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.
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)