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Requiring Paid Sick Leave - Republicans have some valid points - but...
Last year California enacted legislation that requires every employer in the State, even little guys like me with just a couple employees, to provide a couple days of paid sick leave to employees each year (it takes effect July 1).
The Democrats who pushed it through argued how hard it was for employees to balance family and health needs with jobs, that people couldn't afford to take time off to go to the Doctor, or could get fired for taking a sick kid to emergency. Working people problems, some perhaps overblown, but still real issues.
Republicans argued vociferously that this bill would be a job killer, that it would make California less competitive with other states, that it would drive employers out of the state.
Republicans are right, all that will happen to some degree. When I look at my business balance sheet it is a problem to build in that extra cost.
But, for me, Republican policies of the last 30 years are the reason we have a poor solution to the problem rather than a better solution and they offer no alternative to the not very good Democratic solution but the status quo.
The biggest problem facing our economy is inequality. Ever since Republicans took control of the economic agenda in the early 1980's our government has been about cutting taxes on the wealthy, cutting the power of labor unions and cutting regulation on business. The end result has been a rise in income inequality over the last 30 years to the point a very small percentage of people own most of the wealth in this country.
Rich people don't really buy that much. Sure they have to do something with their money, so they buy and sell art, and houses and expensive cars, and stocks and sell businesses back and forth, for ever increasing prices. So they drive up the price of investable assets. But it is regular people that don't have all they need that really drive a consumer economy. After 30 years of trickle down economics, regular people just don't have that much money to spend. It was all masqueraded in the late 1990's and early 2000 because people were borrowing against their home equity to spend for things they couldn't actually afford, and some are doing that again, but that path is not sustainable.
So each year the economists tell us this is the year the economy is finally going to turn around, but then it doesn't. Because all the wealth in this country is in the hands of people who have no real need for consumer products, so there is no increasing demand to feed business growth.
As a country our economy has continued to grind forward because of debt financed spending coupled with the fact we still can sell stuff to other countries, so big international businesses have been doing fine, but smaller businesses and main street businesses are shriveling up and disappearing. New business starts ups are at the lowest point in decades because there isn't consumer demand to support a new business. (Unless you are a tech start-up aiming at a world wide consumer base)
But Republicans are still believers that trickle down economics is the answer. On California's sick pay law the only alternative the Republican opposition would offer was tax breaks to businesses to make it economically beneficial to provide sick leave. Basicly their solution was to use public funds to buy cooperation from business by helping their bottom line.
That's the Republican way these days. There is always political hay to be made in criticizing what the other guy is doing, and lots of pitfalls in actually proposing things and opening yourself up to criticism. But lately Republicans seem to feel like once they have figured out a way to criticize their job is done. They just want to maintain the status quo. If powerful business interests want to pay people peanuts so they can take home millions of dollars a year, well, we should thank them for creating jobs.
Slaveholders on the plantations in the south created a lot of jobs but eventually we figured out there was something morally repugnant about their business model.
Sure our current system is vastly better than the slave economy of the south, but we are still stuck in that historical philosophical rut where we fail to address the fact many of the people most driven to acquire wealth are most interested in relative wealth, not absolute wealth. They want to set themselves apart by being way richer and more powerful than everyone else. So if their activities make most folks poorer, even if they also end up somewhat poorer in the long run, they are even more rich in comparison. Greater equality is exactly what they don't want. (There are psychological studies to support this notion by the way).
Economic data, and simple common sense, suggests that the way to sustain long term economic growth in a free market is by setting rules that spread the wealth broadly across society. When we allow wealth to concentrate new ideas and youthful energy tend to stagnate because the wealthy and powerful are interested only in their agenda and many creative people have no outlet for their talent.
For those of us who think greater equality is the better choice there is a little to offer from the Republican party. Seeking greater income equality doesn't seem to be a notion that fits anywhere in the Republican rear view mirror view of reality.
The Democrats who pushed it through argued how hard it was for employees to balance family and health needs with jobs, that people couldn't afford to take time off to go to the Doctor, or could get fired for taking a sick kid to emergency. Working people problems, some perhaps overblown, but still real issues.
Republicans argued vociferously that this bill would be a job killer, that it would make California less competitive with other states, that it would drive employers out of the state.
Republicans are right, all that will happen to some degree. When I look at my business balance sheet it is a problem to build in that extra cost.
But, for me, Republican policies of the last 30 years are the reason we have a poor solution to the problem rather than a better solution and they offer no alternative to the not very good Democratic solution but the status quo.
The biggest problem facing our economy is inequality. Ever since Republicans took control of the economic agenda in the early 1980's our government has been about cutting taxes on the wealthy, cutting the power of labor unions and cutting regulation on business. The end result has been a rise in income inequality over the last 30 years to the point a very small percentage of people own most of the wealth in this country.
Rich people don't really buy that much. Sure they have to do something with their money, so they buy and sell art, and houses and expensive cars, and stocks and sell businesses back and forth, for ever increasing prices. So they drive up the price of investable assets. But it is regular people that don't have all they need that really drive a consumer economy. After 30 years of trickle down economics, regular people just don't have that much money to spend. It was all masqueraded in the late 1990's and early 2000 because people were borrowing against their home equity to spend for things they couldn't actually afford, and some are doing that again, but that path is not sustainable.
So each year the economists tell us this is the year the economy is finally going to turn around, but then it doesn't. Because all the wealth in this country is in the hands of people who have no real need for consumer products, so there is no increasing demand to feed business growth.
As a country our economy has continued to grind forward because of debt financed spending coupled with the fact we still can sell stuff to other countries, so big international businesses have been doing fine, but smaller businesses and main street businesses are shriveling up and disappearing. New business starts ups are at the lowest point in decades because there isn't consumer demand to support a new business. (Unless you are a tech start-up aiming at a world wide consumer base)
But Republicans are still believers that trickle down economics is the answer. On California's sick pay law the only alternative the Republican opposition would offer was tax breaks to businesses to make it economically beneficial to provide sick leave. Basicly their solution was to use public funds to buy cooperation from business by helping their bottom line.
That's the Republican way these days. There is always political hay to be made in criticizing what the other guy is doing, and lots of pitfalls in actually proposing things and opening yourself up to criticism. But lately Republicans seem to feel like once they have figured out a way to criticize their job is done. They just want to maintain the status quo. If powerful business interests want to pay people peanuts so they can take home millions of dollars a year, well, we should thank them for creating jobs.
Slaveholders on the plantations in the south created a lot of jobs but eventually we figured out there was something morally repugnant about their business model.
Sure our current system is vastly better than the slave economy of the south, but we are still stuck in that historical philosophical rut where we fail to address the fact many of the people most driven to acquire wealth are most interested in relative wealth, not absolute wealth. They want to set themselves apart by being way richer and more powerful than everyone else. So if their activities make most folks poorer, even if they also end up somewhat poorer in the long run, they are even more rich in comparison. Greater equality is exactly what they don't want. (There are psychological studies to support this notion by the way).
Economic data, and simple common sense, suggests that the way to sustain long term economic growth in a free market is by setting rules that spread the wealth broadly across society. When we allow wealth to concentrate new ideas and youthful energy tend to stagnate because the wealthy and powerful are interested only in their agenda and many creative people have no outlet for their talent.
For those of us who think greater equality is the better choice there is a little to offer from the Republican party. Seeking greater income equality doesn't seem to be a notion that fits anywhere in the Republican rear view mirror view of reality.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Inequality in South America
A recent Economist article provided a lot of detail about inequality south of the Border. Although income inequality in the United States has ballooned in the last 30 to 40 years it is even worse in Central and South America.
To me the inequality is caused by simple human nature. Bosses control who gets paid how much, but bosses are competing with other companies. So in a competitive market the most selfish and exploitive bosses are going to force everyone to bring wages down to their level to compete.
Conventional economics relies on the minimum wage to mitigate the damage. That's like trying to do heart surgery with a meat cleaver. Because raising minimum wages in one country disadvantages that countries industries competing against other countries it is very hard to get a minimum wage passed that is not minimal. On top of that minimum wages generally apply across the board, so very small businesses where the owner makes little money won't be able to afford the higher wages so will lay people off and perhaps go out of business.
A better approach would be to focus on using tax policy to make companies more like teams and less like kingdoms. Each companies median wage is the base and wages that deviate to much above the median would be taxed heavily. So the way management makes more money is by bringing the median up, not by driving it down.
To me the inequality is caused by simple human nature. Bosses control who gets paid how much, but bosses are competing with other companies. So in a competitive market the most selfish and exploitive bosses are going to force everyone to bring wages down to their level to compete.
Conventional economics relies on the minimum wage to mitigate the damage. That's like trying to do heart surgery with a meat cleaver. Because raising minimum wages in one country disadvantages that countries industries competing against other countries it is very hard to get a minimum wage passed that is not minimal. On top of that minimum wages generally apply across the board, so very small businesses where the owner makes little money won't be able to afford the higher wages so will lay people off and perhaps go out of business.
A better approach would be to focus on using tax policy to make companies more like teams and less like kingdoms. Each companies median wage is the base and wages that deviate to much above the median would be taxed heavily. So the way management makes more money is by bringing the median up, not by driving it down.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Why Do All Police Routinely Carry Guns?
Police shootings of unarmed persons have been all over the news lately, most recently a mentally ill homeless person on skid row in Los Angeles.
In almost every case what seems to precipitate the shooting is the officer perceiving that the suspect is trying to grab his gun.
It has made me start wondering why every police officer carries a gun, particularly in urban settings. In the case involving the LA skid row killing it appears there were 5 to 7 officers on the scene - what if some of the officers were armed only with non-lethal weapons and were charged with actually engaging suspects, while officers with weapons monitored from a distance where no one could grab their gun?
I would have officers having only non-lethal weapons be an elite force, chosen for their social skills, athleticism and fitness and they would have special training and pay. After all, guns aren't heavy and the most out of shape person in the world can shoot someone.
Police in England have generally don't carried guns except in special circumstances, and seem to have done just fine.
In almost every case what seems to precipitate the shooting is the officer perceiving that the suspect is trying to grab his gun.
It has made me start wondering why every police officer carries a gun, particularly in urban settings. In the case involving the LA skid row killing it appears there were 5 to 7 officers on the scene - what if some of the officers were armed only with non-lethal weapons and were charged with actually engaging suspects, while officers with weapons monitored from a distance where no one could grab their gun?
I would have officers having only non-lethal weapons be an elite force, chosen for their social skills, athleticism and fitness and they would have special training and pay. After all, guns aren't heavy and the most out of shape person in the world can shoot someone.
Police in England have generally don't carried guns except in special circumstances, and seem to have done just fine.
Monday, March 2, 2015
A Potential Nuclear Deal With Iran - a laypersons perspective
The news is full of chatter about Benjamin Netenyahu as he uses the forum the Republican Congress gave him to try to kill a potential deal with Iran that would allow Iran to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. What to make of it?
I am not so foolish as to think I can have an informed opinion on the details. First, I don't believe the actual details of the proposed agreement are all hashed out. Second, I don't have the technical expertise to understand all the ins and outs of verification - whether we can reasonably be sure we will know if Iran violates the terms or spirit of the agreement.
So I am left by judging the credibility of the parties. On the one side we have Fox news and that part of the Republican party that was so influential in our invading Iraq, and Benjamin Netenyahu representing Isreal. On the other side we have President Obama and Secretery of State Kerry.
On the verification issue, I think back to around the turn of the century. The UN folks monitoring Saddam Hussains nucular capabilities were reporting there did not seem to be any immediate problem, but Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush and Fox News became convinced Iraq was building Nuclear weapons, presenting all sorts of allegations they cited as evidence. So we invaded Iraq, beginning the long chain of middle eastern destabilization that has given us the present situation with zealots running ISIS threatening to engulf the whole region in war. And of course, after we took over Iraq we discoverd there was no nuclear weapons program going on, more or less confirming what the UN monitors were telling us.
Now Iran is not Iraq, I think there is little room for doubt Iran is pretty far along toward Nuclear weapons. So the question becomes, if we reach a deal that allows them to enrich uranium can we verify that they do it only for peaceful purposes. Mr Obama and Mr. Kerry believe we can. They could be wroing, but they are pretty sharp guys and have a lot of very smart people to investigate, and they are our elected representatives. So for me I will rely on their decision unless some credible persons can provide credible evidence that their decision is clearly erroneous.
But on credibility, for me, the people making all the objections to the treaty have destroyed their credibility. The hyperventilating Fox news and table thumping Republicans are the same folks that warned us that Iraq was about to start dropping nuclear missles on its neighbors. Going back even further their logic is the same as those who objected to all the missle treaties between the US and Russia that kept the world peaceful for generations. Their view of the world seems to be rooted in stereotypical good guys (us) and bad guys (them). Life is a zero sum game, compete or die. The only way to be safe is to be armed to the teeth and do everything you can to undermine the success of "them".
That world view is correct if enough people subscribe to it. But history has shown that societies that can develop mechanisms for cooperation with others based on verified systems that allow trust are vastly happier, wealthier and more productive.
Over his career Mr. Netenyahu has demonstrated the same worldview. He is against every treaty with any "them". Isreal under his adminstration has been noisily outraged by every perceived slight against Isreal (us) and oblivous to the Palistinians (them) whom Isreal pushes aside and expropriates land.
At this point in my life, with 60 plus years of personally experienced history behind me, that world views credability, and the people who espouse it, are about at the level of a guy trying to sell you on the merits of a used car as he leans against the door to keep it from falling off.
I am not so foolish as to think I can have an informed opinion on the details. First, I don't believe the actual details of the proposed agreement are all hashed out. Second, I don't have the technical expertise to understand all the ins and outs of verification - whether we can reasonably be sure we will know if Iran violates the terms or spirit of the agreement.
So I am left by judging the credibility of the parties. On the one side we have Fox news and that part of the Republican party that was so influential in our invading Iraq, and Benjamin Netenyahu representing Isreal. On the other side we have President Obama and Secretery of State Kerry.
On the verification issue, I think back to around the turn of the century. The UN folks monitoring Saddam Hussains nucular capabilities were reporting there did not seem to be any immediate problem, but Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush and Fox News became convinced Iraq was building Nuclear weapons, presenting all sorts of allegations they cited as evidence. So we invaded Iraq, beginning the long chain of middle eastern destabilization that has given us the present situation with zealots running ISIS threatening to engulf the whole region in war. And of course, after we took over Iraq we discoverd there was no nuclear weapons program going on, more or less confirming what the UN monitors were telling us.
Now Iran is not Iraq, I think there is little room for doubt Iran is pretty far along toward Nuclear weapons. So the question becomes, if we reach a deal that allows them to enrich uranium can we verify that they do it only for peaceful purposes. Mr Obama and Mr. Kerry believe we can. They could be wroing, but they are pretty sharp guys and have a lot of very smart people to investigate, and they are our elected representatives. So for me I will rely on their decision unless some credible persons can provide credible evidence that their decision is clearly erroneous.
But on credibility, for me, the people making all the objections to the treaty have destroyed their credibility. The hyperventilating Fox news and table thumping Republicans are the same folks that warned us that Iraq was about to start dropping nuclear missles on its neighbors. Going back even further their logic is the same as those who objected to all the missle treaties between the US and Russia that kept the world peaceful for generations. Their view of the world seems to be rooted in stereotypical good guys (us) and bad guys (them). Life is a zero sum game, compete or die. The only way to be safe is to be armed to the teeth and do everything you can to undermine the success of "them".
That world view is correct if enough people subscribe to it. But history has shown that societies that can develop mechanisms for cooperation with others based on verified systems that allow trust are vastly happier, wealthier and more productive.
Over his career Mr. Netenyahu has demonstrated the same worldview. He is against every treaty with any "them". Isreal under his adminstration has been noisily outraged by every perceived slight against Isreal (us) and oblivous to the Palistinians (them) whom Isreal pushes aside and expropriates land.
At this point in my life, with 60 plus years of personally experienced history behind me, that world views credability, and the people who espouse it, are about at the level of a guy trying to sell you on the merits of a used car as he leans against the door to keep it from falling off.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Global Warming - The Downside Upside
One characteristic of cities is over time the older areas decay. Houses get delapidated, infrastructure breaks down over time. If the city is wealthy folks can afford repairs, at least in the areas where the wealthy live. It is a chronic problem that after World War II government began addressing by creating redevelopment agencies. The law gave cities the power to forcibly buy big chunks of land and redevelop the area.
Redevelopment efforts have a checkered history. Some were pretty successful, but over the years redevelopment agencies turned into classic bureacracies heavily influenced by the developers that profited from Redevelopment. The problem became worse as city budgets got tighter so cities relied on developers for more and more of the funding. So small parts of town got fancied up while infrastructure decayed in the rest of town.
Here in California it got so bad that Governor Brown, a former Mayor of Oakland and well versed in the problems of redevelopment, abolished redevelopment agencies.
As a result, here in the Bay area, much of the infrastructure, from the gas and water lines underground, to the roads and wires above ground, are old and decaying. The cost of replacement is far beyond what government In California is willing to spend.
Not to worry, there is a downside upside. Rising sea levels could inundate much of the greater Los Angeles area, much of the Bay area, most of Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto, big swaths of San Diego. Much of the state will have the opportunity to build new cities from the ground up. So our lack of will to address global warming will save us from our lack of will to address decaying infrastructure.
Redevelopment efforts have a checkered history. Some were pretty successful, but over the years redevelopment agencies turned into classic bureacracies heavily influenced by the developers that profited from Redevelopment. The problem became worse as city budgets got tighter so cities relied on developers for more and more of the funding. So small parts of town got fancied up while infrastructure decayed in the rest of town.
Here in California it got so bad that Governor Brown, a former Mayor of Oakland and well versed in the problems of redevelopment, abolished redevelopment agencies.
As a result, here in the Bay area, much of the infrastructure, from the gas and water lines underground, to the roads and wires above ground, are old and decaying. The cost of replacement is far beyond what government In California is willing to spend.
Not to worry, there is a downside upside. Rising sea levels could inundate much of the greater Los Angeles area, much of the Bay area, most of Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto, big swaths of San Diego. Much of the state will have the opportunity to build new cities from the ground up. So our lack of will to address global warming will save us from our lack of will to address decaying infrastructure.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Toward a More Perfect Union
Democracy in the United States can be discouraging. The two dominent political parties have a monopoly on public policy but are so unwieldy they make political change almost impossible. Money buys sophisticated ad campaigns carefully crafted to touch emotional buttons that result in voters often voting against what would be in their self interest.
Frustration periodically boils over in protests from extremes at both ends of ideological spectrum. When the protests can be turned into votes (think Tea Party) they produce tangible results. When the protests do not produce tangible change in voting behavior, they produce only instability that undermines the restraint and respect that inoculates democracy from potential dictators.
Some try to address the disfunction of our two party system by forming smaller minor parties, as is typical in parlimentary systems. In theory a minor party could be beneficial as power brokers - if they limit their activities to developing committed constitutents who will vote as a block for whichever major party buys into their platform. Unfortunately the leaders of minor parties in the United States generally are so full of themselves they run hopeless campaigns to get themselves elected. In the end their efforts usually end up helping the major party whose views are most far removed from their goals get elected.
In the end the path to change in a democracy comes only through wiser voting. Studying issues outside the Washington/Media controlled political dialogue could inoculate most voters from the massive media campaigns that control elections these days, but, as long as life is pretty good most folks are so busy enjoying life they end up having no time to investigate issues. So an election rolls around and either they don't vote, or they fall back on ideas rooted in emotional attachment to what is familiar, and are subject to emotional manipulation by the effective use of the media.
In a burst of idealism I created a web site a couple years ago thinking I would start acting to develop an organization that voters could use for educating one another on issues (http://www.theidp.org/ ). Alas, since that burst of enthusiam I have done nothing further toward bringing the organization into existence - I am to busy enjoying life to find time to act on it.
Frustration periodically boils over in protests from extremes at both ends of ideological spectrum. When the protests can be turned into votes (think Tea Party) they produce tangible results. When the protests do not produce tangible change in voting behavior, they produce only instability that undermines the restraint and respect that inoculates democracy from potential dictators.
Some try to address the disfunction of our two party system by forming smaller minor parties, as is typical in parlimentary systems. In theory a minor party could be beneficial as power brokers - if they limit their activities to developing committed constitutents who will vote as a block for whichever major party buys into their platform. Unfortunately the leaders of minor parties in the United States generally are so full of themselves they run hopeless campaigns to get themselves elected. In the end their efforts usually end up helping the major party whose views are most far removed from their goals get elected.
In the end the path to change in a democracy comes only through wiser voting. Studying issues outside the Washington/Media controlled political dialogue could inoculate most voters from the massive media campaigns that control elections these days, but, as long as life is pretty good most folks are so busy enjoying life they end up having no time to investigate issues. So an election rolls around and either they don't vote, or they fall back on ideas rooted in emotional attachment to what is familiar, and are subject to emotional manipulation by the effective use of the media.
In a burst of idealism I created a web site a couple years ago thinking I would start acting to develop an organization that voters could use for educating one another on issues (http://www.theidp.org/ ). Alas, since that burst of enthusiam I have done nothing further toward bringing the organization into existence - I am to busy enjoying life to find time to act on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)